Latest news with #DeMaio
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Unpacking California bill that would allegedly allow undocumented immigrants to count election ballots
In late May 2025, a rumor spread online that California will allow undocumented immigrants to count ballots in the state's elections. The allegation appeared to originate with a Republican state assembly member, Carl DeMaio, who on May 23 claimed on X that California Democrats "just passed" a bill called Assembly Bill 930 "to allow illegal immigrants" to count ballots. AB 930 is a legitimate bill sponsored by Democratic Assembly Member Christopher Ward. However, both Ward and the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, a nonpartisan group of county officials that supports AB 930, disputed DeMaio's claim. The bill's main purpose is to modernize election processes and clarify existing law. The key language in the bill at the center of DeMaio's claim would amend California's Election Code to allow election officials to appoint "four individuals," instead of "four voters of the county," to a special recount board. In California, a special recount board convenes to oversee a ballot recount when a voter requests it after any election. DeMaio claims this change allows election officials to appoint undocumented immigrants to a recount board under a 2019 state law permitting undocumented immigrants to hold "appointed civil office." However, Ward and the election officials' association disagree, pointing to a provision in California's Elections Code that prohibits nonvoters appointed to a "precinct board" from tallying votes. According to Ethan Jones, a consultant for the California State Assembly Committee on Elections, a "special recount board" likely falls under the definition of a "precinct board," which would mean that Ward and the association are correct and AB 930 would not allow undocumented immigrants to count votes. However, Jones said the law is somewhat ambiguous in this case, meaning DeMaio's claim is not entirely out of the question. In late May 2025, a rumor spread online that California passed a law allowing undocumented immigrants to count ballots in its elections. The claim appeared to originate with state Republican Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, who posted a clip on X denouncing the purported bill. "BREAKING: CA Democrats just passed AB 930 to allow illegal immigrants to COUNT BALLOTS in our elections!" the May 23 post read. Others spread similar messages, some of which included the clip of DeMaio, on X and Facebook; many of these posts claimed California just "legalized" allowing undocumented immigrants to count ballots. AB 930 is a legitimate bill meant to modernize California's election processes and clarify existing law, sponsored by Democratic Assembly Member Christopher Ward. It is not yet law. One of its provisions "repeals requirements that the members of a recount board must be voters," per a May 1 analysis of the bill's text available for download on the California Legislature's website. The bill would apply to ballot recounts in the state for any election. The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, a nonpartisan group of the state's county officials — and a supporter of AB 930 — says that state law already prohibits nonvoters from counting ballots, meaning AB 930 would not allow undocumented immigrants to count ballots. DeMaio's argument rests on a 2019 law that allows undocumented immigrants to sit on certain boards and commissions. However, both the bill sponsor and the election officials' association say that 2019 law does not apply in this case. According to the association, California election law already prohibits nonvoters from counting ballots, meaning AB 930 does not allow undocumented immigrants to tally ballots. It is likely that the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials are correct — but some ambiguity in the law's wording prevents us from providing a definitive truthfulness rating on this story. AB 930 has also only passed one of California's two legislative chambers as of this writing; it must pass both and be signed by the state's governor to become law. Here's our breakdown of what we know about AB 930. The key language in dispute is the bill's amendment of the election code to read "individuals" instead "voters of the county," the language used in state law as of this writing. A spokesperson for DeMaio, Dylan Martin, pointed to this change in an emailed statement as supposed evidence that the legislation allows undocumented immigrants to sit on a recount board, a group of people who oversee an election ballot recount. California law allows any voter to ask the state for a recount. Here is the relevant text from the legislation, under Section 6 (emphasis ours): Section 15625 of the Elections Code is amended to read: (a) The recount shall be conducted under the supervision of the elections official. The elections official shall convene special recount boards consisting of four individuals appointed by and at the discretion of the elections official. The requester shall reimburse the county for the cost of each member of a recount board. However, a legislative aide in Ward's office, Anthony Reyes, said in an email that the change from "voter" to "individual" was made "solely to provide consistency and clarity across various parts of the Election Code." "It ensures flexibility in describing a broader range of roles (some of which are non-tallying or observational in nature), but does not affect the legal requirement that vote-tallying board members be registered voters," Reyes said. In a May 29 letter to Ward's office obtained via Reyes, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials said this (emphasis theirs): AB 930 does not allow undocumented immigrants to sit on recount boards. However, it is possible that separately a documented non-citizen could be hired for other election-related work. Counties cannot hire an undocumented immigrant for a county extra help position, as all such employees must be legally cleared to work. As the clerks and elections officials' office noted, it is against federal law for any U.S. employer to knowingly hire an undocumented immigrant. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, federal immigration law supersedes state law. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution also gives the U.S. Congress broad power over immigration and related laws. As such, federal law, not state law, dictates whether an immigrant can be employed in the United States, including California. DeMaio's office claimed a separate law California passed in 2019, Senate Bill 225, allows undocumented immigrants to sit on recount boards because it permits undocumented immigrants to hold "appointed civil office" to ensure diverse perspectives on local boards and commissions. "They are not employees. This relates to members of the BOARD that oversees the counting. They are appointees," Martin wrote. He pointed to the following section of SB 225 (emphasis ours): (b) Notwithstanding any other law, a person, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, is eligible to hold an appointed civil office if the person is 18 years of age and a resident of the state. (c) Notwithstanding any other law, a person appointed to civil office, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, may receive any form of compensation that the person is not otherwise prohibited from receiving pursuant to federal law, including, but not limited to, any stipend, grant, or reimbursement of personal expenses that is associated with carrying out the duties of that office. As elections officials appoint individuals to the recount boards, Martin argued, the special recount board members count as an "appointed civil office," and as long as they do not receive employee compensation — wages, in other words — they can sit on a recount board per AB 930 and federal law. However, according to Reyes, from the bill sponsor's office, SB 225 does not apply to "temporary, non-civil service assignments like recount boards, which are governed by a separate set of election-specific statutes." Instead, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, as well as Ward's office, argue that a "special recount board" would fall under California Elections Code 12302, which prohibits nonvoters from tallying votes for a "precinct board" (emphasis ours): (c)(2) A nonvoter appointed to a precinct board pursuant to this subdivision shall not be permitted to do either of the following: (A) Serve as, or perform any of the duties of, the inspector of a precinct board. (B) Tally votes for the precinct board. A "special recount board" as described in AB 930 likely falls under the definition of a "precinct board" per California law (emphasis ours): (a) "Precinct board" is the board appointed by the elections official to serve at a single precinct or a consolidated precinct. In an election conducted using vote centers, "precinct board" means the board appointed by the elections official to serve at a vote center. (b) "Precinct board," when used in relation to proceedings taking place after the polls have closed, likewise includes any substitutive canvassing and counting board that may have been appointed to take the place of the board theretofore serving. As a special recount board takes place after the polls have closed and is a "counting board," it probably counts as a precinct board. But Ethan Jones, chief consultant for the California State Assembly Committee on Elections, said in an email that while there's a "colorable argument" that the restrictions for a precinct board apply to a special recount board, he "wouldn't say that's a slam dunk." "It's somewhat ambiguous whether the restrictions on precinct boards would apply to recount boards, or whether a recount board would be considered a precinct board under the law," Jones said. A search for "special recount board" within the "definitions" section of California's Elections Code returned no results, meaning the state law does not explicitly specify that a special recount board is a precinct board. To summarize, should AB 930 pass, it is likely that it would not permit undocumented immigrants to tally votes in any capacity due to federal employment restrictions and preexisting state law. However, there is a small chance that ambiguity in the existing law may in theory allow California's undocumented immigrants to sit on a special recount board, which convenes when a voter requests a ballot recount. "8 USC 1324a: Unlawful Employment of Aliens." Accessed 28 May 2025. "Bill Text - AB-930 Elections and Voting Procedures." Accessed 28 May 2025. "Bill Text - SB-225 Citizens of the State." Accessed 30 May 2025. "California Code, ELEC 12302." Accessed 30 May 2025. "California Code, ELEC 15625." Accessed 30 May 2025. "Chapter 1 - Purpose and Background | USCIS." 11 May 2021, Accessed 28 May 2025. "Committee Staff | California State Assembly." Accessed 30 May 2025. Constitution Annotated. "ArtVI.C2.1 Overview of Supremacy Clause." Accessed 28 May 2025. "Elections Code - ELEC DIVISION 0.5. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS [1 - 362] ." Accessed 30 May 2025. "Elections Code - ELEC DIVISION 12. PREELECTION PROCEDURES [12000 - 12327] ." Accessed 30 May 2025. Jones, Ethan. ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 930 (Ward). 1 May 2025, Accessed 28 May 2025. "Overview | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." Page, Bob. CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of CLERKS and ELECTION OFFICIALS. CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS AND ELECTION OFFICIALS, 29 May 2025, Accessed 30 May 2025. "Recounts — Frequently Asked Questions : California Secretary of State." 2025,
USA Today
22-05-2025
- USA Today
3 men sentenced to decades in prison for fatal New York gay bar drugging scheme
3 men sentenced to decades in prison for fatal New York gay bar drugging scheme Show Caption Hide Caption Why fentanyl is the leading cause of overdose deaths in the US Over 150 Americans die every day from overdoses related to fentanyl and synthetic opioids. Here's why fentanyl is so deadly. Three men were sentenced on May 21 to decades in prison for their roles in a conspiracy to drug and rob men leaving New York bars and nightclubs late at night, resulting in two deaths in 2022, prosecutors said. Jayqwan Hamilton, 37, Robert DeMaio, 36, and Jacob Barroso, 32, were found guilty in February on multiple counts of murder, robbery, and conspiracy for the 15-month-long scheme that targeted victims in Manhattan's Hell's Kitchen neighborhood, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. The case sent shockwaves through the city's LGBTQ+ community after two men were found dead in April and May 2022. The two men were identified as Julio Ramirez, 25, and John Umberger, 33, who both died from "drug-facilitated thefts," according to the medical examiner's office. Lab tests revealed that the men had fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and several other drugs in their systems when they died. Their family members told news outlets that they suspected foul play after discovering the men's bank accounts had been drained, USA TODAY previously reported. Prosecutors accused Hamilton, DeMaio, and Barroso of lurking outside nightclubs and bars to "exploit intoxicated individuals." Prosecutors said the defendants gave their victims drugs laced with fentanyl to immobilize them before taking the victims' phones and withdrawing money from their online financial accounts. On May 21, Hamilton and DeMaio were sentenced to 40 years to life in state prison, while Barroso was sentenced to 20 years to life, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. All three were convicted of the murder of Ramirez, and only Hamilton and DeMaio were convicted in Umberger's death. "Julio Ramirez and John Umberger were beloved by their friends and family and had incredibly bright futures ahead of them," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg said in a statement. 'Yet their lives were cut short by these defendants, who displayed a wanton disregard towards their victims. They left both men to die as they used their financial accounts to purchase clothes and sneakers, never once showing concern about the deadly consequences of their actions." New Orleans jail escape: What are the odds that all fugitives will be caught? Robbery crew drugged victims to the point of unconsciousness During the three-week trial, prosecutors detailed at least five incidents that occurred between March and May 2022 in which the defendants targeted victims outside of The Q NYC, a now-closed gay nightclub, and The Ritz Bar and Lounge. The two venues were located in Hell's Kitchen, a neighborhood that has a large LGBTQ+ population. Prosecutors said the defendants drugged their victims with fentanyl-laced drugs to cause them to become unconscious. The defendants then stole the victims' phones to make unauthorized charges and transfers on Cash App, Apple Cash, or Zelle. Their victims often woke up the next day, only to realize their phones and wallets were missing, according to prosecutors. In one instance, the defendants used a victim's credit card to purchase luxury fashion at Prada and Bloomingdale's. In another instance, a victim discovered that $2,000 had been transferred from his bank account to DeMaio's account, prosecutors said. On April 21, 2022, the defendants met Ramirez outside of The Ritz Bar and Lounge, prosecutors said. They then left Ramirez unresponsive in the back of a cab at about 3:30 a.m. after giving him the laced drugs. Ramirez was later transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead, according to prosecutors. Prosecutors said the defendants spent thousands of dollars on sneakers and clothing after transferring money from Ramirez's Apple Cash and Cash App accounts. About a month later, Umberger met with DeMaio and Hamilton outside of The Q NYC. The three men eventually went back to Umberger's apartment building, where DeMaio and Hamilton left Umberger "motionless and incapacitated on his bed" after providing him with laced drugs, according to prosecutors. Prosecutors said DeMaio and Hamilton spent over $2,000 from Umberger's accounts on sneakers and clothing at multiple stores. Umberger was found dead five days after the incident. Three other men were also arrested and convicted in connection with the scheme, according to prosecutors. The three co-conspirators were each sentenced to eight to nine years for robbery and conspiracy charges, W42ST, CBS News, and NBC4 Washington previously reported. U.S. fentanyl crisis: Drug overdose deaths plummet to pre-pandemic levels during fentanyl crisis Similar scheme reported in New York City during same time period During the same time, New York City authorities also reported that a different robbery crew was using similar tactics to commit crimes throughout lower Manhattan. In June 2023, a 33-year-old man was indicted for a drugging, robbery and larceny spree that targeted 21 victims and caused five deaths in 2022, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Prosecutors accused Kenwood Allen of drugging his victims with fentanyl after they spent the night out at bars before stealing their phones, credit cards or watches. Prosecutors alleged that in some instances, Allen left his victims on the street after they had overdosed. The New York Post previously reported that Allen and other members of the robbery crew targeted at least 26 victims together. In response to these incidents, Bragg sent letters in 2024 to the companies that own Venmo, Zelle, and Cash App, demanding that they enhance customer fraud protections. "No longer is the smartphone itself the most lucrative target for scammers and robbers – it's the financial apps contained within," Bragg said in a statement at the time. "Thousands or even tens of thousands can be drained from financial accounts in a matter of seconds with just a few taps. Without additional protections, customers' financial and physical safety is being put at risk." Contributing: Amanda Lee Myers, USA TODAY
Gulf Today
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Most Californians favour proving citizenship to vote
Kevin Rector, Tribune News Service While California voters are sharply divided along partisan lines when it comes to election integrity and voter fraud, they broadly support a politically-charged proposal from President Donald Trump and other Republicans to require first-time voters to provide government-issued identification proving their citizenship in order to register, according to a new poll. A majority of voters in both parties back the proof of citizenship requirement for registering, according to a new poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times. Most Californians also supported requiring a government ID every time a voter casts a ballot, though by a slimmer majority and despite most Democrats opposing the idea. Mark DiCamillo, co-director of the Berkeley IGS Poll, said the bipartisan support for first-time voters showing proof of citizenship stood out, as many of the poll's other findings showed a stark political divide and a majority of Californians at odds with Trump and his recent edicts on voting — which California and other states are suing to block. Still, DiCamillo said his biggest takeaway was the sharp distrust in the state's election system that the poll found among California Republicans, which he said should be a "serious concern" for state elections officials — even if a majority trust the system. Democratic voters in the state are largely confident in the state election system and doubtful of prevalent voter fraud, while many Republican voters feel the opposite, the poll found. "It is significant to me that the Republicans in this state are not of that view. And that's something that has to be dealt with," DiCamillo said. "In an election system, you want both sides to be on board." Overall, 71% of respondents said they supported new voters having to prove citizenship upon registering, including 59% of Democrats, the poll found. Nearly all Republicans — 95% — backed the proposal, as did 71% of voters registered to other parties or as "no party preference." A separate proposal to require voters to show proof of citizenship every time they vote also drew support from a majority of poll respondents, but a much slimmer one — with 54% support. While 88% of Republicans backed that idea, about 60% of Democrats opposed it. Among independents and Californians registered with other parties, 54% supported it. Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento have repeatedly rebuffed proposals for stricter voter ID laws in the state, including in recent weeks, when they shot down a voter ID bill from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego. DeMaio also has launched a campaign to place a voter ID and proof of citizenship requirement on the 2026 ballot. DeMaio said the poll showed there is "broad public support" for his measure — which would require both proof of citizenship upon registering for the first time and a photo ID for confirming identity each subsequent time voting — and that California Democrats are "out of touch" with the electorate. "Overwhelmingly, voters support this ballot measure," he said. "The only people who don't support it? Sacramento politicians." The proposed ballot measure would require mail-in ballots to include the last four digits of the voter's valid government-issued form of identification, along with the current requirement to have the signature of a voter on the ballot verified. The polling was conducted April 21-28, about a month after Trump issued a March 25 executive order presuming to dictate to the states a slate of new election requirements that Trump said were necessary to restore integrity in US elections, but many experts said were outside the scope of his authority. Trump has alleged for years, without evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen from him and that voter fraud is widespread, including among immigrants who are in the country illegally. Neither of those things is true. Trump's executive order says voters must show a US passport, Real ID or some other government-issued photo identification in order to register to vote. It says states also must limit their counting of ballots to those received by election day — not postmarked by then, as California and some other states currently allow — or risk losing federal funding. The order also directs the Election Assistance Commission, which is an independent, bipartisan body outside the president's control, to mandate the proposed restrictions and other, Trump-determined requirements for state voting systems, and to rescind its certifications of voting equipment in states that don't comply. Parts of Trump's order — including the proof of citizenship requirement — have been blocked in federal court while litigation challenging the order continues. California is one of many states suing, with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta calling Trump's order "a blatantly illegal power grab and an attempt to disenfranchise voters." In a statement on the poll results, Bonta said it was fortunate that a majority of Californians still have confidence in the state election system despite Trump "spreading lies" about voter fraud and other election issues for years. He said state law "already contains robust voter ID requirements with strong protections to prevent voter fraud," and that his office "is committed to removing barriers to voter registration and to promoting greater participation in the democratic process — in and out of court." Dean C. Logan, registrar-recorder and county clerk for Los Angeles County, said in a court filing earlier this week that Trump's order — if left intact — would "divert time, resources, and attention from other critical departmental responsibilities and election preparation, including assisting voters displaced by the Palisades and Eaton Canyon fires; upgrading the County's Election Management System ('EMS') which serves as the backbone of the voter registration intake and database; and engaging in a site by site analysis of all 600-plus Vote Center locations to ensure they meet accessibility standards." The poll found Californians are largely at odds with Trump's attacks on the integrity of US elections, which is perhaps not surprising in a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans nearly 2 to 1. For instance, the poll found that a majority of Californians — and strong majorities of Democrats — believe voter fraud is rare, express confidence in the integrity of the state's voting system, oppose efforts by the federal government to take more control over voting from the state and counties, and oppose Trump's proposal to prohibit the counting of mail ballots after election day. Among the respondents who participated in the poll — 6,201 registered voters in the state — more than two-thirds, or 68%, expressed confidence in the overall integrity of the state's election system. The same percentage opposed Trump's recent proposal to prohibit the counting of ballots postmarked but not received by election day. Well over half — or 57% — said they believed voter fraud in the state is very or fairly rare, while a similar percentage, 58%, said they were opposed to Trump's proposal for the federal government to take greater control over state elections. On all of those questions, however, Californians were heavily divided along partisan lines.
Miami Herald
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Most Californians favor proving citizenship to vote, poll finds
LOS ANGELES - While California voters are sharply divided along partisan lines when it comes to election integrity and voter fraud, they broadly support a politically-charged proposal from President Donald Trump and other Republicans to require first-time voters to provide government-issued identification proving their citizenship in order to register, according to a new poll. A majority of voters in both parties back the proof of citizenship requirement for registering, according to a new poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times. Most Californians also supported requiring a government ID every time a voter casts a ballot, though by a slimmer majority and despite most Democrats opposing the idea. Mark DiCamillo, co-director of the Berkeley IGS Poll, said the bipartisan support for first-time voters showing proof of citizenship stood out, as many of the poll's other findings showed a stark political divide and a majority of Californians at odds with Trump and his recent edicts on voting - which California and other states are suing to block. Still, DiCamillo said his biggest takeaway was the sharp distrust in the state's election system that the poll found among California Republicans, which he said should be a "serious concern" for state elections officials - even if a majority trust the system. Democratic voters in the state are largely confident in the state election system and doubtful of prevalent voter fraud, while many Republican voters feel the opposite, the poll found. "It is significant to me that the Republicans in this state are not of that view. And that's something that has to be dealt with," DiCamillo said. "In an election system, you want both sides to be on board." Overall, 71% of respondents said they supported new voters having to prove citizenship upon registering, including 59% of Democrats, the poll found. Nearly all Republicans - 95% - backed the proposal, as did 71% of voters registered to other parties or as "no party preference." A separate proposal to require voters to show proof of citizenship every time they vote also drew support from a majority of poll respondents, but a much slimmer one - with 54% support. While 88% of Republicans backed that idea, about 60% of Democrats opposed it. Among independents and Californians registered with other parties, 54% supported it. Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento have repeatedly rebuffed proposals for stricter voter ID laws in the state, including in recent weeks, when they shot down a voter ID bill from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego. DeMaio also has launched a campaign to place a voter ID and proof of citizenship requirement on the 2026 ballot. DeMaio said the poll showed there is "broad public support" for his measure - which would require both proof of citizenship upon registering for the first time and a photo ID for confirming identity each subsequent time voting - and that California Democrats are "out of touch" with the electorate. "Overwhelmingly, voters support this ballot measure," he said. "The only people who don't support it? Sacramento politicians." The proposed ballot measure would require mail-in ballots to include the last four digits of the voter's valid government-issued form of identification, along with the current requirement to have the signature of a voter on the ballot verified. The polling was conducted April 21-28, about a month after Trump issued a March 25 executive order presuming to dictate to the states a slate of new election requirements that Trump said were necessary to restore integrity in U.S. elections, but many experts said were outside the scope of his authority. Trump has alleged for years, without evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen from him and that voter fraud is widespread, including among immigrants who are in the country illegally. Neither of those things is true. Trump's executive order says voters must show a U.S. passport, Real ID or some other government-issued photo identification in order to register to vote. It says states also must limit their counting of ballots to those received by election day - not postmarked by then, as California and some other states currently allow - or risk losing federal funding. The order also directs the Election Assistance Commission, which is an independent, bipartisan body outside the president's control, to mandate the proposed restrictions and other, Trump-determined requirements for state voting systems, and to rescind its certifications of voting equipment in states that don't comply. Parts of Trump's order - including the proof of citizenship requirement - have been blocked in federal court while litigation challenging the order continues. California is one of many states suing, with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta calling Trump's order "a blatantly illegal power grab and an attempt to disenfranchise voters." In a statement on the poll results, Bonta said it was fortunate that a majority of Californians still have confidence in the state election system despite Trump "spreading lies" about voter fraud and other election issues for years. He said state law "already contains robust voter ID requirements with strong protections to prevent voter fraud," and that his office "is committed to removing barriers to voter registration and to promoting greater participation in the democratic process - in and out of court." Dean C. Logan, registrar-recorder and county clerk for Los Angeles County, said in a court filing earlier this week that Trump's order - if left intact - would "divert time, resources, and attention from other critical departmental responsibilities and election preparation, including assisting voters displaced by the Palisades and Eaton Canyon fires; upgrading the County's Election Management System ('EMS') which serves as the backbone of the voter registration intake and database; and engaging in a site by site analysis of all 600-plus Vote Center locations to ensure they meet accessibility standards." The poll found Californians are largely at odds with Trump's attacks on the integrity of U.S. elections, which is perhaps not surprising in a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans nearly 2 to 1. For instance, the poll found that a majority of Californians - and strong majorities of Democrats - believe voter fraud is rare, express confidence in the integrity of the state's voting system, oppose efforts by the federal government to take more control over voting from the state and counties, and oppose Trump's proposal to prohibit the counting of mail ballots after election day. Among the respondents who participated in the poll - 6,201 registered voters in the state - more than two-thirds, or 68%, expressed confidence in the overall integrity of the state's election system. The same percentage opposed Trump's recent proposal to prohibit the counting of ballots postmarked but not received by election day. Well over half - or 57% - said they believed voter fraud in the state is very or fairly rare, while a similar percentage, 58%, said they were opposed to Trump's proposal for the federal government to take greater control over state elections. On all of those questions, however, Californians were heavily divided along partisan lines. For instance, 61% of Republican voters said they are not very or not at all confident in the integrity of the state's election system, which compared to just 13% of Democrats. And while 74% of Republicans said fraud was somewhat or very prevalent in state elections, just 14% of Democrats felt the same, the poll found. A majority of voters - 58% - opposed the federal government taking more control over elections from the state, despite more than three-quarters of Republicans supporting the move. And, while 57% of Republican voters backed Trump's proposal to prohibit the counting of mail ballots postmarked but not received by election officials by election day, just 9% of Democrats agreed - with 86% of Democrats disagreeing. Rick Hasen, a voting rights expert at UCLA Law School, said the poll results - including Californians' overall confidence in the state's election system, disbelief in prevalent fraud and opposition to federal takeover - were in line with other polling and what he'd expect. "Most people in most states believe that their own state's election system is run well, and that if there is any kind of problem, it's elsewhere," he said. It was equally unsurprising that "Republicans have a much more cynical view of the process," he said. "Party supporters tend to follow their elites, and the top of the Republican Party has been making false and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud for decades now," Hasen said. "It's no surprise that it's seeped through to the electorate." Hasen said the results on proof of citizenship also made sense, as "voter ID has polled positively, so requiring proof of voter citizenship also tends to poll positively." But, he questioned whether poll respondents really understood the implications of such a requirement. Asked whether it would be easy or difficult to "present a government-issued photo ID as proof of citizenship when voting in an election," 93% of respondents said it would be easy. But Hasen, many Democrats and most voting rights groups have argued just the opposite - that millions of U.S. citizens would be blocked from voting by the measure because they lack the required documents, which don't include birth certificates, which don't have photos, or many California driver's licenses. "I just don't think people recognize that a lot of government-issued photo IDs would not qualify, and they certainly wouldn't qualify under the president's proposed rules," Hasen said. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Epoch Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
California Assembly Passes Bill Allowing Only Veterinarians to Declaw Cats
A bill to prohibit cat declawing by anyone other than a licensed veterinarian passed the California Assembly on April 28. Assemblyman Alex Lee, a Democrat representing San Jose, authored at declawing is a barbaric surgical procedure that permanently disables cats, according to Lee. 'This bill simply bans the barbaric practice of cat declawing in California,' Lee said on the Assembly floor before The bill passed the Assembly floor Tuesday with bipartisan support on a vote of 72-0. Seven lawmakers did not vote on the measure. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, a Republican from San Diego, said he strongly supported the legislation. Related Stories 3/1/2025 1/12/2025 'It is not often that I am found in alignment with my colleague from the Bay Area, but this is a no-brainer,' DeMaio said during the floor debate Tuesday. 'This is about preventing animal cruelty.' The lawmaker said the procedure was the equivalent of cutting a human's finger off at the first knuckle. 'It is not an issue of personal freedom,' DeMaio added. 'Our Legislature bans barbaric practices all the time. Our furry friends do not have a voice.' The bill now heads to the state Senate. It had not yet been assigned a committee hearing Wednesday. According to a legislative analysis of the measure, the bill would allow only a veterinarian to declaw a cat. The licensed professional could perform the procedure only for a therapeutic purpose, such as for injury, infection, disease, or other conditions that jeopardize the cat's health. The bill defines declawing as the amputation of partial digits, or any other procedure where a portion of a cat's paw is amputated, or any other procedure that prevents the normal functioning of a cat's claws. Lawmakers in the California Assembly in Sacramento on Aug. 28, 2024. Travis Gillmore/The Epoch Times Declawing would not be approved for cosmetic or aesthetic purposes under the bill. Also, veterinarians would have to file a written statement with the state's Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) to explain the reason for the procedure and to report the date it was performed. Violating the law could result in fines, and suspension or revocation of the veterinarian's license. The bill is sponsored by the Paw Project, a nonprofit focused on ending declawing. The organization claims the procedure can do lifelong damage. 'Declawing removes an integral part of an animal's anatomy and subjects animals to the risks of pain, infection, behavioral changes, and lifelong lameness,' the Paw Project said in a statement to the Legislature. 'Safe and effective alternatives to declawing include simple training, nail caps, and other established deterrent methods.' Cat declawing is getting national attention as animal rights advocates push to ban the California Veterinary Medical Association opposes the bill, according to a legislative analysis. 'While this bill is aimed at prohibiting veterinarians from performing a surgical declawing procedure on cats under certain circumstances, it would—if passed—have a far-reaching and precedential impact on a veterinarian's ability to practice veterinary medicine,' the group stated. The group said it is 'deeply concerned that the veterinary profession is being singled out among our fellow healing arts professionals with legislation proposing to ban specific medical and surgical procedures in statutes, which is a dangerous precedent.' The California Assembly passed a similar bill— Many cat owners have their pets 'Scratching is a normal behavior of cats, but destructive scratching represents approximately 15 to 42 percent of feline behavior complaints,' the national veterinarian association reported. In some cases, cats are also declawed to protect people, particularly those who are elderly, diabetic, or have compromised immune systems and can suffer life-threatening complications from cat scratches, according to the association. Banning declawing has drawn the attention of animal activist organizations throughout the United States. In 2020, the American Veterinary Medical Association revised its formal policy regarding the declawing of domestic cats. The new policy discourages the practice as an elective procedure and supports nonsurgical alternatives. The association suggests owners speak with their veterinarians about natural scratching behavior of cats and alternatives to surgery. The group estimates 31 percent of all U.S. cat owners have their cats declawed.
