Born and raised in Silicon Valley, Assemblymember Evan Low describes technology and innovation as second nature to him and his millennial generation. But that’s just not the case with many members of the Legislature. So the Silicon Valley Democrat partnered with Assemblymember Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, to form a venue where lawmakers could learn about technology and share ideas.
When it launched in October 2015, the California Legislative Technology and Innovation Caucus had 11 members. It has grown to 30 lawmakers from both parties and houses. Its members include former teachers, attorneys, small business owners, a sheriff’s captain, a dentist and a financial planner — just to name a few. The group comes together to discuss and debate legislation, and provides a forum for members to learn about various advancements in technology and the implications and opportunities for government.
Q: Why did you create the Tech Caucus?
I had bill where I had a senator asking, “What is Uber?” I was shocked, and it was very apparent to me we needed to start from the very basics. Our mission is to educate our legislators about what the tech and innovation economy is all about.
I want to ensure California continues to maintain its competitiveness, not only in the nation but worldwide. That we could replicate Silicon Valley, not just in Silicon Valley, but across the entire state.
Q: The Tech Caucus is a relatively new entity. How have you and your co-chair sought to raise the profile of the caucus and tech legislation in general?
Often a piece of legislation is in response to a news article or in response to a constituent complaint. We want to ensure we have the tech expertise in the Legislature. It’s not just about the sexy Googles and Facebooks of the world, but the biotech industry, shared economy, drones, cybersecurity, procurement, manufacturing, the health-care sphere and the agriculture community. There are so many issues to cover.
Q: How often do you hear from the tech industry about legislative issues? Is there a partnership there?
This is a member-driven caucus, and it’s a forum for members and industry alike to have dialog and education about issues. For example, we’re having conversations with the tech industry about its workers, holding the tech industry accountable, and making sure we have a diverse workforce. Ensuring we have a workforce that supports everybody, not just the engineers, but also the rank and file. That there are livable wages for its bus drivers and janitors. Facebook, in particular, has taken a leadership role in this area.
We’ve passed a number of bills in the Legislature on paid family leave, paid vacation and minimum wage. As part of our conversation with the tech industry, we say we would be encouraged if they could pass these philosophies within their own workforce. This is by no means a rubberstamp for the industry.
Q: Government is often criticized for being slow to embrace technology. What has your experience been as a legislator?
I wholeheartedly agree. But, by default, government is designed to be slow and to have separation of powers. By default, innovation and an innovation economy is disruptive. It changes the status quo. The change is much more forward-thinking than the regulatory environment. So, by default, government is always going to be behind. I want to know how can we ensure the gap isn’t that wide.
Q: Can you give any examples of how government remains behind others on a technology issue?
Driverless vehicles are a good example. Not too long ago, it was the case when an innovator had a conversation with the DMV. The DMV’s response was, “We don’t have anything in statute.” Other states said, “Uber, Google, you want to have driverless vehicles? Come to our state.”
We can provide a forum for state agencies to use and talk about the innovation economy. So if they say it’s not in statute, we’ll say that we’ll work with legislation that will help.
Another example are drones. The use of drones is a new thing. We don’t have the laws and regulations in place because they are so new. We defer to the [Federal Aviation Administration], and then there are local ordinances. What we saw in California was a patchwork of ordinances. Now we are discussing if it’s in the best interest of the state to provide a foundation so we can have a baseline.
Q: Neither you nor your co-chair came from the tech industry. In fact, very few members of your caucus have tech backgrounds. How does a group of lawmakers with such a diverse background come together to represent technology?
The tech industry is not monolithic. Facebook and Google will have differences of opinion, as will Apple. We are not monolithic. Everyone has expressed an interest in a particular area. You have different leaders with different skill sets. Our caucus tackles different sectors and different areas, and different individuals are interested in different areas, and we come together. It transcends more than “I want to be a member because tech and innovation is a sexy issue.”
It’s the largest caucus of its kind in the Legislature related to a specific issue. We are not a caucus in name only. We have priority legislation, we have meetings, and we engage with departments and agencies.
There’s not a structure in the Legislature for something like this. In the committee process, you have a three- or five-minute testimony of opposition or support. There’s not the opportunity to have thoughtful conversation because of the legislative deadlines. This provides a venue and real, meaningful dialog.
Q: The issue of encryption on mobile devices is one example you have cited as a place where your caucus shared different opinions. How so?
Assemblymember Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, believed it was in the best interest for law enforcement to get data from the devices. Because of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, there was much conversation around why he believed that. He had the opportunity to talk about these issues and why he believed it was important. I had concerns understanding the legislative intent and its implications.
We had a thoughtful dialog about why this bill was introduced and helped strengthen it. Without the existence of the Tech Caucus, where else would we have a venue for discussion in a non-combative way? [Cooper’s AB 1681 was held in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.]
Q: What is in the future for the Tech Caucus?
Hopefully we will bring in new members. We will be visiting different conferences and meeting with industry to talk about computing and procurement. We will be talking about the things we can be doing to help California be that much stronger.
This story is published in the fall 2016 issue of Techwire magazine.
