New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[Belsnickel]

(09-15-2023, 02:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Two possibilities.  One, it's still in there hidden among the legaleeze.  Two, they removed it after it become public because people were rightfully outraged.  Both are equally possible and neither exonerates them the way you seem to believe.

When I looked at the Senate floor analysis from 5/27, which would be for the version of the bill that the article was about, there is no mention of the prohibition.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553

Apparently, the earlier version of the bill said an employer could not force a non-security employee to intervene, but that was removed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/09/12/false-claim-california-bill-would-outlaw-stopping-shoplifters-fact-check/70807687007/

Quite frankly, I think it should be law that an employer can't force it. If it isn't in your job description to confront an individual in a situation like that, and you aren't trained to, then you shouldn't be expected to.

Edit to add: I did a deeper dive on this, comparing the 5/22 version that initially passed the Senate to the current version that is due to become law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553&cversion=20230SB55395AMD

The Newsweek article did, in fact, misrepresent what was in the bill at that time. The part that was removed was as USA Today described, a prohibition against an employer requiring non-security employees to intervene.