Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. This is the Assembly Elections Committee, and we're waiting on a couple more members before we get started. So if you are a member of this committee, we would love to see you. Alright. Good morning.

We're gonna go ahead and get started. I'd like to call this April tax day, hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. Quorum is not present, so we will begin as a subcommittee. And if members of this committee are monitoring the hearing, please come to Room 444 of the State Capitol so that we can establish a quorum. I'd like to welcome everyone who's here in the hearing room today and who's watching the hearing online.

For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person, and we are also accepting written testimony through the legislature's position letter portal. That portal can be accessed through the committee's website at aelc.assembly.ca.gov. The committee has 19 measures on its agenda for today. Seven bills are proposed for consent. When we hear the bills on the agenda, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the bill with a limit of two minutes per witness.

As a reminder, primary witnesses in support are those who are designated by the author. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, and their position on the bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California.

In order to facilitate the committee's business and public participation in today's hearing, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action. And I have one more announcement. Our chief consultant had a birth date last week, and I'm calling you out and wishing you a happy birthday. And and with those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to our agenda. So, again, we don't have a quorum, so we will take up the consent calendar later, and we'll move on to our first item of business.

And the first one to show up today was Assemblymember Pacheco, and you are item 12 AB 2592. And you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, madam chair and member. I just wanna start by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. AB 2592 transfers responsibility for the lobbyist training course from the legislative ethics committees to the fair political practice commission beginning 01/01/2029. The FPPC will develop and maintain their curriculum in consultation with the legislative ethics committees and will offer the training online and on demand for lobbyists statewide.

The bill enables the legislative ethics council to focus on their core responsibilities while ensuring lobbyists receive training directly from the agency that oversees lobbying law.

AB 2592 also makes the training more accessible by allowing lobbyists to complete it on on demand and at a time that works for them. And with me today to in support is Lindsay Nicanos, senior legislative counsel at the FPPC. And I'll hand it over to her.

Then you have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, assembly member. I'm Lindsay Nicanos, senior legislative counsel with the FPPC. The commission is the sponsor of this bill, and I'm here on behalf in support. The FPPC is generally charged with educating and advising those regulated under the Political Reform Act on their duties under the act. This includes advising on the lobbying rules outside of the training that is the subject of this bill.

Given this duty to advise, FPPC staff are the experts on the state's lobbying laws and are the most up to date on relevant changes to applicable statute and regulation. The commission is thus well suited to take on this training. Shifting to an on demand model will also assist lobbyists in fulfilling their training duty, which is part of the lobbyist certification requirements and which will also add convenience for lobbyists and help facilitate compliance. Thank you to the committee, staff, and the member for authoring this bill.

Is there anybody else in the room who would like to, jump on as a me too in support of this measure? Seeing none. Anybody here in opposition to this measure? Come on up.

This is a quick, oppose unless amended. We don't have a letter in, and we will send in a letter. But we suggest that the training be available to the public and have the lobbyists pay the fees that they're gonna have to pay. But that way, that training would be understandable for everybody to understand what's happening, to know what the regulations are for lobbyists. Thank you.

Very good. Anybody else in the room with an opposed position? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dias. Any members have questions, comments? Assemblymember Stephanie.

Thank you, chair. I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I definitely agree that leveraging the expertise of the FPPC, for this training is a practical step, that can improve access and consistency and ease the workload burden of the ethics committee staff. And as cochair of the legislative ethics committee, I just wanted to make sure that we preserve the legislature's responsibilities for our own policies, particularly when it comes to harassment prevention and workplace standards.

And I know that committee staff recommended in their analysis a simple amendment to ensure that the legislative ethics committees retain final approval over the portions of the training that relate to the legislature's policies against harassment.

And thankfully to the author, I know that you've committed to making that change, so I will be supporting that, your bill today and, going forward. So thank you so much. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, you may close.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time becomes available.

Thank you so much. And certainly given that the Fair Political Process Commission has the primary responsibility for the administration enforcement of the political reform act, it makes sense that we have them do the training, and I appreciate your willingness to take our amendments and and to ensure that the legislature has the final authority over training related to its policies against harassment. So I will be re recommending a support position. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. We have another author in the room, and that would be for item 11, AB 2573 by Sharp Collins. And you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, madam chair and members. I am pleased to present AB 2573, a measure that strengthens and clarifies California's confidential voter registration program for candidates and elected officials. Last year, I authored A Bill third AB 1392 to expand California's confidential voter registration program to include eligible elected officials and candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. That legislation recognized a growing reality.

Individuals who step forward to serve in public office are facing in the increasing risk to their personal safety and the city.

Conversations outside the room? Hello? Could we take conversations outside, please, so we could hear the author? Sorry. Excuse me. You may proceed.

Thank you. Alrighty. And and the safety of their families due to their private information being made publicly available. This includes sensitive identifying information such as their home address and phone number. As counties begin implementing AB1392, they encounter practical and administrative questions.

Without clear statewide standards, there has been variation in how eligibility is determined, the processing, and and the length of the confidentiality, as well as how it is maintained when when an official or candidate moves between counties. These inconsistencies can create barriers to to the participation and uneven protection dependent on the jurisdiction. Assembly bill twenty five seventy three is a targeted technical measure that builds on AB 1392 by resolving those implementation challenges and ensuring the program works as intended across all counties.

This bill clarifies the eligibility by confirming that both elected and appointed officials at the federal, state, and local levels may qualify for confidential voter status. It, it allows immediate family members residing in the same household of elected officials to be included in the confidentiality protections, recognizing that threats to public officials often extend to their families.

It is also, establishes a clear process for transferring confidential status when a official or candidate relocates to a New County, ensuring continuing that that they're gonna be protected. In addition, assembly bill twenty five seventy three sets consistent timelines for how long confidential status remains in effect for candidates as well as elected officials after they leave office.

It also clarifies how participation in the programs interact with with voting procedures by maintaining access to secure alternatives such as vote by mail and ballot drop off while preserving the integrity of the process. The bill continues to include exemptions that allow journalists to verify the information, maintaining appropriate transparency. AB 2573 is not a sweeping policy change.

It is a practical and necessary refinement that ensures that protections enacted in AB 1392 are are implemented consistently, efficiently, and equitably across California counties. Here to testify in support today is Tim Cromartie, deputy of the legislative affairs for secretary of state Doctor Shirley Weber.

Thank you. And you have two minutes.

Morning, madam chair and members. Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Weber. This bill is an important follow-up measure to last year's AB 1392. It contains multiple critical cleanup provisions tailored to assist the counties with implementation, and it clarifies the rules about who is protected under this bill with confidential voter status and under what circumstances.

Among the changes that I'd like to highlight are a clarification that all who are covered by, this bill must affirmatively opt in a critical change that follows existing law.

In addition, there is a provision for automatic continuation of confidential voter status for candidates who win their election and suddenly find that they have a new status as elected officials. Under such circumstances, coverage would continue until and unless the elected official opts out. Finally, family members of candidates are no longer included within the scope of the bill due to significant workload issues cited by counties. With these changes, we expect there will be much smoother implementation at both the state and local level. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to add on in support of this bill? Just come on up to the mic. State your name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning. Laura Summercott on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials in support if amended position. However, with the latest round of amendments, we're moving to support this Friday. I wanna thank the author's office and the sponsors for working with us. Thank you.

Anybody in the room who is opposed to this measure? Anyone just wanna come to the mic and say you're opposed? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais. Members, do you have any questions, comments? Assemblymember Gallagher?

So I just wanted to clarify one thing for so family members are covered or not covered under the

Family members of elected officials are absolutely covered.

Okay.

The only change has been that family members of candidates are no longer covered within the scope of the bill. And, obviously, the candidates are not yet in a position where they have political power. They're not in the spotlight nearly as much. And due to the severe workload issues cited by the counties, they requested that family members of candidates be excluded. They can, however, obviously, be covered if a candidate wins their election and makes that request.

But the bill clarifies among other things that that family member must affirmatively assign a statement that they want the coverage to protect the counties.

Okay. The other thing I'm you know, I think the core of this bill, you know, makes a lot of sense and is affordable and we supported the legislation. It was the last last session of, you know, providing that sort of safety of confidentiality of residents and and things like that. Right? Yeah.

But one concern I do have is, especially when it maybe comes to candidates, is sort of these new there's new, like, Kinda shadow candidates that, you know, Kinda come in or running or running, you know, they sort of run under, you know, saying they're of a certain party, you know, but and we've had this actually happen here recently in Ohio. You know, a person ran in a Republican primary, like, saying they're Republican when they were actually not. Right?

So if we have issues like that with candidates, does the confidentiality, like, prevent, you know, people being able to undercover information about someone who may not be doing this in the most, like, integratable way. Does that make sense?

I believe so. I think the the bill is not really tailored to cover situations like that. It it provides that there will be coverage for viable candidates, and there's a there's a threshold for what candidates are viable enough to apply for protection. But it doesn't really deal with folks who wanna essentially fly their candidacy under a false flag.

And I'm meant to address that. What all is confidential under the current law and under this bill? Just residents or are there other things that are kept confidential?

Residents. Email address, telephone number. Numbers. Things of that nature. Cell phones.

So and then, like so for example, let's say someone files a ballot statement or ballot title worksheet, you know, claiming to be, you know, of a certain occupation. And then you need to go try and do your due diligence to find out, like, hey, are they actually, you know, who they say they are and do they actually work in that industry? You know, a lot of people like to have a certain ballot title. It's can be helpful politically.

But say that's a say that's a lie and you're and you as, you know, another candidate or another organization are trying to find out verify that, would the confidentiality provisions of this, like, kinda block the ability to call that person or to to do and sometimes you only have a few days to challenge, say, like, a ballot title.

Right? Or challenge, you know, something that could be a suspicious type of representation. Right? Does it would the confidentiality provisions kind of block your ability to do that?

No, sir. They're entirely separate issues.

Okay.

Yeah. When we get I can't speak for the counties. But when the secretary of State

It doesn't block it. No. It doesn't block it. Especially if you are a current elected, you are required to show your certificate anyway. So that has to be given to verify.

And and they also have to provide their if it's for a a political a partisan office, they have to approve their party registration over the last ten years as well. That that those records are with the county. Correct.

Right. Well, right I mean, right now, under current law, you could register right before filing of any party, and then you would be able to claim. So it doesn't matter what you previously were. It's what you last registered. Right?

And and I think we're starting to see some of this type of activity, and that's the only thing I'm kinda and it it it's more in regard to candidates, not necessarily elected officials. Like you said, we already Yeah. We already know who we are.

Right? And that's all that's much more highlighted. But with candidates who maybe are trying to have made more nefarious purposes, I worry a little bit about the confidentiality protections being, like, sort of a buttress to, like, you know, to uncover What might be, you know, misrepresentations. Does that make sense? So that's the only concern I do have is just when it comes to that and maybe we could work on some language on that.

I do wanna support the bill today, but it's something that comes to mind for me.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? We still don't have a quorum Okay. But you may go ahead and close.

In closing, Assembly Bill twenty five seventy three builds upon, once again, Assembly Bill thirteen ninety two by closing the implementation gaps and ensuring that the confidential voter protections are applied consistently across counties. So with that, I do respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you so much, and I appreciate you working with the county elections officials to get this right.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Alright. We can now move on to our next bill. And just another shout out to our missing members. We'd love to have one more so we could establish a quorum, and we will go ahead and move on to Soria's bill, which is item 16. AB 2753, and you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, chair and members. AB 2753 is about strengthening trust in our democracy by ensuring that these who- those who seek public office meet the highest standards of integrity, specifically prohibiting registered sex offenders from running for or holding local or state office. One of the most fundamental values in our democracy is trust.

Trust that our elected officials have the best interest of their communities at heart, trust that they reflect the values of the people they represent, and trust that they will serve and protect their communities, not prey upon them. Current law already recognizes that certain crimes violate the public trust and rightfully prohibit those individuals from appearing on the ballot or holding office.

However, earlier this year in the city of Fresno, we learned those protections are not as strong as we believed. In February, a registered sex offender convicted of possessing child sexual abuse material announced his intent to run for Fresno City Council. He held that announcement across the street from a local elementary school. Our community was shocked, outraged, and deeply concerned that someone with that record could league- could legally seek public office.

While he ultimately did not succeed in acquiring the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot, however, this situation exposed a clear gap in our election laws, one that the public expects us to fix.

AB 2753 closes that gap. It will ensure that individuals who have committed serious offenses that violate the safety and trust of our committees cannot run for or hold public office. The bill is about accountability. It's about protecting the integrity of the institutions. And most importantly, it's about restoring and strengthening the public trust in our democracy.

With me here today in support of AB 2753 is Nelson Esparza, president of the Fresno City Council.

And if I can interrupt one moment, we'd like to establish a quorum and then take up the consent agenda. So madam secretary, please establish a quorum.

[quorum is established]. We have a quorum.

Okay. We'll take the consent calendar up later. We'll go ahead and proceed with the witness in favor. Thanks.

Just in time. Fantastic. Good morning, Chair Pellerin and members of the Assembly and Elections Committee. My name is Nelson Esparza. I serve as the president of the Fresno City Council and was a cosponsor of our council resolution number 2026-41 in support of AB 2753.

This issue is deeply personal to me because the individual, at the center of this matter named by, Assemblymember Soria, announced, their candidacy to succeed me when I was- when I term out next January. And I'm here today to speak, directly to what we experienced in Fresno and to express my strong support for Assemblywoman Soria's bill. At its core, the legislation asks a simple question, should a registered sex offender be allowed to run for public office?

And in Fresno, unfortunately, we did not have to consider this a as a hypothetical. We had someone who was convicted of possessing child sexual abuse material announce their run for office within my my district.

And what followed was weeks of disruption and distraction that pulled the city's focus away from the work that matters the most. Fresno became consumed by the reality that a registered sex offender was actively running for office within the city. The candidacy generated significant media attention, escalated to this individual holding a press conference in front of an elementary school, and drew national and international coverage from Washington, DC all the way to the UK.

My office received dozens of calls and messages from our residents about how this could be allowed, and our answer time and time again was that state law does not prohibit it. AB 2753 closes this loophole.

Running for office is a very intentional act. It requires direct and repeated interaction with the public, whether that's knocking on doors, attending neighborhood meetings, or engaging with families directly within their homes. Similarly, as as elected officials, we understand the nature of this job. We're present in schools and community centers, neighborhoods. We're invited to the public office again.

Wrap up. It's at two minutes.

Yeah.

Sure.

You know, so AB 2753 is a responsible action to add being a registered sex offender as a disqualified public office. And in Fresno, we saw in a very short time frame how our residents reacted at the mere prospect of a sex offender running for office, and I do not wish that upon any other community in our great state. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none. Anyone in the room who is opposed to this measure? Wanna just go to the mic and express opposition.

Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dias. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Bennett, then we'll go to Gallagher.

There we go. Thank you, madam chair. The- The analysis refers to the issue of where do we draw the line in terms of identifying this penalty for these offenders. And there are two bills here, so I talked to Assemblymember Addis earlier this morning about this philosophical concern also. So no matter- no matter what heinous crime, and- and these are heinous crimes, no matter what heinous crime you have, I can slice another one that's very close but it's not covered under this definition and equally heinous.

And then I can slice another one from that. And- And so and different people have different patience about where we- where we slice that line. All of those are ones that would be difficult, for assembly members to imply that they're okay with that crime because they're not okay with taking- with- with drawing a line somewhere with taking away, the this- this. And it also goes into the philosophical issue of, we have punishment, and we should meet meet out very strong tough punishment for these kinds of crimes.

But where does it- where does it end?

Shouldn't that be decided by the judge in that situation? The other thing that I'm really concerned with is, you know, Senator Wiener, you know, worked on legislation because LGBTQ plus people were getting far more likely to be charged with, you know, heinous sex offenses and- and- and all. The- They were being the implication was that they- they were being applied inappropriately and- and- and excessively in those situations.

And so I'd like to hear how you try to make sure that we address both of those issues, and I'm gonna ask the assembly member after you about that also.

Thank you so much for those questions. I think, one, you know, the council president kind of talked about our personal experience in Fresno, and it was very real. And it did take from the distraction. So it wasn't just thinking, it wasn't a hypothesis. We lived it.

For those few months, it was very distracting. There was a lot of outrage in our community, and so we're responding to that. And I do believe that, the legislature in the past has it, you know, I guess, has determined through law what- what we're gonna tolerate and what we're not. And we heard it loud and clear from our community that this is something that we didn't wanna you know, registered sex offender.

I in my personally, I don't think that you should be running for office or hold elected office because at the end of the day, we're doing a disservice to the people that you're serving.

And at the end of the day, those individuals are not even supposed to be near children. How are you gonna, you know, sit in a dais? God forbid they, you know, he would have, qualified to- to, run and then win. It- It would have been a disservice to to the community. And so, I feel very strongly about that.

I think that it is important that we delineate that, we're not- we're gonna hold people accountable, not just in terms of the punishment, but in terms of ensuring that we uphold public trust when it comes to holding elected office or running for elected office. I think what we're seeing across the news waves right now with, you know, the horrific stories that we're hearing about, people taking violating people's, you know, vulnerabilities, I- I think is a big issue.

And, obviously, that is not addressed in the bill, but I think that it is important to have this conversation. To your second point about the LGBTQ community, this bill isn't trying to target one specific community. I- I applaud the efforts by, Senator Scott Wiener to try to rectify some of those injustices, which I wholeheartedly support.

And if there are specific languages to ensure that- that, you know, those protections and those, you know, changes that have been made, we're happy to take a look at additional language. But the intent of this bill essentially is to ensure that no person that, has, you know, a record of being a sex offender ends up serving in elected office.

Assembly member, if I- if I may to kinda address the the first point part of your your question. You you you make a great point. Where where do you draw the line? And I leave that question largely to the- the work of legislature. But what I do feel certain of is that when someone commits such a serious offense and violates another person, much less a child, that- that decision should carry a lasting consequences.

That's- There really can never fully be public- public trust. And we ought to consider it not just an elections issue, but also public safety issue with respect to our public.

I- I don't disagree with you, that it should carry, and that's what- that's what the sex offender registry- registration is about. So I don't disagree with you, and I would offer to you that it's at some risk that I even raise these issues. I could have an opponent take this testimony right now and say, hey, he's- he supports sex offenders. Right?

And and all of that. But because I'm on this committee and we have to thoroughly vet these issues, that's my responsibility to raise these- these questions. I won't be opposing this bill, but I do think it's important that we raise these two issues because as patiently as you spoke about how these people should not be we can have equally patient of people coming here and taking the next slice over, from this.

So it's, not somebody who had to be registered as a sex offender, but they did something else, that, was equally bad. Or it's the LGBTQ plus people that when they were 18 got labeled with this sex offender thing.

And like you said, they're now 60 years old. They were harshly and inappropriately, you know, labeled with this. So it's something that I think we have to be extremely sensitive to, and it's also something that we have to be sensitive to the political, difficulty of having the kind of conversations that we should have so that we are able to rationally decide where we slice that line, and then have a good rationale for why it's this side of the line versus that side of the line.

And I think that's very difficult, financially difficult for- for us to be able to do so. Wanna raise both of those things.

Thank you for your response. I'm glad that I was able to, at least get those on the radar screen, but I will be supporting the bill, moving forward and hope that, you- you can find something better than I can right now as this goes forward to help us sort of be able to not- not- not have this become excessive in terms of gradually just moving this and and having this to apply to all kinds of things.

And in the middle of the night, I'll leave you with this. I- I- I woke up thinking of three or four different. Wow.

This is- That's really bad too. I mean, if somebody came and said, this this means somebody shouldn't be able to, you know, to run for office, I could equally make us very strong case for that also. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Gallagher and we'll go ahead.

Yeah. I mean, my thought here is isn't transparency the best defense? Isn't sunlight, like, the best disinfectant when it comes to this situation? I mean, I've seen many political campaigns over the years. If somebody has a criminal record, it gets exposed, right, in the campaign and people know about it.

And I think that ultimately is, you know, the people get to know that, and then they get to vote on whether or not they think that person is, you know, qualified to be in office. And it seemed certainly been on the outside looking in from your guys' situation, but it I think everybody thought this was outrageous that the guy was running. Right? And- And he got nowhere. Right?

And is definitely not gonna be elected by your community. So, I mean, doesn't that really do the job of, you know, transparency? Let people know, like, if you have a criminal record, that or if you're on the sex offender list, you know, let the people know that. You know, that's what campaigns are about. And, ultimately, I'm pretty confident people aren't gonna vote for a sexual predator to get- to be the representative.

Although, here recently, even though you don't have a criminal record, doesn't mean you couldn't be a predator or engage in predatory tactics. Right? So even in the- even in this bill wouldn't stop, you know, what we've recently seen actually what would stop it, you know, when it comes to people like Swalwell, is transparency, you know, and making sure and and people coming forward and obviously telling their stories and getting that out there and it finally being exposed, you know, what someone's doing. Right?

So to me, I just I- I wonder if- if that's really the better way to approach this ensuring transparency.

The other issue and and actually mister Bennett kind of brought it up. We have a law now that says you don't have to go on the sex offender list if there's ten years difference. So a 24 year old, you know, could have groomed a 15 year old. Right? And been found guilty of that.

And there they do not have to go on the sex offender list. Right? I think people should know that. You know? But right now under this bill, not gonna be on that sex offender list.

Right? And, so I mean, again, I just is- isn't transparency and getting that out there and and don't campaigns necessarily get these kinds of things out there to the public and so that they can decide who they want to represent them.

In- In our case, absolutely. I think that that was the case. Does that mean that in every situation folks are gonna go look to the sex registry and all that, you know, to- to get that information. I don't know if- if, you know, that will be necessarily the case.

I think we're speaking to the situation that we saw, thankfully, as you mentioned. I think even after us introducing the bill, we didn't know for sure. We had introduced a bill before. The gentleman didn't qualify. But at the end of the day for us, you know, the community in my district spoke loud and clear about what they wanted us to- what they wanted us to do.

And I think that this is the response. And so, you know, we're responding to what they wanna see. Also, I think what this bill does once we put it, you know, if it does get signed into law, if someone is in office, then, you know, they couldn't be serving if they are, if they end up being charged with, you know, a sex offense crime.

I mean, are- are there other- do you know are there other crimes where we do this? Like, if you've committed a certain crime, you cannot run for office?

There- There are a number as a

Yeah. Very specific.

A number of different crimes very specific to violation of the public trust, the Visa Power, financial crimes. I would argue that this, you know, this kind of offense is a deep violation of the public trust. You know, with respect to your comments about transparency, I think Assemblymember that everything else held constant. You know, this issue generally will take care of itself. But you know, we're in Fresno.

We're the fifth largest city in the state. There's a certain level of sophistication of politics in the campaigns that you that you had mentioned. There are many many other communities around smaller towns and cities where you don't have that level of sophistication. And folks do fly under the radar. And you see different types of corruption kind of occur in those types of settings.

But so in Fresno, it worked itself out. I fear that in other communities, it- it- it very well may not.

'Kay.

Assemblymember Elhawary?

Thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. And I think, you know, part- part of my comments are echoing some of what my colleagues have already said, and I appreciate the perspective around transparency and even thinking about, you know, like, how many ways can we slice this. April is second chance month, and a big part of the work that I've been doing here in the state legislature is around restorative justice.

And I think that it is important that we not shy away from really hard conversations, that we also ensure that folks know if someone is a sex offender on the transparency part, and that as we think about the history of the sex offender registry, who was allowed to be on it, who was mostly put on it, why they were put on it, and what it means for us to really be thoughtful about, ensuring that as we move forward, there's a clear sense of how we really understand second chances for folks as we think, you know I think Assemblymember Bennett talked about.

If you're 60 years old now and you committed something when you were younger, what- at what point do we say you have- you are- you are- you have redeemed yourself to society, and we wanna be able to acknowledge that redemption and acknowledge that, you know, there's an opportunity for you to have gone through a process of- of being able to ensure that- that that's not gonna happen again for anyone that goes through the prison system, anyone that goes through the- the- the criminal justice system that we have here.

I think if we just keep on adding more, even when we think about jobs, this is a- this is- this is a job, but in a different way. Right? Like, if we think about jobs, we just make it harder for folks who have gone through an entire system, who have paid their debt to society, to then be able to give back in some way. I partially share that because we had someone last year, or a couple years ago running for the state assembly, who had spent many years in prison. And it was important to be able to bring in that perspective, that experience.

Many of the folks who supported me while I was running for office had spent decades in prison. And it's not specifically sex offenses. But I think as we think about what it means to really understand redemption, I don't know this guy. I don't know what he did. I don't know how severe it was.

But I think as we look at what the registry includes, I think being really thoughtful about how we don't target an entire group who has gone through a process of really understanding that level of redemption that we, I think, as a body need to be really thoughtful about so that we don't continue what we've seen in terms of not only mass incarceration, but throwing people away in our society. Thank you.

And back to Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you. I- I just want to point out that at least in- in my research on this, they we this is the first time we're doing this for sex offense things. The identification of other violations are almost always about public corruption where you use the public trust already. You're in office. You were convicted of bribery.

Yes. That's- There's a clear connection to being in office and that there's a less clear, you know, connection here. You- You- You said, but they're- they're both violations of the public trust. There are all kinds of things that are the- a violation of the public trust. You know, I think of- of- of the driver that just as I am so furious with who had four drunk driving convictions, drove again drunk and and piled in and killed a whole bunch of kids. You know, that's that's a violation of public trust.

I- I- I'd- I'd be hard pressed to have a bunch of elected officials say, yeah, that- that person should be allowed to run for office. But that's yeah. So I- I could I could come with that one, which is many slices away from where we are with this. And so that's just this begins us down the road of- of a different road, and I realized it was very contentious and very frustrating for voters in- in Fresno and that- that they want that.

But I- I think peep we could fill the room with a bunch of other crimes that also people would say that they have that concern.

So, again, just trying to express that as as we start down this new- this new path, and we have two of these bills in front of us today. Thank you very much.

Any other questions or comments from members? Seeing none, you may close.

Thank you so much, chairwoman. I- I do wanna say I appreciate all the comments by the committee members. I appreciate the dialogue. I think that- that's what this process is about, having those conversations and figuring out if, you know, moving this forward and having to make additional, you know, modifications to ensure that we try to, address any potential unintended consequences.

And so we will continue on this process if we're able to get the- the committee support, and we'll be thoughtful about, you know, how this bill, will end up, getting implemented and other potential succeeding proposals.

But, again, thank you for listening, and thank you also for the questions and comments. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I- I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here today. I do believe elected offices are privileged positions, and those who commit these certain heinous crimes should face consequences. Under this bill, a person could be disqualified for life from public office even in situations where they are no longer required to register as a sex offender.

So given that fact, it's not entirely clear to me how this bill will be enforced at a situation where that's not immediately known that a candidate was previously required to register as a sex offender.

So I encourage the author to continue to work on those, provisions of the bill so we can implement it effectively. But for now, I will be recommending a support position. So, we have a quorum. We've established that.

Do I have a motion? Moved by Assemblymember Stefani, seconded by Bennett. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

This is AB 2753. The motion is do pass. [roll call].

We'll go ahead and keep that on call for the absent members.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to our next item. I believe that is Assemblymember Jackson. You're item number two.

Thanks for your patience. AB 1664. Should I do consent? Let- Let's while you're coming up, we're gonna go ahead and do the consent calendar. There are seven bills on consent calendar today.

The committee--

[Roll Call]

Does any member wish to remove an item from consent? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Moved by Assemblymember Johnson, seconded by Stephanie. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent calendar is up, but we'll keep the roll open for absent members. We'll now move on to item two, AB 1664 by Assemblymember Jackson. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, madam chair and committee members. I want to start by thanking the committee and their staff for assisting us with this bill. I will be accepting the technical amendments, that moves the sunset date of this bill to January 1st, 2030.

I'm presenting AB 1664, which would require a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official to provide written notice to the secretary of state and the attorney general no later than one business day after becoming aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election record or voting systems under their custody or control.

Recent events right here in California have made clear that existing law does not give state officials adequate notice or legal standing to respond quickly when election materials are seized or subpoenaed.

This bill addresses that gap. Here with me to testify is Tiffany Brokaw, with the Attorney General's office and Deputy Attorney General, Malcolm Brodegan to- here to answer any technical questions.

Thank you so much. And you each have two minute or you have two minutes and you're technical right now. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General within the Office of Legislative Affairs here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who's a proud cosponsor of AV sixteen sixty four, and we'd like to thank assembly member Jackson for leading on this important issue. AB 1664 is designed to improve the tools available to the attorney general to promptly mitigate any damage associated with improper search and seizure of election materials. The threat of interference in California's electoral system is increasing.

Heightening this threat, local and federal law enforcement have sought to search and seize election materials nationwide. AB 1664 addresses this threat by requiring notice to the secretary of state and the attorney general no later than one court day after becoming aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election records or voting systems under their custody or control.

This ensures that the state can act quickly to mitigate any damage associated with those law enforcement efforts, protect critical election materials, and uphold the rule of law. AB 1664 also establishes a new channel for the attorney general to intervene in any related litigation or otherwise seek any appropriate relief from the courts. It is imperative we continue efforts to maintain election integrity and voter confidence.

And for these reasons, we'd like to request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to come to the mic and express your support for this measure? Seeing none, we'll move on to, primary witnesses in opposition. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone who just wants to come to the mic and let us know you're opposed?

Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dias. Any questions from members or comments? You left us all speechless, I guess. And I- it's item number two, AB 1664. I believe you're a coauthor on it.

Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Our joint author bill, Assemblymember Berman.

Doctor Jackson, my thing says it's vehicles direct driver monitoring systems. So I don't know.

I don't know. Are you in the right committee?

I don't know. I have no idea what I'm looking at. It's that kind of morning.

But I know I joined author bill, and it's a fantastic bill. And I would like to thank you for authoring it. I'm amazed there isn't more conversation about it. It's it's I've got an old version. Yeah. That's all.

My confusion was legitimate, it turns out. It often is not, but this time it was. Now I wanna thank doctor Jackson for- for authoring this- this, you know, really important bill to make sure that there's safeguards around our democracy. And that when people who can, you know, do things for political purposes and- and- and purposes that create less transparency around our elections, which creates more skepticism amongst the public that we do things to remedy that.

Things that who would have ever dreamed that the sheriff of a county a year after the election six months after the election, would would confiscate the ballots and have his own personal county operation.

It's crazy. But that's where we are, and we need to make sure that we put guardrails in place to guard against that. So, I appreciate getting to join you and join authoring this bill that does not have to do with direct driver monitoring systems.

I- I- I would not dare author such a bill.

Thank you, Assemblymember Berman. I would you have inspired other comments and questions. So Assemblymember Bennett?

I- I just wanted to point out that the sheriff then quietly dropped the whole thing with no findings and dropped the investigation after violating sort of the security of all of those ballots by doing that. So I would like to request to be a co author on this bill also. And when you do the, robo driving bill, I'd like to be--

Any other comments or questions from members? Seeing none, Assemblymember Jackson, you may close.

When it comes to our democracy, boring is good. And we need to do all that we can to make sure that we have as many eyes on the very apparatus of our democracy to ensure that it stays boring. I wanna thank the attorney general for the quick response to this issue. And at the end of the day, we have to make sure that we maintain the integrity and the trust of the process.

And when new issues arise, we must address them quickly, efficiently, and then get back to boring.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. As a former county elections official, I was horrified at the thought that a sheriff would come in and seize ballots and election materials away from my custody. That's very troubling, and particularly since we don't know how those ballots are being stored, and what they've done with them. I mean, it's just absolutely unprecedented.

And requiring local elections officials to notify the secretary of state and attorney general of any warrant subpoena or active law enforcement investigation relating to those election records is a very, very good first step.

I also encourage the author to work with the sponsor to investigate whether we can also strengthen to make sure those ballots never leave the premises of the elections office and custody and security that they have in their- their offices. So- So that would preserve that chain of custody. And with that, I'm recommending support. Do I have a motion?

To move.

Moved by Berman, seconded by the new coauthor, Bennett. And madam secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1664, the motion is do passes amended to appropriations. [roll call].

That bill is out five to zero, but we'll keep the role open for our absent members.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. And our next author, I do not see in the room anymore. Oh, there she is. Hello. Assembly Member, Addis, you have item 15, AB 2691, and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members and staff. Today, I'm here to present AB 2691, the Public Trust Protection Act, which would expand the list of felony convictions that disqualify someone from running for or holding state or local elected office to include sexual assault and human trafficking, felony sexual assault and human trafficking. And we did have a witness that was gonna come from UC Davis, but she ended up with a class conflict, so you get me today.

But, basically, this bill will ensure that individuals who are convicted of the most serious felony sexual assault and sex trafficking crimes are not eligible to be in a position of public trust in terms of serving an office in state or local, as a state or local elected. And we do know that in California, certain felony convictions already preclude a person from running for holding state or local elected office.

I know, in the prior bill testimony, there was a question about this. So, specifically, a person is already not eligible for office if they've been convicted of a felony involving accepting, giving, or offering a bribe, embezzlement of public money, extortion of or theft of public money, perjury, conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.

And when we look back at, how this came to be, it was really because there were elected officials committing these crimes and up for election, and it was very, very difficult for the voters. And I think we're in a time in our history now where we're seeing elected officials, as well as appointed officials who are committing sex crimes.

And, we've, we've all gone through a lot on this, whether it is the alleged Swalwell victims, the folks who spoke up during Me Too, the Enough is Enough Movement, Resi Taylor, the Epstein survivors, Chavez survivors.

All of all of these survivors talk about, having been victimized by a person who had power over them and by a person who had, who they had put their trust in. And so the rationale around bringing this forward is that being an elected office is a position of public trust, but it's also a position of power.

And so if we wanna be on the prevention end of things, we have the power to make a singular decision around felony sex assault and felony sex traffic and say that in our democratic society, we just don't believe that those folks should be eligible to run for office as a form of prevention so that they're not in positions where they can manipulate others into, sex acts that they don't wanna be part of, which is what we hear from victims.

What I hear from victims every time I've talked to a sex assault victim or a sex trafficking victim, They describe the power dynamic and the trust dynamic, and so we wanna be in a prevention space. So AB 2691 would expand the list of felony convictions that disqualify someone for running for holding state or elected office to include any type of sex assault or human trafficking. And, with that, I will, close or pause.

Is there anybody in the room that would like to, register your support for this measure? Step to the mic. Your name, organization, and position, please.

Yes. Thank you. Ashley Walker with Nossaman on behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. Just wanna thank Assembly Member Addis for her leadership on this common sense measure and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Kahn representing the Victim Policy Institute in support, and I've also been asked to express support from Stand With Survivors. Thank you.

Good morning. Phoebe Hamida Hashmat from Davis, and I like to show support on behalf of UC Student Association. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody in the room who is a primary witness in opposition to this bill? Anybody who wants to register their opposition at the mic? Seeing none, I'll return to the dias. Any questions or comments from our members?

Move the bill.

Okay. We have a motion. We have a second, but we have a question from Assembly Member Elhawary.

I just really wanna thank the author for the opportunity to have a conversation about this bill. I mentioned earlier my focus on, you know, really thinking about the work that we can do around our justice system. One of the things I did wanna mention specific to the human trafficking portion is that, you know, for a lot of my district has a huge problem around human trafficking.

There's a particular corridor, the Figueroa Corridor, that unfortunately has been a space where so many young girls, especially, have been impacted by human trafficking.

Many of them are foster youth, and a lot of times what happens is in that kind of human trafficking kind of process of being manipulated and and and working with the perpetrators, sometimes those same young people who have been victims also become, a part of the trafficking problem, and they've been, they've been convicted of human trafficking as a result.

No one should be involved in human trafficking, but for young people who are foster youth who have been impacted by a system that hasn't supported them, that has cycled them in and out of foster homes, of group homes, and then and oftentimes them ending up on the streets.

What I don't wanna do is, you know, keep those young people who are who are actually survivors but have been also convicted of crimes related to human trafficking from having an opportunity to run for office. And so I just wanted to uplift that.

I think in general, sharing what I said earlier in terms of, you know, wanting to ensure that folks have second chances, but I, I really do appreciate what you said that this is a power dynamic, and folks who have taken advantage of a power dynamic should not have an opportunity, to be in a space where they're, then have even more of an opportunity to continue to exercise that level of power, and then potentially abuse it in this way.

So I really appreciate what you're doing, but I want you to know, why I'll be laying off today.

Any other questions? Assembly Member Bennett.

I would just offer the the distinction that I hear from you based on the comments that we had earlier with the other bill is this power dynamic. And we are seeing firsthand here in the news today the power dynamic keeps getting, and, and elected office is one of those places where that power dynamic can be pretty significant. So I think that's one of the compelling cases for your position here. So I'll be supporting the bill. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from members? Seeing none, Assembly Member, you may close.

Thank you so much, and I really wanna appreciate the the conversation both on the bill earlier and the bill right now. I guess the the one thing I would say or one thing that I might add is in doing legislation every year around sex assault survivors, what we have uncovered is that oftentimes, these are, this is a different kind of crime.

Often, when people commit sex assault or are trafficking, These are repetitive crimes in a way that maybe theft of food is a crime of necessity. Sex crimes often become repetitive unless there are both preventative measures put in place as well as consequence.

I really see this this bill as more of a preventative measure similar to if somebody is convicted of child sex assault, they're no longer eligible to work in schools because we don't want them to have access to children because we know that by giving them access to children, they're highly likely to commit that kind of crime again.

And so this is really about prevention rather than retribution or, you know, being angry and not giving people a chance at at restoration. And, and I know the assembly member and I talked about restorative justice a little bit ahead of the hearing, but I'm a full believer in restorative justice. I was a teacher in the classroom for twenty one years.

I fully understand, the, you know, school to prison pipeline and many of the issues, and there's nothing in this bill that would prevent restorative justice. So if somebody commits a crime and is convicted and wants to go through the process of restorative justice and the victim wants that too, they're absolutely welcome to do that.

So just to clarify, this is really about preventing people in power from having that access where they may continue to commit these kinds of crimes. And with that, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, and I appreciate your leadership on this issue. I absolutely agree that those elective positions are positions of power and influence, and anybody who has committed a crime of sexual assault or human trafficking should not be running for these positions.

And this bill is especially timely in light of our recent reports about sexual misconduct of elected officials. So we have a motion by, I believe, was it Berman? And seconded by Stefani I heard. And madam secretary, please call the roll. I'm recommending support.

This is AB 2691. The motion is do pass. [ROLL CALL]

That fills up five to zero, but we'll keep the role open for absent members. Thank you. Alright. Next up, we have item eight by Assembly Member Ransom, AB 2413. And you may begin when you're ready.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you for being here. Pleasure. Alright. Thank you. Good morning, madam chair and members.

I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2413, a bill that further protects public funds from being used for political advertising in California. The Political Reform Act of 1974 provides strong protections in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used for political advertising. This includes strict prohibitions on mass mailings featuring elected officials to ensure that elected officials aren't using government funded communications for campaign purposes.

Currently, these protections do not fully extend to large outdoor advertisement communications, like billboards and bus wraps, which vary in price depending on location, size, and format, but could range from $10,000 to $25,000 per month. And it specifically does not apply to state boards that have elected members appointed to their bodies.

Given the high cost of billboards, advertisements purchased with tax dollars should be carefully scrutinized. AB 2413 would put that scrutiny into law by prohibiting public dollars from being used for large format public advertisements that include the image of elected officials.

In doing so, this bill will further the public trust in government and ensure public funds do not go towards renting expensive billboards for political purposes. When the time comes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to support the bill, I have Lindsey Nakano, the Senior Legislative Counsel with the Fair Political Practice Commission.

And you have two minutes.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, Members. Lindsey Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel with the FPPC. The commission is pleased to sponsor AB 2413. The Political Reform Act currently prohibits certain mass mailings from being sent at the public expense if they feature an elected official or include the name, office, photograph, or other reference to an elected official affiliated with that agency.

The AB 2413 would add a similar prohibition for large format public advertisements as defined in the bill that include the photograph of an elected officer affiliated with the agency. The bill takes a measured and tailored approach to appropriately prohibit public money from being used by state or local government agencies to promote elected officials affiliated with that agency. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room who wants to add on as a supporter of this bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition or anyone who wants to come to the mic and express opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments, questions? You may close.

Okay. This is a very simple bill. AB 2413 is something most of us thought was already in existence, and it's about responsible use of public funds. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Certainly, informational and educational billboards can be helpful tools to raise public awareness about important issues in our communities. And, however, we need to ensure that public funds used for these billboards are not being used as political advertising for the elected officials affiliated with those agencies.

So thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I'm recommending a support. We have a motion by Assembly Member Berman, seconded by Stefani. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 2413, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out five to zero, but we'll keep the role open for absent Members. Thank you so much. Okay. Do we have an author in the room? Who's next? Alvarez? Oh, okay. Okay. The two that have signed in are Alvarez and Boerner.

I do not see them. Am I missing them? No. I do not see them. Okay. So then we are happy to move on to the other author in the room, who's also at the dais. Is that right? We can move on to him. Item number seven. You have two bills today? Well, well, you got two bills. Right? Three.

Okay. You're doing a hat trick today, Assembly Member Berman. Okay. You've got item number 7, AB 2281. Item number 13, AB 2604, and item 19, AJR 29.

Why don't we start with 2281 if that works for you.

Works for me.

Chair, Pellerin, and colleagues. Do I have no. That's fine. I was proud to author legislation in 2018 to establish the Office of Election Cybersecurity within the secretary of State's office.

This office is responsible for coordinating efforts to address cyber threats and monitoring election myths and disinformation. Additionally, local and state election officials have relied on federal resources and support to improve the security of their election systems. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has cut critical funding and coordination that helps states guard against threats to our elections. In response, AB 2281 would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to assess if additional resources are necessary to replace the loss of federal cybersecurity support.

This will ensure that California officials continue to have the information and tools necessary to defend our democracy from cyberattacks.

Maybe 2281 would also strengthen the Office of Election Cybersecurity by authorizing the office to consult with academic researchers, which was a unintentional omission from the first bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. No witnesses. Alright. I don't think.

Anybody wanna come to mic and express support? Anybody in the room who's opposed to this bill or just wanna go to the mic and say you're opposed? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dice. Any questions, comments from members? You've left us all speechless.

You may go ahead and close. Hold it

Respectfully ask for your aye vote

Yeah. Certainly, the changes to Federal Government's role as a frontline of defense against foreign intelligence in US elections is extremely troubling, and the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency in particular that you brought into law has been invaluable to election security. It is unclear whether state local governments can replicate the work that the Federal Government did in previous election cycles.

So that's especially true for local elections offices that are unlikely to have the resources and expertise to protect against attacks from sophisticated and well resourced actors like nation states. So this bill helps to ensure California continues to have the tools necessary to protect our elections.

I know as a former elections official, I relied on this department and this program very much, and I appreciate your work in this space. And I'm recommending support. Do we have a motion? Moved by Solace, seconded by El Hawari. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

That bills out five to zero. We'll keep it open for apps members. We're gonna let you take a rest since the summon member Alvarez is here. So you're getting the boot, and will. Alright Assemblymember Alvarez has item 10 a B2484, and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair, and committee members. Good morning to you all. It's a pleasure to be here, and I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present 2484 related to the San Diego Metropolitan Transit, system. Again, I would like to thank the the committee for the work that was done and the analysis on this bill.

And 2484 is gonna sound familiar because we've had similar issues before us in the legislature. This is related to the authority, in San Diego in the transit system that serves, well over 3,000,000 people with a, almost pre pandemic level of utilization of a transit system, which, I know in other systems we're not hearing that level of re rebound of of of utilization. But in San Diego, it has happened.

And so we wanna make sure that the transit system continues to serve, all of the people that it serves. Wanna start off by being very clear, that this bill does not create or impose a tax.

It empowers voters and them alone to choose whether to authorize a local transactions and use tax dedicated to funding the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System or MTS as we call it through a local ballot initiative. At its core, AB 2484 is about local control, the choice of voters, and planning ahead for the future of San Diego's transit system, which is really at a crossroads.

AB 2484 clarifies that voters may propose and approve a local transaction and use tax of up to point 5% dedicated to MTS through the initiative process. It also ensures that any voter approved MTS tax is excluded from the existing statutory cap that so many of our localities are now hitting in order to have revenue to protect their local funding priorities. So as I said, MTS is not just a transit provider.

It serves millions of people. And just to give you a little bit of a glimpse, 70% of riders rely on transit as their primary mode of transportation. They do not have an alternative mode of transportation. And more than two thirds of these are using it to get to school or get to work. The expectation we have of all of our citizens.

But despite this, the success, MTS is approaching a fiscal cliff as many other transit agencies are. It's projected that in 2030, the agency will face a structural deficit of more than 120,000,000, driven by rising operating costs that are,

not stagnant, but they're growing, and workforce needs and limited local funding. Over just four years, that gap could exceed half $1,000,000,000. Without action, that means real consequences. It means fewer routes for those students, for those employees, longer wait times, and higher fares, more cost to those who use it. And these are the people who likely can least afford it.

Transit in San Diego is not optional. It is essential specifically to the district that I represent. It connects people to jobs, to education, to health care. It supports housing production, and we've built a lot of housing along the transit lines, incentivize that housing, literally built on trolley and transit stations, utilizing underutilized land to build housing that's so desperately needed. So it is also important that MTS is considered as a as a partner regionally in our bi binational connector.

You hear me talk about I represent the border region. They carry more than half of the daily pedestrian crossings at our busiest port of entry in the entire world, which is in my district at San Ysidro. And, they jump onto the trolley and buses as early as three in the morning to go to work. AB 2484 provides a proactive solution by giving voters a transparent, locally controlled option to decide whether they want to invest in the transit.

Now I'd like to turn it over to a board member of the MTS system, a board that I proudly served on when I was on the city council, and I appreciate the support of council member who's joining us here today. Council member Woodburn.

Thank you. Wonderful. And you have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning, chair. Good morning, committee members. My name is Stephen Whitburn.

Aye, serve on the San Diego City Council. I also serve as the chair of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System board of directors. Thank you very much assembly member Alvarez for your leadership on AB 2484 and for bringing forward this important conversation about the future of transit in our region. For my role at MTS, I see firsthand how critical this system is to the daily lives of San Diegans. Over 77% of the people who use our system are transit dependent.

That emphasizes the need for a very sustainable transit system in San Diego. This is not, of course, an abstract policy discussion for us. This is about whether people can get to work on time, whether students can get to their classrooms, whether families can access needed services. NTS has worked very hard to, be a responsible steward of public resources. We've paid significant operational improvements.

We've increased efficiency. We maintained service during and following the pandemic. Today, we are seeing strong ridership recovery and growing demand across the system, averaging about 250,000 trips each weekday. But even with that progress, the financial challenges are real, and they are unavoidable. Without a sustainable funding solution, the people most impacted will be those who already face the greatest barriers to mobility and will be forced to make difficult decisions.

That could be reducing service frequency or eliminating routes, decisions that would disproportionately impact those who rely on transit the most. And once service is cut, it is incredibly difficult and extensive expensive to restore. AB 2484 helps to ensure that the voters in San Diego have the authority to decide the future of their transit system. It does not guarantee new funding. It guarantees a local choice.

It allows the people of San Diego to decide for themselves whether investing in transit is a priority worth supporting. Major metropolitan regions across California have already taken steps to secure long term transit funding through voter approved measures. AB 2484 ensures that San Diego has the same opportunity to remain competitive, to continue growing responsibly, and to meet the demands of a modern regional economy.

As local leaders, we believe that decision should rest with the voters who use and depend on the system every day. On behalf of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and the riders we serve I thank you and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Did did you have comments or?

Julia Tour with MTS here for technical questions.

Okay. Wonderful. Anybody else in the room who would like to add on as support to this measure? State your name, organization, and position, please.

Hello. Nate Fairman from IBEW Local 465 in support. We also submitted a support letter. It's what it looks like, and we sent it to all committee members.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Anybody wanna come to the mic and express opposition? State your name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning. Amy Garrett with the California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition to this measure this morning. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Seeing no other opposition, I'll bring you back to the dice. Any that we have Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you. I I am in strong support of local communities doing these transit initiatives as the chair of budget sub four. We keep hearing about the transit cliff that we're getting ready to to to go over, and I do think local agencies need to be able to help themselves as they go forward. So I really applaud this, and I would be supporting all of these measures across the state.

But I know it's a bit uncharacteristic to coauthor a district bill, but I feel so strongly about local districts doing this.

I'd love to be a coauthor if the author is comfortable with that Thank you. This bill to recognize appreciation for San Diego Metropolitan District doing this.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions, comments? Senator Gallagher.

Yeah. Just there was a similar bill at our last committee, and and this is kind of my essential question is why should we allow kind of a special deal, you know, for your community? Because Prop 13 and the and the progeny of that said that you have to have two thirds vote for a special use tax. Right? I mean, that's the law.

And so why should we allow that, you know, this below that threshold? And the reason for it is because, look, when you're gonna tax people, like, there should be a higher threshold before you go and and level that tax. Right? And we could change that while you could do a constitutional amendment, right, to change that and give local districts a lower threshold. In fact, that's been tried and it failed.

Right? But why should we kinda piecemeal this? And if you are, like, look, it should apply to everybody. Right? Not just certain communities.

Right? And that's why I think this is better presented as a constitutional amendment to everybody. Hey. If you want to change the law and allow this for all communities, then let's do that. Instead of sort of allowing it for, albeit a that you guys are having in your district.

Totally understand that. But why allow that in this particular instance?

Well, first, why it's localized is because the locals are in support and wanting to pursue this. And certainly, if I I have personally been supportive of anybody, and if you were to bring a measure forward from your district that you'd like to pursue the same thing, happy to support that as well as I have for others. I would also say that, you know, this is gonna could move forward. The voters could place this on the ballot. These courts have spoken about voter initiatives.

They have ruled those to be constitutional, and so we are staying within the bounds of the constitution. We will not be voting on a bill that's unconstitutional. And if there's, individuals who may think it's it is unconstitutional, they can challenge it once the voters place us on the ballot if they choose to do so and voters approve it if they choose to do so, then there could be a process at that point.

But, clearly, there's indications already in case law that, this could be allowed, and so we wanna just make sure and clarify that MTS is able to do that and not hit the cap. The other important component of this bill is there are limitations that are placed by state, by by us, and we are the only ones who can change that through this legislative process. And that's what we're pursuing here.

And then two just two last questions, and either you or maybe your witness can answer is, why not use a prop two eighteen vote, you know, which allows you to I believe they do it by by parcel. And as long as a majority of those who vote has you have to show the measure has a special benefit. Right? But doing a prop two eighteen vote, you could do a, basically, a mail ballot election.

And as long as 50% plus one of those who return their ballots pass it, that would pass.

So why not do a 218 vote? And then why is it that the transit system is losing money right now?

Yeah. I I definitely wanna turn over the MTS fiscal cliff, which I think this committee has probably heard from other bills in previous years. And I think the legislature has heard us what's happening there. But the technical numbers, I'll leave it to them. On the issue of two eighteen, you know, that's that's a a a can be used and it is used by localities.

For example, when it comes to water rates and others, you have to be a a a beneficial user. Not everyone who owns who lives in a home utilizes transit. I don't think that there's been any other, election that has been pursued, the two eighteen route. I think that's definitely much more challenging when it comes to the constitutionality because of two eighteen to go through that process. And if a homeowner is or a renter, is is, or parcel owner, it does not write transit.

You know, how are you, able to tax them? And that's why you have to go through a ballot measure and have the voters approve it. But, you know, if you have any examples of cases where that's happened, I think it'd be interesting to to look into that. As far as the fiscal cliff that, MTS is facing, I'll let them

Sure. Thank you.

So since the COVID nineteen pandemic, MTS has recovered more than 95% of our rider pre COVID ridership, and we now rank among the top transit systems nationwide for ridership recovery. However, despite this progress, we are facing an impending fiscal cliff like many other transit agencies, Menjivar driven by pandemic related revenue losses, rising workforce expenses, higher operating costs, flat sales tax revenues, and really limited local funding.

So, you know, we have developed a comprehensive financial sustainability strategy to delay our fiscal cliff and allow for more time to seek and pursue additional funding. And this clarifying, you know, change and our enabling statutes would provide another potential mechanism to address the fiscal cliff.

Okay. I did I have used two eighteen actually in my district on a flood control measure. They did a prop two eighteen boat in a in a, you know, pretty tax averse place, you know, that's not really loving passing new taxes. But when you can make the case that, hey, this is for flood control. It helps keep us safe from dangerous floods, you know, in your case.

So I think it's maybe possible to do and that it wouldn't it wouldn't require us having to do a special piece of legislation. But I do see that you guys are obviously operating well. Certainly doing better than BART. And, you know, they just got a bailout. So I guess maybe you guys need, you know, some help as well.

Yeah.

Any other questions or comments from members? Seeing none, Assemblymember Alvarez, you may close.

Thank you. To your point, mister Gallagher, there have been some difficult choices that have been made by the leadership of MTS, and that includes, unfortunately, some elimination of some routes, which has not been has not been fun or easy, to the point of of what you heard from the testimony. That has allowed them to at least, you know, postpone that fiscal cliff, but this is about planning for that eventuality. There's only so much company cuts you can do at some point.

At the end of the day, public transit is a subsidized system.

That is the truth, and it has to be subsidized in some way. That is a utilization of local resources. That is what MTS is seeking to do. They'd still have to one, voters still have to put on the ballot, and they still have to vote for it and approve it.

So there's no guarantee, and this gives us the time between now and then to do the right planning and not be facing an immediate decision in 2030 that completely changes what the, system looks like and how it serves people.

And for that reason, respectfully ask for your eye vote today.

Thank you so much. I appreciate San Diego, MTS's efforts to propose a sales tax through the initiative process. Nothing in this bill affects the voter threshold required for that approval of taxes. Therefore, I am recommending a support position. Did I have a Yeah.

A motion by Bennett, seconded by Berman. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

That bill is out six to one, but we'll hold the roll open for we have any absent members? No.

Missing a vote. But Thank you, madam chair.

Okay. Thank you so much. Okay.

Thank you.

Alright. We we see another author in the room, but I still don't see Burner. Right? No. No.

Okay. Okay. Thanks so much. So we will bring up our next author, assembly member Avila Farias. Yep. Item number five. AB 2230 And you may begin when you're ready. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. First, I would like to thank the Chair and her staff for the work on this issue, and I affirm my commitment to working with you, Senator Cervantes, who has also led the charge to defend California's election process.

My staff and I are excited to work collaboratively with you to ensure that the legislation is implemented and not duplicative of your efforts or anyone's efforts. ICE enforcement has created fear across California, impacting both citizens, immigrants alike.

AB 2230 protects two critical spaces, voting centers and childcare facilities. This bill prohibits immigration enforcement from entering surrounding, the surrounding locations, ensuring people can vote and children can learn without fear. California is home to 10 million immigrants, many of whom are US citizens and are eligible voters.

At a time when there are growing concerns about intimidation at the polls and aggressive enforcement tactics, we must act to protect fundamental rights and community safety. No parent should be, should fear losing their child to enforcement actions, and no voters should be intimidated from participating in our democracy. AB 2230 ensures these spaces remain safe and fear and free from fear and intimidation. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any primary witnesses? Or...

No. Just me, myself, and I.

Lovely. Anybody in the room that wants to add on as a supporter of this measure? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? You may step up, and you have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and fellow committees. I apologize, I do not have a letter in. My name is David Bolog representing the SFV Alliance. And I can also be as bold as to say I represent the 6 million voters who voted for the current executive administration who are very happy about the immigration enforcement. We're also happy about the way the administration is handling the gender issue. Let's let's be real though.

We, there are some there is some contention with the war, with the handling of the Epstein files, and with not pushing the MAHA movement, which has nothing to do with this. But with this, I can see where the author is a little bit concerned because both the current and the former head of the, of the Homeland Security said they wouldn't rule this out.

But the Press Secretary did say that it's a silly notion. I don't see it happening. But I do find it a little bit, as the governor would say, interesting. I find it peculiar that they're be concerned about election sites because anybody that's going to an election site to cast their vote has to be a citizen.

So there were, I don't see how anybody who's not a citizen who might be here illegally would be intimidated by that because they wouldn't be going to the polls. And also let's mention, I think it's 33 or 35 of the counties in California that are mostly populated get their ballot sent to their houses.

Now, there's also in this legislation that has more to do with the Human Services or human... Forgot the name of the committee that was testified at yesterday. I apologize. Talking about going to day care centers and having a fine of $10,000 two, three, and five years on it.

ICE will go wherever somebody is, has committed any crime and has that I205 administration arrest warrant to grab those people that have harmed people in the society. So you can put this through, but they still won't enforce that. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anybody else wanna come to the mic and express opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the dais. And we have Assembly Member Bennett.

ICE will also intimidate people of color, and I really appreciate this bill. And so I will make the motion to approve the bill.

And Vice Chair Gallagher.

Yeah. I think my question would be, like, how is this going to be enforced? And you have two issues, I think. One is we don't have jurisdiction over federal officers in California, and that's already been made pretty clear. But secondly, you know, it's not like childcare centers are, like, clearly marked.

And many of them are in community. I mean, just in in suburban communities someone can have a child daycare center. Right? And you don't, nobody knows that. Right? So how, this is within a 100 feet. Right? So let's say there's an ICE officer that's doing their job.

And they're going through a, you know, you know, in a, in a community or even with a vote center. We don't know, you know, it's not like those are necessarily marked off. We tell people where they're at, you know, so that people can go visit them and vote.

But, I mean, I could conceivably see some federal law enforcement officer, you know, being within a 100 feet and not even knowing that they were actually next to a childcare center. And then can they really prosecute that?

I appreciate the comments. So I'm actually working with the DOJ. They had reached out to me. And so we'll be fleshing all as we go through the process. They've taken an interest in this bill. And so we will be working with the subject matter legal experts as we move forward. But also with, like, you know, I'm not here to debate...

Federal DOJ?

No. The state. Yeah. And...

You might wanna work with federal DOJ because, you know...

Well, I mean, I'm, you know, again, we're gonna work with the state, and I'm sure they will connect as well. So I will have more to tease out in that space. And again...

Have they, have they successfully prosecuted a federal law enforcement officer, the state DOJ?

Have they successfully? I'm not sure. I don't have that information, but I'd be happy to look into that and get back to your office on that. But what I'm here is about protecting democracy, protecting having people being able to freely go exercise their right who are eligible voters.

Immigrants, many of us are immigrants at one point that are eligible to, you know, vote in this country. And not debate immigration policy or federal enforcement because we all know that, if we did look at the law, federal enforcement is supposed to only happen a 100 miles within the borders of Northern California and Southern California.

And so this bill is simply protecting because we are seeing unprecedented actions, violations of civil liberties, constitutional rights, and I'm trying to protect Californians to have the ability to exercise their rights of being able to freely exercise the ability to vote and not in fear, intimidation of the polling areas and protecting our childcare centers.

Do you have an example of a law enforcement raid by ICE into a childcare center?

I do not have one to bring to you, but I think I...

Like is that happening?

Is that happening? Well, we haven't had an election post these, you know, aggressive tactics where they have violated spaces. And but I'm happy if that's information that you would like for consideration...

Well, usually before passing a law, I'd like to see, like, hey, is this actually happening?

We're actually not passing a law. We're going through committee and discussing. This is what committees are for, is to deliberate.

That's the law making process.

It's a process, but we're not deliberating today. That happens on the green carpet. What I'm here again to reinforce is I'm protecting Californians from their constitutional rights being violated and protecting a vulnerable population that we have seen the past 12 months.

Been aggressively and unfairly discriminated against in many different spaces and racially profiled. So I can show up to a polling area and depending what I look like, we can have a federal ICE agent saying asking questions that are not appropriate. So keeping them off...

Has that happened?

How's that happened? I don't have stats for you today, but I'm sure it has happened. So I'm happy again to say to bring information to you where we can provide examples. But whether... Mr. Gallagher, this is what I'm gonna say to you. It's like seat belts.

You can ride a car without a seat belt and risk not having an accident, and hope that not wearing your seat belt that you can survive that. I'm trying to legislate to hope that we don't have to deal with this. And if we do have to do it, then we do have legislation to protect our community members.

Okay. I'm just asking questions about the bill. I want to get to, like, why this is...

We're doing, you know, hypotheticals. Anything can happen. Again, I'm trying to protect, given we have 12 months of history to see things that we never would have imagined to happen in our community. From people just doing their job on the streets, of selling street vendors, to people going to school.

Being brown and black in California right now is not safe for people, especially undocumented and immigrants. So again, it's the car analogy. I can jump in a car and not put my seat belt on and hope that I can make it from point a to point b and hope that nothing happens. I'm simply trying to legislate and put that seat belt on.

Yeah. So I'm just here asking questions about a bill, and that is part of the deliberative process. These committees where we get to the bottom of. And one of the first questions always is, like, why do we need this bill? And that's what I'm delving into.

People have died in car accidents for not wearing seat belts. Right? We have documented evidence of that. I'm simply asking you, do you have any evidence of this ever being a problem? And you can't even give me an example.

Well, I think she's answered your question.

if you're coming in here telling me that this is such a problem and then you don't have any examples of where a child care facility... No. I'm not, I'm not done. I'm just finishing. I'm not asking you a question.

Mr. Vice Chair, with due respect though. It should be noted that you continuously interrupted. You continuously interrupted the author when she was trying to answer your questions. So don't get defensive when...

Okay. Let's not get this out of hand.

And it was disrespectful.

And Vice Chair Gallagher, you have asked your questions. Assembly Member Ávila Farías has answered those questions. Do you have additional questions?

So I'm finishing up my statement, which I'm allowed to do.

Yes. Please proceed.

I was just asking the questions. And the bottom line is you haven't presented any evidence this isn't actually a problem. Right? And, yes, if the, absolutely, I would a 100% agree with you. If someone who is going to exercise their constitutional right to vote was stopped by an ICE officer and prevented from voting, that would be a 100% injustice.

It hasn't happened. But you're here telling me that I should have some prohibition on not not from them stopping anybody, but from them being anywhere within a 100 feet of a polling center and a childcare center. I'm saying that's not really enforceable.

And by the way, these people do need to do their job. And I think we would, I would hope we would agree that someone who is here illegally shouldn't be going to a voting center and voting anyway. Right? They're not allowed to vote. So, you know, ICE agents going out and doing their job, which overwhelmingly that's what they're doing.

And they're responsible and good people who are doing their jobs, right, are not the enemy. And we shouldn't be, like, creating these sort of red zones a 100 feet from places they might not even know as a childcare center or a vote center where they can't go and they could potentially be prosecuted.

Again, there's obviously jurisdictional issues that this committee is well aware of that we can't prosecute federal officers. We don't have jurisdiction over federal officers. So for all of those reasons, that's why I'm opposing your bill. It's not personal, you know.

It's not disrespectful to ask questions about your bill and the justifications for your bill. And I appreciate you, and I know that you care, and you wanna, you know, present your ideas. And I'm glad that you're doing that. But I also can respectfully disagree and delve into, you know, the basis for the bill.

Yeah. Thank you. You made your points. And Assembly Member Bennett.

Madam Chair, I'd just like to point out there's many documented examples of ICE agents racially profiling and targeting brown people. And so even though somebody is a citizen, a legal citizen, born here, they're brown, they could be intimidated at a polling place. I think that is the, one of the big justifications for the need for this bill. And, with that, I think we've already made the motion and hope we can vote on it. Thank you.

Yeah. Assembly Member Berman.

Well, I wanna thank the author for bringing the bill forward. It should be noted that there have been multiple instances, including instances in California, where ICE agents sought to influence the political process. For example, was it Bovino? Who is the clown who's not there anymore?

Yeah. Showed up at the Prop 50 rally that the governor was speaking at in Los Angeles. Didn't seem to be doing any actual ICE activity. Seemed like he was just posturing for the media and trying to intimidate people from participating in the political process. And the idea that... Oh, here's another example.

Was it in Tennessee, where a couple of army helicopters flew, did flybys of a No Kings rally in late March. No. And what happened? What happened was the joke of a Defense Secretary of the United States pops off on Twitter and says no problems.

No problems that you did a flyby of... Who's that has been? Kid Rock. Kid Rock's apartment. And then goes into the fly by of No Kings rallies. And so the idea that this president would not send ICE agents to intimidate legitimate voters at polling places is laughable.

This president will do whatever he possibly can to hold on to power. He's shown that time and time again. And this is a president who said, we're gonna go after gang members. ICE is gonna go after gang members in the worst of the worst.

They're not going after gang members and the worst of the worst. They're going after grandmas, grocery store clerks, and green card holders, and they're also arresting citizens. They're also... I'm speaking, Vice Chair.

We're not doing back and forth. Assembly Member Berman, continue.

They're also arresting citizens. And so I thank the author for bringing this forward. We need to put every measure in place possible to defend Californians who should be participating in our democracy from an administration that has shown that it will stop at nothing to hold on to power. Proud to support the bill today. Thank you very much.

None of those are examples.

Vice Chair Gallagher, you're out of order. Vice Chair Gallagher, you are out of order. We're gonna allow one person to speak at a time. Please. Enough.

You're allowing it.

I'm trying to bring back some decorum. Does any other Member have questions or comment? Assembly Member Solache, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the author, thank you for engaging in the discussion. I have nothing but high respect for the positions that we were all elected to this body. And, you know, I think that one of the things that we do a difference of opinion at times is that we do create laws and have these kind of conversations and debates so that when we could prevent something happening.

I understand some concerns from the other side of the aisle, respectfully. I understand that there's concerns. But I also can't sit here and just imagine the moment that we all living under a rock. Because day two of these disgusting raids happened in my district.

60 federal agents showed up with Texas license plates, Arizona license plates, and shorts, t shirts, masking, cowardly hiding behind to come and do whatever operation in our communities. So when we have a debate about it's still something to help prevent, I will be the first to say my community, my district is living in fear.

When I go to a local car wash, which by the way, a more conservative part of my district. And you take six car wash employees that work about 8 hours a day under the sun, drying our cars and cleaning our cars so that we could all live good lives. And you take four of the guys that I actually know by name, like, just saying good morning, cómo estás, hello.

I could assure you that they're not criminals. They're contributing to our society. So, yes, healthy debate about what legislation that the Member's bringing. That's a fair discussion. But that we have to assume that nothing is happening and the intimidation.

So I just I think that debate is fair. It's healthy. But just let's also realize that there are things happening in different districts. And I happen to live between Downtown LA and Long Beach, primarily folks that look like myself and, you know, are being, living, they're just living in fear. So I just wanna put that in perspective that these things are happening and for us to say that they're not happening, they're not gonna happen.

Trust me, people are not going to work. The attendance levels in schools are low in my district because people are living in fear. And all they wanna do is just live their lives, contribute to society. When they go to the supermarket, they pay their groceries. When they're buying in something at the local Best Buy, they're buying something and they're paying taxes.

They're contributing to society. And more importantly, as a person of faith and someone that introduced a bill to consider not having agents come into my place of worship, that's I want people to go to church and just feel that they could, you know, pray for a better society, a better world.

And when my own community is feared to go to the our local Catholic church because of intimidation and fear tactics, yes, this is happening in our districts. So, again, I will welcome the debate on the technicalities of this bill. Fair. But to just assume that that's not happening, I just wanna have perspective that this is happening in our community.

So, again, just with all due respect, I wanna encourage the author to keep working with either our state or federal folks to, you know, make this legislation or future legislation fair. And on the childcare part of your bill, obviously, you know, we wanna make sure that parents feel comfortable going to take their kids to school. Right? It's happening. Maybe it's not in numbers, but it can, yes.

We've seen examples after examples of different things are happening. So a preventative mode of having childcare is protected is definitely a priority for our communities. And that's not a a brown black issue. That's all community. These are parents are obviously single moms across the board that depend on childcare centers.

So, again, just again, thanks for the conversation. I know that this is advancing what if happens to the other side of the aisle, and, respectfully, you know, let's talk about the the technical part. But with that, it's just, thank you for your conversation. I look forward to supporting this today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other comments or questions from Members? Assembly Member Stefani.

Yeah. I just wanna back up my Democratic colleagues here and just say, you know, this is really a healthy prevention measure given the very insane and very sad times we seem to be living in. And I wanna thank you for bringing it forward and thank my colleagues for their contributions to the discussion. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from Members? Seeing none. Assembly Member, you may close.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I appreciate the dialogue, and I appreciate those who have even more lived experience than even the geographic area. And Mr. Gallagher, I welcome to bring information to you as well. I know it's very difficult to understand a space that your point and your perspective.

And you're even perspective of privilege doesn't allow you to understand why I'm trying to legislate. But you did say in your last statement to me that you understand and you underscore, you know, democracy and people not being fearful. So I'm not gonna focus on the in delineating where you and I don't agree.

I'm gonna focus on where you and I do agree. And so I do think in principle and concept you do agree with this because you said it in your statement. So, but I'm happy as this bill moves forward to to sit down and talk with you about this and address your concerns. Because, again, my geographic area has a different lens than my colleagues in Southern California.

I'm here to be a voice for the most marginalized of our society to allow them to exercise their civil liberties and the democracy to participate. So, I am hearing you, and I look forward to working with you on this bill. And Chair, thank you for the time.

Thank you so much. In light of these unprecedented attempts by the federal government to interfere with the administration of our elections, California must remain vigilant and proactive. And we must be prepared for the possibility that federal agencies could be interfering with California's election operations.

And that's why I appreciate the author's goal to prevent voter intimidation, election interference, and protect everyone's right to vote. Last year, AB SB 851, authored by Senator Cervantes, was a vital safeguard that empowers elections officials with protections and tools that they need to defend against any federal overreach.

And I encourage the author to continue to work in collaboration with Senator Cervantes, the Attorney General's Office, and other stakeholders to ensure that the bill is consistent with these continued efforts. And with that, I recommend a support. So Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is AB 2230. The motion is do pass to Public Safety. [Roll Call]

That bill's out, five to two. We'll keep the roll open for our absent Member. Thank you so much. And we'll now bring it to Assembly Member Boerner, who's got item 4, AB 1789. And begin when you're ready.

Good morning, madam chair and members. First, I wanna thank the chair and her committee staff for working with me on this bill. I will be taking committee amendments, and we'll continue to work with the FPPC to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. AB 1789 is a good governance bill. It ensures that candidates and treasurers are trained to comply with the state's campaign requirements by completing a training course on their campaign duties.

These training courses include detailed requirements for committees, candidates, treasurers for purposes of promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity in state and local campaigns. It's important that we make meaningful efforts to increase trust in government, and this is a common sense approach to ensure that candidates and treasurers are properly equipped. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I'm here today with Lindsay Nakano—Nakano? Nakano? Nakano. Nakano.

I was just in in Tokyo, and there's a Nakano. Sorry. So, Nakano with the FPPC, the sponsor of the bill.

And, again, you have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning again. Lindsay Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel with the FPPC. The commission is sponsoring the bill, and I'm here again in support. The Political Reform Act includes requirements and restrictions that govern the conduct of—conduct of campaigns in the state.

Many of these provisions are activated quickly upon becoming a candidate and raising funds, including rules on initial paperwork and registration, opening a campaign bank account, contribution limits and restrictions, permissible expenditures, reporting, and others. These requirements include important details and nuances and are often subject to strict deadlines. Through the power of education, AB 1789 will help candidates and treasurers understand their duties and will promote compliance, which will, in turn, promote transparency and public confidence.

The bill would also raise the itemization threshold from $100 too $200 for purposes of reporting contributions and expenditures on campaign reports. The $100 threshold was set nearly fifty years ago, and the adjustment made in this bill reflects a modest cost of living, living adjustment, that's less than half of the actual CPI inflation amount.

Thank you to this committee and staff and thank you to Assemblymember Boerner for authoring this bill.

Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room that'd like to add on in a support position?

David Bullock...alliance. Thank you. This is helpful legislation.

Thank you. Anyone in the room who would like to oppose this measure?

Hi. Good morning. Daniel Conway here on behalf of Common Cause. Respectfully, we are in an opposed unless amended position. We love everything about the training and education piece.

What we would like to see, though, is the threshold stay at $100, which is consistent with about 43 other states, according to the analysis. So, thank you all.

Thank you so much. Any members have questions or comments? Assemblymember Solache.

Just wanna thank my colleague for bringing this to the table and, of course, our partners at FPPC. I think anything we do that's transparency, it's great for all of us, especially when at times we've made some unintentional errors, and I think any training is good for that. I give you a quick example. I talked to the chair of this in the past of, of when you file your, for, for, to be a candidate, there's a, there's a 700 form that is due.

Well, I wish it was actually required when you actually are filing because if you don't file it with, you know, you're supposed to file it after the fact. Right? And, and, and then one is that someone forgot to do it unintentionally. And so, then there's a, there's a there's a penalty for that. Right?

But I guess that what I'm saying is if it could just be in the training of, you know, what you need to do and ensure that it's I know that it's it's, know, you're being told, but it was just actually required before you became a candidate. Just makes it even easier. Right?

But for now, I will welcome the conversation in a training purposes that when we train future candidates that, hey, you need to join the 700 form, and it's required because of you know, even though it's you still become a candidate, just wanna add that as a extra part of the training, for what it's worth.

If I may.

Yes. Please.

Yeah, I think that's super helpful. I think all of us who were in elected office know beforehand, I ran in a small city, and I was looking for a treasurer and then I realized, it was very specific training that you needed. Like, not anybody who was a CPA or, or knew finance could just do this. And so, I think that training would allow more people to enter and support campaigns in places that are smaller cities that maybe don't have campaign infrastructure too.

So, that's one of the reasons I wanted to be the author of this bill. But I think there are lots of cases from candidates not making errors. There's nothing that this bill would do other than improve the current system. And I think when we're looking at a CPI adjustment from fifty years ago that is much under what the actual CPI adjustment would be, that would make sense for today's day and age.

And yeah. Assemblymember, go ahead.

One thing. And I also caught the idea of having the treasures go through the training because as much as, you know, we rely on our, our expertise office that we hire as, as, as members of candidates and or now elected officials, you know, they're human too. And it's that, respectfully, that there's errors that can happen, just human error.

So, ensuring that they get the proper training so that when we do pay the services for a treasure service that they are doing the best job they can for all of us. Right?

So, I think it's a—it's a win-win situation. I just wanna thank the author for this bill.

Any other questions or comments from members?

I was gonna do that.

We have a motion. We have a motion by Johnson, second by Solache. Seeing no other comments, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote and love that there's a Tasha and Natasha Alliance.

Lovely.

Berman Boerner comes first.

And certainly, requiring candidates and treasurers to complete training about their legal obligations may help reduce the number of inadvertent violations of the Political Reform Act, as Assemblymember Solache noted. And, however, it's important that we ensure that the training requirements can be effectively implemented and aren't overly burdensome. So, I wanna thank the author and sponsor for being open to the amendments that were proposed by committee staff. And with that, I am supporting the bill. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]