Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

[Roll Call]

Okay. We have one vote only item on our agenda, and it is ACA 6. ACA 6 was heard and failed in the Senate elections Committee on September 11, 2023. Reconsideration was granted unanimously. This constitutional amendment has not been further amended.

We will have a reconsideration vote today, which will be vote only per the custom and practice of the Senate for all legislative measures with no amendments and noticed as vote only. There will be no author statement. There will be no witness testimony in support or opposition. There will be no discussion by Committee Members.

There will be a vote. So I will now entertain a motion on ACA 6. Is there a motion? Okay, there is a motion by Senator Menjivar. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It is one. One. And it will be held on call. Great. I see Assembly Member Bonta here. Perfect timing. We're ready for you. So our next item will be AB 2041 by assemblymember Bonta. And when you are prepared, you may present your Bill.

Thank you. Thank you, chair and Committee Members. I accept the Committee amendments. To start off, I introduced AB 2041 in response to the alarming increase in political violence directed towards elected officials and candidates for office. As public servants, there is much we humbly and willingly sacrifice to serve, including spending time with our family and maintaining our privacy.

However, the one thing we should not have to sacrifice is our sense of safety, our safety of the families that support us and those who work closely with us. Unfortunately, we have seen a rise in threats against candidates and public officials, especially women, and harassment of staff serving our constituents.

A 2023 study conducted by the California Women's list found 42% of women encountered stalking at least once while on the campaign trail, with almost one in five experiencing it frequently or very frequently. This rate is 15 times higher than that reported by men.

This disparity is more pronounced among women of color, which was nearly 55%, and LGBTQ women, which was found to be nearly 53%. AB 2041 aims to protect candidates, elected officials, their families, and staff by authorizing personal security as a campaign expense and expanding eligibility for security.

In addition, it eliminates the $5,000 lifetime cap on security expenses using campaign funds, which has not been adjusted for 30 years. Lastly, AB 2041 removes the requirement for a verified threat by law enforcement to reimburse a security expense.

This is a reintroduction of AB 37 with clarifying language regarding what can be considered a security expense, along with technical language around reporting the expenses to ensure transparency. We have worked extensively on this Bill language with the FPPC candidate security is a nonpartisan issue and has previously received bipartisan support. Audrey Ratajczak will be sharing testimony on behalf of Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer.

Good morning, chair Members. Audrey Ratajczak from Cruz strategies on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney. ... Good morning, chair Members Audrey Ratajczak from Cruz strategies on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer.

I'm here today to support AB 2041 by Assembly Member Bonta and thanking her for bringing this much needed legislative forward and working on the support we had for AB 37 last year. This Bill provides necessary changes in law to protect the safety of elected officials and their families.

Under current California campaign laws, campaigns can pay for in home or office security expenses, but that is limited solely for the protection of the candidate or elected official once the threat has been verified by law enforcement.

And there's also a $5,000 lifetime cap on campaign security expenditures that has not been adjusted for inflation or the cost of living. The cap needs to be updated to reflect the current cost market for home alarm systems and other security protection measures which can easily exceed the current cap.

The process is transparent and all of these security expenses are reported on the appropriate campaign finance forms of the candidate or office holder. As an elected official. For over two decades, DA Spitzer and his family have experienced numerous concerning threats, including a stalker that has shown up to his home multiple times. Throughout his career.

He has had to implement a myriad of necessary security protections that far exceed the cap under current law. We are working with the author and for these reasons we are in support of AB 2041 and we urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support in the room? You may step forward.

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any, please step forward. Okay. We do not see any. What about opposition witnesses in the room? Okay. Not seeing any. I thank the author and the support witness for your testimony today, and we will now move on to discussion of Members. Senator Newman.

Thank you. And thank you to the authors. Gladys worth, the Bill. I do have a question, though. So with respect to the end of someone's term where there may still be political funds left, does the Bill, I didn't say any language. Does the Bill provide for the extension of security? Even while somebody might not be in office, they might still need it?

There is a clause in the Bill that allows for the actual kind of verification of the needing of that equipment. But upon the end of one's term, after a year for the tangible security expenses, you actually have to reimburse your, the Committee for the Cost of the tangible security that you've equipment that you've been using.

Well, I'm clear. So if somebody's not in office, they then assume personally?

Essentially, yes.

Even if there are campaign funds left over that might be used for that purpose?

That's verified by law enforcement, right. That's the only way it could continue. So if there was an active threat that law enforcement verified, then you could keep it beyond the term.

I don't know.

Otherwise it's due within one year.

Okay. So. Got it.

Okay. Makes sense. Okay. It makes good sense. And I will also say to the witness, thank you for being here. So I was the target of a credible threat a couple years ago, and I really appreciate the DA's active participation and concern in that case, which was resolved properly. So thank you. Glad to move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar, did you want to make any comments? Okay, I really appreciate this Bill as well. I want to just follow up on the question that my colleague asked.

So if there's personal security equipment that's in, that you have installed in your house, like an alarm system, and you would be paying for it in a monthly basis from your campaign account, and then you're no longer in office, you don't have to reimburse the campaign account for the actual cost of that equipment. Is that what I, I just want to make sure.

You have to reimburse the campaign for the cost of the equipment, but then you would take on the expense of, after a year, but then you would take on the expense of the subscription, if you will, as a personal expense.

Okay. That, I mean, it seems unnecessary to me that someone would have to reimburse the campaign for the cost of the equipment. Was that an amendment you were forced to take in a Committee or.

That was after many rounds of conversations with the FPPC, what they felt the most comfortable with.

I see. Okay. Because if a candidate has or someone in office buys, like, material for a picnic or something, they're not returning those shares and things they're not having to pay. I mean, it's essentially considered, like, consumed.

While I agree with you, the FPPC was very clear on needing to ensure the utmost responsibility was taken in the use of security devices for candidate and elected officials.

Right. Okay. Okay. I understand. Thank you. And I just want to say this is a really great and important Bill. And to me, it's so clear that this is a threat that is particular to being in office or to being a candidate for office, but serving in office. And you hear the stories, I mean, at every level.

And so I'm grateful that you're updating a 30 year old law and also just recognizing the reality of what it means to serve today. So thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

So we have a motion from Senator Umberg. I'm sorry. From Senator Newman. I'm sorry, Orange County. I was thinking. I was thinking about. Where is he from? Senator Newman. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It is 30, and we will keep it on call. Thank you for rushing over here. We appreciate it. So now we could take up our consent calendar. Proposed for consent are three items. AB 2001, AB 2582 and AB 3197. Would any Member like to pull any item from consent? Okay. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Menjavar, so let's go ahead and call. Call the roll for the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Okay. It is 4-0, and we will keep the consent calendar on call. So the next and only remaining item is from Senator Alan. But we could lift the call for Senator Portantino if you would like us to do that now. Okay, let's lift the call.

[Roll Call]

It's 2-1. We will keep it on call. Let's just let him vote on the other things really quick, just in case Ben walks it.

[Roll Call]

Okay, well, let's move on, or, sorry, it's 40. And we will keep it on call. Thank you. So now we will move on to measure SCR 157 from Allen, and it will be presented by Senator Newman.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair Members. I am happy to present SCR 157 on behalf of Senator Allen, which will withdraw SCA 2 from the November ballot.

Article 34 of the California Constitution was added in 1950 explicitly to prohibit the development, construction, or acquisition of low rent housing projects by any government entity until such projects were approved by local voters.

Building more affordable housing quickly is a priority, and Senator Allen introduced SCA 2 to put the repeal of Article 34 on the ballot as one of a host of efforts to help address the ongoing housing crisis in California.

Last year, Senator Allen also authored SB 469, which substantially addresses some of the most significant concerns about how Article 34 might be impacting housing production across the state. Unfortunately, it does not look like there's enough public support for repealing Article 34 at the present time on the ballot.

There are roughly a dozen other measures that will be going on the November ballot and reaching voters during that time. Getting their attention will be both difficult and prospectively expensive. Article 34 should be repealed from the Constitution, but the timing of this measure is suboptimal, given the current situation, or the expected situation on the next ballot.

Now, without an urgent need and with the many competing ballot priorities, it is Senator Allen's belief that it would be best to pull SCA 2 from the ballot, rather than prospectively waste time, effort and resources on a measure that may not pass at this point, but should, especially given support and some space, be more likely to pass on a subsequent ballot.

SCR 157 would withdraw SCA 2 from the November ballot and allow the Legislature to consider the best time to put the question before voters to once again try to repeal Article 34, which is in the best interests of California and the efforts to improve housing in California. On behalf of Senator Allen, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Great job. Thank you. Do you have any lead witnesses in support?

I do not.

Okay. Is there anybody in the room who would like to express support?

Good morning, Chair and Members Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Association of Realtors here today in support of SCR 157. While we do support SCA 2, which is currently pending on the ballot, we do acknowledge that it is a very crowded initiative field, and as a result, it will be be extremely challenging to properly communicate with voters in order to ensure that they make the most informed decision possible.

As a result, we are in support of SCR 157 and request your I vote here today. And we wish to sincerely thank both Senator Allen and Senator Wiener for their efforts on sea two, and we look forward to collaborating with them and the Legislature on future Article 34 repeal efforts. Thank you so much.

You are essentially a lead witness in support. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Is there anyone in the room who would like to express opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or comments or statements from Committee Members? Okay, Senator Menjivar is moving the Bill.

Would you like to close?

I respectfully asking for your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. And I will just say that I also want to state for the record that Article 34 should be repealed. And I hope that we do do that at some point, because we need to be able to build housing that is affordable so that people can live inside instead of outside.

And I was disappointed when this was being pulled, but I understand the reasoning and I hope that we do get back to it. So with that, there is a motion on SCR 157, and it is do pass by Senator Menjivar. So, assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's 5-0. It's on call. And we could lift the call for Senator Umberg.

[Roll Call]

It's 2-1 on call. And let's lift the call on all items for Senator Umberg.

[Roll Call]

It's 5-0. We'll keep it on call.

[Roll Call]

5-0. We will keep it on call. Okay, thank you, Senator Umberg.

Good to see you. Thanks for stopping by.

So we will now. Oh. So we will now go into a brief recess. Okay. The Senate elections is back in order, and we are lifting the call on all items for Senator Nguyen.

[Roll Call]

It is still 2-1 on call.

[Roll Call]

6-0, we'll keep that on call.

[Roll Call]

It's 50. We will keep that on call.

[Roll Call]

6-0 We will keep that on call. Thank you, Senator. We will go back into a recess, but will come out shortly. Elections Committee is now back in session, and we will be lifting the call on the remaining items in a short second here. Okay, the call is lifted, so please call the roll.

This just shows I've been listening to this. Here we go. Sorry.

[Roll Call]

2-1. The measure fails.

[Roll Call]

It's 6-0. It passes.

[Roll Call]

7-0. It passes.

[Roll Call]

7-0. It passes. Okay. Thank you to all the individuals who participated today. If you are not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggest in writing to the Senate Committee on Elections and constitutional amendments. The Senate Committee on Elections and constitutional amendments is now adjourned.