Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Notes. There is. There has been a quorum established at this time. I would like to take the consent. I would like to also take the consent calendar. Proposed for consent are two items, SB 1156, Hurtado and SB 1493. Blakespear. Any Member would want to pull the item from the consent. If not, do we need a motion? There's a motion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll

[Roll Call]

Thank you. And we will leave the roll call open for other Members. At this time, we will hear SB-977 by Senator Laird, which is item number two. Senator, please present your Bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair and Members. SB-977 would establish an independent redistricting commission for San Luis Obispo County. As we all know, the voters in 2008 established an independent commission for state legislative offices, and since then, the Legislature and the Governor have approved seven different redistricting commissions for counties across the state, most of them with populations that are larger than the one that is in question here.

There was a particular situation in San Luis Obispo County where there was a very strong gerrymander done by the existing board, and the election was run on those districts. And after the election was over, the new board settled the lawsuit and returned to a prior map or an alternative map that was presented that more closely represented the districts beforehand. In response to all this sequence of events, the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors asked me to introduce this Bill.

The Commission that is proposed here is in alignment with many of the other commissions that have been adopted. The differences are just that this is a smaller district, a smaller county, so there's a smaller number of people on the board.

There are also a smaller pool that is drawn for the original board, and it really ensures that the main Members will be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, ability to be impartial, and ensure that the Commission reflects the demographics of the county. The Bill originally called for two alternates to be appointed. We have taken and agreed to the amendments, which basically say that there will be no alternates in this Bill and the commission will be allowed to make that decision when they constitute themselves.

It ensures that there will be a fair process for the next redistricting in 2030. Here with me in support of the Bill is San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Bruce Gibson, who in his spare time happens to be President of the California State Association of Counties. And so with that. Madam Vice Chair, I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Just want to clarify the amendments will be taking local Committee.

Thank you. That's my mistake, but I'm committed to take them there.

Thank you. At this time, we'll move on to lead witnesses and support. We can if you would like. Yeah. In two minutes. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Vice Chair, I am Bruce Gibson, Second District Supervisor of the County of San Luis Obispo, and we thank Senator Laird for authoring SB-977. As he indicates, it is consistent with election code and shares much the same format of other IRCs that have been created for other counties, adjusted for the size of San Luis Obispo County, Senator Laird spoke to an egregious gerrymandering that occurred in the last cycle.

In 2021, a highly partisan majority of our board supervisors drastically redrew the districts for their political benefit, they thought, but with considerable opposition from the community. From voters in the community of San Luis Obispo County, I'd like to speak to one unintended consequence. The map was so radically redrawn that tens of thousands of voters had their chance to vote either deferred or accelerated as their cycle was shifted between presidential and non presidential years.

And in this mess getting cleaned up as it was settled in court, it turns out that there are tens of thousands of folks who will have voted for a supervisor every two years, three times in four years, and others who will go eight years between voting for a county supervisor. So this mess has caused lasting damage and confusion.

SLO County voters strongly support the request of our current Board of Supervisors to create this independent redistricting Commission so we won't go through this again. We see the creation of an IRC as a fundamental defense of our democratic process, and I respectfully ask for your support of SB-977.

Thank you. We will now move on to any support witnesses here. Please state your name, organization, and your position.

Daniel Pearl. On behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. In strong support.

Thank you. And don't see any other support. We'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Any other oppositions and witnesses? Seeing none. At this time, I'll bring it back to my colleagues. Questions? Comments? Senator, would you like to close?

Yes, just that. Thank you for the correction. I will take the amendments in the local government Committee. It's supported by the County of San Luis Obispo and asks me, as you have heard, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion has been moved by Senator Newman. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Local Government. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep the roll call open.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

This time I see Senator Dodd. Senator, please come forward. This is on SB-- file item number one, SB 904.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Today I'm presenting SB 904, a measure that updates the enabling legislation of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit district, or the SMART train. It removes obsolete references, raises bidding amount thresholds, and authorizes SMART special taxes to be imposed by a voter initiative. The SMART train is an incredible example of a multimodal and multi-jurisdictional project that advances many of our state's top goals. Increased rail and bicycle use, transit oriented development, collaboration by local governments at a regional scale.

Since coming into service over six years ago, SMART has overcome wildfires, floods, and a global pandemic that devastated all public transit. Despite those obstacles, they keep chugging along. At the end of 2023, became the first transit system in the Bay Area to recover to their pre-pandemic ridership numbers. This bill also empowers the voters of this special district for the first time to pursue their own ballot measures through a voter initiative.

A voter approved, qualified initiative process has the potential to provide an opportunity to enhance community engagement and help inform and affirm the development of an expenditure plan, providing greater accountability and direction for how to best dedicate future resources to operate the smart system. As the bill analysis notes, the California Supreme Court ruled in the upland decision that a voter initiative requires a simple majority to pass.

At least seven such taxes imposed by voters in various local agencies across the state have been approved, and no court has thus far invalidated them. I'm here today with me-- Today here with me, excuse me, is Eddy Cummins, the General Manager of SMART.

Please go for it. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Members. I am Eddy Cummins, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District General Manager, and I am speaking in support of Senate Bill 904. This bill updates the procurement bidding threshold for supplies, materials and equipment, which has not been updated since 2003, long before SMART became an operating railroad. It also creates flexibility for the siting of new stations in underserved areas of north Sonoma county and removes obsolete references to the North Coast Rail Authority, which no longer exists.

Finally, the bill authorizes the SMART board to place a qualified voter initiative on the ballot. In 2008, voters in Sonoma and Marin County approved a quarter cent sales tax, Measure Q, providing roughly $51 million annually to build, operate and maintain the SMART system. This measure expires in March of 2029. SMART has been in operation since 2017. Currently, SMART has the highest ridership recovery rate in the Bay Area and is one of only a few transit agencies in the country who have higher ridership than pre-pandemic.

As a matter of fact, last week, SMART had its highest weekday ridership ever. We also have several major projects under construction, including a three mile rail and pathway extension to the town of Windsor scheduled to open in early 2025. SMART has matched sales tax dollar, dollar for dollar, leveraging over $500 million in state, federal and local grants to expand the system.

The community knows it is critically important to pass a sales tax extension to protect the nearly $1 billion investment made in the system over the past 16 years. Sustaining the SMART system will help address climate change, mode shift, traffic congestion and provide mobility options and access to opportunity and services for residents in Sonoma and Marin counties. SMART wants to be as accountable and inclusive as possible based on community feedback.

The language in Senate Bill 904 is intended to respond to that request by allowing citizens Initiative process to run its independent course with SMART, placing it on the ballot should it obtain the qualified signatures. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote.

At this time, we'll hear from any support witnesses. Seeing none. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition or witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Colleagues questions, comments, motions? There's a motion. Senator Dodd, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. There's a motion by Senator Newman. This motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

We'll keep the roll call open. Thank you. At this time, Senator Newman, we will hear item eight, SB 907 Newman.

We can also have the witnesses in opposition to come on too. You sit on to the right side. Would you like to start, Senator Newman? There you go. They're right here. Come on up. Do you want to go ahead and start?

I shall. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present SB 907, which will improve representation and electoral participation in Orange County by making two changes to the Orange County Board of Education. First, increasing the number of trustees from the current five to seven members, and second, shifting the board's elections from the primary ballot as currently conducted, and into the general election in November.

The Orange County Department of Education, formed in 1977 and jointly governed by the Orange County Board of Education and the County Superintendent, is responsible for providing alternative and special education programs to more than 91,000 students, many of whom are among the county's most vulnerable and disadvantaged.

OCBOE is also responsible for funding and developing a variety of programs that support the nearly half a million students enrolled in Orange County's 28 independent school districts, as well as serving as the appellate authority of last resort for charter school applications rejected by local school districts within its jurisdiction.

Since 1977, when the Department was established in its modern form, Orange County's population has nearly doubled, from 1.8 million in 1977 to its current population of roughly 3.2 million, making it the third largest county by population in California. Out of the state's 10 largest counties, Orange County is currently one of four counties whose county boards of education only have five trustees. And out of the counties which still have five trustees, the only one comparable in size to Orange County is is the County of San Diego.

Expanding the size of OCBOE's board from five to seven members will reduce the average population per district from the current 640,000 residents per trustee, which is materially more than an Assembly District as reference to a more manageable 457,000 per member. In so doing, each member of the board will be bound just a little more closely to the constituents that they represent. In the nearly five decades since the constitution of the OCBOE, the population of Orange County has also become substantially more diverse.

In the year 2000, according to US census data, more than 50% of Orange County's population was white. By the time of the most recent census, OC has become a thoroughly minority majority county, with nonwhite residents comprising 63% of its total population. This trend is even more pronounced across OC's public schools. A seven-member board, rather than the current five, is likely to be more fully reflective of that diversity within its elected membership.

The other provision of this measure, shifting the election of OCBOE trustees from the primary to the general, will similarly enhance both the diversity of the board and the connection of its members to their constituents.

By way of context, the OCBOE is currently one of only five county education boards across the state that hold their elections as part of primary voting, as well as one of the only remaining so called one and done elections in Orange County where a candidate can be elected in the primary with a plurality and not a majority, with no provision for a November runoff of the two top candidates.

Consequently, candidates for the Orange County Board of Education trusteeship can and have won office with very low support by registered voters, sometimes as low as 11% of the total voting pool. Moreover, to the extent that election data shows that voter turnout is substantially higher during the general election, this is true both in absolute terms but also importantly as it relates to participation by communities of color.

Using data from the 2022 primary election, the Orange County Registrar of voters indicates that turnout was fully 20 points lower than in the general election, with roughly 360,000 fewer voters participating in primary voting in June than in the general election in November. Moving the election of the Orange County Board of Education trustees into the November general will ensure higher participation by a materially more diverse electorate. This will be a positive development in not one but two directions.

First, as noted, it will result over time in a board that more closely reflects Orange County's changing population. And secondly, and just as importantly, will give voters a better opportunity to engage and connect with trustees and the board as part of the critical task of reconnecting residents to civic institutions like the OCBOE, about which they are increasingly uninformed and from which they are increasingly disconnected. When it comes to important conversations around education and equity, I would argue that that this matters a great deal.

As I've emphasized in my conversation with the opposition and with others, the impetus for this bill does not arise out of politics per se. Enhancing the responsiveness of a government body and improving participation in the election of its members are objectively good goals, and that's what the provisions of SB 907 seek to produce.

Here with me to testify in support of the bill is Dr. Liz Dorn Parker, who served as an Orange County Board of Education trustee for 32 years and who also served as the President of the statewide California County Boards of Education and President of the OC School Board Association. Also here with us to testify is City of Tustin Councilmember Dr. Rebecca Gomez, a twice-elected former trustee of the OCBOE who also represented the board at the state level.

As OC's representative to the county boards of education, I am respectfully requesting your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman.

Good morning, Chair.

Good morning and thank you. I apologize for the delay. Thank you, Senator Nguyen, for chairing. And I very much apologize for the delay in getting the Committee started in the first place. So next time that happens, you can just feel free to be authorized to start it. So thank you for your testimony, Senator Newman. We will now move on to your lead witnesses in support.

Thank you. I'll go ahead and start. I'm Dr. Liz Dorn Parker. I started in 1982 as a 22 year old. Having served an elected member of this Orange County Board of Education for 32 years, and having served as President of the California County Boards of Education, I have a unique perspective on SB 907. Let me first address what Senator Newman started with. When I started on this board, our census showed a population size of 1.9 million.

And since that time we've grown by 61.8%, or almost 62%, where the US only grew by 47%. So the county grew dramatically as opposed to the rest of the country. Then in 2020, the last time the census was, it showed 3.16 million. What is significant about this growth is just not the number, but who in fact are now our population. When I started, it was 93% white, now it's 37.61% white. AAPI account for 22.18% and Hispanic, Latino, Latinx is 34.1%.

With this dramatic growth of nearly double the population, with the significant change in who is our population, where the white majority existed when I first started, it is clearly now a majority minority community. And right now, the county as such is not reflected in the Orange County Board of Education as it sits today. The largest counties have all seven member boards except for San Diego. And when I was searching it, I believe San Diego County is a charter county.

So they would need a vote of the public to change the charter to move to seven. I could be wrong, but that's what it says. And now let's move on, why it's important to move from the current races to the general. Nearly all, as Senator Newman said, county board races now have been moved to the general election, especially those from the largest counties.

The most recent primary election of 2024 had an even lower voter turnout in our county races than in previous elections, which confirms the critical nature of the shift. The lack of participation, in particular in the county board of education race is glaring. The total number of voters who voted were 685,000, with a few extra. So if you took three-fifths, or 60%, you would have close to 400,000 voting in those races. But the total number who did vote down was under 300,000, which is less than 40%.

What is most glaring, however, when you look at the two districts that have the majority minority, they had even less voters coming to the poll. The one that had the largest was the majority white district. These differences are only getting worse with each year.

In my work as President of the Statewide Association, those county boards up and down the state that moved to the general election was clear how much more representative those boards were to their populations and how much more the voters were engaged in those races. But now, let's talk about how the critical nature of the board is written today, why should the state interview?

Excuse me, ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're going to need to conclude. We're supposed to have two minutes. So if you could wrap it up, that would be great.

Okay, so I'll wrap it up. But basically, if I was still serving as a trustee, I would still be supporting SB 907. My years of service has proven that this is a critical bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you. I'm Dr. Rebecca Gomez. As a former county board of education trustee, a retired tenured faculty member, and the dean of health science, I bring a wealth of experience and understanding to education policy. I fully support SB 907 in increasing the board of trustees to seven members and moving the election to the November general election. The turnout for the primary election is much lower for the general election when the voters are more motivated to elect their trustees.

As Orange County has become more diverse, the community must select its representatives, and increasing the number of trustees will allow the trustees to represent their local areas more effectively. Although our primary responsibility is to the children of the county school, such as access, special needs, adult learners, incarcerated youth, and charter schools, governance and overseeing our school services is the primary work.

As a former trustee, my area included all our portions of five different districts, which meant that I worked with several superintendents and five different boards to create relationships and advocate for them. This is a part time job with huge responsibilities to perform effectively. Thus, increasing the board to seven members would allow the trustees to have better oversight and advocacy. Moving the election to November.

Under the current system, a candidate who is a current school board or county member may get elected in the March primary with the plurality of votes, not the majority and no runoff. The winning candidate will be sworn into the county seat in July. This early transition effectively destabilizes the current border council as he or she will vacate the position months before the November election. The former board's council district will lack representation beginning in July.

The remaining board or council faces the difficult decision of appointing a new member, leaving the seat vacant until November, or calling a special election. If there is an appointment, it provides an unfair advantage to the appointed incumbent in the next election. More importantly, this appointed member, by definition, does not represent the voting public. A special election may cost the city or school district hundreds of thousands of dollars, which takes away funding from the primary purpose of educating children.

This situation discourages qualified candidates from running for the county school board as they do not want to leave their seat in midterm. In addition, the board's or council's policy work could be paralyzed due to potential tie votes. A November election allows for appropriate, reasonable transition for the previous board of council and the county office. This bill should be evaluated on the basis of appropriate governance for our educational system.

Expanding the board to seven members would provide better representation and governance to the state county school boards on behalf of the students and their constituents. Lastly, there's a mention of raising funds for a down ballot race. Reasonable campaign limits allow for a competent candidate who can provide strong governance rather than one who can curry favor with special interests. All school boards should emphasize improving the educational system.

SB 907 is an issue of appropriate governance for our students and our families, who deserve appropriate representation and full access to our public education system. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you to the support witnesses. And now we will go to opposition witnesses.

Me-toos.

Oh, I'm sorry. First, we will have the me-toos. So that's anybody who is in support, who would like to come to the microphone and just say your name, your organization and your support. Okay. Seeing none, now we will move to the opposition.

Good morning. My name is Tim Shaw. I'm the President of the Orange County Board of Education. I'm joined today by our Vice President, Dr. Lisa Sparks, and Mr. Tom Sheehy, an advocate for our board. The Orange County Board of Education voted unanimously to oppose Senate Bill 907. Obviously, this bill only applies to Orange County.

Respectfully, we believe the number of trustees on the Orange County Board of education, and when the elections happen, should be a decision made in Orange County and not by Senators and Assemblymembers from around the State of California. We were speaking of population. Interestingly, the last several years, Orange County's population has been declining. We lost approximately 35,000 residents over the last two years. 31 of the 58 counties have boards of education with five trustees.

We were mentioning San Diego County, a county with a larger population than Orange County that has only five trustees. Our neighbor to the north, Los Angeles County, if you didn't know, actually has a board of education whose members aren't elected at all. They're appointed by the Board of Supervisors. If the Legislature is interested in having greater democracy brought to a county board of education, certainly Los Angeles County is the place to start. Not in Orange County.

I would like to quote from the Committee analysis on page three at the bottom it reads, and I quote, "it should be noted that it is possible under existing law to increase the Orange County Board of Education's membership to seven members without legislation". That is your staff analysis, and we would agree with that. I would respectfully ask for your no vote, and I'd allow Dr. Sparks to speak.

Thank you. Hi. Since we're throwing titles around, I'm going to add to the mix here. I'm Dr. Lisa Sparks. I'm not only a trustee and Vice President of the Orange County Board of Education, but I'm also the founding dean and McGaw Endowed Professor, tenured at Chapman University. So, honorable members of the Election Committee, thank you for hearing us today. Simply put, there's no-- there's absolutely no tangible policy justification for SB 907. First, it is cost prohibitive. Remember, we are facing nearly 70 billion budget dollar deficit.

That's huge. The Senate Appropriations Committee, regarding the previous bill, 286, they found that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to move the election. That would be the same case here. It would cost $70,000 a year, or 700,000 in a decade to add two additional trustees. Pretty significant. Based on our 2020 redistricting, it would take almost $700,000 to redistrict the Board of Education trustee areas. Again, quite significant. This is nearly 1 million. And where will this million come from?

Orange County school districts? Los Angeles Unified recently entered into a deal to buy IPads for $678 each to provide every student an IPad. SB 907 is conservatively equivalent to 1,285 IPads. You tell us which students are not going to get an IPad. Set that aside for a moment. The ostensible justification for SB 907 is representative democracy and responsiveness with no data and no facts. Orange County has 3.2 million citizens. I hardly think adding two trustees will make a difference.

If we wanted to change our elections in Orange County, our board, we could do that ourselves. But we have not. In March, I heard Parker supporting 907, testifying that there's been a long discussion about changing the board composition. But we in fact, have a declaration under penalty perjury demonstrating that that's false. And we have a copy of that we're going to hand out to you guys. There are multiple mechanisms to change the board composition, yet no one has ever proposed that.

Finally, we just had an election where three board incumbents were reelected more than comfortably in the 50, high 50 percentage. The subtext of this bill is that Orange County voters are apathetic, misinformed, or just don't know what they're doing. But of course we trust the voters. We think that you should, as well. As an Orange County resident and elected official, we take issue with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room who would like to speak in opposition?

Madam Chair, I just wanted to say you all should have received our letter. We've told Senator Newman we would remove our opposition from this bill immediately upon him amending it to apply to every county in the state.

And are you Ken Williams?

No, I'm Tom Sheehy.

Oh, okay.

Ken Williams-- Mr. Williams-- Dr. Williams is an existing board member who's been on the board for 28 years.

Okay. Yes, we received his declaration just now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. And we may proceed forward with the opposition.

Greg Rolen, councils of the Orange County Board of Education, in opposition.

Thank you.

Chair and Senators, Adam Keigwin, on behalf of Ednovate, a network of high performing charter schools in Orange County and Los Angeles, in opposition.

Thank you. Okay, so we will bring it back to our Members here. Do any Members have any questions or comments? Senator Umberg.

So thank you, Madam Chair. Questions to the opposition. First, thanks for being here. But secondly, maybe explain to me again why you don't like the November election versus the March election?

Senator, we did a lot of research on this. The November ballot tends to be a ballot that is very complicated, very full, lots of races for national, state, local office. The elections in the primary are very short. We think it is a-- We understand and agree voter turnout would tend to be higher in November. And that's not arguable--

This is the November ballot.

Okay, wait a minute. Let's just do one person at a time. Tell you what, tell you what, tell you what, Madam Chair. Let's just have first Mr. Shaw answer, then anybody else.

His visual aid is accurate. The November ballot, as you will see, is four pages. The primary ballot was just two.

And we think it is advantageous to have a primary ballot where the voters aren't overwhelmed with so many races and they can actually focus on the county board of education. And in the weeks before the election, when you're reaching into your mailbox, the stack of mail is a lot thinner when it's in the primary, as you know. So, we think that we would get more top billing in that primary.

I just want to understand. So we all agreed that the November election turnout is significantly larger than the March turnout. I think that's right. I see everybody shaking their head in the affirmative and I'm trying to understand the argument as to, again, this "too complicated" in November. In other words, the voters won't be able to focus in November, but they can focus in March. But having more voters focus in November is not a good thing. Is that your position?

Well, the issue of ballot fatigue has been well studied. That when you have a ballot that goes on for pages and pages, the bottom contest, a lot of people are leaving blank because they've kind of been-- they're looking at the contest for President, for Governor, for Congress. And by the time you're down at the School Board, it's just too much. But as you can see in the March ballot, where it's just a few contests, you can kind of catch their attention a little bit better.

And I would say, I mean, again, if it's to be changed, that's a perfectly reasonable debate. But I don't know that it's a decision for the state Legislature.

Okay, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Oh, and I would just add, I echo what, what Mr. Shaw said, but also, it's just sort of just focused on Orange County rather than, you know, focusing on the 58 counties across California. So that's another piece of it.

Well, let me just thank you all for your dedication and your service to the children of Orange County. I just met Dr. Dorn Parker just 34 years ago when we were high school. That's what we're going to-- that's the story we're going to stick to. And thank you, Dr. Gomez, also for being here. This is a really important issue for those of us that represent Orange County, and a very controversial issue.

And I know the Board of Education in Orange County has been a place of great debate. And there's been a lot of challenges that have been faced by the board of education. I'm going to support the bill because I do believe that having seven members of the board of education is more representative. And I'm going to support the bill because I think having more voters make that decision in November is just better for the body politic. But I appreciate your interest and your participation here today.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Umberg. Senator Portantino.

Yeah. Obviously the ballot order is something that I have a little bit of history with. For LA County, when we consolidated elections, I heard from local government school boards with the question, would we get lost at the end? There's nothing in state law that says the President has to be listed first or the Governor has to be listed first.

So for LA County elections, we start with the local elections, then we go to county elections, then we go to state elections, and then we go to federal elections. And so that's the ballot order just for LA County. A suggestion for the author he may want to consider for Orange County in another Committee, adding that to this bill to change the actual ballot order for Orange County elections.

Again, what LA County does is local elections, county elections, state elections, and then the federal elections are last. So Mayor, School Board would be first, not last. And again, I agree with Senator Umberg. You know, having more people vote is increasing democracy. Having more people participate is increasing democracy. And certainly it's a valid question for local elections. Should they be listed first? I think they should. So just a suggestion for Mr. Newman to think about as this bill progresses.

He may want to, because that would also increase participation and make it easier for people to see their local city council and school board sit at the top of the ballot.

Thank you. Senator Umberg has a quick point he wants to make on this, and we'll go to Senator Nguyen.

Let me ask the proponents and the opponents, and perhaps even Senator Newman. Senator Portantino just made a suggestion. What do you think, in short order, of placing the board of education decision at the top of the ballot in November. I'll start with the proponents.

Well, it's interesting because I want to clarify. The county board of education races on the primary come after judges. And we know in Orange County this time there was only two, two years ago there were 16, so we know it already gets lost. But I happen to be working really hard to make sure people are representative in their voting. And our new word is bottoms up.

So I agree with Senator Umberg. I agree with that it would be great if we flipped it and had local races, because then the county board race would be after the local district races.

Or even at the very top.

Yeah.

Okay. The opponents?

I would say that makes sense if the bill moves forward, but it's very cost prohibitive, which is my main argument against it.

It's cost prohibitive to put, to reorder the folks on the--?

This entire bill is cost prohibitive, costing millions of dollars to move the election from the primary to the general and the redistricting to add an additional two members.

All right, thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Okay, wait, hold on a second. We want the author to be able to answer this question, and then we'll come to you.

I think that's truly interesting and worthy idea. I'm glad to pursue it. I think that would have corollary benefits to all of the so-called down ballot offices that don't get enough attention. And while I'm at it, with respect to cost, if someone were to propose aligning the implementation date with the next census and the next redistricting process, that would minimize that cost. We can deal with cost. There will be some cost.

That cost is more than justified by the public benefit, in my view.

Okay, thank you. Senator Portantino.

Once the template's done, the template's done. I mean, you know, every election has to, you know, is germane to that election as you create the ballot, so there's no actual increase in cost to change the ballot order. So as you move forward.

Okay, thank you all on that. And then we'll move to Senator Nguyen.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a-- May I ask some questions to some of the witnesses?

Yes, but let's just make sure that we do have, you know, for 2 and 2, so we don't have 3 and 2. So just be clear on that.

Ms. Gomez, when did you serve on the board of education?

I served from 2016 to 21, so six years.

So in the time that you served, did you feel that you didn't have enough time to read the agenda, you needed more staff, or that the district was so large that you couldn't do your due diligence and be able to vote, as you stated? Did you felt that at all during that time?

I never had problem reading the agenda or getting prepared for meetings. The extra work, so to speak, is visiting schools, attending graduations. That was never a burden for me as an elected official. That's what I signed up for, and I was fully committed to doing that. Does it stretch you thin if you're working full time? And as a dean, my counterpart can probably comment on that as well. Our plates are full, but I made time to do it.

But would the burden have been lessened a little bit, perhaps? Absolutely.

But at the time when you were there, did you felt like we should have had seven members? It would have been easier for you?

Yes.

Was that something that you expressed vocally to the board or was it put place on the agenda for discussions or anything? That's just something you thought yourself?

I believed myself because I did attend graduations, I did visit schools. Not all of my counterparts were able to do that, for whatever reason, but I felt I needed to represent the people that elected me.

So you never placed it on the agenda for discussion among the board members or had, like, you know, I don't know-- Do you do end-of-the-year or strategic planning or anything? Was that part of the discussion or anything?

There was never a strategic plan for the board.

Well, so, but you never brought it up?

I did not. I did not bring it up.

Okay. The only reason why I asked that question is because you mentioned in your comments here that you served and that you felt that there's a need to increase. And I wanted to know if that need increase all of a sudden now or was it in the eight years you were there? And so that's why I brought that up.

You know, we in Orange County tend to kind of almost compare ourselves to San Diego a little bit because of population, because it's either Orange County is 100,000 more residents to place second, or San Diego flips us and gets 100,000 more residents. And they, you know, so we go back and forth with San Diego. Having been on the Board of Supervisors, we always watch San Diego's numbers and our numbers to see are we losing residents or not.

So I tend to when I look at counties in the state, I tend not to compare us to LA County because they're just massive. They have five county supervisors who represents 10, I don't know, several million people.

And so I don't tend to, you know, compare us to LA County a lot, and then I don't compare us to Riverside and San Bernardino a lot either, because their geographic and their, you know, their population is really spread out, unlike Orange County, we're very dense, kind of almost similar to San Diego. So when I look at comparison, you know, in counties, we tend to, at least for me, look at San Diego, and I just looked it up.

San Diego has similar population and they only have five board of education members. I'm not sure if they're elected in the primary or the November election. I'm going to assume it's the primary-- It's November?

It's the general election.

It's the general. Almost all county boards are general now.

So then, you know, I guess my concern here with this bill, Senator, is-- and we spoke numerous times-- is I really think, let's just make a statewide. Why not? If it's good for Orange County, it's good for LA County, it's good for San Diego, it's good for Riverside. If everybody's going to go in November, let's make it November. Just like when this body put the Sheriff and the DA into November election, they did it statewide. So we're going to do it. Let's make a uniform.

Let's, you know, instead of, you know, LA County Board of Supervisors, appointing the board of education, let's make an elected body of seven. Let's make San Diego body of seven. Let's make every-- And then instead of Riverside, you stated they're in November or majority-- I haven't looked it up, I don't know if it's, you know, correct or not. I'm going to assume it is. Then let's make everybody go in November. And if we're going to do the ballot shuffling, let's do it for every county.

Because I can't imagine that in terms of voter fatigue, if it's happening in Orange County or we've heard that it happened in LA County in the past and that's why there was a bill that passed. So then let's make it statewide. If there's a fatigue of anywhere, I'm sure there's got to be some in other counties, too. And so, you know, I have no problem with ballots going November. All of us are in November ballots.

We're in March ballots as well, or June off presidential year. But I think targeting Orange County is just unfair. I think if we're gonna-- If it's a good public policy, let's make it a good public policy statewide instead of targeting one specific county, you know, and I don't know, I only have three cities in LA County. I'm not an expert at LA County. Madam Chair is the expert of San Diego. I don't have any San Diego.

So I'm not here to speak on behalf of any county. I'm just saying that if it's a good public policy, especially when it comes to elections, and that's what I'm hearing the argument and what you're stating, Senator, then let's just make it statewide. You know, and with that, the opposition, they'll remove their opposition and then we can all get on the same page statewide instead of second guessing who has five and who has seven, who's on November, who's in March or in primary, et cetera.

So with that, you know, I would ask for a no vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Nguyen. Any other comments from colleagues? Not seeing any. We will turn this back to the author to close.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to not only my witnesses, the other folks who came up from OC. Appreciate your participation. I appreciate the questions, starting with that question about ballot order. And I think Senator Portantino can speak to this. That is no small task. One of the reasons why that experiment was done in LA specifically was because it's really hard to do at the state level statewide, correct?

And I think the same is true for many other changes that we would make. So I'm glad to look at these possible changes. We have actually sort of taken a screen and said of counties above 2 million, there's only two. There's us in Orange County and San Diego that are similar in that respect. But San Diego, I think somebody touched on is that county board is governed by San Diego's charter. So harder, right, mechanically and administratively to change that.

So glad to look at prospectively, including other counties. But I would also point out quite often we do these things on a county-by-county basis or otherwise, incremental progress is still progress, right? And so I would argue that this would, irrespective of the need or the benefits in other jurisdictions, this will still be progress. And as I mentioned in my opening comments, this is actually not political, right?

And so appreciate kind of the back and forth about who knew what and who discussed what on the board. I've actually never had conversations with any member of the board, past or present, about this bill. Where I have had conversations where I did, in fact, get the idea for the bill was talking to parents, and particularly those parents who are deeply involved in PTA's across Orange County.

It was their feeling that the board, irrespective of politics, was too small relative to both the size of the county but also the diverse population of the county. That's why that makes sense to me. To Senator Umberg's and others points, moving the election from the primary is an unalloyed good thing, right. And there is no guarantee it changes the outcome.

What it does guarantee is you get a more representative level of participation and as a result, you get a board that is not only more representative but more closely tied to the people who elected the board and whom they represent. That's what we're trying to achieve with this bill. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Thank you. All right, so the measure has been moved by Senator Portantino, and the motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. So we'll ask the assistant to please call the roll.

[Roll call]

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is 4-1, and we will leave it on call. Thank you again for coming. So our next Bill is supposed to be SB-1422 by Allen. I do not see Senator Allen in the audience. Do we have any idea where he is? Okay, we could do. We could do my Bill, since I'm standing here. Sitting here. Okay, it's been moved. It's on consent. It's true. Okay, that's a great idea. Thank you to the Vice Chair. Keeping things in order here.

Okay, let's go. To open the vote call. Okay, so we are lifting call, and we will first lift call on the consent calendar. So, assistant, please lift call.

Consent calendar items include SB-1156 and SB-1493. Current vote is 4-0. [Roll Call]

Okay, let's lift call on item 1 and 2.

File Item one is SB-904. Current vote is 4-1. Vice Chair voted no. Motion is due past to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, it's 5-1, and that will stay on call, and then we'll move to item number two, which is SB-977.

File item two. SB-977. Current vote is 3-1. Motion is due passed to local government. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call]

It is 5-1, and we will also leave that on call. So I am going to be presenting Hurtado's bills. So given that I'm doing that, I can do that now. So I will hand the gavel down to the Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, we will be hearing file item number three, SB-1151. Hurtado. Madam Chair, please proceed.

Okay, thank you. I'm here presenting SB-1151 from Hurtado, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act. And I understand that there's been a motion on the Bill, so I think we could possibly go ahead with that, given that we have no witnesses and no opposition.

Let me just. I'm gonna just verify an alice.

Yes. Yes, absolutely.

At this time, is there any lead witnesses in support? Any support witnesses, please come forward. Seeing none. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to my colleagues. Any comments? Questions? I hear there's a motion. At this time, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of Senator Hurtado.

This measure has been moved by Senator Portantino. The motion is due pass to the Committee on appropriation. Madam Clerk, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

At this time, we will keep the roll call open. Next Bill. Madam Chair, we will hear item four, SB-1155. Hurtado, please proceed. Yes.

Thank you. I am here presenting SB-1155 by Hurtato. Modernizing the prohibition on insider trading for Government Executives Act.

Would you be accepting the amendments?

I will be accepting the amendments on behalf of the author.

Thank you. We will proceed to lead witnesses in support. Witnesses in support. Lead witnesses in opposition. Witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. We'll move it back to the board. Senator Menjivar, questions? Yes, please. Yes.

Senator, can you confirm if this Bill will prevent, for example, our current secretaries from becoming a. Would this include secretaries in the time off period or whatever it's called? The cooling off period.

Hold on 1 second. Secretary of State, Secretary of Agriculture. That secretaries are already prohibited. Already.

Okay. So the only people you are looking to include is non-paid appointed officials.

Because that was the Committee amendment that was accepted.

I was looking for that. So just to clarify, this is only for paid appointed officials.

Right, exactly.

Can you, you know, I compared this Bill to a Bill that we heard last year that prevented certain Committee consultants and so forth, and to include them in the cooling off period. And I'm of the mindset of if you're not an elected official, you shouldn't be included in the cooling off period. I don't want to hinder people's ability to climb their professional ladder.

So I think I just need, I think I might be still struggling to understand the entire group you're looking to include in the cooling off period, and I apologize. I know you're not the author of this.

If I may try. I think this only includes State Executive Department heads. Doesn't include our staff, if that's because last year's Bill was our staff. So this is State Department paid Executive, like the Director of the Department of Transportation, the Director of, say, Caltrans, the head Executive that works directly with the Governor. I believe that's the Bill. It's not my Bill, but I believe that's what it is.

That's correct.

That's what I understood, too.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, this is sort of unfair to our Chair, who's doing a good deed here, tell you, this is sort of through the Chair to the staff. Can you cite a particular, like, instance or problem that, you know, called out the need for this Bill, and it's the amendment to Fara that clearly has been in place since 1938?

I'm going to invite her to help. I appreciate the question.

So, Senator, just to make clear, this Bill we're doing, SB-1155, and I don't know if you're. Is the Fara Bill.

I'm sorry. You know, you're right. I mixed them up. So recent examples of a Department head who moved to another position in lobbying, and they created a conflict of interest thereby, like, is this just preemptive, or are there specific problems that the author was aware of that are being addressed through this Bill.

So there's not exactly concrete examples like that we can point to a particular, like, state agency, but I think the main goal of Senator Hurtado is to make sure that people that are in these appointed positions have transparency. And that's why she wanted to transparency of making sure that they have a cooling off period, similar to, like, the people at the top making the top decisions.

All right. But no specific examples of dealings that call this into question or need. Okay.

That's correct, Senator.

Thank you.

Any further questions? Comments? Is there a motion?

I'll move the Bill.

The Bill has been moved by Senator. Can she do that? Okay. Portantino. Would you like to close?

On behalf of the author, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion. The Bill has been moved by Senator Portantino. The motion is do passed as amended, to the Committee on appropriation. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Behold the role open.

So we have two authors we're waiting for. Senator Gonzalez and Senator Allen. So I think if we don't see them walking in imminently, that we will go into a recess and then come back when one of them arrives. Yes. Okay, we will officially do that. So we are in recess.

We will reconvene our Committee on Election and Constitution Amendments. At this time, we will hear Senator Allen: Item Nine: SB 1422. Sure. We will instead start with File Item Ten: SB 1441, right? Is that what you said?

I would very much appreciate that.

Please proceed.

And I thank the former Appropriations Chair for his forbearance. I just wanted to, first of all, thank you and thank the Committee for its excellent analysis. As you know, when an election petition receives insufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot, state law provides proponents the opportunity to examine the petition and reasons for signature rejections. And then if a proponent seeks to examine or review the petition, the examination must commence within 21 days of the certification of insufficiency, as it's called.

Now while law establishes a timeline for the initiation of the review process, it's silent on the timeline for concluding the examination, and this has enabled some petition proponents to exploit their access to public resources by employing an indefinite time period for review that poses significant impacts on county elections department staff, time, resources, and ultimately taxpayer dollars. Now, to be clear, petition reviews typically occur only over the course of a few days. Most last one or two weeks at the most.

However, in one recent case in LA County, we had petition proponents who initiated a process of review that lasted 14 months, and the review overlapped with the 2022 General Election. It taxed the county staff time for conducting the election, and this one petition review alone cost the county 1.5 million dollars to provide proponents dedicated office space, computers, temporary staff to accommodate their requests.

These were all costs that the counties were unable to--the county was unable to recover, meaning that they had direct impact on the county's General Fund and ability to provide critical services to constituents. It's the job of the elections officials to ensure that we have an election counting process and the signature review process that's fair, transparent, and lawful, and this duty extends to all aspects of the election process.

It requires election activities, including review of failed petitions are managed effectively and efficiently and done in a fair manner, and they're held responsible and accountable to very high standards. But this situation has made it very difficult for them to do their work. So we're seeking to address this issue in two ways.

First of all, the bill seeks to establish a 60-day limit for proponents to examine a failed petition, and this mirrors the existing timeline that county registrars have to examine a petition if the random sampling results require a full examination and verification of all petition signatures. And then second, the bill enables county elections officials to recover the costs associated with the additional personnel and resources used to conduct those examinations. These are costs in excess of the general operating costs of running the county elections office.

So this mirrors the existing cost recovery mechanism that's employed in voter initiated recount efforts. So it's our hope here that with a statutory timeline, elections officials will be able to better determine the impact petition reviews have on their operations and then allocate their resources accordingly, and then a cost recovery mechanism will encourage all parties to use resources efficiently.

Right now, there's no accountability mechanism or even incentive, certainly no incentive to be more efficient. So joining me today is Audilia Lozada, who's the Division Manager at the LA County Registrar-Recorder's Office.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in support. We've been giving everybody two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Audilia Lozada, and I am a Division Manager for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office. Thank you to Senator Allen for this opportunity to speak to the Honorable Members of the Committee. Los Angeles County is proud to sponsor SB 1441. As Senator Allen stated, this bill does two things. First, it establishes a 60-day period for petitioned proponents to complete the examination of disqualified signatures on petitions that failed to qualify for the ballot.

This 60-day period is aligned with the timeframes that elections officials have to initially review those same signatures. Second, this bill allows officials to recover the actual costs of inspecting disqualified signatures when those costs exceed the normal operating budget. The cost recovery provisions of SB 1441 help to ensure that additional public funds are not used when proponents of a failed petition request to inspect disqualified signatures.

Currently, existing law does not address how long petition proponents may examine disqualified signatures, nor does it address who pays the cost to securely present petition documents for inspection. By addressing this gap in law, SB 1441 significantly improves elections official's ability to manage the examination of failed petitions efficiently and responsibly. I respectfully request the Committee's aye vote on SB 1441, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we'll move to witnesses in support. Please come forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Members. Rob Grossglauser, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, happily in support. Thank you.

Good morning and thank you. Andi Liebenbaum, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in strong support and sponsorship. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Lawyer speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? See none. At this time, we're going to move to lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition? This time I'll bring it back to the--to my colleagues.

Okay. I'll take it from here. Senator Newman.

I'll take it from here. Not too far, I promise. So, a question for the author. So we have a late letter from Former LA District Attorney Steve Cooley, and in it, I'm not sure how thorough you've had a chance to review it, but he raises what he characterizes as an opportune chance for corruption of the petition review process by making it possible for a local election official intentionally or through a poorly resource review process to unduly cause a petition to fail and make it impossible as a result of the assertion that the costs and review time are insufficient within the bill. How would you respond to that? And again, sort of sneak up on you with those.

No, I appreciate it. I mean, I am just seeing this. I do--I guess this was filed a couple days ago, so I'm seeing it for the first time.

And I guess while you're looking at it, I mean, you know, they sort of characterize the petition review process as otherwise secretive in the absence of sort of the status quo. So if you wouldn't mind sort of responding to that.

Yeah, I mean, I probably, we'd probably be good first to hear from, directly from the folks at the county, but I would say certainly the officials are held to a high standard if there's any evidence of malfeasance, and it would be an act of malfeasance if they were purposely slow rolling the process so as to push for some certain outcome. That would be absolutely illegal, and they could be up for criminal charges, quite frankly.

So if there's any evidence of that, I invite Mr. Cooley or others to, you know, maybe not submit to the DA, but to the Attorney General, FBI, I mean, whoever else might be appropriate, and I certainly don't want to do anything that would facilitate that sort of malfeasance, but I'll just say, that would be grotesquely illegal on the part of the elections officials and would be subject to criminal prosecution, I would think, if that's really what's happening here. But happy to consider the--

I appreciate it. You always have been on things like this, and so--his letter includes a bunch of suggested amendments that were geared toward promoting transparency, and there's nothing wrong with those. And you don't have to respond directly now. And I'm sure as this moves forward, you're willing to look at whatever other provisions that ensure transparency and accountability--

Absolutely. I will absolutely commit, and I apologize. This is unfortunately the first time I've seen the letter. That doesn't mean that I may have--that's probably my bad, but we will go through this carefully, and my staffer is here. We will work to accept whatever amendments we think are reasonable and within the scope of our goals, and our goals really are about making sure that we have integrity in the process, but we do so in an efficient way. That's the goal here. And so any amendment in here that is to those ends, we are very open and happy to consider and happy to engage your office on that.

No, I appreciate it. I do. You know, as you sort of work through kind of the second order implications of things, you always wind up having to consider some things, so--

Are there some amends that are standing out to you that--?

No, I mean, you know, it's really about transparency. It's about observation. It's about observation, ensuring that the signature process is similar to others that we've legislated. Those kinds of things. And I'm sure you're happy to look at it.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your drawing attention to this.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Senator. All right, any other questions and comments from Senators? Okay. Senator, you may close.

Yeah, no, appreciate the discussion and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Yeah. And we do commit to going through this letter carefully.

Thank you.

I think your witness wants to say something.

Well, is there something? I know it's a little out of order, but yeah.

I'm happy to address the opposition letter. I think when we look at existing law currently, there is no limit, and so the argument that things would sort of be slow rolled is what exists in law now. By establishing a 60-day period to completely review those qualifications, it means that the job has to get done with that 60 days, both by the proponents and the elections official.

And so I think the 60-day period would support a transparent review and that elections officials would be diligent to complete that thoroughly in that additional 60-day window to the same respect that we completed the initial review thoroughly and transparently.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for your forbearance.

Of course.

We will carefully review if there's any evidence of illegal activity over there.

Well, it's not--sorry.

I invite them to--I encourage them--

His larger point was sort of unintentionally creating a new regime that lets somebody run out the clock, right? You know, let's just keep that in mind.

Yeah, totally. Totally, totally. Thank you.

Do we have a motion?

I'll move that bill. I owe it to him at this point.

So the measure has been moved by Senator Newman, and the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Okay. The result is four/one, and it is on call.

Thank you.

And so, Senator Allen, what bill would you like to--?

We'd love to go to SB 1422. Our lead witness is here.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, so thank you. This has to do with transparency, our favorite topic here in this Committee. So some of you may recall back in 2015, you were in the Legislature at the.

No, I was in high school.

The Legislature passed SB 21 to require nonprofit organizations to report to the Fair Political Practice Commission the names of donors who accompanied an elected official on any travel the nonprofit paid for. This is Jerry Hill's bill. So these disclosures improve transparency. They also improve accountability by allowing the public to know what outside groups are paying to sponsor travel for legislators. And I think there's a lot of good reason behind it. I love going on educational trips.

I mean, I'd be the first to say that they've been transformative for me as a Legislator. They've helped me learn about best practices, novel approaches from the ground level, seeing them with our own eyes. I mean, part of a little late to this Committee, I was talking to another colleague about a model that she had experienced relating to an energy issue in another country on one of these trips. And that's informed the process.

So they're very valuable, and I don't have any regret having gone on trips, but they do, t the same time, I think most of us know that they do create a space for direct interactions with legislators, oftentimes with people who represent special interest groups. And it's why, from my perspective, it's important that we be transparent about who's in attendance and who's helped to facilitate, so that the public has great understanding of who's influencing the process.

And it's very much within the spirit of our other transparency legislation. So under current law, nonprofits have to report to the FCC if the nonprofit made payments, advances, or reimbursements that total more than $10,000 on travel by elected state or local officials, by more than or more than $5,000 on travel by a single official in a calendar year, and that the organization's expenses related to elected official travel were greater than one-third of its total expenditures.

Now, that was, you know, I'm happy to talk about that provision. While these provisions were developed to help identify who the major influential entities were. When CalMatters did a 2023 review of disclosure findings with the FPPC, it was revealed something like two disclosures filed in the last nine years since this law was enacted.

And, you know, it largely is due to the second provision in the law which, which, as I said, said that only, the law only applies if one-third of the organization's yearly expenditures were dedicated to sponsoring the travel of legislators. And so from my perspective, those organizations, just because you spend a lot on other lobbying and advocacy activities, somehow the influence or disclosure needs are different than an organization that spends most of its time on travel is silly to me.

In fact, the one key organization that spends most of its time on travel is actually one of the most transparent of all of those out there that spend money on legislative trips. So this was a deal struck at the time, but I think it needs to be rectified.

So this seeks to close this loophole by removing the one third expenditure provision and extends the disclosure requirement to all entities that spend at least $10,000, or $5,000 for a single person in a calendar year for organizing and hosting travel.

And, you know, it's just about disclosing details like travel destination, dates of travel, names of the elected officials and the people who made the payments, advances or reimbursements for travel related to the event, and then the names of donors for which the donor, or an agent, employee, representative of the donor accompanied the officials for portions of the trip. So joining me today in support, we have Trent Lange, President, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, and Sandra Fluke, who's here from Voices for Progress.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Blakespear and Senators, Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to sponsor SB 1422, the Travel Disclose Act, and very grateful to Senator Allen for his leadership in authoring it. As he described in 2015, the Legislature nearly unanimously passed the law to require nonprofits to disclose when they spent $10,000 or more on travel for elected officials.

Unfortunately, as that CalMatter story showed, the disclosures have only ever been used twice since it was implemented in 2016, despite organizations having spent over $10,000 53 times, by our analysis, since 2020, with that amount growing dramatically every year, as shown by a new CalMatters story. Two reasons for it as Senator Allen said, the biggest reason is that one-third threshold. Only one out of the 15 organizations that spent $10,000 or more in 2022 met that threshold.

Most didn't come close to spending one-third of their overall budget on travel expenses for elected officials. It's nonintuitive, to say the least, that the largest organizations should be the ones that are able to get out of disclosures because of that threshold. The other reason is that the current law only covers 501 C3 and C4 organizations. That means that many trade associations and corporations, unions, and individuals would not be covered at all by the law.

And we believe that should be changed. So important, SB 1422 changes those to just leave the $10,000 threshold, apply to all persons that are not governmental agencies, and then expand to more information the public needs, like the trip locations, the dates, which elected officials went, which donors went on which trips, and then how much the donors gave.

And it's important to note that the entities and nonprofits only have to disclose donors that gave $1,000 or more and who actually went on the trips or who knew or had reason to know that their funds were going to be used for travel for elected officials. So with that, thank you very much. We respectfully ask for your aye vote for this increased transparency and disclosure. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you so much, Chair Blakespear, and good morning to the Committee Members. I'm Sandra Fluke, the President of Voices for Progress. Voices for Progress galvanizes the advocacy of business leaders, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and other prominent individuals who unite to champion a healthy climate and environmental strengthen our democracy, and ensure economic and social justice for all. Which means that I'm here in the unique position of speaking on behalf of the people that this bill would regulate, asking you to regulate those donors.

V for P members do sometimes fund organizations that sponsor travel for elected officials. They do so because they understand the importance of this type of travel and the educational value of learning and sharing public policy ideas across national borders and across states borders. Simultaneously, V for P Members understand the importance of transparency about this funding. They believe that the best way to keep the public's trust in our democracy is through increasing transparency.

Transparency empowers citizens, it promotes accountability, and it strengthens trust between the government and the governed. To that end, V for P members have worked for several years with the Legislature to increase disclosure of campaign contributions of ballot measures, funding, and lobbying expenditures, including those disclosures that apply to V for P Members themselves. SB 1422 by Senator Allen is another important and necessary step in increasing the public's trust in our Legislature.

As has been referenced, CalMatters found that numerous organizations have spent over the $10,000 threshold and that there have been only two disclosures in nine years. The top funder of these trips said that the trips resulted in dozens of bills, that's dozens of bills influenced without the public's knowledge. V four P members strongly believe that they can support these trips and at the same time address loopholes and shortcomings in current law to simply ensure that more transparency and disclosure actually occurs.

At a time, and I just want to say this in closing, at a time when our democracy is very much under attack by those who would sow disinformation in order to erode faith in elected officials, SB 1422 is the kind of critical step that a leading state like California needs to take to protect that sacred trust. And for these reasons, Voices for Progress, members respectfully request your aye vote for this bill.

Thank you very much. Next, we will move to other witnesses in support. If you would like to just say your name, organization, and if you support.

Jeff Tartegeia in support, Cara, HCA, Dogfight. These are organizations that I all come here representing.

Thank you, sir.

Robert Copeland, concerned citizen in support. Thank you.

Good morning, board. Chynell Freeman, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California, strongly supports.

Thank you.

Brittney Barsotti, on behalf of the California News Publishers in support.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Lead witnesses. Welcome to come forward. Okay, how about any other opposition witnesses? Seeing none, we will thank our supporters who came. Your very interesting testimony. Thank you. And we will bring the discussion back to the Members. Does any Member would like to make a comment? Senator Nguyen, yes.

I have a question, and I actually don't know if it works this way, but I do know that my district has a lot of sister cities, and sister city is, you know, a foreign city is a sister city to a city in our city.

Wow. Say that 10 times faster. But I think sometimes, though, that the foreign government, let's just use this as Japan, because I actually have a couple cities that has Japan. We have South Korea and Italy and a few others. But let's just say Japan or Italy, that if the foreign government hosts city Council Members and city staff in Italy or Spain, whatever, and they pay for the cost there.

But a lot of time, I think, and I don't know because I've never gone before, I think the foreign country has a nonprofit in their own country that hosts it. Who reports that?

Yeah, it would typically be, in that case, the nonprofit. And then you'd also just say who was accompanying the elected officials on the trip.

So you're. So the foreign country nonprofit is now going to be filing.

No, no, no. The, the, oh.

So it's a nonprofit in a foreign country, you can't regulate that, can you?

How did we deal with that? So they are, they are engaging in our, how do we deal with that? Do we know? It's a good question.

The bill does exclude governmental agencies. So if the, you know, if Naples, Italy pays for it, then,

But they're not a government agency. What if a foreign, what if the country of Italy has their own friendship organization that they use in their own country that's registered in their country? Are they now responsible to register in our state and disclose it? I don't know if that's actually the case. I'm just coming up. That's a great, I didn't want to block like half of my district has sister cities.

Outside. That's a great question. I believe that technically in the bill, if they're a nonprofit organization and they spent over $10,000, they would have to file. But we should look into, and happy to work with the Committee and the FPPC, who's also looking to this bill to see if we need to exclude them or have some other provision to have that to work with the author, et cetera.

Yeah.

And that would be 10,000 per elected per year.

No, 5000 per person, 10,000 total on elected officials from California. So I mean, look, it's a great point. We got to get this figured out. I don't, however, want people to escape basic transparency provisions just by creating a foreign nonprofit. So we've got to figure out how to, totally.

I'm not suggesting that. I currently don't know what the sister cities, how it's funded. And so, you know, a lot of time also, our sister city would host delegation of our students to stay in another country for a week, and we then host their children in our state, our city. But elected officials do this, you know, City Council, there might be one or two on that trip. There might also be supportive fundraising for the trip.

And so I just don't want us to, I have no problem with disclosure. And it's just I don't want to hurt our city's foreign exchange programs, whether city to city or student exchange, cities to city as well.

It's a fantastic point. It's a great flag. We need to talk with some of these folks and figure out a reasonable path and would love to include your office in that process. I mean, by the way, I just myself got together with someone involved with sister cities in my own district, and we weren't talking specifically about this, but I'm well aware of this model.

I think reaching out to some of the sister cities across the state, different counties, because I'm sure they have different, you know, programs. Like I said, some of my city has city-to-city, and that also includes student exchange. Some cities just have city-city, and some only have student exchange. So I don't know how it works, but that's something, like I said, is maybe to be looked at so that we don't hurt our opportunities locally.

It's a great flag. It's a great flag. I mean, you know, typically, they're working with an American nonprofit like the Sister City Association, and so maybe we can figure out some way for them to do the basic reporting. The reporting is pretty basic stuff. I mean, it's just, who's paying for it, who's on the trip, that's the dates of travel. That's basically it.

Great. So you'll look into that matter, and then Senator Newman has a comment.

Right. Right. So I think this is related. And Senator Portantino mentioned the form 700. So this bill requires the reporting by the entity that does the trip, correct. And I think the analysis notes that you can find some information on a nonprofit's 990. You can find other information on the 700 that we're all required to file.

Wouldn't it make sense in some scenario to require elected officials to include on the 700, not just that they took a trip that was paid for by X organization, but this same information that you're looking to basically surface through the reporting period? That would probably, by the way, solve for the problem we've just discussed. Right. If you went on a trip, we do that now. You know, there's a separate schedule just for travel and expenses paid for by a third party.

Seems like that's the information that people really want to see. Not just did you go on a trip, but who paid for it and who went with you?

Yeah, we're doing this through the organizational side. It's really kind of an update on the, on the Hill Bill. But that's, you know, I don't disagree with you. I would support a Newman Bill.

In other words, that's separate bill. It seems cleaner to me, but.

To have the elected official directly reporting.

Yeah, I mean, it's really the question I think that we're looking to answer in the first place.

Anyway. It's something to consider, particularly as it relates to, you know, these kind of, you know, gap questions that have been raised. If you think it's fun or not.

I think it's a great idea to look into having the form 700 provide a little bit more information. There's some information they may not have. Like, they don't know which of the people that, along with the trip, necessarily gave $1,000 or more to the organization. They may not even,

Sorry, but it could be, just list the other folks who went on this trip with you. That's really the salient information. You're creating a threshold, but that's about a reporting requirement.

Yeah, I definitely think there could be additional valuable information on the form 700s that would help, especially when people are looking at, hey, I want to see what's happening with a particular elected official. But one of the issues is that there are so many form 700s. Right. We did the analysis to find out that there are 53 organizations that added up to over 10,000. And we did that by looking at the form 700s.

You have to look at literally every single legislators form 700 to see which groups actually paid for things. And we didn't even get into City Council or supervisors or anything like that. That would have taken ages. Whereas having, when there are 15 organizations that spend the lion's share of the money, over $10,000, it's much easier to have them look up, and they're the ones who know which donors there are.

So I would definitely say it would be very valuable to look into what extra information could be on the form 700s that whether or not they have it all is another question.

My last contribution here is, are you concerned at all about this having a chilling effect on otherwise purposeful sort of productive trips that might be less likely to be organized if there were. The reporting requirements presupposes that there may be something untoward. Right. And so I could see where an organization might say, you know what, it's not worth our while at this point, given both the administrative hassle, but also the attention that will come to us by organizations.

I mean, the members already have to report. I mean, any elected official already has to report a trip.

Well, it's just a trip, right? I mean, to Mister Lange's point, it doesn't include probably the most interesting part, which is, with whom did you take that trip? Right, right. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, right now you have to, you don't mention the individuals, and you don't do as much of a breakdown of who's paying for it, but you still have to say the organization, where you're going.

Well, you know, you only have to answer. You have to put in on that schedule, trip cost, organization purpose. Right. I think.

Right.

Yeah. Purpose is pretty vague. Right. You know, so within a 78 day trip to the point of the bill, you want to know, like, who's talking to whom, where, you know, an elected official is being carried. Right. Having a trip paid for. But again, I mean, you know, it may be true that organizations that aren't keen on the attention, but who are otherwise well-intentioned might decide, hey, we're not going to do these kinds of trips anymore.

I guess the question comes down to whether they would, whether they think that a little bit more exposure and transparency is enough to cancel a trip. There's no value.

Well, they might say.

We disclose our salaries, our employee salaries. We disclose all of our campaign contributions, all of our expenditures. That doesn't mean that something untoward is happening. It's actually a way of preventing untoward things from happening. It's a way of, I mean, that's a kind of a philosophical approach.

This is a change to the status quo.

Yeah, no, you're right. I mean, look, what do you think the answer is to that? Because I don't want to chill legitimate fact-finding, but I don't think that this does so in a way that I don't think this does so in a substantive way.

Could I interrupt with my opinion on this?

Yeah.

So, and also just want to be mindful of, we do have 30 minutes and we have Senator Gonzalez there and another bill from Senator Allen. We absolutely need to conclude by then. But I think there's value in both having the individual member report and in having the organization report. I think the testimony about the fact that the top funders of trips are actually not reporting this. And in part, it's because they're excluded from having to. And so there are the top 10.

And we want, I think it's valuable to know if 60 Members of the California Legislature all went on one trip and having the organization report that together, to say the following people were all there and these were the major donors. I think there's a value to the public and the media and the other members and all, everybody participating in the public process to know that. So to me, the disclosure, this bill is important and stands on its own.

And if Senator Newman has another bill about expanding the individual reporting requirements, I think that that potentially has value as well. Of course, we have to receive. Yeah.

Okay. Since I've been called out here, I do think you're going to have a situation where donors may decide, well, we'll donate, but not up to the reporting threshold, you know, and that's probably going to have an impact on some of these things. I'm going to support the bill, don't get me wrong, you know, but, you know, every action has an equal and opposite unintentional reaction sometimes than what we do, and so it's worth considering.

Yeah.

Okay. Well, with that, does the author. Would the author like to close? Unless anyone else wants to say anything.

Senator, I really appreciate the discussion. And I will say, I mean, of course, you can basically track down. I mean, as long as the nonprofit is doing its work properly, you basically can track down, oftentimes involving a lot of work, who's donating to these things. This is going to make it easier. But. But your point is well taken. I want to address the issue raised by the sister cities. I think that's a legitimate issue, and we need to figure out how to massage that.

But certainly welcome the members participation in this conversation as we try to figure out a good, useful path moving forward. This is ultimately just about what the Chair said, improving transparency on an area where there is influence over the political process.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion on SB 1422?

I will move the bill.

Okay, great. We have. SB 1422 has been moved by Senator Newman, and the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. So, assistant, will you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay. It is 6-0, and it will stay on call. So with that, we, is it okay, Senator Gonzalez, if he does his last bill, or do you need to.

I'm happy to have her go if she needs to.

Do you need to go? Okay.

Okay. All right. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testamony. Okay, well, let's proceed forward, Senator Allen, with your last bill, but be mindful of the fact that she has hers.

This is another important issue. Back in 2016, I did with a number of you, SB 450, which created the Voters Choice Act, which offers counties a new way to conduct elections that increases access and convenience for voters. As a result, counties have been able to switch from traditional neighborhood polling places where people could only vote in one place on one day, in one location, to the system where now you've got 10 days of early voting, vote by mail for all voters.

You can go vote anywhere you want in your own county. At all these different vote centers, there's same day vote registration, there's accessible voting machines for voters with disabilities, additional language support services, and this wonderful flexibility to be able to vote anywhere in your county. This was inspired by terrible low turnout that we had in the 2014 election. I was the Elections Chair at the time, kind of tasked by the Pro Rem at the time to go learn about other states' models. We went to Colorado.

This Committee was very involved in that process. And now something like over three quarters of our voters in the state live in one of the counties that have adopted the VCA. Now, there's been some studies done. We did a hearing in this Committee on this topic. They noted all sorts of beneficial aspects of the model, including increased transparency and accountability, community engagement.

There were fewer voting problems at vote centers and more access to bilingual poll workers, and more voting machines for voters with disabilities compared to non-VCA counties. It also found some turnout gaps, however, that still exist and fluctuate from election, with voters of color across the state participating in lower rates. And, you know, so we saw in 2022 that in-person voting was utilized more in VCA counties. It was a vital option for traditionally marginalized voters.

And then this Committee, as I mentioned, conducted an oversight hearing to review the report and implementation. So this bill is coming out of that work, and it proposes a number of changes to streamline elections Administration under the VCA to address some of those concerns. So it would require VCA-specific mailings to be sent to each household rather than every registered voter. So we're trying to do a couple things. We're trying to a save some money on redundancies.

So instead of having to send every registered voter, we're suggesting the counties can send to a household, because, you know, also we wanted to allow them to have some consistency and avoid redundancies when we have regularly scheduled special elections and overlapping special districts, which were resulting in all sorts of duplicative and potentially confusing informational mailers.

So, to allow for more consolidation to improve election management, the bill also establishes a deadline for counties to finalize election Administration plans and establishes advisory committees to provide expertise on voter education and community outreach strategies. One of the big concerns we heard from the clerks is that there's very low turnout for the first couple of days. Something like three to 5% of voters that participate in person are gonna. They're going to vote center during the first seven days.

And so one of the thoughts was, do we allow for more flexibility, and so as to reduce the amount of time that the vote centers have to be open so as to save money, and as long as we can spend that money on other efforts that might do more to increase voter access and outreach I carefully reviewed the letter from some of the advocacy groups that there was a support if amended.

Nearly everything in here seems very reasonable to us and we're certainly committed to working with them. But this is ultimately about learning the lessons from the VCA and really keeping our eyes on the prize, finding some places where we can find some cost savings for the counties in areas where there's really not going to be any significant impact in terms of access, and then putting those resources toward efforts that will truly improve and increase access. And it's in that spirit that I respect for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have witnesses in support?

I don't believe so.

Okay. Is there any other testimony in support?

Adriana Champagne Zamora with the League of Home Voters of California. We, along with several other organizations have submitted a support, if amended letter for SB 1450. There are many laudable elements for this bill and we appreciate Senator Allen's willingness to work with us on possible amendments. We've also been asked by ACLU California Action, and Asian Americans advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus to note that they join us in a support if amended position. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Paul Spencer with Disability Rights California. We also signed on to the same letter, the support if amended letter. We want to thank the author and the Committee for being open to our suggestions and amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition witnesses who would like to add on? Okay, seeing none, then we will now bring the discussion back to Members. Senator Newman,.

I will be brief. I want to commend the author. Right. This is exactly what we should be doing, especially on issues like this is continually revisiting and revising, and it does take legislation. I know you're going to look at the amendments and incorporate many of the suggestions, but this should be regarded as a process. This should not be noteworthy that we're doing a bill, because the VCA changes were positive. But clearly we're learning as we go. So glad to be supportive here.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Any other comments, statements? Okay, seeing none, would the author like to close?

Just incorporate the comments from my colleague and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, great. Is there a motion? Yes. Senator Newman has moved. So the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. And with that, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Thank you.

It is 5-0 on call and now we will move to Senator Gonzalez.

Okay, thank you. Our next item is SB 1337 by Senator Gonzalez, and we will hand it to her--hello, welcome--to Senator Gonzalez to please present her bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Here to present SB 1337, which will provide more transparency to the public about who is truly behind referendum petitions by requiring the top three funders to be listed directly on each petition signature page. Direct democracy, as we know, is an important tool for Californians, and we saw what happens when large corporations are abusing this process to overturn legislation passed by this body.

Recent petition campaigns to qualify referendums have been rife with examples of paid signature gatherers misrepresenting what a measure would do and refusing to produce information about who is funding the referendum, which is already required under existing law.

So SB 1337 will ensure voters can make more informed decisions and are aware of who is funding the efforts to overturn the law. Testifying in support today, I have Terry Brennan from SEIU, as well as Marquis Mason from California Environmental Voters, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, and we'll go to your lead witnesses. You may proceed.

Hello, Chair Blakespear and Members of the Committee. My name is Marquis King Mason. I will be speaking on behalf of California Environmental Voters, and I just want to say thank you so much for letting the witnesses sit this time. As a tall person, that's kind of hard, so we really appreciate it. It's no secret that moneyed interests are heavily involved in the political process nationwide, but especially here in California. That's reflected in no better place than in our referendum process.

2023 PPIC polling has found that over 95 percent of voters say that our state's referendum process is impacted by special interests, with nearly 60 percent saying it's greatly impacted. Our political system was intended to be based off of a majority support in building broad coalitions not paying to play.

Moneyed interests rely on confusion and disinformation to pass their agenda that are at direct odds with communities like we've seen with the attempts to overturn oil setbacks and the ongoing campaign to deny the right to a living wage for fast food workers. Direct democracy is popular, necessary, and like all aspects of our democratic system, it's fragile.

We've seen attacks and abuses on the initiative and referendum process all over this nation, but here in California, we can fight back because the referendum process should represent all, not just a powerful few to not needlessly pit neighbor against neighbor in support of corporate profits.

Last year, the Legislature united around a set of policies within Assembly Member Bryan's AB 421 that aim to cut down on the confusing ballot language and also shine more light on big financial backers of a referendum. This body has taken historic policies to the finish line, sometimes asking Members to take incredibly challenging votes, only to see corporations bar their way under the ballot to halt any progress that this body has achieved.

Displaying a referendum's financial backers and ensuring that there is voters sign the referendum petition that they have to review those funders is crucial to ensuring a major part of our political process is not based on deception, like what we saw with the attempt to overturn the oil setbacks by referendums that had petitioners lying directly to voters, which included an attempt to lie to me. I was at the Arden Fair Mall, but luckily they were not successful in that.

These corporate polluters and moneyed interests use every tool at their disposal to defeat hard-fought victories that took years, if not decades, of coalition building and negotiating to protect their exorbitant profits at the expense of our communities. SB 1337 is a necessary tool to even the playing field. For communities dominated by oil companies and corporations, protecting their neighborhoods from corporate polluters is literally a fight for their lives. That is why I'm asking for your aye vote today. Thank you so much.

Madam Chair and Senators, Terry Brennan, on behalf of SEIU California. I think my colleague and the Senator have done a great job presenting the bill. I just want to make it clear this is already required by law. It's just required on a separate sheet of paper. This would make sure it couldn't be obscured, folded over, ignored. It's on every petition page.

So that when you're presented with an oil setback bill and you see the top three funders or all the three major oil companies, you may not believe the deception that you're being presented when it's time to sign. We're very supportive of this bill. I would say a couple other things: the opposition to this bill has included some pretty scurrilous stuff, like, we went back on a deal with the Former Chair of this Committee. I personally take offense to that.

I've got a 36-year reputation in this business that suffers from a lot of my shortcomings, but it's never been misrepresenting anything in front of this body or any other body here or lying to any Member of this Legislature. So I'm hoping that in his testimony, the Chamber would disavow any attachment to that representation. In fact, it was not before this Committee because those amendments took this out prior to getting here. So whatever deal was made in this Committee--and some of you are a party to it--did not include what's in this bill. For that reason, I would urge and aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have opposition--oh, sorry--support in the room who would like to add on? Okay. Seeing none, we would invite the opposition witness to come up.

Madam Chair and Members, Ben Golombek here with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. SB 1337, in our opinion, would make it difficult, if not impossible, to qualify a referendum here in California, needing to constantly update the referenda signature page with the top donors. As Mister Brown Brennan alluded that this information is already publicly available, both online as well as on the top sheet.

That all signature gatherers are required to carry will put an unrealistic burden in the timeframe given for proponents to qualify referenda. As folks are aware, qualifying referenda is a statewide exercise, and coordinating signature gathering is hard enough without having to change out the signature-gathering sheets every time a new top donor makes a contribution.

And while Mr. Brennan thinks that referenda are done at the behest and urging of corporate overlords, they are, in fact, incredibly rarely used and a core piece of California's direct democracy system. Over the last 40 years, the majority of referenda that have qualified have been focused on tribal gaming compacts. And since the referendum and initiative process was created in California more than 100 years ago, there have been nearly 400 initiatives and slightly over 50 referenda actually on the ballot.

So it begs the question, why are there so many dramatic reforms being proposed around the referenda process and not the initiative process? Again, we respectfully oppose the bill. We look forward to working with the author and sponsors as the bill moves forward. And to Mister Brennan's point, I do want to be clear, I don't want anybody to think that folks or anybody went back on a deal. Mr. Brennan is nothing but honorable. There were a lot of conversations and negotiations last year around AB 421.

This was a provision that was in earlier versions of the bill, not the final version of the bill, obviously. And while we opposed it then and we remain opposed to it now, we don't view it. Certainly want to be clear as to Mr. Brennan's honor that nobody is accusing him or anybody else of going back on a deal. So.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Anybody in the room wishing to testify in opposition. Okay. I don't see any. I, you know, I do appreciate both of you addressing this question of going back on a deal because, and that you clarified that that hasn't happened. Because, you know, the reality of bill negotiation, when something is taken in or putting, put, put out and is that a deal or not?

It seems to me, you know, there's a new Chair of this Committee, there's a new author to this bill, and, you know, the notion that something that was negotiated is somehow settled for all time is just really not true. I mean, so it does seem to me like from some type of small investigation into whether there was a deal. What does the deal look like, if there is one? I mean, is there something written down? Is it. I mean, how do you even establish that?

So it does seem to me like this is a new bill that stands on its own. And when I look at this, to me, it does seem clearer to me who the funders are. And I think one of the things that's very clear is that there is a lot of deception happening. So regardless of how that's happening or who's really to blame for that happening, there is a desire to get those signatures on that page. And the signature gatherers are always, of course, paid.

And so how is it that we create a system where the person who is signing their name is most likely to understand what is it that they are signing? I think in the interests of just complete transparency with a democratic process, it's better to know who's funding things. It's also clear to me that a lot of times, names are things like a better tomorrow, which really doesn't tell you anything about who the funders are.

But it does seem to me like it's better that it's bold and it's on the same sheet that they are signing. So, and I asked the question of what would happen if, if the top funders change, which apparently, historically, they don't actually change very frequently. Top funders are relatively stable. But if they did change, all of the signatures that were gathered under the previous top funder grouping would still be valid. So it would require, and you can respond after.

But so it would require that a new sheet be printed with new signatures, but all of those signatures that were collected will still be valid. Of course, the elements of our direct democracy are all very important, but it's also important that we do our best to try to remove the deception. So, to me, this does seem like a bill that goes toward that goal, and so I do plan to support it today. But I'll allow you to respond to that, and I'll go over here.

I just wanted to note, again, it's not, again, the signature gatherers already have that information available in terms of who the donors are. That information is also online. If voters or anybody has a question about them. It is. I think folks are certainly familiar with qualifying an initiative or a referenda is an incredibly complex endeavor, and it takes a lot of coordination and communication, and there are people all over the state.

And so while top donors, you know, do change, you will have to swap out your petitions and coordinate that around the state to everybody going out there and gathering the signatures for you, that is, and ensuring that every single one of those has the absolute latest with the latest top donor. If somebody was gathering signatures, then took a couple days off, came back, trying to coordinate all of that is going to be next to impossible to make sure.

And that's why it will make it very difficult from a logistical standpoint to actually meet the threshold to gather signatures in that time.

So thank you. Senator Portantino.

I was just going to comment on the process, and we have two gentlemen on opposing sides who have both said that this was outside of the deal from prior bills. But I would say the system functions better when there are deals and they're honored subsequently, this house functions better. And in years past, if there was a major deal on a major issue that went down, if someone, again, every Legislator can introduce whatever b2ill they want to introduce subsequent to that.

But in years past, those bills that would undo major deals wouldn't even get referred to Committee because the institution would respect the honor of commitments and deals. We don't do that as well today as we did it 10 years ago or 20 years ago. And I think this body suffers from that. And I do think Committee Chairs, again, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, would take more ownership, not in this case, because you were not, it's not in this Committee that you were party to that.

I'm just saying prior Committee Chairs would take more ownership over those deals and enforce them with much more, I would say, integrity of the system. And so I think we function better when we do do that. And I do think, you know, I hate to sound like a dad and an elder statesman, but I think we would be better if we went back to some of those conventions and institutions as a body politic. So just a comment.

Thank you. And I think probably we would all agree with that. Both sides of saying there was no deal. So. Yeah, just in general. Yeah.

In general, to the comment of subsequent to deals, people can this place functions better when that doesn't happen.

Right. Senator Allen?

Yeah, well, Terry mentioned that I guess the former Chair's raising concerns about a deal. So sounds as though the two lead witnesses on both sides are obviously on opposite sides of the bill, but comfortable with the idea that there wasn't a backing down on any kind of deal. All I would say is I really do have to associate myself with the comments of Senator Portantino. We all get very involved in big bills. Many of us do.

And it really does become more difficult to come to difficult compromises. If there's a sense of the next year, things are just going to get blown open again, and that goes on a, you know, so it's a challenge. We're living in a time of term limits. We're constantly switching around, changing Chairmanships, and people move. And it just, I think it makes it hard for advocacy groups to feel confident engaging in negotiations if we're seen as too changeable.

I can't help but note that some of the things that I'm asking for in this bill were in a previous piece of legislation I had, and my friend here wasn't quite as open to those transparency measures at the time. Yeah. Appreciate that admission, my friend. Yeah. So I. Well, I mean, do you mind if I ask what's changed here in terms of your position on this?

We're part of a coalition that would like to pursue that potentially down the road in the same sort of context. We're in a political environment where that isn't happening. One, because the.

So we really have to wrap this up in four minutes.

Happy to connect with you on it in the future. My challenge with these things always is, and I'm certainly happy to support the Chair in this today, but I think the challenge here always is on issues like this. We obviously all believe in transparency. I just ran several bills on the very topic today. The referendum process is an important process. It's important. I fundamentally believe this is a manipulable process, the signature collection. So is the legislative process.

The legislative process is manipulable by special interest groups, too. And I do think it's comfortable with where we are on this bill. I will say the referendum process is important, too, and it's an important check in the constitution to the work of this Legislature. And I don't want to see that adversely harmed as well as we continue to do work in this space.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Newman.

That'll be really quick. I really, I just want to align myself with Senator Allen's comments. Right. So as Mister Brennan knows, I also had a bill that you folks didn't like and then liked, and I know, crazy. But this is sort of the game within the game. We know this, and it's important that we as Members, especially this Committee, are mindful of that as we make these seemingly small changes. But they're always dictated by somebody's sort of either perception or opportunistically to secure an advantage in some political climate. I'm going to support the bill today, but I think Senator Allen's absolutely right.

The referendum, the recall, super important. But also the terms within which we have the sort of, you know, people make preparations or otherwise oppose these things. Equally important. That's really what we're talking about today. And that conversation will and should continue.

Okay, thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Lightning-fast close.

Glad I get to speak finally, but through the Chair, I actually really appreciate your comments, because I think you've said it perfectly. You actually were my close today because. New Chair, new author, new day. But all of this is very fluid. I think in just the spirit of transparency and public integrity, this needs to be done. And as you can see here, it's very clear for folks, especially not having to dig through a voter guide to see who the top funders are.

With that, I respect the ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thanks. Do we have a motion? Anybody want to make a motion on this bill? Okay, thank you, Senator Menjivar. So the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations, and let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, 6-1, and it is out. So we're now gonna lift the call on all the other bills. Thank you to those who came and testified. Thank you. What's our first one? Okay, consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that's 6-0, and we are officially concluded. Thank you.