Paid sick leave carveouts for smallest Nebraska businesses, minors, temp ag workers advance
LINCOLN — Nebraska state lawmakers advanced a bill Friday that seeks additional carveouts to the language of the new paid sick leave law voters approved in 2024 before it takes effect this fall.
Lawmakers voted 34-14 to advance Legislative Bill 415, with all Republicans and one Democratic senator voting to advance the bill in the officially nonpartisan body.
The split vote came largely because of the folding in of LB 698, from freshman State Sen. Paul Strommen of Sidney, which opponents said would undercut the recently passed law. The amended LB 415 would not require paid sick leave to be given to 14 or 15 year olds, temporary or seasonal agricultural workers or workers in businesses with 10 or fewer employees.
Businesses could still choose to offer such leave to these employees.
State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha did not vote for or against advancing the amended bill in part because he viewed the underlying LB 415, as introduced, as an important bill. He said his 'present, not voting' position was a 'show of good faith' that Strommen might listen to some concerns raised during debate in future rounds of debate on the bill.
Beginning Oct. 1, under the currently approved law, businesses with fewer than 20 weekly employees would allow employees a process to accrue up to five days' worth of paid sick leave a year (40 hours), or seven days for larger businesses (56 hours). An hour of leave could be earned for every 30 hours worked.
Employees can use paid sick leave for themselves or a family member for mental or physical illness, injury or a health condition or for a medical diagnosis or preventive medical care. Paid sick time could also be used during a public health emergency that closes a business or school.
Voters adopted the paid sick leave ballot measure with nearly 75% of the vote in November, including majority support across all 49 legislative districts. The measure was heavily supported by Nebraska labor groups.
Strommen said he believed it was the Legislature's duty to 'iron out details' and make the laws 'make sense for everyone, workers and businesses alike.'
'It is incumbent upon the legislature to ensure it is workable,' he said.
The Paid Sick Leave for Nebraskans coalition said Friday that voters were clear in November about providing earned paid sick leave to all Nebraskans, regardless of age, sector, workforce status or business size.
'We are extremely disappointed by the Nebraska Legislature's egregious disregard of the will of Nebraska voters,' the coalition said in a statement.
LB 415 was originally introduced by State Sen. Beau Ballard of Lincoln as a 'cleanup bill' that he worked on with the Nebraska Chambers of Commerce and advocates for paid sick leave. The campaign manager of last year's paid sick leave measure told the Nebraska Examiner in January they were 'not concerned' with the changes but would oppose any more expansive amendments.
Ballard's bill would clarify that businesses that meet or exceed the new law would not need to change their existing leave policies, including accrual or carryover components. It would also clarify how leave can be requested and when employees could begin to accrue sick leave.
'LB 415 is a cleanup bill meant to clarify some of the concerns of members in the business community,' Ballard said of his introduced bill.
Multiple senators had spoken in favor of Ballard's bill but withdrew their support after Strommen's bill was attached.
While well-intentioned, Strommen said, he argued the new 'mandate' — his word for what voters passed — could raise costs or lead to lost jobs or wages, or some small businesses shutting down altogether.
He said his bill recognized the will of voters while 'avoiding a few serious detriments.'
'While the idea of paid sick leave is appealing, government mandates on businesses can create unintended negative consequences for employees, specifically those who work for small businesses,' he said.
Strommen's additions would also give the Nebraska Department of Labor sole authority to enforce the act, rather than private lawsuits.
The bill will likely need to be amended in the future to maintain at least 33 votes, the minimum amount needed to change the voter-approved measure, under the Nebraska Constitution. Strommen has filed to add back in the private lawsuits enforcement, as has State Sen. Dave Wordekemper of Fremont. Other supporters said they wanted that change to be added back in.
Two other amendments lawmakers could consider would keep the paid sick leave requirements for minors and ag workers and the right to sue if the paid sick leave is not granted. Both would continue to exempt the smallest businesses from the new requirement, as Strommen proposed.
State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln proposed keeping the 10 or fewer employee level, while State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha has proposed lowering that to three or fewer employees, which is the cut-off for minimum wage.
Across a full week of debate, opponents sought to frame the measure as one in a string of emerging bills that they said would hurt working families and roll back or sidestep recently approved ballot measures.
In a heated exchange with Strommen, for example, Conrad asked why he would 'honor election elections for your race, but not for ballot initiatives?' Strommen said he voted against the measure in November.
'If you do not trust the election results, you should resign your position,' Conrad told Strommen.
Strommen, who was visibly taken aback, scoffed and told her, 'That's fantastic.' He immediately put the question back on Conrad, asking if she was comfortable telling her constituents she opposed his changes that 'had the opportunity to ensure that they [her constituents] were going to have their jobs.'
Conrad interrupted and said that wasn't her question, nor was it the question before voters.
Whether lawmakers should amend any ballot measure shortly after its passage was another theme of the debate, teeing up an expected fight next week on whether to create exceptions or cap annual increases to the state minimum wage, which passed in 2022.
State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, the Democratic lawmaker who supported the Strommen and Ballard bills, is leading the minimum wage changes in her 2025 priority bill: LB 258. Raybould's family created and owns B&R Stores, the parent company of Super Saver, Russ's Market and more. The company announced this week that she will step down as vice president of the company Monday.
Raybould and State Sen. Bob Hallstrom of Syracuse pointed to the Nebraska Constitution allowing lawmakers to change ballot measures with a 33-vote supermajority.
Raybould described that higher threshold as a 'balance' that is necessary when voters have a 'take it or leave it' option at the polls.
'To suggest that it is wrong for the Legislature to deliberate and bring thoughtful changes to legislation passed by initiative is like you're saying it is wrong for the people to have the right to a referendum,' Raybould said.
If a ballot measure fails, supporters are prohibited under state law from advancing a similar measure at a future election for at least two years. The petition process must also be repeated.
State Sen. Tony Sorrentino of the Elkhorn area said that if lawmakers truly didn't want to touch initiatives and consider them settled, he expected 'pro choice' lawmakers to never push to expand abortion in the state.
'I'm just following up on your ideas,' Sorrentino said. 'I have a feeling that probably won't happen, but I think you have to hear both sides of the logic.'
State Sens. Terrell McKinney and Wendy DeBoer, both of Omaha, argued there was no binary option and that voters had the right to vote as they wanted to.
DeBoer said if senators disagreed with voters, that's OK, but that it is the people who get to decide what government looks like. She said lawmakers 'do not have veto power over the people.'
'In every election as long as I can remember, there has been at least one result that I did not like, that I thought was foolish, that I thought was the wrong decision,' DeBoer said.
She continued: 'If someone can say, 'No, we veto what the people say,' then we are no longer a government where the people choose.'
Hallstrom described that as a 'false narrative' and said he didn't think anyone was saying voters were wrong or misinformed.
Multiple senators said during the debate or off the floor that voters couldn't have possibly envisioned the full implications of the law. Some senators said they believed voters were likely more focused on abortion, school choice or marijuana last fall, not paid sick leave.
No campaign was waged against the paid sick leave campaign, which Conrad said was 'because they knew they couldn't win' and that opponents wanted to 'sneak into the Legislature to undermine the will of the voters.'
'They did not do so with their fingers crossed behind their backs,' Conrad said. 'The election results were not notched with an asterisk saying, 'Oh, yes, it received 70% support, but we in leadership think Nebraska voters were not smart enough to understand what they were voting for.''
Conrad challenged those opposing the current law to run a ballot initiative themselves. Sorrentino, Conrad and McKinney are among those who brought measures this year related to recently approved ballot measures.
In Sorrentino's case, he is seeking to revive a defeated school choice program via tax credits for scholarships, or vouchers, to private schools. Conrad and McKinney were among four senators to bring measures to clarify or change how medical cannabis should be implemented.
State Sen. Mike Moser of Columbus said being told to offer increased minimum wage to all employees, no matter their work ethic, is one thing, while the addition of another 'mandate' like paid sick leave, 'again, without merit,' he said, is 'not an economic benefit to the employer.'
'Business owners are not bottomless wishing wells full of money for the benefit of their employees,' Moser said.
Hallstrom said some businesses would face a 'double whammy' in paying someone out sick and paying a temporary worker.
State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward noted her children have done detasseling for several weeks in the summer, and she said they didn't need sick leave during that time.
'If they were sick, they stayed home and didn't get paid,' she said.
Supporters of the paid sick leave law have said businesses are better off offering paid sick leave by being able to retain employees and avoiding workforce churn. They've also argued workers benefit from the paid time off because it gives them the flexibility to attend to their families and recover from illness without financial loss.
McKinney and other opponents repeatedly read district-by-district election margins on the issue, which ranged from 60% in ruby-red north-central Nebraska for freshman State Sen. Tanya Storer all the way up to 92% support in McKinney's North Omaha district.
'Supporting 'family values' means supporting families, and that starts with letting people take care of sick kids or elderly parents without losing their income or taking care of themselves in time of sickness,' McKinney said.
State Sens. Dunixi Guereca and Margo Juarez, both of Omaha whose districts were among those with the highest support for the measure, said they trusted voters to make the right choice. Guereca said the changes seek to exclude the 'very people' that some voters had in mind, such as a single mother who is a waitress or a worker in a small fabrication shop, who 'just need a little help.'
Sorrentino said Strommen's bill was an 'extremely friendly amendment.' He noted the federal Family Medical Leave Act, to preserve employee's jobs up to 12 weeks of unpaid labor, applies to businesses with 50 or more employees in a 75-mile radius.
'It was administratively and financially a huge burden on them. There's no reason to burden 10 lives or less with this law,' he said. 'I think [LB] 415 was a good law. I think as amended, it's a better law.'
Nebraska Examiner senior reporter Cindy Gonzalez, political reporter Juan Salinas II and editor-in-chief Aaron Sanderford contributed to this report.
The Paid Sick Leave for Nebraskans campaign raised a total of $3.4 million, the vast majority in 2023, and spent $3.3 million on the campaign, according to most recent filings with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission. Nearly all funds came from organizations; $460 came from individuals.
By December 2023, the D.C.-based Sixteen Thirty Fund had donated $1.92 million. The fund is managed by Arabella Advisors, which was founded by a former administration appointee by former President Bill Clinton. It oversees a hub of other left-leaning nonprofits that have received donations from billionaire George Soros in the past. It doesn't disclose its donors.
The campaign has also received $350,000 from the Open Society Policy Center, a principal financial arm founded by Soros, and about $280,000 from the D.C.-based The Fairness Project.
The Fairness Project donated to various ballot measure campaigns in Nebraska's past three statewide elections to increase Nebraska's minimum wage, curb predatory payday lending and expand Medicaid.
The largest local donating group to the sick leave campaign was Nebraska Appleseed — a local nonprofit focused on child welfare, immigration, health care and poverty. It gave about $555,520.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
11 minutes ago
- The Intercept
What to Do — And Not to Do — About a Judge Like Emil Bove
Emil Bove, the nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is sworn in before his confirmation hearing in the Senate on June 25, 2025, in Washington. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images President Donald Trump's second term has so far been a constant barrage of unconstitutional actions and illegal orders. So it was thus no surprise when the Senate on Monday confirmed Trump's former personal lawyer and Justice Department lackey, Emil Bove, to a lifetime appointment on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That 50 Republican senators would install this fascist bootlicker to one of the most powerful judicial positions in the land for life is, as MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann put it, 'a nail in the coffin' for a system of checks and balances on authoritarian presidential overreach. There's a risk, however, after a grave blow like this to legal, political, and constitutional norms, that liberal epitaphs to the American constitutional order will mourn the wrong thing. Bove's appointment confirms something worse than the Republican embrace of lawlessness. He represents the Republicans' use and abuse of our fraught constitutional order for the purposes of enacting profound, life-denying, and long-lasting injustices to uphold a white nationalist regime. Liberal epitaphs to the American constitutional order risk mourning the wrong thing. Calling on the restoration of preexisting norms of law and constitutionality to reverse course will be, at best, insufficient. After all, liberal reliance on a system of order above justice helped deliver us Trump and his jurist enablers in the first place. This is not to understate how appalling it is that Bove has been appointed a federal judge. 'It is one thing to put lab-designed Federalist Society members on courts across the country — and, to be clear, several of Trump's nominees from his first administration went far beyond that,' wrote legal journalist Chris Geidner when Trump nominated Bove, 'but it is another thing altogether to name a lawless loyalist to a federal appeals court.' Geidner called Bove's confirmation a 'line that cannot be crossed.' It has now been crossed. Bove is perhaps best known as the Justice Department official who dismissed corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams — a decision that led more than 10 Justice Department attorneys to resign in protest. He fired federal prosecutors who had worked on January 6 cases. According to three Justice Department whistleblower accounts, Bove also told federal attorneys that they 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'' and ignore orders blocking the administration from sending immigrants to El Salvador's gulag. Over 900 former Justice Department attorneys, identifying with both parties, wrote letters opposing Bove's judgeship. Yet Republican senators refused to hear whistleblower testimony and dismissed the widespread concerns about Bove as Democratic meddling. As usual, they did what the president asked. Bove's new, permanent position assures more serious harms to come. Given how few cases are heard by the Supreme Court, the 3rd Circuit is most often the final voice in the law for cases from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Bove has made unwaveringly clear that, for him, the law is the president's will. This position is now standard in the Republican Party and all too consistently affirmed by a Supreme Court majority committed to unitary executive theory to vest authoritarian powers in Trump's hands. Earlier this month, Geidner posted on social media that 'should Bove be confirmed — which he should not be — he should immediately be the subject of an impeachment inquiry should Dems retake Congress.' Based on his actions at the Department of Justice, there are ample grounds to call for impeachment. Democrats should vow to do this immediately. Senate Democrats carry significant blame for Bove's judgeship, too. Senate Democrats, after all, carry significant blame for Bove's judgeship, too. His seat should have been filled by Biden nominee, Adeel Mangi, who would have been the first Muslim judge on a federal appeals court. Instead of shutting down vile, Islamophobic Republican attacks against Mangi, Senate Democrats allowed the smears to gain ground and eventually stood down on the nomination. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday said, 'To confirm Mr. Bove is a sacrilegious act against our democracy.' He did not mention that, when he was Senate majority leader, he permitted a relentless Islamophobic campaign to tank Mangi, a qualified nominee, which left the judge's seat open for Trump's taking. The Democratic establishment may lament Bove's confirmation as 'a dark, dark day,' but we have no reason to think that this party leadership will bring us toward the light. Geidner's suggestion — to pursue impeachment — would be the very least that Democrats can do. What they should already be doing is using every tool in their power to hinder Trump's deportation machine. Given the Democrats' own vile embrace of harsh border rule, I am not holding my breath. The judges who have continued to push back directly against Trump's illegal actions, meanwhile, remain a crucial constraint on some of the administration's worst attacks on our rights. These judges are under unprecedented attack. On the same day Bove was confirmed, Trump's Justice Department filed a baseless misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. In March, Boasberg issued an order to block deportation flights to El Salvador under Trump's invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — the very sort of order that Bove reportedly told attorneys to say 'fuck you' to. In an obscene retaliatory escalation, the Justice Department's complaint claims that Boasberg's alleged comments — that the administration could trigger a 'constitutional crisis' by disregarding court orders — 'have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.' The complaint says that the administration has 'always complied with all court orders.' The idea that it constitutes judicial misconduct to suggest otherwise, despite clear evidence of the executive's disregard for certain unfavorable court orders, is the sort of authoritarian logic that obviates concerns about a constitutional crisis in the worst way: There can be no crisis if fascist rule silences all constitutional pushback. Then the problem is not a constitutional order in crisis, but a fascist order without opposition. This is not yet the state of affairs. The courts — certain courts, at least — are not yet a dead end. It should be increasingly clear, however, that they will not deliver us from fascism either. As legal scholar Aziz Rana wrote earlier this year, the left should 'strongly back litigation efforts and condemn Trump's defiance of the courts,' but not because the courts are a terrain of liberatory struggle. Rana is clear that 'the reason to oppose Trump's violation of court orders is not out of a general faith in judges or constitutional norms,' but because they are a tool, however limited, for protecting people and holding the administration to account. The affront at the heart of Bove's confirmation is not that he does not respect the law — although that should no doubt be disqualifying for a judge. If that's where we object, however, we risk lionizing a criminal legal system that also gives rise to racist policing and mass incarceration. Bove's violence lies primarily in his commitment to a form of injustice that ensures impunity for the corrupt and powerful, while the poorest and most vulnerable are treated as wholly disposable. The infamous advice Bove allegedly gave to ignore court orders over deportations was a 'fuck you' to the Constitution and the rule of law, yes, but above all it was a 'fuck you' to the over 200 men who were rounded up, kidnapped, shaved, beaten, and tortured in a foreign gulag without any recourse. It was a 'fuck you' to human beings. It should go without saying that the constitutional order in and of itself has never in practice guaranteed equality and justice for all. The constitutionalization of slavery's abolition and many basic civil rights protections took extraordinary social struggle and political work. The successful dismantling of the constitutional right to an abortion took decades of political organizing, too. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees progress. 'The great social movements of the past, from abolition to civil rights, labour to women's suffrage, famously called for the defiance of unjust court judgments that sustained slavery, segregation and disenfranchisement, or criminalized union organizing,' Rana noted. 'Considering the current right-wing control over the courts, the left may find itself in a similar place in the coming years, calling for civil disobedience of judicial authority.' With judges like Bove in place, such action will likely be all the more necessary.
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Kamala Harris leaves door open for potential 2028 presidential run
'For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office,' she said, after explaining she didn't intend to enter the race for California governor in 2026. WASHINGTON – Former Vice President Kamala Harris won't be running for California governor in 2026– but is not ruling out another bid for the White House. The two-time Democratic presidential candidate, who abruptly took over as her party's nominee in the 2024 general election, said in a surprise announcement on July 30 that she would not compete in next year's gubernatorial race. What Harris, who currently lives in Southern California with her husband Doug Emhoff, did not say was whether she'd decided about running for president in 2028. 'For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office,' she said. 'I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans.' A source familiar with her thinking said Harris, 60, did not pass on a gubernatorial campaign in order to clear a path to run for president in 2028. But the person noted that Harris also did not close the door on running for president. And it would have been politically impossible for her to seek both elected offices. The next governor of California will take office at the beginning of 2027, around the same time that Harris would need to be gearing up for a presidential bid were she to compete again. Another factor: Harris is currently writing a book, two people with knowledge of her plans said, and is expected to go on tour. More: Burdened by what had been: Kamala Harris couldn't convince voters "She can do anything she wants to do, but she owes us nothing. And I hope she spends some time with the kids and Dougie, maybe teaches. I'm ready to go read the book,' longtime Harris ally Bakari Sellers said. 'She's a talent and 2028 could be it. Or 2032. Whatever she decides. She's young." The announcement adds an additional wrinkle to the decision-making process for Democrats with national ambitions who were forced to take a back seat to Harris last year, when former President Joe Biden quit his reelection campaign and endorsed his sitting vice president as his replacement. Harris lost in a landslide to President Donald Trump, whom she characterized on the trail as an acute threat to democracy in the face of robust evidence that the electorate was primarily concerned about inflation and the economy. She also came under criticism in the abbreviated campaign for refusing to distance herself from Biden, whose mental fitness and age have faced even greater scrutiny since he left office. In her statement on the California governor's race, Harris said the country is in a 'moment of crisis' because the nation's politics, government and institutions have frequently failed the American people. 'As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking – committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook,' Harris said. 'She could still drop the hammer' The announcement took even some of her closest political allies by surprise. 'I was anticipating an announcement for governor, because she would be good at it, and I thought she still wanted to get back in that fryer right now,' said Sellers, a co-chair of Harris' first presidential campaign. Harris allies said they do not know which way Harris would come down on a 2028 presidential bid, but they were glad to see her commit to remaining politically active. 'I think we'll all be waiting with bated breath to see what her next steps are,' former Biden and Harris campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said. Chavez Rodriguez worked for Harris in her Senate office and on her bid for the 2020 presidential nomination before joining Biden's team. She worked as a senior aide at the White House and ran his reelection campaign. She said she believes Harris is focused on 'figuring out what she can do in the moment…given the challenges that we're facing in the immediate, and what I know will be even more challenges coming up.' Glynda Carr, president of Higher Heights, which works to expand Black women's political power and backed Harris' 2020 presidential bid, said her campaign had inspired other women to run. 'I am on team Kamala Harris in whatever she decides to do,'' Carr said, noting that Harris can lead outside of having an elected office. 'I'm on team 'Kamala, private citizen,' team 'Kamala, candidate.'' Jaime Harrison, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, said he would like to see Harris campaign for Democrats running for office in 2026, especially in the South. He encouraged his party to stay focused on overturning Republicans' narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and winning governorships. 'It's good to have her out there, and I'm sure, as she goes around the country, she'll make up her mind about what she wants to do about 2028. But we can't think about 2028 until we get to 2026,' Harrison said. As for what it all means for possible candidates such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the answer is simple, Sellers said. 'Nothing, because she could still drop the hammer on all of them if she wants to run for president,' the Harris ally said. 'She'll beat all of them if she decides.'
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Why Kamala Harris isn't running for governor
Still, her team was confident she could mount a winning governor's campaign, and she was hearing encouragement from national Democrats who wanted to avoid a messy intra-party feud in a blue state. Another faction of Democratic politicians and donors was less enthusiastic, though few voiced their misgivings directly to Harris. Some members of her party spoke of a prolonged hangover from her presidential loss. Even if they did not blame her for losing to Trump in a truncated campaign, they did not want to be reminded of what transpired. Among Harris' most ardent backers, the mood was decidedly mixed. Some remembered how she had initially eyed the governorship a decade ago, only to run for U.S. Senate instead. Others questioned if she truly was interested in spending time in Sacramento, hundreds of miles from her Los Angeles home, slogging through grueling budget negotiations and contending with state legislators. Many conveyed they'd be with her either way — but they wanted to be sure it was the best decision Harris could make for herself. Kamlager-Dove, meeting again with Harris in June as the speculation around the governor's race was hitting its peak, urged the former vice president to make a decision 'that was going to sit right with her heart.' 'As a woman, I know what it's like to feel like someone might be pressuring you to do something that you don't necessarily want to do,' Kamlager-Dove said. 'So I remember being very vocal about making sure that she was leaning into her own agency. She put her hand on her heart and thanked me for saying that and for sharing that, and I could tell that she was taking all of this very seriously.' Last week, Harris traveled to England to attend the wedding of Eve Jobs, daughter of Steve Jobs and Laurene Powell Jobs, a close friend of Harris'. The Cotswolds event, which included a number of attendees from her long-ago San Francisco days, was a clarifying change of routine that, according to several people close to her, helped solidify her decision. She began to inform her inner circle of her decision when she returned on Sunday. Among those who got an advance heads-up were Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, a gubernatorial candidate who had planned to leave the race if Harris ran. People who spoke to her prior to the public announcement said she was upbeat and quick to laugh, showing some relief in making her decision. Her allies say she still sees a national role for herself and is not closing the door on a 2028 presidential run, although that was not a predominant factor in her decision. 'There's a lot of work that has to be done here in California specifically, but there's a lot of work that has to be done in the country,' said Todd Hawkins, a Los Angeles-based bundler who has supported Harris for years. 'And I think she sees her voice as a national voice as well, not limiting that to California.'
