Former Vice President Kamala Harris has canceled several upcoming book tour events in California following controversy over reports that state law enforcement officers have been providing security for her appearances, including travel outside the state.

Events scheduled in Sacramento, Anaheim, and San Diego were listed as canceled on Ticketmaster, according to reporting from KCRA-TV. The events were part of Harris’s promotional tour for her book “107 Days.”

Ticketmaster indicated that the cancellations were due to a “scheduling conflict.” Attendees who purchased tickets were told they would receive refunds.

Harris’s most recent appearance on the tour took place in Oakland. Additional events remain scheduled in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

The cancellations come days after reports that officers from the California Highway Patrol have been providing security for Harris throughout the tour. According to KCRA-TV, dozens of officers have reportedly accompanied the former vice president to appearances across the country and internationally.

State officials have not disclosed how many officers have been assigned to the security detail or how much the protection has cost California taxpayers.

Representatives for Harris have not publicly answered questions about the state-funded security arrangements.

The issue has drawn criticism from some Republicans in California. Steve Hilton, a candidate for governor, argued that taxpayers should not be responsible for covering security costs tied to what he described as a political effort connected to a future presidential campaign.

Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey, who previously served nearly three decades with the California Highway Patrol, said Harris likely requires protection given the current political climate, but also questioned whether the public should bear the expense.

“We’re living in an unstable environment right now, and it’s really hard to predict circumstances and people’s behavior,” Lackey said.

However, he added that transparency about the costs is necessary and said the question of whether the protection should continue at taxpayer expense deserves further discussion.