Senate Bill 113 is by state Sen. Hanna-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara. It would pre-register high school students to vote at age 16. Introducing her bill in the Senate Tuesday, she said there are similar laws in Florida and Hawaii.

She said pre-registration encourages young people to vote once they are eligible at age 18; and makes it more likely they will become lifelong voters.

“It does not change the voter age,” Jackson said Tuesday in the Senate. “Once they turn 18, the registration is automatic. This is great for Democracy to invest in the system. It’s their future.”

Sen. Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa, said the legislation would likely create a giant paper trail for the Secretary of State and local elections officials who would have to track the registration records. Anderson also warned that, if the teens move and don’t realize they must re-register, they won’t be able to vote.

Vote by mail at college

SB240 is by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. It would establish at least one vote-by-mail ballot drop box within each campus of all state universities and colleges.

Yet the vast majority of public universities in California have actual polling places on campus on Election Day, according to the bill analysis.

Yee said:

“Senate Bill 240 ensures that young voters’ voices are heard at the ballot box by allowing University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) students to drop off their vote by mail ballots on campus. While in college, many students will be voting for the first time. Together with online voter registration, students can effortlessly register or reregister to vote with their new address, request a vote by mail ballot, and drop off the completed ballot on campus.”

Out-of-county student voter disenfranchisement

Many students attending college away from home are typically registered to vote in their home county, not the university’s county. And each county’s registrar of voters is not required to forward vote-by-mail ballots to the student’s county of origin, so these student voters could be disenfranchised, according to the bill’s analysis.

The bill analysis explained how easy it already is for the budding scholars to vote:

“While in college, many students will be voting for the first time. Together with online voter registration, students can effortlessly register to vote, and on Election Day have convenient and easy access to a polling place on their university or college campus.”

Previous attempts

ACA 7 is by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco. In the bill summary’s words:

“Allows a person who is 17 years old and who will be 18 years old at the time of the next general election to register and vote in that general election and in any intervening primary or special election that occurs after the person registers to vote.”

This new bill is similar to ACA 17 in 2005 by former Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, the father of Kevin Mullin. It sought to lower the voting age to 17, but only for young people who would be 18 before the next general election.

The goal was to allow them to vote in the primary for that general election. Several attempts to pass the constitutional amendment failed, falling short of the two-thirds vote needed to put the change on the ballot.

Automatic voter registration

He said the phony “profits” the Ponzi-scheme master promised vanished into thin air. But before that, the “profits” were taxed by California, which now refuses to return the tax assessments to state victims.

Anderson proposed Senate Bill 797, which would align California law with federal income tax law. The IRS lets theft losses from Ponzi schemes and con artists be counted against past and future income, something California currently does not allow for state income taxes.

This would be an alternative to immediately giving the tax money back to the Ponzi victims.

“The state of California kicked you while you were down, and hit you with a tax bill on money you never received,” Anderson explained about the victims.

Madoff’s scheme, the most notorious in U.S. financial history, unraveled in 2007. It cost 16,000 investors $64.8 billion in paper wealth, and at least $17.5 billion in cash losses, according to the New York Times. 

Victims vs. criminals

While well known victims included Steven Spielberg, Kevin Bacon, Ringo Starr and Elie Wiesel, most victims were common people.

Anderson lamented of his reform that there was “no stomach for it in the Legislature.”

“My goal is to punish criminals, not victims, and many of these innocent victims were not wealthy,” he said. “They were teachers, welders and small business owners, saving every penny they could toward their retirement. And it’s not fair the state is taxing them on this fictitious money that was stolen from them.

“We need to protect these victims whose finances and futures have been destroyed by scam artists. Together, with the passage of SB797, we can ensure the state doesn’t re-victimize these innocent Californians. The state should not profit from criminal activity perpetuated against law-abiding citizens.”

Two investment scheme victims phoned in and told their stories of devastating financial loss, and of wrestling with the Franchise Tax Board over the phantom investment gains.

Bernice Tingle, 68, was defrauded of $1 million by a criminal swindler, but she has not yet paid taxes on the phantom investment proceeds. The Franchise Tax Board claims she now owes the state $135,000 after penalties were assessed on her original $84,000 tax bill.

Tingle intended to appear in person, but was rushed to the hospital on her way from Oakland to Sacramento. “The federal government went back and forgave 85 percent of my tax bill,” Tingle said via phone. “I’ve worked too hard to be out on the streets.”

Velma (no last name given), 70, was driving with Tingle to the hearing, and went to the hospital to give Tingle support. By phone, Velma said she lost everything, including all of her retirement money, to another con artist. “I’m in a financial situation right now,” Velma said. “I had to pay taxes on that money.”

Velma said the IRS was finally able to refund her tax money. Yet when she shared the same documents with California’s Franchise Tax Board, it refused to refund her $28,250. “I had to pay the tax bill,” she said.

SB797

Immediately following the press conference, Anderson presented SB797 in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. But it was evident from the outset several committee members were not on board with him.

Anderson said the Franchise Tax Board’s attitude is, “If you are taxed on phantom profits from a Ponzi scheme, we won’t return the money or forgive the tax bill.”

He added, “Bernice lost $1 million. Now she has to worry about wolves at her door.” Anderson said the state tax board should not keep the “blood money.”

Anderson said other states return Ponzi-scheme tax money. “I went for neutral ground,” he explained, knowing two similar bills addressing the same problem had failed in the Senate Governance Committee – one bill in 2010 by former Sen. Dean Flores, D-Shafter, and the other bill by Anderson in 2011.

You’re on your own

Committee Chairwoman Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said the issue has come before her committee before, and they’ve never passed the bills. “It’s really offensive to sit up here and hear words like ‘blood money,’ when people make investments that fail,” said Wolk. “There were many people affected by this.”

Wolk added, “It’s not the role of the state Treasurer” to solve the investors’ problems. Wolk recommended a “no” vote by all of the committee members.

Anderson was not dissuaded. “Just say, ‘I am a money-grubbing legislator and I don’t want to give the money back,'” Anderson mocked. “They didn’t lose their money to poor investments; they were scammed. Money was stolen. They are crime victims.”

Anderson asked of the legislators, “Do you feel good at night knowing someone has to fend wolves at the door? We are sending out people from the state to do asset reviews,” meaning they’re preparing the seize the people’s property. “This is about victims. This is the second time I’ve brought this before your committee; it’s the righteous thing to do.”

The bill failed on a 4-2 vote. Reconsideration was granted, and SB797 will be heard again and voted on Wednesday, Jan. 15 in the same committee.