Articles, Blog

House Subcommittee on Elections 2/13/20

February 14, 2020


>>THEN>>WE HAVE A 2 SETS OF AN OFFICIAL MINUTES. HERE IN>>MISTER CHAIR I SECOND THE MINUTES.>>AND THE LAST OF COURSE IS>>MISTER CHAIR I MOVE TO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE MINUTES OR JANUARY 22. BUT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.>>WITH THAT WE’RE GOING TO GET RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA. FIRST UP IS HOUSE FILE 30 60 OF MY BILLS OVER TO VICE CHAIR.>>CHAIR DEAN WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR BELT; AH; YES; I US. MAN SURE I’D LIKE TO MOVE HOUSE FILE 36.>>YATES TO BE REFERRED TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.>>QUICKLY EXPLAIN THE BILL SO FOLKS KNOW AS YOU KNOW A FEW YEARS BACK WE MOVE TO A PRESIDENTIAL NATIONAL PRIMER. FROM OUR CAUCUS SYSTEM IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT WE AS LEGISLATURE DID SOME THINGS AND WE’RE NOW FINDING OUT THAT THE THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT WE DIDN’T NEED THE WORD EXACTLY THE SAME AS WE HAD ORIGINALLY INTENDED AND SO 3068 IS PROP FORWARD TO MAKE IT SO THE DATA ACCESS THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES WILL GO TO THE PARDONS. IT WILL BE PRIMARILY JUST FOR THEIR USE NOT FOR WHITE DISTRIBUTION AS WE’RE FINDING COULD BE THE CASE. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A VOTER OPT-OUT OPTION IN THIS BILL; BUT I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT THIS FOR QUITE SOME LIFE BUT I CURRENTLY HAVE. SIMON HERE WHO WOULD PROBABLY RUN THROUGH SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILLS AND WHY WE PUT THEM IN PLACE. TURN IT OVER TO MY CHEST.>>BUT MISTER SENATOR THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS ARE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I’M STEVE SIMON; MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE. THANK YOU BEING HERE AT THIS EVENING SO I JUST WANT TO ZOOM OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT I MEAN A NUMBER OF YOU ARE HERE IN 2016 2016 THE MADE THE MOVE TO A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY. REALLY THE CAUCUSES WERE A VICTIM OF THEIR OWN SUCCESS IN MANY WAYS I THINK EVERY LEGISLATOR HERE PROBABLY ATTEND THE CAUCUS IN 2016; AND YOU KNOW TURNOUT WAS REALLY ROBUST ON ALL SIDES THE AISLE FOR ALL THE OBVIOUS REASONS A LOT OF ENERGY A LOT OF EXCITEMENT.>>AND IT LITERALLY OVERWHELMED; THE ABILITY OF VOLUNTEERS FROM THE POLITICAL PARTIES TO HANDLE THERE WERE CLASSROOMS. MEN FOR 30 OR 40 THAT WERE ASKED TO ACCOMMODATE A 13104. PARKING LOTS THAT WERE FULL ALWAYS THAT WERE CLOGGED IN THE LEGISLATURE IN 2016 TOOK NOTICE AND SAID ENOUGH. FOR WILL KEEP CAUCUSES; BUT FOR THIS ONE CONTEST EVERY 4 YEARS WE’RE GOING TO LIFT IT OUT AND SHIFTED OVER AND WE’RE GOING TO RUN IT ON A PARALLEL TRACK AS A REAL ELECTION; REAL BALANCE REAL POLLING PLACES AND REAL ELECTION JUDGES. AND YOU KNOW AT THE TIME THERE WAS A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER RECORD PARTY PREFERENCE. I AND MANY I THINK ON THIS COMMITTEE I THOUGHT THAT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA; BUT THE NATIONAL PARTIES INSISTED BOTH RNC AND THE DNC INSISTED THAT THIS BE A SO-CALLED CLOSED PRIMARY. AND IN MOST STATES IN THE COUNTRY THAT’S EASY TO DO BECAUSE THEY HAVE PARTY REGISTRATION. SO IF YOU’RE IN CONNECTICUT OR CALIFORNIA OR IOWA. THAT MATTER AND YOU WANTED TO A CLOSE PRIMARY WHERE ONLY DEMOCRATS CAN VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC CONTEST ON THE REPUBLICAN; THE REPUBLICAN CONTEST YOU JUST SAY SIMPLE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS ONLY REGISTERED REPUBLICANS ONLY BUT WE DON’T DO THAT WE KNOW ABSENT STATE; BUT I THINK THAT’S A GOOD THING AND AS A RESULT OF POLITICAL CULTURE IN MINNESOTA AT LEAST IN MY JUDGMENT IS THAT MOST PEOPLE DON’T LIKE TO WEAR THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION; OTHER SLEEVE DO NOT USE TO SIGNING UP AS A DEN GRANT OR REPUBLICAN THEY JUST REGISTER PLAIN AND SIMPLE. SO HOW DO YOU DO A CLOSE PRIMARY IN A STATE LIKE OURS THAT DOES THE PARTY THE STATION HE ANSWER THE AN EASY ANSWER IS YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE THEM; OR AS MANY SEPARATE BALANCE IS THERE ARE MAJOR PARTIES IT AS IT SO HAPPENS ONLY TO THE MAJOR PARTIES ARE PARTICIPATING. DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN. SO WHILE IT’S NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION.>>AND.>>IT DOESN’T FEEL GOOD FOR THE LEGISLATURE; ANY OF US TO FEEL LIKE WE’RE BENDING STATE STATUTE TO THE WILL OF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY. THE LEGISLATURE IS ALREADY APPROVED THE PRIMARY I DON’T THINK ANY OF US WANT TO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE JUST A BEAUTY CONTEST WITH NO MEETINGS WITH THE NATIONAL PARTIES WERE SAYING IS IF YOU DON’T DO IT THIS WAY THEY WERE THREATENING TO. NOT RECOGNIZE THE PRIMARY IN ESSENCE AN AWARD 0 DELEGATES TO BOTH THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS AT THEIR NATIONAL CONVENTION. SO LEGISLATORS IN 2016 INCLUDING SOME OF YOU ARE IN TOUGH SPOT AND SO THE UNEASY ACCOMMODATION WAS DOING THE SEPARATE BALANCE TOO FULFILL THE PARTY RULE REQUIREMENTS IN BOTH THE NATIONAL. SO LAST SESSION A NUMBER OF US WORK TOGETHER TO CHANGE THE LAW TO AT LEAST MAKE THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO CHOSE WHAT BALLOT NOT PUBLIC THINK THAT WAS REALLY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUT UNFORTUNATELY DURING THE FINAL CLOSED DOOR NEGOTIATIONS AT THE END OF SESSION IN WHICH NONE OF US IN THIS ROOM THAT I KNOW OF WERE IN THE ROOM. OTHERWISE WE MIGHT HAVE STOPPED HER FEET A LITTLE BIT. THE FINAL OUTCOME WAS YES TO MAKE IT NOT PUBLIC BUT WAS TO SAY FOR THE FIRST TIME ALL 4 MAJOR PARTIES IN MINNESOTA ALL 4 WOULD GET THE RECORD OF WHICH PARTY’S BALLOT VOTER CHOSE OBVIOUSLY NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW WHICH CANDIDATE A VOTER CHOOSES WE HAVE A SECRET NOW; BUT THEY WILL KNOW DID THE VOTER CHOOSE THE DFL ABOUT OR DID THE VOTER CHEESE OR PUBLIC ABOUT THAT INFORMATION THAT LIST WILL BE HANDED OVER TO ALL 4 MAJOR PARTIES NOT JUST THE PARTY; THE VOTERS CHOICE; BUT ALL 4.>>NOW CURRENT LAW.>>PLACES NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER ON WHAT THE PARTIES CAN DO WITH THAT DATA AND THAT’S WHAT IS DISTRESSING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND I THINK IT’S COMMON PRACTICE AS WE ALL KNOW FROM OUR OWN RACES FOR POLITICAL PARTIES TO SHARE DATA WITH FRIEND GROUPS WITH VENDORS WITH ALLIES OF ALL KINDS. AND RIGHT THERE SIMPLY ARE NO LIMITATIONS SO FOR EXAMPLE COULD ONE OF THE PARTY’S POST A LIST ONLINE. JUST POSTED SAY MINNESOTA; HERE’S THE LIST IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHICH OF YOUR FRIENDS NEIGHBORS. COWORKERS EMPLOYEES; EMPLOYERS; THERE’S MEMBERS OF YOUR RELIGIOUS CONGREGATION WANT TO KNOW WHICH ONE OF THEM CHOSE THE REPUBLICAN BALLOT OR DFL BELT HERE YOU GO COULD THEY DO THAT. YES.>>THEY CUT COULD A CELL YES COULD THEY GIVE IT TO ANYONE THEY WANT YES THAT’S OUR INTERPRETATION LEGALLY.>>SO THE PROBLEM THAT HAS COME UP AS YOU CAN IMAGINE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE OBJECT TO THAT NOT JUST ON PHILOSOPHICAL GROUNDS WITH BASED ON WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING. SO WHETHER IT IS CITY OR COUNTY OR STATE EMPLOYEES INCLUDING SOME LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES HAVE HEARD ABOUT WHETHER ITS MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY OR JOURNALISTS OR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS OR OTHERS. YOU KNOW IN TODAY’S CANCEL CULTURE THEY DON’T PARTICULARLY LOOK FORWARD TO THE RISK AND IT IS A RISK THAT THEIR CHOICE OF PARTY BALLOT GETTING TO 4 DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES THEIR OWN AND 3 OTHERS THAT ARE NOT AND NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER IN THE LONG WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH IT IS JUST TOO BIG A RISK. SO MANY PEOPLE ARE OPTING OUT ONE ANECDOTE FROM EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. JUST EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. I SPOKE TO WAKE COUNTY ELECTIONS PERSON IN CHARGE. YOU KNOW FAIRLY LARGE COUNTY’S ELECTIONS. AND HE SAID TO ME JUST A FEW HOURS AGO; HE SAID EXACTLY HALF. EXACTLY 50% OF THE PEOPLE WHO COME UP TO THE COUNTER IN HIS COUNTY SO FAR TO VOTE ABSENTEE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING PART. ONE HALF EXACTLY HAVE TURNED AWAY AND SAID NO THANKS ONCE THEY LEARN THE RULE IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DESIGNATE A PARTY BALLOT AND CHOOSE IT. SO THE LEAST WE CAN DO IT SEEMS TO ME IS TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO DO THAT SOME COMFORT AND SOME PEACE OF MIND THAT WHEN THE DATA ABOUT WHICH PARTY’S BALLOT. THEY CHOSE IS DISTRIBUTED TO POLITICAL PARTIES THAT AT LEAST THERE ARE SOME GROUND RULES AND THERE’S SOME GUARDRAILS SO.>>THE SOLUTION HERE IS THIS BILL AND THE BILL DOES 3 THINGS FIRST. IT GIVES THIS INFORMATION TO A SINGLE REPRESENT 2 OF THE PARTY’S NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING COMPLIANCE THAT’S WHAT THEY SAID THEY NEEDED THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE.>>AND THE INDIAN SEE NEEDED. HE SAID WE JUST WANT THIS DATA.>>ACCORDING TO A PARTY RULES; A SO-CALLED RECORD NATION RICK APARTMENT THEIR RECORD NATION REQUIREMENT WIRES THAT THEY GET IT SO THAT YOU CAN VERIFY PARTICIPATION SO THAT THERE WERE NO CROSSOVERS IF THAT’S TRUE. THIS SORT TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD THAT THAT’S ALL THEY NEED FOR AND THAT’S THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE USE OF THE DATA SECOND THING THAT THE BILL DOES IS DESIGNATES THE DATA IS PRIVATE UNDER THE DATA PRACTICES ACT.>>AND FORCES ANYONE RECEIVING THE STATE OF FROM THE PARTY’S. THOSE NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TO SIGN AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT WITH THE FORCE OF CONTRACT THAT THE STATE DIDN’T CRACK THIS IS LAW APPLIES AS MANY OF YOU KNOW TYPICALLY WHEN THEY KNOW LEAVES GOVERNMENT HANDS IT TYPICALLY LOSES ITS DATA PRACTICES ACT DESIGNATIONS MINUTE THAT LEAVES PUBLIC OR GOVERNMENT HANDS. BUT THERE ARE MANY PLACES IN STATUTE. WHERE WE DO THIS WHICH IS BY CONTRACT FIND THEM TO THE SAME TERMS THAT APPLY TO AND SO THAT’S THE INTENT HERE AND NUMBER 3 AN OPT OUT FOR VOTERS; SO THEY CAN DO WHAT VOTERS CAN ALREADY DO IN OTHER ELECTIONS ARE THAT IS IN FACT RIGHT NOW IF YOU GO TO OUR WEBSITE THERE’S A FORM ON THERE FOR PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT; DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO TAKE THEIR NAME OFF CERTAIN LIST; SO THIS WOULD BE THAT THAT COULD BE DONE EITHER AT THE POLLING PLACE OR MORE LIKELY AFTERWARDS AND IT COULD GO EITHER IN PAPER OR ONLINE AND HAVE THEIR NAME TAKEN OFF THE LIST SO THAT IS THE BILL AND I’M IN I THINK THE DEADLINE THE ONLY OTHER THING TO SAY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR IS THE DEADLINE FOR GETTING THIS DONE IS NOT MARCH 3RD. SO YOU MAY BE THINKING AND I WOULDN’T BLAME YOU THIS REALLY GET DONE IN 2 AND A HALF WEEKS THAT’S NOT THE DEADLINE. THE DEADLINE IS 10 WEEKS AFTER MARCH; 3RD WHEN THE DATA IS DUE FROM THE COUNTIES AND IT’S AT THAT POINT ONLY TO OUR OFFICE UNDER THE CURRENT LAW WE HAVE TO TURN IT OVER TO THE 4 POLITICAL. SO THERE’S TIME TO DO THIS AND TIME TO MAKE ENOUGH PROGRESS TO GIVE VOTERS WHO VOTE ON OR BEFORE MARCH; 3RD CONFIDENCE THAT THEY CAN TAKE THAT RISK THEY CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE PRIMARY WITHOUT ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOWNSTREAM LIMITATIONS AND WHAT THE PARTIES CAN DO WITH THIS DATA SO THAT NUMBER’S THANKS FOR YOUR TIME UNDER CONSIDERATION.>>THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER JUSTIFY OR ARE WE DO. WE WANT ANSWERED QUESTIONS FIRST FOR THE SECRETARY OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE TO THE TO IT.>>IT’S OK OKAY; I’M NICK HARPER WITH A LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS.>>THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. MISTER HARPER. IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND THEN I HAD TO JUST MONEY.>>YES; THANK YOU; MADAM CHAIR; MY NAME IS NICK HARPER; THE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MINNESOTA. WE ARE A NONPARTISAN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AND WE DO NOT SUPPORT OR OPPOSE. ANY CANDIDATES OR PARTIES FOR OFFICE BUT OUR MISSION IS TO EMPOWER VOTERS DEFEND DEMOCRACY. WE THINK THAT THIS BILL IS GOOD PROGRESS ON THE ISSUE OF VOTER PRIVACY FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL; THE PRIMARY VOTER PRIVACY IS PARAMOUNT. AND IMPORTANT TO ENSURING THAT VOTERS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE VOTING PROCESS AND THAT THEY’RE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS WITH TRUST AND IT STILL DOES MAKE SOME PROGRESS. SECRETARY SIMON SEVERAL TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION MAY BE REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC WHICH MADE THEN SOMEHOW DAMAGED THEIR PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL. THEIR PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINESS LIVES AND THE LEAGUE HAS HEARD MANY OF THE SAME CONCERNS FOR MANY OF THE SAME FOLKS WE’VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ELECTED VOLUNTEER ELECTION JUDGES WHO MAY NO LONGER. VOLUNTEERS ELECTION JUDGES; IF THAT INFORMATION TO COME PUBLIC WE’VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHO WORK AT NONPROFITS THAT RELY ON STATE-FUNDED GRANTS WE’VE HEARD FROM LOCAL. GOVERNMENT STAFF WE’VE HEARD FROM STATE GOVERNMENT STAFF WE’VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN A MINNESOTA. YOU DON’T EVEN TELL THEIR ELECTIONS IT’S THEIR PARTY RIGHT HEARD FROM FOLKS WHO LIVE IN URBAN AREAS WHO FEEL LIKE THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION DIFFERS FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS AND THEY DON’T WANT THAT INFORMATION TO SHARE WE’VE HEARD FROM VOTERS ACROSS THE WE THINK THAT THIS MAKES PRETTY GOOD ON US. THE SHOE; WE’D LOVE TO SEE THERE BE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO IMPROVE IT EVEN FURTHER IF POSSIBLE; WE KNOW THAT. THERE IS SOME DELICATE BALANCE WITH PARTIES BECAUSE THE PARTIES REQUIRE THIS INFORMATION TO BE SHARED IN A CERTAIN WAY OTHERWISE IT WILL NOT RECOGNIZE DELEGATES FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AT THEIR PARTY CONVENTIONS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A CHALLENGE AND A BALANCE THERE. BUT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH ANYONE IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS MORE OF A SUCCESS FOR VOTERS. WE KNOW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER BILL BY REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HAS SOMETHING AND WE THINK THAT’S ALSO A GREAT PAL. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MIGHT NOT BE PRACTICAL IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PARTIES REQUIRE IF IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING CLOSER SPELL. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS TO MAKE THAT CALCULATED CHOICE.>>THANK YOU MISTER HARPER AND THEN WE ALSO MARIE L S. THANK YOU MISS ELLIS AND IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD INCOME PROCEEDS YOU JUST LET ME THANK YOU. CHAIR OF HONOR AND MEMBERS OF PRETTY GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARIE L A AND THE PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR AT THEM AND SAID A COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS. AND CNN IS BASED HERE IN SAINT PAUL WHERE A STATEWIDE MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING OVER 2200 NONPROFITS ACROSS THE STATE. OUR MEMBERS ARE HEAVILY INVESTED IN STRENGTHENING THEIR COMMUNITIES. AMONG OTHER THINGS THE OF PROMOTE DEMOCRATIC BUILDING BLOCKS LIKE VOTING AND PARTICIPATING IN THE CENSUS. AND SO WE’RE REPRESENTING OUR MEMBERS ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAY THAT THIS WAS WRITTEN FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY FOR 2 REASONS FIRST; NO RULES AROUND HOW THAT DATA ON THE VOTER PARTY PREFERENCE LIST IS TO BE PROTECTED THERE’S SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT THE LIST BECOMING PUBLIC. OUR 5 OH ONE C 3 NONPROFIT MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO REMAIN NONPARTISAN. THE IDEA THAT VOTING OF THEIR LEADERSHIP OR THEIR STAFF COULD BECOME PUBLIC. AND COULD BE USED TO HASSLE OR DISCREDIT THEM IS HAVING A CHILLING EFFECT ON PRIMARY PARTICIPATION FROM OUR MEMBERS. OUR SECOND CONCERN IS MARK LOCAL AND I THINK SECRETARY SIMON IN MY COLLEAGUE AT LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS DID A GOOD JOB TALKING ABOUT THE SECTORS OF THE ELECTORATE WHO WILL BE DISENFRANCHISED SO JUST ADD THAT VOTERS HAVE TO WEIGH THE RISKS AND THE REWARDS OF VOTING IN THE PRIMARY AND WE ARE GOING TO SEE A DECLINE IN OUR NATION’S LEADING VOTER TURNOUT. SO IF WE WANT TO UPHOLD MINNESOTA’S RICH TRADITION OF PRIVACY AND HOPE THAT YOU ALL DO YOU. THERE ARE 2 STEPS THAT WE URGE YOU TO IMPLEMENT FIRST WOULD BE THERE TOO KLEIN TO COLLECT THE DATA IN THE FIRST PLACE OR IF IT’S DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROTECT THAT WITH APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THAT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSES AND WITH THAT OF COURSE MUST COME PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY OF OUR STATE’S VOTERS. SECOND WE URGE YOU TO PROVIDE VOTERS WITH OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT OF HAVING THEIR INFORMATION INCLUDED ON ANY DATABASE AS A RESULT; THEIR DECISION TO VOTE. THE BILL BEFORE YOU TODAY HOUSE FILE 3; 0; 6; 8 INCLUDES BOTH OF THOSE MECHANISMS AND WE’RE HAPPY TO STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE BILL AND TO TALK TO YOUR COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CHANGE. THANK YOU. I THANK YOU MISS ELLIS ISLAND.>>WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL NUMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST THAT WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY. LET’S OPEN THAT UP TO MEMBER QUESTIONS MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR TEST FIRES HERE TODAY OR FOR CHARITY. AT THE CENTER OF THE SKULL THANK YOU; MADAM SECRETARY SIMON.>>I HEARD USED THE WORDS. ELECTION A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE THE OPEN COMMENTS REMARKS THAT UNIT. I ALSO HEARD YOU USE THE TERM THAT I’VE HEARD USE A NUMBER OF TIMES AND IT’S A TERM THAT I’VE ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO USE TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE AND USE THE WORD ELECT AND THAT’S REALLY NOT A BONA FIDE PRIMARY ELECTION THAT WE WOULD SEE IN AUGUST POTENTIALLY JUNE AT SOME POINT WILL SOON BE DO WITH THAT AS THAT ONE CAN CONTINUES TO HANG IN THE CORNERS OF THE CONFERENCE ROOMS AS A BUT TO TO THE POINT WE USE IT TO BEAUTY PAD; BUT THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SELECTING THE THAT THE CANDIDATES TO AND P PUTTING THEMSELVES FORWARD. THERE IS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR ANYONE TO ATTEND BUT PRECINCT CAUCUS; THIS IS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MY CORRECT ON THAT MISTER SECRETARY.>>THE SECRETARY AND CHAIR EVER SENATOR SO THAT’S CORRECT. YES REPRESENT WITH SECRETARY SIMON IS IT ALSO TRUE THAT THERE IS NOTHING THAT’S COMPELLING ANYONE TO ATTEND. WE’LL CALL THE BEAUTY PAGEANT KIND OF USING YOUR WORDS FROM EARLIER THIS EVENING. MADAM CHAIR REPRESENT THIS COLLECTOR. VERSUS SECRETARY SIMON SO WHAT IN THE PAST HAS PREVENTED. SOMEONE FROM COLLECTING.>>DATA OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY GO TO THE REPUBLICAN LOCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND A COMMUNITY VERSUS THE DEMOCRATS WHO GO TO A MIDDLE EAST WELL IN THE COMMUNITY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE AND IT’S VERY PUBLICIZED THAT PEOPLE WOULD KNOW WHERE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO REPUBLICANS AREN’T AND BE AT THAT ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY AND EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THESE AVAILABLE TO THEM PRETTY GOOD RESOLUTION AND GRAPHIC SOME VIDEO IN THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WALK INTO THAT. LATER IDENTIFYING AND COMPOSING A LIST OF HERE’S THE PEOPLE THAT WE SAW A WALK IN. IS THERE ANYTHING UNDER CERTAIN CURRENT STATE LAW THAT PROHIBITS THAT ACTIVITY FROM HAPPENING MR. MADAM CHAIR FOR COULD. MR. SECRETARY IS ANYTHING THAT PROHIBITS PEOPLE FROM USING THAT SAME DEVICE TO TAKE DOWN LICENSE PLATE NUMBERS OF VEHICLES THAT ARE IN THE PARKING LOT TOUGHER TO COLLECT AND TIE THAT INFORMATION BACK TO POTENTIALLY GET ADDRESSES FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS. SECOND NJ REPRESENTATIVES GO NO NO NO LIMITATION SO MISTER SECRETARY THERE ARE WAYS WHERE PEOPLE CAN GET THIS INFORMATION ALREADY IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY DESIRE AND I CRACKED. ENSURE REPRESENT THEIR SCHOOL. YES; BUT I’M ON A MUCH SMALLER.>>SCALE AND SEE THEY COULD FIGURE OUT A PARTICULAR PLACE I THE POINT I WOULD MAKE IS JUST A MATTER OF SCOPE AND SCALE I MEAN THIS IS A MASSIVE LIST OF POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THE ON THE CAPABILITY OF ONE OR EVEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO SNAP SOME YOU KNOW. THAT WAS ON CLAY; SO YES; I MEAN THE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS YES PEOPLE CAN DO THIS BUT THE DISTINCTION I WOULD MAKE IS JUST A MATTER. MISTER SECRETARY>>AN INDIVIDUAL GOES TO A WALL UP AND STEP BACK IT WAS A CERTAIN TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS NEED TO MAIN MAKE THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS PRIVATE AND NOT MAKE THEM PUBLIC. THOSE INDIVIDUALLY MORE INCLINED ARE LESS INCLINED TO ATTEND A DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN A MARIJUANA ONE MARIJUANA TOO PARTY; YOU KNOW THE 4 MAJOR PARTIES THAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT MAKE THEM MORE INCLINED ARE LESS INCLINED BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO KEEP THAT THEY HAD A PRIVATE TO ATTEND A PRECINCT CAUCUS.>>JIM TO UNDERSTAND QUESTIONS SO LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY IT WAS ASSERTED THIS EVENING BY THE TESTIFY OR FROM THE NONPROFITS.>>ORGANIZATION THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS NEED TO KEEP THEIR THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS PRIVATE. MY QUESTION IS DO THEY THEN DID NOT ATTEND BY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD NOT ATTEND. THE MARIJUANA ONE THE MARIJUANA TO THE GOP THE DFL PRECINCT CAUCUSES. SO THEY ARE NOT BRINGING FORWARD THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS AND THAT MATTER SO THERE WOULD BE A. KEEPING UP AND ALL OF A REPLY. MATT REQUIREMENT IS A A THE REQUIREMENT OF OF THEIR THEIR ETHICS THEIR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT; WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE BY NOT PARTICIPATING IN THAT TYPE OF A BEAUTY PAGEANT THAT’S INSTEAD OF BEING DONE ONE HOUR. ON TUESDAY EVENING BETWEEN 7 NOT TO BE DONE FOR IT WALK IN THE EVENING. VERSUS OPENING UP AND BE MORE USER FRIENDLY AND GIVING PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AM D PM TO GAUGE IN THAT PROCESS AND ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ONCE AGAIN TURN TO PRECINCT CAUCUSES AND IDENTIFY AGAIN A SECOND TIME FOR SOME POLITICAL AFFILIATION.>>MEN SHARE AND RIP SOME OF THE YOU I THINK YOU’RE ASKED MIKE AND WHAT IT WHAT IS SOMEONE IN THAT SITUATION MORE LIKELY TO DO IS IS THAT THE QUESTIONS I CAN GO TO ANOTHER MAYBE IT’S MORE RHETORICAL QUESTION BUT IT’S IT’S WE HAVE THE FIRST TO PROVIDE THE TESTIMONY PERHAPS THEY WANT TO SHARE SOME SOME ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON IT.>>YEAH THANK YOU CHAIR HONOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE SO IT’S NOT THE NONPROFIT’S STAFF; THE TO BE ENTIRELY NONPARTISAN IN THEIR PERSONAL LIVES; BUT IN THEIR WORK LIKE THEY DO NEED TO REMAIN NONPARTISAN. I THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE LIKE SECRETARY SIMON SAID IS A LOT OF A SCOPE AND THEY’LL SO IF A NONPROFIT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAD CHOSEN TO GO TO A PARTY CAUCUS; THE PEOPLE AT THAT CAUCUS; WE KNOW THAT THE. IN THIS CASE IF THE LIST OF WHICH PARTIES. PRIMARY THEY HAD VOTED IN BECAME PUBLIC THAT WOULD BE TO THE ENTIRE STATE. AND SO EVERYONE IN THE STATE WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IF IT’S POSTED A MINOR SOLD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT EVERYONE WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO SEE THAT AND I THINK. THERE COULD BE A CASE WHERE. IT’S NOT A BIG DEAL UNTIL IT’S PUBLIC RIGHT AND SO NO ONE’S LOOKING AT A NONPROFIT TO SAY OH I WANT TO TELL THEIR BUT IF THERE’S A LIST OF THEIR YOU GOT ALL THAT SURPRISING. THEN IT BECOMES A TO POTENTIALLY HARASSED OR DISCREDIT HIM AND THAT’S A CONCERN.>>THANK YOU SO THANK YOU DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS REPRESENTATIVE JUST GO. GOOD FOR NOTHING CUTE RIGHT; REPRESENTATIVE NASH.>>THANK YOU MADAM AND TO THE SECRETARY OR THE AUTHOR. HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE IS 4 MAJOR PARTIES KNOW REGARDING WHETHER THIS COMPLIES WITH THEIR PREREQUISITE TO NOT BAN MINNESOTA FROM THERE. NOT THAT I BELIEVE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED BUT IF YOU TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHETHER THIS ACHIEVE THAT OR NOT.>>THANK AND SHARED REPRESENT NASH. YES; WE REACHED OUT TO BOTH THE RNC AND THE DNC THOSE WITH THE 2 OF THE ONLY 2 PARTIES IS FROM A AS FAR AS I’M AWARE I’VE NOT HEARD FROM EITHER OF THEM MARIJUANA PARTIES THAT THEY HAVE NATIONAL RULES THAT HAVE THIS REPORT THE 2 OTHER MAJOR PARTIES. YES; WE’VE REACHED OUT TO THEM AND SEEING THE THE DNC WAS MORE. MORE EXPLICIT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY. DIDN’T BELIEVE AT LEAST TENTATIVELY IN THIS WAS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG HERE THE RNC WE HAVEN’T HEARD MORE SPECIFICS; BUT I WILL SAY I HAVEN’T HEARD A RED LIGHT AND THERE WERE OF THIS BILL; BUT WE ASSUME THAT THE 2 PARTIES PROVISIONS ARE MUCH THE SAME THEY BOTH USE THE SAME LANGUAGE OR RECREATION REQUIREMENT. SO WE THINK THIS WOULD BE OK WE WERE SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED TO BE HONEST ABOUT WHETHER THE OPT OUT PROVISION. WE’RE HEARING AT LEAST TENTATIVELY THAT THE DNC DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE RULES WE HAVE YET TO HEAR MORE SPECIFICALLY FROM.>>THANK YOU. MISTER SECRETARY REPRESENT NASH AND I’M SURE THANK AGAIN TO THE SECRETARY OR THE AUTHOR YOU OTHER STATES HAVE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES. ONE OF YOUR PRINCIPAL CONCERNS; MISTER SECRETARY HAS BEEN THAT THIS LIST IS GOING OUT THE WILD TO BE POSTED ONLINE. AND YOU CAN PROBABLY BUY A COPY ON CRAIGSLIST OR SOMETHING HAS THAT HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES.>>MISTER SECRETARY MISTER CHAIR REPRESENT NATIONAL IN MOST OTHER STATES THEY HAVE THEY DO HAVE A PARTY REGISTRATION SO IT’S EASY TO A CLOSE PRIMARY AND IT’S NOT AN ISSUE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE OUT THERE THEY WERE LET’S LEAVE THAT REGISTERING AS DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS SO THAT IS AND THAT’S ACTUALLY A PUBLIC RECORD IN THOSE STATES O NE ONE OFF THE STREET CAN GET THAT LIST. SO IT’S HARD TO SAY WE’RE SORT OF IN THAT WEIRD GROUND HERE WHERE WE HAVE A CLOSE PRIMARY DONE ON VOTER REGISTRATION STATE. HARD TO SAY I GUESS THE BASIC ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AS EVER HEARD OF THIS HAPPENING ANYWHERE ELSE NO BUT I DON’T KNOW OF ANY THE STATE HAS PRECISELY OUR EXACT SITUATION AND THANK YOU TO STICK TO REVERSE AND NEXT UP I’M MAYBE YOU CAN PROVIDE THIS LATER FOR ME.>>IS THIS CONCERN BASED IN SOMETHING THAT YOU’VE SEEN HER OR IS THIS JUST SUPPOSITION.>>THAT THE LIST IS GOING TO POST IT ONLINE OR SOLD OR.>>MR. SECRETARY AND SHARE AND REPRESENT NASH. I MEAN WE’VE NEVER HAD THIS SINCE REALLY 1956. SO TO THAT EXTENT SPECULATION WE HAD THE ONE OFF IN 1992 WHEN IT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. IT WAS FINDING YOU REALLY HAVE TO GO BACK 64 YEARS IN 1956; SO I THINK THE PROBLEM IS IS LESS THAT I BELIEVE CAN MARTIN OR JENNIFER CARNAHAN ARE GOING TO POST ITS NOT MINE. THAT’S NOT REALLY THE ISSUE I THINK THE ISSUE IS VOTER CONFIDENCE OR EVADE VOTER SPECULATION THAT THEY MAY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO KNOW THOSE PEOPLE’S NAMES. MIGHT SAY WELL LOOK YOU’RE HERE TO TELL ME THAT 4 DIFFERENT POLITICAL A NATIONS ARE GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH BALLOT. I TOOK AND YOU’RE ALSO TELLING ME THAT THEY HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS AND THEY’RE APT TO SAY WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE PARTY’S OWN TRUST POLITICAL PARTIES. SO I THINK IT’S IT’S AS MUCH ABOUT VOTER PURGE SECTION AS ANYTHING ELSE AS NOT WANTING TO CHILL. THE PERCEPTION THAT THEIR DATA IS JUST GETTING OUT THERE SO NO I HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY POLITICAL PARTY. HE’S PLANNING TO OR WOULD WANT TO DO ANYTHING BAD WITH IT; BUT I THINK VOTERS PERCEIVE RIGHTLY BECAUSE IT’S A FACT THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS ON WHAT THEY CAN.>>MENTOR I’M I’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU CAN BUY THIS ONLINE IN THE 50’S. NOT I HAVEN’T LIKED THE SAME THING THE BEGINNING I VOTED AGAINST IT. BECAUSE I I 4 I FIRST SAW A NUMBER OF BUT I JUST THINK THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. I DON’T KNOW THE NATION I BELIEVE THAT.>>PARTIES ARE GOING TO BE IS THE FERIA SAYS.>>ONE NIGHT. BUT I GUESS I I I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE CONCERNS THEM. PART OF WEAPON AGAINST THE WHOLE TIME; IT THANK YOU.>>ARE THERE ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVE BERNARD.>>THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR; I WANTED TO ASK OUR RESEARCH MATT GARY MISTER IS. AND THAT’S RAISED COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON PUBLIC DATA WITH THAT CONSIDERED A MISDEMEANOR UNDER MINNESOTA STATUE; 13 POINT O 9 I LIKE THE LICENSE PLATE THINGS THAT YOU KNOW JUST GO WAS I’M TALKING ABOUT.>>A MEASURE OF THE PARTY OR US ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF DATA UNDER THIS BILL OR.>>RIGHT WOULD THIS BE AN AH WELL AH TO REPRESENT OF A DRESS CODE WAS TALKING ABOUT LIKE THE COLLECTIONS OF LICENSE PLATES. INFORMATION THAT IS THAT A MISDEMEANOR UNDER MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE; 13 ON 9.>>MADAM CHAIR OF SAINT BERNARD E SO THAT ACTIVITY ISN’T COVERED BY THIS SECTION STATUTE IN CITIES LIKE ABOUT A SEPARATE SAID THE ACTIONS OF PERSON MIGHT TAKE AND I I’M NOT CERTAIN OF TIME I HAD WHAT CRIMINAL PENALTIES MIGHT APPLY THAT ACTIVE YOUR IT ALL. SO THE CLIPPER HAD THE PENALTIES ARE LISTED IN THIS BILL WOULD BE FOR MISUSE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES THAT ARE NOT AUTHORIZED IN THIS SECTION.>>PERCENT VERY OR NOT HE DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO US. FOR PERCENT OF VOTERS CAN THANK AN AND I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS AHEAD OF US THIS EVENING AND NIGHT.>>APPRECIATE THE OUT THE LETTER TO THE SECRETARY I WANT TO ASK ONE MORE. FOLLOW-UP. TOPIC WITH THIS IS POLITICAL PARTIES GOING THROUGH THERE. PRIVATE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO PUT THEIR CHOSEN CANDIDATE FORWARD IN A STATE OR NATIONAL ACTION THIS IS NOT A TRUE BONA FIDE ELECTION FROM A STAND POINT THAT YOU WERE YOUR OFFICE WILL HAVING SOME OVERSIGHT PARTICIPATION IN THIS IS NOT OF THE SAME TYPE THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT A LEGISLATIVE ELECT AND THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTION GUBERNATORIAL COUNTY COMMISSIONER WATCH AND SCHOOL BOARDS AND ALL THESE ARE. ENTITIES POLITICAL ENTITIES THAT ARE SETTING A CRITERIA. WHICH THEY WISH TO BE ABLE TO CONDUCT THEIR SELECTION PROCESS UNDER AND NO ONE IS COMPELLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROCESS NOR DOES IT TAKE AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL’S ALTMAN RIGHT TO VOTE IN BONA FIDE ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. MY CRAFT.>>SECRETARY MADAME CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE YES WITH AN ASTERISK AND YOU SAID I THINK YOU’RE CORRECT JUST AS A GENERAL MATTER THIS ISN’T LIKE A TYPICAL ELECTION; NO ONE’S GOING TO RAISE A HAND AND TAKE AN OATH AND AT THE END OF THIS IT’S ABOUT ALLOCATING DELEGATES TO NATIONAL CONVENTIONS BUT FOR PURPOSES OF STATUTE IS TREATED LIKE AN ELECTION IN FACT MUCH OF THE ENABLING LANGUAGE FOR PUTTING THIS PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY WINS IN STATUTE. DEFAULTS TO EXPLICITLY TREATING IT LIKE AN ELECTION I’LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE WE’VE GOT A QUESTION A LOT IN OUR OFFICE WILL IF I’M 17 NOW; BUT 18 BY THE TIME THE ELECTION CAN A VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BY THE WAY THE ANSWER IS NO PLEASE DON’T DO THAT PLEASE TELL YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS; OTHERS WITH HIGH SCHOOL IS DON’T DO THAT THAT’S ILLEGAL AND THE REASON THIS LEGAL. IT’S BECAUSE THE STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS ANY ELECTION YOU MUST BE 18 TO VOTE AND THIS IS DEFINED IN STATUTE AS AN ELECTION SO FOR STATUTORY PER THIS IS IT IS TREATED AS AN ELECTION AND ALL THE SAME PROCESS IS APPLIED I GET WHAT YOU’RE SAYING AS A MATTER OF JUST COMMON USAGE; IT’S NOT A TYPICAL ELECTION; BUT IT IS STATUTORILY ELECTION.>>SO WE’LL JUST COME IN TO THAT POINT THE GUIDELINES I THINK ARE ARE.>>WELL WELL SUITED TO FOLLOW CURRENT STATUTE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE USED TO THAT THEY’RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT IT HELPS WITH NOT M 2 SETS OF RULES WHAT DO YOU VOTE ON A ONE-WAY ONE-TIME ONE WAY ANOTHER TIME THAT BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND BE CLEAR ON IS THIS IS NOT. YOUR FATHER’S OLDSMOBILE ELECTION THIS IS A SELECTION PROCESS PUT FORTH BY POLITICAL PARTIES WHO IN AND OF THEMSELVES OR OTHER COMPETITIVE IN THE NATURE WITHIN THEIR SELECTION PROCESSES AND THERE ARE VARIOUS AND MINNESOTA COULD BE POTENTIALLY 4 DIFFERENT MAJOR PARTIES HAVING CANDIDATES VYING FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ELECTED POSSESSIONS AND SO IF THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AND STATUTE SAYS THAT THAT’S WHAT THE PARTIES CAME FORWARD WITH IT GETS TO ME TO LOOK A LITTLE KANGAROO ASKED TO SAY. VERY CLOSE TO AN ELECTION AFTER 4 YEARS OF OF THIS THAT THIS IS THE TIME THAT WE NEED TO BE MAKING SOME OF THESE CHANGES THAT CLOSE TO THE PROCESS. PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY BEGUN TO CAST THEIR BALLOTS. ALTHOUGH YOU’VE POINTED OUT THAT MARCH 30 IS NOT THE DATE IT’S 10 WEEKS AFTER THAT WHEN YOUR OFFICE AFTER RELEASE THE DATA. BUT ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE HAVE MADE DECISIONS TO GO OR NOT TO GO. AND AGAIN I READ DISENFRANCHISING INDIVIDUALS THIS CLOSE TO THE ELECTION BY CHANGING THE RULES FOR THAT AS YOU SAID YOU SPOKE ONE COUNTY OFFICIAL 50% OF THE PEOPLE HAVE SAID NO THANK YOU AND WALKED AWAY. HOW DO WE REACH BACK TO THOSE PEOPLE AND BRING THEM BACK AND IF WE DO A RULE CHANGE IN GAME CHANGE THIS QUICKLY BEFORE THE THAT A ALEXA’S LAST SELECTION PROCESS. MAYBE IT DOESN’T NEED AN ANSWER ME THIS RHETORICAL BUT. THE SECRETARY ASKED THOUGHTS THAT LIKE TO HEAR THOSE. THANK YOU; MADAM CHAIR REPRESENT A RISK A GREAT POINT.>>ONE THING I WOULD SAY THE OBJECTION THAT THIS COUNTY AUDITOR ARE POISED TO BE A FEW HOURS AGO HAS TO DO WITH SOMETHING THAT THIS BILL WOULD CHANGE TO BE FAIR WHICH IS THE 2 TO 7 BALANCE. SO WHAT HE ALWAYS TOLD ME WAS PEOPLE DIDN’T LIKE THAT AND THIS BILL WOULD CHANGE THAT THAT’S SOMETHING WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY MAYBE UNSUCCESSFULLY WAS THAT UM THAT’S SOMETHING THE LEGISLATURE WAS REALLY IN A BOX THOSE WHO WANTED TO MOVE TO A PRIMARY. ONE OF PRIMARY; BUT THEY DIDN’T WANT TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE PARTY THE RULES BECAUSE IT WOULD ALL BE FOR NOTHING AND SO SEATED TO LEGISLATORS DID IN 2016 SUNDAY; GIVE SAID ABOUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THIS WOULD CHANGE THAT. SO THAT’S A RULE THAT WOULD BE CHANGE OTHERWISE THOUGH HAVE A DIFFERENT CHARACTERIZATION OF THIS; I KNOW OTHERS. VOICE THEM. THOUGHTS ABOUT THE PUBLICLY SAYING THAT THIS IS CHANGING THE RULES IN MIDSTREAM I DON’T SEE IT THAT WAY THIS ISN’T CHANGING THE RULES ABOUT TIME PLACE MAN OR YOU CAN VOTE FOR HOW YOU CAN VOTE DEADLINES. THIS HAS TO DO WITH DATA COLLECTION DOWNSTREAM FROM THE ELECTION WE JUST HAD SO I DON’T SEE THIS AT ALL IS CHANGING THE RULES IN MIDSTREAM I SEE IT IS CHANGING SOMETHING THAT’S VERY MUCH DOWNSTREAM AFTER THE ELECTION WAS RULES WE’VE ALL SETTLED AND AGREED UPON.>>THANK YOU. MISTER SECRETARY DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. I ACTUALLY HAVE SOME COMMENTARY AND THAT I THINK TO BRING YOU KNOW CERTAINLY I CAN TELL YOU ANECDOTALLY THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER FOLKS ARE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS MOTHER WE THINK THAT IT WOULD DRIVE DOWN PARTICIPATION. I CAN TELL YOU THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO DOZENS OF FOLKS IN MY OWN COMMUNITY; I’VE RECEIVED LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS. I’VE EVEN GOTTEN CALLS FROM MY OWN PARENTS WHO ARE LEGITIMATELY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DATA BEING OUT MINNESOTANS HOLD THIS DATA AS SOMETHING VERY SACRED THEY HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT WAY AND IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY MINNESOTA DOES NOT. OPENLY DISCUSSED PARTY. AND I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THAT IS I LIVE IN THE I T WORLD AND WE TALK ABOUT DATA PRIVACY AND I KNOW MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EYE I TEND TO HAVE A GREAT REVERENCE FOR THE PRIVACY OF PERCENT PERSONAL SENSITIVE DATA IN FACT A COUPLE OF US AT THIS TABLE HAPPEN TO WORK IN THE I T FIELD IN WHICH THIS IS VITALLY IMPORTANT AND WHEN THAT IS IN FACT THE CASE ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT YOU DO IS YOU RESTRICT WHO HAS ACCESS TO THAT DATA. THE FIRST POINT OF THIS BILL DOES EXACTLY THAT IT RESTRICTS WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE TEA. THE SECOND POINT OF THIS BILL ACTUALLY GOES DOWN AND TALKS ABOUT A WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THAT DATA AND RESTRICTING AND PUTTING GUARDRAILS AROUND WHAT CAN ACTUALLY BE DONE WITH THAT DATA SO THAT PEOPLE CAN FEEL THAT THEY HAVE TRUST IN THE SYSTEM THAT THEY HAVE TRUST IN IN THEIR VOTE AND I THINK THAT ALSO IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND 3RD. IT GIVES US AS MOST AMERICANS LIKE THE OPTION OF OPTING OUT AND I THINK THAT THAT IS ALSO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND WHILE I CERTAINLY RESPECT SCOTT I DO NOT FEEL THAT HER BILL HAS DONE ENOUGH TO ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES. BUT I AM HOWEVER QUITE. EXCITED THAT THIS PARTICULAR BILL HANDLES ALL 3 OF THOSE POINTS. AND FOR THAT REASON I THINK IT IS A GREAT AND I I AM FULLY IN SUPPORT OF IT I WILL SAY AND I WANT TO THANK CHARITY IN FOR BRINGING THE BILL FORWARD. AND WITH>>TO THE>>CHAIR DEAN WOULD YOU LIKE TO SOME CLOSING COMMENTS. YES; MADAME CHAIR; SO.>>WE KNOW THAT IN 2008.>>THERE ARE MANY MINNESOTANS THAT WERE OUT ON A COLD NIGHT.>>STANDING MIND CAN GET INTO THEIR FACILITIES WHERE PEOPLE WERE PART OF SPENDING CAUCUSES AND HAS. SECRETARY SIMON MENTIONED IT HAPPENED AGAIN IN 2016. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SOME LEGISLATOR AND CORONER CAME UP WITH THIS GREAT IDEA TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE IN MINNESOTA SAID IT CAN’T WE DO SOMETHING IT’S A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER A LITTLE BIT MORE CONVENIENT FOR US TO VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL NATIONAL PRIMARY. AND YOU KNOW MANY OTHER STATES DO IN AS MENTIONED WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. I THINK THAT IT’S LIKE MANY OF US MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE AND OTHER FOLKS IN LEGISLATURE WE’VE GOTTEN HUNDREDS OF E-MAILS FROM PEOPLE SAYING IF I DID IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE. I’M NOT GOING VOTE.>>YOU KNOW REPRESENTATIVE DRISCOLL IS CRACKED PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO VOTE IN THIS ELECTION. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DON’T HAVE TO VOTE IN AUGUST. THEY DON’T HAVE TO VOTE NOVEMBER IN US REPRESENTATIVE DRISCOLL WANTS WE’RE KIND OF BILLS WOULD REQUIRE ALL MEDICINES. CO I’M HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM. BUT THAT’S THE SYSTEM THAT WE.>>HAVE AND I THINK ANYTHING WE DO THAT CAN REASSURE. THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA WHO ARE COMING OUT TO VOTE IT’S THAT THEIR DATA IS GOING TO BE AS SECURE AS WE CAN MAKE IT BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW IF WE CAN MAKE ANY DATA A 100% SECURE BUT AS SECURE AS WE CAN MAKE IT I THINK THIS IS A A GOOD COMPROMISE FROM WHAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAD PASSED AND PUT IN STATUTE AND YOU KNOW; ALTHOUGH THE SECRETARIES TIME AND SAYS WE HAVE TO 10 WEEKS AFTER. THE 3RD OF MARCH; I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WILL GIVE COMFORT TO PEOPLE BEFORE MARCH 3RD. WHEN THEY ACTUALLY GO TO THEIR. POLLING PLACE TO ACTUALLY SHOW AND MAYBE SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE WALKED AWAY SAYING NO; I DON’T WANT TO TURN OVER MY DATA MAYBE THEY WILL COME OUT ON MARCH 3RD TO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE KNOWING THAT WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SECURE THEIR DATA AND THEY ALSO HAVE THAT OPTION OF TRYING TO OF ACTUALLY OPTING OUT OF THEIR DATA BEING COLLECTED SO I THINK THIS IS AN EFFORT WHERE. LEGISLATURES HAVE PASSED SOMETHING AND WE’RE TRYING TO REMEDY SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE HAD ABOUT THAT.>>AND I WOULD.>>HOUSE MEMBERS TO SUPPORT THIS AND THAT WE MOVE IT TO A GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.>>THANK YOU CHAIR DEAN I’M I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE FILE 3068. THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE REPRESENT HE WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ YOU YOUR MOTION. YES MANAGER. PRESENT DEAN REMOVES RENEWS HIS MOTION THAT HOUSE FILE 36 TO 8 AS OR B A. YEAH YEAH BE RECOMMENDED TO BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. IT’S ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.>>ARE OPPOSED SAY NAY KNOW. THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU CHAIR DEAN.>>WE’RE NOW GOING TO MEET MOVE IN SECTION OF THE AGENDA WHERE OR A PREVIOUS BILLS WERE. MUCH TESTIMONY REGARDING THESE BILLS. AND ULTIMATELY THEY WERE LAID OVER OR FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION INTO THE ELECTIONS; I’M NERVOUS BILL SO. MY HOPE IS WE CAN MAYBE DISCUSS THIS WE NEED TO FOR A MINUTE OR 2. IF MEMBERS HAVE SOME CONCERNS WE CAN BRING THOSE UP BUT MY HOPE IS THAT WE’LL BE ABLE TO GET THIS THROUGH THIS SECTION OF THE AGENDA RATHER QUICKLY. SO I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD 6; 7; 3; REPRESENTATIVE OF SARAH’S BILL ON PAYMENT FOR SECURITY SERVICES ADDED TO ALLOWABLE NON CAMPAIGN TO SPUR BUT LESS AND THAT THIS BILL THE WE REFER TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. QUESTIONS COMMENTS; ANYBODY. I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT. A D ONE AND IT APPEARS THAT IT’S. THE CHANGES TO YOU ALL HAVE THIS IN FOR THEM. SO FROM THE ORIGINAL BILL THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IF I COULD TURN IT OVER TO MISTER GEHRING TO SPEAK TO THE CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL BILL THAT WE RECENTLY CONCLUDED.>>MISTER CHAIR SO DO YOU WANT AMENDMENT JUST UPDATES THE BILL TO REFLECT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ELECTIONS ANDRAS BILL LAST YEAR THERE WERE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ADOPTED IN THE LAST SESSION. INTRODUCE VERSION OF THE BILL SO THAT’S WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT IT WAS GREAT. THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.>>SO THERE WERE A FEW CHANGES MADE ALONG THE WAY AND THIS JUST FITS THAT BILL BACK IN THAT ORDER OF THIS CHANGE ANY QUESTION COMMENTS.>>MISTER IS PROCEDURE OFFICE INVITED TO BE A TENNIS. THANK YOU TO SET THEIR>>REPRESENTATIVE DRISCOLL YES; ALL THE AUTHORS WERE INVITED TO ATTEND AND.>>I DID NOT TELL THEM THEY HAD TO BE HERE. THANK YOU SINCE OUR HOPE WAS HE WAS LOOKING AT PURELY TECHNICAL ISSUES RELATED TO THESE BILLS AND THAT WE HAD. THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED THAN PREVIOUSLY.>>WITH ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MOVING HOUSE FIRE O 6.73 AS AMENDED. TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. OH I’M SORRY WE ACTUALLY DID AND ADOPTED E. I YOU KNOW I’M OUT OF PRACTICE; YOU GUYS; IT’S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE’VE BEEN AT THIS JOB MOVE YOUR D AMENDMENT OK. THE DEA’S MOVED ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE DEA. PLEASE SAY AYE AYE AYE; THOSE OPPOSED NAY. OKAY NOW THE BILL IS IN THE FORM WE NEED IT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF REFERRING HOUSE FILES 6.73 TO GOVERNMENT HAS AS IT AS AMENDED. PLEASE SAY AYE AYE AYE; THOSE OPPOSED NAY. OKAY THAT ONE IS DONE. SO IF WE CAN GET THROUGH THE REST OF THE HEROES THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I THINK NOW WE’RE ACTUALLY GOING TO SKIP A LITTLE BIT ON THE AGENDA MOVE TIME HAS FILED. 1372 A. THE REPRESENTATIVE LONG SPILL; IT’S. VOTERS TO JOIN A PERMANENT ABSENTEE VOTER LISTS. AND THAT THOSE BALLOTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO AMERICA WOULD BE SENT TO PERMANENT. ABSENTEE. INDIVIDUALS ON THAT LIST AND. THAT THAT THE REFER TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND THERE IS A. ONE AMENDMENT. A MOVIE A WANTED MAN. I JUST GAVE YOU A CHANCE. THE ONE WILL ACTUALLY HAD TO H 2 LINE 28. SECRETARY OF STATE MUST PRESCRIBE A FORM FOR THIS PURPOSE. AND A DEFECTIVE T IS ALSO IMPACTED AS WELL ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ONE AMENDMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE ONE AMENDMENT SAY I I. AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WHAT’S THAT I’M SORRY ANYBODY WANT TO VOTE NO. THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR KEEP ME ON MY TOES TONIGHT. SO HAS FOUND ONE. I KNEW MY MOTION TO REFER HOUSE FILED. 1; 3; 7; TO 2 GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AS AMENDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE AYE THOSE OPPOSED NAY. OKAY THE MOTION PREVAILS. THE BILL IS ON ITS WAY TOO. GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. NEXT WE HAVE HOUSE FILE 1152. REPRESENTATIVE FIBERS BILL WERE COUNTY AUTHOR AUDITORS ARE AUTHORIZED TO TRANSMIT POWER. IT’S ELECTRONIC LEAD TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. WE HAVE A NEW AMENDMENT SO THAT. DON’T BELIEVE WE DO. ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS OF MEMBERS. IF THIS BILL WILL BE REFERRED TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OTHERS OPPOSED NAY. THE CHAOS FAO LENT 52 IS WE REFER TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. OKAY NEXT WE HAVE HOUSE FILE 1818. REPRESENT THAT ARE YOU STILL HAVE AN AMENDMENT. AND REPRESENTATIVE ALL WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR A HOUSE FIRE.>>YES; I’D LIKE TO MOVE HAS HOUSE FOUND 1818.>>TO BE REFERRED TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OPTS OK AND I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I’D LIKE TO OK WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT; SURE THE. ONE AMENDMENT IS TO WIN THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS WHICH WILL BE THE DAY FALLING FINAL ENACTMENT IN THE LAST ELECTION CONDUCTED ON EARTH.>>ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF. ONE PLEASE SAY AYE AYE ALL THOSE OPPOSED. REPRESENT MINORITY YOUR BILL IS IN FRONT OF US; YOU KNOW THE ORDER EVERYONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO RENO YOUR MOTION IS THAT LIKE TO RENEW MY DAUGHTER AND YES.>>BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINESS OF THIS BILL AND I BELIEVE THAT.>>THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT. REPRESENTATIVE BERNARD A SPRING FORWARD IN THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACTUALLY PERMISSIBLE ON THE LAW ARE NOT AND I’D LIKE TO VISIT WITH SECRETARY OF STATE ON THAT MAYBE GET AN UPDATE FOR THE COMMITTEE AND.>>INCREASE HIS OFFICE MIGHT HAVE HAD RELATIVE TO THIS AND JUST TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE.>>PULL BACK ON THAT. TAKE ACTION ON THIS THIS EVENING.>>THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE SECRETARY SIGN.>>THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND REPRESENT RISK. I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE GETTING AT STOPPING YOUR GIVE ME THE SIGN IF I’M NOT JUST HERE. IT’S THERE THAT WILL GET YOUR TOPIC LATER APARTMENT IT’S THAT WILL GET YOUR DATA OUT THIS IS I THINK I’M GOOD AT GUESSING; SO I THINK WHAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO IS WE ASKED FOR A FORMAL OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE ON THIS IN JUST A. GET SOME PERSPECTIVE HERE. THE REASON I’M THAT REPRESENT BERNARDI IS BRING THIS BILL FORWARD IS SHE I THINK SHE’S CORRECT THAT IS IS UNDER UNDER STATE LAWS THERE ARE JURISDICTIONS THAT WISH TO ENGAGE IN. YOU KNOW.>>WHEN HE WAS CAUGHT MOBILE VOTING FOR.>>HAVE A POLLING PLACES IN A PLACE FOR LESS THAN THE ENTIRE 46 DAY ABSENTEE THIS COME FROM RURAL AREAS; IT’S COME FROM URBAN AREAS ARE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATORS WOULD BE LIKE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SAY IN THE COUNTY FOR EXAMPLE.>>HEY YOU>>WILL BE FOR ONE WEEK IN THIS COMMUNITY AND ONE WEEKEND.>>ANOTHER COMMUNITY AND ONE WEEK IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY. SIMILARLY IN URBAN AREAS FOR VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS; THEY’D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT RATHER THAN THE CURRENT STATE LAW WHICH SAYS IF YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE AN ABSENTEE. PLACE. TO PROCESS ABSENTEE VOTERS; YOU’RE EITHER THERE FOR THE ENTIRE 46 3 DAY PERIOD OR NOT. THERE WERE SOME JURISDICTIONS MINNESOTA OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WHO.>>INTERPRETED THE LAW. SUCH THAT THEY THOUGHT CURRENT LAW WITHOUT REPRESENTATIVE RUN ARTES BILL AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO THAT OUR LONGSTANDING POSITION OUR OFFICE I DON’T JUST MEAN.>>ME I MEAN GOING BACK THE LAST 2 SECRETARIES OF STATE SECRETARY RICHIE AND SECRETARY KEN WHERE ALL 3 OF US OUR LEGAL POSITION HAS BEEN THAT CURRENT.>>LAW DOES NOT.>>PERMIT THAT THAT YOU WOULD NEED REPRESENTATIVE OR NOT HE’S BILL IN ORDER TO LARGER TEXANS TO DO THAT THERE WERE SOME JURISDICTIONS IN MINNESOTA THAT DISAGREED WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW SO WE ASKED FOR A FORMAL LEGAL OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE AND WE GOT ONE.>>AND RATIFIED REFLECTED. WHICH IS THAT REPRESENTATIVE BERNARD EASE. BILL IS NECESSARY FOR JURISDICTIONS TO DO THIS WITH ONE CAVEAT AN INTERESTING WRINKLE THAT WE’VE NEVER REALLY MUCH DISCUSSED. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE OPINION SAID UP UNTIL ONE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION. THAT NO COUNTY NO CITY NO TOWNSHIP COULD DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO UNLESS REPRESENTATIVE OR NOT HE’S BILL BECOMES LAW. BUT THEY SAID IN THE ONE-WEEK PERIOD FOR THE ELECTION THAT IS FAIR GAME. FOR A JURISDICTION TO HAVE A POLLING PLACE OPEN FOR 7 DAYS SO THAT THE WHOLE 46 SO IN THE ONE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION THEIR INTERPRETATION ONCE YOU CAN DO IT. FOR MOST OF THE REST OF THAT MAJORITY OF ABSENTEE PERIOD YOU CAN’T SO THE QUESTION HAS ARISEN IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DO THIS WOULD YOU NEED A LAW CHANGE AND OUR LONGSTANDING POSITION ACROSS 3 SECRETARIES OF STATE AND NOW SORT OF RATIFIED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS YES IN ORDER TO DO THIS FROM DAY -46 TODAY -13 I WOULD NEED REPRESENTATIVE OR SO TOO DOES THAT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE.>>YES MISTER THANK YOU REPRESENT US AND WE ARE ON THE SAME TOPIC I GUESS I’D LIKE TO EXPLORE THE TIMELINE A LITTLE BIT MORE. IT TO LOOK LIKE WE’RE. TELEVISION ON YOUR HONOR ABOUT WHAT DID YOU RECEIVE AN INQUIRY FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASKING WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS LEGAL.>>MR. SECRETARY MR. CHAIR AND REP SOME OF THE SKULL IT WASN’T SO MUCH ASKING US WHETHER IT WAS LEGAL IT WAS. WE GOT WIND THAT THERE WERE JURISDICTIONS THAT WERE. PLANNING TO DO THIS OR DOING THAT.>>AND WE TOLD THEM.>>THOSE JURISDICTIONS AT THE TIME I CAN’T GIVE YOU EXACT DATES I CAN GET FOR YOU; BUT AND WE TOLD THEM YOU KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND IT’S OUR LONGSTANDING POSITION OF THIS OFFICE ACROSS THE SECRETARIES OF STATE THAT YOU CAN’T DO THAT NOW WE’RE FOND OF SAYING IN OUR OFFICE WE DON’T HAVE GUNS AND BADGES WE DON’T HAVE AND FORSMAN AUTHORITY WE CAN’T ENJOIN WEEK CAN’T STOP THE COUNTY FROM DOING IT WITH SHARE WITH THEM OUR LONGSTANDING POSITION.>>BUT WE CAN’T STOP THEM FROM DOING>>ONLY YOU CAN GIVE US THAT ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY MAYBE WANT US TO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY BUT WE DON’T HAVE IT NOW WE DID REACH OUT TO EVERY JURISDICTION. I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE JURISDICTIONS.>>AND WE LET THEM KNOW OF ARE YOU AH NOW I THINK WE HAVE I’M A STRONGER CASE TO MAKE NOW THAT WE HAVEN’T AGEE’S OPINION WHICH DOESN’T HAVE THE BINDING THE FORCE OF LAW BUT ITS PERSUASIVE ESPECIALLY PUBLISHED WHICH THIS IS.>>MISTER CHAIR; A REPRESENTATIVE JUST THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR; AND MISTER SECRETARY WAS CHEESE OPINION RENDERED BEFORE AFTER THE ELECTIONS.>>MISTER CHAIR AND REPRESENT A MOVE TO LOOKING TOWARDS SPAWN WAS.>>YES; IT WAS AFTER IT WAS JANUARY SECOND 2020 THAT’S WHEN THE OPINION WAS ISSUED REPRESENTED TO US.>>SO THAT WAS AND WHAT YEAR AFTER THE ELECTION OF WHAT YEAR TWENTY-NINETEEN R A.>>SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE RENDERS AN OPINION WHICH I CAN GET AN OPINION FROM AN ATTORNEY AS YOU’VE DONE.>>IF WE BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDSVILLE ART MAKE THIS LEGAL. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE 100 OPINION AFTER THE ELECTION. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS IS A CHALLENGE THAT THE ELECTION COULD HAVE BEEN. BOATS THAT WERE GOT RECEIVE THAT COULD CREATE SOME VOTER DISTRUST IN THE PROCESS. THE ELECTION RULES ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED OR THESE POP UP FOR AS YOU SAID THAT WE CARE A WEEK THERE.>>MONNIN VOTE KIND OF KIND OF THE WAY IT’S COME TO TOWN IF I COULD USE THAT CLICHE.>>MISTER MISTER CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE A SCHOOL THAT’S A HARD YOU ASKING WHETHER A COURT MIGHT DETERMINE THAT OR JUST WHETHER A VOTER MIGHT THINK THAT. I WAS I’M JUST I’M JUST ASKING WHAT PUBLIC>>WOULD BE THAT AFTER AFTER THE ELECTION IT HAPPENED WE’RE ASKING FOR AN OPINION ON SOMETHING WE’VE MOVED FORWARD NOW THE LEGISLATURE’S IT ENDING IT A BILL TO MAKE WHAT WAS QUESTIONABLE. IN YOUR OFFICE SAYING WELL WE ALL WE DON’T THINK IT’S THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING BUSINESS. I HAVEN’T THE SECRETARY BEFORE ME THE SECRETARY FOR THE SECRETARY BEFORE ME WE’VE ALWAYS OPERATED THIS WAY. AFTER THE ELECTION AFTER THIS PRACTICES EMPLOYED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE IMPORTANT SET OF 2 THINK THAT THAT WAS OK FACT OF THE ARC.>>MISTER CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE I’M JUST MAKE ONE DISTINCTION WHICH IS OUR LONGSTANDING POSITION OR OFFICE IS BASED ON A READING OF THE CURRENT LAW IN OTHER WORDS WHAT THE OPINION WE GAVE IT WAS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW FIRM. YES; I SUPPORT REPRESENTATIVE BERNARD HAS BUILT A MATTER OF POLICY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT APP AND IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA BOUGHT.>>MY VIEW IS ALSO THAT CURRENT LAW DOES NOT PERMIT FOR ALMOST ALL OF THE SO THOUGH IT’S MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE THAT AND I THINK WE NEED A LAW CHANGE TO MAKE IT. SO THE OPINION OF THE OFFICE WAS NEVER AT LEAST UNDER ME I CAN’T TALK ABOUT SEX. THERE IS RICHIE OR WHERE IT WASN’T A POLICY PERSPECTIVE. IT WAS SAYING NO MATTER WHETHER YOU’RE FOR REPRESENT BERNARDSVILLE OR CANCER PRESERVED. YOU NEED THAT BILL IF YOU WANT THIS TO HAPPEN YOU NEED TO BUILD CURRENT LAW DOESN’T ALLOW AT LEAST FOR 30 NOT OUT OF THE 46 DAYS SO THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GETTING OUT NOT SO MUCH SHOULD YOU IT WAS DOES THE LAW MID AND OUR LEGAL POSITION NOT POLICY POSITION WAS THAT KNOW THE LAW DOES NOT. REPRESENTATIVE TRISTON THINK PLEASE GO THROUGH THE CHURCH.>>YES MISTER SO REPRESENTATIVE SECRETARY SIMON SO. I THINK THIS PROBABLY WILL BE THE LAST SET OF QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC. SO THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE JUST THAT’S NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IT IS NOT A JUDGE AND THE COURTS. IT’S NOT THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING ON THIS IS THE PAIN OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE ON US THE OPINION. IT’S JUST THAT AND IT CAN BE CHALLENGED. SO WE MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING IF SOMEONE WANTED TO CHALLENGE THAT WE CAN FIND ON. BATTLE AND IT WAS JUST THAT IT’S NOT THAT POWER OF A JUDGE; IT’S NOT A JUDGMENT. IT IS AN OPINION THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE AND I THINK THAT I WAS ON THE RECORD STATING THAT IT’S EVEN THOUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICES SET. HERE’S WHAT WE’RE IN IS THEY DON’T CARRY THE WEIGHT OF A JUDICIAL BRANCH WEIGHING IN ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT TO PRACTICE WAS VALID OR NOT AND OCCURRED.>>MISTER SECRETARY THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR DRIPS AND RUSSELL THAT’S IT’S GOT PERSUASIVE EFFECT BUT NOT CONTROLLING THAT EFFECT AND SO WE SOUGHT THE OPINION BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT PERSUADE COUNTIES OR CITIES TO TAKE A CERTAIN COURSE OF ACTION BASICALLY WERE SAYING LOOK. WE HAVE ONE VIEW YOU HAVE ANOTHER VIEW LET’S GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE TO SEE WHAT THEIR VIEW IS BUT YOU’RE RIGHT THEY’RE NOT FORCED TO DO THAT. WE DON’T HAVE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY HE ANYWAY IN ORDER THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT ONE THING I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE WARN ALL THESE JURISDICTIONS AND THERE WERE A COUPLE.>>I SAY>>WE TOLD THEM THAT; ALTHOUGH WE DON’T HAVE GUNS IN THAT AS WE DON’T HAVE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY IT IS POSSIBLE. THE PLAINTIFFS OUT THERE WITH STANDING TO SUE COULD SUE YOU. YOU’RE OPENING YOURSELF UP TO LITIGATION US SO YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION BUT THERE MIGHT I WENT OUT THERE WHO STAND TO SUE WHO MAY SUE YOU AND SAYING THE ISLAND STATE LAW AND THEY MIGHT WHEN WE THINK THEY’LL WIN. SO IF YOU WANT TO ROLL THE DICE YOU CAN DO THAT AND SO IN SEEKING THE AGEE’S OPINION WHICH IS A RARE THING. THEY DON’T DO THAT MANY OPINIONS I THINK UNDER THE PRIOR ATTORNEY GENERAL I THINK SHE DID. IN FULL OF OPINIONS AND HER 12 YEARS AS ATTORNEY GENERAL THERE JUST PRETTY RARE. I’M AT BUT WE WANTED TO GO TO. WANTED TO TAKE THAT EXTRA MEASURE AND SEQUIN AND THEY AGREED TO DO ONE FOR THAT PURPOSE TO AT LEAST TRY TO PERSUADE THEM. YOU’RE FACING SOME LITIGATION RISK HERE SO.>>REPRESENTATIVE MISTER CHAIR THIS WILL BE MY FINAL COMMENT SECRETARY SIMON I WANT TO THANK YOU I THINK THAT YOU DID.>>THE RIGHT THING. I THINK YOUR VIEW ON.>>US THAT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE ON THE POLICY AND USE A SET OF POLICIES MATTER. IT’S THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW I TEND TO STAND WITH THE PAST SECRETARIES OF STATE ON IT’S ON THE SITE INCLUDE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE GOT THIS WRONG IF THEY DIDN’T WE WOULDN’T BE HERE AGAIN ADVOCATING FOR THIS PARTICULAR BILL IF IT WAS CLEARED IN MOCK FORTUNATELY; OR UNFORTUNATELY WASN’T LITIGATION ON HERE SO WE’LL NEVER KNOW.>>MAYBE WE WILL MAYBE THEY WON’T I DON’T KNOW; BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU THAT YOUR OFFICE SENSE SOMETHING THERE AND.>>DID WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE BY ASKING FOR OPINION AND I AGAIN STAND WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS. THANK YOU. MISTER SECRETARY. OH YEAH; I GUESS YOU CAN’T GO.>>WELCOME BACK TO THE TESTS FOR SAY ROUGH MISTER SECRETARY; A REPRESENTATIVE MASS; THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR; AND SECRETARY YOU’D MENTION A LAWSUIT THAT.>>WOULD LIKELY HAPPEN ON WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE HELP US UNDERSTAND SO THAT WE CAN MAYBE BETTER ACT ON THIS BILL. TROPICAL KNOWLEDGE BOMB ON THIS MONDAY.>>MISTER CHAIR REPRESENT NASH; I MEAN JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING.>>SOME PLAINTIFFS WITH STANDING TO SUE; I’M NOT AN EXPERT BUT I ASSUME SOMEBODY WHO LIVES IN THE JURISDICTION.>>YOU A I SUE. JUST RIFFING HERE COULD SUE AND SEEK SOME SORT OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PERHAPS FROM A COURT THAT WHAT THE CITY IN WHICH THEY LIVE DID WAS NOT PERMITTED UNDER STATE STATUTE AH I DON’T KNOW IF THAT WOULD TIME WE NOW RIGHT AS THEY SAY HE IN THE COURTS TO DO IF THAT’S THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE NOW COULD SUE OVER SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE IN THE 2019 WATCH AND I JUST DON’T KNOW NONE OF HOW SUCCESSFUL THEY WOULD BE AT THIS POINT THAT’S JUST SPECULATION BUT BUT THE GENERAL IDEA AND WE WORE THEM OF THIS AT THE TIME WAS YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION WERE SEEKING AN AGEE’S OPINION. WE THINK YOU’RE WRONG. WE CAN’T FORCE SOMEBODY ROLL THE DICE HERE>>YEAH; I REPRESENT MASS OVERNIGHT; MAYBE COULD GET MISTER GEHRING TO GIVE US A LITTLE YOU AND I ARE THINKING LIKE A MISTER GEHRING IF YOU’D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL.>>MISTER RIPP PERCENT NASH; I’M SO THERE IS THE FORMAL ELECTION CONTEST PERIOD THAT OCCURS AFTER EVERY WATCH AND I DON’T KNOW THAT THIS POSITION FOR DAYS FOR A LOCAL ELECTION. BUT THAT’S THE PERIOD A PERSON STANDING COULD CHALLENGE THE RESULTS OF WHAT YOU THINK YOU CERTAINLY AT THIS POINT THAT PERIOD IS CLOSED NOW FOR 2019 GENERAL ELECTION; I’M NOT CERTAIN THAT A THAT WOULD BE STAYING ANYMORE FOR SOMEONE TO SUE BASED ON THOSE RESULTS BUT BUT THERE IS A WINDOW TIME. REPRESENT MASS.>>AND MANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS FOR A 6 TO SILENCE A SWEET STILL HAVEN’T THEY. I THANK YOU AGAIN SECRETARY CENT. SO THE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT A BILL THAT’S BEFORE US.>>I RENEW MY MOTION NOW LIKE TO REHOUSE FILE 8 TO 18 AS AMENDED TO BE SENT TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE.>>OKAY THAT THOSE BEFORE US TO BE REFERRED ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. I I ALL THOSE OPPOSED NAY. THAT WAS ON THE WAY. AND NOW WE HAVE HOUSE FILE.>>AND IF YOU’D LIKE TO MOVE YOUR BILL AND I>>YES; MISTER CHAIR; I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE HOUSE PILE 25TH D AND I DO I’M SORRY WAS DO YOU HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THEM. OF THE BILLS BEFORE SO YES I WAS MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR; I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TOO AMENDMENT GET AND CHANGES THE D.>>ANY DISCUSSION ON TOO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AI ALL THOSE OPPOSED NAY. A CASE THAT BILL IS IN THE SHAPE. YOU ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO A GROWLER.>>TELL US WHAT THIS TEST. MISTER CHAIR. THINK YOU I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE HOUSE FILE 2050. WHICH BASICALLY EXPANDS THE DEFINITION OF EXPRESS ADVOCACY AND ESTABLISHES A. REGULATING IT LIKE TRYING TO OR IN ELECTIONEERING KE INDICATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT DOES IS IT ALLOWS FOR CHANCE HERE IN SEE SO THAT VOTERS RECEIVING COMMUNICATIONS IN THE LEADING UP TO ELECTION HAVE WE UNDERSTAND WHO’S BEHIND THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. SO THE BIG EVENT THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED JUDGMENT. ON THAT.>>THANK YOU FOR THE REPRESENT BEEN ARE THE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SEEING NONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO RENEW YOUR MOTION.>>MISTER CHAIR I’D LIKE TO MOVE HALF WAS FILED 20.>>TO BE REFERRED TO JEFF GOVERNMENT NUMBERS.>>TO USE FOR THE JETS GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AI ALL THOSE OPPOSED NO. YOU’RE ON YOUR WAY TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. SO WE’VE GOT INTO 2 PARTS A THE AGENDA. WE HAVE ONE MOST PART AND IT WILL BE IN INFORMATION DISCUSSION AND REGARDING HOUSE FAO 93 WHICH WE HAVE PREVIEW PREVIOUSLY. NOW WE WE WE WENT THROUGH A HOUSE FIRE 1150 TO GET IT WE GET IT. I’M JUST YES; THERE IS SOME CONFUSION FROM. WHETHER THIS BILL IS BEING HEARD OR NOT WHETHER IT WAS POLLED OR NOT. THANK YOU REPRESENT THIS BILL WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE AGENDA. AND THEN IT WAS PAUL AND NOW IT’S BACK BUT SINCE IT WAS COLD. WE CAN’T TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION ON. SO THIS IS JUST FOR DISCUSSION IN THIS BILL WILL COME BACK BEFORE US NEXT MEETING WHICH WILL BE WEDNESDAY. AND I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD DO A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION NOW THAT MIGHT BE SOME RECAP AND THEN TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION. IT WILL REALLY BE UP TO. FOLKS ABOUT HOW MUCH CONVERSATION THEY WANT TO HAVE BUT I AKINS IS HERE AND I JUST LIKE INTO WE. RENEWING OUR MINDS WHAT THIS BILL IS AND WHAT IT DOES AND THEN WE’LL MOVE ON TO CONVERSATION. WELCOME TO THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTS ARE CHERRY AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION THAT RECEIVED SOME A NUMBER OF GOODS BUT THEN SMALL SUGGESTIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AND I JUST.>>STILL MY REQUEST TO THE PEEP HOLE BECAUSE I THINK IT I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WERE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ALONG. BASICALLY WE’RE WE’RE THE LAST YEAR IT BASICALLY WILL ALLOW A LOCAL JURISDICTION. OTHER THAN CHARTER TO RANKED CHOICE VOTING IS THERE A FORM OF ELECTION AND SOME CLUES COUNTIES STATUTORY SCHOOL BOARDS. SO THE UNIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING IS JUST A LOT YOU A SICKLY RANK YOUR YOUR YOUR VOTES FROM ONE TO AND BASED ON ON YOUR PREFERENCE. AND THAT THE OTHER THING THAT THE BILL WILL DO WILL STANDARDIZE THE OUT OF FORM OF THE BALLOT FOR THESE KINDS OF ELECTION AS FOR BOTH CHARTER AND STATUTORY CITIES AND OTHER LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT SO THE THE NATURE OF THE THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE REAL ARE TECHNICALS MOSTLY THINGS LIKE CHANGES IN A IN DEFINITIONS IN MIND A MINOR CHANGES IN WORDING; BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THEM. I COULD GO THROUGH THEM THAT THE THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE WOULD WOULD LIKE A.>>REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS; I DON’T KNOW IF WE NEED YOU TO GO THROUGH THEM. BUT I WANTED YOU HERE SO IF QUESTIONS CAME UP TO INDIVIDUALS TO RAISE THOSE QUESTIONS. MY HOPE IS THAT WE HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION AND WE MOVE THIS FORWARD WE ALL GET ON WITH THEIR EVENTS. WHAT WE’LL SEE WHAT MEMBERS HAVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS THINGS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE ANSWERED. MISTER CHAIR JUST PROCEDURALLY WHAT ARE YOU INTENDED AS A WITNESS LIST.>>YES; THERE WAS A BRIEF VERY PROBABLY MOST BRIEF INFORMATIONAL HEARING EITHER BUT WHAT’S THE PLAN ARE WE BRINGING AMENDMENTS AT THE NEXT TIME. RE LITIGATED AS WE TALK ABOUT IN THE OFFICE WHAT WHAT’S PLANNED.>>REPRESENT NASA; I BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT HERE IS THERE MAY BE SOME TECHNICAL CHANGES THAT MIGHT COME FORWARD WITH AMENDMENTS WE ACTUALLY TAKE THE BILL A LOT THAT WE MIGHT HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT BUT YOU HOUSE FILE.>>93 IS ESSENTIALLY THE BILL THAT WE SPENT.>>SOME OF THESE ISLANDS ON ONE DISCUSSING WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF MY EDUCATION; IT’S A NEW LEGISLATURE. YEAH; YEAH; YOU KNOW; I MEAN. I’M OPEN TO TAKING SOME TESTIMONY FROM PUBLIC IF YOU ALL ARE ANXIOUS TO DO SOME OF THAT I DON’T FEEL A GREAT NEED I THINK WE TOOK MUCH TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY I MEAN I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC THAT’S HERE TONIGHT. REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR BILL BUT. MISTER GERMS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT YOU KNOW THIS IS A VERY BRIEF INFORMATIONAL HEARING. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS COMING FORWARD ARE WE GOING DO THE FULL RUN THROUGH THE BILL AGAIN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AMENDMENTS I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN SO I’M JUST WHAT YOUR PLAN REPRESENT NASH. MY MY PLAN IS TO BRING IT UP AND SOME AMENDMENT THE PREVIOUS BILLS WOULD PROBABLY. WITH O’TESLA EXERT WELL WE’LL HAVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE AMENDMENTS. BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE MEMBERS ARE FULLY AWARE OF THOSE CHANGES WHAT THEY MIGHT BE. BEFORE WE MOVE THIS FORWARD ON TO A GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS REPRESENT THE TRUST MR. CHAIR OF JUST THE TAPE WHAT FOR WHAT ADVICE IS WORTH IT SINCE WE DON’T HAVE THE AMENDMENTS WE DON’T KNOW WHICH AREAS ARE AFFECTED BY THIS.>>IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LAY THE SULPHUR ONCE WE GET THE AMENDMENTS AND MEMBERS HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM THAT MAY HELP THEM TO FOLKS SO QUESTIONS TO AWAY FROM TOPICS ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT THE AMENDMENTS IN THE AFFECTED AREAS ARE. SO IT MAY JUST BE MORE EFFICIENT USE OF YOUR TIME THE COMMITTEE’S TIME TO WAIT UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO BE.>>REPRESENTATIVE ADDRESS GO. I’D BE HAPPY TO LAY THIS OVER BUT THIS BILL REALLY IS BEFORE US THIS IS INFORMATION.>>OVER INTO A PROCEDURE; HOW WE WANT TO DO IT I GUESS IF YOU’RE SAYING TAKING TESTIMONY EVEN THEM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DON’T KNOW WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE SO THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TESTIFYING TO 4 ARE UP OR DOWN BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT PARTS OF THE BILL ARE FACT THAT I MAY HAVE A POSITION THAT ICE ABSOLUTE ONLY UP OF THAT SPARKED BEEN DELETED THEM WHY DO WE TAKE A BREAK. LOOK AT THAT I CAN TO HAVE THE MOST FOR US LIKE WE DID THIS EVEN HAPPEN; OKAY THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM THAT’S GOOD AROUND IT WILL MAYBE HAVE SOME OPINIONS FROM PREVIOUS TESTIMONY AS TO THE SPIRIT INTENT OF THE BILL AND WHETHER THEY’RE SUPPORTING HER. BUT ONCE WE GET THE MEMBERS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HELP THEM TO A.>>SURE REPRESENTATIVE DRISCOLL OF THE REASON THIS BILL IS BEFORE US.>>THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA.>>SOMETHING’S HAPPENED IT WAS PRO I WANTED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE AUTHOR AND THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THIS IS A BILL THAT’S BEING CONSIDER AND WE WILL ACTUALLY CONSIDER VOTE IN OUR NEXT MEETING.>>AND MISTER CHAIR AGAIN I THINK IT’S HELPFUL TO EVERYBODY AND A GOOD USE OF COMMITTEE AND YOURS AND THE PUBLIC’S TIME ONCE WE KNOW WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT CHANGES TO THE BILL SENSE. WE HAVEN’T IN EVERYONE’S WORDS AND RECOLLECTIONS SPENT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PREVIOUS COMMITTEE TIME.>>THAT IS A RISK OF THAT IS THE PLANNED FOR WEDNESDAY.>>TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT END. HAVE THOSE ADDRESS PRIOR TO MOVING TO GO ON TO GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.>>IF THERE’S NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROCEDURE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS BILL. THIS MEETING SINCE THE TURN.

No Comments

Leave a Reply