Join us for a free community seminar featuring Tony Guan, Vice Chair of Equal Rights for All PAC (ERFAPAC) and SVCA board member, as he shares how he uses OpenClaw AI to build powerful workflows and web interfaces that advance civic engagement and legislative advocacy.

Event Details

• 📅 Date: Saturday, April 4, 2026
• ⏰ Time: 6:00 PM Pacific Time (PDT)
• 💻 Format: Zoom (Free · Open to All)
• 🎤 Speaker: Tony Guan — Vice Chair, ERFAPAC · SVCA Board Member

🔗 Register here (free)

About the Speaker

Tony Guan is an SVCA board member and Silicon Valley tech company engineering manager who has long been active in community service and civil rights advocacy. Since 2016, he organized multiethnic residents in Sunnyvale and Cupertino to oppose unfair aircraft noise relocation, coordinated with local governments and the FAA, and helped establish the Santa Clara County aviation roundtable.

During the pandemic in 2020, he launched the #StrongerTogether initiative, organizing volunteers to distribute masks to the community — receiving coverage from multiple mainstream media outlets. He was also deeply involved in the campaign against Proposition 16, founded StopProp16.org, and assisted Ward Connerly in creating Equal Rights for All PAC (erfapac.com), where he serves as Vice Chair. In 2026, he is once again stepping forward to oppose ACA-7.

What You Will Learn

• Real-World OpenClaw Workflows — End-to-end automation pipelines for civic outreach
• Custom Web Interfaces — Tools that help communities engage with legislation
• From Idea to Impact — AI-powered campaigns for legislative advocacy goals
• Live Demo & Q&A — Interactive demonstration with audience questions welcome

🔗 Click here to register — it’s free!

Presenters Chunhua Liao, Sam Li, and Rich Liu walked attendees through live demos, real workflows, and practical insights on getting started with AI agents. Here is a recap of the key highlights.

📊 View the full slides: SVCAF OpenClaw Seminar — March 7, 2026

🎬 Watch the full recording: SVCAF OpenClaw Seminar — March 7, 2026 (YouTube)

From Chatbot to AI Agent: What Is the Difference?

The seminar opened by drawing a clear distinction between traditional chatbots and modern AI agents. While chatbots respond to single questions, an AI agent like OpenClaw takes multi-step actions autonomously — managing email, calendar, files, and web browsing on your behalf, all through a simple chat interface on Discord, Telegram, or WhatsApp.

Chatbot vs. AI Agent — the key differences

Key Insight #1: Your Agent Is Only as Good as Its Configuration

One of the most valuable takeaways: out of the box, an AI agent is a blank slate. What makes it powerful is how you configure it. SVCAF uses plain-text files — SOUL.md (the agent’s values and limits), AGENTS.md (operational rules), and MEMORY.md (long-term memory) — to give our agent a clear identity, workflow, and institutional knowledge.

“ChatGPT gives you a smart stranger. OpenClaw lets you build a smart colleague.” — Chunhua

How SVCAF configures the agent to reason with evidence and first principles

Key Insight #2: Automation Without Constant Prompting — Heartbeats and Cron Jobs

SVCAF’s agent runs proactively without anyone having to ask. Two mechanisms make this possible:

• Heartbeat: Every ~30 minutes, the agent wakes up and checks for urgent emails, upcoming calendar events, and anything that needs attention.
• Cron Jobs: Scheduled at exact times — a Daily Learning Brief runs every morning at 7 AM (pulling AI news and policy updates into a Gmail draft), and a Daily Self-Reflection runs at 2 AM to review the day and improve the agent’s own rules.

Heartbeat vs. Cron Jobs — when to use each

Key Insight #3: Real SVCAF Use Cases in Action

Chunhua demonstrated several live workflows SVCAF already uses today:

• Event Flyer Design: Share a reference flyer, the agent analyzes the style, generates a new flyer using AI image generation, and iterates based on feedback. Four versions in minutes, not hours.
• Website Management: Post to svcaf.org via WordPress API with a single message. No CMS login needed.
• Semantic Search: Query across 900+ SVCAF documents — meeting minutes, Drive files, website posts — using meaning, not just keywords. Example: searching “漂流活动” (rafting activity) instantly found relevant archived posts.
• WeChat Article Pipeline: A 9-step multi-agent workflow that takes an idea and produces a fully illustrated, fact-checked, WeChat-ready article draft in 5–10 minutes.
• Google Workspace Integration: Full Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Sheets, Docs, and Slides access — all accessible through a single conversation.

How the agent designed an event flyer from a single reference image

Semantic search across 900+ SVCAF documents — finding meaning, not just keywords

The 9-step multi-agent WeChat article pipeline

Key Insight #4: Skills — Extending the Agent Like App Plugins

OpenClaw supports “skills” — modular plug-ins that give agents specialized capabilities. The community registry at clawhub.com offers free, open skills you can install with one command. SVCAF has already contributed several skills to the community, including a Docker setup guide and a WeChat article writer.

Key Insight #5: Multi-Agent Collaboration — Sam Li’s Demo

Sam Li presented an innovative demo: a cooperative AI game designed for OpenClaw agents, where multiple agents work together like a band — each with different capabilities (writing poetry, drawing, speaking). The demo showcased how multiple agents can collaborate on creative tasks, with each agent contributing its specialty to a shared goal.

Key Insight #6: Security and Privacy First — Rich Liu’s Perspective

Rich Liu shared practical safety advice for new users:

• Avoid sharing real personal information with AI agents until you trust them
• Use a separate email account when experimenting
• Install agents in a sandbox environment, especially for sensitive operations like financial tasks
• Start simple — build trust before delegating complex workflows

The honest truth about getting started — and what makes OpenClaw click

Getting Started with OpenClaw

There are three paths to running OpenClaw:

• Easiest (Cloud): DigitalOcean Marketplace — $12/month, 5-minute setup
• Free: Oracle Cloud Always Free Tier — 4 ARM CPUs, 24GB RAM, $0/month forever
• DIY: Your own Mac, Linux, or Docker setup with free OpenRouter models

Want to try SVCAF’s public AI agent? Join our Discord: discord.gg/yXnx9xnP

What Is Next for SVCAF

SVCAF’s AI roadmap — what’s already working and what’s coming next

We are building an AI-first nonprofit — not because it is trendy, but because it lets our volunteer team serve the Chinese American community at a scale that was previously impossible.

Thank you to everyone who attended and participated. Special thanks to Sam Li and Rich Liu for their presentations and demos. Stay tuned for future SVCAF events and seminars.

📧 Questions? info@svcaf.org  |  🌐 svcaf.org

Watch the Event Promo

If you or someone you know has received a UC rejection letter, you are not alone — and you are not out of options.

SVCAF, in partnership with SARD (Students for Admissions Reform and Diversity), is hosting a free community forum featuring a nationally recognized expert on college admissions policy.

Event Details

• 📅 Date: Sunday, April 5, 2026
• ⏰ Time: 8:00 PM Pacific Time
• 💻 Format: Zoom (Free · Open to All)
• 🎤 Featured Speaker: Professor Richard Sander — UCLA School of Law, Founder of SARD
• 🎙️ Host: Jason Xu — SARD Board Member & Former SVCA Foundation President

About the Speaker

Professor Richard Sander is a law professor at UCLA School of Law and the founder of SARD. He is one of the nation’s leading researchers on college admissions policy and has spent decades advocating for transparency and fairness in university admissions.

What You Will Learn

• Why UC rejections happen — and what the data really shows
• Your rights and options after a rejection
• How to appeal, transfer, or explore alternative pathways
• Policy context: what is changing in college admissions and what it means for you

Register Now — Free!

This event is open to all community members. Register via Zoom to secure your spot:

👉 Click here to register on Zoom

Learn more about SARD at sard.law.

About SVCAF

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a California nonprofit focused on civic education, engagement, and community empowerment. Learn more at svcaf.org.

Co-presented with SARD — Students for Admissions Reform and Diversity.

TL;DR

SVCAF hosted a community info session with the Children’s Educational Opportunity (CEO) Act team about a proposed Education Savings Account (ESA) program that would provide $17,000 per TK–12 student annually in California. Funds could follow the student to approved providers (private, faith-based, homeschool, online) and unused funds roll over, earn interest, and are usable for college or trade school. The team aims to qualify the measure for the November 2026 ballot through a statewide signature drive. Volunteers—including SVCAF members—can help with outreach and signature collection.

This Summary is Generated by AI. It may contain errors.

What the CEO Act Proposes

• $17,000 per TK–12 student placed in an Education Savings Account (ESA) each year.

• Eligible uses include tuition, curriculum, tutoring, textbooks, and online courses.

• Rollover + Interest: Unused funds carry forward, accrue interest, and remain available for college or trade school.

• Goal: “Equal funding and real educational choice for all families,” ensuring funds follow the student across approved educational pathways.

Highlights from the Discussion

Why ESAs, why now?

Speakers emphasized growing interest among families in diversified education paths (private, faith-based, home, online) and the desire for funding mechanisms that follow student needs. The Act’s proponents argue that the policy can expand access, particularly for families who can’t afford alternatives to their assigned public schools.

Implementation & timelines

• The initiative text is with state offices for review.

• After receiving Title & Summary (expected late October), the team will launch a statewide signature drive to qualify the measure for the Nov 2026 ballot.

• If passed, the CEO Act would take effect without a long phase-in, with a vision that new and existing schools (including smaller private/faith-based and homeschool pods) could serve students as early as January 1, 2027.

Signature-gathering strategy

• Target: 1.0–1.2 million signatures to comfortably exceed the requirement of 874,000 valid.

• Distribution to private and faith-based schools, churches, mosques, synagogues, and broader community networks.

• Digital outreach plans include email, SMS, and targeted social campaigns to reach likely supporters, drive downloads/printing of petitions, and coordinate local volunteers.

Digital tools & outreach

• Discussion included data-driven outreach and modern campaign tooling to communicate with registered supporters.

• The team plans to utilize digital marketing and analytics to optimize volunteer efforts and signature collection, bolstered by established media/data partners.

Perspectives from the community

• Participants shared experiences with public school pathways and acceleration options, citing interest in more individualized instruction and alternative models.

• The Act’s supporters believe competition and choice can encourage improvements across the system while expanding opportunities for families currently priced out of alternatives.

Action Items & Next Steps

Children’s Educational Opportunity (CEO Act) Team

• Continue the initiative process and finalize materials following Title & Summary issuance.

• Distribute the petition to statewide supporters and print vendors; coordinate signature-collection teams across California.

• Provide a full initiative overview deck to SVCAF and community partners for local briefings.

Salem Media / Digital Support

• Offer digital marketing and data analytics services to support volunteer recruitment and petition circulation.

• Share information on tools that can help with audience targeting and campaign reporting.

SVCAF & Community Volunteers

• Organize volunteers to help with signature collection for the 2026 ballot.

• Coordinate local informational briefings and help connect parents, educators, and community leaders to initiative resources.

• Interested in helping? Email info@svcaf.org to join the SVCAF volunteer group.

Frequently Asked Questions (from the session)

Q: Is the ESA limited to private or faith-based schools? A: ESAs can be used with approved providers, which may include private, faith-based, homeschool, or online programs that meet eligibility and compliance standards.

Q: Do funds roll over year to year? A: Yes. Unused ESA funds roll over, accrue interest, and remain available for post-secondary education.

Q: What about accountability and oversight? A: The program includes provider eligibility requirements, auditing, and consequences for misuse, including removal from eligibility lists.

Q: How soon could families use ESAs if the measure passes? A: The initiative’s backers expect immediate effect upon passage, with a target to begin serving students starting January 1, 2027.

Q: How can I help with qualification for the 2026 ballot? A: Volunteer to gather signatures, host an info session, or help with outreach. See Get Involved below.

Get Involved

• Visit EducationOpportunity.org to learn more about the CEO Act.

About SVCAF

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation focused on civic education, engagement, and recognition of community contributions in Silicon Valley and surrounding areas. Learn more at svcaf.org.

🧠 Submitted Projects

• Behind the Bill – An AI-powered bill explainer that makes legislative language accessible to the public. Video | GitHub Repo

• Congressional Bill Tracker – A machine learning dashboard that predicts the success of U.S. congressional bills using real-time data. Video | GitHub Repo

• DebateSim – A multi-agent AI debate simulator that re-creates legislative debates with real-time perspectives and an AI judge. Video | GitHub Repo | Live Demo

• Billingo – An interactive and fun platform for learning about bills, using AI-generated quizzes and games. Video | GitHub Repo | Live Demo

More project details can be found here: 

* https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public/tree/main/submissions

🏆 What’s Next?

Our judging panel is currently reviewing all submissions. Final results will be announced between August and September 2025.

In the meantime, we’re inviting the public to help select the People’s Choice Award winner — a separate $500 cash prize will go to the project that receives the most community votes!

🗳️ Vote Now

Cast your vote for your favorite project on our official GitHub discussion:

👉 Vote in the People’s Choice Poll

Voting is open until September 1, 2025. Feel free to leave a comment to explain your choice!

Thank you to all participants for your creativity, technical excellence, and dedication to civic innovation.

Stay tuned for the final results and highlights of these inspiring projects.

*Digital Democracy: AI For Good * by Prof. Foaad Khosmood

Slides: Link

Summary Generated by Zoom AI Companion

Seminar Format and Presentation Planning

Chunhua and Foaad discussed technical issues with screen sharing and confirmed that Foaad could present his slides. They agreed on the format of the seminar, which would include a presentation followed by a Q&A session. Foaad mentioned he would include a pop quiz at the beginning of his presentation, and Chunhua approved of this idea. They noted that while some people had registered for the seminar, others might forget, but the session would be recorded for those who couldn’t attend.

AI for Legislation and Democracy

Chunhua, the co-founder and president of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, introduced the 5th seminar on AI for legislation and projects, aiming to attract submissions from across the United States. Foaad, an expert in AI and legislation from Cal Poly, discussed the concept of digital democracy, a philanthropically funded research project hosted by CalMatters, which uses AI to enhance government transparency and aid citizens and journalists. Foaad shared the project’s history, achievements, and future plans, including a new tip sheet system for reporters, and invited questions and collaboration opportunities.

Enhancing Government Transparency Through AI

Foaad discussed the lack of accessible transcripts for California state legislature proceedings, highlighting how this gap in information has been exacerbated by the decline of local news coverage. He explained that the initial goal of his project was to record legislative discussions, which evolved into a broader mission to save democracy by enhancing government transparency. Foaad also provided a brief history of the project, noting its expansion from California to other states and the development of tools like Robot Reporter and AI tip sheets to aid in legislative tracking and reporting.

Government Transcript Annotation System

Foaad discussed the challenges of creating accurate and comprehensive transcripts of government proceedings, highlighting the limitations of automated transcription systems and the need for human verification. He explained their development of a web-based transcription annotation system that allows a remote workforce to review and correct transcripts while also identifying speakers and their affiliations. Foaad also described their use of face and voice recognition tools to assist in speaker identification, though these methods are less effective for the general public compared to legislators. The system integrates various sources of information, including bills, financial data, and lobbying activities, to provide a more complete context for the discussions.

Digital Democracy Platform Overview

Foaad presented a comprehensive overview of Digital Democracy, a platform that provides access to legislative information and generates news tips for journalists. He demonstrated how the site offers detailed profiles of legislators, including their voting records, financial disclosures, and alignments with interest groups. Foaad explained the tip sheet system, which helps reporters identify newsworthy events by analyzing factors such as statistical anomalies and previous news coverage. He also highlighted ongoing research efforts to improve the platform’s predictive capabilities and expand its reach to other states.

Challenges in Legislative Data Tracking

Foaad discussed Digital Democracy’s work in tracking legislative data and the challenges they face, including occasional corrections needed for accuracy and pushback from legislatures. He explained that while they have considered expanding to cities, the cost and complexity of adapting their system for different municipal processes make it difficult. Foaad also mentioned that Digital Democracy helped pass a ballot measure in 2018 that allowed them to use legislative videos and included a requirement for bills to remain unchanged for 72 hours before the final vote.

Legislative Data Analysis for Journalists

The meeting focused on discussing a project that analyzes legislative information and provides insights to journalists. Foaad explained that journalists often rely on press releases for tips, which can be biased, and highlighted the challenges of funding and staffing for such projects. He shared that their system uses limited AI for summarization and presentation, not for generating content, and suggested exploring digital humanities approaches for analyzing documents. Chunhua inquired about AI tools for ballot measure analysis and updating systems with new AI models, to which Foaad recommended using existing voter guides and considering generative AI cautiously due to its speculative nature.

AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.

Guest: Prof. Foaad Khosmood

Why you’ll want to meet him

• Forbes Endowed Professor of Computer Engineering at Cal Poly SLO

• Research Director, Institute for Advanced Technology & Public Policy (home of Digital Democracy)

• Co-founder & past president of Global Game Jam —the world’s largest game-creation event

• Emmy-winning data-journalism collaborator (2025 Northern California Emmys) for Digital Democracy reporting with CalMatters & CBS News

• Visiting Scholar, Imperial College London

What might he reveal?

(We’re keeping the agenda under wraps, but expect one or more of these treats…)

• How Digital Democracy turns legislative events into actionable intelligence for reporters.

• Practical tips for plugging legislative data into your own AI projects.

• Lessons from running global hackathons—and what makes projects stand out.

• The future of AI-powered transparency in state politics.

• Behind-the-scenes stories from his Emmy-winning investigation.

Zoom registration link https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/al3ey4RVQ0uaBSjLNdu3kw  

Or scan the QR Code Below:

👨‍💻 Presenters: Alex Liao, Arnav Kakani, Sanjana Gowda, Shely Jain, and Mrinal Agarwal (Award-winning hackathon participants and experienced student developers)

💡 What You’ll Learn: When to use which AI tool for speed, privacy, or review Live demos with GitHub Copilot, OpenAI tools, Claude Code, and more How AI makes coding easier, smarter, and more fun—without replacing you.

Seminar slides

• Seminar 4: Introduction

• AI Coding Tools

🎯 Seminar Focus:

Learn how to boost your coding skills using modern AI coding tools. We’ll introduce 6 beginner-friendly tools and walk through 2 real-world coding challenges. Perfect for students, beginners, and the AI-curious!

👨‍💻 Presenters:

• Alex Liao, Arnav Kakani, Sanjana Gowda, Shely Jain, and Mrinal Agarwal (Award-winning hackathon participants and experienced student developers)

💡 What You’ll Learn:

• When to use which AI tool for speed, privacy, or review

• Live demos with GitHub Copilot, OpenAI tools, Claude Code, and more

• How AI makes coding easier, smarter, and more fun—without replacing you

👥 Who Should Attend:

• Beginner coders

• Students learning Python or web development

• Anyone curious about AI and the future of code

🔗 Registration:

📅 Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025

🕚 Time: 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM Pacific Time 🕒 Time: 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM Eastern Time

📍 Online via Zoom

Reserve your spot now:

👉 https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/XctlHhR4R6SMk462umcxIw

Or scan the QR Code below:

You’ll receive the Zoom link in your confirmation email.

We encourage all AI4Legislation participants to attend—and please invite friends or classmates who might want to join the competition. This is a great way to stay connected, inspired, and involved!

Let’s build a more informed and innovative civic future—together.

AI in Programming: Opportunities and Challenges

The meeting began with Chunhua promoting an upcoming competition and introducing the AI for Legislation Tech Seminar. Cynthia hosted the seminar, introducing speakers and managing the presentation flow. Leon, an expert in large language models, discussed the evolving role of computer science and the impact of AI on programming. He highlighted how AI tools like GitHub Copilot have revolutionized coding by reducing the need for manual debugging and API documentation reading. However, Leon also noted limitations of AI, such as high operational costs, slow processing speeds, and the potential for hallucinations and errors. The session concluded with an open invitation for questions, which attendees were encouraged to submit via chat.

AI Model Cost and Performance Comparison

Leon presented a comparison of AI language models, focusing on cost and performance. He highlighted that the latest Gemini model is more affordable than OpenAI’s GPT-3, with input tokens costing $1.25 to $2 and output tokens $10, compared to OpenAI’s $10 input and $40 output tokens. Leon also demonstrated a visualization tool he created to compare different AI models across companies, showing that 2025 is a significant year for AI advancements, particularly from Google. Finally, Leon discussed the use of Python for data analysis, noting its advantages over traditional BI software like Power BI, particularly in handling large datasets and performing mathematical operations accurately.

Data Scraping and Visualization Tools

Leon presented on data scraping and visualization tools, highlighting Python libraries like requests, Selenium, and Scrapy Spider for web data collection. He introduced several public datasets, including Ledger Scan API and US government data, and demonstrated how to use Google Gemini for data visualization prototyping. Leon also discussed the capabilities of Grok, emphasizing its real-time data features and comparison to other tools like ChatGPT and Claude.

AI Tools for Developers

Leon demonstrated the capabilities of different AI tools, particularly focusing on GitHub Copilot’s debugging and code generation features, which he noted costs $10 per month and offers more advanced functionality than ChatGPT. He explained that different AI models serve different levels of developers, from beginners to professionals, and emphasized that learning Python is still valuable for problem-solving, though he suggested a practical approach of starting with specific problems rather than a formal course. Chunhua agreed that Python knowledge is beneficial for verifying AI outputs and guiding the process, while the conversation ended with Jeff expressing appreciation for the presentation despite not being in the tech field.

AI Agent Customization and Limitations

Leon explained the capabilities and limitations of AI agents, particularly focusing on large language models and their ability to handle specialized tasks. He clarified that while current models have a knowledge cutoff date and cannot learn from ongoing user interactions, they can be customized for specific industries or fields through tools like MCP (Model Context Protocol) and fine-tuning. Jeff inquired about the feasibility of building small, specialized models for specific tasks, and Leon discussed the costs and challenges involved, including the risk of obsolescence due to advancements in AI technology. Jason asked about the possibility of non-computer-savvy individuals creating agents for repetitive data input tasks, to which Leon suggested using retrieval-based agents or platforms like Replit for smaller, more focused problems.

McP: Evolution and Business Opportunities

Leon explained the functionality of MCP, an interface between language models and APIs, and demonstrated how it can be used to create tools for non-programmers. He also discussed the evolution from GPT to MCP, noting that while GPT was easier to use, MCP is more powerful. The group explored potential business opportunities around non-code MCP development tools and AI cursor functionality for presentations. Leon shared a benchmarking website (beta.lm-arena) to help users choose models for different tasks, and SVCA requested Leon to share his slides for future reference.

Summary prepared by Zoom AI Companion

Hosted by the AI4Legislation Team of SVCAF

We are excited to invite all teams and individuals—especially those who have submitted a Letter of Intention for the 2025 AI4Legislation competition—to join us for an insightful seminar focused on AI programming and data analysis.

Whether you are a high school student, college student, or an AI-curious innovator, this session will help you understand how to integrate large language models into meaningful civic tech and policy analysis projects.

🗓 Event Details

• Topic: AI Programming for Data Analysis

• Date: Sunday, June 8, 2025

• Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time / 2:00 PM Eastern Time

• Location: Zoom (Registration Required)

• Register Now: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/OIJgJMgZS_WZNadPBuimXQ

Registration Required: After registering, you will receive a confirmation email with details on how to join the Zoom session.

🎙️ Featured Speaker:

Mr. Liang Guo

AI programming and data analysis expert, with a strong background in large language model (LLM) applications, public datasets, and real-world data workflows.

📚 Tentative Agenda

• What Programming Paradigm Do Large Language Models Address?

• Limitations of LLMs Compared to Traditional Programming Paradigms

• Choosing the Right LLM Model for the Right Problem

• Where to Find High-Quality Public and Government Datasets

• Using LLMs for Data Collection

• Using LLMs for Data Presentation

• Q&A Session

🎯 Who Should Attend?

• Individuals or teams who submitted a Letter of Intention for the AI4Legislation competition

• High school and college students interested in AI, data science, or civic tech

• New participants considering submitting a project to the competition

• Anyone curious about using AI to solve public policy challenges

💡 The session will be recorded and made available to the public later.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Yesterday, our guest Karen Suhaka, founder of BillTrack50, presented with us on using AI to analyze legislative data, highlighting how her platform provides bill summaries, tracks legislation, and aids public understanding. She discussed the complexities of the U.S. legislative process, the technical and ethical considerations in building policy-focused AI tools, and advice for entrepreneurs creating civic tech solutions.

Karen has generously shared both her BillTrack50 API and her slides for the presentation with us. To access the API (until August 1, 2025), you must reach out to Karen@LegiNation.com as a competitor in AI4Legislation. Thank you, Karen!

Featured: Karen Suhaka, serial entrepreneur and founder of BillTrack50

Missed the webinar? Watch it here!

Introduction

SVCAF invited Karen Suhaka, founder of BillTrack50, to present in our second webinar in AI4Legislation. Karen is a serial entrepreneur with two previous successful ventures, and founded BillTrack50 in 2011 to make legislative data more accessible. Since her prior background was in physics and mathematics rather than legislation, the journey this time involved learning deeply about a new field.

Legislative Process Refresher (from a data perspective)

Karen started off by explaining how a bill becomes a law:

• An idea from a citizen, lawmaker, or interest group is brought to a legislator for sponsorship.

• The legislator submits the idea to a bill drafter, who formats the proposal into a compliant legislative draft. Some states allow access to draft bills but most do not, which hinders early data collection.

• Once finalized, the bill is introduced to the legislature, read at the House or Senate where it originated from, and requires the support of a committee to proceed to floor voting.

• If its originating chamber’s floor vote passes the bill, the process must be repeated at the other chamber. Any amendments must be agreed upon by both chambers until a final version is approved. The floor vote data are typically made available

• The Governor or President can sign the bill into law, veto the bill, or let it sit until it becomes a law automatically or dies (pocket veto). If vetoed, the legislature may override the veto with a higher vote threshold. Veto and override data are typically publicized.

Across the 50 states, each legislature functions a little differently, and the data (such as votes, bill texts, and committee summaries) that are available generally vary in format as well. These inconsistencies add up, resulting in a highly complex process to track legislative bill processing across the nation.

Building Legislative Tools with AI

Key areas that developers should consider include defining the painpoint, knowing your audience, addressing data challenges, choosing AI models, and considering ethical standards. Karen emphasized that a majority of the project occurs before any programming happens, because the most important aspect of a successful business venture is making sure people have a need for your solution, and you have a way to market your solution to that target audience. Legislative AI entrepreneurs must also consider variances in data formats (HTML vs. PDF, structured vs. unstructured, costs and reliability), test different AI models or vector databases, and honor the ethics of AI usage (such as privacy, partisanship, bias, human error, misinformation).

Demo: How BillTrack50 Uses AI

Next, Karen demonstrated how AI generates plain-language summaries for bills. Vectorization can be used to show similar bills across states. BillTrack50 also includes user tools like flagging inaccurate summaries, which helps improve the product. Karen acknowledged that occassional weird AI outputs may appear, and explained that they are filtered or corrected in different ways.

Project Ideas for AI4Legislation Participants

Karen raised a few project ideas for competing in AI4Legislation:

• Predict the likelihood of bill passage

• Analyze intent or sentiment of a bill (e.g. anti vs. pro gun control)

• Explain amendments and their impacts on existing laws

• Track model bills that spread across multiple states

• Compare how legislators vote vs. constituents’ actual values

Tips on Entrepreneurship

Karen had three main tips for successful entrepreneurship:

• Build a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) – what is the smallest feature set that someone will pay for? You want to get your first non-friend customer quickly, and sometimes that means the product might not be completely “finished” yet.

• Form a team that fits your company’s culture, not just filling in gaps in skillsets.

• Differentiate between “dumb money” and “smart money”

“dumb money” – your family and friends might help fund your project, but that’s usually a one-time thing with no buy-in or further benefits attached.

• “smart money” – find investors with industry knowledge and not just money! They can connect you to other resources that can help you grow your business.

• Building legislative technology, including identifying a need, choosing your data and method, and navigating ethical considerations

• Her own legal tech company, BillTrack50, as a case study from starting up to scaling and customer feedback

• Project ideas for the Summer 2025 AI4Legislation competition (details found here)

• Tips for entrepreneurship

Event Details

• Date & Time: Monday, April 28, 2025. 12:00pm – 1:00pm Pacific

• Location: Online on Zoom – RSVP here!

• Speaker: Karen Suhaka (Founder of BillTrack50)

• Host: Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

• Format:

Brief Introduction by SVCAF President Chunhua Liao (5 min)

• Presentation by Karen Suhaka (30 min)

• Live Q&A (15 min)

Why Should You Attend?

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the legislative landscape, influencing everything from policy drafting to legal decision-making. This seminar offers a unique opportunity to explore how AI is being integrated into legal documents analysis and the new opportunities it presents to civilians. By attending, you will gain insights from experts actively shaping the intersection of AI and governance, engage in thought-provoking discussions, and participate in a live Q&A session to deepen your understanding. Whether you are a legal professional, tech researcher, or simply curious about the future of AI in legislation, this event will provide valuable knowledge and resources to help you stay informed in this evolving field.

Missed the 1st Webinar?

Don’t worry, we clipped it for you!

Earlier this month, we had the opportunity to interview William Tsui about his legal tech document analysis startup, Legalese Decoder. The seminar recap and recording can be found here.

Important Links

• RSVP to access the public seminar Zoom invitation

• Recorded Webinars on YouTube

• AI4Legislation Competition Home

• AI4Legislation Competition Discord Server

• Call for Volunteers

• Donate to SVCAF or AI4Legislation

About the Organizer

Incorporated in April 2015, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a nonprofit grassroots organization working to promote the involvement of Chinese communities in public affairs and public policy in the United States. As an integral part of the Chinese communities in Northern California and with strong ties across the United States, we are making meaningful progress in providing education to Chinese communities on the legal and political systems in California and the nation. We also encourage active civil engagement and political participation by Chinese communities, through events and projects open to the public, such as AI4Legislation.

Written bySVCAF AI Agent

The webinar covered discussions on an upcoming project, the AI for Legislation competition, and the potential of AI in legal and legislative processes. Participants shared their experiences and insights on AI technology, its applications in simplifying legal matters, and its potential impact on various industries. The conversation also touched on the challenges and opportunities of AI, including its limitations, potential biases, and the importance of focusing on solving real-world problems with passion.

Featured: Chunhua Liao, SVCAF President & Computer Scientist; William Tsui, Founder of Legalese Decoder and serial entrepreneur

Missed the seminar? Watch it here!

Speakers Introduction

Cynthia (host) and Chunhua discussed the AI4Legislation project and the progress of their outreach to Carnegie Mellon University. Chunhua expressed interest in asking the seminar speaker about his startup company’s competition with big tech companies. William, the seminar speaker (founder of Legalese Decoder), joined the meeting and introduced himself as an entrepreneur with experience in starting businesses, including a Fintech project. He shared his experience with simplifying the payment process, but faced challenges with adoption due to regulatory issues. Chunhua, the president of Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, discussed the organization’s mission to promote civil engagement among Chinese Americans in Silicon Valley. He also introduced the AI for Legislation project, which aims to leverage AI technology for legislative processes. Cynthia, the project’s part-time manager, expressed her enthusiasm for AI4Legislation and her desire to continue working on it. William, a seasoned entrepreneur, shared his experiences and expressed his admiration for the project’s potential.

William Examines the Roots and Goals of Legalese Decoder

William, the founder of Legalese Decoder, shared his background in technology and problem-solving, highlighting his interest in AI. He recounted a personal experience with an API company, which led him to develop a tool that could analyze text and assist with legal and tax matters, particularly for small business owners and individuals dealing with government paperwork. William expressed excitement about AI’s ability to analyze large amounts of data and summarize complex information, suggesting that AI could help draft bills more efficiently and identify inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. William also proposed the idea of implementing expiry dates for laws to address outdated legislation.

Governing Programs with Code, Governing Society with Laws

Chunhua discussed his background in computer science and his realization of the importance of laws and legislative processes, particularly in the context of his status as a US citizen. He emphasized the competitive edge of a country’s constitution and laws in fostering good behaviors and reducing bad ones. Chunhua also highlighted the revolutionary impact of large language models and AI, predicting their widespread adoption and potential for extracting knowledge from various inputs. He jokely expressed regret over not investing more in Nvidia stocks related to this technology. Chunhua discussed the potential of combining legal processes with AI technology. William agreed, highlighting the current limitations of AI in solving all legal problems but its potential to assist lawyers and legislators. He shared examples of AI’s positive impact on society, such as helping individuals navigate legal issues without professional assistance.

Startups vs Big Tech

Chunhua then asked about positioning the startup in the competitive AI landscape, to which William advised against direct competition with larger tech companies like Google. William discussed the company’s specialization on legal matters for small business owners, leveraging foundational models from Google and OpenAI. He emphasized the importance of user engagement with AI tools and the need for affordable solutions.

Evaluating AI as a Tool

Cynthia raised concerns about bias in AI, particularly in legal advice, and William acknowledged the issue, noting that it’s not unique to their company. William and Chunhua discussed the challenges and improvements in AI models for legal interpretation. They acknowledged that AI is not a complete replacement for human judges or lawyers but is getting better with time. They emphasized the importance of establishing a baseline for AI performance, comparing it to human capabilities, and focusing on the quality of services provided. They also expressed optimism about the potential of AI in the future, with the belief that it will lead to a society with abundance.

Passion Over Prizes: Advice for Young Entrepreneurs

William and Chunhua discussed the potential of AI technology, with William emphasizing that it is not hype but a real game-changer. He shared his experience of using AI to produce articles at a fraction of the cost and time it would have taken with human writers. Chunhua agreed, noting that AI could replace human labor in many areas. They also touched on the future of jobs, with William suggesting that entrepreneurs should focus on their passion and use AI to build prototypes quickly, rather than waiting for funding or a team. In the meeting, William and Chunhua discussed the importance of finding a problem that people are passionate about and building a solution to it, regardless of winning a competition. They emphasized the need to focus on what one is passionate about and not just try to win a prize. Chunhua also shared his belief that with the help of powerful AI tools, even high school students can take on complex projects. The conversation ended with a discussion about the potential for small teams to become billion-dollar companies.

For more information about this competition:

• /posts/call-for-volunteers-for-ai4legislation-using-ai-to-enhance-civic-awareness-and-action/

• https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public

Event Overview

The AI4Legislation seminar series is recurring during the first week of each month, with the purpose of providing project guidance, inspiration, and current information about legislative AI tools to our competitors and the general public. As AI becomes increasingly capable, we need to harness its power and efficiency to make processes more equitable and effective. Legislation is no exception.

In each seminar, a different guest will share with us how their company or product is utilizing AI to address key challenges in lawmaking, and what the future of AI-driven governance might look like. The topics of our seminar may be most interesting to policymakers, legal professionals, AI researchers, and students interested in law or technology— but all are encouraged to attend and ask questions!

Event Details

• Date & Time: Wednesday April 2, 2025. 6:30pm – 7:30pm (Pacific Time)

• Location: Online (Zoom). RSVP Here

• Speakers:

Chunhua Liao (President of SVCAF and veteran Computer Scientist)

• William Tsui (Founder of Legalese Decoder)

• Host: Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

• Format:

Brief introduction by President Chunhua Liao

• Hosted interview with our speakers

• Live Q&A (~10 min.)

Why Should You Attend?

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the legislative landscape, influencing everything from policy drafting to legal decision-making. This seminar offers a unique opportunity to explore how AI is being integrated into legal documents analysis and the new opportunities it presents to civilians. By attending, you will gain insights from experts actively shaping the intersection of AI and governance, engage in thought-provoking discussions, and participate in a live Q&A session to deepen your understanding. Whether you are a legal professional, tech researcher, or simply curious about the future of AI in legislation, this event will provide valuable knowledge and resources to help you stay informed in this evolving field.

Important Links

• RSVP to access the public seminar Zoom invitation.

• AI4Legislation Competition Home

• AI4Legislation Competition Discord Server

• Call for Volunteers

• Donate to SVCAF or AI4Legislation

About the Organizer

Incorporated in April 2015, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a nonprofit grassroots organization working to promote the involvement of Chinese communities in public affairs and public policy in the United States. As an integral part of the Chinese communities in Northern California and with strong ties across the United States, we are making meaningful progress in providing education to Chinese communities on the legal and political systems in California and the nation. We also encourage active civil engagement and political participation by Chinese communities, through events and projects open to the public, such as AI4Legislation.

A Project by Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF)

Introduction

The Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is committed to empowering civic engagement, particularly among Chinese American communities. We believe that technology, especially artificial intelligence (AI), can bridge the gap between citizens and the legislative process.

With this vision, we are launching AI4Legislation, an open competition that invites innovators to develop and submit open-source, public domain AI tools that make legislation more transparent, understandable, and accessible to the public. The competition will engage participants nationwide, encouraging youth, civic leaders, technologists, and legal professionals to contribute AI-driven solutions that foster greater civic participation.

This document provides an overview of the project, including goals, competition structure, volunteer roles, and how you can get involved.

1. Project Goals

AI4Legislation seeks to:

• Simplify complex legal texts using AI-powered tools to make legislative documents accessible to all.
• Enable better tracking of laws and policies by developing tools that monitor bill progress, amendments, and implementation.
• Encourage civic action by making it easier for citizens to engage with lawmakers and participate in the legislative process.
• Foster open-source solutions that remain publicly available for communities and organizations to use freely.
• Be open to US individuals and teams: The competition is open to all U.S. individuals and teams, but we especially encourage students and young professionals to participate and engage in civic technology.

Through this initiative, we aim to empower individuals and organizations with AI-driven tools that enhance democratic participation.

2. Competition Structure

The AI4Legislation competition is structured in three main phases:

📌 Phase 1: Planning and Fundraising (March-April, tentative)

• Define project milestones, competition categories, and rules.

• Develop a fundraising strategy to secure sponsorships and donations beyond SVCAF’s initial funding.

• Identify potential partners such as civic organizations, legal experts, and AI developers.

📌 Phase 2: Marketing, Outreach, and Submission Phase (May-July, tentative)

• Launch the official competition website and registration.

• Promote the competition via social media, community groups, and educational institutions.

• Conduct webinars, online Q&A sessions, and mentorship programs to support participants.

• Accept and process AI tool submissions.

📌 Phase 3: Judging, Awards, and Post-Competition Showcase (Aug-Sept, tentative)

• Assemble a panel of judges with expertise in AI, law, and civic engagement.

• Evaluate submissions based on impact, usability, and innovation.

• Announce winners and distribute awards.

• Host a showcase event (online) where winning solutions are presented and made open-source.

3. Categories of AI Solutions

Participants will compete in one or more of the following categories:

Legislative Tracking

• AI-powered tools to monitor the progress of bills, amendments, and key legislative changes.

• Dashboards and visualizations that help the public track government actions.

Bill Analysis

• AI tools that generate easy-to-understand summaries, pros/cons, and potential impacts of legislative texts.

• NLP-based applications that translate legal jargon into plain language.

Civic Action & Advocacy

• AI chatbots or platforms that help users contact their representatives, sign petitions, or organize civic actions.

• Compliance monitoring tools, including these that ensure government spending aligns with legislative budgets.

Other Innovations

• Any other AI-driven solutions that enhance public understanding and participation in legislative processes.

4. How Volunteers Can Help

To make AI4Legislation a success, we need dedicated volunteers in various roles. No matter your background, there’s a way for you to contribute! This opportunity is open to **U.S. citizens and permanent residents **only.

Project Management Team

• Lead and coordinate different phases of the competition.

• Develop and track project timelines and milestones.

• Ensure smooth communication among volunteers, participants, and partners.

Marketing & Outreach Team

• Manage social media and online campaigns to attract participants.

• Create promotional materials (flyers, videos, blog posts).

• Conduct outreach to tech communities, legal professionals, and student organizations.

Fundraising & Sponsorship Team

• Identify and reach out to potential donors, corporate sponsors, and grant programs.

• Organize fundraising events or online donation campaigns.

AI & Tech Mentors

• Provide guidance to competition participants on AI development and best practices.

• Help evaluate technical feasibility of AI submissions.

Judging & Evaluation Team

• Review and score competition submissions based on defined criteria.

• Ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process.

5. Initial Funding & Prize Pool

To support the AI4Legislation competition, SVCAF has allocated $10,000 in seed matching funds to the award prize pool. This funding will serve as the initial foundation for the competition’s prizes, with the goal of attracting additional sponsorships and donations to further expand the prize pool.

We welcome contributions from individuals, organizations, and corporate sponsors to help increase the impact of this initiative. All donations will be matched up to $10,000 by SVCAF, effectively doubling the total prize pool and providing more support to participants who develop innovative AI solutions for civic engagement.

If you or your organization are interested in supporting this initiative, please reach out to us. Every contribution helps empower civic awareness through technology!

6. Why You Should Join Us

By volunteering with AI4Legislation, you will:

• Be part of an innovative civic tech initiative that uses AI for social good.
• Work with like-minded professionals, technologists, and civic leaders.
• Gain hands-on experience in project management, marketing, AI development, or legal tech.
• Make a real impact by helping communities better understand and engage with legislation.

📢 Ready to get involved?

📌 Email: info@svcaf.org

📌 Google Sign-up Form for Volunteers: Link

📌 Competition Details: https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public

📌 Discord server to hangout and chat：https://discord.gg/wXwFDWTdqc

Let’s bridge the gap between citizens and legislation with AI—together! 🚀

AI4Legislation：用人工智能提升公民意识与行动

硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF）项目

1. 项目简介

硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF） 致力于推动公民参与，特别是增强华裔群体在美国社会中的政治与法律意识。我们相信，人工智能（AI） 可以成为连接公民与立法过程的重要桥梁。

基于这一愿景，我们正式启动 AI4Legislation 竞赛，邀请创新者开发并提交 开源、公共领域的 AI 工具，让立法信息更透明、易懂、可行动。本次竞赛面向全美范围内的个人和团队，特别鼓励青年、科技爱好者、公民领袖和法律专业人士共同参与，贡献 AI 解决方案，推动公民对立法的广泛参与。

AI4Legislation 旨在：

• 简化复杂法律文本，利用 AI 技术让立法文件易于理解。
• 提升法律和政策的可追踪性，开发工具帮助公众跟踪法案进展、修正案和实施情况。
• 促进公民参与立法，为公众提供便捷的方式与政策制定者互动。
• 鼓励开源贡献，让竞赛产出的 AI 工具向全社会免费开放。
• 推动青年群体参与，激励学生和年轻专业人士利用 AI 赋能社会。本次竞赛对所有美国个人和团队开放，但我们特别鼓励学生和年轻专业人士参与，积极投身于公民科技领域。

我们希望通过这一项目，让公民更容易理解和参与立法，提高民主意识和行动力。

2. 竞赛流程

AI4Legislation 竞赛分为三个阶段：

📌 第一阶段：规划与筹款（3-4 月，暂定）

• 确定竞赛规则、类别和时间表。

• 设计 筹款策略，吸引更多企业、机构及个人捐助。

• 确定 合作伙伴，包括公民组织、法律专家和 AI 研发人员。

📌 第二阶段：宣传推广 & 作品提交（5-7 月，暂定）

• 启动竞赛官网和报名系统。

• 通过 社交媒体、社区组织、教育机构 进行推广。

• 开展 线上研讨会、答疑会和导师指导计划 支持参赛者。

• 开放并接受 AI 方案提交。

📌 第三阶段：评审、颁奖与成果展示（8-9 月，暂定）

• 组建 专家评审团（涵盖 AI、法律、公民参与领域）。

• 评估参赛作品，根据影响力、实用性和创新性打分。

• 公布获奖名单，颁发奖金。

• 举办 线上成果展示会，向公众开放优秀作品。

3. 竞赛类别

参赛者可选择以下类别之一或多个提交作品：

立法追踪（Legislative Tracking）

• AI 工具帮助跟踪法案进程、修正案和立法进展。

• 以可视化方式展示政府决策和政策变化。

法案解读（Bill Analysis）

• AI 生成 简明法案摘要、优劣势分析和潜在影响评估。

• 结合 NLP 技术，将法律术语转化为通俗易懂的语言。

公民行动 & 倡导（Civic Action & Advocacy）

• AI 互动平台，帮助用户 联系议员、签署请愿书或组织活动。

• 监督法律的执行，包括跟踪政府开支，确保 财政预算与立法规定相符。

其他创新（Other Innovations）

• 任何能提升公民理解立法、推动社会参与的 AI 解决方案。

4. 志愿者招募：我们需要你的加入！

AI4Legislation 的成功需要 热心志愿者 的共同努力。无论你的背景如何，都能在不同岗位贡献力量！

项目管理团队（Project Management）

• 负责竞赛整体策划与执行。

• 制定时间表，确保各阶段顺利推进。

• 维护志愿者、参赛者与合作伙伴之间的沟通。

市场推广 & 社区宣传团队（Marketing & Outreach）

• 负责社交媒体运营，扩大项目影响力。

• 制作 宣传材料（海报、短视频、博客文章）。

• 联络 技术社区、法律界人士、学生组织 进行推广。

筹款 & 赞助团队（Fundraising & Sponsorship）

• 开拓潜在捐助者、企业赞助和基金支持。

• 组织筹款活动，提高资金支持。

AI & 技术导师（AI & Tech Mentors）

• 为参赛者提供 AI 技术指导和咨询。

• 评估 AI 方案的技术可行性。

评审 & 评估团队（Judging & Evaluation）

• 参与作品评审，确保竞赛公平透明。

• 依据创新性、影响力和可行性进行评分。

5. 初始资金与奖池

为了支持 AI4Legislation 竞赛，SVCAF 已拨款 $10,000 作为种子匹配资金，用于奖池。这笔资金将作为竞赛奖金的基础，我们同时也希望通过额外的赞助和捐款进一步扩大奖池规模。

我们欢迎个人、机构和企业赞助，以增强本次竞赛的影响力。SVCAF 将提供 1:1 匹配捐款，最高匹配 $10,000，也就是说，每一笔捐款都会被 SVCAF 等额匹配，从而有效增加竞赛的总奖金，支持参赛者开发创新的 AI 解决方案，促进公民参与立法。

如果您或您的组织有兴趣支持本次活动，请与我们联系。您的每一份贡献，都将助力 AI 技术推动公民意识和行动！

6. 为什么加入我们？

加入 AI4Legislation 志愿者团队，你将：

• 参与 AI+公民科技的前沿项目，推动社会变革。
• 结识志同道合的专业人士，拓展人脉。
• 积累项目管理、技术开发和社会创新的宝贵经验。
• 为推动立法透明度和公民参与贡献实际影响。

📢 **立即加入我们！**Email: info@svcaf.org

📢 志愿者报名表：Link

📢 竞赛细则：https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public

📢 Discord: https://discord.gg/wXwFDWTdqc

让我们携手用 AI 连接公民与立法，推动更透明、更公平的社会进步！🚀

We are excited to launch AI4Legislation: AI for Civic Awareness and Action, an open competition inviting innovators to develop and submit open-source, public domain AI-based tools that simplify and enhance public understanding of and engagement with legislation in the USA. This project has the potential to make a real impact on civic awareness and participation nationwide.

Project Overview:

AI4Legislation aims to solicit and award prizes for publicly accessible AI tools that address key areas of civic engagement with legislation. The competition will focus on categories such as:

• Legislative Tracking: Tools to monitor bill progress and amendments.

• Bill Analysis: AI to simplify and explain legislative text (summaries, pros/cons, impact).

• Taking Action: Tools for public influence, advocacy, and compliance monitoring of existing laws, including ensuring that government spending aligns with legislative budgets.

• Others: Other innovative solutions related to legislative education and awareness.

The target audience for submissions includes individuals and teams across the USA, especially encouraging youth participation. Winning solutions will be open-source and publicly available, benefiting communities across the nation.

We are seeking a highly organized and motivated Project Manager to lead and execute this exciting competition from planning to completion.

Responsibilities:

As the Project Manager, you will be responsible for the entire lifecycle of the AI4Legislation competition, including:

• Phase 1: Planning and Fundraising (March-April, tentative timeline):

Develop a detailed project plan with timelines, milestones, and budget.

• Develop and execute a fundraising strategy to secure additional donations beyond initial SVCAF funding.

• Identify and cultivate relationships with potential volunteers, donors and sponsors.

• Phase 2: Marketing, Outreach, and Submission Phase (May-July, tentative):

Develop and implement a comprehensive marketing and outreach plan to attract participants (technologists, civic leaders, public, youth).

• Manage social media and online presence for the competition.

• Conduct outreach to relevant communities, organizations, and educational institutions.

• Phase 3: Judging, Awards, and Post-Competition Showcase (Aug-Sept, tentative):

Recruit and manage a panel of judges with relevant expertise.

• Organize and execute the awards process and prize distribution.

• Plan and potentially organize a post-competition showcase event (online) to highlight winning projects.

• Overall Project Management:

Serve as the primary point of contact for the project.

• Manage project communication and updates with SVCAF and stakeholders.

• Recruit and manage volunteers, track project progress against timelines and budget.

Required Skills and Experience:

• Proven experience as a Project Manager (3+ years preferred).

• Experience managing projects from inception to completion, including coordinating volunteers.

• Strong organizational, time management, and communication skills.

• Ability to work independently and proactively, taking ownership of the project.

• Experience with online project management tools and communication platforms.

• Comfortable working in a remote environment.

• Passion for civic engagement and technology for social good.

• Excellent written and verbal English communication skills.

Preferred Skills:

• Experience with non-profit organizations or civic tech projects.

• Experience with fundraising and donor relations.

• Marketing and outreach experience, particularly in the technology or civic space.

• Familiarity with AI and open-source principles.

• Experience organizing competitions, events, or online challenges.

• Knowledge of US legislative processes (basic understanding is helpful).

Compensation and Incentives:

• Managerial Budget: The managerial budget is flexible and will be determined based on experience and the proposed scope. 

• Performance Bonus (Optional): To recognize exceptional fundraising efforts, we are open to discussing a performance-based milestone bonus structure, contingent upon meeting agreed-upon fundraising goals in alignment with non-profit best practices.

• Additional Context: Beyond the managerial budget, SVCAF has allocated a $10,000 Donation Matching Fund. All matched funds and additional fundraising contributions will be dedicated to expanding the prize pool, covering project expenses such as platform costs, outreach, and volunteer engagement.

To Apply:

Please submit your proposal to info@svcaf.org , including:

• A cover letter outlining your relevant experience and why you are a good fit for this project. Specifically, highlight your experience in project management, fundraising (if applicable), and any relevant experience with similar projects or organizations.

• Your resume or portfolio showcasing your project management skills and experience.

• Your proposed approach to managing the AI4Legislation project, including how you would approach planning, fundraising, marketing, and competition execution.

• Your overall compensation expectation.

• If you are interested in a performance-based bonus, please briefly outline your thoughts on a potential structure.

We are eager to find a dedicated and passionate Project Manager to help us make AI4Legislation a success! We will review applications on a rolling basis and encourage you to apply as soon as possible.

Thank you for your interest!

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF)

具体来说，Santa Clara County ROV选务总部的负责人单方面决定, 无论是Vote in person(VIP), 即现场投票，或者是Vote by Mail (VBM)就是邮寄选票，如果是under vote 的选票都要经过人工审核。那么**什么是under vote 呢？举例来说，一个职位或提案你空着没选, 就是under vote。**比如在学区委员的选项中，如果有多个候选人竞选三个职位的话，选票中写的是选择no more than three就是不能超过三人，但是如果你只选其中一位心仪的候选人，空着其他两个选择的话，这样的选票也属于under vote。Under vote是非常正常, 合法的选票，选民的意图非常的明确。特别是在Vote In Person (VIP)现场投票的过程中，如果你的选票中有under vote的情况，在经过扫描机时，扫描机会自动提示，让你确认是不是你有意这么选的，你有机会去确认或者修改。然而对于这些under vote 的选票却在选务总部ROV, 在选民们毫不知情的情况下被挑出来，先搁置，再经过人工审核—-即审核人员审核整个选票从而再次确定选民的意图！

加州的选举法明确规定under vote 的选票是应被选举系统按选民意愿接受而不被更改的。对于ROV 这种令人难以置信，明显违反选举法规的做法我们强烈反对并坚决曝光。如果您也认为ROV 无权对我们的合法，正常选票进行人工审核，垦请您加入我们一起对Santa Clara County ROV 的这个违规做法说“不！”。 我们反对ROV 对under vote 的选票进行人工审核的主要原因如下： 1.违反加州选举法规。 2.侵犯选民应被保护的选举隐私，以至影响选民对选举完整性的信心。 3.引入不必要的人工干预和出错机率。特别是现场投票己被确认过。 4.显著增加计票时间。 5.浪费纳税人的钱。

选举过程的正义，是美国民主制度的保障，是选民对美国政治制度的信心所在，这高于任何的政治党派和团体的利益，我们硅谷华人协会基金会强烈建议所有圣县的注册选民都行动起来，向圣县的参事质疑SCCROV的做法， 督促Santa Clara County ROV做正确的事：停止对Under Vote进行人工干预！

请在我们准备好的抗议书上上签名。强烈要求SCCROV尽快改变做法，停止对under vote 的选票进行人工审核

如果您是Santa Clara县的注册选民，请点击链接https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym进行签名。希望所有关心加州选举系统公平、公正、完整，透明的朋友们加入我们，献计献策，出力参与，力促这件事情的成功！

以下是签名过程的具体图示：

步骤1: 点击 https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym

步骤2: 点击 “Continue” 按钮开始签名过程：

步骤3: 点击 “Click here to sign”,并在弹出窗口输入您注册选民的时候用的名字，再点击”Apply”按钮,您的电子签名和姓名会被自动填入电子文档。

步骤4: 点击文档末尾的 “Click to Sign”按钮，并在弹出窗口输入您的电子邮件地址。

**步骤5: **查看您的电子邮箱，搜索刚刚收到的email，其标题为: “Please confirm your signature on Adjudication Demand Letter”, 来自”Adobe Sign”:

**步骤 6: **点击email里面的 “Confirm my email address“，然后会看到一个绿色的消息： “Your e-signing of Adjudication Demand Letter has been verified. A copy of the signed document is being sent to you.” 此时便大功告成!

欲了解更多详情，请访问SVCAF网站。

Sep 22, 2023

Are You OK with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Second Guessing Your Vote?

For the last four years, Group of Santa Clara County Citizens been Citizen Observers of the Ballot Processing and Vote Tabulation Processes at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (SCCROV). They have discovered during our observations that the SCCROV unilaterally has made the executive decision to suspend and manually **“Adjudicate and Determine the Voter’s Intent” **for Under-Votes on all Voters’ Mail-In and Vote-in-Person Ballots.

The SCCROV’s actions are especially egregious for the In-Person Voter who fills out a paper ballot and scans their ballot using the ICP scanner/tabulator machine. The scanner allows the Voter to review their voting choices on its LCD screen. The ICP scanner/tabulator machine informs the Voter of an **under-vote **condition. It provides the Voter option to confirm or redo their choices. In this case, manually Adjudicating a ballot when the Voter has confirmed their vote in person on the machine is clearly unacceptable.  

The SCCROV’s actions are in Violation of California Election Code Section 19101, California Code Regulation 20982, California Voting System Standard Section 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3 and other relevant election codes and laws. The SCCROV’s unilateral decision violates Voters’ Constitutional Rights to choose not to vote for a particular ballot contest without interference. It creates the opportunity for the Voter’s vote to be tampered with and changed without the Voter’s knowledge.

Federal, State and Local laws do not grant the SCCROV the right to review and suspend Voters’ ballots before tabulating their votes. The SCCROV’s “**Adjudication” **process to determine Voter Intent when the Voter’s Intent by No Vote decisions are clear on their ballots. The ROV’s actions deprive all Santa Clara County Voters of their Constitutional and Civil Rights to a safe, secure, private and accurate voting process. 

An Under-Vote is defined as a No Vote. The Voter decides not to vote for any of the Candidates running in one or more contests, or Proposition and Referendum Measures, by not marking the ballot accordingly. Also, when there are multiple candidates running in a contest, such as in School Board, State and County Judicial Offices, City and Town Council contests and the ballot instructs the Voter to vote for two, three, four or five and the Voter votes for less than the number instructed for the contest.

All Santa Clara County Voters need to contact the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and demand that they direct the SCCROV to cease and desist the **Adjudication **process for under votes for any future elections, and especially fix the vote tabulating for this 2024 election.

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) firmly supports this cause, to make sure Santa Clara’s citizen’s voice get heard by Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and SCCROV, and resolve any election code violation issues.

SVCAF calls for every Santa Clara voter to sign this demand letter to urge Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to stop SCCROV from the manual adjudication process for under votes. If you are a Santa Clara voter, please follow the link https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88y and e-sign the demand.

Below are step-by-step illustration.

Step 1: Click this link (https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym)

Step 2: Click “Continue” Button to start the E-sign in the opened doc

Step 3: Click “Click here to sign”, in the popup window, input your full name, click “Apply”, then your Signature and Printed Name will be automatically filled into the doc.

Step 4: Press “Click to Sign” button and input your email address

**Step 5: **Check your email inbox for the confirmation with title: “Please confirm your signature on Adjudication Demand Letter”, from “Adobe Sign”:

**Step 6: **Click “Confirm my email address” link within the email, and when you see the green banner with text: “Your e-signing of Adjudication Demand Letter has been verified. A copy of the signed document is being sent to you.” done!

**Please help spread the word, and collect more signatures. The follow-up updates will be posted on this page as well, so please do visit this page from time to time. **

For media contact: info@svcaf.org

大家好！美国2022年至关重要的中期选举基本尘埃落定了，由于邮寄选票众多，很多我们关心的选举结果是在选举日过去好多天才最终出炉。聚焦到我们Santa Clara County，选举日过去了十几天才有结果，大量的邮寄选票在ROV（Registrar of voters)，即选务总部被处理，数算。

然而我们绝大多数选民不知道的是，我们的选票有可能正在选举总部被人工审核(manual Adjudication)。具体来说，Santa Clara County ROV选务总部的负责人单方面决定, 无论是Vote in person(VIP), 即现场投票，或者是Vote by Mail (VBM)就是邮寄选票，如果是under vote 的选票都要经过人工审核。**什么是under vote 呢？举例来说，一个职位或提案你空着没选, 就是under vote。**比如在学区委员的选项中，如果有多个候选人竞选三个职位的话，选票中写的是选择no more than three就是不能超过三人，但是如果你只选其中一位心仪的候选人，空着其他两个选择的话，这样的选票也属于under vote。Under vote是非常正常, 合法的选票，选民的意图非常的明确。特别是在Vote In Person (VIP)现场投票的过程中，如果你的选票中有under vote的情况，在经过扫描机时，扫描机会自动提示，让你确认是不是你有意这么选的，你有机会去确认或者修改。然而对于这些under vote 的选票却在选务总部ROV, 在选民们毫不知情的情况下被挑出来，先搁置，再经过人工审核—-即审核人员审核整个选票从而再次确定选民的意图！

加州的选举法明确规定under vote 的选票是应被选举系统按选民意愿接受而不被更改的。对于ROV 这种令人难以置信，明显违反选举法规的做法，我们在经过多人,多次观察，取证，书面核实后，对ROV 正式发函提出要求，敦请ROV 负责人改变做法，立即停止对under vote 选票进行人工审核。信函于2022年10月24日用验证邮件certified mail方式寄到ROV。ROV 在10月31日给我们的回复中对undervote 的选票执行人工审核的做法没有提出任何法律、法规的依据却无意改变此操作。对于这次中期选举的under vote 的选票，无论是现场投票VIP, 还是邮寄选票VBM, 都会在ROV 被人工审核, 即manually adjudicated。

如果您也认为ROV 无权对我们的合法，正常选票进行人工审核，垦请您加入我们一起对Santa Clara County ROV 的这个违规做法说“不！”。 我们反对ROV 对under vote 的选票进行人工审核的主要原因如下： 1.违反加州选举法规。 2.侵犯选民应被保护的选举隐私，以至影响选民对选举完整性的信心。 3.引入不必要的人工干预和出错机率。特别是现场投票己被确认过。 4.显著增加计票时间。 5.浪费纳税人的钱。

对此，您可以直接找ROV 质疑，反对。也可以在我们给ROV 的信（petition letter） 上签名。要求其改变做法，停止对under vote 的选票进行人工审核。

签名的步骤如下：(需是Santa Clara County 注册选民）

• 下载并打印 this petition letter (PDF)。

• 在信末尾部分写下您的姓名，地址，日期并签字。

• 将信寄到 Alice Kao, P.O. Box 10472，San Jose, CA 95157， 由我们统一送到ROV

• 在此处登记, 以便统计有多少人签名。签名情况会定期公布、更新。

欲了解更多详情，请访问SVCAF网站。

选举过程的正义，是美国民主制度的保障，是选民对美国政治制度的信心所在，这高于任何的政治党派和团体的利益，我们硅谷华人协会基金会强烈建议所有圣县的注册选民都行动起来，督促Santa Clara County ROV做正确的事：停止对Under Vote进行人工干预！

希望所有关心加州选举系统公平、公正、完整，透明的朋友们加入我们，献计献策，出力参与，力促这件事情的成功！

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dec 04, 2022

A group of Santa Clara citizens contacted the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County (SCCROV) during 2022 election season, and they have discovered and confirmed with SCCROV that all the under votes are being manually adjudicated.

Below is a summary of the discovery, by Mr. Ronald J. Meyer.

Are You OK with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Second Guessing Your Vote?

For the last three years, a Group of Santa Clara County Citizens and I have been Citizen Observers of the Ballot Processing and Vote Tabulation Processes at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (SCCROV). We have discovered during our observations that the SCCROV unilaterally has made the executive decision to suspend and manually **“Adjudicate and Determine the Voter’s Intent” **for Under-Votes on all Voters’ Mail-In and Vote-in-Person Ballots.

The SCCROV’s actions are especially egregious for the In-Person Voter who fills out a paper ballot and scans their ballot using the ICP scanner/tabulator machine. The scanner allows the Voter to review their voting choices on its LCD screen. The ICP scanner/tabulator machine informs the Voter of an **under-vote **condition. It provides the Voter option to confirm or redo their choices. In this case, manually Adjudicating a ballot when the Voter has confirmed their vote in person on the machine is clearly unacceptable.  

The SCCROV’s actions are in Violation of California Election Code Section 19101, California Code Regulation 20982, California Voting System Standard Section 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3 and other relevant election codes and laws. The SCCROV’s unilateral decision violates Voters’ Constitutional Rights to choose not to vote for a particular ballot contest without interference. It creates the opportunity for the Voter’s vote to be tampered with and changed without the Voter’s knowledge.

Federal, State and Local laws do not grant the SCCROV the right to review and suspend Voters’ ballots before tabulating their votes. The SCCROV’s “**Adjudication” **process to determine Voter Intent when the Voter’s Intent by No Vote decisions are clear on their ballots. The ROV’s actions deprive all Santa Clara County Voters of their Constitutional and Civil Rights to a safe, secure, private and accurate voting process. 

An Under-Vote is defined as a No Vote. The Voter decides not to vote for any of the Candidates running in one or more contests, or Proposition and Referendum Measures, by not marking the ballot accordingly. Also, when there are multiple candidates running in a contest, such as in School Board, State and County Judicial Offices, City and Town Council contests and the ballot instructs the Voter to vote for two, three, four or five and the Voter votes for less than the number instructed for the contest.

As Concerned Santa Clara County Citizens, we are alerting All Santa Clara County Voters to contact the Santa Clara County ROV and demand that they cease and desist the **Adjudication **process for under votes for any future elections, and especially fix the vote tabulating for this 2022 election.

Ronald J. Meyer, 11/03/2022

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation firmly supports this cause, to make sure Santa Clara’s citizen’s voice get heard by SCCROV and resolve any election code violation issues.

SVCAF calls for every Santa Clara voter to send petition letter to urge SCCROV to stop the manual adjudication process for under votes. If you are a Santa Clara voter, please follow these steps:

• Download this petition letter (PDF)

• Print and sign it wet (sign on paper)

• Mail it to our dedicated PO BOX:

Alice Kao, P.O. Box 10472，San Jose, CA 95157

• (Our volunteer will send it to SCCROV in batches. This is to have a final count on how many signed petition letters have been sent to SCCROV for any further legal actions).

• Click this link and fill in the survey to help our volunteers for progress.

Please help spread the word, and collect more signatures. The follow-up updates will be posted on this page as well, so please do visit this page from time to time.

For media contact: info@svcaf.org

By  Mr. Chunhua Liao, VP of SVCAF 

In Support of Students for Fair Admissions’s Landmark Lawsuits against Anti-Asian Racism at Harvard and University of North Carolina, 

When: Sunday, Oct. 30, 2022, 1:30 – 4:00 PM EDT

Where: Steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.

Good afternoon, my fellow Americans. I am Chunhua Liao, the co-founder and Vice President of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation. When I first started fighting against SCA5 in California in February 2014, I never thought we could make it this far, standing in front of the US Supreme Court, side by side with the giants who are also safeguarding the equal constitutional rights of everyone.

At this moment, I am thinking about the fellow volunteers in Silicon Valley who have spent lots of hours and dollars on our cause. They are among the heroes who have made this historical trial happen.

I would like to take this opportunity to share three lessons I learned throughout my journey over the past 8+ years.

First of all, I learned to change my mindset from being directed by others to thinking and acting as an owner of myself, my community, my state, and my beautiful country, the USA. Because if you don’t take ownership, others surely will. Their interests may not always align with yours. If you are not at the table deciding things, you may be on the menu. This new mindset has motivated me to speak out against unconstitutional policies, stand up for the unfortunate, and keep volunteering even when I am as busy as anyone next to me.

Secondly, I learned that we are actually the majority side in this fight. Numerous polls or elections have proved it again and again: Americans do not want to treat each other differently based on our skin colors. Some people on the other side may have good intentions. But their race-based preferential policies are textbook racism and are already having disastrous consequences. Fixating on skin color also distracts us from the real problems. We must convince as many people as possible to do the right and hard thing together: fix the root causes of the social problems we are facing today by demanding accountability from parents, educators, government officials, and social policies.

The very last, but not least, the fight to defend the US constitution will never end. Even if the US Supreme Court rules in our favor today, there will be a lot of work to do to actually enforce the ruling. For example, California already has a state constitution banning the use of race as a factor in college admissions. However, the University of California openly defies people’s will and uses all kinds of tricks to implement hidden racial quotas, including relying more on subjective criteria instead of objective standardized tests. We have to keep filing lawsuits to safeguard the equal rights of everyone. We also must pass the torch to the next generation and beyond.

With that, I will end my speech. To recap the three lessons: 1) think and act as an owner; 2) unite to address root causes of problems; and 3) keep defending the constitution with your children, grandchildren, and beyond.

Thank You. 

中文版

《用主人翁心态捍卫美国宪法》

“人人享有平等教育权”集会 未删减完整演讲稿 

作者： 廖春华 先生

支持”学生公平录取组织” 里程碑式诉讼：控诉哈佛大学和北卡罗来纳大学的针对亚裔的种族主义

时间：星期日2022 年 10 月 30 日，美国东部时间下午 1:30 – 4:00

地点：华盛顿特区美国最高法院台阶

下午好，我的美国同胞们。我是硅谷华人协会基金会的联合创始人兼副会长廖春华。 2014 年 2 月，当我第一次在加利福尼亚开始与 SCA5 抗争时，我从未想过我们能走到这一步，站在美国最高法院前，与同样维护每个人平等宪法权利的全美国各大巨头并肩作战。

此时此刻，我在想硅谷的志愿者们，他们为我们的事业花费了大量时间和金钱。他们是促成这一历史性的审判的英雄之一。我也想借此机会分享我在过去 8 年多义工的旅程中学到的三个教训。

首先，我学会了将自己的思维方式从受他人指导转变为作为自己、我的社区、我的州和我美丽的国家， 美国的主人来思考和行动。因为如果你不拥有所有权，其他人肯定会。他们的利益可能并不总是与您的一致。如果你不在餐桌上决定事情，你很可能在菜单上被人任人宰割。这种新的心态促使我公开反对违宪的政策，为不幸的人挺身而出，即使我和身边的任何人一样忙，也要继续做志愿者。

其次，我了解到我们实际上是这场斗争中的多数派。无数的民意调查或选举一次又一次地证明了这一点：美国人民不想根据肤色来区别对待彼此。和我们意见不同的另一边的一些人可能是出于好意。但他们基于种族的优惠政策是教科书式的种族主义，已经造成了灾难性的后果。专注于肤色也会使我们从真正的问题上分心。我们必须说服尽可能多的人一起做正确而艰难的事情：通过要求家长、教育工作者、政府官员和社会政策承担责任，共同解决我们今天面临的社会问题的根源。

最后，但同样重要的是，捍卫美国宪法的斗争永远不会结束。即使美国最高法院今天做出有利于我们的裁决，要真正执行该裁决还有很多工作要做。例如，加利福尼亚州已经有一部州宪法，禁止将种族作为大学录取的一个因素。然而，加州大学公然违抗加州人民的意志，使用各种手段实施隐藏的种族配额，包括更多地依靠主观标准而不是客观标准化测试。我们必须不断提起诉讼，以维护每个人的平等权利。我们还必须将火炬传递给下一代。

至此，我将结束我的演讲。最后回顾三个教训：1）以美国主人翁的心态的思考和行动； 2）团结起来解决社会问题的根源； 3) 继续与您的孩子、孙子及其他人一起捍卫美国人人平等的宪法。

谢谢！

Edward Blum先生在主题演讲中预计最高法院今年十一月在华盛顿特区终审开庭，明年六月发布判决结果。被告的两所大学财力雄厚，据说北卡罗来纳大学花了25 million 律师费，哈佛大学花了 50 million律师费。幸运的是目前最高法院保守派法官占大多数，乐观期待未来判决SFFA可能取得胜诉，因为按肤色搞优待，搞配额的两所大学违反了美国平等保护每一个人的宪法条款。最终判决将历史性的影响全美，全面禁止大学在入学录取过程中考虑学生的肤色。

随着最高法院准备审理指控哈佛大学有种族意识的招生政策歧视亚裔美国人申请人的诉讼，哈佛实际已经被迫提高了录取的亚裔学生比例，最新数据是27.8%。对比诉讼发起前的17-20%，上升幅度不小。合法权益真的是争取来的，做哑裔只会被逐步蚕食权益。他在演讲中举了一个例子，让大家了解种族这个因素在哈佛入学占的重要性。一个正常亚裔申请者被哈佛录取的机率是２５％；其他因素不变改成白人录取机率是３６％；改成西裔录取机率是７７％；改成非裔录取机率是95% 。

Blum先生盛赞硅谷华人协会对SFFA的帮助。他提到，硅谷的华人不知道自己对这个案子的重要性。2015年第一次应邀到硅谷后， SVCA几乎一夜之间帮助SFFA拉了一万五千名新会员，完全改变了诉讼的局面。有名有姓的会员名单呈交给法庭后，征服了法官接受审理此案。

目前华人社区能够帮助哈佛訴訟的渠道主要有捐款和加入SFFA该组织成为会员。两件事情都可以访问官网完成：https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/ 

硅谷华人基金会主席Jason Xu 介绍了基金会在哈佛官司方面的系列行动。基金会从2015年开始就支持Blum 先生和哈佛官司。2015年和2018年分别举行过同样论坛。2018年派出7人团队去了波士顿参与哈佛官司的开庭。基金会主席也曾经担任过SFFA的理事。基金会为官司捐过近10万资金。2021年，基金会和犹太人组织Branteis 中心一起合作“法庭之友“文件，揭露哈佛在100年前对犹太人歧视的动机，手法和宣传都是一样的。由于角度新颖，这份文件受到纽约时报的关注和报道。

AACE 的主席赵宇空发言，提到今年被加州大学大规模拒绝的亚裔学生应该站出来，帮助发起法律诉讼。AACE能够找到律师团队，但是缺学生原告。在被问到，如何做一个合格的公民，宇空指出，大陆第一代移民要摈弃三个心态。即小农心态，只看到自己的一亩三分地，只看到自己的小家，看不到自己的社区和学区。第二是过客心态。很多人到美国只为赚钱。绿卡不入籍，入籍不注册，注册不投票，投票还投给损害自己利益的候选人。第三是难民心态。难民被一个国家收容了，就整天劳作，怕一闲下来生存就没着落。难民从来不可能像那个国家土生土长的公民一样，因为难民是从一个比别人低的基点开始创业的。他们认为美国提供了很好的生活环境，受点歧视问题不大。这批人没有做美国公民，主人翁精神，不知道参加社会规则的制定是民主社会的公民权利。

赵先生回顾了SFFA起诉哈佛，AACE申诉哈佛的八年前，亚裔受左翼误导，很多支持平权法。美国社会都不知道我们受到歧视。而通过SFFA和我们亚裔社区的共同抗争，现在美国社会都知道我们受到了不公正歧视，同情我们。而且，美国参众两院，立法都涉及亚裔受入学歧视案。起诉哈佛案打到了最高法院。迫于压力之下，哈佛增加了亚裔的录取。这些都说明了我们亚裔勇于抗争所取得的巨大成就。所以他呼吁亚裔要勇于发声，给为yy抗争的组织捐款，并支持捍卫亚裔合法权益的政治候选人。

ERFA PAC的副主席Tony Guan指出看到經過長時間的努力积极改变正在发生。2020年的反对16号提案就是以华人为主导力量的一场选战，在及其微弱的财力下却获得了压倒性胜利，这充分说明华人的领导力和执行力。还有目前全国此起彼伏的罢免案，都不乏华人草根领袖和志愿者的身影。三藩市的罢免DA和罢免学委两件事，ERFA PAC的理事都有积极参与，结果非常让人振奋，新上任的学委直接促成了Lowell高中恢复择优录取的政策；洛杉矶的罢免DA就在会议当天还有华人志愿者在做最后一天的努力，而且他们也收集到了足够的签名。这些成就都鼓舞人心，是华人草根领导力在政治方面的集中体现。Tony请大家继续努力，积极参与，为美国未来而持续努力。

在讨论中，提到了加州大学公立系統，为了对抗加州憲法不能以種族作為入學許可衡量因素的209法案，多年來做了非常多的动作。比如说实施隐形比列，并且取消了SAT。 209法案通過後，柏克萊加大對亞裔的錄取率一直維持40%上下，取消SAT後, 加大系統新生去年申請比2020年大幅增加16.8%。加州大学对于加州的华人孩子有重要的影响，而哈佛官司是具有全国性影响。嘉宾们呼吁有被加州大学歧视的华裔子弟出面為自己爭取權益，挑战加州大学的入学流程。哈佛官司里面，已经有四位公开的亚裔年轻人。

CFER 基金会理事 Tony Xu 谈了基金会为维权及教育（反对CRT, 支持哈佛官司）等方面的活动。

嘉宾里面的唯一的学生，Rutvij Holay, 17歲还在读高中。 他的血统是印裔美国人， 是南加过来的印度裔美国人。他明确反对族裔优待。他在 2020 年领导了 Ritesh Tandon 的青年团队，并为在选举期间反对 Prop 16 的加州选民创建了选民指南。 2021年，他创立了美国人平等基金会，并担任创始董事会成员。 PAC 在从德州到纽约的各州建立了支持网络，甚至参与了格伦·扬金 (Glenn Youngkin) 赢得州长职位的競選，并貢獻力量促成通过 HB127 禁止在弗吉尼亚州的族裔优待。Rutvij 在會中有提到印度也有類似的AA平權法案但是有時間的限制不能像現在美國的平權法案從1961年開始到現在60年過去還在繼續。

在现场提问环节中，有忧心忡忡的亚裔家长，也有跃跃欲试的当地候选人，也有正在政府服务的亚裔官员，包括：Cupertino副市长赵良方，Pola Alto市委员Greg Tanaka, Fremont市委员邵阳，San Jose Orchard学区委员唐玉鸿，前州众议员朱感生，三藩市第四區市参事候选人雷千红，CA17国会议员候选人Ritesh Tandon, AD24的州众议员候选人Bob Brunton等人。

部分参加论坛的嘉宾和听众合影

会场花絮：因为这个案子的历史意义。Blum先生被一个纪录片团队全程跟踪录像。华人社区的各种支持也会在纪录片中体现。SVCA基金会也收到 Blum先生邀请，参加十一月最高法院庭审的庭外声援活动。

“The significance of Harvard Lawsuit and the Reality in California – A Forum on Combating Racial Discrimination in College Admissions” (title in Chinese: “黎明前的黑暗：哈佛官司的意义和加州的现状” )

Time: 2-5pm PST, Saturday, June 25, 2022

Location: Sunnyvale Theater 550 E Remington Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94087

What to expect:

• Keynote from Mr. Edward Blum (President of Students for Fair Admissions)- Panel discussion on racial discrimination in college admissions- Interactive Q&A

**To register for free tickets, please click **https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-significance-of-harvard-lawsuit-and-the-reality-in-california-tickets-348551666417 (Forum will be in English)

Co-host and sponsor organizations and individuals are welcome, for more info, please send email to info@svcaf.org.

Recording included after the meeting:

Related links:

• SFFA诉哈佛录取歧视案宣传片
• SVCA基金会恳请华人社区继续捐款支持SFFA
• Harvard Amicus Brief Filed by SVCAF
• SVCA基金会5/30 Blum教育论坛语音整理2-Consovoy
• Boston Rally Live

2014年，反对加州立法院的SCA5（肤色法案）的积极义工创办成立SVCA基金会。 该法案试图推翻加州宪法中的不得按肤色搞特殊照顾的平权条款 （prop. 209），在教育中引入肤色特权。

2015 和2018年SVCA基金会分别两次在湾区请SFFA负责人 Blum 先生代表原告做论坛主题发言，并组织讨论。同时吸引SFFA正式会员。听众反映强烈；2018年底，SVCA基金会派代表团(一行7人)去波士顿参与声援 SFFA状告哈佛的庭审活动，基金会主席在发起大会上发表演讲。

2021年初，应 SFFA要求，SVCA基金会联合一家犹太组织向最高法院提请了正式“法庭之友”文件，支持哈佛官司上诉到最高法院。这份法律文件从哈佛在上世纪20年代歧视犹太人证据出发，发现目前哈佛歧视亚裔的手法和说辞和100年以前如出一辙。这份文件在最高法院决定接受本案件起到积极作用。

我们提交给最高法院的文件：全文链接

2022年，Ed Blum先生将择期来加州跟大家见面，一旦行程敲定我们会立刻广而告之！

Harvard Discrimination Trailer

Harvard Discrimination Full Length

请大家帮忙转发以上视频，支持SFFA对哈佛的诉讼案！

亚裔一向遵纪守法、勤奋努力，在全美各族裔中，亚裔受教育程度最高，平均收入也最高。但曾几何时，这些优秀的品质成了亚裔在教育和职场中频频受限的原因。最近在Amazon新鲜上线的热销书《An Inconvenient Minority》对这一现象进行了深刻详细的解读和分析。这本书见解独到，针砭时弊，力透纸背。作者Kenny Xu是位年轻有为的ABC作家，亚裔告哈佛案的主要知情人士，为《联邦党人》、《华盛顿考官》、《每日信号》和《奎莱特》等媒体的评论作家，曾登上Fox TV 等主流媒体的专访。

在青少年之声电台的中英文专访中，Kenny曾与两位硅谷高中生主持就青少年关注的角度探讨了亚裔面临的挑战和生存的趋势，音频如下：

Interviewing Kenny Xu

硅谷华人协会基金会SVCAF 从7 年前成功狙击伤害亚裔受教育平等机会的提案SCA5 到去年参与成功狙击加州公投法案prop 16, 一直走在为华裔争取教育平等机会和利益的前沿。作为Kenny Xu 新书的支持者，Svcaf 力邀我们未来的希望—-全美的中学生参加《An inconvenient minority》的书评征文比赛。比赛分为初中和高中两组（2021-22学年）. 优胜者将获得奖金，并有机会参加青少年之声电台的采访节目，每位参赛者也可获得义工时间。

购书链接：https://amzn.to/3xCSm35

《An inconvenient minority》青少年书评征文比赛详情

书评征文要求：

英文；初中组6-8 年级，450 字以下；高中组9-12 年级，650 字以下；年级以2021-22学年为准。

比赛奖励：

分高中组和初中组，每组奖项：

一等奖$200一名，

二等奖$100两名，

三等奖$50两名；

结果将于10月中旬公布。

两组的一等奖获得者将接受青少年之声电台的采访

文章提交要求:

提交截止日期：2021年9月12日(周日)，美西时间11:59pm

发送至： info@svcaf.org

邮件标题：Book Review-full name-grade

文件格式：.doc或.docx

《An inconvenient minority》购书链接：

https://amzn.to/3xCSm35

2021年度加州立法论文大赛开始接受投稿了！大赛的目的是为了促进加州青少年关心时事，提高对争议话题的独立研究和判断能力。本年度加州立法论文大赛由以下组织联合举办：圣地亚哥亚裔平权会（SDAAFE）、硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF）和金橙俱乐部基金会（TOCF）（以组织英文名字母顺序排序）。以上三个组织分别代表圣地亚哥（San Diego, SD）, 北加（Northern California, NorCal）, 和橙县（Orange County, OC）三个地区。 请仔细阅读以下申请规则。

• 题目：加州参议院立法草案SB-82 Petty theft（2021）目前正在加州参议院辩论和投票。 假设你是加利福尼亚州立法委员，你会支持该法案还是反对？ 为什么？ 请做自己的研究，然后写一篇文章来支持你的决定。 请清楚列出你的参考文献。- 资源: - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB82参赛者资格：现居住在加州的6-12年级的在校学生（2021-2022学年）。（请按照就近原则从圣地亚哥(SD), 北加(NorCal), 和橙县(OC)三个地区中，选择一个作为你的参赛区）- 要求： 英文，500 – 800字（不包括论文题目和参考文献）- 提交截止日期：2021年9月20日(星期一)，晚上11点59分。  

     电邮至: Essay2021@sdaafe.org

     邮件内容应包含论文，签名的申请表，和签名的免责文件。

     表格下载地址： Link

邮件标题: 2021_参赛区代号(从SD, NorCal, 或者OC中按就近原则选一个)_你的名字     

      (范例：Mary Lee来自圣地亚哥地区，邮件标题为2021_SD_Mary Lee)

裁判:

• 写作技巧和语法占30％- 论证占35％- 研究和支持数据占35％

奖励(分两级进行):

本区预赛: 三个赛区分别评出本区正反双方的优秀文章。结果将于10月4日（星期一）晚11点59分公布。

州级决赛：本地正反双方的优秀文章将自动参加加州州级比赛，并有机会获得以下金额奖励： 

一等奖$1,000/人 (正反方各一位)；

二等奖$500/人  (正反方各一位)； 

三等奖 $300/人 （正反方各一位）。

结果将于10月中旬公布。

获州奖论文将发布在SDAAFE，SVCAF和TOCF的网站上，以表彰参赛学生。获奖文章内容不代表以上三个组织的意见。

如果届时加州健康卫生指导方针允许，加州州级获奖者，必须参加10月下旬在圣地亚哥举行的颁奖典礼。具体的颁奖时间和地点将在9月份通知。

所有参赛者所花的时间可以由本区组织授予义工时间。

论文风格要求：

**文件类型 – **论文应该以.doc或.docx文件的形式提交

**字体 – **使用流行的Times New Roman字体，易于阅读12磅字体大小

**间距 – **论文应该是双倍间隔的

**长度 – **不包括标题和参考文献

**参考文献 – **论文必须包含你所咨询的至少三份参考文献的清单。这些参考文献可以来自印刷或在线资源。

样式指南 **– **可以使用MLA，芝加哥或APA样式手册选用引用格式

请做 – 请确保填写申请表，并由你的合法监护人签署免责文件

**不要 – **不要在论文中输入你的名字，或以任何其他方式在论文中传达或暗示你的个人身份，因为所有的论文都将被匿名评比

最后，我们非常感谢来自圣地亚哥阳光地产的赵京，来自IvyMax Foundation的Vickie Zhang，和来自US Asian Art & Culture Association的Linda Liu对本次活动的大力支持和赞助。

2021 Essay Contest on California State Legislation

We are pleased to announce the launch of the 2021 Essay Contest on California State Legislation. It is held statewide by three prominent organizations: San Diego Asian Americans For Equality (SDAAFE), Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF), and The Orange Club (TOC), representing San Diego (SD), Northern California (NorCal), and Orange County (OC) regions, respectively. Please read the rules and deadline of the contest carefully.  

• Subject: **California Senate Bill **SB-82 Petty theft (2021) is currently being debated and voted on in the California State Senate. Assuming you are a California State Legislator, will you support the bill or oppose it? Why? Please do your own research and write an essay to support your decision.  Please clearly list out your references.- Resource: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB82- Participant: Current California resident, Grade 6-12 Students in the 2021-2022 school year (Please choose the closest region from SD, NorCal, or OC as your local submission region.)- Essay requirement: English, 500 – 800 words (not including title and references) 

• Deadline for submission:  11:59 pm, September 20 (Monday), 2021.   - Email to: Essay2021@sdaafe.org- Email should include your Essay, the signed application form, and the signed waiver document.                       - Forms download link: Click Here- Subject in email: 2021_region code (choose one from SD, NorCal, or OC)_your name         (Sample: 2021_SD_Mary Lee) (Mary Lee is from San Diego region.)

Judging:

• 30% Writing Skills and Grammar- 35% Arguments- 35% Research and Supporting data

Prizes:

The prizes will be awarded in a two-tier process.

• Local Round:  Region winning essay writers on both sides of the argument will be selected. The results will be announced on Oct. 4th (Monday at 11:59 pm), 2021. - State Finals: The local winning essays on both sides of the argument will be automatically entered in a statewide contest. Each side of the argument will be presented with a First Place with $1000 award; a Second Place with $500 award; and a Third Place with $300 award. The Finals results will be announced in mid October.

• State winning essays will be published on SDAAFE, SVCAF, and TOCF websites to honor participating students, although they will not represent the three organizations’ opinions.- If state health guidelines allow, all awardees at the state level are required to attend the Award Ceremony in person to receive the prize which will be held in late October in San Diego. Detailed information about the time and location of the Award Ceremony will be announced in September.- All contestants’ efforts can be counted as volunteer hours by the local organization. 

Essay Style Requirement:

• **File Type **— Your essay should be submitted as a word .doc or .docx file- **Font **— Use the popular Times New Roman font, easy to read 12 pt font size.- **Spacing **— Your essay should be double spaced.- **Length **— Not counting title and references. - **References **— Your essay must include a list of at least three references.- **Style Guide **— You may use any of the MLA, Chicago or APA style manual for citations and reference formatting.- **Do **— Please make sure you fill out the application form and sign the waiver document by yourself and your legal guardian. - **Don’t **— Please do Not mention me within the essay, or in any other way convey or imply your personal identity in the essay, as all essays will be rated anonymously.

Lastly, we would like to thank Jing Zhao from San Diego Sunrise Realty, Vickie Zhang from IvyMax Foundation, and Linda Liu from US Asian Art & Culture Association, for their support and sponsorship. 

附录： 2019年度大赛的获奖文章：

2019加州青少年立法论文大赛颁奖典礼 （附得奖文章）

1. 任何年纪的未成年人可以同意 MINORS OF ANY AGE MAY CONSENT

1.1 怀孕 PREGNANCY

1.1.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

未成年人可以同意接受与避孕或治疗妊娠有关的医疗服务，而绝育除外。（家庭法§ 6925） “A minor may consent to medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy,” except sterilization. (Fam. Code § 6925).

1.1.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

不允许医疗保健提供者在未经未成年人同意的情况下通知家长或其法定监护人。提供者仅可以在以下前提与他们分享未成年人的医疗信息：未成年人签署授权书。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

1.2 避孕 CONTRACEPTION

1.2.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

未成年人可以在不经家长同意的情况下接受避孕措施。（家庭法§ 6925） A minor may receive birth control without parental consent. (Fam. Code § 6925).

1.2.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

不允许医疗保健提供者在未经未成年人同意的情况下通知家长或其法定监护人。提供者仅可以在以下前提与他们分享未成年人的医疗信息：未成年人签署授权书。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

1.3 堕胎 ABORTION

1.3.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

未成年人可以同意堕胎而无需其家长的同意。（家庭法§ 6925；以及判例 American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997） A minor may consent to an abortion without parental consent. (Fam. Code § 6925; American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren,16 Cal.4th 307 (1997)).

1.3.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。 （Lungren案判例；健康和安全法§§123110(a), 123115(a)(1)；民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997); Health & Safety Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).  

1.4 性侵的相关救治服务 SEXUAL ASSAULT1 SERVICES

仅出于未成年人同意医疗保健的目的，此处所列性侵包括口交，鸡奸，和其他类型性犯罪。 1 For the purposes of minor consent health care alone, sexual assault includes acts of oral copulation, sodomy, and other crimes of a sexual nature.

1.4.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

【可能】曾遭受过性侵的未成年可以同意接受医疗保健相关的诊断，治疗和收集与之相关的医疗证据。（家庭法§ 6928） “A minor who [may] have been sexually assaulted may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis, treatment and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the…assault.” (Fam. Code § 6928).

1.4.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

医疗保健提供者必须尝试与未成年人的家长/监护人联系，并在未成年人病历中记录尝试联系的日期和时间，以及是否联系成功。如果治疗专家合理地认为其家长/监护人实施了侵犯，则该规定不适用。（家庭法§ 6928） The health care provider must attempt to contact the minor’s parent/guardian and note in the minor’s record the day and time of the attempted contact and whether it was successful. This provision does not apply if the treating professional reasonably believes that the parent/guardian committed the assault. (Fam. Code § 6928).

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸和性侵犯都被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年同意的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167） Both rape and sexual assault of a minor are considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization. However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

1.5 对未满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务 RAPE2 SERVICES FOR MINORS UNDER 12 YRS3

对强奸的定义适用刑法§ 261 请参阅下文的“已满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务” RAPE2 SERVICES FOR MINORS UNDER 12 YRS3 2 Rape is defined in Penal Code § 261. 3 See also “Rape Services for Minors 12 and Over” on page 3 of this chart

1.5.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

可能遭遇强奸的未满12岁未成年人 “可以同意接受医疗与诊断，治疗和收集有关强奸方面的医学证据。“（家庭法§ 6928） A minor under 12 years of age who may have been raped “may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis,…treatment and the collection of medical evidence with regard” to the rape. (Fam. Code § 6928).

1.5.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

医疗保健提供者必须尝试与未成年人的家长/监护人联系，并在未成年人病历中记录尝试联系的日期和时间，以及是否联系成功。如果治疗专家合理地认为其家长/监护人实施了侵犯，则该规定不适用。（家庭法§ 6928） The health care provider must attempt to contact the minor’s parent/guardian and note in the minor’s record the day and time of the attempted contact and whether it was successful. This provision does not apply if the treating professional reasonably believes that the parent/guardian committed the assault. (Fam. Code § 6928).

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸和性侵犯都被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年同意的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167） Both rape and sexual assault of a minor are considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization. However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

1.6 紧急医疗服务* EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES*

*紧急情况是指“需要立即提供服务以减轻严重疼痛或立即诊断出未预见的医疗状况，如果不立即诊断和治疗，将导致严重的残疾甚至死亡”后果（业务和专业守则§ 2397(c)(2)） *An emergency is “a situation . . . requiring immediate services for alleviation of severe pain or immediate diagnosis of unforeseeable medical conditions, which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to serious disability or death” (Bus. & Prof. § 2397(c)(2)).

1.6.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

如果提供者“合理地认为[该]程序应立即进行并且没有足够的时间获得[家长]的知情同意，则提供者不应对未成年人执行此程序负责。（业务和专业守则§ 2397(c)(2)） A provider shall not be liable for performing a procedure on a minor if the provider “reasonably believed that [the] procedure should be undertaken immediately and that there was insufficient time to obtain [parental] informed consent.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 2397(c)(2)).

1.6.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

其家长或监护人通常有权检查未成年人的记录。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a)；民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）但请留意尾注（exc）部分） The parent or guardian usually has a right to inspect the minor’s records. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a); Civ. Code § 56.10. But see exception at endnote (EXC.)).

1.7 骨骼X光射线诊断虐待儿童或过失侵权* SKELETAL X-RAY TO DIAGNOSE CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT*

*提供者不需要未成年人或其家长的同意即可执行本节中的程序。

• The provider does not need the minor’s or parent’s consent to perform a procedure under this section.

1.7.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“医师，外科医生或牙医或其代理人可以不经未成年家长或监护人同意而对其进行骨骼X光检查，但仅为可能存在的虐待或儿童或过失侵权的案件诊断并确定其程度为目的。”（刑法§ 11171.2） “A physician and surgeon or dentist or their agents . . . may take skeletal X-rays of the child without the consent of the child’s parent or guardian, but only for purposes of diagnosing the case as one of possible child abuse or neglect and determining the extent of.” (Penal Code § 11171.2).

1.7.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

根据本法规所报告的信息，在任何法院程序中医患特权和心理治疗师特权均不适用。 Neither the physician-patient privilege nor the psychotherapist patient privilege applies to information reported pursuant to this law in any court proceeding.

2. 已满12岁的未成年人可以同意 MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT

2.1 传染病（诊断，治疗） INFECTIOUS, CONTAGIOUS COMMUNICABLE DISEASES (DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT)

2.1.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“未满12岁且可能已与传染性疾病接触过的未成年人，如果该疾病是法律要求报告的。可以同意接受治疗诊断。”（家庭法§ 6926） “A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease… is one that is required by law…to be reported….” (Fam. Code § 6926).

2.1.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

不经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权后向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

2.2 性传播疾病（预防护理，诊断，治疗） SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES (PREVENTIVE CARE, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT)

2.2.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

可能接触过性传播疾病的已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受与该疾病的诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理。 已满12岁的未成年人也可以同意与预防性传播疾病有关的医疗服务（家庭法§ 6926） A minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with a sexually transmitted disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease. A minor who is 12 years of age or older may also consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease. (Fam. Code § 6926).

2.2.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

不经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权后向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

2.3 艾滋病（预防措施，测试，诊断和治疗） AIDS/HIV (PREVENTIVECARE, TESTING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT)

2.3.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

已满12岁的未成年人有能力对艾滋病检测提供书面同意。 （加州健康与安全法 §121020）。已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受预防，诊断和治疗HIV / AIDS有关的医疗服务。 （民法§6926）。当前可用的服务包括暴露前和暴露后的预防药物，以预防HIV感染（PrEP和PEP）。 A minor 12 and older is competent to give written consent for an HIV test. (Cal. Health and Safety Code § 121020). A minor 12 and older may consent to medical care related to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS. (Fam. Code § 6926). Services currently available include pre- and postexposure prophylaxis medication to prevent HIV infection (PrEP and PEP).

2.3.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a),123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

2.4 已满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务 RAPE SERVICES FOR MINORS 12 and OVER

2.4.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“声称被强奸的已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受与病情诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理，并就被指控的强奸行为收集医学证据。（家庭法§ 6927） “A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who is alleged to have been raped may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the condition and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the alleged rape.” (Fam. Code § 6927).

2.4.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年批准的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167） Rape of a minor is considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health care providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization.However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

2.5 亲密伴侣暴力* INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE*

*仅出于未成年人同意的医疗保健目的 “亲密伴侣暴力”就意味着故意或不顾后果地造成人身伤害，由与该未成年人保持性关系，约会或配偶关系的人所实施的。如果未成年人因强奸或性侵犯而寻求服务，未成年人同意的救治服务应受相关“性侵犯”或“强奸”同意法律约束，而不是本法。（家庭法§6930(b)） *For the purposes of minor consent health care alone, “’intimate partner violence’ means an intentional or reckless infliction of bodily harm that is perpetrated by a person with whom the minor has or has had a sexual, dating, or spousal relationship.” If the minor is seeking services as a result of a rape or sexual assault, minor consent services should be provided under the “sexual assault” or “rape” minor consent laws rather than this law. (Fam. Code §6930(b)).

2.5.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“未满12岁且声称由于亲密伴侣的暴力行为而受伤的未成年人，可以同意接受与伤口的诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理，并同意收集有关亲密伴侣暴力所致医疗证据。”（家庭法§ 6930） “A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who states he or she is injured as a result of intimate partner violence may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the injury and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the alleged intimate partner violence.” (Fam. Code § 6930).

2.5.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

多数情况下，未成年人亲密伴侣暴力将被视为符合虐待儿童举报条件，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。（刑法§§ 11165.6, 11166, 11167） In most cases, intimate partner violence as defined in this statute will meet the definition of child abuse for reporting purposes and mandated reporters must report it as such. (Pen. Code §§ 11165.6, 11166, 11167.).

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） In those cases, the health care provider is not permitted to disclose information to a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s authorization. The provider can only share that information with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

如果不需要举报虐待儿童的情况（例如，伤害是由“未成年人之间的相互骚扰”引起的），则可以按《刑法》第11160条（枪支，攻击性或虐待性行为造成的伤害）的情况报告。 In cases where a child abuse report is not required (e.g., where the injury was caused by a “mutual affray between minors”), a report under Penal Code 11160 (injuries caused by firearms or assaultive or abusive conduct) may be mandated.

如果根据《刑法》第11160条进行了报告，则健康提供者应执行以下两项操作：1）告知未成年人将作出报告，并且 2）尝试与未成年人的家长或监护人联系，并将此报告告知他们。医务人员应在未成年人的治疗记录中注明尝试与其家长或监护人联系的日期和时间，以及尝试是否成功。如果医疗人员合理地认为未成年人的其家长或监护人造成了枪伤或可疑伤害，则此通知要求不适用。（家庭法 § 6930(c)).） If a report under Penal Code 11160 is made, the health provider shall do both of the following:

1. inform the minor that the report will be made, and
2. attempt to contact the minor’s parent or guardian and inform them of the report. The health practitioner shall note in the minor’s treatment record the date and time of the attempt to contact the parent or guardian, and whether the attempt was successful or unsuccessful. This notification requirement does not apply if the health practitioner reasonably believes that the minor’s parent or guardian inflicted the gunshot or suspicious injury. (Fam. Code § 6930(c)).

注意：当看起来好像可以根据虐待儿童举报法或刑第 11160条举报伤害时，举报人必须将其按虐待儿童举报法规执行，而不是刑法 第11160条。（刑法 第11162.7条）。提供者应与其法律顾问讨论这些报告法律的适用以及交复影响。 Note: When an injury appears as if it could be reported under either child abuse reporting law or Penal Code 11160, the reporter must report it as child abuse rather than under Penal Code 11160. (Pen. Code § 11162.7.) Providers should discuss the application and intersection of these reporting laws with their legal counsel.

2.6 门诊心理保健服务/庇护服务 OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES4/ SHELTER SERVICES

本节未授权未成年人未经其同意而接受住院精神病治疗，抽搐治疗，精神外科或精神药物。 4 This section does not authorize a minor to receive inpatient psychiatric care, convulsive therapy, psychosurgery or psychotropic drugs on their own consent.

2.6.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

两项法规赋予未成年人同意接受心理健康治疗的权利。如果未成年人符合任一法规的标准，则未成年人可以同意接受其自己的治疗。如果未成年人同时符合这两个条件，则提供者可以决定适用哪个法规。它们之间有一些区别。有关这些差异的更多信息，请参见尾注** Two statutes give minors the right to consent to mental health treatment. If a minor meets the criteria under either statute, the minor may consent to his or her own treatment. If the minor meets the criteria under both, the provider may decide which statute to apply. There are differences between them. See endnote ** for more on these differences:

家庭法§ 6924 “如果满足以下两个条件，则已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受门诊病人的心理健康治疗或咨询，或同意寄宿庇护服务： （1）主治医生认为，未成年人心智已经足够成熟，可以明智地参与门诊服务或寄宿庇护服务。和 （2）该未成年人（A）如果没有心理健康治疗，咨询或寄宿庇护服务，将对自己或他人造成严重的身体或精神伤害，或者（B）声称为乱伦或虐待儿童的受害者” Family Code § 6924 “A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis or to residential shelter services, if both of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services. AND (2) The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.” (Fam. Code § 6924.)

健康与安全法§ 124260 “已满12岁的未成年人可以同意参加[门诊]心理健康治疗或咨询服务，如果在职专业人员认为该未成年人足够成熟，可以明智地参加精神健康治疗或咨询服务。” Health & Safety Code § 124260 “[A] minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to [outpatient] mental health treatment or counseling services if, in the opinion of the attending professional person, the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the mental health treatment or counseling services.” (Health & Saf. Code § 124260.)

2.6.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

心理健康治疗： 医疗保健提供者必须让其家长或监护人参与未成年人的治疗，除非医疗保健提供者认为这种参与是不适当的。此决定以及与其家长的任何联系尝试都必须记录在未成年人的病历中。（家庭法§ 6924; 45 C.F.R. 164.502(g)(3)(ii).)） 对于根据《健康与安全法》第124260条要求提供的服务，提供者在决定是否让其家长参与之前必须征询未成年人。 MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT: The health care provider is required to involve a parent or guardian in the minor’s treatment unless the health care provider decides that such involvement is inappropriate. This decision and any attempts to contact parents must be documented in the minor’s record. (Fam. Code § 6924; 45 C.F.R. 164.502(g)(3)(ii).) For services provided under Health and Safety Code § 124260, providers must consult with the minor before deciding whether to involve parents. (Health & Saf. Code § 124260(a).)

尽管此例外允许提供者在适当的时候通知其家长并让他们参与治疗，但它没有赋予提供者未经未成年人授权就向其家长披露病历的权利。提供者只能在未成年人签名授权后才能向其家长披露未成年人的病历。 （健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1）；民法；§§ 56.10, 56.11, 56.30；福利和机构守则§ 5328。请参阅尾注（exc）) While this exception allows providers to inform and involve parents in treatment when appropriate, it does not give providers a right to disclose medical records to parents without the minor’s authorization. The provider can only share the minor’s medical records with parents with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11, 56.30; Welf. & Inst. Code § 5328. See also endnote(EXC).)

庇护所：尽管未成年人可能同意服务，但庇护所必须根据未成年人所提供的信息尽最大努力将服务内容通知其家长/监护人。 （家庭法§ 6924） SHELTER: Although minor may consent to service, the shelter must use its best efforts based on information provided by the minor to notify parent/guardian of the provision of services. (Fam. Code § 6924.)

2.7 药物或酒精滥用治疗 DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE TREATMENT

•本节未授权未成年人在未经其家长或监护人同意的前提下，而接受替代麻醉品治疗。 •在其家长或监护人同意进行治疗的情况下，本节未授予未成年人拒绝就药物或酒精相关问题进行医疗和咨询的权利。 （家庭法 第6929（f）条）。 •家庭法第§6929(a)(2)条定义了“毒品或酒精”和“咨询”一词 • This section does not authorize a minor to receive replacement narcotic abuse treatment without the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian. • This section does not grant a minor the right to refuse medical care and counseling for a drug or alcohol related problem when the minor’s parent or guardian consents for that treatment. (Fam. Code § 6929(f)). • The terms “drug or alcohol” and “counseling” are defined in Fam. Code § 6929(a)(2).

2.7.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

已满12岁的未成年人可以同意就有关毒品或酒精相关问题的诊断和治疗进行医疗护理和咨询。（家庭法§6929(b)） “A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical care and counseling relating to the diagnosis and treatment of a drug or alcohol related problem.” (Fam. Code §6929(b)).

2.7.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

联邦和州法律有着不同的保密规则。符合以下“联邦”中列出的条件的提供者必须遵守联邦法规。不符合这些条件的提供者则需要遵守州法律。 联邦：联邦保密法适用于符合以下两个条件的任何个人，项目或机构： 1.个人，项目或机构得到联邦政府的协助。 （联邦协助是指全部或部分由联邦政府的任何部门授权，认证，许可，支持或资助的。譬如：联邦，州或地方计划包括：免税；接受可抵税的捐款；接受任何联邦政府的运作资金，无论是否直接用于防治药物滥用计划；或已在Medicare注册）（联邦政府第42号法规§2.12） There are different confidentiality rules under federal and state law. Providers meeting the criteria listed under ‘federal’ below must follow the federal rule. Providers that don’t meet these criteria follow state law. FEDERAL: Federal confidentiality law applies to any individual, program, or facility that meets the following two criteria:

1. The individual, program, or facility is federally assisted. (Federally assisted means authorized, certified, licensed, supported or funded in whole or in part by any department of the federal government. Examples include federal, state or local programs that are: tax exempt; receiving tax-deductible donations; receiving any federal operating funds whether used directly for the substance use disorder program or not; or registered with Medicare) (42 C.F.R. §2.12);

以及 2. 个人或项目： 1）认为自身维系，并提供了药物使用障碍的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗的个人或实体（一般医疗机构除外）；或 2）普通医疗机构中已确定的单元，该单元维系并提供药物使用障碍的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗；或 3）普通医疗机构中主要职能是提供物质使用失常的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗的医务人员或其他人员，并被确定为提供者（联邦政府第42号法规§2.11及§2.12） AND 2. The individual or program is:

1. An individual or entity (other than a general medical facility) who holds itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment; or
2. An identified unit within a general medical facility that holds itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment; or
3. Medical personnel or other staff in a general medical facility whose primary function is the provision of substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment and who are identified as such providers. (42 C.F.R. §2.11; 42 C.F.R. §2.12).

对于符合这些条件的个人或项目，联邦法律禁止在未得到未成年人书面同意的情况下向其家长披露任何信息。但是，有一个例外，如果项目主管确定该未成年服务申请者 1）由于非常年幼，极端的精神或身体状况而无法做出理性决定是否同意接受某项服务的能力，则允许将相关事实传达给家长。及  2）对未成年人或他人的生命或身体健康构成重大威胁，向其家长披露相关事实可以减轻这种威胁。（联邦政府第42号法规§2.14） For individuals or programs meeting these criteria, federal law prohibits disclosing any information to parents without a minor’s written consent. There is an exception, however, permitting the communication of relevant facts to the parents if the program director determines that a minor applicant for services 1) lacks capacity because of extreme youth or mental or physical condition to make a rational decision whether to consent to a disclosure to the parents AND 2) there is a substantial threat to the life or physical well-being of the minor applicant or another individual, and the disclosure of relevant facts to the parents may reduce that threat. (42 C.F.R. §2.14).

州法规：如上所述，针对家庭法 第6924条提供的“门诊心理健康服务”的相对应保密规则。(家庭法§ 6924) 请参阅尾注（exc） STATE RULE: Parallels confidentiality rule for “Outpatient Mental Health Services” provided under Family Code 6924, as described above. (Fam. Code §6929(c).) See also exception at endnote (EXC).

3. 已满15岁的未成年人 MINORS 15 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER

3.1 通用医疗保险 GENERAL MEDICAL CARE

3.1.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“如果满足以下所有条件，则未成年人可以同意接受未成年人的医疗或牙科护理：（1）未成年人年龄已满15岁。 （2）未成年人与其家长或监护人分开居住，无论是否经过其家长或监护人的同意，并且与单独居住的时长无关。 （3）无论未成年人的收入来源如何，都在管理自身的收入。” （家庭法 § 6922(a).） “A minor may consent to the minor’s medical care or dental care if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The minor is 15 years of age or older. (2) The minor is living separate and apart from the minor’s parents or guardian, whether with or without the consent of a parent or guardian and regardless of the duration of the separate residence. (3) The minor is managing the minor’s own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the minor’s income.” (Fam. Code § 6922(a).)

3.1.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

“如果未成年人患者同意，医师和外科医生或牙医可根据未成年人所提供的信息和监护人所在之处，向其家长或监护人告知所给予的或将需要的治疗。”（家庭法§ 6922(c)。请参阅尾注（exc）） “A physician and surgeon or dentist may, with or without the consent of the minor patient, advise the minor’s parent or guardian of the treatment given or needed if the physician and surgeon or dentist has reason to know, on the basis of the information given by the minor, the whereabouts of the parent or guardian.” (Fam. Code § 6922(c). See also exception at endnote (EXC)).

4. 已满14岁的独立生活的未成年人 MINOR MUST BE EMANCIPATED (GENERALLY 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER)

4.1 通用医疗 独立生活的未成年人 GENERAL MEDICAL CARE for EMANCIPATED YOUTH

4.1.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

独立生活的未成年人可以同意接受医疗牙科或心理治疗。 （家庭法§ 7050(e)。关于“独立生活”的定义解析可以参见 家庭法§ 7002） An emancipated minor may consent to medical, dental and psychiatric care. (Fam. Code § 7050(e). See Fam. Code § 7002 for emancipation criteria.)

4.1.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

未经未成年人同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。 （健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1）；民法；§§ 56.10, 56.11) The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

如果标明出处，则可以复制此图表以供个人使用。

This chart may be reproduced for individual use if accompanied by an acknowledgement.

*保密和同意法律法规有许多。不同的规则适用于不同的情形。本图表说明了未成年人与其家长或监护人同住时适用的规则。它未解决未成年人在法院司法体系下或处于其他特殊生活状况时所适用的规则。此外，机密性部分重点关注家长和提供者的权限。它没有解释其他人或机构何时有权获取机密信息的问题。此图表仅提供法律信息，而并非法律建议。提供者应与他们自己的法律顾问探讨相关法律建议。

• There are many confidentiality and consent rules. Different rules apply in different contexts. This chart addresses the rules that apply when minors live with their parents or guardians. It does not address the rules that apply when minors are under court jurisdiction or in other special living situations. Further, the confidentiality section focuses on parent and provider access. It does not address when other people or agencies may have a right to access otherwise confidential information. This chart provides legal information, not advice. Providers are encouraged to speak to their own legal counsel for advice on application of these laws.

**除了资格标准略有不同外，《健康与安全法》第124260条和《家庭法》第6924条也有一些细微差别。例如，两项法律均允许“专业人士”提供未成年人同意服务，但两项法律对“专业人士”的定义有所不同。另外，有一项资金限制适用于健康和安全法规§124260，但不适用于家庭法规§6924。（参阅家庭法§ 6924，健康与安全法§124260和福利和机构守则§14029； 获取更多信息请参阅www.teenhealthlaw.org）

** In addition to having slightly different eligibility criteria, there are other small differences between Health and Safety Code §124260 and Family Code § 6924. For example, the two laws both allow “professional persons” to deliver minor consent services but the two laws define “professional person” differently. Also, there is a funding restriction that applies to Health and Safety Code §124260 but not to Family Code § 6924. (See Fam. Code § 6924, Health & Saf. Code § 124260 and Welf. & Inst. Code §14029.8 and look for more information on www.teenhealthlaw.org.).

EXC: 如果医疗保健提供者确定“对提供者与未成年人患者的专业关系或未成年人的身体安全或心理健康的影响，对[其家长或监护人]要求查询的患者信息，则提供者可以拒绝向未成年人家长提供病历，虽然通常情况下其家长有权获得这些信息。”健康与安全法§123115(a)(2)。对所作出获取未成年人记录有关的任何诚信决定，提供者不承担负责。同上。

EXC: Providers may refuse to provide parents access to a minor’s medical records, where a parent normally has a right to them, if “the health care provider determines that access to the patient records requested by the [parent or guardian] would have a detrimental effect on the provider’s professional relationship with the minor patient or the minor’s physical safety or psychological well-being.” Health & Saf. Code § 123115(a)(2). A provider shall not be liable for any good faith decisions concerning access to a minor’s records. Id.

Reference:

/files/ca-minor-consent-chart-2019.pdf

CALIFORNIA MINOR CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS

Edit

任何年纪的未成年

可以同意

法规、细则

医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

怀孕未成年人可以同意接与避孕或治疗妊娠有关的医疗服务，而绝育除外。（家庭法§ 6925）不允许医疗保健提供者在未经未成年人同意的情况下通知家长或其法定监护人。提供者仅可以在以下前提与他们分享未成年人的医疗信息：未成年人签署授权书。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）  

避孕未成年人可以在不经家长同意的情况下接受避孕措施。（家庭法§ 6925）

堕胎未成年人可以同意堕胎而无需其家长的同意。（家庭法§ 6925；以及判例 American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren,

16 Cal.4th 307 (1997）

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。

（Lungren案判例；健康和安全法§§123110(a), 123115(a)(1)；民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

性侵的相关救治服务

仅出于未成年人同意医疗保健的目的，此处所列性侵包括口交，鸡奸，和其他类型性犯罪。

【可能】曾遭受过性侵的未成年可以同意接受医疗保健相关的诊断，治疗和收集与之相关的医疗证据。（家庭法§ 6928）医疗保健提供者必须尝试与未成年人的家长/监护人联系，并在未成年人病历中记录尝试联系的日期和时间，以及是否联系成功。如果治疗专家合理地认为其家长/监护人实施了侵犯，则该规定不适用。（家庭法§ 6928）

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸和性侵犯都被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年同意的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167）

对未满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务

对强奸的定义适用刑法§ 261

请参阅下文的“已满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务”

可能遭遇强奸的未满12岁未成年人 “可以同意接受医疗与诊断，治疗和收集有关强奸方面的医学证据。“（家庭法§ 6928）

Edit

MINORS OF ANY AGE MAY CONSENT    LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

PREGNANCY“A minor may consent to medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy,” except sterilization. (Fam. Code § 6925).The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).     

CONTRACEPTION A minor may receive birth control without parental consent. (Fam. Code § 6925).

ABORTIONA minor may consent to an abortion without parental consent. (Fam. Code § 6925; American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren,16 Cal.4th 307 (1997)).The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997); Health & Safety Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

SEXUAL ASSAULT1 SERVICES

1For the purposes of minor consent health care alone, sexual assault includes acts of oral copulation, sodomy, and other crimes of a sexual nature.“A minor who [may] have been sexually assaulted may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis, treatment and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the …assault.” (Fam. Code § 6928).The health care provider must attempt to contact the minor’s parent/guardian and note in the minor’s record the day and time of the attempted contact and whether it was successful. This provision does not apply if the treating professional reasonably believes that the parent/guardian committed the assault. (Fam. Code § 6928).

Both rape and sexual assault of a minor are considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization. However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

RAPE2 SERVICES FOR MINORS UNDER 12 YRS3 

2Rape is defined in Penal Code § 261. 3See also “Rape Services for Minors 12 and Over” on page 3 of this chartA minor under 12 years of age who may have been raped “may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis,…treatment and the collection of medical evidence with regard” to the rape. (Fam. Code § 6928).

Edit

任何年纪的未成年

可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

紧急医疗服务*

*紧急情况是指“需要立即提供服务以减轻严重疼痛或立即诊断出未预见的医疗状况，如果不立即诊断和治疗，将导致严重的残疾甚至死亡”后果（业务和专业守则§ 2397(c)(2)）

如果提供者“合理地认为[该]程序应立即进行并且没有足够的时间获得[家长]的知情同意，则提供者不应对未成年人执行此程序负责。（业务和专业守则§ 2397(c)(2)）其家长或监护人通常有权检查未成年人的记录。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a)；民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）但请留意尾注（exc）部分）

骨骼光射线诊断虐待儿童或过失侵权*

*提供者不需要未成年人或其家长的同意即可执行本节中的程序。

“医师，外科医生或牙医或其代理人可以不经未成年家长或监护人同意而对其进行骨骼光检查，但仅为可能存在的虐待或儿童或过失侵权的案件诊断并确定其程度为目的。”（刑法§ 11171.2）根据本法规所报告的信息，在任何法院程序中医患特权和心理治疗师特权均不适用。

Edit

MINORS OF ANY AGE 

MAY CONSENT LAW/DETAILS MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES*

*An emergency is “a situation . . . requiring immediate services for alleviation of severe pain or immediate diagnosis of unforeseeable medical conditions, which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to serious disability or death” (Bus. & Prof. § 2397(c)(2)).

*An emergency is “a situation . . . requiring immediate services for alleviation of severe pain or immediate diagnosis of unforeseeable medical conditions, which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to serious disability or death” (Bus. & Prof. § 2397(c)(2)).A provider shall not be liable for performing a procedure on a minor if the provider “reasonably believed that [the] procedure should be undertaken immediately and that there was insufficient time to obtain [parental] informed consent.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 2397). The parent or guardian usually has a right to inspect the minor’s records. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a); Civ. Code § 56.10. But see exception at endnote (EXC.)).

SKELETAL X-RAY TO DIAGNOSE CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT*

• The provider does not need the minor’s or parent’s consent to perform a procedure under this section.“A physician and surgeon or dentist or their agents . . . may take skeletal X-rays of the child without the consent of the child’s parent or guardian, but only for purposes of diagnosing the case as one of possible child abuse or neglect and determining the extent of.” (Penal Code § 11171.2).Neither the physician-patient privilege nor the psychotherapist patient privilege applies to information reported pursuant to this law in any court proceeding.

Edit

已满12岁的未成年可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

传染病（诊断，治疗）“未满12岁且可能已与传染性疾病接触过的未成年人，如果该疾病是法律要求报告的。可以同意接受治疗诊断。”（家庭法§ 6926）不经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权后向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

性传播疾病（预防护理，诊断，治疗）可能接触过性传播疾病的已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受与该疾病的诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理。 已满12岁的未成年人也可以同意与预防性传播疾病有关的医疗服务（家庭法§ 6926）

Edit

MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT     LAW/DETAILSMAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

INFECTIOUS, CONTAGIOUS COMMUNICABLE DISEASES

(DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT)

“A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease… is one that is required by law…to be reported….” (Fam. Code § 6926).

The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES (PREVENTIVE CARE, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT)A minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with a sexually transmitted disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease. A minor who is 12 years of age or older may also consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease. (Fam. Code § 6926).     

Edit

已满12岁的未成年可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

艾滋病（预防措施，测试，诊断和治疗）已满12岁的未成年人有能力对艾滋病检测提供书面同意。 （加州健康与安全法 §121020）。已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受预防，诊断和治疗HIV / AIDS有关的医疗服务。 （民法§6926）。当前可用的服务包括暴露前和暴露后的预防药物，以预防HIV感染（PrEP和PEP）。未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

已满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务“声称被强奸的已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受与病情诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理，并就被指控的强奸行为收集医学证据。（家庭法§ 6927）未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年批准的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167）

亲密伴侣暴力*

*仅出于未成年人同意的医疗保健目的 “亲密伴侣暴力”就意味着故意或不顾后果地造成人身伤害，由与该未成年人保持性关系，约会或配偶关系的人所实施的。如果未成年人因强奸或性侵犯而寻求服务，未成年人同意的救治服务应受相关“性侵犯”或“强奸”同意法律约束，而不是本法。（家庭法§6930(b)）

“未满12岁且声称由于亲密伴侣的暴力行为而受伤的未成年人，可以同意接受与伤口的诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理，并同意收集有关亲密伴侣暴力所致医疗证据。”（家庭法§ 6930）多数情况下，未成年人亲密伴侣暴力将被视为符合虐待儿童举报条件，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。（刑法§§ 11165.6, 11166, 11167）

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

如果不需要举报虐待儿童的情况（例如，伤害是由“未成年人之间的相互骚扰”引起的），则可以按《刑法》第11160条（枪支，攻击性或虐待性行为造成的伤害）的情况报告。

如果根据《刑法》第11160条进行了报告，则健康提供者应执行以下两项操作：

1）告知未成年人将作出报告，并且

2）尝试与未成年人的家长或监护人联系，并将此报告告知他们。医务人员应在未成年人的治疗记录中注明尝试与其家长或监护人联系的日期和时间，以及尝试是否成功。如果医疗人员合理地认为未成年人的其家长或监护人造成了枪伤或可疑伤害，则此通知要求不适用。（家庭法 § 6930(c)).）

注意：当看起来好像可以根据虐待儿童举报法或刑第 11160条举报伤害时，举报人必须将其按虐待儿童举报法规执行，而不是刑法 第11160条。（刑法 第11162.7条）。提供者应与其法律顾问讨论这些报告法律的适用以及交复影响。

Edit

MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT    LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

AIDS/HIV (PREVENTIVECARE, TESTING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT)A minor 12 and older is competent to give written consent for an HIV test. (Cal. Health and Safety Code § 121020). A minor 12 and older may consent to medical care related to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS. (Fam. Code § 6926). Services currently available include pre- and postexposure prophylaxis medication to prevent HIV infection (PrEP and PEP).The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a),

123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

RAPE SERVICES FOR MINORS 12 and OVER“A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who is alleged to have been raped may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the condition and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the alleged rape.” (Fam. Code § 6927).The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

Rape of a minor is considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health care providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization.

However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE*

*For the purposes of minor consent health care alone, “‘intimate partner violence’ means an intentional or reckless infliction of bodily harm that is perpetrated by a person with whom the minor has or has had a sexual, dating, or spousal relationship.” If the minor is seeking services as a result of a rape or sexual assault, minor consent services should be provided under the “sexual assault” or “rape” minor consent laws rather than this law. (Fam. Code §6930(b)).

“A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who states he or she is injured as a result of intimate partner violence may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the injury and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the alleged intimate partner violence.” (Fam. Code § 6930).In most cases, intimate partner violence as defined in this statute will meet the definition of child abuse for reporting purposes and mandated reporters must report it as such. (Pen. Code §§ 11165.6, 11166, 11167.).

In those cases, the health care provider is not permitted to disclose information to a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s authorization. The provider can only share that information with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

In cases where a child abuse report is not required (e.g., where the injury was caused by a “mutual affray between minors”), a report under Penal Code 11160 (injuries caused by firearms or assaultive or abusive conduct) may be mandated.

 If a report under Penal Code 11160 is made, the health provider shall do both of the following:

1. inform the minor that the report will be made, and

2. attempt to contact the minor’s parent or guardian and inform them of the report. The health practitioner shall note in the minor’s treatment record the date and time of the attempt to contact the parent or guardian, and whether the attempt was successful or unsuccessful. This notification requirement does not apply if the health practitioner reasonably believes that the minor’s parent or guardian inflicted the gunshot or suspicious injury. (Fam. Code § 6930(c)).

Note: When an injury appears as if it could be reported under either child abuse reporting law or Penal Code 11160, the reporter must report it as child abuse rather than under Penal Code 11160. (Pen. Code § 11162.7.) Providers should discuss the application and intersection of these reporting laws with their legal counsel.

Edit

已满12岁的未成年可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

门诊心理保健服务/庇护服务

4 本节未授权未成年人未经其同意而接受住院精神病治疗，抽搐治疗，精神外科或精神药物。

两项法规赋予未成年人同意接受心理健康治疗的权利。如果未成年人符合任一法规的标准，则未成年人可以同意接受其自己的治疗。如果未成年人同时符合这两个条件，则提供者可以决定适用哪个法规。它们之间有一些区别。有关这些差异的更多信息，请参见尾注**

家庭法§ 6924

“如果满足以下两个条件，则已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受门诊病人的心理健康治疗或咨询，或同意寄宿庇护服务：

（1）主治医生认为，未成年人心智已经足够成熟，可以明智地参与门诊服务或寄宿庇护服务。和

（2）该未成年人（A）如果没有心理健康治疗，咨询或寄宿庇护服务，将对自己或他人造成严重的身体或精神伤害，或者（B）声称为乱伦或虐待儿童的受害者”

健康与安全法§ 124260

“已满12岁的未成年人可以同意参加[门诊]心理健康治疗或咨询服务，如果在职专业人员认为该未成年人足够成熟，可以明智地参加精神健康治疗或咨询服务。”

心理健康治疗：

医疗保健提供者必须让其家长或监护人参与未成年人的治疗，除非医疗保健提供者认为这种参与是不适当的。此决定以及与其家长的任何联系尝试都必须记录在未成年人的病历中。（家庭法§ 6924; 45 C.F.R. 164.502(g)(3)(ii).)）

对于根据《健康与安全法》第124260条要求提供的服务，提供者在决定是否让其家长参与之前必须征询未成年人。

尽管此例外允许提供者在适当的时候通知其家长并让他们参与治疗，但它没有赋予提供者未经未成年人授权就向其家长披露病历的权利。提供者只能在未成年人签名授权后才能向其家长披露未成年人的病历。

（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1）；民法；§§ 56.10, 56.11, 56.30；福利和机构守则§ 5328。请参阅尾注（exc）)

庇护所：尽管未成年人可能同意服务，但庇护所必须根据未成年人所提供的信息尽最大努力将服务内容通知其家长/监护人。

（家庭法§ 6924）

Edit

MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT    LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES4/ SHELTER SERVICES

4This section does not authorize a minor to receive inpatient psychiatric care, convulsive therapy, psychosurgery or psychotropic drugs on their own consent.

Two statutes give minors the right to consent to mental health treatment. If a minor meets the criteria under either statute, the minor may consent to his or her own treatment. If the minor meets the criteria under both, the provider may decide which statute to apply. There are differences between them. See endnote ** for more on these differences:

Family Code § 6924

“A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis or to residential shelter services, if both of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) The minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services. AND

(2) The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.” (Fam. Code § 6924.)

Health & Safety Code § 124260

“[A] minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to [outpatient] mental health treatment or counseling services if, in the opinion of the attending professional person, the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the mental health treatment or counseling services.” (Health & Saf. Code § 124260.)

MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT:

The health care provider is required to involve a parent or guardian in the minor’s treatment unless the health care provider decides that such involvement is inappropriate. This decision and any attempts to contact parents must be documented in the minor’s record. (Fam. Code § 6924; 45 C.F.R. 164.502(g)(3)(ii).) For services provided under Health and Safety Code § 124260, providers must consult with the minor before deciding whether to involve parents. (Health & Saf. Code § 124260(a).)

While this exception allows providers to inform and involve parents in treatment when appropriate, it does not give providers a right to disclose medical records to parents without the minor’s authorization. The provider can only share the minor’s medical records with parents with a signed authorization from the minor.

(Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11, 56.30; Welf. & Inst. Code § 5328. See also endnote(EXC).)

SHELTER: Although minor may consent to service, the shelter must use its best efforts based on information provided by the minor to notify parent/guardian of the provision of services. (Fam. Code § 6924.)

Edit

已满12岁的未成年可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

药物或酒精滥用治疗

•本节未授权未成年人在未经其家长或监护人同意的前提下，而接受替代麻醉品治疗。

•在其家长或监护人同意进行治疗的情况下，本节未授予未成年人拒绝就药物或酒精相关问题进行医疗和咨询的权利。 （家庭法 第6929（f）条）。

•家庭法第§6929(a)(2)条定义了“毒品或酒精”和“咨询”一词

已满12岁的未成年人可以同意就有关毒品或酒精相关问题的诊断和治疗进行医疗护理和咨询。（家庭法§6929(b)）联邦和州法律有着不同的保密规则。符合以下“联邦”中列出的条件的提供者必须遵守联邦法规。不符合这些条件的提供者则需要遵守州法律。

联邦：联邦保密法适用于符合以下两个条件的任何个人，项目或机构：

1.个人，项目或机构得到联邦政府的协助。 （联邦协助是指全部或部分由联邦政府的任何部门授权，认证，许可，支持或资助的。譬如：联邦，州或地方计划包括：免税；接受可抵税的捐款；接受任何联邦政府的运作资金，无论是否直接用于防治药物滥用计划；或已在注册）（联邦政府第42号法规§2.12）

以及 2. 个人或项目：

1）认为自身维系，并提供了药物使用障碍的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗的个人或实体（一般医疗机构除外）；或

2）普通医疗机构中已确定的单元，该单元维系并提供药物使用障碍的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗；或

3）普通医疗机构中主要职能是提供物质使用失常的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗的医务人员或其他人员，并被确定为提供者（联邦政府第42号法规§2.11及§2.12）

对于符合这些条件的个人或项目，联邦法律禁止在未得到未成年人书面同意的情况下向其家长披露任何信息。但是，有一个例外，如果项目主管确定该未成年服务申请者 1）由于非常年幼，极端的精神或身体状况而无法做出理性决定是否同意接受某项服务的能力，则允许将相关事实传达给家长。及 2）对未成年人或他人的生命或身体健康构成重大威胁，向其家长披露相关事实可以减轻这种威胁。（联邦政府第42号法规§2.14）

州法规：如上所述，针对家庭法 第6924条提供的“门诊心理健康服务”的相对应保密规则。(家庭法§ 6924) 请参阅尾注（exc）

Edit

MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT    LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE TREATMENT

• This section does not authorize a minor to receive replacement narcotic abuse treatment without the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian.

• This section does not grant a minor the right to refuse medical care and counseling for a drug or alcohol related problem when the minor’s parent or guardian consents for that treatment. (Fam. Code § 6929(f)).

• The terms “drug or alcohol” and “counseling” are defined in Fam. Code § 6929(a)(2).

“A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical care and counseling relating to the diagnosis and treatment of a drug or alcohol related problem.” (Fam. Code §6929(b)).There are different confidentiality rules under federal and state law. Providers meeting the criteria listed under ‘federal’ below must follow the federal rule. Providers that don’t meet these criteria follow state law.

FEDERAL: Federal confidentiality law applies to any individual, program, or facility that meets the following two criteria:

1. The individual, program, or facility is federally assisted. (Federally assisted means authorized, certified, licensed, supported or funded in whole or in part by any department of the federal government. Examples include federal, state or local programs that are: tax exempt; receiving tax-deductible donations; receiving any federal operating funds whether used directly for the substance use disorder program or not; or registered with Medicare) (42 C.F.R. §2.12);

AND

2. The individual or program is:

1. An individual or entity (other than a general medical facility) who holds itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment; or

2. An identified unit within a general medical facility that holds itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment; or

3. Medical personnel or other staff in a general medical facility whose primary function is the provision of substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment and who are identified as such providers. (42 C.F.R. §2.11; 42 C.F.R. §2.12).

For individuals or programs meeting these criteria, federal law prohibits disclosing any information to parents without a minor’s written consent. There is an exception, however, permitting the communication of relevant facts to the parents if the program director determines that a minor applicant for services 1) lacks capacity because of extreme youth or mental or physical condition to make a rational decision whether to consent to a disclosure to the parents AND 2) there is a substantial threat to the life or physical well-being of the minor applicant or another individual, and the disclosure of relevant facts to the parents may reduce that threat. (42 C.F.R. §2.14).

STATE RULE: Parallels confidentiality rule for “Outpatient Mental Health Services” provided under Family Code 6924, as described above. (Fam. Code §6929(c).) See also exception at endnote (EXC).

Edit

已满15岁的未成年法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

通用医疗保险“如果满足以下所有条件，则未成年人可以同意接受未成年人的医疗或牙科护理：（1）未成年人年龄已满15岁。 （2）未成年人与其家长或监护人分开居住，无论是否经过其家长或监护人的同意，并且与单独居住的时长无关。 （3）无论未成年人的收入来源如何，都在管理自身的收入。”

（家庭法 § 6922(a).）“如果未成年人患者同意，医师和外科医生或牙医可根据未成年人所提供的信息和监护人所在之处，向其家长或监护人告知所给予的或将需要的治疗。”（家庭法§ 6922(c)。请参阅尾注（exc））

Edit

MINORS 15 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER      LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

GENERAL MEDICAL

CARE

“A minor may consent to the minor’s medical care or dental care if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The minor is 15 years of age or older. (2) The minor is living separate and apart from the minor’s parents or guardian, whether with or without the consent of a parent or guardian and regardless of the duration of the separate residence. (3) The minor is managing the minor’s own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the minor’s income.” (Fam. Code § 6922(a).) “A physician and surgeon or dentist may, with or without the consent of the minor patient, advise the minor’s parent or guardian of the treatment given or needed if the physician and surgeon or dentist has reason to know, on the basis of the information given by the minor, the whereabouts of the parent or guardian.” (Fam. Code § 6922(c). See also exception at endnote (EXC)).

Edit

未成年人必须获得自由

(一般为14岁或以上)法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

 通用医疗独立生活的未成年人独立生活的未成年人可以同意接受医疗牙科或心理治疗。

（家庭法§ 7050(e)。关于“独立生活”的定义解析可以参见 家庭法§ 7002）未经未成年人同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。

（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1）；民法；§§ 56.10, 56.11)

Edit

MINOR MUST BE EMANCIPATED (GENERALLY 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER)LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

GENERAL MEDICAL

CARE for

EMANCIPATED YOUTH

An emancipated minor may consent to medical, dental and psychiatric care. (Fam. Code § 7050(e). See Fam. Code § 7002 for emancipation criteria.)

The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

如果标明出处，则可以复制此图表以供个人使用。

*保密和同意法律法规有许多。不同的规则适用于不同的情形。本图表说明了未成年人与其家长或监护人同住时适用的规则。它未解决未成年人在法院司法体系下或处于其他特殊生活状况时所适用的规则。此外，机密性部分重点关注家长和提供者的权限。它没有解释其他人或机构何时有权获取机密信息的问题。此图表仅提供法律信息，而并非法律建议。提供者应与他们自己的法律顾问探讨相关法律建议。

This chart may be reproduced for individual use if accompanied by an acknowledgement.

• There are many confidentiality and consent rules. Different rules apply in different contexts. This chart addresses the rules that apply when minors live with their parents or guardians. It does not address the rules that apply when minors are under court jurisdiction or in other special living situations. Further, the confidentiality section focuses on parent and provider access. It does not address when other people or agencies may have a right to access otherwise confidential information. This chart provides legal information, not advice. Providers are encouraged to speak to their own legal counsel for advice on application of these laws.

**除了资格标准略有不同外，《健康与安全法》第124260条和《家庭法》第6924条也有一些细微差别。例如，两项法律均允许“专业人士”提供未成年人同意服务，但两项法律对“专业人士”的定义有所不同。另外，有一项资金限制适用于健康和安全法规§124260，但不适用于家庭法规§6924。（参阅家庭法§ 6924，健康与安全法§124260和福利和机构守则§14029； 获取更多信息请参阅www.teenhealthlaw.org）

** In addition to having slightly different eligibility criteria, there are other small differences between Health and Safety Code §124260 and Family Code § 6924. For example, the two laws both allow “professional persons” to deliver minor consent services but the two laws define “professional person” differently. Also, there is a funding restriction that applies to Health and Safety Code §124260 but not to Family Code § 6924. (See Fam. Code § 6924, Health & Saf. Code § 124260 and Welf. & Inst. Code §14029.8 and look for more information on www.teenhealthlaw.org.).

EXC: 如果医疗保健提供者确定“对提供者与未成年人患者的专业关系或未成年人的身体安全或心理健康的影响，对[其家长或监护人]要求查询的患者信息，则提供者可以拒绝向未成年人家长提供病历，虽然通常情况下其家长有权获得这些信息。”健康与安全法§123115(a)(2)。对所作出获取未成年人记录有关的任何诚信决定，提供者不承担负责。同上。

EXC: Providers may refuse to provide parents access to a minor’s medical records, where a parent normally has a right to them, if “the health care provider determines that access to the patient records requested by the [parent or guardian] would have a detrimental effect on the provider’s professional relationship with the minor patient or the minor’s physical safety or psychological well-being.” Health & Saf. Code § 123115(a)(2). A provider shall not be liable for any good faith decisions concerning access to a minor’s records. Id.

Reference:

/files/ca-minor-consent-chart-2019.pdf

The Federal Election Commission (hereafter FEC) often receives questions about the rules governing foreign nationals’ participation in U.S. elections. While this article responds to some of the most common questions, it does not cover all aspects of foreign national activity. Readers should consult the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, advisory opinions, and relevant case law for additional information. For questions involving proposed activity for which there may not be clear guidance, you may consider requesting your own advisory opinion (AO) from the Commission. Please note, however, that the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to provisions of the Act and does not include other laws that may also apply to foreign national activity.

联邦选举委员会（以下简称"FEC"或本委员会）经常收到询问有关外国人参与美国选举的规则问题。尽管本文回答了一些最常见的问题，但并未涵盖涉及外国人活动的所有方面。读者应查阅《联邦选举法案》（法案）和本委员会制定的相关法规，咨询意见以及相关的判例法以获取更多信息。对于涉及拟议活动可能没有明确指导意见的问题，您可以考虑向本委员会提交个人的咨询意见（AO）。但是请注意，本委员会的管辖范围仅限于法案的规定内容，并不包括可能同样适用地其他的外国人活动法律。

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

法案和本委员会法规包括广泛禁止外国人活动参与到美国选举当中。主要由 《美国法典》§30121条，《美国联邦法规》第11 章第110.20条规定。通常，禁止外国人从事以下活动：

• Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;- 向任何联邦，州或地方各层级选举提供的任何金钱或其他有价值物的捐款或捐赠，或任何支出，独立支出或变相支付；- Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);- 向任何联邦，州，地区或地方政党的任何委员会或组织提供任何捐款或捐赠（包括对党派非联邦账户或办公大楼账户的捐赠）；- Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;- 向某个竞选传播通讯支付；- Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.- 向某总统就职委员会捐款。

Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

故意和主动从事上述这些活动的人可能会受到FEC强制措施，刑事起诉或两者兼而有之。

Definition

定义

The following groups and individuals are considered “foreign nationals” and are subject to the prohibition:

以下群体和个人被视为"外国人"，并受到禁止：

• Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
• 外国国籍公民（不包括具有双重国籍的美国公民）；
• Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
• 不具备永久居留权的非合法移民；
• Foreign governments;
• 外国政府；
• Foreign political parties;
• 外国政党；
• Foreign corporations;
• 外国公司；
• Foreign associations;
• 外国协会组织；
• Foreign partnerships; and
• 外国合伙机构；以及
• Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”
• 根据《美国法典》第22卷§611（b）条，所定义的任何其他外国组织，其中包括外国组织或"其他根据外国法律设立或主要营业地点位于国外的人员组合"。

Individuals: The “green card” exception

个人：“绿卡"例外

The Act does not prohibit individuals with permanent resident status (commonly referred to as “green card holders”) from making contributions or donations in connection with federal, state or local elections, as they are not considered foreign nationals.

法案不禁止具有永久居民身份的个人（通常称为"绿卡持有人”）向联邦，州或地方选举提供捐款或捐赠，因为他们不被视为外国人。

Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities

外国人参与和选举决策相关的活动

Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals from directing, dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process of any person (such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization) with regard to any election-related activities. Such activities include, the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with any federal or nonfederal elections in the United States, or decisions concerning the administration of any political committee. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from involvement in the management of a political committee, including any separate segregated fund (SSF), nonconnected committee, or the nonfederal accounts of any of these committees. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69946 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].

本委员会法规禁止外国人参与任何与选举有关的活动指导，指示，控制或直接或间接参与任何人（例如公司，劳工组织，政治委员会或政治组织）的决策过程。此类活动包括与美国任何联邦或非联邦选举有关的捐款，捐赠，支出或支付，或有关任何政治委员会的行政管理的决定。还禁止外国人参与政治委员会的管理，包括任何单独的独立基金（SSF），非关联委员会或这些委员会中任何一个的非联邦帐户。请参见11 CFR 110.20条款的解释和理由，联邦电子查询编号67 FR 69946（2002年11月19日发布）。

The Commission has pursued a number of enforcement actions related to this prohibition. For example, in Matter Under Review (MUR) 3460, the Commission reached a conciliation agreement with a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation and four of its foreign national directors. The directors, along with one director who was not a foreign national, passed a resolution authorizing a “contribution committee” to make political and charitable donations from a special account, and capitalizing the committee with $50,000 in corporate funds. The one director who was not a foreign national was appointed as the sole member of the committee. The contribution committee subsequently made contributions to state and local candidates. The foreign nationals’ involvement in the decision to establish and fund the “contribution committee” meant that its subsequent contributions violated the ban on foreign nationals participating directly or indirectly in the making of contributions and donations in connection with elections. The corporation and the foreign national directors paid a civil penalty.

本委员会已采取了与该禁令有关的许多强制措施。例如，在"正在审查的问题"（MUR）3460号中，本委员会与一家外国公司在美国的子公司及其四名外国人董事达成了调解协议。上述这些董事，其中一位并非外国人，通过了一项决议，授权"捐款委员会"从特别账户中进行政治和慈善捐赠，并以5万美元的公司资金为这个委员会提供资本。这位非外国人的董事被任命为捐款委员会的唯一成员。捐款委员会随后向州和地方候选人捐款。外国人参与建立"捐款委员会"并为其提供资金的决定意味着，其随后的捐款违反了禁止外国人直接或间接参与和选举有关的捐款和捐赠的禁令。这家公司及其外国人董事受到民事罚款。

Volunteer activity

志愿者活动

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

通常情况下，个人（包括外国人）可以在无任何捐款的前提下，自愿向某个联邦候选人或某联邦政治委员会提供个人服务。法案规定了对志愿者的"豁免"，只要执行服务的个人没有受到任何人的经济补偿即可。本委员会已经说明了这种豁免在某些情况下适用于涉及外国人志愿活动的情况，如下所述。

In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption. Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

在AO 2014-20（Make Your Laws PAC）中，本委员会得出结论认为，政治行动委员会可以接受外国人在为PAC开发知识产权（例如商标，图形和网站设计）方面的帮助，因为这些PAC所接受的服务属于志愿者豁免。同样，在AO 2004-26（Weller）中，本委员会认为，外国人可以在联邦候选人竞选的活动出席并发言，为竞选活动募集捐款。但是，委员会警示，外国人不能管理或参与竞选委员会的任何决策过程。另见AOs 2007-22（Hurysz）和1987-25（Otaola）。

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.

在MUR 5987中，委员会审查了一种情况，在该情况下，作为募捐活动的一部分，外国人作为联邦候选人竞选活动的志愿者提供了无偿的音乐演奏。候选人的竞选活动已经支付了举办音乐会的所有费用，包括场地和设备的租赁以及提供安全保障等。表演者只是向竞选活动提供了他的无偿志愿服务，而没有参加竞选活动的任何决策。基于这些事实，委员会发现没有理由相信外国人或联邦候选人委员会违反了法案对外国人的禁令。

Non-election activity by foreign nationals

外国人参与非竞选活动

Despite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels. The Commission has issued advisory opinions that help to define the parameters of that activity.

尽管普遍禁止外国人捐款和捐赠，但外国人可以合法地参与跟联邦，州或地方各级政治机构的选举无关的政治活动。委员会发表了此方面的咨询意见，以助于确定此类活动的界限。

In AO 1989-32 (McCarthy), the Commission concluded that a foreign national could not contribute to a ballot measure committee that had coordinated its efforts with a nonfederal candidate’s re-election campaign. Also, in AO 1984-41 (National Conservative Foundation), the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were permissible because they were not “election influencing” in that they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.

在AO 1989-32（McCarthy）中，委员会得出结论，外国人不可以向与非联邦候选人的连任竞选相关的投票提案委员会捐款。此外，在AO 1984-41（国家保守基金会）中，委员会允许外国人承销非政治性广告的播出，这些广告企图揭露所谓的媒体政治偏见。委员会发现这些广告是被允许的，因为它们没有"影响选举"-它们没有提及候选人，政治机构，政党，现任联邦公职人员或任何过去或将来的选举。

In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process-providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012).

在联邦最高法院后来确认的一项决定中，美国哥伦比亚特区地方联邦法院裁定，外国人禁令"不限制外国人大声疾呼或花钱宣传他们对政治问题的看法。它只限制他们从事与投票程序密切相关的某种形式的表达活动，即为候选人或政党提供资金或为明示地支持或反对候选人的选举提供资金。" Bluman诉FEC，案卷：800F。 2d 281，290（D.D.C. 2011），ff d 132 S. Ct，1087（2012）。

Providing assistance with foreign national election activity

向外国人选举提供帮助

Under Commission regulations, it is unlawful to knowingly provide “substantial assistance” to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. Further, no person may provide substantial assistance in the making of any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement by a foreign national. “Substantial assistance” refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69945-46 (November 19, 2002).

根据委员会规定，明知向美国大选提供捐款或捐赠的外国人做出"实质性协助"是非法的。此外，任何人都不得在外国人进行任何支出，独立支出或支出时提供实质性帮助。 “实质性协助"是指积极参与对外国人的捐赠或捐赠的募集，作出，接受或接收，其目的是促进交易的成功完成。该禁止包括但不限于充当渠道或中介的个人。请参阅67 FR 69945-46（2002年11月19日）的11 CFR 110.20的解释和理由。

Soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions and donations from foreign nationals

招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收外国人捐款和捐赠

The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, “knowingly” means that a person:

法案禁止在明知的情况下招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收外国人的捐款或捐赠。在这种情况下，“明知"是指一个人：

• Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;- 知道实际情况，招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收的资金来自外国人；

• Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national; or- 知道能让任何正常人确定，所招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收的资金可能来自外国人的事实；或- Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.- 知道会导致如何正常人质疑，所招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收资金来源是外国人的事实。

Pertinent facts that should cause the recipient of a contribution or donation to question whether it was given by a foreign national include, but are not limited to the following: a donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address, makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Commission regulations provide for a safe harbor: obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national.

可能使捐款或捐赠的接受者质疑是否是外国人所为的有关事实，包括但不限于以下情况：捐赠者或捐赠者使用外国护照，提供外国地址，从外国银行捐款，或居住在国外。本委员会的法规也规定了"安全港”（译者加注，英美法法律术语，即例外情况）：只要获得有效的美国护照副本，将满足这一责任，即问询所招募，接受或接收的资金是否来自外国人。

In AO 2016-10 (Parker), the Commission determined that a U.S. citizen living abroad could solicit contributions on behalf of federal candidates and committees from other U.S. citizens residing abroad. She was required to ascertain the citizenship of the individuals whom she might solicit if she were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire or believe that those individuals were foreign nationals. However, the Commission advised the requestor, “Limiting your solicitations to friends and family who live in the U.S. and who have not, to your knowledge, lived abroad, would not obligate you to conduct further inquiry about citizenship status due to the residence of the individuals whom you solicit.” If, however, she were to obtain a copy of a valid U.S. passport, she would be covered by the safe harbor provision noted above.

在AO 2016-10（Parker）中，委员会确定居住在国外的美国公民可以代表联邦候选人及其委员会向同样居住在国外的其他美国公民募集捐款。如果她知道有会导致正常人置疑或认为这些人是外国人的事实，那么她就被要求确认可能募集对象的公民身份。但是，委员会建议问询者：“将您的招募仅限于居住在美国的，且据您所知没有居住在国外的亲朋好友；由于招募对象的居住地，您没有义务进一步询问其公民身份。” 但是，如果她拥有有效的美国护照副本，则将受到上述安全港条款的保护。

In MUR 4834, an individual admitted knowingly and willfully soliciting a contribution from a foreign national and causing a foreign contribution to be made falsely in the name of a U.S. citizen. The individual also admitted that at the time of the solicitation, he knew that the person he was soliciting was a foreign national and that contributions from foreign nationals were prohibited. The Commission entered into a conciliation agreement with the individual, and he agreed to pay a civil penalty.

在MUR 4834中，某人故意并有意地招揽外国人，并错误地以美国公民的名义造成了外国捐款。此人还承认，在招揽时，他知道所招揽的人是外国人，且外国人捐款是被禁止的这一规定。因此委员会与此人达成了和解协议，他同意支付民事罚款。

In MUR 4638, the Commission found reason to believe that a law firm had violated the Act by knowingly solicited and provided “substantial assistance” to a foreign national making donations. Individuals at the firm participated in conversations with a known foreign national and his agents that resulted in his making donations to state and local candidates. As a result of the Commission’s finding, the firm entered into a conciliation agreement with the Commission and agreed to pay a civil penalty.

在MUR 4638中，委员会找到了理由，认为一家律师事务所故意招揽外国人并向其提供了"实质性协助”，从而违反了法案。律所的成员参与了和一位知名外国人及其代理人的沟通，从而使他向州和当地候选人捐款。根据委员会的调查结果，该律所与委员会达成了和解协议，并同意支付民事罚款。

Monitoring prohibited contributions

监管违禁捐款

When a federal political committee (a committee active in federal elections) receives a contribution it believes may be from a foreign national, it must:

当某个联邦政治委员会（即参与联邦选举的某委员会）收到其认为可能来自外国人的捐款时，必须：

• Return the contribution to the donor without depositing it; or- 不存入，将捐款交还给捐助者；或者- Deposit the contribution and take steps to determine its legality, as described below.- 存入捐款，并采取措施确定其合法性，下文将详述。

Either action must be taken within 10 days of the treasurer’s receipt.

上述任一选择必须在收到财务收据后的10天内采取行动。

If the committee decides to deposit the contribution, the treasurer must make sure that the funds are not spent because they may have to be refunded. Additionally, he or she must maintain a written record explaining why the contribution may be prohibited. The legality of the contribution must be confirmed within 30 days of the treasurer’s receipt, or the committee must issue a refund.

如果该委员会决定将捐款存入银行，则财务主管必须确保资金不被使用，因为可能必须将其退还。此外，他（她）必须保存相关书面记录，以用于解释此捐款为何被禁止。捐款的合法性必须在收到财务收据的30天内得以确认，否则该委员会必须退款。

Evidence of legality may include a written statement from the contributor explaining why the contribution is legal (e.g., donor has a green card or provides a copy of his or her valid U.S. passport), or an oral explanation that is recorded in memorandum.

合法性的证据可以包括捐赠者的书面陈述，以解释此捐款为何是合法的（例如，捐款者持有绿卡或提供其有效的美国护照副本），或记录在备忘录中的口头解释。

If the committee deposits a contribution that appears to be legal, but later discovers that the deposited contribution is from a foreign national, it must refund the contribution within 30 days of making the discovery. If a committee lacks sufficient funds to make a refund when a prohibited contribution is discovered, it must use the next funds it receives.

如果委员会存入看似合法的捐款，但后来发现存入的捐款来自外国人，则必须在发现后30天内退还这笔捐款。如果委员会在发现违禁捐款时缺乏足够的资金来退款，则必须使用收到的下一笔资金来填补。

In MUR 4530 and several related MURs (MURs 4531, 4587, 4642, 4909, and 5295), the Commission found that several foreign nationals and corporations had made prohibited contributions to a federal candidate committee and to a national party committee. Several committees were assessed civil penalties for failing to issue refunds when they became aware that the funds were illegal.

在MUR 4530和几个相关的MUR（MUR 4531、4587、4642、4909和5295）中，本委员会发现，一些外国人和公司已经向联邦候选人委员会和全国性政党委员会违禁捐款。某些委员会因得知资金不合法而未能退款，最终受到民事处罚。

Domestic subsidiaries and foreign-owned corporations

本土分支机构和外资公司

A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation or a U.S. corporation that is owned by foreign nationals or by a foreign parent corporation may be subject to the prohibition, as discussed further below.

外国人或外国母公司拥有的美国分支机构，或外国母公司的美国子公司可能会受到禁止，如下所述。

PAC contributions for federal activity

向PAC联邦活动捐款

Based on a series of FEC advisory opinions, domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations may establish federal political action committees (known as separate segregated funds or SSFs) for the purpose of make federal contributions and expenditures, so long as:

根据一系列FEC咨询意见，外国公司的美国国内子公司可以建立联邦政治行动委员会（称为分离的独立基金或SSF），以进行联邦捐款和支出，只要满足：

• The foreign parent corporation does not finance the SSF’s establishment, administration, or solicitation costs through the subsidiary; and- Individual foreign nationals:- Do not participate in the operation of the PAC;- Do not serve as officers of the PAC;- Do not participate in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; and- Do not make decisions regarding any PAC contributions or expenditures.

1.外国母公司不涉及资助子公司的SSF设立，管理或招标费用；和

2.外籍个人：

•不参与PAC的运营；

•不担任PAC的管理人员；

•不参与PAC的人员任用选择；和

•不对PAC的任何捐款或支出做出决定。

For example, in AO 2000-17 (Extendicare), the Commission determined that a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation could establish an SSF even though the subsidiary’s board of three directors included only one U.S. citizen because the committee established to oversee all of the SSF’s operations comprised only U.S. citizens or permanent residents. See also AOs 2009-14 (Mercedes Benz USA/Sterling), 1999-28 (Bacardi-Martini), 1995-15 (Allison Engine PAC), and 1990-08 (CIT).

例如，在AO 2000-17（Extendicare）中，本委员会确定外国公司的美国子公司可以建立SSF，即便该子公司的三名董事仅包括一名美国公民，因为此委员会成立后负责监督SSF所有工作的，满足完全由美国公民或永久居民构成。另请参见AOs 2009-14（梅赛德斯奔驰美国/斯特林），1999-28（百加得-马蒂尼），1995-15（艾里逊发动机PAC）和1990-08（CIT）。

Corporate donations and disbursements for nonfederal activity

向非联邦活动的公司捐赠和支出

A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may make donations and disbursements in connection with state or local elections (if permissible under state and local law) provided that:

外国公司的国内子公司（或外国人拥有的国内公司）可以向州或地方选举（如果州和地方的当地法律允许）进行捐赠和支出：

• These activities are not financed in any part by the foreign parent or owner; and- 这些活动的任何部分都不由外国母公司或所有者资助；- Individual foreign nationals are not involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.- 外国个人不以任何方式参与对非联邦候选人和委员会的捐赠。

For example, in AO 2006-15 (TransCanada), the Commission concluded that two wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries of a foreign corporation could make donations and disbursements in connection with state and local elections so long as the funds used were generated by the U.S.-based subsidiary’s operations and not from the foreign parent and that all decisions regarding political donations would be made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Since the domestic subsidiaries maintained bank accounts in the U.S. that were separate from the foreign parent and did not receive subsidies from the foreign parent or from any other foreign national, the Commission concluded that the proposal was permitted under the Act.

例如，在AO 2006-15（TransCanada）中，委员会得出结论，外国公司的两家全资美国子公司可以向州和地方选举进行捐赠和支出，只要所用资金是由美国本土分支机构的业务所赚取，而不是来自外国母公司的业务，且所有有关政治捐赠的决定都由美国公民或永久居民做出。由于国内子公司在美国开设的银行账户是与外国母公司的分开的，并且没有收到外国母公司或任何其他外国人的补贴，因此本委员会得出结论认为，法案允许该计划落实。

Similarly, in AO 1992-16 (Nansay Hawaii, Inc.), the Commission considered a situation in which a foreign parent corporation provided “regular subsidies [to its domestic subsidiary] in the form of loans or [donations] to capital…” The Commission determined that the domestic subsidiary could make state and local donations, provided that all decisions as to political donations were made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents and also that the subsidiary be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that it had sufficient funds in its account (other than funds given or loaned by its foreign national parent) from which the donations were made. The Commission explicitly cautioned that, “[t]he amount that the foreign parent distributes to the subsidiary cannot replenish all or any portion of the subsidiary’s political [donations] during the period since the preceding subsidy payment.”

与此相似，在AO 1992-16（Nansay Hawaii，Inc.）中，委员会审议了一种情况，一家外国母公司以"贷款或[捐赠]形式 [向其美国国内子公司]的"常规补贴"……"。本委员会确定该国内子公司可以进行州和地方捐赠，但前提是所有有关政治捐赠的决定均由美国公民或永久居民做出，并且该子公司能够通过合理的会计方法证明其捐款帐户（由其外国母公司提供或借出的资金除外）拥有足够的资金。委员会明确警示：“自上次补贴付款以来，外国母公司分配给子公司的金额不能用于补充子公司的全部或任何部分政治捐款。”

In contrast, in AO 1989-20 (Kuilima Development Company, Inc.), the Commission declined to approve a U.S. company’s plan to donate to state and local candidates using a funded primarily by donations from its foreign parent corporation. The Commission held that this arrangement was prohibited by the Act and Commission regulations. See also AOs 1989-29 (GEM of Hawaii, Inc.), 1985-03 (Diridon), and 1982-10 (Syntex).

相反，在AO 1989-20（Kuilima Development Company，Inc.）中，委员会拒绝批准一家美国公司使用主要由其外国母公司捐赠的资金向州和当地候选人捐款的计划。委员会认为法案和委员会法规禁止这种安排。请参见AO 1989-29（Hawaii，Inc。），1985-03（Diridon）和1982-10（Syntex）。

In MUR 2892, the Commission entered into conciliation agreements with a number of respondents, including foreign individuals and businesses, who agreed to pay civil penalties for violations of the Act that involved prohibited contributions made to state and local candidates through U.S. corporations owned by foreign corporations or by foreign individuals. In this particular case, the Commission found reason to believe that the donations in question violated the foreign national prohibition because they were allegedly financed directly by the foreign parent/owner or because individual foreign nationals were allegedly involved in making decisions concerning the contributions. (See also MURs 2864 and 3004.)

在MUR 2892中，委员会与包括外国个人和企业在内的许多调查对象达成了和解协议，涉及通过外国公司拥有的美国公司向州和地方候选人提供了禁止性捐款。或由外国个人提供，他们同意因违反法案而受到民事处罚。在这种特殊情况下，本委员会有理由认为，有关捐款违反了外国人禁令，因为这些所谓捐款是直接由外国父母/所有者出资的，或者是所谓的外国人参与了有关捐款的决定。 （另请参见MUR 2864和3004。）

选举季节马上到了，华人参政议政很是热闹，今年加州选举有不少公投 (ballot measure)。不少朋友或者组织有计划或者已经捐款。 不过加州对竞选/公投的捐款管理十分严格，有必要大家一起探讨相关法规的常识性知识。本文抛砖引玉，信息有误不负担任何法律责任。真正的实施，涉及更多的每年都变化的细节，也涉及联邦IRS的规则，一定要询问/雇佣专业人士，包括 compaign lawyer, compaign treasurer, tax advisor等。

1. 捐款人资格和信息

先看最简单的法律要求：政治捐款必须是美国公民或者绿卡持有者。

竞选活动不得征集或接受外国人的捐款。联邦法律禁止外国人因任何选举（联邦，州或地方）而直接或间接征求，指示，接受或作出的捐款，捐赠，支出和支出。

信息来源： https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

对于超过25美元的捐款，需要：

• 姓名，- 街道地址（不接受邮政信箱），- 捐款额，- 收到的日期。

$100或者以上的，除了上面的信息，必须额外提供捐赠者的：

• 职业和雇主信息， 或自雇人士的公司名称。

2. FPPC 对政治捐款资金归类管理总的流程图

加州政府管理竞选活动，包括资金的部门是Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC or 公平政治实践委员会)， 官网是http://www.fppc.ca.gov/ 。 当加州选民通过《政治改革法/ Political Reform》时​​，他们同时创建了FPPC，以管理和执行具有里程碑意义的道德法，并告知和协助公职人员，雇员和候选人遵守其规定。

加利福尼亚的《政治改革法案》（“该法案”）的目的是确保政治付款的披露是准确，及时的，并且是在透明的方式，清晰准确的披露。做出决定的选民知道谁在为政治信息付费，这样他们就可以评估内容并在投票箱中做出明智的决定。

具体而言，该法案赋予FPPC权力以通过，修改和废除规则和法规以实现该法案的目的。除了解释和执行该法案外，FPPC还致力于提供最新信息和有用的协助以鼓励遵守。

从流程图看，给公投的捐钱，花钱的可以是个人，商业，或者各种组织。

涉及的钱有两大类：

• 自己的钱（ own fund）, 这个又有如下细分的情况：- 自己直接花出去，打政治广告，制作标语等等：这叫independent expenditures 独立支出。- 1千-5万之间需要作为Independent Expenditure Committee 申报- 捐给其他人: Contribution- 一万以内，没有特殊加州申报的要求，只填写基本的捐款人信息- 1万-5万之间，需要作为Major Donor Committee申报- 5万 和以上，需要作为Recipient Committee 注册和申报- 募捐别人的钱（ solicitation）：- 任何组织个人为了影响公投要募捐（收集别人的钱），$2000和以上就要在加州作为recipient commitee 注册，申报。

记住下面三个最重要的规则和数据： 包括州或地方政府机构在内的任何人，只要有下列任何行为，即有资格成为委员会（Committee）：

• 接受$ 2,000或更多的捐款，明确针对候选人选举或者公投提案的结果。- 进行$ 1,000或以上的独立支出。- 捐款$ 10,000以上。

3. 独立支出委员会: $1,000

我们看看门槛最低的1000美元的独立支出委员会 （Independent Expenditures Committee）的规则和实例。

第一个要点是理解什么是 Independent Expenditure.

An “independent expenditure” is a payment for a communication that

• expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified California state or local candidate or- the qualification, passage, or defeat of a clearly identified state or local ballot measure, and the communication is not coordinated with or “made at the behest” of the affected candidate or committee.

“独立支出”是对通讯的一种付款，该通讯:

• 明确提倡选举或击败一个明确确定的加利福尼亚州或地方候选人，或者- 提倡某提案是否满足投票的资格，通过或击败一个明确确定的州或地方公投提案，- 而该通信并未与受影响的候选人或公投委员会协调或“应其要求”。

Express Advocacy 明确提倡：

• 用了  “vote for,” “elect,” “cast your ballot,” or “defeat.”等明白的词汇- 通讯总体上明确识别的候选人或 投票提案，督促一个特定的选举结果。

个人独立支出的实例：  五月，桑德拉（Sandra） 花了1,200美元购买了 包含以下内容的直接邮件声明: “不要投票给A提案。” 桑德拉（Sandra）个人作主，她自己支付 邮寄的资金， 超过1000元，符合作为独立支出委员会的申报条件。

公司独立支出的实例： 10月，MBI 开发公司 支付了一系列 自动电话 呼吁南部的选民 说“投票给史密斯做加利福尼亚州长。” 这个公司作为法人， 独立于 候选人自己的委员会做出的决定，付费 $ 12,000 通话费用。这个公司符合按 独立支出委员会的资格进行申报。

几个人筹钱的实例： 几个人捐款筹钱，总和资金超过2,000美元，用于政治活动。他们准备雇顾问在报纸上打广告，让选民在公投C提案上投赞成票。在这个例子中，广告可能是独立支出。 但是因为个人集中资金打广告，小组应该作为Recipient Committee（接收委员会） 注册申报来反对这项提案。

独立支出委员会需要提交的申报表格：

• Form 461 (Major Donor/Independent Expenditure Report). 该表格主要列出- 捐款人（或者组织）的信息，- 已经捐款（或者支出）的明细列表。- Form 462 (Verification of Independent Expenditures), 此验证表- 确保独立支出委员会的一个负责人- 如果有的话，需要填上 FPPC ID- 确保未与所列候选人（或反对者）或公投委员会进行协调，- 并确保该委员会将报告法律要求的所有捐款和报销。独立支出不受州或地方捐款限额的限制。- 表中明确列出支持/反对的候选人，或者公投议案- Form 496 (24-Hour/10-Day Independent Expenditure Report)- 在选举日之前的90天之内，包括选举日当天，每次独立支出达到1000或者更多的时候，24小时之内提交本表格，列出支出明细，- 选举日之前的90天之外，独立支出$5000或者更多的时候，需要电子申报支出明细。

总得来说独立支出委员会申报的要求比报税的难度低很多，基本就是提供委员会信息，支出明细。独立支出委员会每年结束的时候自动终止。不需要特别加州申报结束。

4. 主要捐助者委员会：$10,000-50,000

主要捐助者委员会是个人或实体（例如公司，公司，业务或独资经营）在一个日历年中，给州或地方候选人，投票提案委员会或其他委员会（包括政党和政治行动委员会）总计10,000美元，或更多。主要捐助者委员会自己不收政治捐款，而是使用自有资金捐款。

个人的实例：

• 去年，Marge用她的个人资金共计捐款10,000美元给两个州候选人，地方投票委员会，以及其他候选人。她有资格成为主要捐助者，并有报告义务。- 今年，Marge仅向候选人和委员会捐了8000。玛格（Marge）没有资格成为主要捐助者，因此没有招致报告义务。

申报的表格：

• Form 461 (Major Donor Report), 该表格主要列出- 捐款人（或者组织）的信息，- 已经捐款（或者支出）的明细列表。- Form 497 (24-Hour/10-Day Contribution Report),该表格捐款人 (Major Donor Committee)和收款人（Recipient committee）通用。- 选举日之前90天到选举日之间：捐款或者收款1000或者更多，需要填写此表申报明细- 选举日到之前90天之外区间：收款5000或者更多，填写申报- 其他任何时候，接收委员会捐赠$5000或者更多给其他委员会- the advertisement disclosure requirements.

主要捐助者委员会的申报更简单，就是如实提供捐助者信息和捐助的明细。该委员会也是每年年底自动终止，不需要特别申请解散。

5. 捐助接收委员会: $2,000

如果个人或实体在一个日历年内收到总计2,000美元或更多的捐款，用于与加利福尼亚州候选人或投票措施有关的捐款或独立支出，则组成捐助接收委员会（Recipient Committee），并且适用不同的报告方法。

这包括两个或两个以上的个人或实体为单次通信分别支付总计2,000美元或更多的款项的情况，他们也有资格成为接收者委员会。

选票措施委员会（公投委员会）是指在一个日历年中，因一项或多项选票措施的资格，通过或失败， 而收到2,000美元或以上捐款的任何个人或团体。需要提交 Form 410  Statement of Organization- Recipient Committee。

Recipient committee根据影响选举的通用性，分为

• General Purpose Committee “通用目的投票措施委员会”: 用于多个候选人，多个公投议案的支出，一般用于想长期存在的组织。- State genernal purpose commitee: 用于州级选举和公投，也用途多个县的选举- County genernal purpose commitee： 用于一个县的选举- City general purpose committee: 只用于一个城市的选举- Primarily Formed Committee： 用于少数几个候选人，公投议案的支出，一般过了选举季节就停掉.- Primarily-formed ballot measure committee:  如果设立委员会是为了进行主要竞选以支持或反对同一选举中的一项或两项以上的措施；或委员会将其捐款和支出总额的70％以上用于支持或反对在同一次选举中投票通过的一项或两项或多项措施。则为“主要成立的投票措施委员会”。

如果候选人（或其代表）对委员会的行动或决定有重大影响，则该委员会为“候选人控制的选票措施委员会”。

某些多用途组织（例如，非营利组织）可能有资格担任投票表决委员会。

接收委员会必须加州注册，用 Form 410， 注册完成后获得 committee ID (FPPC id#)

• 提供委员会名字，地址等联系信息- 必须有专职的Treasurer- 专用的银行账号信息- 委员会的类型

如何建立/终止一个捐款接收委员会：

• 在一个日历年内收到的捐款总额达到或超过$ 2,000的任何人或个人组合，必须成立一个委员会。- 在达到合格门槛的10天内或如果符合以下任何条件，则在24小时内提交组织声明（Form 410）：- 在选举前的16天内达到2,000美元的门槛；要么- 如果委员会在选举前的90天内符合资格，并且委员会在该选举中花费了$ 1,000或更多的独立支出来支持或反对候选人。

• 通过邮件向州务卿（Secretary of State: SOS）提交原始文件，并收取50美元的注册费- 每年1月15日之前向SOS支付50美元的费用，直到委员会终止。

委员会在具备以下条件后可终止其委员会的工作：

• 停止收缴会费和支出；
• 预计将来不会收到捐款或支出；
• 消除或已宣布无意或无力偿还其所有债务，已收贷款和其他义务；
• 没有剩余资金；和
• 提交所有必需的竞选声明，披露所有可报告的交易。
• 建议关闭银行帐户，但并非必须如此。

要终止接收委员会，必须执行以下操作：

• 提交FPPC表格410，选中“终止”框并添加“终止日期”。- 向州务卿提交原始文件，并向道德委员会提交一份副本。- 以电子方式向道德委员会提交FPPC 460终止声明。

6. Treasurers 财务主管

每个委员会必须有一个财务主管：

• 财务主管必须完成所需的培训，除非该培训在最近12个月内完成。- 建立档案保管制度- 确保记录收支。- 亲自准备竞选陈述或仔细检查他人编写的竞选陈述。- 验证并签署竞选声明。- 按时提交报表，避免滞纳金。- 遵守适用法律– 财务主任应对违反其委员会的竞选财务行为承担个人责任。

委员会财务主管可能要承担的个人责任：

罚款滞纳金：

• 纸质申报: 每天10美元- 电子申报: 每天25美元

处罚：

• 未能提交要求的和准确的竞选报告可能会受到民事，刑事和行政处分，每次违法行为最高可被罚款$ 5,000和/或监禁6个月。

哪里去找财务主管？

• https://netfile.com  是电子化选举投票相关的组织和财务申报的网上平台，上面有公开的历年的公共数据，包括申报表格。可以搜索表格，找出各个委员会雇佣的财务主管的信息- http://cpta.info/directory  the California Political Treasurers Association , 加州政治财务主管协会，列出的会员名单

7. 剩余的捐款咋办？

为支持或反对一项措施而成立的接收委员有时持有的多余资金。 在选票上出现该措施的选举后的选举后报告期结束时，竞选帐户中剩余的资金为盈余资金，并且必须用于：

• 用于支付与委员会有关的未付账单，包括未付债务或应计账款，簿记，法律费用，竞选声明的准备和审计；
• 返回贡献者（后进先出）；
• 捐赠给慈善组织；
• 其他。。

更多信息看加州法律原文：

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-government-code/title-9-political-reform/chapter-95-ethics/article-4-campaign-funds/section-89519-surplus-campaign-funds

8. 非盈利或者其他多用途组织

这里说的非盈利组织可以是501c3, c4。 上面的各种申报法规都适用。特殊说一下资金来源：

• General Treasury Funds:  非营利组织或其他用途的组织经常因为非政治目的接受捐款或其他付款（例如会费），这种资金算通用资金，可以用于加州公投选举支出 （注意：501c3不能影响候选人，但是可以有限制的影响公投）- Non-Donor Funds： 非捐助的资金，例如利息收入，销售收入- 明确接受捐款用于选战: 2000或者以上：作为捐款接收委员会注册和申报

独立支出:

• 1,000- 50,000， 作为独立支出委员会注册和申报。- 50，000以上：作为捐款接收委员会注册和申报

9. 结论

加州对竞选涉及的资金有严格的申报管理制度。本文只涉及最粗浅的常识性信息,实际的细节很多，包括IRS对非盈利组织影响立法的规则和限制。真正的实施，涉及更多的每年都变化的细节，也涉及联邦IRS的规则，一定要询问/雇佣专业人士，包括 compaign lawyer, compaign treasurer, tax advisor等。

再次提醒记住下面三个最重要的规则和数据： 包括州或地方政府机构在内的任何人，只要有下列任何行为，即有资格成为委员会（Committee）：

• 接受 $ 2,000或更多的捐款。- 进行 $ 1,000或以上的独立支出, 明确针对候选人选举或者公投提案，倡导一种结果。- 捐款 $ 10,000以上。

10. 参考网址

• http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn.html 最权威的管理竞选的官方法规的学习资源

California Election Integrity in Jeopardy With Vote-by-Mail Ballots to Every Voter

随着向每位选民邮寄选票，加州选举的廉正性受到威胁

13 California counties now have more registered voters than eligible citizens

加州13个县目前登记的选民多于有资格的公民**

‘Regular people, regardless of party affiliation, they really do want fair and honest elections.’

***‘***普通人，无论其政党归属，他们的确真的想要公平和诚实的选举。’

The Election Integrity Project California is warning that an all-vote-by-mail ballot election in the state and the state’s largest cities, means hundreds of thousands of likely deceased or relocated could “receive” ballots; thousands of duplicated voters would be mailed two or more ballots.

加州选举廉正项目(EIP)正在警告州和州里最大城市的完全邮寄投票选举意味着几十万可能已经去世或搬家的人会“收到”选票；两份或更多份选票会邮寄给数千名重复选民。

EIP says the entire state has bloated voter lists so this problem will be even worse if state lawmakers pass legislation to mandate mail ballots to all Californians.

EIP说整个州都膨胀了选民名单，因此如果州立法者通过立法规定邮寄选票给所有加州人，那么这个问题将会更加严重。（ 编者注：因为 COVID-19, 已经通过了这种法律。)

“In fact, we are about to publish that 13 counties now have more registered voters than eligible citizens, as of Feb 18, 2020,” EIPCa’s chief analyst, Ellen Swensen told California Globe.

“事实上，我们将要发布的信息是，截止于2020年2月18日，13个县现在登记的选民多于有资格的公民，” EIPCa的首席分析员Ellen Swensen告诉加州环球。

“Los Angeles County debuted a new voting system in the March 3 election, and it was plagued with problems,” EIP said. “Unreliable connections with the state voter database, inadequately trained election workers and new machines that broke down created long lines and voter frustration.”

“洛杉矶县在3月3日的选举中首次使用了一个新的投票系统，而它饱受问题的困扰，” EIP说到。“与州选民数据库不可靠的连接、培训不足的选举工作人员以及出故障的新机器造成了排长队和选民的懊恼。”

“Many reportedly gave up and did not vote. In a questionable response to these problems, California’s Secretary of State (SOS) Alex Padilla directed county Registrar Dean Logan to mail a vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot to every Los Angeles County registrant for the November 2020 election.”

“据报道许多人放弃了，没有投票。作为对这些问题的令人质疑的回应，加州州务卿（SOS）Alex Padilla指示县登记员Dean Logan通过邮件寄出邮寄投票（VBM）选票给每一位洛杉矶县的登记者用以2020年11月大选。”

In addition to the California voter rolls filled with ineligible voters, Fox News recently reported that a 62-year-old man pleaded guilty in Feb., to a large-scale, illegal “ballot harvesting” scheme to pay homeless people living on Los Angeles’ infamous Skid Row to forge hundreds of signatures on ballot petitions and voter registration forms, during the 2016 and 2018 election cycles. The man was sentenced to one year in county jail and 100 hours of community service.  Eight other faces various charges affiliated with this scheme.

除了满是无资格选民的加州选民名单外，Fox新闻最近报道了一名62岁男子在2月承认进行了一个大规模的非法“投票采集”骗局的罪名，他在2016年和2018年选举期间支付住在洛杉矶臭名昭著的Skid Row的流浪汉以在投票请愿书和选民登记表上伪造数百个签名。该男子被判处入县监狱一年徒刑和100小时的社区服务。其他8人面临和该骗局有关的多种指控。

According to EIPCa:

据EIPCa称：

• Los Angeles County has 206,728 registrants who have not voted or updated their registrations since November 2008 or before. Though they have not voted in more than a decade and may have died or relocated, these 206,728 registrants are still listed as “active” voters and would be mailed VBM ballots. This means hundreds of thousands of VBM ballots will be mailed to potentially ineligible voters, which will open the door to unlawful voting. The risk is increased because California law allows anyone to gather and deliver these ballots to the officials.

洛杉矶县有206,728名登记者，他们自从2008年11月或更早就没有投过票或更新过他们的登记。虽然他们十多年里都没有投过票并且可能已去世或搬家，这206,728名登记者仍然被列为“活跃”选民，并会在邮件里收到VBM选票。这意味着几十万份VBM选票将被邮寄给可能无资格的选民，这将带来非法投票。因为加州法律允许任何人都可以收集并把这些选票交付给官员，这增大了该风险。

• Los Angeles County has 8,158 persons who have TWO active voter registrations in their names. These persons will each be mailed two VBM ballots. Persons receiving two VBM ballots can easily vote twice undetected, since the system has them documented as two different registrants.

洛杉矶县有8,158人，在其名下有两个活跃的选民登记。这些人每人都会在邮件里收到两份VBM选票。收到两份VBM选票的人可以轻易地投两次票而不被查出，因为系统已经把他们记为两名不同的登记者。

How does the Election Integrity Project know this?

选举廉正项目是如何知道此事的？

Election Integrity Project, California Inc. purchased the VoteCal voter registration and voting history files on February 18, 2020. In its initial review of the data, EIPCa identified significant list maintenance deficiencies in Los Angeles (LA) County. The purpose of this letter is to alert you both to these deficiencies as LA County considers the Secretary’s direction to send vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots to all active registrants in the November 2020 election.

加州选举廉正项目公司在2020年2月18日购买了VoteCal选民登记和投票历史文件。在其对数据的首次复审中，EIPCa找出了洛杉矶（LA）县在名单维护上有显著的不足。这封信的目的是警告你们两位有这些不足，当时LA县在考虑州务卿的指示在2020年11月大选中把邮寄投票（VBM）选票发送给所有活跃登记者。

In a March 9, 2020 letter to Sec.of State Alex Padilla and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, EIPCa enumerated their findings:

在2020年3月9日给州务卿Alex Padilla和洛杉矶县登记员-记录员以及县政官员Dean Logan的信里，EIPCa列举了他们的调查发现：

• LA Finding # 1: “No Show” Registrants LA County currently has 206,728 registrants who have not voted or updated their registrations since November 2008 or prior. Though they have likely died or relocated, these “no show” registrants remain in active status and will be mailed VBM ballots in November if the county mails ballots to every active registrant. 1,486 are over 100 years old and 117,500 have no record of ever having voted, yet they remain on the active file list.

LA调查发现第1点：“不出席”登记者 LA县目前有206,728名登记者，他们自从2008年11月或更早就没有投过票或更新过他们的登记。虽然他们可能已经去世或搬家，这些“不出席”登记者仍然保留活跃状态，如果县邮寄选票给每一位活跃登记者，那么他们在11月会在邮件里收到VBM选票。1486人超过100岁，而117,500人从未有投票记录，但是他们仍然留在活跃文件名单上。

Making matters even more concerning, EIPCa co-founder Linda Paine said in a California Globe interview last March 2019, the California Legislature has taken the in-depth reports provided by the Election Integrity Project documenting election weaknesses, and used the information to pass legislation enshrining ways to compromise elections. However, Paine said California Republicans ignored the warnings and patterns. “It’s like a Trojan Horse,” Paine said. “They are using it to put progressives in every office from dog catcher on up.”

让事态更加令人担忧的是，EIPCa联合创始人Linda Paine在2019年3月的一次加州环球访谈中说到，加州议会收下了选举廉正项目提供的记录选举弱点的深度报告，并利用这些信息通过了立法，正式写进了使选举陷入危险的方式。然而，Paine说加州共和党人忽略了这些警告和模式。“这就像特洛伊木马，” Paine说。“他们利用它把进步人士安置在每一个办公室里，从捕狗者起一直到上层。”

Paine said California is no longer functioning like a Republic – “it’s more like an oligarchy at every jurisdiction and in every county.” However, Paine promised, “We are moving heaven and hell, with or without the California Legislature.”

Paine说加州不再像共和国一样运转——“它在每个司法管辖区和每个县级别上都更像寡头政体。” 然而Paine保证，“无论有没有加州议会，我们都会竭尽全力。”

Getting back to 2020, EIPCa recommends that LA county mail all “no show” registrants a card under NVRA Section 8(d)(2) and inactivate these registrants while the county researches their respective eligibility. Though an inactivated “no show” will not be mailed a VBM ballot, he/she but can still vote in person while on the inactive list.

回到2020年上，EIPCa建议LA县依据NVRA第8(d)(2)章给所有“不出席”登记者邮寄卡片并撤销这些登记者，同时调查他们相应的资格。尽管不会邮寄VBM选票给被撤销的“不出席”者，他/她在列于撤销名单的同时仍然可以亲自前往投票。

• LA Finding #2: Duplicated Registrations— LA County has 10,556 registrants who appear to be registered to vote more than once. Of these, 21 appear to be registered three times. Each occurrence entails two or more registrations under the same name, same/similar birthdate and same address. Suspected duplicates living at differing addresses in the county have additional matching criteria such as email, phone number or mailing address. Persons who appear to be registered under both married and maiden names are included, while likely twins are excluded. The DMV voter registration system appears to be the source of many duplicated voter registrations. Data errors also contribute (misspellings, spacing mistakes, flipped names (e.g., John Smith, Smith John), flipped birthdates (e.g., 2/4/57, 4/2/57)).

LA调查发现第2点：重复登记——LA县有10556名似乎登记投票超过一次的登记者。在这些人当中，21人似乎登记了三次。每次都包含了在同一姓名、相同/类似生日和相同地址之下的两个或更多登记。住在县里不同地址的疑似重复者有额外的匹配标准，例如电子邮件、电话号码或邮政地址。似乎用婚后和婚前姓名都登记的人被包括在内，而可能是双胞胎的人被排除在外。DMV选民登记系统似乎是许多重复选民登记的来源。数据错误也是一个原因（错拼、字距错误、姓和名颠倒（例如，John Smith，Smith John）、生辰月日颠倒（例如，2/4/57，4/2/57））。

• LA Finding #3: Duplicate Registrants with Matching EMS IDs — Of the 10,556 suspected duplicates, 324 have different VoteCal Registration IDs but matching county EMS IDs. Matching EMS IDs should make it easy for the county and state to identify and merge these duplicates, yet they remain on the VoteCal file as two distinct active-status registrations for each person.

LA调查发现第3点：有匹配EMS ID的重复登记者— 在10556名疑似重复者中，324人有不同的VoteCal登记ID，但有匹配的县EMS ID。匹配的EMS ID应该让县和州发现及合并这些重复者变得容易，但他们仍以每个人有两个不同的活跃状态登记保留在VoteCal文件中。

• LA Finding #4: Duplicated Registrants to Receive 2+ VBM Ballots — If LA County mails ballots to all active registrants in November, 8,158 of the duplicated registrants will each be mailed two VBM ballots and five will be mailed three VBM ballots. This is because they have two or three active-status registrations each. Persons receiving more than one VBM ballot can easily vote more than once undetected, since the system has them documented as different registrants.

LA调查发现第4点：重复登记者将收到两份以上VBM选票 — 如果LA县在11月邮寄选票给所有活跃登记者，那么8158名重复登记者将每人在邮件里收到两份VBM选票，而5人将在邮件里收到三份VBM选票。 这是因为他们每人有两个或三个活跃状态的登记。收到超过一份VBM选票的人可以轻易地投超过一次票而不被查出，因为系统把他们记为不同的登记者。

• LA Finding #5- Possible Double Voting — The data show that 1,300 LA County duplicate registrants have already voted more than once in at least one election. This may be actual double voting, accidental duplication of voting histories, or some of both. VoteCal may be auto-duplicating voting histories for some LA County voters who use DMV registration.

LA调查发现第5点——可能有双重投票 — 数据显示1300名LA县重复登记者已经在至少一次选举中投票超过一次。这可能是实际双重投票、投票历史的意外复制，或者两者都有一些。VoteCal可能对一些使用DMV登记的LA县选民自动复制投票历史。

• LA Finding #6: Registered in LA County Plus One Other County — 2,439 additional persons are registered in LA County plus one other county, primarily Orange County and San Diego County. Some will receive one VBM from LA County and one VBM from the other county, if LA County mails VBMs to every active registrant.

LA调查发现第6点：在LA县及其它一个县登记 — 另外2439人在LA县及其它一个县登记，主要是橙县和圣迭戈县。如果LA县邮寄VBM给每一位活跃登记者，那么有些人会收到来自LA县的一份VBM和来自另一个县的一份VBM。

• LA Finding #7: Other Ineligible Registrants — LA County currently has 855,788 ineligible registrants (total LA County active plus inactive registrants on February 18, 2020 compared to the Secretary of State’s February 18, 2020 estimate of eligible citizens). While there are 1,539,513 inactives that LA County is currently working to update or cancel, the 206,728 active “no show” registrants, 10,556 duplicated registrants and 2,439 cross-county duplicates discussed above are further contributing to LA County’s unacceptably high level of ineligible registrations.

LA调查发现第7点：其他无资格的登记者 — LA县目前有855,788名无资格登记者（2020年2月18日那天总的LA县活跃加不活跃登记者数与州务卿对2020年2月18日那天有资格的公民数的估算相比较）。虽然LA县目前正在着手更新或取消1539,513名不活跃者，以上讨论的206728名活跃“不出席”登记者、10556名重复登记者和2439名跨县重复者进一步加剧了LA县难以接受的高度无资格登记。

As an aside Swensen said, “vote by mail ballots are only mailed to Active-status, so not all registrants will get ballots. Inactive and Pending status will not get VBMs. The 200,000+ are likely ineligible registrants who should have been inactivated or cancelled but are still listed ‘active’ status for some reason. The dups getting two VBMs each have two active-status registrations.”

此外Swensen说过，“邮寄投票只邮寄给活跃状态，所以不是所有登记者都会收到选票。不活跃和待定状态将不会收到VBM。这20多万人很可能是无资格登记者，他们本应被撤销或取消，但由于某些原因仍被列为“活跃”状态。这些每人收到两份VBM的重复者有两个活跃状态的登记。”

“We have found in our work that when we’re talking to just regular people, regardless of party affiliation, they really do want fair and honest elections,” EIPCa’s Linda Paine said in a recent Fox News interview. “They want to know that if their candidate lost — that they lost because the process was fair and honest. What we’re seeing is the lack of integrity in the process.”

“我们在工作中发现当我们和一般普通人谈话时，无论其政党归属，他们的确真的想要公平和诚实的选举，” EIPCa的Linda Paine在最近一次Fox新闻访谈中说到。“他们想知道如果他们的候选人输了——他们是因为参与过程是公平诚实的而败阵。我们现在看到的是此过程中缺少廉正性。”

The Election Integrity Project-California, founded in 2010, is a non-partisan, non-profit volunteer organization that advocates for citizens to become active participants in the electoral process, according to its website.

加州选举廉正项目成立于2010年，据其网站描述，是一家无党派、非盈利性志愿者组织，提倡公民在选举过程中成为积极的参与者。

If you need to report voting irregularities, EIPCa has this Citizen Incident Statement [PDF no longer available].

如果你需要报告在投票上的不正当行为，EIPCa有一份公民事件声明 [PDF已失效]。

209号法案：加州的平权行动之战暴露了直接民主制的深层缺陷

Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy / March 23, 2018

By** Wesley Whitaker (CMC ’18)**

译者按：加州是否修改宪法取消209法案的争议越演越烈。本文作者可以看出是反对209的，因为文章有明显的倾向性。不过写的209法案从开始的一个想法到最后公投成功后面的历史背景和过程，对今天的现实也很有参考价值。强烈推荐关心按肤色搞特殊照顾政策的朋友读读。

90年代的209法案成败的核心基于一个深度的民意调查。发起者密切注意围绕平权行动的用词和公众观点的民意调查数据。他们的发现非常惊人：对平权行动计划的支持根据问题的措辞有大幅度的波动。一项民意调查发现：当在不使用配额系统的情况下询问是否会支持平权行动时，75%的调查对象表示支持，其中包括白人中的71%。然而当问到他们是否会支持比起同等资格的白人对少数族裔候选人给予基于种族的优待的系统时，72%的白人调查对象和42%的黑人调查对象给出了负面答案。

所以大概结论是：公投关键看双方用哪种措辞来赢得选民的选票。

Introduction

介绍

While discussions of affirmative action typically revolve around the decisions of the Supreme Court, the battle for affirmative action in California played out over the airways and door to door, rather than in a courtroom. The first major piece of civil rights legislation to be voted on by the public, Proposition 209 was approved by a majority of California voters in 1996 after a long, tumultuous campaign. Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment and university admissions. Curiously though, public opinion polling showed overall support among Californians for policies that took race into consideration during hiring for example. The framing of the issue, then, as a preference for minority candidates over whites was the driving factor in the campaign’s success. As an amendment to the state constitution, only by passing another constitutional amendment through the initiative process can Proposition 209 be repealed. Thus, affirmative action policies are extremely unlikely to return to public institutions in California.

尽管关于平权行动的讨论通常围绕着最高法院的裁决进行，加州的平权行动之战是在空中以及门对门进行的，而不是在法庭上进行的。作为待公众投票的民权立法里的首个主要项，209号法案在漫长、动荡的运动后于1996年被加州大多数选民批准。209号法案修正了州宪法，禁止州政府机构考虑种族、性别或族群，特别是在公务雇用和大学录取方面。不过令人好奇的是，公众观点民意调查显示了加州人总体上对在例如招聘期间考虑种族因素的政策予以支持。当时该问题被定为相比于白人，给少数族裔族裔群体候选人特殊优待，这是运动获得成功的驱动因素。作为州宪法的修正案，只有通过发起过程通过另一项宪法修正案，才能废除209号法案。因此，平权行动政策几乎不可能返回到加州的公共机构了【译者按：本文写于2018，作者没有想到2020会再次同一话题进行公投】。

Turbulent Economic Conditions Bring Tense Political Climate

动荡的经济形势带来紧张的政治气氛

The first half of the 1990s was marked by extreme economic volatility and uncertainty in California. While California’s economy had been outpacing the national economy, highlighted by stellar personal income and employment growth, the early 1990s recession hit California harder than the rest of the nation and the recovery was much slower.[1] For example, personal income growth in California from 1990 to 1994 was about half of the national rate — 12 percent compared to 22 percent. In 1994, there were actually less jobs than in 1990 and unemployment peaked at nearly 10 percent in October of 1992.[2] One of the driving factors of the lagging recovery was the loss of manufacturing jobs in the aerospace industry due to a decline in federal defense spending. The housing sector was hit hard by the recession as well. The number of new residential building permits fell to only 85,000 in 1993, the lowest in over 25 years on a per capita basis, compared to an average of 210,000 new residential building permits during the 1970s and 1980s.[3]

20世纪90年代上半叶加州的表现为极端的经济动荡和不确定性。虽然加州的经济一直领先于全国经济，亮点尤为一流的个人收入和就业增长，90年代早期的经济衰退对加州的打击比对全国其它各地的打击都要大，而恢复却缓慢许多。[1] 例如，加州的个人收入增长在1990年到1994年里大概是全国增长率的一半——其增长率为12%，相比之下全国增长率为22%。1994年的工作岗位实际上比1990年的少，而失业率在1992年10月达到顶峰，接近10%。[2] 滞后的经济恢复的驱动因素之一是联邦防御支出减少导致的航空航天领域里的制造业工作岗位丢失。住房业也受到经济衰退的重击。新居民建筑许可证数在1993年跌至仅为85000个，与70年代和80年代平均有210000个新居民建筑许可证相比，这是25年来人均数最低的一次。[3]

On top of a struggling economy, California’s population grew rapidly in preceding decades and showed little signs of slowing down. Since 1970, the state’s population grew by over 10 million, bringing the total population in 1990 to just under 30 million.[4] The population boom had also significantly changed the demographic makeup of the state as international immigration accounted for most of the new residents in the states after 1970, primarily from Latin American and Asian countries. This demographic shift was reflected across the state as those relying on public services became more diverse. In 1993, white students accounted for just 42 percent of total K-12 enrollment, compared to 37 percent of Hispanic or Latino descent, 8 percent Asian, and 9 percent African American.[5]

除了饱受挣扎的经济之外，加州人口在之前几十年里飞速增长并几乎没有显示出放缓的迹象。自1970年以来，州内的人口增长了1千多万，使得1990年的总人口数达到将近3000万。[4] 由于1970年后主要来自拉丁美洲和亚洲国家的国际移民占据了州内新居民的大多数，人口潮也显著地改变了州内的人口结构组成。随着那些依靠公共服务的人口变得更多样化，该人口结构改变在全州都反映了出来。在1993年，白人学生只占了12年级注册学生中的42%，相比之下西班牙或拉丁后裔的比率为37%，亚洲裔为8%，而非裔美国人为9%。[5]

The combination of a slow economic recovery, especially for middle-class white males, and the perception that the state was being overrun by immigrants contributed to the drafting of the so-called “Save Our State” initiative, which would become Proposition 187 and placed on the 1994 ballot. Its provisions denied illegal alien children access to public schools and excluded illegal aliens from receiving virtually any other kind of public service or aid.[6] Having lagged in the polls for reelection due to poor economic conditions, Governor Pete Wilson championed of the lightning-rod issue, which enjoyed strong public support from the still mostly white electorate. He surged ahead to beat his democratic challenger Kathleen Brown with a convincing 55 to 40 percent defeat and Proposition 187 was approved by voters 59 to 41 percent.[7] Republicans across the state also performed well, picking up eight seats in the Assembly and three statewide office seats from the Democrats. The remarkable performance of conservative politicians and conservative ballot measures in the 1994 elections is often attributed to their success at tapping into the growing anxiety of white voters that their way of life was under threat by the massive influx of immigrants and changing demographics.[8] Many of the jobs lost in the manufacturing and housing sectors during the recession were occupied by middle-class white workers, and were thus less insulated from economic hardship than in previous economic contractions.[9]

缓慢的经济恢复（尤其对中产阶级白人男性而言），以及关于加州移民泛滥的看法两者组合促成了所谓的“拯救我们的州”发起草案，它成为187号法案并被放进了1994年的投票选举里。其条款否定了非法移民儿童进入公立学校的资格，并让非法移民几乎无法接受任何其它类型的公共服务或救助。[6] 因为差劲的经济形势而在连任的民意调查里处于落后位置，州长Pete Wilson倡导了这个易受攻击的问题，该问题得到了当时大多数仍是白人选民的大力支持。他取得了领先，以55%对40%确凿的优势击败了民主党挑战者Kathleen Brown，而187号法案由选民以59%对41%批准。[7] 全州共和党人的表现也不错，在议会里获得了8席并从民主党那里夺取了3个州级政府办公室席位。保守派政客和保守的选票措施在1994年大选中的出色表现通常被归因为他们成功地利用了白人选民日益增长的焦虑感，即他们的生活方式受到了大量涌入的移民和人口结构变化的威胁。[8] 经济衰退期间制造业和住房业里失去的许多工作都由中产阶级白人工人把持，因此和以前的经济紧缩相比，他们更容易受到经济困难的困扰。[9]

From the Ivory Tower to the Ballot

从常青藤象牙塔到投票选举

While racial politics dominated the political sphere of the early to mid-1990s, Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood, two Bay Area academics, were confronted with the state’s growing diversity firsthand. A professor of anthropology at the Hayward campus of California State University since 1970, Custred witnessed the demographic shifts on campus as Hayward began its push to become one of the most multicultural college campuses in America. In 1989, Hayward adopted policies that allowed minority and women candidates to apply directly for positions on the faculty without requiring a vacancy in the department. Custred saw the new policy as essentially adopting a quota for minority faculty, which he called racist.[10] He argued for his department to not take part, objecting that faculty should be hired solely on their competency and qualifications aside from minority status. Citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he concluded that there was nothing wrong with the law, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion or national origin; it was simply not being enforced. He eventually joined and later become Executive Director of the California Association of Scholars, the state chapter of the National Association of Scholars, which is a coalition of other academics who shared his views towards multiculturalism and affirmative action.

当种族政治主导了90年代早期至中期的政治界时，Glynn Custred和Thomas Wood这两位湾区的学者亲身面对了加州日益增长的多样性。Custred自1970年起就是加州州立大学海沃德分校的人类学教授，随着海沃德开始推进成为美国最多元文化的大学校区之一，他目睹了校园里的人口结构变化。在1989年，海沃德采用了政策，允许少数族裔族裔群体和女性候选人无需部门里有空缺就可以直接申请系里的职位。Custred认为新政策实质上对少数族裔族裔群体教职员采用配额，他称其为种族歧视。[10] 他争辩说他的部门不应参与其中，反对除了少数族裔族裔群体身份外仅凭能力和资格聘用教师。他引用了1964年民权法案，得出结论说法律没有问题，该法律宣布基于种族、肤色、性别、宗教或民族血统的歧视是非法的，只不过该法律没有得到执行。他最终加入了并日后成为加州学者协会的执行理事，该协会是全国学者协会在加州的分会，它是其他同意他在多元文化和平权行动上的观点的学者联盟。

Unlike Custred, Wood became interested in the topic of affirmative action policy as an applicant struggling to land a job with the philosophy department at San Francisco State University. He claims to have ran into a member of the search committee before he applied for the job, and was told that he would have been hired instead of a woman of color had it not been for the school’s affirmative action policy.[11]

和Custred不同，Wood在作为一名努力在旧金山州立大学哲学系里找工作的申请者时对平权行动政策话题产生了兴趣。他宣称在申请工作前曾遇到招聘委员会的一名成员，并被告知如果不是学校有平权行动政策，其实会聘用他而不是一位有肤色女性。[11]

Wood continued to take on research jobs while pursuing a permanent position until he came across the Supreme Court’s Bakke decision. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Justice Powell, writing for the Court, concluded that the UC Davis Medical School’s policy of setting aside seats for minority students during the application process amounted to a racial quota and violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because students were split into two pools and considered separately.[12] Powell also said, however, that the university’s goal of creating a diverse student body was constitutionally permissible, and that race could be considered as a “plus factor” for an applicant. Wood disagreed entirely. He believed that including race in the decision process amounted to discrimination against those not of minority status and concluded that his inability to land a job in academia was a result of affirmative action.[12] He called the National Association of Scholars to see if they had a local chapter, and by the end of 1991 had become friends with Custred.

Wood在努力追求永久职位的同时继续从事研究工作直到他得知了最高法院的Bakke裁决。在加州大学董事会诉Bakke案（1978年）里，为法院裁决执笔的大法官Powell做出结论，加州大学Davis医学院在申请过程中为少数族裔族裔群体学生留出席位的政策造成了种族配额并违反了第14条宪法修正案的平等保护条款，因为学生被划分成两组并被分别对待。[12]  Powell还说，不过大学产生多样化学生族裔族裔群体的目标在宪法上是被允许的，并且种族可以被看作是申请者的“加分因素”。Wood对此完全不同意。他相信把种族因素包括进作决定过程里是针对那些非少数族裔群体的歧视，并下结论他无法在学院里找到工作是平权行动的结果。[12] 他打电话问全国学者协会是否有本地分会，而到1991年底已经和 Custred成为朋友。

Inspired by the success of recent ballot initiatives, the two began drafting a constitutional amendment of their own in 1992, which they titled the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). According to Custred and Wood, the purpose was simply to reaffirm the principle in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: non-discrimination means your race or gender cannot factor into how you are treated when it comes to contract, employment, and admissions decisions — even if you are white.[13] Drawing on their backgrounds in research, the two began to investigate the issue in depth, paying close attention to the language surrounding affirmative action and public opinion polling data. Their findings were striking. Support for affirmative action programs fluctuated massively depending on the wording of the question. One poll found that when asked if they would support affirmative action, provided no quota system was used, 75 percent of respondents were in favor, including 71 percent among whites. However, when asked if they would support a system of racial preference for minorities over equally qualified white candidates, 72 percent of white respondents and 42 percent of black respondents answered negatively.[14] This discovery was a breakthrough for Custred and Wood. First, it suggested that many Americans may actually be less supportive of affirmative action than previously thought because not everyone actually knew that it entailed preferential treatment based on race. Second, knowing that support plummeted when affirmative action was presented as a racial preference provided the perfect blueprint for how to frame the issue for the initiative and the campaign. Instead of attacking affirmative action head on, Custred and Wood could attack the much less attractive concept of racial preference for minorities.

受到最近投票选举动议成功的启发，他们两人在1992年开始起草自己的宪法修正案，他们将其冠名为加州民权动议（CCRI）。据Custred和Wood称，其目的只不过是重申1964年民权法案的原则：不歧视意味着你在合同、雇佣和录取决定方面受到的待遇不能把你的种族或性别考虑进去——即使你是白人也不行。[13] 利用他们的研究背景，两人开始深度调查该问题，密切注意围绕平权行动的用词和公众观点民意调查数据。他们的发现非常惊人。对平权行动计划的支持根据问题的措辞有大幅度的波动。一项民意调查发现当在不使用配额系统的情况下询问是否会支持平权行动时，75%的调查对象表示支持，其中包括白人中的71%。然而当问到他们是否会支持比起同等资格的白人对少数族裔候选人给予种族优待的系统时，72%的白人调查对象和42%的黑人调查对象给出了负面答案。[14] 这个发现对Custred和Wood来说是个突破。首先，这表明和之前的看法相比许多美国人可能实际上不那么支持平权行动，因为不是所有人都真的知道它包含了基于种族的优先待遇。其次，知道把平权行动作为种族偏向时支持率暴跌了，这为如何为倡议和运动定义该问题提供了理想的蓝图。与其正面攻击平权行动，Custred和Wood可以攻击对少数族裔群体的种族偏向这个吸引力低得多的概念。

Without the support of either political party, and still lacking key connections to fundraising, the initiative failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 1994 ballot. However, the issue caught fire in the wake of the November election, in large part due to Custred and Wood’s capitalizing on the divisive language surrounding Proposition 187 driven by Governor Wilson.[15] They formed a committee with Larry Arnn, the President of the Claremont Institute, as Chairman. Other well-connected conservatives flocked to the cause, including Los Angeles based Republican pollster Arnold Steinberg, who would later lead the campaign, and William Rusher, the founder and Publisher of the National Review. With campaign staff assembled, the group began work on drumming up sources of funding.[16]

没有两党中任何一方的支持以及仍然缺少取得筹款所需的关键关系，倡议未能收集到足够的签名以获得进入1994投票选举的资格。然而，紧随着11月大选，这个问题引起了关注，很大程度上是因为Custred和Wood利用了围绕由州长Wilson推动的187号法案的分歧性用语。[15] 他们和克莱蒙研究所的所长Larry Arnn成立了一个委员会，由Larry Arnn任主席。其他人脉广泛的保守派蜂拥至该事业上，其中包括位于洛杉矶的共和党民意调查专家Arnold Steinberg，他日后将领导该运动，以及国家评论的创始人以及出版商William Rusher。组建好了运动工作人员，这个小组开始竭力争取资金来源。[16]

Gaining Momentum

势头增强

While Custred and Wood had been engaged in laying the theoretical framework for the fight against affirmative action, Governor Wilson had enlisted the help of a longtime friend, Ward Connerly, to lead the charge. Connerly became friends with Wilson in the late 1960s and was asked by Wilson to join the Assembly Committee on Urban Affairs and Housing.[16] Wilson eventually convinced him to join the private sector, where his firm was successful consulting on public development projects. In 1993, Wilson appointed Connerly to the UC Board of Regents where he quickly gained a reputation of an active and thoughtful member. Through Wilson, Connerly met with Jerry and Ellen Cook, whose son had been rejected from medical school, where Cook presented evidence that white and Asian students were being denied admission to California schools despite having better grades and test scores than Latino and black students who were admitted.[17] Connerly concluded that the affirmative action policies of the state schools amounted to racial discrimination, and began his campaign as regent to stop the process.

在Custred和Wood忙于为反对平权行动之战铺好理论框架时，州长Wilson谋取了旧交Ward Connerly的帮助来带头冲锋。Connerly在60年代晚期和Wilson成为朋友，并且Wilson让他加入城市事务及住房议会委员会。[16]  Wilson最终说服了他加入私企，他的公司在为公共开发项目提供咨询上做得很成功。在1993年，Wilson任命Connerly加入加州大学董事会，作为一名活跃而有思想的成员，他很快赢得了声望。通过Wilson，Connerly遇到了Jerry和Ellen Cook，这两人的儿子被医学院拒绝了，Cook拿出了证据说尽管白人和亚裔学生的成绩和考试得分比被录取的拉丁裔和黑人学生好，但是他们被加州的学校拒绝录取。[17] Connerly得出结论，州立学校的平权行动政策构成了种族歧视，并以委员的身份开始他的运动以制止这一过程。

Wilson, who had selected affirmative action as the next issue divisive enough to attract white voters to his campaign and rally public support, encouraged Connerly’s efforts. His mission attracted special attention due to his being African American, which some suggest was why Wilson had selected him for the position.17 Connerly admitted that even though it was never explicitly mentioned, the presence of a charismatic and intelligent black man leading the charge against affirmative action neutralized potential attacks from opponents that animus towards minorities motivated the campaign.[18]

Wilson选择了平权行动作为分歧足够严重的下一个问题以吸引白人选民到他的运动并争取公众支持，他对Connerly的努力加以鼓励。因为是非裔美国人，他的行动吸引了特别关注，一些人认为这是Wilson为什么选他担任这个职位的原因。17  Connerly承认尽管从未明确提及，一位有超凡魅力和聪明才智的、带领反抗平权行动的黑人的存在抵消了反对派的潜在攻击，即发起者因为对少数族裔群体的敌意激发了该运动。[18]

On July 20th, 1995, Connerly and Wilson took their campaign against affirmative action to the UC Board of Regents meeting where they were met by Rev. Jesse Jackson and civil rights organizers protesting. Wilson played hardball, ensuring the protesters had minimal effect and allowing Connerly to forcefully present his case calling for the end of affirmative action in the UC system which was first approved by the board in 1975.20 Connerly and Wilson were successful and the regents voted 15-10 to end affirmative action in hiring and 14-10 to end affirmative action in admissions decisions. Despite the UC Academic Senate voting 124-2 to ask Regents to rescind their votes, the policy was upheld and Wilson’s polling soared, especially among white voters. [19]

1995年7月20日，Connerly和Wilson把他们反对平权行动之运动带到了加州大学董事会会议上，在那里他们遇到Jesse Jackson牧师和民权组织者抗议。Wilson采取了强硬手段，确保抗议者影响在最小程度，并允许Connerly强有力地陈述自己的案例，要求终止加州大学系统里的由董事会于1975年首次批准的平权行动。20 Connerly和Wilson取得了成功，委员们以15对10的投票通过终止了招聘过程中的平权行动，以及14对10的投票通过终止了录取决定里的平权行动。尽管加州大学学术评议会以124对2投票通过要求董事会撤销他们的投票，该政策继续维持，而Wilson在民意调查中的位置急剧上升，尤其是在白人选民当中。[19]

Just over one month later, CCRI filed for a spot on the 1996 ballot. The campaign immediately benefitted from the heightened publicity stirred up by Connerly and Wilson as it raced to meet the signature requirement of nearly 700,000 signatures.[20]

仅仅过了一个月后，CCRI申请在1996投票中占有一席之位。该运动立即得益于Connerly和 Wilson作出的大力宣传，同时它竭力争取达到将近700,000个签名的要求。[20]

Filing for the second time, Custred and Wood were eager to keep the phrase “affirmative action” out of the ballot title and summary due to its higher favorability among voters. They met with Chief Deputy Attorney General David Stirling to ensure that no mistakes were made the summary reflected the language of the measure.[21] In December of 1995, Connerly was asked to join the campaign as the Chairman. Shortly after, Wilson’s fundraising with the California Republican party provided a much-needed donation of $500k to resume collecting signatures to qualify the measure. Just two months later in February of 1996, the campaign turned in over a million signatures and qualified for the 1996 ballot as Proposition 209.[21]

第二次申请时，Custred和Wood渴望将“平权行动”这个词组排除在投票选举标题和摘要之外，这是因为其在选民中有更高的支持。他们和首席副司法部长David Stirling会面以确保没有犯错误，即摘要反映了措施的语言。[21] 1995年12月，Connerly被要求以主席的身份加入运动。不久之后，Wilson从加州共和党那里获取的筹款提供了急需的50万美元捐赠来恢复收集签名以使该措施取得资格。就在两个月后的1996年2月，运动提交了超过1百万个签名并作为209号法案取得资格进入1996年投票选举。[21]

Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren was in charge of preparing the ballot summaries, which are crucial to informing voters as they are likely the only non-partisan information they will see before voting. [21] State law requires that summaries be impartial, but Lungren was outspoken about supporting the proposition and even signed one of the rebuttals in favor in the voter’s guide.[22] Titled Proposition 209: “Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities”, the summary text read:

共和党派司法部长Dan Lungren负责准备投票摘要，它们对告知选民至关重要，因为它们很可能是投票前选民能看到的唯一非偏党派信息。[21] 州法律要求摘要公正中立，但Lungren公开宣布了支持该法案，甚至在选民指南中签署了一项反对声明，以表示支持。[22] 209号法案标题为：“禁止州级和其他公共机构实施的歧视或优先待遇”，摘要文字是这样写的：

“Prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools, and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”[23]

“禁止州、地方政府、区、公立大学、学院和学校以及其他政府机构在公务雇用、公共教育或公共承包方面基于种族、性别、肤色、族群或民族血统歧视或提供优先待遇给任何个人或族裔群体。”[23]

When the summary was published in July, the opposition campaign was furious that the summary made no mention of affirmative action and took Lungren to court. [22] Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Ford sided with the opposition and made Lungren rewrite the summary as it was clearly biased. Nevertheless, Lungren appealed and the Third District Court in Sacramento overturned Ford’s decision, stating: “The title and summary inform the public of the general purpose of the measure.”[24] This marked a monumental win for the campaign as, according to an LA Times poll in September, 59 percent of voters did not understand that Prop. 209 would effectively end affirmative action.[25] Read without qualification, the measure enjoyed 70 percent support.[26]

当摘要于7月公布时，反对派运动对摘要没提及平权运动感到十分愤怒，并把Lungren告上法庭。[22] 萨克拉门托高等法院法官James Ford站在反对派一边，让Lungren重写了摘要，因为它明显有偏见。然而Lungren进行了上诉，而萨卡拉门托的第三地区法院撤销了Ford的判决，表示：“该标题和摘要告知了公众该措施的一般用途。”[24] 这对运动来说标志着巨大的成功，据9月的洛杉矶时报民意调查显示，59%的选民不明白209号法案实际上会终止平权行动。[25]  无条件地阅读后，该措施获得了70%的支持。[26]

The 209 campaign continued to lead in the polls until Election Day, bolstered by their advertising that emphasized equal opportunity and color-blindness. Featuring Connerly in a soft, moral and unifying tone, the first radio ad highlighted his support for the issue as an African American and ended with the wholesome catchphrase: “Equal opportunity without quotas. Yes! Proposition 209. Bring us together.”[27] Another ad featured a young white woman who claimed to be the victim of reverse discrimination after being removed from a remedial English class intended for minority students.[28] Instead of adopting the severe language surrounding the Proposition 187 campaign, the emphasis of an inclusive campaign predicated on fairness and equal opportunity resonated with voters, particularly white voters. Proposition 209 ultimately passed with 55.5 percent of the vote.[29] According to the LA Times exit polls, 63 percent of white voters supported the measure while 74 percent of African Americans, 76 percent of Latinos and 61 percent of Asians voted against.[30]

209运动继续在民意调查中领先直到大选日，由其强调平等机会和不看肤色的宣传加以增强。首个电台广告以柔和、道德和统一的语气表现了Connerly，强调了他作为非裔美国人对这个问题的支持并以有良好影响的口号结尾：“没有配额的平等机会。是的！209号法案。把我们汇聚在一起。”[27] 另一个广告展示了一位年轻的白人女性，她宣称在被专门面向少数族裔群体学生的英语补习班移除后成为反向歧视的受害者。[28] 与其采用围绕187号法案运动的严厉措辞，强调公平和平等机会的包容性运动引起了选民的共鸣，尤其是白人选民。209号法案最终以55.5%的选票得以通过。[29] 据洛杉矶时报投票后民意调查显示，63%的白人选民支持了该措施，而74%的非裔美国人、76%的拉丁裔和61%的亚裔投票反对。[30]

A Better Path for the Opposition

反对的更好途径

A ragtag coalition of civil rights groups, women’s advocacy organizations, and grassroots organizers, the opposition campaign faced a long, uphill battle to defeating Prop. 209. Unlike their adversaries, the opposition did not enjoy the support of the political party that closely aligns with their interests and constituents. Outmatched in terms of fundraising, the proponents were able to conduct an ad campaign that dominated the radio waves and television stations without a proper response from the opponents. Opponents also did not benefit from sympathetic elected officials in positions capable of shaping the outcome in the way that Governor Wilson and Attorney General Lungren assisted the proponents. Nevertheless, despite all of these hurdles, the most significant obstacle was the simple and deceiving language of the measure that confused many voters. According to exit polls, a majority — 54 percent — of voters supported affirmative action programs, yet nearly the same number also voted in favor of Prop. 209, ending programs that they likely supported.[31]

反对运动是民权族裔群体、妇女倡导组织和草根组织者的散漫联盟，它在击败209号法案上面临着漫长而艰难的斗争。不像其对手，反对派没有受到与他们的利益和选民密切相一致的政党的支持。支持者在筹款上胜出，他们能够开展一场主导电台和电视台的宣传活动，而没有收到反对派的适当回应。反对派也没有从有同情心的当选官员那里受益，这些官员能够像州长Wilson和司法部长Lungren协助支持者那样有能力改变结果。然而，尽管有着所有这些障碍，最大的障碍是该措施的简单且具有欺骗性语言，它使很多选民感到疑惑。据投票后民意调查显示，大多数选民——其中的54%——支持了平权行动计划，但几乎相同数目的选民也投票支持了209号法案，终止了他们很可能支持的计划。[31]

To successfully defeat Prop. 209 would require a campaign that effectively combated the ambiguity surrounding the issue of affirmative action while still providing enough of impetus to mobilize minority voter support. The best way to achieve this would be through an alternative ballot initiative, a tactic that the opposition attempted but failed to capitalize on.[32] Over nearly six months, activists in the Bay Area organized a group of lawyers to draft an alternative amendment, eventually settling on the Equal Opportunities Without Quotas initiative after producing hundreds of drafts. The amendment explicitly prohibited racial quotas, the hiring of unqualified applicants, and threatened fines for anyone who fraudulently benefited from affirmative action programs. [33] Essentially, the initiative reaffirmed the current standards of acceptable affirmative action practices as decided by the Supreme Court. The same length as Prop. 209 and with broadly appealing language, it was sent in to the Legislative Analyst’s Office for review as their best hope. Nine months of hard work were immediately dashed, however, when the analyst concluded that the state’s enrichment programs targeted at minority students qualified as a racial quota. Dismantling these programs as a result would alienate far too many voters and potential donors, but it was too late to appeal the decision and the campaign had to quickly change direction to defeating Prop. 209 flat out. [33] If there had been less infighting between members of the coalition and it was decided earlier to pursue an alternative amendment, there would have been time to petition the analyst for reconsideration or to revise the measure until it did not produce the same unintended consequences.

要想成功地击败209号法案需要一个有效地与围绕平权行动问题的歧义搏斗同时仍然提供足够动力调动少数族裔群体选民支持的运动。达成这一目的的最好方法是通过替代投票选举倡议，反对派尝试过这个策略但未能从中获利。[32] 在接下来的将近6个月里，湾区的积极分子组织了一群律师起草替代修正案，在写出了数百份草稿后最终定为“没有配额的平等机会”倡议。该修正案明确禁止种族配额、雇用不合格的申请者，并且威胁对以欺诈性质从平权运动计划中得益的任何人进行罚款。[33] 实质上，该倡议重申了由最高法院裁决的被大家认可的平权运动做法的现行标准。它和209号法案长度相同，并有着有广泛吸引力的用语，作为他们最大的希望，它被送到立法分析办公室进行复审。然而，当分析员得出结论说州里针对少数族裔群体学生的强化项目算作种族配额时，9个月的辛勤工作立即破灭了。由此解散这些项目会疏远太多的选民和潜在捐款人，然而申诉该决定已为时过晚，运动需要迅速改变方向以击败209号法案。[33] 如果联盟成员间没有那么多内斗，并且早做决定寻求替代修正案，原本会有时间请求分析员重新考虑或修改该措施直到它不造成同样的意料之外的后果。

The alternative ballot initiative competing directly with Prop. 209 would force voters to choose between two pitches for fairness and equal opportunity. Instead of being presented with a single initiative condemning racial preference and promising to restore fairness to employment and admission decisions, the voter would be presented with an alternative that appeals to the same sensibilities but would be able to invoke the language of affirmative action, which had a significantly higher favorability rating according to the polls. It could even capitalize on the aversion of voters towards quotas by prohibiting them. Likewise, it could assuage the fears of white voters that unqualified candidates could take positions they did not deserve by explicitly prohibiting that practice as well. The biggest underlying problem with Prop. 209, which was illustrated by the number of voters who say they supported affirmative action but nevertheless voted against it, is that voters did not have a clear picture of what affirmative action actually entailed.[33] The opposition campaign fought to explain the history of prejudice, which pushed economic and academic opportunities out of reach for many people of color and women, and described how affirmative action works to correct these patterns of discrimination. This nuanced argument, however, does not fit neatly into a 30 second radio or television ad. The opposition needed a shorter, more palatable appeal for fairness.

与209号法案直接竞争的替代投票选举倡议会强迫选民从两个公平和平等机会的点子中选一个。与其提出一个谴责种族偏向并承诺恢复雇用和录取决定上的公平的单一倡议，不如向选民提出一个诉诸相同感性但能够援引平权行动语言的替代方案，据民意调查显示平权行动有显著的更高支持率。它甚至还能通过禁止配额而充分利用选民对其的厌恶。同样的，它还能通过明确禁止不合格的申请者能得到他们不配得到的职位这一做法而减轻白人选民的担忧。209号法案最大的底层问题，即由表示他们支持平权行动但还是投票反对它的选民数表明了出来，是选民不清楚平权行动究竟包含了什么。[33] 反对运动费了很大劲解释了偏见的历史，这段历史使得许多有色人群和女性无法触及经济和学术上的机会，它还描述了平权行动如何能改正这些歧视方式。然而这个微妙的争辩没有很好地放入30秒的电台或电视广告。反对派需要较短的、更可接受的呼吁以求公平。

On top of cutting through some of the confusion surrounding the issue, an alternative initiative would have shaped the down the road campaign greatly. The language and substance of the initiative aligned closely with President Bill Clinton’s “mend it, don’t end it” stance towards affirmative action, and would likely have engaged the Democratic Party and the President himself in the campaign. Instead, Clinton kept the issue at arms-length, as he did not want to alienate too many white voters by staunchly supporting affirmative action.[34] Likewise, the priorities of the Democratic Party were clear. They were not going to jeopardize Clinton’s reelection for the sake of a state proposition, even if it did align closely with their policy positions and constituents. However, if the campaign offered a positive account that both the Democratic Party and President could get behind, they would have enjoyed significantly larger contributions to their war chest, which could then be used to wage a proper media campaign. Proponents of the alternative measure could then match Connerly’s soft-spoken testimony with countless cases of minorities and women who have benefited from affirmative action. Simultaneously, these ads would appeal to white voters by reaffirming the prohibition on quotas and unqualified applicants benefiting from the program. Ultimately, a competing initiative offered the best chance of success in defeating Prop. 209, as it would broaden the coalition of support to include more donors and high profile voices, as well as enable the opposition to frame the issue in their own terms.

在澄清围绕该问题的一些疑惑之外，替代倡议本可以极大地塑造运动的未来之路。倡议的用语和实质与Bill Clinton总统对于平权行动的”修补它，不要终止它“的立场密切相一致，本来很有可能吸引民主党和总统本人参与运动。但是Clinton和该问题保持了距离，因为他不想因坚定地支持平权行动而疏远太多白人选民。[34] 同样的，民主党的首要事项是很明确的。他们不会为了一项州级法案而损害Clinton的连任，即使它的确与他们的政治立场和选民密切相一致。然而如果运动提供了民主党和总统都可以支持的积极口号，那么他们本来可以添加多得多的资金到竞选运动基金里，这之后能被用于开展一次像样的媒体运动。替代措施的支持者就能用无数从平权运动中得益的少数族裔群体和女性的案例匹配Connerly柔和的证词。与此同时，这些广告能通过重申禁止配额以及从计划中得益的不合格申请者而吸引白人选民。最终，一个有竞争力的倡议提供击败209号法案的最佳成功机会，因为它能扩大支持联盟，包括进更多捐款者和知名度高的声音，还能使反对派以自己的方式定义该问题。

Conclusion

结论

In his first Inaugural Address in 1911, Governor of California Hiram Johnson extolled the virtues of direct democracy and its unique ability to return the power of governance back to the people from the hands of corrupt political parties and special interests.[35] Nevertheless, the creation of the initiative process also opened the door to popular referendums on key civil rights policy, including affirmative action. The events of 1996 attest to Johnson’s claim that average citizens, if sufficiently driven and politically minded, can impose their will over objections in the political establishment by using direct democracy. At the same time, however, the campaign raised new questions about the role of popular consensus in the domain of civil rights. Throughout the campaign, average voters lacked information about the issues, specifically about what affirmative policies actually entail when choosing candidates for a limited number of vacancies. This issue was further compounded by the use of deceptive and ambiguous language by proponent’s campaign. Ultimately, California’s battle over affirmative action highlights the inadequacies of direct democracy when dealing with complex policy issues that intersect with civil rights. Further, the campaign orchestrated by Wood and Custred, and led by Connelly, demonstrated the importance of controlling the narrative surrounding a political issue. By tapping into economic and racial anxieties at the right time, the campaign exposed the dire need for an informed and engaged citizenry for a system of direct democracy to function.

在其1911年的首次就职演说里，加州州长Hiram Johnson赞美了直接民主制的长处和其独特能力，即能把监管力量从腐败的政党和特别利益的手中还给人民。[35] 然而，倡议过程的产生也打开了通向在关键民权政策（包括平权行动）上进行全民公投的大门。1996年的事件证明了Johnson的断言，即普通公民，即使受到了足够的驱动并有政治头脑，可以通过使用直接民主把自己的意愿强加于政治体制里的反对之上。不过在此同时，运动提出了关于民权领域里全民意识的角色的新问题。在整个运动期间，在为有限的空缺职位选择候选人时普通选民缺少关于问题的信息，特别是关于平权政策究竟包含了什么的信息。支持者的运动对欺骗性和有歧义的语言的使用使问题进一步恶化。最终，加州的平权行动之战突出了直接民主制在处理和民权有交叉的复杂政治问题时的不足性。更进一步，由Wood和Custred策划并由Connelly领导的运动显示了控制围绕政治问题的叙述的重要性。通过在正确时刻利用了经济和种族方面的焦虑感，运动暴露了对有见识以及有参与性的公民的迫切需要，以使直接民主制系统能发挥职能。

备注

[1] The California economy in 1990s. Legislative Analyst’s Office.

[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local area unemployment statistics: Statewide, California. 1990-1998.

[3] The California economy in 1990s. Legislative Analyst’s Office.

[4] Jack Citrin. 2013. State of change: Immigration politics and the new demography of California. 31-33.

[5] Educational Demographics Unit. Statewide enrollment by ethnicity, 1993-1994.

[6] Peter Schrag. 1998. Paradise lost: California’s experience, America’s future. 228-231.

[7] Summary of votes cast for state offices: November 8, 1994.

[8] Peter Schrag, 230-234.

[9] Lydia Chávez. 1998. The color bind: California’s battle to end affirmative action. Berkeley: University of California Press. 31.

[10] Lydia Chávez. 9-13.

[11] Lydia Chávez. 13-16.

[12] Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978).

[13] Lydia Chávez. 18-20.

[14] John Brennan. “Key words influence stands on minorities.”

[15] Cathleen Decker. “Affirmative action: Why battle erupted”.

[16] Lydia Chávez. 25-29.

[17] Lydia Chávez. 32-33.

[18] Ward Connerly. “Affirmative action and proposition 209”. The California Republic. 258.

[19] Lydia Chávez. 61-67.

[20] Lydia Chávez. 67-69.

[21] Lydia Chávez. 144-145.

[22] Daniel Lungren, Quentin Kopp, and Gail Heriot. 1996. Rebuttal to argument against of proposition 209.

[23] Proposition 209: Text of proposed law. 1996.

[24] Lydia Chávez. 145.

[25] Bettina Boxall. “A political battle grinds on as a war of wording”.

[26] Lydia Chávez. 154.

[27] Lydia Chávez. 188.

[28] Lydia Chávez. 215.

[29] Statement of vote: Votes for and against November 5, 1996 statewide ballot measures

[30] State propositions: A snapshot of voters.

[31] Lydia Chávez. 237.

[32] Lydia Chávez. 105-108.

[33] Bettina Boxall. “A political battle grinds on as a war of wording”.

[34] Lydia Chávez. 223.

[35] Hiram Johnson. First Inaugural Address.

作者：EIP-Ca （加州选举完整项目) 立法监督总监Ruth Weiss， ruthweiss@eip-ca.com

加利福尼亚圣克拉丽塔。由于加州AB 860法案的生效，今年11月普选所有加利福尼亚州的选民将收到邮寄选票。这引起了许多担心，其中一个担心是邮寄选票的丢失。今年3月份初选时丢失的选票数量达到数十万！

为确保在11月的选举中不会发生这种选票丢失的情况，请立即前往 WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov进行注册以接收有关您的选票的电子邮件，SMS（短信）和/或语音呼叫通知。我刚刚做了，大约只需要20秒。

注册后，当选举时间到来时，您会收到如下通知：

• 您的选票由您的选举办公室（或供应商）放到邮件中- 您的选票在10月5日至10月9日之间邮寄出来- 邮政的预计递送日期- 如果它未能如期到达，您可以致电取消并更换，以防止有人用你的名字进行选票欺诈- 什么时候选举办公室收到您的选票- 您的选票被计算或拒绝- 如果被拒绝：为什么以及可以采取的步骤- 如果在特定日期之前未收到您的选票会提醒您。

目前加州58县中的52个县正在提供这项服务。（请看文章最后有关列表）。如果您的县尚未提供此服务，请点击此处，了解如何检查你的选票。

在忘记之前，请立即执行此操作。然后告诉每个人您都知道。

WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov 

下面的县提供WheresMyBallot选票跟踪服务

• Amador- Butte- Calaveras- Colusa- Contra Costa- Del Norte- El Dorado- Fresno- Glenn- Humboldt- Inyo- Kern- Kings- Lake- Lassen- Los Angeles- Madera- Marin- Mariposa- Mendocino- Merced- Mono- Monterey- Napa- Nevada- Orange- Placer- Plumas- Riverside- Sacramento- San Benito- San Bernardino- San Diego- San Francisco- San Joaquin- San Luis Obispo- San Mateo- Santa Barbara- Santa Clara- Santa Cruz- Shasta- Siskiyou- Sonoma- Stanislaus- Sutter- Tehama- Trinity- Tulare- Tuolumne- Ventura- Yolo- Yuba

点击此处，可以直接转向选票跟踪网站

0. To be a California based hospital, senior center or essential local business.

1. Legal Disclaimer (liability release form)

**2. Verifiable Title and Contacts **

3.Receipt 4.Pictures with donated PPE

In order to qualify for donations from SVCAF, we require a legal disclaimer to be provided before hand, otherwise, we are afraid that we can’t help.

Please download the template here.

Please Sign and send the disclaimer via your **hospital or clinic’s office email **with your title and contacts (If it’s before the donation and you are not sure about the quantity of donated PPE, please fill in the space of Type x Quantity as ‘See receipt’), so that we can verify your identity.

Due to limited resources and the fluid China/US custom situation, things are changing very fast and many medical personnel are rushing in with requests. We advise you to get the disclaimer to us ASAP or else your organization might miss out.

We also give priority to those who may have direct contact with CoVid 19 patients or suspects.

Emails should be sent to volunteers at SVCAF: projectstronger2020@gmail.com

Upon receiving the donated gifts, we will also need you to send the three of us an receipt indicating how many and what kind of PPEs are received on what date. Signed by recipient.

In addition, please take a picture of the donated PPEs with yourself and if possible your coworkers, so that we can report and document our contributions to be accountable to our donors.

The pictures you provide us will also be used by us for publicity.

A tweet or FB post with the hashtag #StrongerTogether will be greatly appreciated, as we want to more people to get involved in this effort!

To make donation to support our continuous effort, please refer to: **/pages/strongertogether/ **

And we **do not **re-sell any of our PPEs, please do not ask.

Thanks!

Note: Due to the limit of our resources (funding, man power, supply, logistics etc.) , we can only try to help part of the hospitals and essential businesses in (mainly north) California state. If you are care giver out side of California, please try to contact local groups for help. Thank you for your understanding.

The following is the statement from Mr. Liao.

Dear SFFA Members,

My name is Chunhua Liao. I am a scientist, father, volunteer, and a proud naturalized US citizen. As a long-time supporter of SFFA, I would like to take my effort further by serving on its board. I hope to win your support. 

I am a true believer in the equal protection clause of the US Constitution and the cause of SFFA — “a student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university.” 

I have a strong track record in advancing the above causes, being deeply involved in fighting for equal education rights for all students since February 2014 when I first heard about SCA-5. This notorious California Senate Constitutional Amendment attempted to allow state universities to practice admissions policies based on race and ethnicity. Outraged by the bill, I immediately started a change.org petition to urge the California State Assembly to reject it. The petition went viral and gained 112,000+ signatures in a few weeks. In the meantime, I co-founded Silicon Valley Chinese Association (SVCA) with fellow volunteers Alex Chen and Cheney Gao. Since then, SVCA has become one of the leading grassroots organizations in the nation promoting civil involvement of new generations of Chinese Americans. In April 2015, I co-founded a sister 501c(3) nonprofit organization, SVCA Foundation (SVCAF), to promote the integration of Chinese communities in Silicon Valley into the U.S. society. Under SVCAF, I was a key organizer for various endeavors supporting SFFA, including two forums in Silicon Valley featuring Mr. Blum and his team in May 2015 and May 2018, two membership drives for SFFA, a trip to join the Boston Rally supporting SFFA’s lawsuit against Harvard in October 2018, as well as several rounds of fundraising efforts in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Our latest effort in Oct. 2019 immediately followed the U.S. District Court Ruling of the SFFA v. Harvard case, raising $23,865 for SFFA.

If elected to the SFFA Board, I will facilitate the communications between SFFA and the Chinese American communities. This includes continuing to raise awareness for the cause that SFFA is fighting for; encouraging people to join as members; and serving as a voice reflecting values and opinions of these communities. I will also continue to raise funds for the organization. As a trained scientist, naturalized US citizen and experienced volunteer, I will bring my unique skills, perspectives and experiences to the board to help SFFA accomplish its mission under my term and beyond.

Again, please confidently cast your votes to me. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via liao@svcaf.org. 

Yours sincerely, 

**Chunhua Liao **

The Schedule of the Election

In the coming weeks, the members of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) will elect a new Director to the Board of Directors. This Director will have a direct voice in SFFA’s decision-making, including the management and direction of ongoing litigation. This Director will be elected through an online vote by the members of SFFA.

The Election will proceed through the following schedule and procedures:

• December 10, 2019 – Deadline for Submitting Nominations- December 17, 2019 – Members Receive the List of Candidates and Voting Begins- December 24, 2019 – Deadline for Voting- December 27, 2019 – The New Director Will Be Announced

About SFFA:

Students for Fair Admissions is a nonprofit membership group of more than 20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Our mission is to support and participate in litigation that will restore the original principles of our nation’s civil rights movement: A student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university.

由圣地亚哥亚裔平权会基金会（SDAAFE）、硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF）、橙县俱乐部（TOC）三个加州地方组织联合举办的加州青少年立法论文大赛于11月2日下午5:30在圣地亚哥Hilton Garden Inn San Diego Del Mar酒店举行了隆重的颁奖典礼。

圣地亚哥县检察长Summer Stephan、平权会会长谢家树、硅谷华人协会基金会理事廖春华、橙县俱乐部执行会长李嘉济、赞助圣地亚哥地区赛事的阳光地产主席赵京分别为获加州州级前三名以及进入州级决赛的同学颁发奖状和奖金。橙县俱乐部会长、加州68选区州众议员候选人Benjamin Yu（于淼）也来到现场为获奖同学们加油鼓劲。

本次立法论文大赛的主题是今年七月份刚刚通过的AB-392法案（五月份选题时仍在议会讨论中），关于警察使用致命武力的合法性界定问题。县检察长Summer Stephan的发言从执法者的角度介绍了警察日常工作的危险性，还描述了警察所接受的减少使用致命武力的训练，也列举了关于本县警察枪击事件的各项统计数据，还直接阐述了AB-392的相关情况，为参赛的同学们提供了第一手的详尽资料。她还回答了在场听众的问题，她对所从事工作各项数据的熟悉程度令在场听众折服。

在Summer Stephan的讲座结束以后举办了获奖学生的颁奖典礼，大赛裁判委员会主席曾永煌介绍了评奖的流程，以展示评奖过程的公正性。主持人徐佶翮分别介绍了获奖学生各自论文当中的亮点，并鼓励同学们2020年继续参加加州立法论文大赛，鼓励亚裔孩子们能够发挥自己的特长，积极思考社会问题，参与社区建设，回馈社会。

2019年立法论文大赛的获奖名单如下：

The judges have put down the vote!

Congratulation to the winners of 2019 Essay Contest on California State Legislation (The Third ‘Sunrise Realty Cup’ Youth Legislative Essay Contest )

** 2019 Essay Contest Final Round Rankings: **

Proposition Side:

Final RankingAuthor NameTitle of EssayAuthor Associated SchoolAuthor’s Grade in School1Minle GuoAB-392: A Bill to Save Lives Cerritos High School102Sophia FangAB-392: One Less Gunshot Westview High School103Yujia WangNew Bill to Save Lives Westview High School123Lucy LiuCalifornia Act to Save Lives Valley Christian High School9

Opposition Side:

Final RankingAuthor NameTitle of EssayAuthor Associated SchoolAuthor’s Grade in School1Isabelle ZhangNo titleCrystal Springs Uplands School 102Bennett Hochner AB-392 Creates AmbiguitiesSage Creek High School113Harry Huai Guan AB-392: The Purge of Peace Officers?Homestead High School93Kane XuAB 392: A False Reformation Del Norte High School11

And the following is a complete list of those who made into the final round:

• Amy Wang — Westview High School
• Andrew Gao — Canyon Crest Academy
• Brandon Xu — Northwood High School
• Anna Chen — Oak Avenue Intermediate School
• Katherine Han — Westview High School
• Bennett Hochner — Sage Creek High School
• Lucy Liu — Valley Christian High School
• Bruce Zhang — Bowditch Middle School
• Minghui Grace Yao — Mesa Verde Middle School
• Harry Huai Guan — Homestead High School
• Minle Guo — Cerritos High School
• Isabelle Zhang — Crystal Springs Uplands School
• Nicole Cui — ModernBrain
• Kane Xu — Del Norte High School
• Sophia Fang — Westview High School
• Madeleine Chang — Orange County School of Arts
• Yujia Wang — Westview High School
• Natalie Kwok — Heritage Oak Private Education

Congratulation to the above authors!

正方论文第一名 Minle Guo [下载pdf]：

反方论文第一名 Isabelle Zhang  [下载pdf]：

正方论文第二名 Sophia Fang  [下载pdf]

反方论文第二名  Bennett Hochner [下载pdf]

正方论文第三名 Yujia Wang  [下载pdf]

正方论文第三名 Lucy Liu [下载pdf]

反方论文第三名  Harry Huai Guan [下载pdf]

反方论文第三名 Kane Xu  [下载pdf]

这次职场经验讲座是由贺全牵头组织义工举办。邀请了二十多年FinTech退休高管陆先生为给职场的朋友们介绍些经验，建立些联系，以后可以互相帮助，互通信息，乃至互相提携。改变我们自己的一些习惯，提高自己，也在探讨之列。

SVCA基金会资助$500买了pizza, 方便中午参加讲座的嘉宾，义工和听众。

笔记正文

– 专业 vs 职业

技术，沟通力，领导力，业务能力

技术只是手段、工具。代码，专业，要转化为业务。

万能药？ vs 专业domain能力的支撑，精与深; vs 旁边的side track的知识、技能。

– 风险，担当，主人翁精神

出了事，不推；

有了功劳，也不应该推；

危与机，危转化为机会。。。帮公司排忧解难。

这个图是关于passion与skill的4-box；

• 低skill+缺passion, 这个属于混，肯定不行，得改变，不改变的话，会被干掉的。
• 高skill+缺passion, 技术属于大拿，但兴趣缺缺，属于能混的一个comfort zone, 职场中，不少属于此类；
• 低skill+有passion, 会使劲学，提高skill的；
• 高skill+有passion, 这个很lucky，很好。。。

随着时间的推移，上面的情况会变；所以，一年一度，要对自己至少审视一次。

– manager VS Leader

评判：；是否是 1+1 大于2？

不是的话，你只是manager;

是的话，你是leader.

80%的时间与精力，花在与人沟通上。

– 职场环境与找工作

找工作：找公司？找领导？

面试非常重要，双向面试；和找老公老婆差不多认真

去哪个团队？团队是核心业务的，还是打杂的？

好的leader，不会呆在烂公司的。

去面试时，观察流程；去看厕所；去借电话用一下。。。看看管理得好不好。

75%的人，工作的满意度，来自于自己的直接老板。。。选老板，选组，重要过选公司。不要太着意于package.

– 招人：

招人时，写job description…变成了被JD驱动的怪圈。

Hire for career vs Hire for a job

• 应该是Hire这个人的学习、适应能力，
• 有没有担当；
• 脸皮厚，能带领团队、带来贡献。而玻璃心，不行；
• 高维护（high maintenance）需要呵护哄开心的人不行; 时刻都在不开心。

追求卓越， 赋能他人。。。是自然而然的做，不是居高临下的；

Leader, 保持良好的沟通；

分享自己的喜悦。

自己的实例：支付风控部门；本来汇报给CTO, 后来加了2个老板。。。活还都自己干，白白加上2个婆婆；心里很不爽。。。

听了别人建议，“那两个你就不得罪就好”，照样继续干活。

后来，要升级系统，但沒budget…求助于“竞争对手”，讲清了升级的好处，不升级的坏处（万一撑不过黑色星期五的流量，会大大影响公司的revenue…), 没想到得到了大力支持，顺利升级，结果皆大欢喜。

体会就是：对于风险，有担当，为公司考量；也不以小人之心去度人。小人是有的，但人到一定层次后，大家都会以公司利益为重的；不要把自己放在一个被动的位置。

依仗自己的团队，依靠平时积累的生态；

从小我跳出来，对组织架构方面，reporting给谁谁，不必太在意；只要能做事即好。如果不能做事了，那就走人为好。

在美华人的短板：

1）融入不够；

2）团结不够。

在美华人，要入籍参与投票，要融入；

不要老想脚踏两只船。

这个，算是X-Curve,

• 一条随着年龄的增长，你对于公司的综合价值，（越来越低）；
• 另一条是随着年龄的增长，公司对于你的liability、负担（越来越重）

其他人的补充

转JY: 主讲人一开始就说，开会第一排没人，这是典型的中国人会场；如果是印度或白人，第一排会坐满

转JY: 他讲中国人作leader 要勇于担当，对credit and 过失都不退缩。他做code 一个重要项目出现bug, 用户团队的老板emailed him 20 “Fuck!”  他当时把20 fuck 打印下来贴在墙上，激励自己, 很快和人合作fix bug…

曹女士的补充：

我有幸今天聆听精彩讲座，我虽然不是这个行业的（哈哈，混进来），帮其他人听的。但感触挺深。

来之前我老想听到针对这个主题的具体答案，但实际他分享的是普世价值观，适合所有类型公司的 也适合中美一般大企业（排除个别），如何从技术型-技术型管理者，其实技术总有人会解决，但形成对公司有贡献的业务，需要懂点技术的管理者，跳开技术本身而高于技术本身（业务角度出发，公司角度出发），才能对公司产生1+1>2的价值，才具有不可替代性。当然，做事的时候不要太着眼眼前利益，多赋能别人，社会是公平的，适合任何行业。我的浅显体会。

多向各位学习

我再分享一句以前我领导教育的。

只说不做，空把式

只做不说，傻把式

既做又说，真把式

陆女士补充： 主讲人有个建议很好。不要五天都带饭和中国人一起吃中饭。至少有一天和组里的非中国人一起吃午饭。至少有一天和别的组里的非中国人一起吃午饭。

陆女士自己的体会：所以大家要做baseline check. 自己的Organization 上季度growth 有多少？做的产品是公司的cash cow, next generation product? 还是要退休的产品？

自己的老板是大老板的明星手下？大老板是不是大大老板的明星？就像主讲人所说跟对人最重要。

非常感谢组织这次的讲座，很受启发。

Wendy 的补充：

1. 一个优秀的领导人要有大格局，担当。不要把个人利益放在前位，而是把企业团队利益排在第一位。

2. 要脸皮厚，不要玻璃心。荣辱不惊，赋能他人。

3. 不是溜须拍马，而是可以替老板分忧解难。格局和思维方式是Leader和employee的分水岭。

Summary:

1.) 做自己喜欢的业务，成为专家，将技能转化为能为公司带来业绩；

2. 作leader, 不是只做manager; 具领导力

3. 赋能他人

讲座Q&A部分：

1. 俗话说，低头拉车，抬头看路。如何才能抬头看路？怎么看？对各行业的前景，可有观察与预测？

A. 未来十年High tech 前景仍然会很好。但是会有一些新问题出现比如tech integrity. AI对社会影响。

2. 中美关系的大局，时好时坏，在美华人到底应该如何定位？一会美国抓间谍，一会又抓商业剽窃的，如何自处？

A.比如对知识产权的维护，是个人的道德水准。和中美关系好坏无关。道德底线需要坚守也是个人的reputation.

3. 我在组里最能干，老板老给我加活，我都快累死了，而同事都挺清闲的样子。这好不公平。咋办？

A. 拿Prioritized work list和老板商量priority, 说自己可以有时间做多少。但是如果让自己train某组员，就可以完成多少。等到组员都忙的是时候，鼓动老板招人，然后主动来带新人，自然以后就是小老板啦。

4 作为妈妈，孩子也慢慢大了，需要照管，如何处理工作与家庭？

主讲人认为一定是要去take care好家庭。他在外面打拼的时候，他太太就回归家庭。現在他退休了，他太太在外面工作。他们家的family time 规定是不能带手机的，每个人要说出自己身边发生的一件事进行探讨。而且他不鼓励小孩，仅仅是为了上好大学而去做一些事情比如上补习班。

5. 关于最近FB的两宗“离去”，如果时光能倒流，应该怎么处理最好？

部分回答。第一没有任何工作值得去跳楼。如果是他，新老板来，别的组员换组，他可能就不换，也许更能脱颖而出。这个回答要和一开始的跟对人进对组结合在一起看。

如果是进对的组。新老板刚来也许可行。如果组不对， 老板也不会高明。新来的更不知道。答案也许就不同了。

职场讲座聊天群补充经验

主讲嘉宾：

大家提出的观点都很好，我想说的现在华人职场面临的问题只是一只深度问题的表现形式，这个深度问题就是我们华人（尤其是第一代华人）对自己在美国发展根本定位的问题：

当过客还是当主人 ？

只有这个问题想清楚了，初心归零归正，很多看事情的格局和角度就不一样了：老印不是我们的对手，我们自己才是我们的对手！

不客气的说，如果我们这个群大家只是关注职场技巧，最多就是学到的是”术”，不是道。

那么我们就有陷入了华人的怪圈，只有聪明，没有智慧。

我提个建议：我们这个群不要提老印是对手，我们要向老印学习的东西很多

我交流过，也读了微软CEO Staya的Hi Refresh这本书，有几件事情印象深刻，分享给大家：

（1）Staya在微软已经取得了绿卡，他回到印度结婚，发现新婚太太作为绿卡持有者的配偶，只能在印度等待她自己的绿卡签证，要等待很多年。Staya找到微软HR的法务部门，要求自己放弃绿卡，换成H1签证，然后给太太办理了H1配偶者签证，尽快老美团聚。

我自己问自己？我会为了自己的家人而放弃绿卡，重新开始吗 

人生就是要有得有失，关键是如果选择。华人往往什么好处都想占着，突然发现世界已经抛弃了我们

（2）Staya和当时微软的CEO Steve P去硅谷忽悠陆奇加盟微软。和陆奇交流了一天后，在回西雅图的公司商务机上，Satya对Steve P说，陆奇是个人才，微软现在非常需要

Steve说，你这样说非常好。不过现在有一个问题。陆奇如果来微软，他会在级别上高于你，你也会向陆奇汇报，你有问题吗 ？

Staya说让我想一想，第二天一早，他对Steve说，我完全支持你找陆奇来微软，我可以向他汇报，而且会全力以赴的支持他的工作

@硅谷忍者 陆奇在百度是被排挤走的。在微软，Staya离开陆奇的部门后，主持的微软云的业务，由于出色的业绩，可以说挽救了微软，被董事会任命为微软CEO后，陆奇在微软的仕途到头了，自己选择离开

当时微软内部悲观情绪蔓延，很多大牛离职。Bing业务是九死一生，云业务根本没有。Staya也是技术出身，但是作为云业务的一号位，把微软的云业务做到世界第二，成为了微软的新增长引擎，居功至伟。成为新的微软CEO，实至名归

说句大逆不道的话：华人如果永远是有自己的小九九，或者搞不清要坚持什么，放弃什么，脚踩两条船，左右摇摆，那我们搞多少职场讲座和交流，都是浪费时间

其实是很简单的人性：在座的各位谁愿意娶一位有二心的太太或老公回家 ？

要有True Believe ！否则人生会一事无成

Satya分享了很多鲜为人知的个人故事和经历，放弃绿卡，如果照顾自己有智障的孩子，境界，胸怀，视野，同情心。。。他有伟大的人格魅力，不仅聪明绝顶，还是一个善于思考，充满智慧的领导者，让微软1+1》N，是当代最伟大的企业家。本书由盖茨作序，推荐给大家

鸣谢

今天应该有130到150人之间到场；报名到130人时，就关闭报名表了。

今天Jason来到湾区，与大家面对面交流，分享心得体会与经验。感谢Jason倾心分享。

感谢义工们支持。陆琳，June Yang, sherlyn, 冯毅，Danya, 韩颖，Ben Hu, Paul Han, Nicole, 以及诸多帮助布置场地、清洁场地的朋友们。

感谢SVCAF sponsor lunch; 感谢Gold Team Financial Center免费提供这么好的场地与设备。

硅谷华人协会基金会(SVCA基金会)是华人草根自己的501(c)(3)非赢利公益组织。SVCA基金会致力于通过切实的义工行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华人， 研讨华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象，共同建设更美好的加州。

如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款。具体信息见: /pages/donations/

更多现场照片

AB 1356, if passed, would mandate those jurisdictions to issue cannabis licenses if more than 50 percent of the voters in that jurisdiction voted positively for Proposition 64 in 2016. That is in direct contradiction to Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code (“BPC”), part of MAUCRSA as adopted in Proposition 64. More specifically, subsection 26200 (a) of BPC provides, “[n]othing in this division shall be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to second hand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction.” Now, AB 1356 wants to take back the very authority the state legislators had guaranteed to the local jurisdictions as Proposition 64 became law. We are deeply disturbed by a flipflop that is this thorough and this abrupt.

Further, just because the majority of the voters in a particular jurisdiction are in favor of Proposition 64 doesn’t mean they agree that their local government should license cannabis retails stores in that jurisdiction. While legal access to cannabis should be protected, health and safety concern of the general public should also be protected at no less level. Local governments know their people best and should be afforded full authority to determine how they handle matters with regard to their own constituents.

California prides itself as the most inclusive state in the United States by accommodating people with varied backgrounds. That is only possible by letting people build their local communities and exercise control over their daily lives traditionally reserved to them and not delegated this control to the state or federal government. AB 1356, if passed, would undermine this very foundation. 

By blatantly contradicting the law of MAUCRSA, in which state legislators promised to preserve self-governance, AB 1356 would destroy the credibility of these legislators. This would result in a total loss of faith in our state lawmakers, a price tag too high to pay.

For the reasons above, SVCAF, with love of our great state of California, strongly opposes AB 1356 (Ting).

Crystal Lu

October 14, 2018

Hello everyone! Hello Boston!

My name is Crystal Lu. I come from California. Anyone here also from California?

I am President of a grassroots organization called Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation. Six board members including myself are here today. I know hundreds and thousands of Californians want to join you, but due to the distance, they can’t. However, they donated generously to pay for our trips. They made sure that the six of us can be here to join this amazing crowd. They made sure that I stand here on their behalf for this important and historical moment.

Everyone, can I please ask you to cheer for the Californians and those from all corners of the nation who are watching on livestream? Californians, since you are watching online, we can’t hear you. But we trust that you are reciprocating with some cheering too!

No matter where we are from, two things make Asian Americans stand out. One, extremely hardworking. Two, notoriously apathetic to politics.

We work hard, pay taxes, obey the law and order, and keep to ourselves. We tell our kids to follow the same accountability. Sounds like Model Minority, doesn’t it? When it comes to legal matters, politics, making public appearances, we rarely get involved, or even tune in.

But — Look at us, look at Copley Square, look at Boston. It is here, now, we proudly announce: We have casted that Model Minority stereotype out! We are rewriting history by making our voices heard, loud and clear, in solidarity!

This reminds me of early 2014, when we Asian Americans in California fought a bill called SCA5, short for Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5. It marked a water shedding moment of Asian Americans’ involvement in public affairs. SCA5 intended to amend the state constitution and re-establish the consideration of race, skin color and ethnicity in public university admissions in California. Sounds familiar to what Harvard is doing, right?

SCA5’s hidden agenda was to squeeze out the so called overrepresented groups like, you guessed it, Asian American students!

Just like that, the sleeping Tiger Moms and Dads woke up! This racially discriminatory agenda drove people out of their comfy little homes where they previously hid by working extra hours for their jobs, where their kids quietly studied extra math and sciences to stay ahead of school, and obediently practiced piano or violin every day, where TV was strictly limited. But this time Asian Americans rebelled! We demonstrated and protested in Sacramento and other cities. We labored and gathered petitions. We shamelessly lobbied legislators. In fact, my organization SVCA Foundation was born right there, right then.

In the end, we defeated SCA5. You know why? Because we broke apart from our role and got loud and obnoxious in 2014!

Today, we once again got loud and obnoxious! So if you ask me now what are the two characteristics of Asian Americans? No. 1 – the same – hardworking. No. 2, yes, YOU GUESSED IT, loud and obnoxious!

Growing up, my parents told me: If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it. They told me: Don’t raise your voice. They also told me: Avoid saying things that may upset the authority!

All sounds familiar?

My fellow citizens, don’t worry about being loud and obnoxious. Because, look, what had Model Minority gotten us? Our children’s personalities got assassinated despite their grit, perseverance and the many sacrifices they’ve made through all aspects of their lives. Harvard deems them lacking positive personalities such as likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected.

Believe it or not, being loud and obnoxious like we are right now won’t make it any worse. What do we have to lose?

My friends, I thank you for coming today to further buck that dispassionate, apathetic stereotype. I thank you for coming today to tell Harvard that we have American Dreams too.

We are at a time when our nation is sadly balkanized. We are seeing political and social tribes further divided than ever.

Therefore, I thank you for showing up today to tell Harvard to stop putting a wedge between various groups, to stop tearing up the very social fabric that our founding fathers and our great nation have worked so hard to build and strengthen.

All children deserve equal education rights. Today we say it loudly and obnoxiously!

有兴趣的朋友请查一查自己的公司是否提供这种 volunteer grant program。 也让自己喜欢的非盈利组织在 Benevity.com 注册 (SVCA Foundation 已经注册)。 这样就可以一边给自己喜欢的组织做义工，记录小时数，然后把小时数换钱捐公益组织。一举两得！

下面列举两个例子公司的信息， 给大家参考

https://doublethedonation.com/matching-gifts/microsoft

https://doublethedonation.com/matching-gifts/apple-inc

更多提供该 program的公司列表

https://doublethedonation.com/matching-grant-resources/list-volunteer-grant-companies/

下载链接：　knowYourRights_Chinese_English_v1.pdf

因为时间仓促，出现错误遗漏在所难免。欢迎发信到 info@svcaf.org 批评指正，我们将在下一版本中改进。任何文中有不确信的地方以英文原文为准，我们不负担因为编译错误引起的法律责任。

硅谷华人协会基金会(SVCA基金会)是华人草根自己的501(c)(3) 非赢利公益组织。SVCA基金会致力于通过切实的行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华 人，研讨华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象，共同建设更美好的加州。如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请访问我们的网站，加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款

/ .

硅谷华人协会基金会

2016年2月26日