Airport security line cutters are target of first-in-the-nation California bill

SACRAMENTO, California — In this deep blue state where Republicans rarely back Democratic colleagues in the Capitol, one issue is overcoming the partisan divide: line skipping at airports.

A pair of Orange County state senators from opposing parties — who frequently fly between their districts and Sacramento — are both boosting a first-in-the-nation proposal critics say would ban the expedited security screening company CLEAR from state airports.

“The least you can expect when you have to go through the security line at the airport is that you don’t suffer the indignity of somebody pushing you out of the way to let the rich person pass you,” Josh Newman, the Democratic lawmaker who authored the bill, told POLITICO.

His Republican colleague, Janet Nguyen, expressed a similar reason for backing the bill.

“I do understand the frustration stated in Senator Newman’s bill,” Nguyen, who sits on the transportation committee, said in an email to POLITICO. “It becomes a haves vs. have nots where those who can afford it jump in front of the rest of us. They even cut in front of TSA Pre-boarding pass travelers who have been screened by the TSA.”

Newman’s bill would require third-party vendors like CLEAR to get their own dedicated security lane or lose the ability to operate in California airports. Currently, CLEAR customers pay $189 a year to verify their identities at airport kiosks before being escorted past queued passengers to the front of TSA lines.

Although there’s some bipartisan agreement on the bill, it still faces a tough path to passage because industry groups have lined up against the measure that’s set to come before the Senate transportation committee Tuesday. It’s the latest example of California’s business interests trying to quash what they see as government overreach in the state that’s banned everything from gas-powered vehicles to purple Peeps. But the lawmakers have a powerful labor ally in this fight — flight attendants and TSA agents who denounce CLEAR as a pay-to-play system.

Six major airlines — Delta, United, Southwest, Alaska, JetBlue and Hawaiian — are fighting the bill, citing revenue loss from CLEAR that could result in an increase in airfare. CLEAR verified more than five million frequent fliers at those six airlines in California last year, “which means our most loyal customers find value in using CLEAR,” according to their letter. Delta, United and Alaska have partnerships with CLEAR.

CLEAR, founded in 2010, provides identity verification services for expedited security screenings at more than 50 airports, as well as other venues like stadiums. It currently operates in nine California airports, charging travelers to cut the line at security once their identity is confirmed at a CLEAR pod. It is different from TSA PreCheck, which expedites the actual security checkpoint process.

Newman stressed that he’s not trying to ban CLEAR and claims has no issue with concierge airport services. But he believes the CLEAR system is neither efficient nor secure.

This isn’t the first time lawmakers have questioned CLEAR’s procedures. The company faced scrutiny last year from members of Congress after employees escorted passengers through TSA security checkpoints who were not enrolled in CLEAR and did not display identification, including a case where someone got through using a boarding pass they found in the trash.

CLEAR spokesperson Ricardo Quinto said the company is concerned about the unintended consequences of the bill, such as airports losing jobs and revenue.

“We will continue to work constructively with legislators as well as the federal government and our airport partners to ensure operations at California airports are as seamless and efficient as possible,” Quinto said in a statement.

Both Gov. Gavin Newsom and Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire — both Democrats — declined to comment on the measure, which currently has union support from the Association of Flight Attendants and the Northern California branch of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents around 1,200 TSA agents.

CLEAR is “nothing more than the luxury resale of upcharge of space in the airport security queue, where those who pay can skip the line at the direct expense of every other traveler,” James Mudrock, president of AFGE Local 1230, said in a letter to Senate Transportation Committee chair Dave Cortese.

Sarah Nelson, head of the flight attendants union, raised concerns about CLEAR’s security protocols in a letter supporting the bill, claiming that CLEAR “doesn’t add any enhanced layer of security.”

“CLEAR is a pay for play way to cut the screening line,” Nelson wrote.

CLEAR, founded in 2010, provides identity verification services for expedited security screenings at more than 50 airports.

She added that the bill would “restore equal access and treatment at the airport security checkpoint,” and streamline the security process while preserving CLEAR’s ability to operate in California.

CLEAR would need federal approval to fund and operate a separate lane because TSA oversees the security checkpoints. TSA did not respond to a request for comment. Newman said he has “every confidence” in CLEAR’s ability to “re-engineer” its business — an outcome that is more doubtful to Jim Lites, executive director of the California Airports Council.

Lites, whose organization represents the state’s 31 commercial airports, said that California’s attempt to leverage federal policymakers by passing this bill would backfire. Lites added that the TSA would likely have to dedicate officers specifically for the additional CLEAR lanes.

“I think there’s going to be a lot less sympathy for the state of California if we kick [CLEAR] out, and then try and compel the TSA to change their staffing model,” Lites told POLITICO.

CLEAR paid $13 million to California airports last year, and over $49 million since launching in the state in 2012, according to the airports council’s letter to Newman. But CLEAR accounted for less than 1 percent of concession revenue last year at SFO, California’s second busiest airport, and Newman contends that the loss won’t have a big impact on airports’ revenue.

The Chamber of Commerce, TechNet and a coalition of other powerful industry groups also came out against the bill, citing government overreach and the potential harm to California’s image as a tourism hub if it is the only state in the nation to ban CLEAR.

Doug Yakel, public information officer at SFO, said in an email that “CLEAR provides a valuable and popular passenger service, and this bill would reduce flexibility and add unnecessary complications at airport security checkpoints.”

“My bottom line for the airports is to not limit their options,” Lites said. “If they want to do business with CLEAR, then the state should not be telling them that they cannot. That should be an airport-by-airport decision.”

The bill would allow airports to continue using CLEAR until their current agreements expire, which Lites said would likely all happen within the next few years.

Newman is also open to extending the timeline if CLEAR is “making a good faith effort” to change its operations. The bill also may be amended amid ongoing discussions with Cortese, the transportation committee chair, ahead of Tuesday’s hearing. Cortese told POLITICO in a text last week that he was negotiating with Newman on changes and had not taken a position on the bill.

Newman’s goal is to avoid framing the measure as taking a shot at CLEAR, and hopes instead that it can spark a policy discussion around what people should expect from a public resource that they can’t avoid — like airport security.

“The hardest part is just getting a clear — no pun intended — understanding from all of the participants about what the bill is or isn’t,” he said. “It is not a personal grudge by one senator against this company.”

CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this article did not make clear that support for the bill came from the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees.