SB-17 Office of Racial Equity
AB 20 Ban on business entity campaign contributions
SB 29 This bill has passed to allow all ballots to be mailed out this year.
AB 37 All ballots by mail
AB 39 Establishes the California-China Climate Institute at UC Berkeley AB 47 Delivery of services to illegal aliens
AB 48 Prohibits use of tear gas, rubber bullets, etc for crowd control
AB 53 Election Day holiday
AB 56 Falsifying SSN for unemployment benefits not disqualifying
AB 71 NEW TAXES ON CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES TO FUND $2.4 BILLION HOMELESS PROGRAM
AB 101 High school graduation requirement - 1 semester of Ethnic Studies
SB 350 Controlled substances. Statement of consequences if death occurs
SB 357 – Loitering for the purpose of engaging in a prostitution offense.
SB 380 END OF LIFE - An act to amend Sections 443.1, 443.3, 443.4, 443.5, 443.11, 443.14, 443.15, and 443.17 of, and to repeal Section 443.215 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to end of life.
SB 503 Relaxing requirements signature verification of mail-in ballots
SB 519 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES: decriminalization of certain hallucinogenic substances.
AB 572 California Workforce Development Board: employment policies.
SB 663 Enabling phone calls to recall petition signers
AB 937 Effectively makes California a sanctuary state
SB-17 Office of Racial Equity This legislation creates a new regulating body based on providing "racial equity" in California. The objective of this legislation is to "set forth a vision for racial equity in the state by providing guidelines... that includes a strategic plan with policy and inclusive practice recommendations, guidelines, goals and benchmarks to reduce racial inequities, promote racial equity, and address individual institutional and structural racism". That is, we don't know what we plan to do yet, but we will let you know. More egregiously, the declaration in the legislation that racism is a "pubic health crisis" is being used to demand its passage. This bill was authored and introduced by Democrat Senator Pan and eleven Democrat Senate and Assembly Members.The purpose of this legislation is set forth in Section 1, wherein it unequivocally states that "the United States Constitution was itself also an instrument of a racist society that embedded inequality, violence, and trauma into our nation's founding document", and cites the "Three-Fifths Compromise, as the clearest expression of the Constitution's structural racism...an ugly stain that continues to haunt our nation and that we must confront and actively dismantle". This justification for such legislation is interesting, in that it was Southern DEMOCRATS that insisted the US constitution count three-fifths of each state's slave population for the purpose of apportioning US House seats while maintaining at the same time that they were property. This compromise not only ensured them a greater number of house seats since they could count their slaves in the population count, but reduced their state's tax liability since they would only have to count slaves as three-fifths of a person when determining the states tax contribution to the union. Thus, the Three-Fifths Compromise was solely for the purpose of the Democrats to grab power while reducing their tax liabilities to the fledgling union. Clever.The legislation further cites other incidents in history for justifying the legislation, such as focusing on Spanish missionaries during the 1700's in California who "forced conversions to Christianity and European traditions...and brought disease that killed many thousands of Native Californians". How about when the Romans threw the Christians to the lions, should we demand reparations from the countries that were part of the Roman Empire? Or, how about the Egyptians who enslaved total populations to build their pyramids? Or, how about the Puritans who came to the American colonies in the 1600's to flee religious persecution in England. History is replete with abuse, and Blacks from African nations that made money off the slave trade are not immune to the charge. Lest we forget that during the1900's, Irish, Italian and Slavic country immigrants to the U.S. were also discriminated against. Much progress has been made in the United States during its history and should be recognized, including the success of the Civil War to abolish slavery. Hundreds of thousands of "White" lives were lost to free the "Black" slaves, a fact that is conveniently discarded in the public conversation. Slavery was our stain, but the graveyards of those hundreds of thousands of patriots who fought to abolish it IS our reparations. Also not mentioned in the proposed legislation is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Little known to the public, the act was an update of the Republican's Civil Rights Act of 1875, and their proposed 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. The 1964 Civil Rights Act that was eventually passed was filibustered in the Senate by Democrat Albert Gore Sr., and Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, one of the longest serving senators in the Senate and a member of the Ku Klux Klan who was eulogized by none other than President Joe Biden. The grievance industry is growing, and will divide our country until only hate and bitterness remains. Could the real purpose be to destroy and remake the United States. If so, into what, exactly? Perhaps as advertised, the aim is to create a Socialist-Marxist state that uses people's grievances against each other until full civil war erupts amongst the races, thus giving more power to a one-party government that fully and completely regulates and controls our lives. Current laws already exist against discrimination. Therefore, one needs to question the purpose of this legislation since no clear proposals are advanced. Old history is used to justify new discrimination. This legislation is either another attempt at affirmative action and preferential treatment that has already been struck down by the Supreme Court as reverse discrimination, or an attempt to actually institutionalize racism and create hate and bitterness between the races by pitting one race against the other. Question: Do you think this new regulating body will advance or reverse all the progress that has been made on race relations? Question: Do you think racial "equality" and racial "equity" is the same thing? Can there ever be "equality" amongst any group of people, since those who work the hardest will always rise to the top, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin? Can "equity" ever be achieved by taking from those who work hard and giving to those who do not?
AB20 CORPORATE-FREE ELECTIONS ACT-ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED AS THE CLEAN MONEY ACT OF 2021
WHAT THE BILL DOES AB20 would prohibit a candidate for elective office from receiving a contribution from a business entity, and a business entity from making a contribution to a candidate for elective office. Business Entity is defined as any organization or enterprise operated for profit, including but not limited to a proprietorship, partnership, firm, business trust, joint venture, syndicate, corporation or association. This bill completely precludes any “for profit” enterprise from being able to directly participate; support or oppose any candidate in any election in the State of California. Clearly a direct contribution gives the donor some influence with the politician so this act is designed to silence Business Entities and reduce their influence despite the large amount of taxes paid by this group.From the governments point of view Corporate donors and or Business Entities are using their dollars to illegitimately and improperly influence politicians. However no mention is made about the influence Unions exert on politicians. If you look at Californias current financial condition you will see that Unions are responsible for successfully pushing their will on legislators to the extent that the State is in financial peril as a direct result. Take a look at the unfunded Union Pension liability if you question the power of Unions to corrupt politicians and unfairly prefer Unions over other individuals.
1. Do you realize that Unions can financially support any candidate they prefer for political office? However an entrepreneur or person earning an income selling their skills or earning a living through any small or large business or corporation is deemed a business entity and must wear a muzzle. Is that fair? Should business entities and Unions have an equal voice or should one be muzzled?2. Are you aware that you will fall under the category of business entity if you earn any income as a consultant; home based business; amazon salesperson etc and as a result of your ingenuity is earning income you are not allowed a voice in the political future of your State; you are disenfranchised.3. In a State that has become unaffordable for many people because of massive unfunded Union Pension liability and self serving pro Union regulations AB20 is increasing the power of Unions in politics which will serve Union interests to the detriment of the average non unionized person.4. Should there be unequal treatment of citizens based on how they earn their income? Are Union voices more important than non union voices? Should Union bosses be more influential than small business citizens? Should unionized teachers have a louder voice than private school contract teachers? OR Is it better that everyone should have an equal voice?
SB-29 ELECTIONS: VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS AMENDS SECTION 3000.5 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHAT THE BILL DOES This bill uses CoVid-19 as a reason to distribute vote by mail ballots to all registered voters whether or not they request a mail in ballot in all elections held in the State of California proclaimed or conducted prior to January 1, 2022.
Unfortunately, this bill was fast-tracked and has been signed into law.
AB 37 AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 3000.5 AND 3019.7 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE.
WHAT THE BILL DOES Sec 1 Mail in Balloting for all registered voters FOREVER!!Sec 2 The Secretary of State shall maintain a system to allow a vote by mail voter to track the voter’s vote through the mail system to the Election office and receive notification when the has been counted or if not counted why.
1. Do you think mail in balloting will lead to fair and honest elections? Are you concerned about outdated voter registration lists that the Secretary of State refuses to update resulting in untold number of ballots sent to people who no longer live at the old address; are deceased; not citizens etc.
2. Do you think that mail in ballots should be restricted to only people who request a ballot?
3. Are you aware that mail in balloting might open your ballot to manipulation by the postal system; tabulating machines operators; theft of drop boxes; lack of chain of custody as the ballot will be handled by multiple people in multiple locations; ballot box stuffing with fake ballots?
4. Do you know that the tracking system operated by the Secretary of State only tracks the ballot to the counting table but it does not allow you to confirm how your ballot was counted or tabulated.5. Do you understand that there is no way to confirm how your ballot was recorded or tabulated?
6 How should the problem of voters incorrectly filling out mail in ballots be dealt with? There is a huge percentage of mail in ballots which are incorrectly completed because there is no one at the voters home to help them answer any questions they may have.
7. If there are problems with a ballot, are you aware that ballot adjudication procedures were done in secret in most locations?
AB 39, AS INTRODUCED, CHAU. CALIFORNIA-CHINA CLIMATE INSTITUTE.
WHAT THE BILL DOES AB 39 would establish the California-China Climate Institute at UC Berkeley. The institute would be required to foster collaboration to inform and shape climate policy and advance the goals of the Paris Agreement. One of the duties in the bill is to provide “training to Californian and Chinese researchers, scientists, technical experts, policymakers, and other leaders to advance critical climate and environmental policies, including, but not necessarily limited to, air quality, carbon pricing, carbon emissions, clean energy, and innovation.
CONVERSATION STARTERS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS1. Do you trust China with American university research? 2. Are you aware that China has been cited by Congress as the most aggressive foreign country attempting to exploit U.S. research labs and academic institutions? 3. Did you know that the U.S. Justice Department has condemned China’s Thousand Talents program saying, ““China is building an economy and academic institutions with bricks stolen from others all around the world.”4. Are you aware that the United States leads the world in clean air and clean water and that China is one of the world’s worst polluters?5. Did you know that the Paris Agreement further regulates America, damaging our economy, while doing nothing to polluting China?6. Why would a Democrat Assemblyman file a bill to link our leading state university with a country that will steal our research and promote punitive regulations on our nation?
AB 47 WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS PROVIDING HUMAN SERVICES: COORDINATED IMMIGRATION SUPPORT SERVICES
This bill would require the State Department of Social Services to establish a grant program to qualified nonprofit organizations for the provision of immigration support services to undocumented and mixed-status families who reside in the state and were separated by the federal government.This bill will provide illegal immigrants with the following services:
(1) A centralized emergency line: toll-free available in a range of languages providing triage of caller needs and case management
(2) Care coordination and case management that connects families, children, guardians to many services including: Culturally relevant physical and behavioral health care; Legal services; Vocational services; Food and grocery resources; Education services; Housing services; Trauma-informed, culturally relevant services to address the psychological impact of family separation, including, Individual therapy for parents, caregivers, and children; Family therapy; Group therapy.
1. Do you realize that California is providing illegal immigrants with FREE social services;, FREE health care, FREE legal services for immigration purposes, FREE vocational services (retraining), FREE food and grocery, FREE housing, FREE social and psychological therapy. How much to do think that will cost the hard working taxpayers of California?
2 Why are illegal aliens being given so many free services when hard working Americans get none of this for free and when many struggle to pay for basic health care.
3. Do you realize that many States do not offer free services to illegal immigrants?
4. If you were an illegal immigrant and were choosing where to live in the US would you chose Texas where you get nothing for free or California where everything is FREE? Illegal immigrants may all flock to California as many other States do not offer any freebies.
5. Do you realize that this huge influx of Illegal Aliens will affect many aspects of California life. Do we have enough police at a time where police are being defunded? Will these immigrants vote in elections? Will the wages and incomes of Blue collar workers decrease as these immigrants take the lower jobs and price Americans out of the work force?
6. Do you realize that the Federal government does not fund programs for illegal immigrants. This program will fall to California residents to pick up the bill. Can we afford more tax increases to provide services to illegals when the basic needs of many Americans are not being met. As taxes rise the wealthy leave and the burden of this ridiculous program will fall on the shoulders of the average Californian and become exponentially unattainable.
AB 48, INTRODUCED, LORENA GONZALEZ. LAW ENFORCEMENT: KINETIC ENERGY PROJECTILES AND CHEMICAL AGENTS.
WHAT THE BILL DOESFrom Legislative Counsel: “This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles (rubber bullets) or chemical agents (tear gas) …by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive.”
CONVERSATION STARTERS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS1. With all the lawlessness and rioting we continue to hear about, do you think it’s wise to take away law enforcements’ non-lethal tools to break up riots?2. Why would the several Democrat Assembly members and Senators who introduced this bill want to handcuff the police in dealing with riots like the ones happening in Portland?
AB 53 AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7.1 OF THE CIVIL CODE ELECTION DAY HOLIDAY
WHAT THE BILL DOES This bill would require community colleges and public schools to close on any day on which a statewide general election is held. The bill would require that state employees, with specified exceptions, be given time off with pay for days on which a statewide general election is held.
1. Is it fair that public sector employees have a day off on election day when non unionized workers and small businesses do not? Should the Election Day holiday be country wide for all persons so that everyone has an equal opportunity to vote. Mail in balloting is being pushed upon the population based on making it easy for everyone to vote. More than ample time has been allocated to get a vote in the mail and processed well before the election without the need for a Holiday.
2. Is this public sector Unionized employee holiday yet another unfair advantage for Democrat voters?
3. Does this “holiday” provide a free and available union workforce for the Democrats to use for ballot harvesting and election work; perhaps election control: while small businesses, contract workers; entrepreneurs and non-unionized employees must work a full day and are not available to scrutinize the election process?
AB 56, AS INTRODUCED, SALAS. BENEFITS: OUTGOING MAIL, IDENTITY VERIFICATION, AND DIRECT DEPOSIT.
WHAT THE BILL DOESLegislative Counsel: “Existing law disqualifies an individual for unemployment compensation benefits if the individual willfully, for the purpose of obtaining unemployment compensation benefits, either made a false statement or representation, including, but not limited to, using a false social security number or other false identification, with actual knowledge of the falsity thereof, or withheld a material fact in order to obtain unemployment compensation benefits.”This bill reverses all that and says that the “unemployed individual” cannot be disqualified for unemployment benefits, including if they used someone else’s wage history as the basis for their unemployment claim.
CONVERSATION STARTERS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS1. What? If an individual lies about their Social Security number and tries to use the wages paid to someone else as the basis for their unemployment claim, they cannot be disqualified?
AB 65 An Act to add Chapter 2.5 to Part 10 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to public social services
Existing law establishes various economic and public social services programs to qualified low-income families and individuals.
This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to administer the California Universal Basic Income (UBI) Program, under which a California resident who is 18 years of age or older and is not currently incarcerated would receive a universal basic income of $1,000 per month. The bill would require that the resident has lived in the state for at least 3 consecutive years and that the resident’s reported gross income not exceed 200% of the median per capita income for the resident’s current county of residence as determined by the US Census Bureau. This bill would define universal basic income to mean unconditional cash payments of equal amounts issued monthly to individual residents of California with the intention of ensuring the economic security of recipients.
The FTB estimates UBI payments could total as high as $180 billion per year, with additional significant administrative costs to the FTB to administer this new program.
1. Do you realize that this program would apply not only to American Citizens and legal immigrants but also to Illegal aliens.
2. Do you think that this bill is an additional reason for illegal aliens to flock to California?
3. Do you think California can afford the $180B per yr. to provide a universal basic income and will this program encourage people to stay at home instead of finding a job? or even encourage an underground economy.
4. The median personal income in Riverside County is $29,699 X 200% = $59,358. In other words, anyone making less than $60,000 per year in Riverside will receive an extra, no strings attached, $12,000 per year. Other counties have higher median incomes so you could expect payments to people in those counties who have much higher reported incomes. Does this sound like a reasonable program? Will this incentivize people to work or limit their work? Will this incentivize people to take income under the table to remain below the median level?
5. The only limit in the bill to the number of people in a household is that they be 18 or over. Do you agree with this proposal that would allow, for example, 4 people in the household receiving a combined $48,000 in UBI with no strings attached for not working? And, they could each add earnings to that as long as they didn’t exceed 200% of median income.
AB 71 NEW TAXES ON CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES TO FUND $2.4 BILLION HOMELESS PROGRAM
It seems the State of California has little or no regard for the impact of its tax and spend policies. In another attempt to pay for a new program, the legislature is proposing to raise taxes on California's businesses in order to pay for its new homeless program. Granted that the homeless problem is out of control in California, but throwing additional taxpayer money to the tune of $2.4 billion annually is excessive, and may in fact exacerbate the homeless problem while driving businesses out of the state.
AB 71, Homelessness Funding: Bring California Home Act, the state proposes to raise income tax rates on businesses and financial institutions with more than $5 million in taxable income to 9.6% and 11.6%, respectively. In addition, the bill partially rescinds the benefits of California's "Water's Edge Election" for corporations and certain taxpayers, a tax benefit that has kept most businesses from fleeing the state. The water's edge election has for many years been an important part of California's corporate tax laws and has allowed corporations and certain taxpayers to be taxed only on the income they earned in California, not on their worldwide income. If this bill passes, California will require a taxpayer that makes a water's edge election to take into account 50% of their global-low taxed income (a category of income that is earned abroad) and 40 percent of the repatriated income of its affiliated foreign corporations. This means that not only will they be taxed on income earned in California, but on income earned abroad. This is an onerous and complex tax scheme, and the result is that it will drive businesses out of California. It should be noted that Tesla, Hewlett Packard and Oracle are some of the major corporations that have left California in the past year.
A third provision of the new legislation, relates to a taxpayer's global low-tax income that must now be included for personal income tax. Although this provision will not affect most individual taxpayers, it will greatly impact California's "wealthy" taxpayers, who, as shareholders, will have to include up to 50% of their pro rata share of income from a foreign corporation in their personal income tax return. This additional income will be included in their California personal tax returns and will be taxed at an individual tax rate that is currently one of the highest in the nation. Although this provision is an extension of the recently passed federal tax laws, the combination of both the federal impact with California's proposed increase will encourage more of these wealthy taxpayers to flee the state. CEO's, such as Elon Musk and Larry Ellison, have recently changed their residency from California to other tax friendly states.
Question: Do you think increasing taxes on corporations and wealthy taxpayers to pay for a Homeless Program is a good idea or will have unintended consequences, such as driving more businesses out of the state and taking jobs and the tax base with them?
Question: If taxes are not raised on corporations and wealthy taxpayers to fund the proposed $2.4 billion homeless program annually, what would you propose to solve the homeless problem other than "throwing money at it"?
AB 101, INTRODUCED, MEDINA. PUPIL INSTRUCTION: HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS: ETHNIC STUDIES
WHAT THE BILL DOESAB 101 would require all public and charters schools to teach one semester of ethnic studies as a requirement for graduation. The State Board of Education has been working on the framework for this for quite some time. A similar bill was vetoed last year because of objection from the Jewish community. That offending portion has been removed and the bill is back. The ethnic studies proposed is the embodiment of the Marxist Critical Race Theory. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled ‘Critical’ Ethnic Studies Returns to California, the author had this to say: “Welcome to “critical ethnic studies,” which boils down to vulgar Marxism, identity politics and victimology. …The revised model curriculum in California portrays capitalism as oppressive and gives considerable weight to America’s socialist.”
CONVERSATION STARTERS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS1. Are you aware that our state education agency is advancing a Socialist agenda in our high schools?2. Did you know that the legislature is about to require the teaching of so-called ethnic studies as a requirement for graduation? 3. Did you know that “ethnic studies” will be teaching our young people that capitalism is oppressive?4. Do you agree that teaching our young people Marxist Critical Race Theory is good for our state or a good use of your tax dollars?5. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently said: "Let me be clear: There is no room in our classrooms for things like critical race theory. Teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other is not worth one red cent of taxpayer money." Do you agree?
One of the successes of capitalism is the ease with which the poor can and do climb out of poverty, thereby eliminating the resentment found in the communist “proletariat” or working class against the wealthy “bourgeoisie” class that led to revolution not only in the former U.S.S.R but also in many third-world countries. Absent the dynamic of perpetually poor vs. perpetually rich in the U.S., Marxists seek to divide our country by creating classes of “victims” to wage war against “oppressors” and thereby facilitating revolution and the “remaking of America”. Critical race theory and its cousin, implicit bias training, are the tools used to indoctrinate Marxist theology in our population. The term equity is used in place of equality. Equality is equal opportunity -- the basis for the work ethic that has made real the American Dream. Equity is equal outcomes -- socialist utopianism that robs the individual of the opportunity to better themselves by distributing their earnings to others.
AB 572 calls for this type of indoctrination in the restaurant industry. According to the bill analysis, AB 572 “Defines “high-road employment policies” as employment policies that promote equity of income and career pathways for people of color, immigrants, women and people who are transgender, non-binary or intersex.” The High Road Workforce Development plan is found here: Plan Strategic Planning Elements 2020-2023 (https://cwdb.ca.gov/plans_policies/2020-2023-state-plan/). The bill calls for the certification ofrestaurants that have completed the training and have implemented the high-road employment policies.
A related bill AB 1192 requires companies to disclose worker-related metrics and declares the intent ofthe Legislature to establish a certification program to provide incentives for companies that qualify as high-road employers based on the worker- related metrics. to provide incentives, such as procurement contracts, tax benefits and workforce development funding, to companies that qualify as “high-road employers” .
1. Do you agree that the goal of equity (equal outcomes) should replace equality (equal opportunity) in employee training in California?
2. Have you thought about the implications of teaching socialist principles to restaurant employees, some of whom may be new immigrants?
AB 937, AS INTRODUCED, CARRILLO. IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.
WHAT THE BILL DOESAB 937 would prohibit any state or local agency from arresting or facilitating the arrest, confinement, detention, transfer, interrogation, or deportation of an individual for an immigration enforcement purpose. The bill would prohibit state or local agencies or courts from using immigration status as a factor to deny or to recommend denial of probation, participation in any diversion, rehabilitation, placement in credit-earning programs or classes, or mental health program, to determine custodial classification level, or to deny mandatory supervision or lengthen the portion of supervision served in custody. The bill would authorize a person to bring an action for equitable or declaratory relief in a court of competent jurisdiction against a state or local agency or state or local official that violates these provisions and would make those agencies or officials liable for actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. This bill repeals current law that requires Corrections to identify inmates serving terms in state prison who are undocumented felons subject to deportation.
CONVERSATION STARTERS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS1. A California Assemblyman has filed AB 937 that would completely eliminate California’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Do you believe it is in our state’s best interest to be a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants?2. Do you think such pro-illegal immigration laws should punish any state or local official who does cooperate with enforcement of federal immigration laws with fines and punitive damages? 3. Do you think that illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes should be deported?
SB 357 – Loitering for the purpose of engaging in a prostitution offense.
This bill authored by Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco would repeal the current Penal Code 653.22 which makes loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution illegal. In other words, this bill would make it legal for prostitutes to walk along the street or stand on the street corner to entice clients. The proponents of SB 357 include the ACLU of California which argues that such laws “create opportunities” for police to discriminate against racial and sexual minorities noting that the number of arrests for Blacks is highly disproportional to the population.
However, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has a different take. In a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, he voiced his opposition saying that repeal of this law would take away a major tool in fighting prostitution.
The underlying root of California Penal Code 653.22 is to target sex buyers who seek to exploit. It is common for sex buyers to drive around high
prostitution areas, which include business and residential locations and make contact with multiple prostitutes with no other lawful reason to be in the area. Current law allows law enforcement to help control street prostitution to a certain extent. This section is also often used to keep prostitutes from hanging around public places, business, and residential communities, which can breed crime and drug use.
Not surprisingly, both the ACLU and Senator Wiener favor legalizing prostitution. This bill represents a step in that direction. SB 357 has passed the Senate and is in the Assembly Public Safety Committee awaiting hearing.
1. A state senator from San Francisco wants to repeal the law that makes it illegal to walk the streets to solicit for prostitution. Would you want that kind of activity in your neighborhood?
Prostitution brings with it other crimes and drug use according a letter by LA County Sheriff Villanueva opposing SB 357. Yet Senator Wiener and the ACLU want to legalize prostitution. Do you think that’s good pol
SB 380 END OF LIFE - An act to amend Sections 443.1, 443.3, 443.4, 443.5, 443.11, 443.14, 443.15, and 443.17 of, and to repeal Section 443.215 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to end of life.
WHAT THE BILL DOES. The bill would amend portions of the existing law that authorizes resident California adults, age 18 or older to request an aid-in-dying drug that they self-administer to end their life. Following legal challenges after the bill was signed into law October 2015, it went into effect June 2016 and is valid through January 1st 2026. Among a number of language changes, the major issues address:
1. extending the operation of the act indefinitely;
2. reducing the timing of two required oral requests for aid-in-dying drugs from a minimum 15 days to 48 hours apart; and
3. eliminating the requirement for a final attestation by those prescribed the drugs.
CONVERSATION STARTERS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS
Why would the legislature extend the law indefinitely just half-way through its 10 year span?
• This was a controversial issue in 2015. Allowing it to expire or passing another law would likely be just as controversial. Since the COVID pandemic caused Californians to focus on many issues, this may be a way to slip a major change through the system unnoticed.
Do you know how many Californians have requested and followed through with aid-in-dying drugs? From required documentation, the Department of Public Health prepares and posts reports on their website by 1 July each year.
• From 2016 through 2020, 2,858 prescriptions were written and 1,816 died following their ingestion. Over the 4½ years 63.5% followed through to the end. About 36% did not.
What do you think would happen if the time between the two required oral requests was reduced from a minimum of 15 days to 48 hours, and if the final attestation requirement was eliminated?
• The Department of Public Health does not address the 36% not following through with the drugs, but it is reasonable to presume many changed their mind over a period of time.
• With just 48 hours between two oral requests and no required final attestation, two important safeguards against rushing into a life-ending decision would be eliminated.
• Decisions based on the immediate circumstances of pain, and emotional stresses etc. can change rapidly and dramatically, and impair rational decision making.
• Eliminating the safeguards would likely see a reduction in the average 36% not following through due to insufficient time for introspection, rational consideration, and evaluation of all medical options.
SB 503 VOTING: BALLOTS AND SIGNATURE VERIFICATION
WHAT THE BILL DOES
Existing law requires an elections official, upon receiving a vote by mail ballot, to verify the signature on the identification envelope by comparing it with the signature on specified records within the voter’s registration record.
This bill allows for a less stringent standard for signature verification. Instead of matching the signature it is to be only compared AND an elections official can only reject a ballot if the official determines beyond a reasonable doubt that a voter’s signature does not compare to a signature in the voter’s registration record.
1. Are you aware that the election officials who are verifying signatures have no special handwriting analysis training?
2. When an election official is comparing a signature they must look at the voters registration record which in many cases shows a party preference. Will the party preference affect how the official adjudicates the signature? In other words will a Democrat official apply a different standard to a Republican signature than a Democrat signature?
3. Are you aware that most election officials in the State of California are Democrats? Do you think that will affect how they verify and tabulate votes?
4. Do you think that signature verification might be too subjective. Each election official might adjudicate the same signature in a different way depending on the officials political preference; visual acuity; cognitive ability; personality traits; honesty and fairness.
5. Do you realize that not all ballots are subjected to an actual human signature verification? Many ballots are verified by machine and it varies as to how the machine is set to determine which ballots are selected to be verified by election officials
SB 519 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES: decriminalization of certain hallucinogenic substances. An act to amend, add, and repeal sections of the Health and Safety Code relating to controlled substances.
WHAT THE BILL DOES: Legalizes the possession of specific hallucinogenic drugs and related drug paraphernalia, for personal use and social sharing with others over age 21: psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).
· Provide penalties for possession on school grounds or possession by, or sharing with those under age 21;
· Decriminalize their cultivation, transfer, or transportation; and
· Require a Department of Public Health working group to study and recommend possible regulatory systems for safe access in legal contexts, and options for caregiving services such as therapy, end-of-life care, and compassionate use.
CONVERSATION STARTERS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS:
Did you know that the original list of hallucinogenic drugs for decriminalization included ketamine?
·This drug is used in a number of medical treatments including sedation but has also been used illegally to compromise the will of unwitting victims as a “date rape” drug. Concerned citizens brought pressure to bear on the legislature and it was removed from the list.
What do you think will happen if using hallucinogenic drugs is made legal?
· These drugs distort reality and some users do things under their influence they would otherwise never consider.
· Like legalization and easy access to Marijuana for recreational use, it is not unreasonable to predict an increase in hallucinogenic drug usage including those with mental and/or drug abuse problems.
· Depending on how control and oversight will be handled, again using the Marijuana model, instead of putting the illegal trade out of business as projected, heavy taxation and strict regulations added significant costs to the legal trade’s product—the illegal trade didn’t have those added costs giving their business a significant advantage on the street. Can we expect the same with hallucinogenic drugs?
Why do you think the CA legislature is pursing decriminalization of these drugs?
· In summary their stated positions are that the war on drugs has been financially and socially overwhelming; the decades of misinformation through a lack of honest drug education increased the dangers; criminalization has created an unregulated, underground, dangerous situation; and decriminalization and government control will solve the problem.
· They cite the state of Oregon, Washington D.C., five U.S. cities (including Oakland and Santa Cruz, CA), and 20 countries that have made moves to decriminalize and deprioritize drugs for personal usage. They apparently think that should have bearing on California.
· Bottom line, decriminalization goes hand-in-hand with the legislature’s on-going efforts to downgrade felonies to misdemeanors and put criminals back on the street rather than in prison or jail.
SB-663 RECALL PETITIONS
WHAT THE BILL DOES This bill would authorize the target of a recall petition (for example Governor Newsom) to inspect the petition and related memoranda for purposes of communicating with registered voters to determine whether they signed the recall petition and whether they understood the recall petition they may have signed, and to assist registered voters to withdraw their signatures on the recall petition, if they so desire.This bill states that the Legislature further (brazenly) finds and declares that signature gatherers frequently communicate inaccurate information to voters in order to obtain their signatures on petitions, and that deception undermines the integrity of the electoral process.
1. Do you think it is good practice to allow the target of a recall the opportunity to interrogate those persons who voted to recall.
2. Will this process allow the target who is politically powerful to intimidate and threaten those voters who have voted to recall?
WHAT THE BILL DOES
SB 350 would require a person who is convicted of, pleads guilty or no contest a written advisory, that manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance and a person does as a result, can be charged with murder. This bill would be known as Alexandra’s Law.
CONVERSATION STARTERS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS
1. As the opioid overdoses continues to grow in the United States, do you think our laws should recognize that those who manufacture or distribute controlled substances that result in someone’s death have committed murder?
2. Did you know that fentanyl is 50 times stronger than heroin?
3. Did you know that our County of Riverside has seized 10 kilos of fentanyl?
4. Did you know that it takes such a small amount of fentanyl to cause death that 10 kilos could kill almost everyone in the county?
5. Do you believe people who manufacture and sell fentanyl should be guilty of murder if someone dies as a result of taking fentanyl?