California’s legislature weighs a bill to protect the privacy of voters in the digital age – and if it is adopted, certain personal information would no longer appear in the reviews of newspapers related to recall efforts.
A bill presented by senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, R-Yucaipa, would modify the Californian elections code to allow signatures and street addresses to be withdrawn from the opinion published on the stock market which launches a recall effort.
Under the law, people who launch a reminder must publish a notice of intention to recall in a newspaper, which includes complete names, signatures and street addresses of the Partisans.
The signatures are generally displayed in a column format in the published opinion, allowing the public to see who supports the effort.
The SB 270 would require that the name, the city, the state and the postal code of a promoter to be included in the opinion published.
In California, supporters of the recall are the small group that officially launches the process by depositing the opinion of intention to recall. They are different from the supporters, who sign the petition later to help qualify it for the ballot.
Ochoa Bogh said that the legislation concerned people’s privacy protection in a digital world where information spreads quickly and can be used to be unhealthy.
“Although this may have meaning before the information becomes easily available via the Internet, in the current climate of the reprisals policy, the publication of this personal identification information could lead to intimidation, harassment and in extreme cases, violence,” said Ochoa Bogh.
California has allowed voters to recall elected officials since 1911. To initiate a reminder, the petitioners must file an opinion from the competent electoral officer and serve a copy of the official they are trying to withdraw from his functions.
State law also requires the publication of the opinion in a general circulation journal. The Office of the Secretary of State said that since at least 1996, the law of the State required that a copy of the entire opinion be published, including the addresses and signatures of the supporters.
Under the SB 270, supporters of the recall should always submit complete identification information to electoral officials and to the targeted civil servant, but this information would not appear in the published opinion.
Electoral officials and the Secretary of State would be required to reduce this personal information before publishing the files publicly, even under California Public Records Act.
“SB 270 establishes a balance between transparency and the protection of those who engage in our democratic process,” said Ochoa Bogh.
Political consultant Chris Robles, who declared that he has been working on nine local recall campaigns since 2001, including an effort to recall the municipal council in 2023 in Yucaipa, where he was a consultant for the recall organizers, noted the risks posed by the digital storage of personal information.
“On this day, when we have digital newspapers, someone could easily take these signatures and abuse them … The signature they use to vote,” said Robles, former president of the County County Committee of San Bernardino.
“I am proud to see support … for this bipartite effort to improve the confidentiality and safety of voters,” he said.
The opinion was always to be published in a newspaper, but there are alternatives if the publication of newspapers is not possible. In such cases, the opinion could be displayed in at least three public locations in the jurisdiction of the targeted civil servant and on at least three websites, one for the jurisdiction, one for a local business association and a servant of community babbulard.
These new rules would apply to all recall elections, local and state.
The Secretary of State is said to be responsible for writing regulations on the operation of these online publications.
Ochoa Bogh said the bill will not affect transparency or modify the thresholds necessary to trigger a reminder.
“The recall is an essential tool for electoral responsibility. We must make sure that it remains accessible and safe for the Californians who choose to use it,” she said.
The bill – co -written by Sens. Steven Choi, R-IRVINE and Melissa Hurtado, D-Bakersfield-crossed the Senate Elections and Constitutional Changes Committee last week with bipartite support. No opposition has yet been raised.
This is not the first time that Cohoa Bogh has pushed such an effort.
Last year, she presented a similar bill, SB 1293, which would have demanded local electoral officials or the Secretary of State to ensure that personal information of the opinion of intention to remember before making it public. However, the bill stopped in the Senate credit committee and did not receive a full vote.
SB 270 will then be examined by the Senate judicial committee.
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers
