Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. You all thought you were done with me, but you were mistaken. I'd like to begin, with a couple housekeeping items today. First of all, just wanna note that we only have one item on today's agenda, and that is Senate Bill 73. As a reminder, main witnesses will have a combined time of five minutes per side.

So five minutes in favor of the bill, five minutes in opposition. That is the committee standing practice. The second note I'd like to make is though he is not yet here, Assembly member Haney cannot join us today and, on special appointment from speaker Rivas and for today's purposes only, we'll be joined by Assembly Member Hart, who will be our ninth member of the committee today. We expect Assembly Member Hart to join us, momentarily.

Third, as a reminder, there are some general rules of conduct, and I'd like to go over those before we start our hearing today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a hearing and as we proceed with witness testimony and public comment, I want to ensure that everyone understands that we have rules to maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing. More specifically, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's proceedings. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. I see that we do have a quorum.

Madam secretary, please conduct the role.

Present.

Schultz?

Alanis?

Here.

Gonzales? Mark Gonzales?

Hart? Harabedian? Lackey?

Here.

Nguyen?

Here.

Ramos? Sharp Collins?

Here.

Alright. With the quorum present, we will go to our first item, which is Senate bill 73 by Senator Cervantes. Colleagues, before I turn it over to the Senator, I have a brief statement for the benefit of those who might be testifying or offering comment today, noting the arrival of Mister Harabedian. We're hearing a single item today. This is Senate bill 73.

I will note that this bill passed out of Assembly Elections Committee this morning, where the author accepted elections related amendments with the understanding that those amendments will be taken in this committee this afternoon. In addition to those election committee amendments, this committee has asked for and the Senator has accepted the following public safety related amendments.

First, committee amendments remove the criminal penalties that would apply to peace officers who establish the qualifications of voters at an election, impose a rule or standard for conducting an election, or interfere in any manner any matter with the administration of an election.

Second, the proposed committee amendments reinstate the requirement that certain personnel be uniformed for purposes of the crime of certain persons being stationed at a polling place without written authorization from an elections official and for the crime of hiring or arranging for such persons to be present. Third, regarding the provision that permits the secretary of state or attorney general to object to object to such written authorization from an elected of elections official.

Our amendments, our proposed amendments state that if such an objection is made, criminal penalties do not apply unless a person remained stationed at the polling place after gaining knowledge of the objection. Because elections committee amendments are also being taken in this committee, the committee amendment mock up that has been distributed and is in front of all of you contains both the public safety amendments that I just summarized, as well as additional elections committee amendments.

With that, Senator, the floor is yours, and thank you for being here.

Thank you, Mister chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present Senate bill 73 today. I do wanna reaffirm that I will be accepting the committee's proposed amendments, and I wanna thank the committee for their assistance on this bill. As we know, attacks are being undertaken not just by President Trump and his administration, but also by some officials in our own state, including Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. We cannot stand idle by while the MAGA movement continues, to dismantle our democracy piece by piece.

That is why last year, the legislature approved my Senate bill 851, which bolstered California's defenses against interference in our elections in time for the November fourth statewide special election.

SB 73 builds upon that work by further building upon our defenses. I do wanna share that just last summer, President Trump made false statements declaring that many of the legitimate voting machines used in our country, including here in California, are inaccurate. In January, the New York Times released an interview they did with President Trump. During that interview, the president says that he regrets not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states in the days after the 2020 election.

In January, the FBI also executed a warrant to seize ballot from the 2020 Presidential election from Fulton County, Georgia Election Office.

In March, Maricopa County, Arizona election officials were served a subpoena from the FBI for the record relating to the 2020 Presidential election. In February and again in March, Steve Bannon suggested that the president would deploy ICE at voting locations during this year's midterm elections. In March, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized more than 600,000 voted ballots from last year's special election on Prop 50 from the Riverside County register of voters in a sham investigation driven by extremist conservative conspiracy groups.

Existing law states, it's clear that after the certification of election results, the chain of custody for voted ballots must remain intact. To protect the evidential use of those ballots, existing state law is clear that these ballots should not be taken from the custody of the relevant county registrar under any circumstance even when an investigation is being conducted.

For instance, for evidentiary purposes, the ballot seized by Sheriff Bianco are spoiled forever. They are spoiled because that chain of custody was broken even though they had been they have since been returned to the county registrar of voters after a court ordered a stop to the sham investigation. They can no longer be used for future litigation or challenges. And do not, for one moment, think that just because the courts have ordered the ballots returned means that Bianco is done.

In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballots from the June primary where he is on the ballot himself.

They're willing to violate every constitutional norm we possess to interfere with our elections and shape the results to their liking. This is where Senate Bill 73 comes into play. We are here today to enshrine into state law many of the norms and traditions that protect our democracy that have protected our democracy for so long, but no longer being respected or followed.

Senate bill 73 would extend the criminal penalty from Senate bill 851 against hiring or arranging for local state or federal law enforcement officers from being deployed at voting locations or a county election office to military personnel. To protect the chain of custody of voted ballots, this bill will also make it a felony to violate existing state law and take those ballots from the custody of a county registrar.

It would also allow the Secretary State, the Attorney general, and relevant County Registrar to seek civil remedies for the same action. This bill will also prohibit any individual from allowing law enforcement agent from accessing, modifying, or taking possession of voting machines or voting rosters without a court order. We know that they are coming for us. That is why this bill has an urgency clause. If signed into law by Governor Newsom on time, these protections will be in place for the June statewide primary election and beyond.

We cannot let this we need to continue protecting our defenses here in our state. We have a chance to act now and to protect ourselves against threats we see forming in front of our very own eyes. That is why I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 73. We have two witnesses here to testify, who are also cosponsors of the bill. I'll allow them to self identify.

Good afternoon, Chair Schultz and members. My name is Sydney Fong. I'm the Policy Director for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment, AAPI Force, and I'm here to speak in support of SB 73. We are a statewide network of grassroots AAPI organizations focused on expanding democracy. Our direct voter outreach and communications campaigns reached tens of thousands of voters in 16 counties and in 12 AAPI languages.

According to a recent Berkeley IGS poll, 2/3 of California's registered voters believe and agree that US democracy is under attack. A majority of every age and ethnic group share the same belief. Voters are rightfully concerned about attempts to suppress our votes, including, the Trump regime's threats to send immigration enforcement to the polls, restrictive voter ID initiative, the seizure of restrictive voter ID initiative, the seizure of ballots in Riverside and Georgia.

SB 73 fortifies the protections of our our voters by expanding the existing prohibition of armed persons at polling places to include military personnel, ensuring that the 20% of the electorate who do vote in person, many of whom rely on the language access and disability access requirements at polling places, can remain safe while doing so. SB 73 also further protects our elections infrastructure by safeguarding voter lists, ballots, and voting machines, all of which have been demanded by the Trump administration and its enablers.

This bill is an important measure to meet the moment and fortify our democracy, and we urge you to vote aye on SB 73. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm a State Policy Advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. And I'm here today as a proud cosponsor of SB 73. As we enter into another election season, immigrant communities across California are experiencing a growing climate of fear and intimidation.

Families are hearing federal calls to send immigration enforcement to polling places, while at the same time, we're watching the expansion of DHS detention and enforcement infrastructure across the country. For many voters, especially mixed status families and newly naturalized citizens, these threats are not abstract. They create real fear around whether it's safe to participate in our democracy at all. No voter should have to wonder if casting a ballot could place themselves or their loved ones at risk.

SB 73 closes a dangerous loophole in current law by clarifying that the prohibition of armed officials at polling places also extends to military personnel.

In today's political climate, intimidation does not always come in the form of a marked uniform. The presence of armed individuals near polling places can have a chilling effect on voter participation. SB 73 also further empowers the state to protect election administration from interference by law enforcement. This is particularly important because of incidents like Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of ballots in Riverside County, which raised serious concerns about interference in our democratic process and undermine the public trust in our elections and law enforcement.

California should continue leading with a clear message.

Every eligible voter deserves to participate in our democracy free from fear, intimidation, and government interference. We respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 73. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation, Senator, and to both of your witnesses for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support, come down. Please, limit your comment to your name, the organization with that you're with, and your position, please.

Good afternoon. Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support.

Daniel Conway on behalf of Common Cause of California in support. Thank you for your leadership.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition today?

Alright. I see two. If we could have the Representative from CHIRLA just move down one chair. Thank you so much. We have two chairs for opposition witnesses.

And as a reminder, between the two of you, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee. And your time doesn't begin until one of you begins to speak.

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in opposition to SB 73. Let me just start with something to make very clear. Existing law requires the sheriff to investigate public offenses which have been committed.

Go ahead.

And I'm not just saying that. That's the government code, section twenty six six zero two. This bill imposes new restrictions and enhances existing provisions with the specter of civil remedies, including damages and or criminal penalties related to law enforcement investigations, which is especially problematic given our statutory mandate to investigate crimes. For example, the elections code provision in the new 15007 prohibits a peace officer from, quote, interfering in any manner with the administration on the election in the state. I don't know what that means.

I can guess what it means, but I shouldn't have to guess, and especially if, a peace officer can be subject to civil penalties for that. At best, this language is vague and could be used to attack a lawful investigation by law enforcement. Further, the bill highlights a potential conflict between statute that prohibits a package of voted ballots from being taken from the custody of an elections official and a court order compelling a law enforcement officer to seize ballots and take them to a magistrate.

Existing law creates this conflict, but this bill raises the stakes in such a dispute by subjecting a peace officer civil and criminal penalties for complying with a court order that requires something different from what the statute provides. And despite these incessant arguments about the chain of custody, whose job every single day entails preserving the chain of custody of sensitive evidence, law enforcement.

This notion that that law enforcement can't be trusted to protect evidence and information, is bordering on offensive. We're routinely charged with protecting all types of sensitive evidence. This creates very real issues when elections officials are suspected of criminal activities. This effectively guarantees that an elected official who's suspected of committing a crime as it relates to an election would be the very person charged with preserving the evidence that may prove guilt or innocence.

The provisions about the Secretary of State and the Attorney general being able to object to a local arrangement to provide security for polling places.

I know there are many amendments taken. The amendments don't go far enough to protect those local arrangements, and they induce or they invite political interference with something that the locals may have agreed to on the ground. Just to be clear, our opposition is not based on a desire to alter elections outcomes or to permit federal interference with state elections, but a concern that this bill creates unscalable hurdles to law enforcement that is required by law to investigate alleged crimes.

Happy to answer any questions, but for those reasons, we ask for your no vote.

Thank you. And about little over two minutes left.

Okay. My name is Colleen Britton. I represent CALA, which is California Action for Legislative Accountability. The stated purpose of SB 73 is to build protections against federal interference in our elections. The intent is to is preemptive protection from investigations into our elections.

Big difference. SB 73 ignores the necessity of proven accuracy in our election system and instead protects projects apprehension and fear of discovery into baseless attacks on law enforcement at every level. It's another insult to our law enforcement officers who deserve our greatest respect. California is still part of The United States Of America and subject to federal election laws, including the Help America Vote Act. Federal agencies have every right and duty to inspect and audit voting systems used in federal elections to ensure compliance with federal laws.

Last year, SB 871 repealed California's 2014 election standards, which exceeded official Election Assistance Commission EAC guidelines. Instead, they adopted our current election standards that meet only the bare minimum requirements of the federal have a law. It also removed the requirement that the Secretary of State notify and submit reports to the EAC in the event of any defect, fault, or failure of the system or any part of the system. There is basically no accountability to the federal law.

SB 73 does nothing to protect our elections.

It's a bill of concealment. Why the urgency? Well, it could be because our Secretary of State refuses to share voter roles with our Department of Justice to assist in removing ineligible voters prior to the midterm election or that the ballots have already been seized for investigative purposes in Arizona, Georgia, and now in Riverside County.

Thirty seconds.

Or something else. California deserves and demands proven accuracy in our election systems. Our Democratic republic depends on accuracy of elections. If that requires federal interference or investigation, so be it. We urge a no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll take the me too's also in opposition.

Lee Mentaberry with CALA. I vehemently oppose this bill.

Alright. Thank you. Final call. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay.

I'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments? Mister Gonzales, you go first.

[inaudible]

Great. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a second by Harabedian. Continuing this discussion, Mister Lackey.

Yeah. I just want to recognize the the arrival of our substitute colleague from Santa Barbara, because I was worried there for a minute that, we would, as a public safety committee, appear to be heartless.

He's funny, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mister Lackey, and thank you for yeah. You can give a round of applause on that one. That was pretty good. And welcome Assembly member Hart to your Public Safety Committee.

Welcome. Very good. Are there other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. Senator, I you'll have a chance to close.

I would only ask that if you have any response to any of the concerns raised by the opposition, if you take those in your close, that'd be appreciated.

Certainly, Mister chair. Thank you for the opportunity to close, and thank you for your comments to the member of the committee. In response to what the opposition has stated here today in this committee, as is currently the case under existing law, criminal investigations can still occur and ballots reviewed, but the chain of custody with the registrar must be maintained. I also want to know one thing that is, really strange about this entire situation in Riverside County.

You know, it is the County District Attorneys that take the lead on investigating election crimes.

It isn't the Sheriff's Department. Sheriffs are not election administrators. And if we agree to the Sheriff's Association demands, we would be legitimizing the idea the County Sheriff should be seizing ballots without recourse.

They had a warrant.

Investigations again, can still continue. We just need to ensure that these ballots have to remain within the custody of the registrar. The code is clear on that front, and no one, including law enforcement, can take those ballots. With that, I do want to also close by quickly stating that democracy is always a work in progress, and we are responding based off of what we're seeing.

And, yes, there is an urgency clause because this is an urgent matter before us, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate everyone who testified. Though we may have differences of opinion, I appreciate you taking the time to be here in our State Capital and to share your perspective. I am recommending an aye. I wanna thank the Senator for taking the amendments.

I will note that some of the concerns raised by the opposition I shared, and I think that the amendment satisfy, at least for me, some of those concerns that were raised. The only thing I would note is this is and I do think it's important to note for public consumption.

It's a fairly unusual situation when the first Vice President of an organization opposing this bill is the subject of someone who arguably broke the law and, certainly at the very least as part of a statewide election. I bring that up to say that, it's not lost on me that there could be valid concerns, and yet I have to question, the source of some of these concerns respectfully. With that, I do recommend an aye.

For SB 73 by Senator Cervantes, the motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Alanis?

Not voting.

Alanis not voting. Gonzales?

Aye.

Gonzales, aye. Hart?

Hart, aye. Harabedian?

Aye.

Harabedian, aye. Lackey?

No.

Lackey, no. Nguyen?

Aye.

Nguyễn, aye. Ramos?

Aye.

Ramos, Aye. Sharp Collins?

Aye.

Sharp Collins, Aye.

That bill is out. That having concluded all business before the committee, we stand adjourned.