Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

We have three measures on our agenda today. We do want to begin by welcoming Morgan Branch, who will now be the Republican consultant to the committee. Morgan does add this to the work he already does at the Republican consultant for the Senate Judiciary Committee. So welcome, Morgan, and we look forward to working with you. Before we hear presentations on any of the bills, let's establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Two Members here at the moment. If I could turn the gavel over to Vice Chair Dr. Choi, I could present item number 3.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead. The first bill we'll be hearing will be bill number 73 by Chairperson Cervantes. And when you are prepared, you can go ahead, make a presentation.

Thank you, Dr. Choi, Committee Members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 73 today. Plainly put, our election systems have been under attack. In California, a key pillar of President Trump's descent into authoritarianism is his plan to undermine the cornerstone of our democracy, the right to vote. He has been clear about his desire to attack voting machines.

In addition, his followers at the Department of Justice are suing at least one county in California because they refuse to bend the knee to his whims. We cannot stand idle by while our democracy is dismantled piece by piece.

That is why last year, this Committee and this Legislature approved my Senate Bill 851, which bolstered California's defenses against federal interference in our elections in time for the Nov. 4 statewide special election.

As you know, during that special election, the United States Department of Justice sent election monitors to voting locations in five California counties, all of which have been large population of Latino voters, including in my own county of Riverside.

That is why Senate Bill 73 builds upon SB 851 by prohibiting county registrars from allowing federal agents from inspecting voting machines.

In case you're under the delusion that this is not a real threat, remember that last summer, President Trump made false statements declaring that many of the legitimate voting machines used in our county, including in California, are inaccurate. Indeed, just over this past weekend, the New York Times released an interview they did with President Trump.

During the interview, the President says that he regrets not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states in the days after the 2020 election. As the old Maya Angelou quote goes, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

The President is already telling us what he plans very well could be for in the midterm elections that are going to be taking place this year. It is clear he is willing to violate every constitutional norm we possess to try to stay in power.

This is why SB73 has an urgency clause, so that all these protections are in place for the June statewide primary election and beyond. If we lose our democracy, we lose not only a piece of what makes us fundamentally American, but also our best defense to safeguarding the freedoms that we hold so dear.

I respectfully asked for an aye vote on. SB73.

Do you have any witness in the support of your Bill? If not any opposition, major opposition, if not from the public in support of the Bill? You can line up.

Mr. Chair and Members, Tim Cromarty on behalf of the Secretary of State, Shirley N. Weber. The Secretary supports the broad concept of SB73 and applauds Senator Cervantes for bringing this measure forward.

We have submitted to both the Author's Office and the Committee what we believe to be friendly amendments, refining the language and, in particular, providing the counties with detailed guidance on how to handle requests for inspections of their voting systems. We would urge that the respectfully urge that the authors accept those amendments.

Any other in opposition or approval support? If not, then let me return to the Members of the Committee. Senators Durazo, any comments? Okay, Bill has been moved. Since we don't have that many Members to speak on, let me add my comment.

I know as only Republican side Member of the Committee, I feel like I am the only one who has to rebuttal or defend the Republican principles. The author's presentation mainly focuses on President Trump mentioning his name. I don't know what the authority individually just he mentions that will be implemented.

As you all know that federal guideline exists and prevent the Department of Justice from obtaining voting machines and other equipments for inspection without the federal grand jury subpoena power. So this Bill is I think unnecessary.

And the just over exaggerating the phenomenon that may take place is just because he mentions that he may have the power to go to any local government and inspect the voting machines, confiscate the voting machines, but there has to be process under the subpoena power approved by federal rules. So I think this is unnecessary.

It's beyond our state power to prevent that. That's a federal issue to me. So with that I would not be able to support that. Okay. If not the motion has been made. No other comments. I see. So Clerk, would you like to make a final. Comment?

Yes. Again, SB73 will help local governments facing attacks from the Federal Government by providing the Secretary of State and DOJ with the opportunity to help defend against said attacks. I do also want to just make a quick comment. I do look forward to working with the Secretary of State.

Given that the language for this Bill originally came from the SOS Office. I want to, you know, continue working with them as this Bill does, move through the legislative process to make sure that it's both effective and can be administered accordingly. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The Bill is currently stands as 2-1 and leave it open for Members to come in later. Had to add on. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Given that we do have a Committee Member who is on their way from another Committee to present, I will just take a quick moment here to say a few thank yous. I will put that on hold because Senator Allen just stepped in. So file item 1.

This is SB 401 by Hurtado being presented by Senator Allen. Thank you.

That's correct. Yeah. So Senator Hurtado has asked me to present SB 401. So this is a bill that authorizes the FPPC to extend the filing deadlines for statements of economic interest during declared emergency situations.

So as you all know, under the Political Reform Act of 1974, elected officials and certain employees of state and government agencies, they are required to periodically file statements of economic interest. Those are the Form 700, those kinds of things that promote transparency and public accountability.

Now, the current law imposes a late force filing penalty of $10 a day, up to $100, in addition to any other penalties or remedies under the act when those statements are not filed by the statutory deadline.

But we've had some widespread disruptions, such as the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020, the devastating Eaton and Palisades fires in early 2025. And you had situations where filers were displaced, they lost access to certain records, they were otherwise unable to comply on time due to circumstances that were largely beyond their control.

Now, the problem is that current law provides very limited tools to the FPPC and authority when it comes to filing deadlines. They've got to go through this crazy multi-step process. They can't act independently, which then results in delays, increases in administrative burden.

There have been a couple incidents where the Governor stepped in and issued extensions, such as for assuming and leaving office statements. But you know, those actions that he took in those circumstances didn't provide clarity for the Form 700 filings, which then created confusion and stress for affected filers.

So yeah, the FPPC was concerned that then individuals that had been impacted by these declared emergencies could then face penalties despite acting in good faith and despite the disruption to their lives. Even if the FPPC was happy to sign off and say, hey, we understand you've gone through this. We'll give you some extra time.

So what this bill does is it provides a narrowly tailored solution by allowing the FPPC to respond promptly and consistently during declared emergencies. It ensures, thus ensures fairness while preserving the integrity and enforcement of the Political Reform Act.

So I know that the author appreciates the committee's analysis and looks forward to working with the FPPC and the Governor's Office to ensure that the bill's language is clear, workable, and appropriately limited. And with that, we actually have Lindsey Nakano, who's the senior legislative counsel for the FPPC, who's here in case folks may have technical questions.

Thank you. We will now move to lead witnesses in support.

I think Lindsey's here in case people have questions for her.

Are there any individuals who wish to step up and issue remarks in opposition? Seeing none. We could move it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Dr. Choi.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Initially I was a little bit concerned the broader power of FPPC to determine under what situation there are the emergency situation. But now in the definition I do see that emergency situation means emergency proclaimed by the Governor or the local government.

So he's not determining what the emergency situation is, only when local or the state state government has declared the emergency situation that defines qualifies the emergency situation. Right? Okay. Second concern is that extend filing deadline. That is the only thing I seem to find in the language, but no definition of one week, one month. How long or is it going to be determined situation to situation by the emergency or location FPPC will determine? Can you define that?

Yeah. My understanding is it gives discretion to the FPPC, though they would, though presumably it would end when the, it would have to end when the state of emergency was ended. But I don't know if Ms. Nakano wants to give additional commentary, but I would... It's my understanding they give discretion to FPPC as long as it's within the contours of the state of the emergency declaration.

Hi. Lindsey Nakano, senior legislative counsel with the FPPC. The commission doesn't have a position on the bill at the moment. But to answer the technical question, and it was regarding the duration of the extension. The bill would give the commission the authority to make that extension. And depending on the severity of the emergency and what the commission deems appropriate for that extension, it would depend on the circumstances.

So the number of days or months of extension period will be decided the situation, case by case, is that what you're saying?

Yes, case by case. As the language reads today, there is no set deadline or limit. It would be on a case by case basis.

I wonder. I'm trying to interpret this bill more positively. As an elected official, annually I'm required to filing such as economic interest Form 700 or candidates depending upon their schedule when they have to file certain documentations.

So from the elected official's point of view, it could be advantageous. But a lack of the period and determining the situation severity, how long it'll be extended by case by case. That's the kind of vague. I'm struggling whether I should support the bill or not support the bill.

I mean, presumably the FPPC, this is a, I mean, you know, this is not a... I mean ultimately, I guess it comes down to the extent to which you trust their judgment in a situation like this. I just, you know, from my experience with the commission, I don't, I don't think that they would...

I don't get the sense this kind of thing would be abused. But certainly happy to talk to the author. We can all work with the author about further defining the discretion, within reason. Did you have a chance... Well, I don't know if Madam Chair has thoughts on...

One moment. I want to go move to Senator Durazo, and then we can bring it back.

Yeah, I just was wondering based on what the Senator just said to go back and talk about this because I think it's a reasonable issue to bring up where give it a little bit more definitely here, as far as the timing of when it would, you know, like on the...

Was it the income tax returns that were put off in LA County? Right? It was just LA County because of the fires. So that was put off, but with the date specific, you know, by the, by the Governor. So I think there's reason to say is this going to go on forever? Is this going to be... You know, make something more specific. So you would talk to the author. I would...

Wouldn't it be more advantageous to add specific date, for example, 30 days before it comes down to the floor? Is there any downside?

Yeah, I think you can give the flexibility that was explained to us by case by case, but the definity of the date even when that decision is made I think is reasonable to request. Does that make sense? Okay. And then...

You know, I'm not the author. Her staffer staffing the bill is here. Maybe do you want to comment? I don't know. With the Chair's permission.

Yes, I think the intention of Senator Hurtado was to have a deadline, not make it extended. But yes, we do need to define, you know, what that would be, but I don't have... I guess we need to chat with the FPPC about that.

That is my understanding as well. I know, understand that the author will be working on those details and technicalities with the FPPC. Senator Durazo.

I think you're right, so I'm happy to...

Having said that, I will move the bill.

We have a motion by Senator Durazo. Senator Allen, would you like to close?

I appreciate the discussion, and it's a good... It's a fair point. I'll certainly talk to the author and the author's office about, you know, help to steer. I think we encourage our friends from the FPPC also to help us.

Maybe there's a way to either have a... I mean at the very least I think it shouldn't extend beyond the a reasonable time beyond the declared state of emergency, and we could maybe put in a maximum amount of time, but these are things I assume the committee will want to work on. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Allen. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

4-0, that bill is on call.

So, I will move very quickly as we wait for our last presenter to arrive. As many of you know, this is my final hearing serving as Chair of this Committee, and I won't be going very far.

I'll only be a few seats down as I will remain a Member of this Committee, which I am excited about, but given that this is my last hearing, I do want to just make a few remarks. I know that we had a pretty exciting and eventful 2025. The Committee wasn't necessarily prepared, but we were ready to go on day one.

We navigated a new world where the President declared war on our sacred right to vote. We were able to act on what we learned in 2024 election cycle and reform the signature curing process. We gave Californians the opportunity to go to the ballot box and have their voices heard to protect their voice in Congress.

So, it was a year to be proud of and what we accomplished together. But I will tell you that none of this is possible without the committed hard work of this amazing Committee Staff. Thank you for your individual work and your assistance and late nights.

I do want to first start by acknowledging Carrie, who we've had the opportunity to work together for several years in the Assembly. We've had plenty late-night votes and robust policy discussions, and grateful that, you know, you were here.

We got here at the same time and, you know, that was exciting for me when I found out that I was chairing the Committee and that Kerry, that I got to work closely with Kerry again, as you, you know, many of you know, just, you know, Carrie has attained heights that few in this business do.

You know, she is such an asset to this Committee, to this body, to the Senate. I'm so grateful that she is in the Senate with us here. But just thank you, Carrie, again for all your work.

Thank you.

Through and through.

And Scott, and of course, if anyone has had the pleasure of getting to know Scott, his love of election policy is unmatched, maybe only by that of the Athletic A's. And finding the best food in town, as I've learned. But as the longest tenured Member of this Committee, Scott has served as the committee's institutional memory.

And so just want to, you know, thank you, Scott, for your work day in and day out. I appreciate you. And I want to also thank Rita, who keeps this Committee on a straight and narrow path. She's done so much work to keep the Committee going. I'm grateful for the work that you've done.

And for those of you that may be unaware, last year Rita was profiled as a rising star in the Capitol Community by Capitol Weekly. And so, I know that she has a great dedication to the Committee and the work that it does.

And I just admire you for the leadership that you provided me through this Committee as well. And so, I know, I look forward to seeing what you'll do, continue to do in our capital community. But with that, it's been an honor to serve as Chair of the Elections Committee.

And I look forward to seeing you all in my new role in Appropriations. With that, I will now turn it over to our last item on file. We have Senator Umberg. You could please begin when you are ready. We have filed Item 2SB. 46.

Thank you madam Chair and Committee Members for your patience. A special thank you to Kerry Cornwell and also to Scott for your good work on this bill. Here's the purpose of this bill, Purpose of this bill is to basically make sure that the US Constitution Constitution is followed.

I think it's perfectly clear that someone who has been President of the United States can only serve two terms. That's been clear since Franklin Roosevelt left office or since the amendment was passed. I think it was President Truman was President when that amendment was passed.

But apparently there's at least some people in the United States that are confused about that. One person in particular is very confused and hints that that he can serve a third term.

While I think it's abundantly clear, we want to make sure that it is clear that at least in California that you can't appear on the ballot if you've already served two terms as President as standing for office as President of the United States. And thus that's what Senate Bill 46 is about.

It amends the Elections Code to ensure the Secretary of State has the legal authority to to remove someone who is constitutionally ineligible to be a candidate for President or Vice President. So why do we need this bill?

We need this bill to basically, at least as to California, put to rest the notion that the current President can serve a third term. With me here to testify and support are Ms. Deborah Perlin with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Professor Matthew Coles, professor from UC Law, San Francisco.

So thank you both for being here. Madam Chair, turn it back to you.

Please begin when you are ready.

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear at this hearing in support of pending legislation to make a technical change to the California Elections Code to give the California Secretary of State authority to remove constitutionally ineligible candidates from the ballot.

This removal would only occur following an investigation and in accordance with due process, similar to how the process works in other states like Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin and Rhode Island, among others.

My name is Deborah Perlin and I'm the Vice President for Policy at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or crew, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated committed to ethics, transparency and accountability in government. Secretaries of State are integral to our electoral system, administering both state and federal elections.

This can include certifying election results, testing election equipment and overseeing campaign finance reporting requirements. In addition, Secretaries of State play a crucial role regulating ballot access to maintain the integrity of the electoral system by barring individuals who are constitutionally ineligible to run for or or hold office in every state plus the District of Columbia.

This responsibility has been used by the Secretary of State or relevant elections official to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot, including presidential candidates who do not meet the necessary constitutional qualifications.

However, in California, this authority is in question because of a 2010 California Court of Appeals decision in Keyes v. Bowen where the Court held that the Secretary of State, State, quote, does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a President meets the qualifications, qualification, eligibility requirements of the Constitution.

This conclusion is inconsistent with the California Secretary of State's oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and could lead to absurd results. For instance, a major party candidate for President could be an 18 year old or an individual who is not a natural born citizen like former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger leaving voters without a meaningful electoral choice because their party's candidate could never constitutionally take office. But this doesn't have to be the case in California.

This body, through a technical change to the state's electoral laws, can overturn Keys versus Bowen and guarantee that the Secretary of State has the power to ensure that the state's presidential ballot is consistent with the law and the Constitution. Thank you and I'm happy to answer your. Questions.

Chair Cervantes and Members of the Committee. My name is Matthew Coles. I'm a professor of Constitutional Law at UC Law, San Francisco. Thank you for asking me here today for my view on the constitutionality of SB46. I think SB46 is constitutional. It's pretty straightforward actually.

The Constitution lays out the qualifications for President of the United States in Article 2 in Section 3 of the First 14th Amendment, which bans somebody who's participated in insurrection and in the 22nd Amendment, which bans somebody who's already been elected President twice.

The Constitution then gives the Federal Government the power to set the day for election and the day in which the Members of the Electoral College cast their votes. And the 14th amendment gives the Federal Government power to enforce the insurrection. Ban. But that's. It. The Federal Government plays no other role in presidential elections.

They are entirely committed to state government. The rules to be set by state legislatures and to be enforced by state governments. That means that those qualifications that are set out in Article 2 and in the 22nd Amendment have to be enforced by the Secretary of State. It's clear the power that the states have to administer elections.

And if the Secretary of State or the state didn't have to have the power to enforce it, nobody would and the qualifications would be completely meaningless.

It's true that a little less than two years ago, the Supreme Court said that the state of Colorado could not take Donald Trump off the ballot because of Colorado's view that he had engaged in insurrection. But the court was very careful to base that on the language of the 14th Amendment.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bans insurrectionists, and it also gives Congress the power to waive that ban. And Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment. There's nothing like that in Article 2. There's nothing like that in the 22nd Amendment.

There's no power given to the Federal Government to enforce it. So because the General power under the Constitution to run presidential elections goes to states, it has to be the state that would enforce the qualification rule requirements. I won't tell you I'm 100% confident that the current Supreme Court would view it that way.

I think the current Supreme Court has a habit of kind of drifting away from the language of the Constitution occasionally and engaging in their notion of how things would best be run. But I can tell you I'm 90% confident they wouldn't do it because the language of the Constitution is so clear.

And that, to me, says this is clearly constitutional. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? See None. Any witnesses in. Opposition?

Madam Secretary and Members, Tim Cromwell on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley and Weber? We are not in opposition. However, we do have significant concerns. With all due respect to Senator Umberg, whose rich experience in the Legislature dates back at least to the 1990s. W have. We appreciate your institutional memory, sir.

We do have serious concerns about any legislation that would grant or impose investigative powers to the Secretary of State's office in connection with candidates. As we do not currently engage in candidate investigation, we strongly believe that the function of the Secretary of State in this area is and should remain purely ministerial.

We are also concerned that SB46, as written, will have the effect, intended or not, of politicizing our role as it entails discretionary decision making that we do not currently engage in.

We have proposed to the authors, staff and the Committee alternate language that adopts a simpler approach, prohibiting the secretary by operation of law from placing on the ballot any presidential candidate that violates the 22nd Amendment. We do appreciate the spirit in which the Senator brought this language forward.

We simply believe there's a better approach if there is a strong desire for an investigating entity. We have suggested that the Attorney General be empowered to appoint an independent special counsel for that purpose should it become necessary. This, hopefully, will serve to depoliticize any subsequent action. Thank. You.

Thank you to all our Witnesses. We will bring it back to the Members if we have any comments or questions. Senator.

Allen, let me start by asking the author about Secretary Swede's concerns, which is very different than the constitutional issues. This is an implementation question, I guess, but they're concerned about this investigatory. Well, would you mind responding to the. Concerns?

Well, I have great respect for the Secretary of State and her staff, and we are working with them. The vision of the bill is to preclude someone who's two terms from appearing on the ballot in California. The actual implementation. We're working on it. I understand the Secretary of State's concerns about an investigation.

I think we're going to be able to work with that and make sure that we don't increase their responsibilities and turn them into an investigatory agency.

I think that in terms of being able to create a, perhaps a more simple approach, I think we can do all that and we're in the process of working that out with the Secretary of State. But I think we'll get to that place.

Right. Because right now it's more broadly written about broader eligibility and involves a certain degree of constitutional interpretation by the office.

Well, I don't know that there's much constitutional interpretation. I mean, if you're 35 years. Old and you're.

On the insurrection question, for example.

Well, we don't. That's not part of the bill. In other words, in Colorado, as I understand it, they passed a law that said if you're part of the insurrection, you can't basically run for President. That's not, that's not what this is about. This is simply about if you've served two terms, you can't appear on the ballot.

So I'll be happy to turn to Professor Coles.

So it might be helpful. I'm happy to answer the insurrection question. So the decision in Anderson limited its reasoning to the 14th Amendment, and the re what it said was that states cannot afford enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officials.

So as the qualification or disqualification is currently understood by the Supreme Court, the Secretary of State could not enforce it absent a statute passed by Congress. So there.

I would encourage this Committee not to focus on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment when you're thinking about this legislation, because under current Supreme Court precedent, the Secretary of State cannot enforce that disqualification absent a statute passed by. Congress.

Is that partly because of the explicit language of the 14th Amendment that talks about congressional authority. To. Because of Section 5, which is. And is silent in this other area? Absolutely. And why are you only at 90% surety. I mean what you know on the two term question. I mean again, I mean I.

Think any further professor of constitutional law today who says they're 100% confident of what the current Supreme Court is going to do is probably not.

But is there any way to read the Constitution to authorize three. Terms?

I certainly don't think so. And I actually before coming I read the justifications that I've seen put out in various places for why the current President might be able to do that. And I don't think they make any sense.

Right. And they, they typically involve him becoming second the speaker of the House so that then he can or you know, he wouldn't be elected but then he's in line and everyone resigns to.

Get someone to read the word consecutive into the 22nd. Amendment.

Uh, huh.

Is not there.

Okay, we're going to move to. Senator.

Yeah.

Thank you President.

Listening to bill's presentation I feel like I'm a Member of the U.S. Supreme Court Judge making a constitutional interpretation and the judgment I thought originally my understanding of this Bill was additional conditions that our Secretary of State will have the power to impose upon the candidate name to be included in the state of California election ballot.

But this one seemed to be more concerned about the eligibility of the one President running for three times. I don't know whether the election Committee of the Senate of California is to determine that thing. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. It's confusing to me.

My common sense was that anyone could run for President of the United States as long as constitutionally prescribed qualifications which I remember as you gotta be 35 years old and a naturally born US citizen which excludes me automatically. I cannot run for President of this country because I was not born here. I was a naturalized citizen.

So it specifically tells you who's qualified to run and true term or not, it is not. The Committee of this California Election Committee will determine. This is above and beyond my head. I wonder whether that is responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if anyone attempts that kind of things.

And you are focusing, focusing upon current sitting President Trump. There was a rumor I heard but whether he will file or not file his attempt and if he does, I don't think he's not that naive. Just run has to be cleared judgment. I don't know whether there is a Federal Election Commission who determines that qualification or not.

For example, if I run for President they will investigate was Stephen Choi. Sounds like he's a foreigner. It doesn't sound like he's a naturally born US Citizen. Investigate and they may tell me you are not qualified that body who will determine that kind of a determination who's qualified or not qualified?

Qualified or the federal issue, whether that determination is national, Federal Election Commission or the Supreme Court. If you can tell me who has that authority.

What I'm worried and confused is that this bill is acting like each state will have a Secretary of State of each state will have Department power and authority to determine that the qualification of the federal constitutional issue of who's going to be qualified or unqualified to become the candidate of the United States.

So if this bill happens to pass and California Secretary of State will have that, the supreme power. No, I'm not going to put you in our states a ballot and that means Arizona or Florida or Pennsylvania. Oh, California does that word and this country would become Poland of chaos.

There has to be centralized power, not individuals of 50 different ways. I thought that this country was a United States of America. We are all united to obey the Constitution and act as such, but not individual. Play.

Thank you, Dr. Choi. Would the author lead witness like to.

Respond? Sure. Let me just respond to Senator Choi's concerns. I could not imagine doing this bill two years ago. I could not imagine doing this Bill but for the fact that the President of the United States and Professor Dershowitz somehow think that he may be able to serve a third term.

And so the purpose of this bill is whatever mechanism we ultimately arrive at is to prevent in California someone appearing on the ballot who's already served two terms. I agree. It seems to be clear from the Constitution. Professor K. Cole says he's 90% sure.

Well that the Supreme Court would find as such he has greater confidence than I do. To tell you the truth. I see that the current Supreme Court seems to bend to the will of the President of the United States on some very clear issues.

The fact that the Supreme Court is considering whether or not someone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States astounds me. Just astounds me. But putting that aside, putting that aside, that we want to make sure in California that that is law.

And the fact that other states may do the same, from my perspective, that's good because it is so clear in the Constitution that that's what the law of the land is. Now again, as to whether or not this particular mechanism becomes the mechanism, I am not wedded to that particular mechanism.

What I am wedded to is making sure it is crystal clear in California and if other states adopt it, good for them that someone can't be President for a third term.

Now, I would love to see Barack Obama serve a third term as President, but I would fight just as hard to make sure he can't run for a third term as I as I am and would considering this President.

Okay, my final report and then I'll quit here because it's going to be all day long end this debate. Is that based upon your comment I come up with the idea of Supreme Court says our constitution says this and this and Mr. Trump can run for a third time.

Let's suppose that has happened based upon whatever legal findings were ruling and then state of California, Secretary of State will overrule their power by passing this.

Is that your question?

That's my question. Why if we, I mean to me we don't have the power, this is a mute exercise that we are wasting our time.

Well obviously I disagree that this is a waste of time. I would agree it would be a waste of time if there weren't some who were suggesting that the President could serve a third term.

If the Supreme Court should say and should somehow find that this President can serve a third term and California passes a law that says that person can't appear on the ballot, then I suppose we'll have another lawsuit and Professor Coles and others will argue that point. But I want to make it clear in. California.

Thank you. And I believe the questions have been asked and answered. Moving into any other Committee Members, we do have a motion by Senator Durazo. I do want to just say that I share concerns made today by the author.

I do want to see you know what will happen as the bill continues to move and keenly interested in what that will look like once it returns to the Senate. I do support the bill today. I want to thank the author and those who testified in support.

The measure has been moved by Senator Durazo as mentioned the motion is due pass the the Committee on Appropriation. Secretary, excuse me one moment. I want to offer an opportunity to. Close.

Thank you to Ms. Perlin and to Professor Kohl's and I urge an Aye vote.

The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Judiciary Secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

For when that bill is out. If we could lift the call on the other two bills.

Lifting call on file item 1, SB4 1 the motion is do passed to the Committee on Labor, Public Employment and retirement. Current votes 40 Chair and vice chair voted aye. 5- 0. It's. Out.

50. That Bill is. Out.

Lifting call and file, item three, SB73. Motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. Current votes. Two One. Chair voted aye. Vice chair voted no.

4-1 that Bill is out, this Committee is now adjourned.