BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 901
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 28, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
SB 901 (Steinberg) - As Amended: August 22, 2012
As Proposed to Be Amended
SUBJECT : TAXATION: UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS: CALIFORNIA
OPPORTUNITY AND PROSPERITY ACT
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD CALIFORNIA ESTABLISH A VOLUNTARY PILOT
PROGRAM THAT MAY ENCOURAGE CERTAIN IMMIGRANTS TO PAY STATE
INCOME TAXES AND THAT POTENTIALLY ALLOWS QUALIFYING PARTICIPANTS
TO WORK AND REMAIN IN CALIFORNIA AT THE DISCRETION OF FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT?
SYNOPSIS
This laudable, author-sponsored bill seeks to enact the
California Opportunity and Prosperity Act (COPA), legislation
that would authorize until 2018 a pilot program intended to
encourage certain immigrants in California to file state income
tax returns, which could potentially generate a substantial
amount of new tax revenue for the state. In order to
incentivize participation in the program, this bill would have
the Governor request the federal government not to expend
resources on enforcement of immigration laws against qualifying
program participants and their employers, potentially allowing
participants to work and remain in California at the discretion
of federal authorities.
According to the author, the bill is intended to influence the
federal government's exercise of prosecutorial discretion in
immigration enforcement, and that the primary benefit
participants may receive is the expectation that federal
immigration authorities will classify them, if the need ever
should arise, in the so-called "lowest priority tier" in the
federal government's recently implemented tiered system of
enforcement. The author states that the bill "seeks to mirror
the Obama administration's latest statements on immigration
policy," citing recent United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security memoranda that set forth
how, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, each agency
should refocus its enforcement resources and priorities.
SB 901
Page 2
Proponents of the bill, including many immigrant advocates,
community organizations and elected officials, contend that the
possibility for program participants to remain and work in
California, despite being undocumented, is an attractive
incentive that will encourage participation and increase state
tax receipts, perhaps generating as many as one million new
taxpayers who would contribute an estimated $325 million
annually in new revenue. This analysis concludes, however, that
because the federal government is exclusively authorized to
regulate immigration and immigrants, this bill cannot
unfortunately guarantee program participants protection from
immigration enforcement.
Although the bill has no registered opposition, some immigrant
advocates have expressed concern that the bill potentially
creates an illusory promise of safe harbor to immigrants
considering applying to the program. In addition, there are
remaining questions about the bill's safeguards against possible
disclosure or unauthorized use of information identifying
undocumented participants. This bill was previously approved by
the Revenue and Taxation Committee by a 5-1 vote.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. According to the Franchise Tax Board
(FTB), this measure would not impact state revenues, and would
likely result in minor fiscal costs. According to the
Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of a similar ballot
initiative, the measure would result in an unknown net change in
annual state tax revenues through fiscal year 2017-18, but
probably without a significant impact on overall General Fund
revenues, and annual state administrative costs through FY
2017-18 in the hundreds of thousands or low millions of dollars,
supported by required participant fees.
SUMMARY : Establishes a voluntary program to encourage certain
immigrants to pay state income taxes, and requests the federal
government not to expend resources on enforcement of immigration
laws against program participants. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "qualified person" as a natural person who meets all
of the following criteria:
a) Is not eligible to receive a social security number
(SSN).
b) Filed a state income tax return with a valid individual
SB 901
Page 3
taxpayer identification number (ITIN) for the most recent
taxable year that a return was required to be made, as
specified.
c) Is not employed by a public entity, including, but not
limited to, the federal government, the State of
California, or any political subdivision of the state.
d) Declares that he or she is able to speak and understand
English or is enrolled in, or has applied to enroll in, an
English-as-a-second-language class, except as provided.
e) Has not been convicted of a felony under California law.
f) Is not a public charge, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C.
section 1182(a)(4).
g) Declares that he or she has been a resident of
California continuously since at least January 1, 2008.
h) Consents to a fingerprint background check, the
disclosure of any information necessary to confirm program
eligibility, and the disclosure of his or her name and
federal ITIN to the FTB.
2)Requires the California Department of Justice (DOJ), until
January 1, 2018, to administer the program established by this
bill, including, among other things:
a) Prescribe an application for program admission.
b) Upon receipt of an application, investigate and
determine whether the applicant meets the definition of a
qualified person.
c) Provide confirmation of admission and collect fees, as
specified.
3)Requires the FTB to prepare and submit an annual report to the
Legislature that details the tax receipts collected from
program participants, without disclosing identifying
information of any specific participant.
4)Provides that all identifying information of applicants or
qualified persons in the program must be kept confidential and
exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records
Act, and must not be disclosed for any purpose.
5)Requires all records relating to the program that contain any
individual identifying information be destroyed on January 1,
2019, or as soon as practicable thereafter, except as
provided.
SB 901
Page 4
6)Authorizes and directs the Governor on or after July 1, 2013,
to request that the President direct the Department of
Homeland Security, the ICE, and other relevant federal
agencies not to expend resources during the term of the
program on either of the following:
a) The apprehension, detention, or removal of a program
participant or the participant's spouse or eligible
dependent, unless the participant, spouse, or eligible
dependent meets one of the priority enforcement criteria
set forth in the then-existing ICE policy on civil
immigration enforcement.
b) The prosecution of a person for employing a qualified
person pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1324a.
7)Authorizes and directs the Governor on or after July 1, 2013,
to request that the President provide any available waivers,
exemptions, or authorizations necessary to provide a safe
harbor for individuals and businesses from federal civil and
criminal liability arising out of a qualified person's
participation in the program or the employment of a qualified
person during the term of the program.
8)Declares that these provisions shall remain in effect only
until January 1, 2020, and are repealed as of that date.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for the regulation of immigration exclusively by the
federal government. (E.g., LULAC v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755,
786-87 (C.D. Cal. 1995).)
2)Authorizes the removal of aliens from the United States who
were inadmissible at the time of their entry, have been
convicted of certain crimes, have engaged in unauthorized
work, or meet other criteria set by federal law. (8 U.S.C.
section 1227.)
3)Provides that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce
is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute
discretion (Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 835 (1985), and
that such prosecutorial discretion also applies to immigration
enforcement activities. (Reno v. American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 478-79 (1999).)
SB 901
Page 5
4)Prohibits an employer from employing any person whose
immigration status makes them ineligible for work and imposes
fines ranging from $250 to $10,000 for each undocumented
worker, and criminal penalties for habitual violators ranging
from a $3,000 fine to six months in prison. (8 U.S.C. section
274A.)
5)Pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
(IRCA), imposes sanctions on employers who knowingly hire or
continue to employ undocumented workers, and requires every
employer to verify the employment authorization status of
prospective employees. (8 U.S.C. section 1324a, subd. (a).)
6)Provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of federal,
state, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit or
restrict a federal, state, or local government entity from
doing any of the following with respect to information
regarding the immigration status of any individual:
a) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving
such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
b) Maintaining such information.
c) Exchanging such information with any other federal,
state, or local government entity. (8 U.S.C. section 1373,
subd. (b).)
COMMENTS : This author-sponsored bill seeks to enact the
California Opportunity and Prosperity Act, legislation that
would authorize a pilot program intended to encourage certain
immigrants in California to file state income tax returns and
potentially generate a substantial amount of new tax revenue for
the state. In order to incentivize participation in the
program, this bill would have the Governor request that the
federal government not expend resources enforcing immigration
laws against qualifying program participants and their
employers, potentially allowing participants to work and remain
in California at the discretion of federal authorities. Those
wishing to participate in the program would submit an
application to the DOJ, who determines admission of qualified
applicants by applying eligibility criteria specified by this
bill. As proposed to be amended, the pilot program could admit
its first applicants in 2014 and stop accepting applicants at
the end of 2018, before authority for the program expires in
2020.
SB 901
Page 6
Stated need for the bill : On their website
( www.calopportunity.org ), proponents of COPA state that this
bill "would establish a framework for long-term law-abiding
residents that will bring them out of the shadows and free them
to be part of the California dream. COPA is based upon
successful elements of the bipartisan Immigration and Control
Act of 1986 (IRCA) championed by President Ronald Reagan."
According to the author, this bill "gives qualified unauthorized
residents who pay state income taxes the option to enter a
program whose participants may gain relief from federal
enforcement and whose labor may be decriminalized. Ultimately,
this measure paves the way for California to formalize the
federal government's stance on immigration reform."
Brief summary of the proposed pilot program : The COPA program
has two essential components, a tax component and an immigration
relief component. The tax component is relatively simple, and
described in more detail in the analysis of the Revenue and
Taxation Committee, who previously heard and approved this bill.
This analysis instead focuses on the legal issues associated
with the main thrust of the bill-namely, the potential provision
of "safe harbor" or other relief from federal immigration
enforcement to individuals, most of whom are expected to be
undocumented aliens, who voluntarily apply for participation and
agree, among other things, to file state income tax returns
(pursuant to existing tax law that allows this).
Proponents of the bill contend that the possibility for program
participants to enhance their ability to remain and work in
California, despite being undocumented, is an attractive
incentive that will make it worth their while to enroll in the
program and start paying state taxes. According to the author,
COPA "could generate as many as one million new taxpayers who
would contribute an estimated $325 million annually to fund
needed education, police, fire, and health services in
California."
Although the bill has no formal opposition, there remain many
open questions about the bill, including: (1) whether the bill
may be preempted by federal law because of its focus on
immigration; (2) whether the bill confers any meaningful
immigration-related benefits to program participants; and (3)
unexplored questions regarding the possible disclosure or
unauthorized use of identifying information of participants.
SB 901
Page 7
Federal Preemption : Federal preemption carries particular force
in the context of immigration because the federal government has
broad, undoubted power over immigration and the status of
aliens. (See, e.g., Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10 (1982).
Because this bill delves so closely into the subject of
immigration, it is important to consider whether this bill may
be preempted by federal law should it ultimately become law in
California.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution
(Article VI, Clause 2), federal law may either expressly or
implicitly preempt state or local law. (Hillsborough County v.
Automated Med. Labs., 471 U.S. 707, 713 (1985).) In cases of
express preemption, Congress "maŬkes] its intent known through
explicit statutory language." (English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496
U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990).) Implied preemption, on the other hand,
arises in one of two circumstances-field preemption and conflict
preemption. Field preemption occurs when a state or
municipality purports to "regulate conduct in a field that
Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively."
(Id.) The intent to displace state law altogether can be
inferred from a framework of regulation "so pervasive . . . that
Congress left no room for the States to supplement it" or where
there is a "federal interest . . . so dominant that the federal
system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on
the same subject." (Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S.
218, 230 (1947).) Under conflict preemption, a state law is
preempted when it conflicts with federal law, including cases
where "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a
physical impossibility," (Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc.
v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963)), or, alternatively,
where the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment
and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."
(Rice, 331 U.S. at 230.)
Enforcement of immigration laws relating to detention and
removal. Under this bill, the Governor is required to request
that the President direct federal immigration authorities "not
to expend resources . . . on the apprehension, detention, or
removal of a qualified person in the program (or his spouse or
dependent), unless the qualified person meets one of the
priority enforcement criteria set forth in the-then existing ICE
policy on civil immigration enforcement." In addition, the
President is requested to "provide any available waivers,
SB 901
Page 8
exemptions, or authorizations necessary to provide a safe harbor
for individuals . . . from federal civil and criminal liability
arising out of a qualified person's participation in the
program."
An argument can be made that these provisions are preempted by
implied preemption because one objective of the bill appears to
be to help shield program participants from federal enforcement
of immigration laws that provide for the detention and removal
of undocumented immigrants. The regulation of immigration and
immigrants, legal and illegal, is "unquestionably exclusively a
federal power." (De Cana v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976).)
Moreover, Congress has occupied the field in this area and
specified which aliens may be removed from the country and the
procedures for doing so. (See 8 U.S.C. section 1227.) Were the
bill to actually regulate or attempt to regulate in this area,
such effort would almost certainly be foreclosed under field
preemption.
However, the bill seemingly does not enter that field of
regulation because it does not provide a program participant
with any assurance of relief from federal enforcement of
immigration laws, nor does the bill interfere with the ability
of federal officials to exercise their authority. Instead the
bill simply conveys our state's request to the President and
federal immigration authorities to exercise their prosecutorial
discretion in a particular way, but without regulating or
usurping undisputed federal authority to enforce the laws at
their discretion.
Enforcement of law prohibiting employment of undocumented
persons. Under this bill, the Governor's request to the
President to direct federal officials not to expend resources
also extends to the prosecution of an employer for employing a
qualified program participant. In addition, the President is
requested to "provide any available waivers, exemptions, or
authorizations necessary to provide a safe harbor for
individuals and businesses from federal civil and criminal
liability arising out of . . . the employment of a qualified
person." Like the previous example, the bill requests but does
not require federal authorities to exercise enforcement
discretion under IRCA in a certain manner.
Congress enacted IRCA as a comprehensive framework for
"combating the employment of illegal aliens." (Hoffman Plastic
SB 901
Page 9
Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, 147 (2002).) Among other
things, IRCA imposes sanctions on employers who knowingly hire
or continue to employ undocumented workers, and requires every
employer to verify the employment authorization status of
prospective employees. (See 8 U.S.C. section 1324a(a)(1).)
With respect to the bill's provisions encouraging exercise of
discretion to not prosecute employers for employing program
participants, potentially in violation of IRCA, a court could
find implied preemption if it concludes that the bill intrudes
into the comprehensive framework for regulating employers
occupied by IRCA. In addition, conflict preemption may be an
issue if a court finds that potentially relieving an employer of
liability for employing an unauthorized worker "stands as an
obstacle" to the purposes and objectives of Congress in enacting
IRCA to combat the employment of aliens. However, as discussed
above, this bill imposes no new regulatory requirements upon
employers, and does not create any conflict for employers to
comply with both IRCA and this bill, should this bill become
state law. It simply requests that federal authorities exercise
their discretion in a particular way.
Benefits for Program Participants : The discussion above
highlights the fact that immigration policy and the authority to
enforce immigration laws lie squarely in the domain of the
federal government. This bill, however, incentivizes
undocumented persons to enroll in a state program with the
proverbial carrots of potential "relief from immigration
enforcement" and "decriminalization of labor," to closely
paraphrase the author's words. Because the state cannot
legislate or directly affect enforcement of immigration laws, it
is reasonable to ask what benefits individuals can expect to
realize if they choose to enroll in this program.
In response to inquiries by the Committee, the author asserts
that the primary benefit that participants may receive is the
expectation that federal immigration authorities will classify
them, if the need ever should arise, in the so-called "lowest
priority tier" in the federal government's recently implemented
tiered system of enforcement. According to the author, the bill
is intended to influence the federal government's exercise of
prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement and "seeks
to mirror the Obama administration's latest statements on
immigration policy," citing recent memoranda by the Director of
ICE (June 17, 2011) and the Secretary of Homeland Security (June
15, 2012) that set forth how, in the exercise of prosecutorial
SB 901
Page 10
discretion, each agency should refocus its enforcement resources
and priorities. The author also notes that nothing in the bill
seeks to change federal immigration law per se, nor seeks to
provide a pathway to citizenship.
Because the state cannot command or require particular
enforcement discretion in the solely federal arena of
immigration, in order to achieve the objective of "lowest
priority tier" treatment, this bill takes the unusual step of
having the Governor request the President to direct federal
immigration officials not to expend resources on various
immigration enforcement activities, for the duration of the
program. It is prudent to consider whether this bill might have
the Governor request the President to do something that the
President may not have the legal authority to do. If the
President lacks such authority, then that calls into question
whether this bill is capable of conferring the type of favorable
treatment and benefits that the author quite admirably aspires
to provide.
Prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement. As the
U.S. Supreme Court recently explained in Arizona v. U.S., a
principal feature of the immigration system is the broad
discretion exercised by immigration officials. (132 U.S. 2492,
2499 (2012).) The Court "has recognized on several occasion
over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or
enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a
decision generally committed to an agency's absolute
discretion." (Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 835 (1985).)
Therefore, it is readily apparent that this bill requests the
President to do something within his authority, namely to direct
agencies under his executive control to allocate use of their
resources to reflect certain priorities in the federal
government's strategic approach towards immigration enforcement.
Employment prohibitions. With respect to employment of
unauthorized aliens, IRCA imposes sanctions on employers who
knowingly hire or continue to employ undocumented workers, and
other federal law prohibits any employer from employing a person
whose immigration status makes them ineligible for work. The
bill appears to be predicated on the President having the
authority to isolate one group of persons-here, employers of
program participants-and provide so-called "safe harbor" from
liability under IRCA. The Committee's research did not reveal
any such authority under IRCA. Thus, it is possible that this
SB 901
Page 11
bill requests the President to exceed his authority by taking
steps to exempt a certain class of persons from liability under
a federal law that does not apparently provide for any such
exemptions.
Concluding comments. This bill offers the possibility of safe
harbor and relief from enforcement to the extent that the
federal government chooses to exercise its discretion to do so.
However, because the federal government is exclusively
authorized to regulate immigration and immigrants, this bill
necessarily cannot guarantee program participants or their
employers protections from immigration enforcement. The
President, who may not be the same individual currently in
office, could refuse the Governor's request. Even if the
President makes the requested directive to immigration
authorities, those officials still retain the right to enforce
the immigration laws at their discretion, including the possible
removal of program participants.
At least one immigrant advocate group has expressed its concern
that the bill potentially creates an illusory promise of safe
harbor to immigrants considering applying to the program. In
its letter to the committee, Chinese for Affirmative Action
(CAA) does not formally oppose the bill, but nevertheless states
the following concern:
Safe harbor -- the primary desired benefit to be
afforded to participants -- is premised on a successful
request from the Governor to the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security to not pursue enforcement and
deportation actions against participants. Because the
State of California has no formal or binding power to
prevent the federal government from pursuing deportation
actions, the promise of safe harbor as a result of AB901
is most likely to be illusory. Though there nonetheless
may be other value in such a request being made by the
Governor, they would be accompanied by significant
risks. . . . includ(ing) imparting a false sense of
protection and security for California immigrants, and
facilitating the exploitation of immigrants by
unscrupulous individuals who offer access to this
program for personal financial gain.
What unforeseen problems could arise from the possible
disclosure or unauthorized use of information identifying
SB 901
Page 12
undocumented persons? Under this bill, individuals wishing to
participate in the program must submit an application to the
DOJ, which determines admissibility to the program based on
specific criteria. In order to administer the program, DOJ
presumably must maintain a database of individuals who have been
admitted and who remain eligible for participation.
Furthermore, in order for this program to achieve its stated
objective of providing immigration-related benefits to
participants, the identifying participant information
necessarily must be shared with federal immigration officials.
Without such information, it would be impossible for those
authorities to know what tier of enforcement to apply, for
example, in a removal proceeding against a person enrolled in
the state program. The benefits of the program are possible
only when those who may benefit are known to the federal
authorities able to exercise discretion in enforcement
proceedings.
With respect to safeguarding confidential information, the bill
provides that all identifying information of program applicants
and participants must be held confidential and exempt from
disclosure under the California Public Records Act. In
addition, the bill prohibits such information from being
"disclosed for any purpose, except as provided . . . or as
otherwise required by state or federal law." The author also
notes that there are existing federal laws that prevent any
sharing of tax information with any other government agency,
particularly with ICE, and that the bill's Public Record Act
exemption language was carefully crafted in consultation with
both FTB and DOJ attorneys to survive challenge.
Despite the very laudable goals of, and protections provided for
in, the bill, some immigrant advocates have expressed concern
about unforeseen problems that could arise from the possible
disclosure or unauthorized use of this information, whether the
disclosure is compelled by court order, inadvertently leaked, or
stolen by hackers. For example, the Asian Law Caucus, who does
not formally oppose the bill, wrote a letter to the Committee
expressing the following concern:
SB 901 will collect and store information on
California's undocumented population without
sufficient safeguards for confidentiality and privacy.
This has the potential to become extremely hazardous
for those individuals who choose to participate. The
SB 901
Page 13
confidentiality and privacy of undocumented
individuals must be taken very seriously. For example,
given programs like U.S. ICE's controversial Secure
Communities fingerprint program and the Next
Generation Identification Program, there is a
likelihood that U.S. Department of Homeland Security
in the immediate or long-term future may seek access
to this database of undocumented immigrants for
purposes that may be punitive in nature for
participants.
CAA also states, "Unfortunately, there are federal statutes
- 8 USC sections 1373 and 1644 - that limit state and local
governments from interfering with the voluntary flow of
immigration information. These may encourage state
employees to share information with respect to undocumented
individuals without appropriate negative consequence."
Finally, there are several additional privacy-related questions
that deserve more thoughtful consideration than is possible in
this analysis:
1)Sec. 19540(b) of the bill prohibits disclosure for any
purpose, but allows a broad exception to nondisclosure "as
otherwise required by state or federal law." What are the
other as-yet unidentified state or federal laws that may
require disclosure of a person's identifying information in
this context, and for what purpose?
2)If a program participant's identifying information is
disclosed or released beyond what is authorized by this bill,
does that person have any recourse against the person/entity
that disclosed it? What about against a 3rd party that
subsequently uses the information for a different unauthorized
purpose?
3)Could DOJ be liable for any problem arising from unauthorized
disclosure of confidential information?
4)Would a program participant have any recourse against the
federal government for use of the information not authorized
by this bill (for example, use of the information for the
purpose of immigration enforcement)?
Author's Amendments : In order to address certain operational
SB 901
Page 14
concerns raised by DOJ, the author has proposed amendments to be
taken in this Committee to: (1) postpone the start date of the
program until January 1, 2014; (2) remove the requirement that a
photograph accompany each application; and (3) revise the
required background check to reflect only state-level criminal
offender record information. These amendments appear below:
On page 3, line 26-27, delete "the United States,"
On page 3, line 27, delete ", or any other state"
On page 3, delete lines 28 through 31 inclusive.
On page 3, delete "(7)" and insert "(6)"
On page 3, delete "(8)" and insert "(7)"
On page 3, delete "(9)" and insert "(8)"
On page 3, delete "(10)" and insert "(9)"
On page 4, line 18, delete "A" and insert "On or after
January 1, 2014, a"
On page 4, line 20, delete "The application shall require
that an" and delete lines 21-22.
On page 5, line 3, delete "2013" and insert "2014"
On page 5, line 12, delete "2014" and insert "2015"
Pending Related Legislation: AB 1081 (Ammiano) seeks to
prohibit local police from detaining anyone on an immigration
hold if the person is not charged with or has not been convicted
of a serious or violent crime. This bill has passed both houses
and is pending the Governor's signature. AB 1092 (Fuentes) is
nearly identical in content to this bill, and is currently in
the Senate Rules Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
ANAHUAK Youth Sports Association
Central American Resource Center
SB 901
Page 15
Comite de Festejos Centroamericanos
Latino and Latina Roundtable of San Gabriel and Pomona Valley
Pomona Speaks/ Habla Community Coalition
Pueblo y Salud, Inc.
Puerto el Triunfo, Inc.
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
William C. Velasquez Institute
Over 50 elected officials and representatives of community
organizations
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334