A video circulating online appears to show signature collectors paying people to sign initiative petitions under other people’s names, according to officials, and now the state has opened an investigation.

The video, filmed by self-described street videographer JJ Smith, shows a long queue leading to a table set up at 6th and Mission streets in San Francisco. A man in line says they are being offered $5 to sign petitions. At the table, where there are lists with the information of apparent registered voters, a woman confirms the payment and — using a highlighter — instructs a person on the name and address that she is supposed to use.

“I get $5 too?” the person filming asks.

“Yeah,” says the woman.

“And what is it?”

“Just sign it,” she says.

Petitions connected to at least three ballot campaigns — including the billionaire-backed effort to thwart California’s proposed billionaire tax — appear in the video.

“I approached some people and asked them what they were there for,” Smith told The Times. “They told me they didn’t know what they were signing for, that they just wanted the $5.”

Smith, whose real name is Omar Ward, has been known for posting images on social of people suffering from addiction on San Francisco’s streets.

He said he watched the scene for hours and estimated that a few hundred people cycled through the line over roughly two hours.

Those running the table did not ask for anyone’s identification and gave no explanation of what was actually being signed, he said.

The video showed voter data from San Luis Obispo County that was both visible and, as details were spoken aloud, audible in the footage.

The county acted immediately after becoming aware of the video and initiated an investigation through the fraud unit of the California secretary of state’s office, said Erin Clausen, public information officer for the San Luis Obispo county clerk’s office.

Clausen noted that, although voter registration data can be legally requested from county election offices, the data in this case may have been used inappropriately. The county is also planning on reaching out directly to voters who were specifically mentioned or identified in the video, according to Clausen.

“The activity shown in the video, if verified, would violate California election law,” County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano said in a formal statement released Wednesday morning.

The secretary of state’s office confirmed it had opened a formal investigation.

“Under California law, it is illegal to give money or other valuable consideration to another in exchange for their signature on an initiative petition,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “Those who abuse our system will be held accountable.”

The office is working with local officials and encouraged anyone with information to file a complaint.

One political committee, Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, confirmed its petitions were among those whose signature gatherers were allegedly paying people to sign and moved quickly to distance itself from the activity.

“Under no circumstance do we tolerate this type of activity in the signature-gathering process,” said spokesperson Molly Weedn. “We’ve taken immediate action and have demanded that the signature gathering firm identify these circulators and reject their petitions.” Weedn said the collectors were subcontractors, not campaign employees, and that attorneys were contacting authorities.

That committee is funded by another group, Building a Better California, also seen in the video. The other was for a proposed initiative called the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026. Representatives for the latter two have not responded to requests for comment.

Smith said this was not the first time he had witnessed this type of activity in the area.

“I saw something similar with ballots three days ago,” he said.

The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with information can submit a complaint to the Office of the California Secretary of State or contact their local county elections office.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Passage of the SAVE America Act is of paramount importance to President Donald Trump and many congressional Republicans.

In his State of the Union speech, the president implored lawmakers “to approve the SAVE America Act to stop illegal aliens and other unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections.”

The House approved the plan to require proof of citizenship to vote last month, 218-213. There’s now a different version of the legislation that’s in play. And, as is often the case, the hurdle is the Senate. Specifically, the Senate filibuster.

So some Republicans are trying to save the SAVE America Act.

It’s important to note that Trump never called for the Senate to alter the filibuster in his State of the Union address. But in a post last week on Truth Social, Trump declared, “The Republicans MUST DO, with PASSION, and at the expense of everything else, THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.”

Again, the president didn’t wade into questions about overcoming a filibuster. But “MUST DO” and “at the expense of everything else” is a clear directive from the commander in chief.

That’s why there’s a big push by House Republicans and some GOP senators to alter the filibuster — or handle the Senate filibuster differently.

It’s rare for members of one body of Congress to tell the other how to execute their rules and procedures. But the strongest conservative advocates of the SAVE America Act are now condemning Senate Republicans if they don’t do something drastic to change the filibuster to pass the measure.

Some Senate Republicans are pushing for changes, or at the very least, advocating that Senate Republicans insist that Democrats conduct what they refer to as a “talking filibuster” and not hold up the legislation from the sidelines. It takes 60 votes to terminate a filibuster. The Senate does that by “invoking cloture.” The Senate first used the cloture provision to halt a filibuster on March 8, 1917. Prior to that vote, the only method to end a filibuster was exhaustion — meaning that senators finally just run out of gas, quit debating and finally voted.

So let’s explore what a filibuster is and isn’t and dive into what Republicans are talking about when they’re talking about a talking filibuster.

The Senate’s leading feature is unlimited debate. But, ironically, the “debate” which holds up most bills is not debate. It’s simply a group of 60 lawmakers signaling offstage to their leaders that they’ll stymie things. No one has to go to the floor to do anything. Opponents of a bill will require the majority tee up a cloture vote — even if legislation has 60 yeas. Each cloture vote takes three to four days to process. So that inherently slows down the process — and is a de facto filibuster.

But what about talking filibusters? Yes, senators sometimes take the floor and talk for a really long time, hence, the “unlimited debate” provision in the Senate. Senators can generally speak as long as they want, unless there’s a time agreement green-lighted by all 100 members.

That’s why a “filibuster” is hard to define. You won’t find the word “filibuster” in the Senate’s rules. And since senators can just talk as long as they want, they might argue that suggesting they are “filibustering” is pejorative. They’re just exercising their Senate rights to speak on the floor.

A true filibuster is a delay. For instance, the record-breaking 25-hour and 8-minute speech last year by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., against the Trump administration was technically not a filibuster. Booker began his oratory on the evening of March 31, ending on the night of April 1. Once Booker concluded, the Senate voted to confirm Matt Whittaker as NATO ambassador. The Senate was supposed to vote on the Whitaker nomination on April 1 anyway. So all Booker’s speech did was delay that confirmation vote by a few hours. But not much.

In October 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours. It was part of Cruz’s quest to defund Obamacare. But despite Cruz’s verbosity (and a recitation of Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Suess), the Senate was already locked in to take a procedural vote around 1 p.m. the next day. Preparations for that vote automatically ended Cruz’s speech. Thus, it truly wasn’t a filibuster either.

COLLINS BOOSTS REPUBLICAN VOTER ID EFFORT, BUT WON’T SCRAP FILIBUSTER

So, this brings us to the talking filibuster which actually gums up the Senate gearboxes. A talking filibuster is what most Americans think of when they hear the term “filibuster.” That’s thanks to the iconic scenes with Jimmy Stewart in the Frank Capra classic, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Most senators filibuster by forcing the Senate to take two cloture votes — spread out over days — to handle even the simplest of matters. That elongates the process by close to a week. But if advocates of a given bill have the votes to break the filibuster via cloture, the gig is up.

However, what happens if a senator — or a group of senators delay things with long speeches? That can only last for so long. And it could potentially truncate the Senate’s need to take any cloture vote, needing 60 yeas.

Republicans who advocate passage of the SAVE America Act believe they can get around cloture — and thus the need for 60 votes — by making opponents of the legislation talk. And talk. And talk.

And once they’re done talking, the Senate can vote — up or down — on the SAVE Act. Passage requires a simple majority. The Senate never even needs to tangle with 60.

Senate Rule XIX (19) states that “no senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day.”

Easy enough, right? Two speeches per day. You speak twice on Monday, then you have to wait until Tuesday? Democrats would eventually run out of juice after all 47 senators who caucus with Democrats have their say — twice.

But it’s not that simple. Note the part about two speeches per “question.”

Well, here’s a question. What constitutes a “question” in Senate parlance? A “question” could be the bill itself. It could be an amendment. It could be a motion. And just for the record, the Senate usually cycles through a “first-degree” amendment and then a “second-degree” amendment — to say nothing of the bill itself. So, if you’re scoring at home, that could be six (!) speeches per senator, per day, on any given “question.”

Questions?

But wait. There’s more.

Note that Rule XIX refers to a “legislative day.” A legislative day is not the same as a calendar day. One basic difference is if the Senate “adjourns” each night versus “recessing.” If the Senate “adjourns” its Monday session on calendar day Monday, then a new legislative day begins on Tuesday. However, the legislative day of “Monday” carries over to Tuesday if the Senate “recesses.”

It may be up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., whether the Senate “adjourns” or “recesses.” The creation of a new legislative day inhibits the GOP talking filibuster effort.

SEN LEE DARES DEMOCRATS TO REVIVE TALKING FILIBUSTER OVER SAVE ACT, SLAMMING CRITICISM AS ‘PARANOID FANTASY’

Democrats would obviously push for the Senate to adjourn each day. But watch to see if talking filibuster proponents object to Thune’s daily adjournment requests. If the Senate votes to stay in session, that forces the legislative day of Monday to bleed over to Tuesday.

Pro tip: Keep an eye on the adjournment vs. recess scenario. If a talking filibuster supporter tries to prevent the Senate from adjourning, that may signal whether the GOP has a shot at eventually passing the SAVE Act. If that test vote fails and the Senate adjourns for the day, the SAVE Act is likely dead in the water.

We haven’t even talked about a custom practiced by most Senate majority leaders to lock down the contours of a bill when they file cloture to end debate.

It’s typical for the presiding officer to recognize the Senate majority leader first on the floor for debate. So Thune and his predecessors often “fill” what’s called the “amendment tree.” The amendment tree dictates how many amendments are in play at any one time. Think of the underlying bill as a “trunk.” A “branch” is for the first amendment. A “sprig” from that branch is the second amendment. Majority leaders often load up the amendment tree with “fillers” that don’t change the subject of the bill. He then files cloture to break the filibuster.

That tactic curbs the universe of amendments. It blocks the other side from engineering controversial amendments to alter the bill. But if Thune doesn’t file cloture to end debate, then the Senate must consider amendment after amendment, repeatedly filling the tree and voting on those amendments. This would unfold during a talking filibuster, not when Thune is controlling the process by filing cloture and “filling the tree.”

This is why Thune is skeptical of a talking filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.

“This process is more complicated and risky than people are assuming at the moment,” said Thune.

In fact, the biggest “benefit” to filing cloture may not even be overcoming a filibuster, but blocking amendments via management of the tree. Republicans are bracing for amendments Democrats may offer.

“If you don’t think Democrats have a laundry list of amendments, talking about who won the 2020 election, talking about the Epstein files — if you don’t think they have a quiver full of these amendments that they’re ready to get Republican votes on the record, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you,” said George Washington University political science professor Casey Burgat.

Plus, forcing a talking filibuster for days precludes the Senate from passing a DHS funding bill. That’s to say nothing of confirming Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as Homeland Security secretary. His confirmation hearing likely comes next Wednesday, but a protracted Senate debate would block a confirmation vote from the floor.

JEFFRIES ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF ‘VOTER SUPPRESSION’ OVER BILL REQUIRING VOTER ID, PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP

Thune all but killed the talking filibuster maneuver on Tuesday — despite the president’s ultimatum.

“Do you run a risk of being on the wrong side of President Trump and your resistance to do this talking filibuster, tying the Senate in knots for weeks?” asked yours truly.

“We don’t have the votes either to proceed, get on a talking filibuster, nor to sustain one if we got on it,” replied Thune. “I understand the president’s got a passion to see this issue addressed.”

I followed up.

“Does he understand that, though?”

“Well, we’ve conveyed that to him,” answered Thune. “It’s about the math. And, for better or worse, I’m the one who has to be a clear-eyed realist about what we can achieve here.”

And there just doesn’t appear to be any parliamentary way to get there with the talking filibuster.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Like many things in Congress, it all boils down to one thing.

As Thune said, “it’s about the math.”

Attacks on multiple commercial ships in the waters around Iran on Wednesday increased global energy concerns, pushed nations to unleash strategic oil reserves and sparked fresh critiques of the Trump administration’s readiness for a war it started.

As Trump administration and U.S. military officials continued to claim increasing success and advantage in the conflict, leaders around the world scrambled to respond to the latest attacks and the International Energy Agency’s call for the largest ever release of strategic oil reserves by its members to help stem energy price spikes.

In an address Wednesday morning, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz had “all but stopped” amid the conflict, driving massive global competition for oil and gas in wealthier countries and fuel rationing in poorer nations.

He said the IEA’s 32 member nations have brought a “sense of urgency and solidarity” to recent discussions on the matter, and had unanimously agreed to “launch the largest ever release of emergency oil stocks in our agency’s history,” making 400 million barrels of oil available.

However, he said the most needed change is the “resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.”

Several countries, including Germany, Austria and Japan, had already confirmed their plans to release reserves.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on any U.S. plans to release its strategic reserves, or how much would be released. The U.S. is an IEA member.

However, U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed the idea of releasing oil reserves in a Fox News interview.

“Certainly these are the kinds of moments that these reserves are used for, because what we have here is not a shortage of energy in the world; we’ve got a transit problem, which is temporary,” Burgum said. “When you have a temporary transit problem that we’re resolving militarily and diplomatically — which we can resolve and will resolve — this is the perfect time to think about releasing some of those, to take some pressure off of the global price.”

Burgum said that while Iran is “holding the entire world hostage economically by threatening to close the strait,” President Trump has made the consequences of such actions “very clear,” and “there’s a lot of options between ourselves and our allies in the region, including our Arab friends in the region, to make sure that those straits keep open and that energy keeps flowing for the global economy.”

While some tankers believed linked to Iran were still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, which under normal circumstances carries 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas, Iranian officials threatened attacks on other vessels — saying they would not allow “even a single liter of oil” tied to the U.S., Israel or their allies through the channel, which connects to the Persian Gulf.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. and its powerful Navy would support commercial vessels and ensure the strait remains open to oil shipments, but that has not been the case.

Tankers wait off the Mediterranean coast of southern France on Wednesday.

(Thibaud Moritz / AFP/Getty Images)

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, run by the British military, has reported at least three ships struck in the region Wednesday — including ships off the United Arab Emirates and a cargo ship that was struck by a projectile in the strait just north of Oman, setting it ablaze.

The Trump administration and the U.S. military, meanwhile, have been pushing out messaging about wiping out Iran’s ability to plant mines in the strait — posting dramatic videos of major strikes on tiny boats on small docks.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the leader of U.S. Central Command, said in a video posted to X on Wednesday morning that “in short, U.S. forces continue delivering devastating combat power against the Iranian regime.”

“I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: U.S. combat power is building, Iranian combat power is declining,” he said.

The U.S. has struck more than 60 Iranian ships, and just “took out the last of four Soleimani-class warships,” he said. “That’s an entire class of Iranian ships now out of the fight.”

Cooper said Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks have “dropped drastically” since the start of the war, though “it’s worth pointing out that Iranian forces continue to target innocent civilians in gulf countries, while hiding behind their own people as they launch attacks from highly populated cities in Iran.”

He also addressed the attacks on commercial shipping in the region directly, saying that “for years, the Iranian regime has threatened commercial shipping and U.S. forces in international waters,” and that the U.S. military’s “mission is to end their ability to project power and harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Other U.S. leaders called the U.S. war plan — and specifically its approach to protecting the Strait of Hormuz — into question.

In a series of posts to X late Tuesday, which he said followed a two-hour classified briefing on the war, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slammed the administration’s plans as “incoherent and incomplete.”

Murphy wrote that the administration’s goals for the war seemed to be focused primarily on “destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories,” and without a clear plan for what to do when Iran — still led by “a hardline regime” — begins rebuilding that infrastructure, other than to continue bombing them. “Which is, of course, endless war,” he wrote.

Murphy also specifically criticized the administration’s plan for the Strait of Hormuz — which he said simply doesn’t exist.

“And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN,” he wrote. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open. Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.”