Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning, and welcome to the Judiciary Committee. We will start on time, reward all of you who are here. We have a long agenda today, the other reason for starting on time, including several more complicated and controversial items. So we'll need to be efficient with our time. As a reminder, each side will be allowed two main witnesses two minutes each. Additional witnesses should state their name and organization only.

This allows all authors a fair chance to present their bills and all members of the public an equal chance to have their position reflected in the record. As we proceed with our Bill hearing, I want to make sure everyone understands our Committee rules to ensure we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence, even veiled threats. The rules of conduct by members of the public include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and must be limited to your name, organization and support or opposition to a Bill.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing. No engaging in personal attacks of members of this Committee, authors or staff and please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. So with that, we will start with the Subcommittee. We will start with item number one, AB 1302. Mr. Lackey. Yeah, we can start. We're going to have the two support. Up to two support witnesses can sit with Mr. Lackey.

The two opposition witnesses can sit here. Yeah, you may. Okay, you can have a seat and we will get started. Mr. Lackey, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Is this on?

It should be on. Try again. Try again.

Okay, now that's much better. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members for allowing me to present this bill AB 132, and Manuela, with the committee for working with my office on this very, very pivotal issue. AB 132 streamlines and expands the ability for adult adoptees to access their original birth certificate by changing the process for how these vital records are accessed in California.

The idea for this bill stems from a constituent who spoke of the hurdles that adopted persons face if their original birth records were sealed as a result of a closed adoption, a practice that was commonplace in previous decades but now represents as few as 5% of adoptions nationwide. As he put it, adult adoptees in a closed adoption have their original birth records sealed by a state law and therefore they have no birth parent or extended family to ask about their family medical history.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the need to be aware of one's underlying health issues and family medical history. I also have a personal connection to this issue. As a father of two children who have had the opportunity of a continued relationship with their birth mothers, I could personally attest to the importance of being able to facilitate that relationship, an opportunity many individuals who adopted under closed adoption circumstances do not have under current law.

Regardless of the reasons an adopted individual has for seeking their origin al birth certificate, they are often unable to attain this vital record due to a myriad of obstacles under California law. Currently, an original birth certificate may only be unsealed in the exceptional circumstances upon a petition to a Superior Court that demonstrates good cause. That's a pretty high burden. And if the solicitor has an unwarranted and a potentially unattainable standard for many adopted individuals, it's subject to judicial discretion. I don't think that's very fair.

Dozens of states in recent years have recognized the compelling interest of adopted individuals to access their birth certificates for medical and personal reasons. Yet the very strict and limited avenues to reaching this information for California adoptees has remained unchanged since 1995. AB 132 will remove the decision of whether to grant access to a petitioner's original birth certificate from the hands of the court.

This bill will allow an adoptee, upon filing a verification petition, to access their long-form birth certificate with redactions based on a birth parent's disclosure preference. In order to ascertain the disclosure preference, this bill will establish a process to notify the birth parents. If the office of vital Records knows the birth parents are deceased, the court will forego the notification process and release the unredacted long-form birth certificate.

This bill recognizes the long standing need for adopted individuals to receive answers about their identity and balance the privacy of concerned parents, birth parents, by facilitating a case-by-case approach that leaves the decision to release the original birth certificate between the two parties most directly impacted, rather than the discretion of a court that is unable to account for the lived experience of either party. I'm honored to have with me Lance Hastings to provide testimony.

You may be familiar with Mr. Hastings as President and CEO of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, but he is here today in his capacity as a private citizen to speak about his own personal experience with this issue and the need for greater access to these vital records for adopted individuals.

Before the witness proceeds, I'd like to ask the Clerk to please call the role and establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. So we do have a quorum. And Mr. Hastings, you may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's going to be difficult to accomplish my intent in two minutes, but I'm going to make my level, best effort to do so. In late 1964, a woman named Catherine Kluxtall lived in Minnesota found out that she was pregnant with a child. She had an affair with a married man who had three children, so she had to leave the state to protect her family and the perception of her family.

So she came out to California with her sister and her enlisted brother-in-law and came to Alameda, California. I was born on June 1, 1965. I went home with my adopted parents on June 11,1965. So for 10 days, I was in the abyss. I do have a birth certificate in the County of Alameda, but I can't access it.

I started my search to find my birth parents or at least find out more about my birth parents in 2005, and it was a very long process. I approached Alameda County, and I was able to get a lot of redacted information that was helpful in identifying not who, but how my birth parents came to be through the adoption report. But I could never access the birth certificate because at that time, the birth certificate would have identified my mother by name.

I did a lot of searching, and through Ancestry.com and the Salvation Army, which ran the maternity home for unwed mothers where I was born, was able to help potentially identify my birth mother. And they did so. But unfortunately, six months after she had passed away. So that search ended in 2011. When I learned that information, I joined Ancestry.com, and seven years later, they were able to possibly identify who my birth father was through DNA testing, outside of all of the law, of course.

And he remained in Minnesota. This March, when I was googling his name, found out that he had passed away with zero contact with me. We don't know if he ever was aware of my existence, but we do know that Catherine Kluxtal was, because she delivered me on June 1, 1965.

I am Katherine Kluxtal's only child, and she'll never know and meet me through the process because of the hurdles that there needed to be a positive request from me at Alameda County asking for birth information, and then also the positive from her saying, yes, I've met all of her siblings. I have met my four half-sisters that I never knew existed. And in three weeks time, I'm going to be with them in Denver at one of their 60th birthday parties.

The missing link in my life is that birth certificate. Catherine's sister told me that I was given a name, and my adoption report from Alameda County said I was given a name, but it was a name that's not disclosed in the redacted report. The name I was given at birth is Dennis James, and that was her father's name and her brother's name. I'd like to see that.

And if this legislation helps expose the desire of adult children, sadly, they've both passed, so it should be a little bit easier now. I think it would open up a lot of opportunities. I apologize for the runover, but it's a deeply personal story. I have never shared this story publicly before. There are people that know me that have gone along the journey with me.

But I was convinced that this journey was so important because when ancestry.com located and identified my birth father, he lived in Minnesota, in a town called Hastings, Minnesota, and I can't make that up. It's a very compelling journey that I've been on, and I appreciate the opportunity for Mr. Lackey to carry this legislation and for the committee to allow me to share my story today.

Thank you. Any other witnesses? No. Other main witnesses. Seeing none. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses. Main witnesses in opposition? Yep. You may proceed.

Okay. My name is Nina Greeley. I am also a California-born adoptee, and I'm here with Joe Wood, who is co-counsel with me for Cal Open, California Open. And I've prepared a two-minute statement if I read it very fast, so I might go a little bit over two minutes, but I'm doing my best.

We'll give you a little over because I.

Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, my heart goes out to Mr. Hastings because I know the same search myself. I was lucky enough to find my birth mother before she died, but not my birth father. California Open is a grassroots, statewide movement consisting of adult adoptees, adoptive parents, birth parents, adoption agencies, and adoption professionals. And we respectfully oppose AB 1302. California adoptees have been seeking unrestricted access to our original birth certificates, or OBCs, the ones that are sealed, for over 20 years.

We believe that denying adult adoptees access to their obcs violates our right to be treated like any other citizen of the state. We believe allowing adult adoptees access to their own information does not violate birth parent privacy. First, for many reasons which we have listed in our submissions, to this body, and I won't go into all of them.

But most importantly, we don't think that birth parents have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact either that they gave birth or that they relinquished a child for adoption. Among those reasons are that birth certificates are not sealed at the time of relinquishment, but unless and until a child is adopted, they're out there. DNA databases are now ubiquitous, and pre-2002, the State of California actually sold the California Birth Index to the public on CDROMs.

Moreover, granting access only to the adult adoptee and no one else is not the kind of egregious public dissemination of personal information that constitutes a violation of privacy rights, nor does it violate current societal norms. Finally, and most important, whatever privacy rights birth parents may have, they should not be allowed to outweigh an adult citizen's fundamental right to know their own origins. 12 states have now passed laws granting adult adoptees unfettered access to the original birth certificates.

No legal challenge to those laws has yet been successful. And to address briefly the oft expressed concern that opening records will lead to increase in abortions. In all of those 12 states that have opened records, they have experienced no such increases. So you may be wondering why, as advocates for adoptee rights, we are here opposing a bill that is trying to vindicate those rights. We deeply, deeply appreciate the author's attempt to address our concerns.

But the unfortunate fact is that this bill, no matter how well-meaning, proposes a new, unwieldy process for access that requires complicated affirmative steps by the state and the birth parents, all outside the control of the adoptee. Not surprisingly, the only organization on record that supports this bill is an association of investigators who stand to profit from complicated and costly searches.

Again, we commend and appreciate the author's intent that the onerous mechanism of this bill does not meaningfully address adoptees' rights, and at the end of the day, it will simply reinforce our current status as second-class citizens. The real problem with this bill is that it once again enshrines the pernicious principle that the state and birth parents should have veto power over the right of California citizens to know who they are. So we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll turn it to the committee. Any questions or comments from the committee? A motion from Ms. Dixon. Do we have a second? Second from Ms. Reyes. Ms. Reyes.

I really appreciate this. I have a number of friends and family, too, who were adopted, who this is very important, and I recognize the opposition. I've received many emails, messages, so it's not so much against what is being provided, it's just saying it's not enough. And I think that every step that we take, we wish we could take bigger steps.

I think we all have different bills where we would like to do even more, but to be able to take a step in the right direction I think is a good thing. And because of that, I will be supporting it. I think that it would be appropriate perhaps in the future to have more legislation that opens this up even more because there are adoptees who would like to have greater access, especially if the birth parents decide that they don't want to open it up.

So I absolutely understand what you're saying. I think this is a step in the right direction, and I think that even if it's for some adoptees that they will finally be able to have this opened up so that they can get the information. For me, it was a step in the right direction. But thank you for providing your testimony.

Thank you. Mr. Haney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author and the witnesses for trying to address a very serious issue. Learning about this issue as part of reviewing this bill, I was really surprised to hear how hard it is for adoptees to access their birth certificate. In fact, I found it shocking that that was our current reality. And so I appreciate the work that was done to try to get us to a better place on it.

I struggled with it because as I read about the issue, I found myself feeling that for an adult in our state to not have access to their original birth certificate feels to me like a fundamental violation of their human rights. It should be something that they have access to as a right. So what I wanted to ask, and I appreciate the comments of Ms. Reyes, is why is this not a step forward. If through the Chair I could ask the opposition in the fact that this is trying to open up the access a bit more. Why is this not at least a step forward for access?

Well, through the Chair, the problem we have with this is that even though there will probably be a few adoptees who do manage to get something through this, we believe that it doesn't fundamentally address the issue, which is that we are citizens of this state and we deserve our birth certificates just like any other citizen.

And the problem is, once you pass yet another law, we already have lots, I'm sure you all know, lots and lots of laws on the record already that are already in place, that are constantly being brought up to us as examples of why we should not be able to get our birth certificates. But there's all this law. There's case law. There's the California constitution. There's a civil code. There's the health and safety code. There's this code. There's that code.

My God, it's been enshrined for this long. How can you say that we can now go and violate birth parent rights? And what we are very concerned about is every single law that gets passed that does not acknowledge that we have a right to our own information is just another brick in the wall as far as we're concerned, and it just makes it harder in the future for us to affect any change.

I appreciate that, and I appreciated the analysis and the Chair's work to try to grapple with that. The other question I had, I know this bill deals differently in the retroactive sense and the proactive sense, and a question that I had for the author or someone who may be able to address this, are for parents who gave a child for adoption in the past, were they told in some sort of legal sense that the birth certificate or their information would never be provided to the child?

Is there a legal commitment that was given to those parents previously that they would then not have in our state moving forward? Is that why the difference is there, or is that just simply trying to grapple with what is fair? I'm wondering, is there a legal reason why we are dealing with it differently in terms of the commitment we've given to those parents?

Well, now, Joe, please step in, because Joe knows the statutes much better than I do. But it first of all depends on the timing. So that prior to the development of the consent registry in 1985 and the requirement that birth parents be told that they could have contact with or exchange information with their relinquished children, those laws only apply to people who were adopted after 1985. Prior to 1985, no, there was no requirement for the state to offer birth parents privacy.

The argument is that it was assumed, and so it was kind of an assumed promise by the state. But it's only since 1985 that the state has had to affirmatively say, by the way, if you give us your contact information, and later, when your child is 21 and they want to contact you, if you say it's okay, we will give you that information. So it gets very complicated because these laws were passed at different times.

Hold on. Did that answer your question, or do you have further? Do you need further? I understand. Let him ask. He'll ask the question. If he needs an answer from yes. Do you need an answer? Okay.

Thank you. The point I would make bringing the lawyer's perspective is there was no promise prior to the 1985 thing being created, as you mentioned, after that time, I think you can fairly say there was an implied promise. They didn't say, we'll keep it confidential, but they said, if you don't want it confidential, then sign up here. So that does involve an implied promise.

Got it. Thank you. And again, thank you to the author. Again, I grappled with this and found myself more leaning towards where those other states have gone, and I appreciate the work that's being done and continue to work on these issues as it likely moves forward today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kalra.

The way that it's written, it requires affirmative consent for adoptions before 2025, but then requires express refusal from either or both parents. So if one parent refuses, just their information will be redacted then. Is that correct? And then if an adoptee wanted to get unredacted, they would still have to go through litigation, I imagine in order to do that, even subsequent to this bill being passed.

That's an unanswered question. What's that? That's an unanswered question.

Well, I imagine that since it falls short of what some folks, there's obviously different opinions, but what some folks in the adoption advocacy realm feel falls short, then it would still lead to litigation because there will be folks that feel that they're not getting the complete original birth certificate. I guess I'm just talking here, not asking a question, but just talking it out. Make sure I'm clear.

It's complicated.

Yeah. Clear on what's before us, as opposed to. So there are some states that just allow for complete access.

There are 12 states that have changed their laws in the last 25 years, and the two states of Kansas and Alaska never had closed records.

And I want to thank Lance for sharing. It's very meaningful and deep for you to be able to share your story, but with this, you mentioned that through Ancestry.com, you learned all the information about who your birth parents were. But if this was the only manner in which someone could access their records, they wouldn't have found out. They wouldn't necessarily find out who both of their birth parents are. So do you feel that this is. I imagine you feel it's a step in the right direction, but do you feel it falls short of the access that you were able to gain by using technology?

But I had to reverse engineer the situation through technology that didn't exist when I started my search. So I was really poking around in the dark in early the 2000s. I've known my entire life I was adopted. My parents always shared that. They shared most of the circumstances about my existence, but not the particularity. And as I got older and wanted to learn more about my potential health history as I had children, it became more important the older I got.

And I realized the day I started my journey, it was a race against time, because I wasn't born in 1985, and I just did some math and realized that they were getting older. And my birth mother passed away at 64, and my birth father passed away in March, at 88.

But with the technology that exists now, it would seem that the technology that exists gives more access, in a way, than what this legislation would allow for, since it redacts information. So I'm just also kind of just grappling with this as to whether this is a step forward or not. With everyone's intentions, I believe in the right place. It makes it a little bit more challenging to kind of arrive at a conclusion on that.

I don't think there's necessarily a right answer here, which is oftentimes what we get faced with when we have to make these decisions. But I do believe that everyone's intention is in the right place, but not sure if this is a step forward or not. I'm just grappling with that.

Any other questions or comments from the committee? Ms. Papan.

I think I may have missed it. It is that if the birth parent, you make the request and one of them says no, it's unclear whether you could go to a court and still get relief, or you could and try to override that declination if you will.

That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer. Most of you guys are.

I can answer that, ma'am.

Sure. Please do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if one of the birth parents says no, then by statute, you can't get it, and you're left with the necessitous. It's a medical emergency, or I can't get a passport, grounds for petitioning in court. That's it. And as the honorable gentleman said earlier, that's a very high bar. Yeah.

That's the only criteria that would be allowed? Medical emergency. And you need a passport.

The term is necessitous cause, which is way above good cause. And the way that's been interpreted by the courts is if you can show that you've got a strong medical reason to find out what your parents' medical history is, or if you need it, in order to achieve some legal status, which is ordinarily getting a passport. That's pretty much it.

Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. I really like what Assemblymember Reyes contained within her comments, that this is really an emotionally fraught issue. And it's like laws getting in the way of what children and parents each may have separate desires. I think going one step at a time, we'll see how this goes. I also think that there's a safety valve in that this is a go-forward. From January 1, 2025 this law would be in effect. So going forward, a birth parent would know what the law says in terms of disclosure. So if I'm understanding that correctly. All birth after January 1, 2025 this new law would be effective. So anything up until that point, sadly, your records would not have been availed under this law. But it certainly serves notice that this new procedure would take effect, and it would be something that people can accommodate themselves to, in my belief. I will be supporting this, but I think it is fraught with a lot of unknown questions. But one step at a time, I think, is a good way to go.

Okay. Thank you. Seen no further questions or comments from the committee. Thank you for your testimony. This is what's difficult about this committee sometimes is that we're really in the weeds on this. It is hard. This is complicated. I think all of us understand that there's these sort of emotional issues that are at stake here. But how does the law apply to this and how do we analyze? This is one of the more complicated issues that I think we've had so far this year from a legal standpoint. But that's what we get on this committee. It is what it is, and we're going to proceed today with this. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Lackey, you may close.

Yeah. Even though there's been some points that have been well stated, and the complexity of this is why we probably have the morass that we have now. But I think what's inarguable is that the status quo is something that hundreds and thousands of adopted individuals that call our state home should not have to endure. And I think that this actually is a step and an important step in the right direction. It's long overdue that we recognize this issue and begin to implement solutions that respect the delicate and complex nature of the problem. And I would ask for your support.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. The motion is do pass to the Health Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your bill is out.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Not seeing another author here. Ms. Reyes, are you ready to proceed? We have item number three. AB 504. Ms. Reyes may proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. AB 504 will protect a public employee's right to honor a picket line when a public employer is engaged in a primary labor dispute. Last year, the University of California engaged in the labor dispute with graduate workers, postdoctoral scholars and academic researchers represented by the United Auto Workers. The dispute focused primarily on low wages and unfair labor practices conducted by the UC. The dispute culminated into the largest higher education strike in the nation's history, which lasted six weeks.

During this strike, UC workers, represented by unions such as Teamsters and UCAFT, were unable to support their colleagues due to clauses in their collective bargaining agreements preventing sympathy strikes. Non-UAW-represented workers were forced to enter hostile work environments and withhold support for their colleagues, who are fighting for fair wages and job security, issues that inherently affect every worker. Having the right to stand in solidarity with colleagues engaged in a strike should be protected.

Our workers should not have to fear losing their job because they have honored a picket line. They often have to concede to these types of protections in order to ensure they receive adequate wages and childcare subsidies. In California, workers should not have to give up their right in order to live sustainable lives and support others fighting for the same goal. AB 504 will ensure workers have their rights protected while they continue fighting for equity.

Here to testify in support of the Bill are Gus Patel-Tupper, lecturer at UC Berkeley, and UC AFT representative, and Matt Broad, representing the Teamsters.

First witness, two minutes each.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Gus Patel-Tupper. I'm a supervising attorney,

and I need you, I need you to use the mic for the millions of people watching at home.

Make sure, at least for my mother.

Yes, your mother will appreciate it. I used to think it was only my mother that watched, so. I'm glad to hear that your mother is also. We're up to two viewers, so that's good.

Certainly worth it. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Gus Patel-Tupper. I'm a supervising attorney and lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Law and I'm a Board Member of the UC-AFT Bay Area chapter. UC-AFT represents approximately 6000 faculty and 350 research librarians in the UC system and is a proud co-sponsor of AB 504. AB 504 is a small step toward freedom from coercion for public employees.

Assemblymember Haney mentioned in the last hearing being shocked that we aren't already protected from being forced to cross picket lines. It is conscient shocking, and I can tell you that it feels pretty terrible. During the UAW strike, I was on the picket line early every morning with my husband, a postdoctoral researcher at Berkeley. But at 09:00 a.m.. I had to bust through the picket line and traipse up the hill to the law school.

My parents were both union members for more than 40 years, and I could feel my dad rolling over in his grave every time I broke ranks with UAW. My students and tenured faculty colleagues could almost all respect the strike. But as an early career lecturer without security of employment, I felt the squeeze and UC knew it. Our members were asked to do work and submit last semester's grades on behalf of striking workers.

Most lecturers, like me, are on fixed-term renewable contracts and have valid fears that refusing to submit grades or pickup struck work could end our UC appointments. AB 504 gives lecturers, librarians and staff at UC some power to resist such coercion by eliminating offensive no sympathy strike clauses from our contracts. Finally, as I've said, this is only a small step. The last 70 years have witnessed the decline of the US labor movement at the hands of ascendant corporate power in politics and the courts.

AB 504 won't tilt the scale toward working people overnight, but we should, at the very least, be able to stand up for our husbands and our dads on the picket line. This Bill will allow public employees to speak, assemble, and associate with our union siblings. Thank you so much to Assemblymember Reyes and the co-authors. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, next witness. Great.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matt Broad here on behalf of the California Teamsters who are proud to co-sponsor AB 504. As you've all heard, this Bill was really born out of the grad student strike at UC late last year. The Teamsters represent over 10,000 Members at the UC system, primarily working as folks in administrative and skilled trades positions.

We had sort of a paradoxical or unique situation where on the private sector side, the teamsters were able to sanction the strike ups wasn't delivering packages to campus, but on the public sector side, where thousands of workers, teamster members, work at the UC, they were required by contract to cross a picket line. From talking to members, we've heard that this created an enormous sense of hostility in the workplace, which is something that I think we can all agree should be avoided.

And just as a final point, I would say that we've worked on addressing the last Committee's concerns, particularly with respect to making sure that all public employers are covered. And with that, I would ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only, please.

Good morning Mr. Chair and members, Tristan Brown with CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals joining our UC-AFT as co-sponsors and I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Scott Brent with the SMART-TD division. I'm the assistant state Director and we support this. Thank you.

Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, in strong support.

Good morning. Navnit Puryear, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Good morning, chair Members. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of. State County Municipal Employees in support.

Good morning. Marissa with UAW 2865 proud to co-sponsor and support this Bill.

Neal Sweeney, President of UAW Local 5810, 11 thousand postdoctoral scholars in strong support.

Tom Hintze, on behalf of UAW, in support.

Brennan Godnering, proud Member of UAW 2865 in support.

Elias Bunting, UAW Member and graduate student at UC Davis, in support.

Toba Valentine, UAW 2865 in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, fellow Committee Members. Nicole Trujillo Rice, on behalf of the California State Building Construction Trades Council, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Alissa Yum, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. John Shaban, California Nurses Association, in strong support.

Good morning. Willa Gibson, Member of UAW 2865 in support.

Good morning. Grace Boone, Member of UAW 5810 and the unit chair at UC Davis, in support.

Mr. Chair Members Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, proud co-sponsor, also here expressing support for SEIU California.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Good morning chair and Members. My name is Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities here today in respectful opposition to AB 504. Again would like to thank the author for taking the time to work with us and talk about our concerns with the Bill. State law is governing collective bargaining are in place to ensure a fair process for both unions and public entities. AB 504, in our view, upends the current bargaining process, which allows striking only in specified limited circumstances.

This poses a serious problem for public agencies that are providing public services on a limited budget in a time when many cities are facing workforce shortages. Allowing for any public employee, with very limited exception, to join a striking bargaining unit in which that employee is not a Member could lead to severe work stoppage and severely impact essential services that cities provide.

This Bill would remove the agency's ability to plan and provide services to the community in the event any bargaining unit decides to strike. A local agency cannot make contingency plans for an unknown number of employees that have decided to join that strike. The Bill declares sympathy striking a human right, but exempts any public employee who is subject to Section 1962 of the labor code from having that right.

Given that this Bill would void local MOU no sympathy strike agreements while specifically exempting a specific job type, while at the same time also declaring a human right creates confusion regarding which public employees cannot engage in sympathy striking.

While we are not disputing the right of the employee, organizations to engage in the protected activity of striking, AB 504 would avoid locally bargained MOUs regardless of what they say about the employee's ability to sympathy strike and insert the ability for any public employee to engage in sympathy striking. Again, with very limited exception, no strike provisions in local contracts have been agreed to by both parties in good faith, often due to the critical nature of the employees job duties to close.

As local agencies, we have statutory responsibility to provide services to our communities throughout the state. This Bill jeopardizes the delivery of those services and undermines the collective bargaining process. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose and urge your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, next witness.

Good morning chair and Members Kalyn Dean, legislative advocate with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties. CSAC is respectfully opposed to Assembly Bill 504, and for the sake of time, I'll align my comments with my colleague at Cal Cities.

I'll just say that prohibiting employees from enforcing no strike provisions in certain instances, effectively allowing employees to engage in sympathy strikes despite the fact that their MOU is interim and contains a no strike provision, would undermine many collective bargaining agreements and impact our ability to provide the vital services that our residents count on each day. Local agencies provide critical health and safety functions, including emergency and disaster response dispatch, mobile crisis response, Healthcare, law enforcement, corrections, elections, and road maintenance.

Local MOU provisions around striking and sympathy striking ensure local governments can continue to provide these critical services. In many circumstances, counties must meet minimum staff requirements, for example, in jails and juvenile facilities, to ensure adequate safety requirements. AB 504 overrides the essential employee process at PERB, thereby creating a system where an employee can sympathy strike, which would result in workforce shortages that jeopardize our ability to operate safely and efficiently. For these reasons, we must effectively urge your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, name and organization only, please.

Sara Duquette, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, the Urban Counties of California, and the California Association of Joint Powers authorities, thank you.

Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts here, respectfully opposed to AB 504. Thank you.

Jen Chase. On behalf of the University of California. In opposition.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author and sponsors for bringing this forward. I would like to move the Bill. Quite simply, some rights shouldn't be subject to bargaining, and so I'd love to be added as co author as well. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Ms. Reyes, thank you for bringing this Bill. Very pleased to have a do pass recommendation.

Appreciate your work on this issue. I think it's an important one, so please. We'll be able to move it along today. Hopefully with that, you may close.

Thank you. I do urge you to stand with our public employees and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion and a second. Okay, great. We have a motion and a second do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein? Maienschein, aye. Essayli?

Essayli, no. Connolly? Connolly, aye. Dixon? Haney? Haney, aye. Kalra? Kalra, aye. Pacheco? Pacheco, aye. Papan? Papan, aye. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Rivas? Sanchez? your Bill is out.

No.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. I will encourage authors to come here. The Judiciary Committee runs on time, in case that hasn't been picked up on yet. So urge. Demand. Yeah, another legal term. So we'd ask authors to please come down. We have a long agenda. We're trying to get through it. We do run these meetings on time, so I'd ask. Mr. Haney is next up. On the Committee at least so Mr. Haney.

And while Mr. Haney is going down, we'll go ahead and ask for a motion on the consent agenda. Motion from Mr. Kalra, second from Ms. Reyes. The consent agenda contains item 18, AB 312 Reyes and Ward, item 19, AB 1154 Wilson, item 20, AB 1659 Gabriel and item 21, AB 1755 Judiciary Committee. We have a motion and a second. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll on the consent agenda.

[Roll call]

Consent agenda passes.

Mr. Haney has item number 14, AB 1485. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1485 would strengthen California's ability to enforce existing state housing law. It does so by giving the Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, and the Attorney General, the ability to represent the state's interests, the people of California, in pending legal actions filed by third parties to address violations of state housing laws. Right now, Californians are facing a housing crisis of epic proportion.

We need to produce almost 2.5 million housing units over the next eight years to keep up with housing demand, but we are only constructing about 80,000 units per year. So we need to ensure that we have every tool at our disposal to guarantee we meet our housing goals and to ensure housing is actually being built. Existing law empowers the Attorney General to bring suit for a violation of state housing law. It also allows third parties to file lawsuits to enforce state housing laws.

But under current law, when a third party files a lawsuit related to enforcement of state housing laws, the Attorney General's office can only become a party to the lawsuit by petitioning the court to intervene. This procedural hurdle delays housing from being built because the courts can take months to schedule a hearing on the petition. Even once a court hearing is scheduled, the Attorney General's ability to intervene in the case is at the court's discretion.

And we just learned that a court in Grandma's House of Hope vs. City of Anaheim tentatively denied HCD's motion to intervene so the judge's ruling would keep the state out of the lawsuit and the people of California from being at the table. The Attorney General should have the ability to enforce state housing law and represent the state's interests in housing cases, regardless of whether the Attorney General, HCD, or a private party files the action first.

Important to note is that while the Attorney General lacks the statutory authority to intervene in third party suits on housing law. They already have that statutory right to intervene on other issues, like enforcing environmental laws. Housing law is just as important in granting this statutory right to intervene once sure that we are represented in court and help us reach our housing goals. Here to testify with me in support is Jana Staniford from the Office of Attorney General and Todd David from the Housing Action Coalition.

And we also have David Pai from the Office of the Attorney General here to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. First witness.

Todd David, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. Assemblymember Haney did an outstanding job of kind of summarizing the reasons for this piece of legislation. I'm just going to emphasize a couple of pieces. So one thing is that from the housing world, you can almost think of this piece of legislation as a streamlining measure, right? It is not granting any new rights to the Attorney General HCD.

It's only saying that we don't have to wait six months, a year, or like what happened yesterday for a judge to say, no, you don't have a right to intervene when it's pretty clear that the HCD and the Attorney General does. So this would eliminate a lot of the waiting periods for the Attorney General and HCD to be able to represent the people of California in important housing matters.

Good morning, Chair Maienschein, Members. My name is Jana Staniford. I'm a Deputy Attorney General and Legislative Advocate in the Office of the Attorney General. On behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, I want to start by thanking Assemblymember Haney for bringing this important measure, which the Attorney General is proud to sponsor. California is facing a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis. The Legislature has passed strong laws in recent years to address that crisis, and those laws must be enforced. Violators must be held accountable.

Attorney General Rob Bonta has made enforcement of housing laws a top priority and will continue to exercise his authority to hold violators accountable. But under many of the state's housing laws, third parties, like housing advocates and developers, are also empowered to file their own lawsuits challenging local land use planning and permitting decisions. This bill would address a procedural hurdle that the Attorney General faces when a third party files the enforcement action first.

Under existing law, the Attorney General's Office has to formally petition the court for permission to intervene in pending third party housing enforcement cases. This requirement causes unnecessary delay. In one ongoing case, we filed our application to intervene with the court on October 3, 2022 and now, over six months later, the court is finally holding a hearing on the motion this morning. The tentative ruling released yesterday indicates that the judge plans to deny our motion to intervene.

We disagree with the basis for that ruling and we're working with our client HCD to determine next steps. The effect of this denial would be that the private litigants would be allowed to proceed in the case and the state's interests, the people's interests would not be represented. This is why AB 1485 is needed. AB 1485 would remove this procedural hurdle by granting the Attorney General an unconditional statutory right to intervene in pending third party housing cases.

The Attorney General already has this right to intervene in other contexts, including in environmental cases. We routinely use the statutory right to intervene in environmental justice cases. AB 1485 would grant the Attorney General the same right to intervene to enforce state housing laws. California's Attorney General should have the right to represent the state's interests and enforce state housing laws regardless of which party files the enforcement action first. Thank you for your time and consideration, Members, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only, please.

Michael Lane with SPUR, in strong support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Voleck Taing with the Silicon Valley Leadership, in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Connolly.

Thank you and appreciate the author and witnesses. Certainly compliance with housing laws is important, so fully understand where this bill is coming from. I guess the question I have is under the current scenario, the AG can apply to intervene in a case. What is the standard that the court looks at? My assumption is it would have to be some sort of showing how ever pro forma that is, that there's a matter of statewide concern.

The concern here is effectively you would be intervening in what's effectively a private dispute between a developer and, let's say a city or a county. How does that translate in terms of that showing or threshold still that it rises to the level of a matter of statewide concern as opposed to a private development suit where there's oftentimes competing arguments on both sides.

Thank you, Mr. Connolly. David Pai from the Attorney General's Office. It's the current standard when we apply for or make a motion to intervene, we do so under both mandatory and permissive intervention standards. Suffice to say either one, it's not a showing of statewide concern that the court is interested in.

What we have to show is that the party, either HCD or the Attorney General, claims an interest relating to the subject of the lawsuit and with respect to the causes of action delineated under Subdivision (J) of 65585. Our position is we are the principal enforcers of these state laws, and so we have a per se interest in this action, and on that basis, intervention should be granted.

Courts sometimes disagree, as we've seen, and interestingly enough, in that tentative ruling in the Grandma's House of Hope action, the court noted that had this been compulsory, had the Legislature deemed this to be a statewide interest and granted the Attorney General or HCD a statutory right to intervene, it would be a non issue. And so we always take the position that when we litigate, it's always on behalf of the state's interest.

So if we intervene into a private right of action, we're not representing the developer, we're not representing any private party, we're representing ourselves. It's an intervention. We're a separate party and we're representing the state's interests, and we only do so in actions in which we feel like the state's interests are not being adequately represented.

Yeah, no, I fully appreciate that. I guess the concern is, and it's clear this Attorney General is looking at ways of enforcing housing law, and no one's disputing that. Let's say a future Attorney General, though, for whatever reason, sees an opportunity to come to bat for a large developer who's seeking to develop a project and communities are raising concerns about it. There would be no filter on that. It simply would be a matter of right where that Attorney General could intervene. That's of concern.

I would love to see some sort of nod in the bill given toward, in instances or in cases where there is a matter of statewide interest. Conversely, and maybe this is a question, let's say a developer is coming in and itself flouting the law that is going too far on the density bonus or misinterpreting SB 35. Would your office, as a matter of right, intervene for the community to enforce the law in that case?

With respect to those scenarios, I cannot foresee a situation in which, if there is a state interest either to support a project or to enforce the law such that a certain project is maybe going beyond the ambits of state law. I think the answer isn't, is the Attorney General looking at it from a pro housing for a pro development or anti development development standard? The standard we've always applied and continue to apply is how do we enforce these state laws?

And if it goes outside of that enforcement, I could foresee interventions to ensure that these state laws are properly applied.

I just was going to add that the Attorney General already has a statutory right to intervene in CEQA cases as well. So we use this same right under the same code of civil procedure that this bill refers to, to stand up for communities as well. And we use that frequently.

I get that. I mean, pollution, it's pretty clear cut. And that's a long standing right that goes well beyond the affected community. Even the development fights, so to speak, are a little bit different. At the same time, I get where you're coming from. I just love to see a little bit more work done on this bill.

Thank you. Any other questions or- Ms. Reyes.

I appreciate the comments from my colleague, Mr. Connolly. I think we're living in great times. We have a great Attorney General who cares about the people, cares about protecting our air, cares about everything that we care about. And you're right, we don't know what the future might hold. Something to consider. But with that, I would move the bill.

Motion from Ms. Reyes, second from Mr. Kalra. Mr. Essayli?

Yes. Just to echo my colleagues'concerns, I also have concerns about how the Attorney General's Office determines when an issue is a matter of statewide concern. Does your office distinguish between charter cities and general charter cities?

We do not.

You do not distinguish. You do follow the California constitution, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And the California constitution, charter cities are exempt from complying with statutes that are not of a matter of statewide concern?

That is correct. And it's long standing from court decisions that housing is a matter of statewide concern.

Can you cite the California Supreme Court case that held that housing is a matter of statewide concern?

I can. Immediate in my mind are several cases, none of which are the California Supreme Court, but the California appellate courts, the most recent of which is the Martinez vs City of Columbus decision. Also California Renters Federation versus City of San Mateo, in which we intervened. There's also Anderson versus City of San Jose Surplus Land Act cases.

Suffice to say, since the 80s, courts have consistently held that Housing Element law, Housing Accountability act, ADU laws, Fair Housing act, state anti-discrimination laws on land use and housing are all matters of statewide concern that applies across the board to charter cities. And the reason why it needs to do this is essentially the Regional Housing Needs Act and Housing Element law are essentially working in concert with local governments. If we exempt charter cities, it does not work.

But cities have always been responsible for zoning, for determining how they want their community to look, what kind of projects to do. So injecting the state into really local policy decision making for the council, it takes away the power of local government, which I'm really concerned about. And just to be fair, I think it's important. The California Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. There is conflicting Supreme Court rulings from the appellate courts.

I understand the appellate courts have ruled in, but the state Supreme Court has not. And another question I have is how the Attorney General decides which cities to target. You've filed a lawsuit against Huntington Beach, but there's other cities that are blatantly not in compliance, like Coronado and La Mesa, and you have not sought to intervene and to do enforcement proceedings against them. Why not?

I can't comment on our pending investigations and decisions. We work with HCD. HCD is our client agency. And so all I can say is the fact that we haven't gone after Coronado doesn't mean we won't. Okay. And with respect to a number of other cities that you don't hear about, Huntington Park, for example, it's because they've entered into MOUs as soon as we file litigation. Town of Woodside, Pasadena, Encinitas, I can go on and on.

These are a number of cities in which we do initiate enforcement action, but it doesn't arise to the level of a lawsuit because in the majority of cases, reasonable minds are able to put together and settle those disputes out. Huntington Beach is an outlier. They've outright refused. They've sued the state and federal court to challenge these laws. They're essentially-

But you sued them first.

Absolutely.

And that lawsuit was in response. I appreciate your comments. I just think it's important that if we're going down this route, you got to have an objective standard that you're applying.

And we do.

And that looks fair from the outside because it does not appear that way. But I appreciate your answers. And thank you.

Ms. Papan.

So I just want to speak, having just come out of local government, and you mentioned the case that involved my city, I just want you to know the background. You know how many housing developments were rejected by my city in 30 years? One.

One in 30 years. And the only reason why it was rejected was to request a four foot setback. Nobody asked for a reduction in units, and ultimately, it was the same amount of units. So I have reservations about the bill and how it could be used. The discretion, as we've talked about with future attorney generals and even to a certain degree, what happened to my city, one rejection in 30 years, I think that's pretty reasonable.

I think that there's a misconception in our housing shortage, that local governments aren't working like the Dickens to help solve our housing shortage. And so, while I will vote for the bill, I am uncomfortable that we got caught up in a lot of hyperbole without a lot of facts. So the fact that the AG intervened in this one, in my city, one project, no objection to the number of units, just a four foot setback. You can see where it gets troubling.

So, in any event, I just want you to know that a bit of equanimity and less hyperbole might be the way to go when we're doing this. So thank you for hearing me out. Not a question, just a real life experience. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's helpful. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Haney, you may close.

Yes, and I appreciate the comments from my colleagues, and we'll definitely continue to work on those issues that were raised and see if we can clarify further. I will just say this doesn't dictate any outcomes in any cases. It just simply ensures that the people of California can be at the table that shouldn't be based on who gets there first.

And I think it makes a lot of sense, considering how focused we are in this body on housing laws, that the Attorney General representing us has that right. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Your bill is out. Ms. Carrillo. Item 12, AB 1306.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I am proud to present Assembly Bill 1306 the Home Act, harmonizing our measures for equality. This bill will ensure that immigrant Californians are not excluded from recent criminal justice and compassionate release reforms passed by this very Legislature. In recent years, the Legislature has recognized that over incarceration hurts our state and our communities, and we've given individuals who have received harsh sentences as young people the opportunity to earn parole.

The Legislature has recognized that there should be avenues for those whose convictions were tainted by racial bias or those who were convicted under statutes that we have now reformed to have a new day. The Legislature has also recognized the need to give incarcerated individuals the dignity to live out their final days and months with their loved ones and with adequate access to Medi-Cal care. As a state, we have recognized those needs.

But immigrant Californians are arbitrarily left out for no reason other than the fact that they were born outside this country. As a state, we have recognized those needs. But when immigrant Californians have earned release under these new reforms, rather than be reunited with their families, our state prison system turns them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for a double punishment, indefinite incarceration and immigration detention, which is a sentence that has never been handed down by a criminal court or a judge.

This is an arbitrary sentence served in facilities beyond California State oversight, where these abuses are very well documented and where there is no right to legal counsel or bail. The Home Act, AB 1306 will end the double punishment of immigrants whose convictions are the subject of criminal justice reforms already signed into law. Here to speak more on the need for this bill is Phil Melendez, Special Projects Director at Smart Justice California. Ny Nourn, co Director of Asian Prisoner Support Committee. And Angela Chan is here with the assistant chief attorney office of San Francisco Public Defender's Office is also available for technical support.

Thank you. First witness.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. I'm Phil Melendez, as she mentioned, special products Director for Smart Justice California. And I'm proud to be here today in support of AB 1306 the Home act, because right now, as Assemblymember Carillo mentioned, we do have a two tiered system of justice that treats you differently based on where you were born, and that goes against every fiber of who we are as a state.

And it's time that we stop this unfair double punishment and live up to our shared values of equality, fairness and common humanity. And the common humanity point is especially important to me because when I was 19 years old, I was sentenced to life in prison.

And after nearly 20 years of incarceration I was able to return home to my kids and my wife, and thanks to criminal justice reforms passed here in this very building that recognized my humanity and potential to transform myself and contribute to my community. Specifically, I benefited from a law that recognized that longer sentences don't actually make us safer and gave people who received convictions as youth an opportunity to seek their freedom sooner. But my story is not unique.

Earlier this year, Smart Justice visited Pelican Bay State prison up in Crescent City. And we spoke with men who were taking college courses to nourish their minds and personal growth and accountability programs to heal their souls and help them rediscover their own humanity. And these men had taken a deep, hard look at the harm they'd caused and were ready to return and give back to their families and communities. We met several men who would soon be released.

But for some, that joy of leaving prison was dampened by the reality that they would not get to come home to their loved ones. For example, we spoke with someone who had been a child soldier in Liberia, had been subjected to extreme trauma that morphed the trajectory of his life. We met one person who learned to be a talented coder through the Last Mile Program but would soon be deported to Mexico. And I saw so much of myself and my journey in them.

There were many people who had the same exact journey as me, including some who qualify for the exact same reforms that led to my freedom. But they are punished once more and sent to ICE detention because of where they were born.

So I urge Members of the Community to vote aye for the Home Act to ensure that existing laws that they worked hard to pass, that you all worked hard to pass to reduce mass incarceration and address racism in our legal system, are applied fairly to all Californians, regardless of where they were born. Thank you.

Thank you. Second witness.

Hello, Chair Maienschein. Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Ny Nourn. I work as the Co-Director with the Asian Prison Support Committee, and I express my strong support for the Home Act. Like Phil, I also qualified for a criminal justice reform bill. However, our road to freedom was not the same. Phil got to walk out of prison, welcomed by his family. I got welcomed with leg chains and waist chains by an ICE agent.

My story mirrors many immigrants and southeast Asian refugees from Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. In fact, yesterday the Assembly floor recognized the Cambodian and Jewish communities in remembrance of the Holocaust in Europe and the genocide in Cambodia. My family and I, like many southeast Asian refugees families, found it difficult to assimilate in a country where we did not feel welcomed. Without adequate resources, such as culturally competent services and living in poor housing and overplaced neighborhoods, southeast Asian refugee children, like other immigrants, faced intense bullying.

At the same time, these youth, along with black and brown communities, struggled to survive the tough on crime era in the 90s. Growing up in San Diego, violence started in my home. For almost two decades, I was exposed to domestic violence between my mother and stepfather. Today, after time and healing, I visit my family in San Diego often and our relationship has significantly strengthened. Time and healing has also helped me understand why, at 17 years old, I became a survivor of domestic violence.

While in prison, I learned that my story was not exceptional. According to the LCU, the vast majority of women in prison have been victims of violence before incarceration, and 79% of women in prisons reported physical abuse. I'm grateful that while I was incarcerated, I built deep connections with other survivors. These resilient women are also healers and mentors who have defined what a healthy community can look like despite being confined. In 2017, I qualified for these pro hearing thanks to SB 261.

During the hearing, commissioners commended me for earning my associate's degree, various certifications and vocations, involvement and mentorship in support groups, taking responsibility for my offense, and had a strong program. Despite being granted, I was transferred to ICE after six months in ICE detention. Thanks to my community for helping to free me and for Governor Newsom granting me a parting in 2020 to stop my deportation.

Today, I get to be part of the social justice movement that centers support on uplifting everyone's humanity and working to help keep families together. I don't want anyone to experience the cruel injustice that happened to community members like Gabby, Sheila, Poon and Tin who were transferred to ICE and deported, as they also would have qualified for the Home Act. In closing, Committee Members, I urge you for your strong support for AB 1306 the Home Act thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only.

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, we're in support, too.

Andrea Amavisca on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, in support.

Armand Feliciano on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus in support.

Elijah Chhum from the Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants we're co sponsors and we are in support.

Borey Ai with the Asian Prison Support Committee and we're in support.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, co sponsor in support and on behalf of the following organizations in support. 18 Million Rising, All of Us or None, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Alliance San Diego, API Rise, AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, Bend the Arc, Buen Vecino, California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Californians for Safety and Justice, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Contra Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Courage California, Drop LWAP Coalition, Freedom for Immigrants, Harbor Institute for Immigrant & Economic Justice, HomeRise, Homies Unidos, Human Impact Partners, Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity, Immigrant Defense Advocates, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Mujeres Unidas y Activas, Orange County Congregation Community Organization, Orange County Equality Coalition, Orange County Rapid Response Network, People's Budget Orange County, Prison Yoga Project, Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos,C-RAC, Tsuru for Solidarity.

Thank you. Now that we've exhausted all the groups, anyone in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Kalra then Mr. Connolly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to commend the representative from the San Francisco Public Defender's office, officially the longest list I've ever heard battled off. So congratulations. I want to also commend the author for her persistence on this issue. This is an incredibly important issue, one that I know the author and advocates and organizations, including many that are here, have been working on for a number of years.

And the folks, especially when you think about folks that really only know California or know this country is their home, and to think that they may be sent somewhere that they don't know, I mean, that in itself is just a shocking sentiment. And it does happen all the time in our country, regardless of whether someone's engaged or in the criminal justice system. But frankly, whether someone's been here for three months or three decades, the reality is that this policy is unjust.

First of all, we're not an arm of the Federal Government or ICE, and we shouldn't act like we are, and we shouldn't feel compelled that we need to engage with ICE. We talk about it oftentimes, about how in our communities we want to make sure that when there are ICE raids, what have you, we are in shock, and we want to make sure that we notify residents. It's that and the other.

I don't know why, when it comes to this issue, we would feel any less shocked in terms of our interactions with ICE. But setting that aside as well, our criminal justice system should treat everyone equally under the law, and we don't, and we haven't for a very long time. We're trying to get better, whether it's compassionate release, racial justice act a number of ways, we're moving in the right direction.

And this is a gaping gap of injustice that still exists that we need to close and make sure that we're not double punishing folks that otherwise are found suitable for release. They've not only done their time, but in many cases, as evidenced by the witnesses that have testified today, have made great strides during the time they were incarcerated, during probation, parole, whatever it might be, they have been found suitable to go back home.

And by not allowing them that, we are denying them the same rights that every other person that is involved in a criminal justice system are enjoying, and I say enjoying because we're doing the right thing by allowing folks to get home. Ultimately, that should be the goal of any justice system, is to rehabilitate, heal, and allow folks to get back home. And that's why the Home Act is a perfect name for this bill. And so I enthusiastically support it.

I'm very hopeful that we'll have a positive result this year, I think under the author's leadership. I'm proud to be a principal co author and happy to move the bill.

A motion from Mr. Kalra. Second from Ms. Reyes. Mr. Connolly?

Yeah, real quickly, just wanted to thank the author for your work on this bill and your work in this space over the last several years. I think it's been really important.

This is an important issue for folks in my local community is really happy to see ICE Out of Marin as a co sponsor, someone I've worked closely with. I really appreciate my colleagues' comments, I think you laid out the case for it, and I would request to be a co author on the bill as well.

Thank you, Ms. Reyes.

Thank you. Thank you for the work you do in the space. You have become just a leader when it comes to this issue, which is so important to so many in our community. Our Legislature has done a whole lot of work in reforming some of the laws. And once they're reformed, if we allow those old laws to be used for the double punishment or backroom punishment, then we haven't accomplished what we were trying to do. Once a sentence has been completed, that should be the end.

Our laws say, this is a sentence. You've completed it, as my colleagues have said, you are free to go home now. And now we're saying, well, no, it becomes a life sentence for you and for you and for you. We select who it becomes a life sentence for. So I appreciate your work in the space, and I'm happy to support it.

Okay, we have a motion. Mr. Essayli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the author's heart is in the right place. But I have some concerns about this. As a prosecutor, as a former prosecutor, are there any crimes that would be exempt from shielding any particular convictions, exempt from the shielding of the protections here?

I can answer that question. A number of the reforms that are listed here, the criminal justice reforms, already have large exceptions built in. There are different exceptions for each of the different reforms. If there's a particular one that you're curious about, I can give you more information.

But just to give you an example, for the youth offender parole reforms that are included, so someone who received a conviction at age 25 or younger, they have an opportunity to appear in front of the parole board, not guaranteed at all that they would get released.

That's the existing reform that this Legislature passed the exclusions for there include people with life without parole sentences for an offense committed at age 18 or older, people with one strike life sentences for sex offenses, people with second or third strike sentences based on a prior serious or violent felony, people who received a life sentence after turning age 26, people who were convicted of an offense that was a malice afterthought as a necessary element after turning 26.

So as you can see, lots of exceptions baked in to these existing reforms.

So if they are not covered by one of those exemptions, then they would not be protected? If they are covered by one of those exemptions, they would not be protected under this law?

If an individual does not qualify for one of these reforms because they fall underneath these exclusions, they would not get released and they would not be covered by the Home Act.

By the Home Act. Okay. And, sir, you mentioned you were sentenced to life. What was your conviction for?

I was convicted of two second degree murders.

Okay. You talk a lot about restoring humanity. Where do your victims get their humanity back from?

Unfortunately, there is no bringing them back. What I do is I participate basically for the rest of my life in living amends, honoring their names. I support survivors of crime. I work on healing spaces and restorative circles, things like that.

And even recently, well, not recently, about a year ago, one of the family members actually messaged me and commended me for the life that I was living. And it's hard to talk about it, and I'm nervous and also, too, it's a very emotional thing. But I think taking your stance of saying you speak for them and their family, I don't think that's the right tack or the question to be asking. I think the question to be asking is, how do we heal our communities? And that's what I work on.

I think it's important. Just I'll close with these remarks is I understand that there are some sad stories, but we can never forget the victims behind a lot of these crimes. And their lives are forever, permanently changed, impacted. They're never getting their lives back. They're never getting their family members back. And as a son of immigrants, my parents immigrated to this country. First of all, I don't think you have a right to come to this country.

I think it's a privilege. And when you're here, you should be on your best behavior. And if you commit a crime, you kill someone, you don't have a right to stay in this country. That's federal law. So I don't have a problem with deporting people who've committed really heinous crimes or bad crimes. We should be focused on keeping our public safe. So I understand the intent where you're coming from. I'm concerned about shielding individuals who've demonstrated that they are a danger in society. So with that, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Pacheco.

Thank you. And thank you to the author. I know we've had conversations about this bill, and pretty much I'm going to be asking what we discussed. This bill would only be for individuals who have already finished parole, correct? So they've already finished their sentences and they have been determined to be able to be released. Correct. And then the exemptions that were mentioned, so it wouldn't apply to those individuals, so it wouldn't apply to violent felonies, correct?

It wouldn't apply to anyone that's not covered in the already existing and past signed into law criminal justice reform policies.

Well, thank you. And thank you for answering my questions yesterday. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no more questions or comments from the Committee. Ms. Carillo if you'd please close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the last 10 years, the Legislature has eased the past to parole for individuals who receive convictions as young people, offered resentencings for those convicted under the felony murder rule, codified and created several paths of compassionate release, and provided post conviction relief for people who were prosecuted with clear racial bias or had no consideration for the status of survivors of human trafficking and partner violence.

However, solely because of the place of their birth, an individual who would otherwise benefit from policies moved forward by the Legislature will likely find themselves subject to additional punishment of ICE Detention, and Deportation. This bill will create parity for all Californians. It was never the intent of the Legislature to continue and advocate for a dual system of justice that treats immigrants differently. It was never the intent of the Legislature to ensure a double punishment of immigrants once they have been paroled by the parole board.

And the most important word that we must remember is rehabilitation. That is part of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The State of California invests so much on the rehabilitation portion. It is important that we continue to advocate for equal systems of justice that treats everyone the same, regardless of where they were born.

We have worked on this policy for the past three years, worked with law enforcement, worked with advocates, and worked to ensure that we are moving policies forward, that at the end of the day, allow for individuals to return home. This bill has no opposition. And I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second, due pass to Appropriations Committee. Ask Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your bill is out. Thank you. As Ms. Petrie-Norris approaches, I want to remind the Committee and Members of the audience and authors, we are an hour and a half into our hearing. We've heard four items. We have an hour and a half more, and we have 13 more to go.

Just throwing that out there, everybody.

Public service announcement from the Chair.

Exactly. Ms. Petrie-Norris, you may begin. You have two items. Are you presenting without Ms. Wicks here? That's great. So we'll start with item number five, AB 571.

Okay, great. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 571, which will reduce barriers.

Let me ask, as people exit the room, please. We need to be able to hear the author. Thank you.

This Bill will reduce barriers that healthcare providers face when trying to offer reproductive health services here in California. Since the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, one in three women in America has lost access to abortion services. We all know that reproductive freedom is under assault all across this country. In the face of that, here in California, we are doing everything in our power to protect reproductive rights. But we also recognize that rights without real access are meaningless.

And right now, one of the barriers to access is the cost and availability of liability insurance for reproductive health care providers. Providers report being charged an arbitrary surcharge or even denied liability insurance altogether because they offer abortions or gender affirming services. This Bill simply prohibits that discrimination and will help to ensure that health providers are able to obtain liability insurance and serve their patients.

Pleased to be joined today by two witnesses, Janice Rocco from the California Medical Association and Dr. Shiva Yazdani from the American College of Gynecologists.

First witness

hi, good morning Chairman and Members. Thank you very much for your attention to this issue today. My name is Dr. Shiva Yazdani. I practice as an OBGYN in Sacramento. I'm also a junior fellow for the American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists with district nine, co sponsors of AB 571.

So abortion care is an integral part of my practice day to day. I do not provide gender affirming care personally, but many of my colleagues do. This Bill and protecting this medical care, affects everyone, not just those who need abortion or gender affirming services. In a time when states across our country are banning evidence based, life saving abortion and gender affirming care, I am proud that California seeks to protect access to this care.

We have made great strides to enshrine the right to abortion in our state constitution and reduce barriers for patients to receive this care. Hand in hand with these actions, we should also find ways to reduce barriers for physicians and other healthcare providers to provide this care. This is where AB 571 plays an important role. Obstetricians already have high cost medical liability insurance. There is growing concern that physicians need to purchase costly abortion rider on top of that.

Evidence suggests that the large premiums for abortion riders are not proportional to the actual true liability risk. The medicine we practice is evidence based, but with all medicine it's fraught with potential risk. However, what is not risky is providing abortions or gender affirming care. Abortions are safe procedures. The majority of the abortion care that I provide is in the clinic setting and often in patients homes. When they choose medication abortions, they are less commonly performed in a hospital or an operating room.

The current difficulty some physicians or other licensed providers have in securing professional liability insurance has impacted the number of otherwise eligible practitioners who could offer these desperately needed services. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is proud to sponsor AB 571 and ask for your support as well.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Janice Rocco on behalf of the California Medical Association and our almost 50,000 Members, we are proud co sponsors of AB 571 and thank the author for introducing this legislation. This Bill will ensure that licensed medical providers who offer abortion, contraception or gender affirming care are not denied medical malpractice insurance coverage or charged an unfair premium because they're providing care that has been outlawed in some other states. Since the Dobbs decision was issued,

many states have imposed bans or severe restrictions that make it difficult, if not impossible, for patients to receive care in their own communities, which means that California physicians and other providers are being called upon to treat not only California patients, but an increasing number of patients who travel across state lines to seek basic healthcare services. The Legislature and the Governor have supported a number of bills to protect patients and providers from the laws being passed in other states.

AB 571 is one of the future of abortion council bills and is necessary to help protect medical providers who might otherwise be denied coverage or charged a higher premium than is justified for the professional liability insurance coverage they need in order to be able to practice medicine. This Bill will ensure that patients have timely access to care because their OBGYN or family physician or other licensed medical provider won't have a barrier to obtaining professional liability insurance coverage. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only, please.

Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Erin Evans, here to express support on behalf of three additional co sponsors of this measure, NARAL Pro Choice California, the California Nurse Midwives Association, as well as teach the Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare organization. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee. Motion from Mr. Kalra. Second from Ms. Papan. Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee. You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members, I will simply request your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein? Maienschein, aye. Essayli? Essayli, no. Connolly? Connolly, aye. Dixon? Haney? Kalra? Kalra, aye. Pacheco? Pacheco, aye. Papan? Papan, aye. Reyes? Reyes aye. Rivas? Sanchez? Sanchez, No.

Your bill is out. And your next item is Petrie-Norris, AB 743, and you may begin.

All right. Good morning again, Mr. Chair and members. I am here to present AB 743, which will allow for notaries to operate online. California is actually quite an outlier in the fact that we only allow in person notarization. In fact, we are one of only five states that do not permit some kind of online notary service. AB 743 will help bring California's notary services into the 21st century by permitting a notary public to register with the secretary of state's office and then perform their duties online.

Would now like to introduce my two witnesses, Anna Buck from the California Association of Realtors and Anthony Helton from the California Land Title Association.

Thank you. And do you accept the committee amendments?

Yes and yes. I want to thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, Mr. Chair, and the committee staff for your work on this bill. And, yes, certainly, we'll be accepting the proposed amendments.

Thank you. First witness has two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, members. Anna Buck. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we're really pleased to be the sponsors today of AB 743, which will bring notarization in California into the 21st century. We've been working on this issue for the better part of a decade, so we're really excited to be here today.

Under current law, a signer must appear in person before a notary in California to obtain notarial services for documents such as deeds of trust, power of attorney, and any document affecting real property. I'd like you to now think back to the last time you had to have a document notarized. If your life is anything like mine, I'm a working mom with three little kids. Pretty much felt like moving heaven and earth. It was nearly impossible to arrange my life to make that happen.

The fact is, it's increasingly difficult in today's day and age to find the time to sit down with the necessary parties to a document. And it has become a true burden to many Californians, such as parents like myself, active duty military, the disabled, and others. Technology and the Internet have simplified electronic real estate transactions. Now to the point where homebuyers and sellers can securely sign documents and contracts online, apply for mortgages, and submit any needed documentation straight from their smartphones.

The one missing piece still is online notarization. As it's noted in the committee analysis, this bill today before you is the most comprehensive attempt yet at enacting online notarization. It addresses and takes into account many of the security, privacy, and liability concerns that were previously raised by this committee. So we're really happy to be here and we'd ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. A second witness.

Sure. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members Anthony Helton with the California Land Title Association. Notarial acts play an important role in the services provided by our members in facilitating millions of real estate transactions every year by giving the parties to those transactions confidence that signed documents are legitimate and can be relied upon. This confidence, which helps establish the validity of real property records, is one of the cornerstones on which California's real estate economy is built.

As an organization whose members have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of real property records, we are pleased to support AB 743, which recognizes both the practical changes to and technological advancements within the real estate industry since California's notarial laws were first enacted and would allow California notaries to join the nation in providing safe, secure and flexible notarization services remotely.

This bill is a product of years worth of discussions between the many stakeholders on this issue and reflects thoughtful deliberation intended to ensure that a California Ron Policy is functional, secure, and effective. We appreciate the author's willingness to carry this important measure and respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only.

Good morning. Emily Dell with the California Credit Union League, in support.

Good morning. Ron Kingston, representing the Escrow Institute of California, in support.

Good morning. Matt Miller with the California League of Independent Notaries, in support.

See no other witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition see none. Questions or comments from the committee? Sure, Mr. Essayli.

Thank you. I tend to support the bill. In my law practice, we do a lot of notary stuff. So I just had a question about how do you, on the security side, how do you check the IDs and stuff online?

Oh, great. Well, yes, you probably actually already done this in some form or fashion or another. The security questions, it's multi-factor verification system where the platform itself, and I'm not a representative of the platforms, I don't work for the platforms, so I don't necessarily want to speak on their behalf. But it goes through a system of questions.

Okay. So you're not just looking at it online. There's actually like, you have to confirm your identity using.

Correct.

Okay.

So there's a series of questions that you would only know the answer to. And then the notary who you are communicating with via the internet actually can view your ID and see your person through the audio visual technology.

Okay. And then you're not saving any of the documents, right, like that are being notarized. Those documents don't get some documents.

The bill directs the secretary of state to develop a system so that the secretary of state will then serve as the repository of last resort for the digital assets associated with.

So that's all going to be worked out later. All right. Thank you so much. I think this is an important modernization. So thank you.

Bringing California into the 21st century. Here we go.

We have a motion from Ms. Reyes. A second from Mr. Kalra. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Ms. Petrie-Norris you may close.

Well, thank you members, respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 743.

Thank you. So we have a motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the clerk to call a roll.

[Roll Call]

Your bill passes. Thank you. Your bill is out. Thank you. Next. Ms. Pacheco, you may present.

My witness is actually not here. They're walking over from this space.

Okay, that might be a subtle hint. Or not so subtle. Ms. Reyes moved the item. Mr. Kalra seconds it. Maybe just go ahead and if they get here.

Sounds good.

Great.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'll take my time so that my witness can arrived. But I am pleased to present AB 177 which would ensure that all providers under the healing arts license are protected from hostile laws in other states with regard to their licensure, and protects providers' staff privileging in the hospital setting. Abortion providers and those who seek abortion are under attack. And we know other services are also being attacked, like gender-affirming care.

One of the most important things we can do to ensure that these services are accessible here in California is to ensure that the providers offering this care can continue to offer it without fear. With me today was supposed to be Molly Robson, VP of government affairs at Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. This is a FAB council bill, and this bill has received bipartisan support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Erin Evans, on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice California and the California Nurse-Midwives Association, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from committee? Seeing none. We have a motion and a second. Ms. Pacheco, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. It's on call. It needs one more vote.

Okay, thank you.

Let's see no other authors here. I will present mine, Mr. Essayli.

Now calling item number six, Assembly Bill 594 by Mr. Maienschein.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. AB 594 will expand and strengthen the tools available to public enforcement agencies to protect workers from labor law violations and protect responsible employers from unfair competition. Despite the best efforts of the labor commissioner and local agencies, enforcement of labor law violations is inadequate to meet the needs of California's immense workforce.

Wage theft is widespread in California and is particularly egregious in low-wage industries. In 2021, almost 19,000 workers filed claims with the labor commissioner, adding up to more than $338,000,000 in lost wages. Companies continue to develop more sophisticated ways to evade accountability for labor law violation. These techniques make the already backlogged wage claim process even more complicated and time-intensive. It's essential we maximize the tools available to public enforcement agencies to give workers access to justice and hold companies that break the law accountable.

AB 594 expands public enforcement in the following ways. It broadens the authority of district and city attorneys to enforce labor laws and seek injunctive relief to stop violations. Mr. Gipson, moving the. Yeah. Well, I appreciate the extra effort Mr. Gipson is giving. That's great. Certifies that public enforcement agencies are not bound by arbitration agreements signed by individual workers and authorizes the labor commissioner to issue penalties for willful misclassification in the wage claim process.

Recent amendments address concerns by the opposition to narrow the scope of the bill to remove workers'compensation, and calocia labor code divisions. This is an important measure to protect workers, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me to testify in support are Caitlin Vega with the California Labor Federation and Matt Broad on behalf of the Teamsters.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation. We are proud to sponsor this bill. I want to begin by thanking the Committee for their Very thoughtful analysis. California has many of the strongest and best labor laws on the books, and yet in practice, we know that wage theft, misclassification, retaliation, these kinds of labor law violations are incredibly widespread and pervasive, especially in low-wage industries, meaning that workers who earn the least have their rights violated the most and have the hardest time holding their employers accountable. We know that state agencies are drastically underfunded and understaffed to be able to serve the needs of our diverse workforce.

We have seen over the past few decades that companies have moved toward models of contracting out, using labor contractors to shield themselves from liability, making it much more work time intensive on enforcement agencies to try to enforce state laws. And of course, it's not just workers who are harmed. The vast majority of employers follow the law. They don't commit wage theft, and yet they have to compete against companies that use that as their business model. So it's incredibly important.

As well as for state revenue that relies on employers paying taxes and paying workers so that workers can pay their taxes, we all have an interest in improving enforcement. That's all this bill does, creates additional options for workers to have laws enforced and tells companies that are violating the law that there will be consequences. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Sir, you have two minutes.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matt Broad here on behalf of the California Teamsters. I'm thrilled to be here in support of AB 594, which addresses a fundamental flaw in our labor law regime. In a lot of ways, it's either under-enforceable or unenforceable. As my co-witness said, you can have the best labor laws in the country, but if they're unenforceable, they're the proverbial paper tiger.

This bill simply expands public enforcement of labor law violations, which brings our ability to combat wage theft and misclassification in line with our state's values. And with that, I would urge your aye vote on AB 594. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support? Please state your name and position and organization.

Scott Chelette. I'm the assistant state director, SMART TD, and we are in support.

Nicole Trujillo Rice on behalf of the California State Building Construction Trades Council, in support.

John Shaban, California Nurses Association, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Ashely Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. We do appreciate our conversations with the author's office and the recent amendments that were taken to narrow the scope of the labor code. This applies to some of our concerns also relate to inconsistent enforcement at the public prosecutor level did want to also talk about concerns about PAGA lawsuits that could come out of this.

If a public prosecutor was to bring a claim and there was a settlement, employees did receive some sort of recovery from that. That does not stop a subsequent lawsuit. Under the case, Kim v. Reins, even if an individual settles their own claim, they are still considered an aggrieved employee under PAGA and can pursue a PAGA action.

So if a private attorney sees that a company has settled, if these cases are in the news, it's very easy for them then to go out and find a plaintiff to serve for a PAGA case. Once you file a PAGA case, you can then add in any claim under the labor code. It does not matter if the alleged employee actually suffered that harm. So you can actually greatly expand beyond what the original case was and seek penalties and additional relief under PAGA for those alleged violations.

Attorneys really win under PAGA. It's not the state or the employee. The LWDA itself has acknowledged that the vast majority of PAGA lawsuits do not take into account to protect the interests of workers or the state. Analysis suggests potentially amending PAGA, and my dream would be to amend PAGA and do PAGA reform. But unfortunately, this Legislature has been really adverse to that. It has rejected multiple proposals by multiple different governors, Democratic governors, regarding PAGA reform. So we actually do think that this bill should address this issue in an amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition?

Hello. Good morning. Matthew Allen with Western Growers, also opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Nick Chiappe on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association, respectfully opposed.

Okay. Seeing no other speakers, are there any questions or comments from the committee? Yes, Mr. Kalra.

Ben Ebbink with the California League of Food Producers, also in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the chair bringing this bill forward. As mentioned in the prior committee, this is such an important piece of legislation because we know that our state doesn't have the resources to be able to adjudicate these claims quickly. Now we are trying to do things, get more resources and all that, but at the end of the day, that's not enough.

The more partners we have on the ground that have the authority to be able to bring justice to workers and be able to resolve these issues, whoever side they're resolving it for, they can get these claims resolved quickly at the local level, county, city levels is critically important, and I think it's a critical tool for us to play catch up on these claims that take some cases years to resolve. Employers know it. They like the status quo, at least some of them.

Not the ones that are abiding by the law, but the ones that are committing these kinds of egregious acts like the status quo, because they know at the end of the day, most employees are just going to throw their hands up and move on and not get the justice they deserve. And so if there's not a motion, I'd like to make a motion.

I believe Ms. Reyes moved. Do you want to second?

Oh, yeah, that's right. I'll second it. And I'd love to be added as a co-author. Thank you.

And Ms. Papan.

Isn't there the one judgment rule that would overcome the PAGA claims?

First of all, what PAGA allows you to do is recover penalties, most of which go to the state. So if a worker were to recover because a public prosecutor is saying you were owed back wages, it actually wouldn't be a double recovery because there are different things for different kinds of violations. As the chamber mentioned, a PAGA claim could add in additional claims that were not part of the original claim. In none of those cases would the recovery be the same.

Those would be different kinds of recovery. And 75% of PAGA penalties go to the state, not to the worker anyway. So there really isn't an incentive for workers to come up with frivolous claims to go after an employer that they've already been able to benefit from public enforcement. And again, our position is this bill is about public enforcement. We understand the chamber doesn't like PAGA. They raised that on every bill. This bill is simply about public enforcement, which we don't really understand why they would object to.

Thank you.

Any other committee comments? Seeing none. Mr. Maienschein, you may close.

Thank you very much. This is an important bill. This will give us a huge added resource to get at companies and employers who don't properly pay the wages. I mean, the vast majority of companies are obeying the law and doing the right thing, and this will have no impact on them. But the ones who aren't, this will help make sure those employees get paid. And with that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

We have a motion. A second. May call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. It's on call, Mr. Gipson. The enthusiastic Mr. Gipson approaches. Motion from Ms. Papan, second from Mr. Kalra.

Thank you. We appreciate the Bill being moved and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and speaker. I will be brief unless there's questions by the opposition. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1089, which seeks to ban the sale, the purchase, possession and receiving of ghost gun technology by limiting the use of 3d printers and computerized numbers controlled milling machines only to those who are licensed, who are state licensed firearm manufacturers.

This bill continues to build upon the bills that I brought before this body or previous bodies in the Public Safety Committee and others. Assembly Bill 1621 re-banned ghost gun kits and also other bills, 879 in 2019 about background checks and purchasing firearms, frames and receivers. I just want to call to your attention of something that tragic that happened here in Sacramento, not far away from where we are today.

Due to the work that this legislative body has done, when there's a domestic dispute going on at the home and that there's a gun to a registered person, that gun is removed. The work that we did certainly validate that. A husband and wife dispute, divorce. The wife got full custody of the children, three beautiful daughters. The father had supervised visitation rights. I wanted to underscore supervised visitation rights.

As a result, the father made a gun, an AR 15, went to the local Sacramento church where his daughters were waiting for him, where he wanted to visit them with a social worker. He used an AR 15 and killed his own three daughters, the social worker, and then he turned the gun on himself. And that was used by a 3d printer. He took his babies' lives away, including himself. This Bill 1089 seeks to prevent that and focus on licensed manufacturers.

But also it put a liability piece in there that a code cannot be used to produce any kind of ghost guns. And that's what this Bill seeks to do. And I respectfully ask, when I vote here to speak in support of this Bill, we have Rebecca Marcus, representing Gifford.

And Mr. Gipson, you take the amendments?

I do take the amendments. Thank you very much and the Committee for their Hard work in helping me with this bill.

Thank you. First witness.

Mr. Chair and Members Aaron Niemala, representing the Giffords Law center to prevent gun violence. For the sponsors of 1089, in the interest of keeping you on track, we will be really fast. Basically, this legislation just builds on California's recent ghost gun law, as the author articulated. And one of the big problems now is that blueprints are being sold. So we want to put a stop to that, to make it easier to create liability and a disincentive for that to happen. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next witness.

Rebecca Marcus, representing the Brady campaign. I'll also be brief. Last year, you all said, enough and passed two of the strongest laws regulating ghost guns. However, despite the immediate and life saving impact of the passage and implementation of those bills, certain industry Members have worked diligently to find ways to circumvent those laws. So because of that, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only.

John Chaban, California Nurses Association.

Kelly Hit on behalf of Every Town for gun safety. In support. Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez of the California Medical Association, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Ms. Papan?

I just request to be a co author. I believe in this Bill 1000%. So thank you for all your work on it.

Thank you. And we'll add you as a co author.

I'll also take that as a motion from Ms. Papan. Do we have one? We already have one. Okay, then I won't.

I also think it's a really important bill. And I wouldn't say getting ahead of the technology. The technology is already here and we really have to ramp up efforts on this. So I appreciate it and love to be at it as co author as well.

Thank you very much.

So, we have a motion a second. Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, Mr. Gipson, you may close.

Respectfully ask when I vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The motion is due. Pass is amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein, aye. Maienschein. Aye. Essayli. Connolly. Connolly, Aye. Dixon, Haney. Kalra.

Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco. aye. Papan.

Aye.

Aye.

Papan, aye. Reyes. Rivas, Sanchez.

Your Bill is on call. Needs another vote. Mr. Hart. Item 13, AB 1345.

Let me proceed. Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB 1345, a Bill to enact strong consumer protections against predatory real estate listing agreements. In a recent disturbing trend across the country, unsuspecting homeowners, including seniors and those with limited financial resources, are offered cash upfront to enter into decades long exclusive real estate listing agreements.

While owners are under no immediate obligation to sell their home in these schemes, consumers are unaware that these predatory contracts are binding and result in a lien placed on the home. The penalty to cancel the contract is often calculated using a percentage of their home's appreciated equity, ultimately costing homeowners thousands of dollars when they want to get out of this contract. AB 1345 will prohibit lengthy listing agreements and make it unlawful to present them for recordation.

The measure ensures California takes urgent preventative action to protect vulnerable homeowners against these abusive sales practices. I want to thank Assemblymember Wilson for joint authoring this effort. The California Association of Realtors and I have engaged in very productive conversations on this Bill, and I look forward to continue working together on this important issue.

Testifying in support of the Bill are Anthony Lew with the California Attorney General's Office, Gabriel Schaeffer, also with the Attorney General's Office, is available to answer technical questions, and Lori Mazella, representing Solano County, is also here to offer her testimony. First witness.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Lori Mazella, Deputy County Counsel, County of Solano. This issue first came to my attention from our Recording Operations Manager, who had over 20 years experience and had rejected to a memorandum of these exclusive right to list and sell agreements. I took a look at it, agreed with her that they are not authorized by Government Code Section 27280 because they do not affect title or possession of property.

So discussions ensued between us and the realty attorneys and amongst us and our colleagues, and we found out is that many counties have been presented with these documents to record. 17 counties about have recorded them, including, unfortunately, one or two that slipped through our electronic recording system, despite our best efforts. My colleagues in the County Counsel's Association agree with our interpretation of the code. Nonetheless, I've had a few phone calls from colleagues who said that the recorders are feeling pressured.

There's threats of litigation and they're inclined to record them if they're signed and notarized. So that ratcheted up the concern for the recorder's office and our office a great deal, and we really feel like a legislative fix is necessary. So we respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Second witness.

Hi, good morning. My name is Anthony Lew, Deputy AG with the Legislative Affairs Office for AG Rob Bonta. The AG supports AB 1345, and we thank our two authors for working with our office to introduce this Bill and further efforts to make California one of the first states to enact a legislative solution to this emerging problem.

So, as you heard the Assemblymember describe in detail, this is a predatory practice that is employed by some realty companies to use exclusive listing agreements in an anti competitive manner, and it is increasingly harming consumers and other realty companies trying to compete for business fairly.

AB 1345 is needed to ensure that vulnerable low income and elderly homeowners, who are the most frequently targeted by this practice, are not being taken advantage of financially and not being trapped in long term exclusive listing agreements recorded as liens against their home. The Bill is needed to combat this practice before it gets a stronger foothold in California and becomes harder to mitigate in future years.

It will also level the playing field so that the vast majority of real estate agents who are not engaging in this practice can continue to compete for business and are not frozen out of representing potential clients by those who are exploiting exclusive listing agreements. So we're committed to working with opposition and following the author's lead and discussions as the Bill moves forward, I'm optimistic that the authors will find a sweet spot on this.

And for these reasons, we respectfully ask you to vote aye on AB 1345 today.

Thank you and welcome back. First witness in support.

Matt Klopfenstein and California Advisors on behalf of Zillow in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Anthony Helton with the California Land Title Association in support.

Mr. Chairman, Ron Kingston, Escrow Institute of California. We're going to be talking to the author about one amendment, so to make sure that it doesn't invalidate transfers of title during the term that Mr. Hart is very concerned about. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Anna Buck, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, I want to start off by saying thank you to the Assembly Member. We've had some great conversations. The only reason that I'm sitting on this side of the aisle today is that the California Association of Realtors essentially does not currently have policy on this issue.

And so we're working towards that policy decision which will come the first week of May, and we'll continue to work with the sponsor and the author on this really important Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee, Ms. Pacheco?

So I want to thank the author for this Bill, because 40 year listing agreements are outrageous. But I do have some of the concerns that the California Association of Realtors has. I'm also a real estate broker and so sometimes having a listing agreement for over a year, over 12 months, may be important. And I can list one example for probate cases. Sometimes the administrator doesn't have full authority. What that means is you have to get court approval before a sale can actually happen.

And sometimes setting court hearings can be difficult, sometimes probate hearings can be problematic. And so that's just one example. So I'm happy to hear that you're working with the California Association of Realtors. I'm sure something will be figured out. But that was my only concern, recording listing agreements. I've never done it, my family has never done it, who are also real estate brokers. So I don't have concerns about that.

It's just the 12 month listing agreements is what I have concerns about because every sale is different. So I appreciate the dialogue and I also want to thank the author because again, 40 year listing agreements is outrageous. So thank you.

Thank you. And that's exactly the issue that we're working together on. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Motion by Mr. Kalra. Second by Mr. Essayli. Mr.Thank you. Thank you. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Ask Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Mr. Gabriel, you have two bills. Item number 10, AB 924 and item number 15, AB 1546.Let's start with AB 924. All right, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And I want to first thank the Committee for their Thoughtful feedback and assistance on the Bill and confirm that we will be taking the amendments today.

And I'm pleased to present to you AB 924, which will establish additional safeguards and transparency to help protect Californians who rely on private judges to mediate disputes. In December of 2020, media outlets broke the story of how renowned consumer attorney Tom Girardi had likely stolen millions of dollars from Hinckle's clients, including children orphaned by a plane crash, victims of a pipeline explosion, and elderly cancer patients. Later on, the role of private judges in dispute resolution neutrals in Girardi scandal came to light.

Oftentimes, his schemes relied on private judges that he selected and paid for, and who appeared to disregard the management of client funds or look the other way at blatant ethical concerns. In short, the Girardi story has exposed the role that private judges can play in enabling corruption and malfeasance in the legal profession. Despite the wide power of private judges in the legal system, no government agency specifically monitors or polices their conduct to prevent this type of malfeasance.

Mr. Girardi's reliance on them raises questions about whether there are enough safeguards in this highly confidential and largely unregulated industry to protect the public. AB 924 will help to address this issue by requiring that a private judge or dispute resolution neutral streamline more written complaints directly to the state bar. In so doing, this Bill fills a current gap in California law, highlighted by the Gerardi scandal and by the lack of oversight of dispute resolution neutrals. With that, I appreciate your feedback and would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Witnesses in support seeing none. Witnesses in opposition seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Do we have a motion? Motion from Mr. Kalra. Second Ms. Pacheco. Mr. Gabriel, you may close. Now this is how it's done. There we go. There we go. The motion is passed through Apprps as amended. S Clerk, call roll.

[Roll Call]

Sanchez, your Bill is out. Let's see if you can do as well. AB 1546, item 15. You may proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and colleagues, I am proud to author this Bill which would ensure that the Attorney General has the exact same amount of time to bring a civil action to enforce the California Consumer Privacy act, the CCPA that the California Privacy Protection Agency has to bring an administrative enforcement action under that same law.

As many of you know, California became the national leader in ensuring consumer privacy protection for all of its residents, first when the Legislature enacted the CCPA in 2018 and next when voters passed Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act, in 2020. Under the CCPA, only the Attorney General is authorized to bring a civil enforcement action, with a narrow exception for a private right of action for those injured by data breaches.

Proposition 24 created the privacy agency and gave it a five year statute of limitations to bring an administrative enforcement action. Unfortunately, due to a drafting oversight, Proposition 24 doesn't specify that the Attorney General also has five years to bring a civil enforcement action under California law. If there's no statute of limitations specified in law, the AG has only one year to initiate a lawsuit for civil penalties. One year is far too short a time to develop a case under a law as complex as the CCPA.

The alternative to passing this Bill is to leave the one year statute of limitations in place, which means one of two things will happen. Either the Attorney General will quickly file suit before the one year period expires in order to preserve the right to sue, meaning that businesses will have to quickly defend themselves in court, even though further investigation might have shown that no lawsuit was necessary.

Or alternatively, the AG will file suit alleging non CCPA privacy violations and the privacy agency will bring a parallel administrative action for CCPA violations, meaning that businesses will have to defend against two different actions in two different venues at the same time. Contrary to what the opposition claims, this Bill would add no new additional administrative burden and create no new risk of data breaches for businesses.

Companies covered by the CCPA already have to preserve records and data for five years in case the privacy agency brings an investigative or enforcement proceeding in that time to testify in support. I have two witnesses from the California Department of Justice. Stacey Sessor is the supervising deputy Attorney General in the privacy unit and Anthony Lew is the deputy Attorney General with the Office of Legislative affairs. Thank you and respectfully request your aye vote

Good morning. Anthony Lew with the AG's office. Again, AG Bonta is the proud sponsor of this legislation. We want to thank Assemblymember Gabriel for his leadership in authoring this Bill. That presentation that he just gave absolutely sums up everything you need to know about this Bill, so I'm going to keep it real short, this is a Bill that really enhanced DOJ's ability to carry out its duty to enforce CCPA.

And again, the conspicuous discrepancy between the one year statute of limitations for civil enforcement by DOJ and the five year statute of limitations for administrative enforcement by the privacy agency makes little sense as public policy, as described in the fine Committee analysis on page four. We respectfully ask for your aye vote today. I want to turn over to Stacey Schesser for further remarks on the Bill.

Good morning. My name is Stacey Schesser. I am the supervising deputy Attorney General for the privacy unit in the Consumer Protection section of DOJ. My job includes supervising the team of attorneys tasked with civil enforcement of CCPA, which we have been doing since its inception in 2020. The current one year statute of limitations is insufficient privacy enforcement cases are complex and present nuanced legal and factual issues that require an understanding and analysis of technical issues to determine if the law is being violated.

We typically examine and test data flows, work with expert technologists, interview key witnesses, and review legal and business arrangements governed by statute, regulation, contracts, privacy policies, and terms of Use. If we are in the midst of a formal investigation, we have the authority to issue subpoenas, which may be litigated in court if targets do not comply, thereby adding further time to our investigations.

In addition to the practical reality of civil enforcement, the voters approved the CPRA, which created a key dynamic between the privacy agency and the Attorney General. The intent was to make sure that if a company was facing an enforcement action, only one regulator would be bringing that case. It was to create a single lane road for either the AG or the agency to directly enforce the law, not both of us.

This is also why it includes express language that reinforces the AG's constitutional role as the chief law enforcer who can request that the agency stay its enforcement action. Maintaining this critical dynamic between the agency and the AG avoids forcing us to jam that single lane road by investigating or enforcing the law. Limiting the AG's direct enforcement of CCPA impacts the amount of civil penalties earmarked for the consumer Privacy Fund, which, among other things, provides grants to educate children in the area of online privacy.

Without longer time for direct enforcement, the AG would not be able to obtain heightened penalties for intentional violations and violations that involve minor children. Opponents claim that extending the statute of limitations increases risk or gives AG, or that by giving the AG the same five year period contravenes pro privacy and data minimization principles. Should I stop?

If you could wrap it up.

These arguments make no sense. Businesses already face that same risk by maintaining the same data for up to five years in case they're investigated by the agency.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Becca Kramer, matter on behalf of ACLU California action in late but still enthusiastic support.

Chao Jun Liu with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.

Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California with late and also enthusiastic support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Ronak Daylami, with the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition to AB 1546. Fundamentally, I think we have a difference of opinion here, both in interpreting the voter's intent as well as the need for the Bill. First, we believe the voter silence on the AG statute of limitations could be read to be intentional. They intentionally divided responsibilities for administrative and civil enforcement actions and specifically stated that administrative actions must be commenced within five years.

To us, it is not indicative of an oversight or drafting error. Second, we are concerned that the Bill is unnecessary, untimely focusing on enforcement on the back end when we are still awaiting privacy agency regulations that are necessary for us to understand how to comply on the front end. Furthermore, we're unaware of any actual cases where the AG was time barred from pursuing actions for a violation of the CCPA.

To the contrary, we believe that there has been robust enforcement of the law with the existing statute of limitations, and we worry that the extension will merely allow penalties to accrue for five years before an action is commenced, even if it could have been brought in year one. If parity is the goal here, we also urge you to consider that the Bill does not provide parity for businesses. Specifically, in the administrative context, there is an ability to cure.

No such right exists in actions brought by the AG. On top of this, Proposition 24 deleted the CCPA provision that allowed businesses to seek guidance from the AG on compliance. Plainly put, given that the Bill is about fairness, we feel this is patently unfair to businesses doing their best to comply without even a full set of regulations and without the ability to seek guidance. Ultimately, we feel timely actions better serve all parties.

It places businesses on notice of a potential violation which can in turn mitigate potential harms to consumers. In close, we'll just say if one year is deemed too short here, we just simply contend that five years is too long. With that, we respectfully oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition. You can be a second witness. Yeah, that'd be great.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Jamie Huff, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We do believe that this is premature at this point. The CCPA is in its infancy, the enforcement is in its infancy, and we believe that we need a little bit more time to see how this thing is going to shake out. The AG has publicly stated that he's going to vigorously and quickly enforce the CCPA, which, as he should, that this is particularly true.

Extending this out for a year in light of, as the support mentioned, our pro privacy and data minimization principles of the state. It's just common sense. The longer you hold on to data, the more likely it is that something can go wrong, which of course, when businesses hold on to that data, they can be subject to liability risk, class action. So it's a problem. So we would just say maybe five years.

Maybe one year is too short, as the chamber said, but we think five years is a little too long. And unless and until we see evidence that let this thing play out, let the enforcement play out and let's see where we stand later on. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition. Name and organization only.

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Technet, respectfully opposed.

Ben Ebbing, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers and the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, in opposition.

Margaret Gladstein, on behalf of the California Retailers Association and at choice, in opposition.

Ashley Hong on behalf of the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Motion for Mr. Culra. Do we have a second? We don't have a second. Ms. Pappen will second the motion. See no questions or comments to the author. Mr. Gabriel, you may close. Just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your Bill needs one more. It's on call. Thank you very much, Ms. Bonta. Ms. Bonta is presenting item eight, AB 793. You may begin.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. As a Member who has led unreproductive health legislation, I am proud. Our state is a safe haven for those seeking reproductive justice and gender affirming care. But our job is not done because of the wide use of reverse demands by law enforcement and other government entities. People who need reproductive or gender affirming care are vulnerable to digital surveillance apparatus that could be used against them.

Let me go into what reverse demands are and why they are so dangerous in a post Roe era. Normal warrants that comply with our Fourth Amendment protections seek information about a particular person that law enforcement has probable cause to believe merits investigation. A reverse warrant, on the other hand, seeks the opposite. The identity of the people who were present at a particular location. That's geofence demands. Or who looked up a particular term in a search engine.

Those are keyword demands simply because of where they were or what they searched for. To make this clear, a geofence demand can compel the disclosure of multiple people's identities just because they were at a particular place during a specific time frame, like near a reproductive health clinic. A keyword demand can compel disclosure of the identity of anyone who has entered certain keyword searches into a search engine, like transgender women, hormones, or the drug mephistoprone.

If a crime occurred in this area around the Capitol right now, and law enforcement sought a geofence warrant, our phones, our data, our privacy could be at risk. Why? Because we happen to be in an area where a crime occurred. That is the only thing we did. A single request can cover thousands of people in one sweep.

One demand, issued in Los Angeles County, for example, asked for the information of everyone within the equivalent of 24 football fields for several hours during a Friday morning commute, leaving over 1000 phones eligible to be swept up in that particular search. This type of digital surveillance is a threat to our reproductive freedoms and to people and to our privacy.

Since the repeal of Roe, we have seen anti abortion states use digital data, including Facebook messages, to prosecute people for having abortions or helping others obtain reproductive care. Geofence demands have also been used to track the location and identities of people protesting police violence, and could be used to track the location and identities of people visiting reproductive health clinics as well. People in California have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy. But phishing expositions from reverse geofence and reverse keyword demands undermine that right.

Reverse warrants can also chill the exercise of freedom of speech, Association, religion, Assembly, movement, and the press. It is time we take these types of warrants completely off the table. AB 793 does just that. Thank you. And as a witness today, I have Jake Snow from ACLU.

Thank you. First witness.

Good morning. My name is Jacob Snow. I'm a senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, where I work on privacy and surveillance issues. I urge an aye vote on AB 793 today because reverse demands are an extremely troubling 21st century version of a General warrant, the instrument that inspired the Fourth Amendment and which allowed the British king to rummage through people's personal files and lives and find out information about them that had no justification, much like General warrants authorized that unrestricted rummaging, reverse demands give the government the power to find out everyone who was in a particular place at a particular time or everyone who searched for a certain phrase that allows the government to track people as they go about their lives, including as they seek reproductive or gender affirming care.

And while reverse demands threaten everyone's privacy, they produce increased risks for particular populations. Every person has a privacy interest in their physical location and their searches online. And that means every time a reverse demand is used, the privacy of Californians is violated. And once a person is identified through a reverse demand, their privacy could be further violated as the government determines whether to push forward with an investigation.

But the people who fall under the umbrella of criminal suspicion in these instances aren't impacted in the same way for people of color, LGBTQ plus, people of certain ethnicities and religions, people of Low incomes and people seeking abortions. This unfounded suspicion not only threatens their privacy, but it could put them in contact with law enforcement, which can turn harmful or even deadly. Reverse demands are also an ineffective and risky surveillance tool when it comes to identifying criminals.

Reverse demands are good at increasing the size of the haystack, but very poor at finding the needle. For example, a reverse location demand sent to Google might identify 150 potential suspects, but not the actual suspect because that person might not have been carrying an Android phone. That means that law enforcement is chasing down 150 leads that go nowhere. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposite wait. Support. Okay.

Andrea Amavisca, on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center in support.

Robert Herrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, in support

Chao Jun Liu, on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Oakland Privacy Media Alliance, California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, Greenlining Institute, California Coalition for Women Prisoners and Secure Justice, in support.

Becca Kramer on behalf of ACLU Cal-Action proud sponsors

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Technet, in support. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. This is a really important Bill, and I think it has implications that are certainly far reaching, not just for folks that are trying to seek reproductive services, gender affirming care. But the reality is, I think the bigger question is, should the government be allowed to do this in General, regardless of why they're doing it. And I think that that simple answer is no, the government should not, and it's not a conservative liberal issue.

This is a government intrusion issue. And I think everyone that believes in the fourth amendment, everyone that believes in our own individual rights of privacy without government intrusion, should support this Bill. And I would love to be added as a co author, and I'd move the Bill.

Thank you. A motion for Mr. Kalra. Do you have a second? 2nd from Mr. Connolly and Ms. Monte. You accept the amendments, too, I know, yes. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Essayli?

Yeah, just a question. I do have concerns about the civil liberty implications of these warrants as well. I agree. General warrants are unconstitutional. What about cell site data? Would that be implicated by this Bill? Because generally that's not seen as a privacy, that you have a privacy interest in it.

So there are certainly mechanisms for getting cell site location information that still exist despite the spill. So as an example, when there's probable cause to suspect that a particular person was in a particular place at a particular time, that person can be the subject of a subscriber information warrant that can go to a service provider like Google, and then that service provider can hand over the cell site location information or more detailed geolocation information for that person. And this Bill doesn't disrupt that. The same is true of telecom service providers who have the cell site location information,

But they would have to know who they're looking for first.

So just real quick, they would need. Probable cause to do so.

But I believe right now, cell site, I guess I've done this both on the local and federal level. It's a little different because there they can use subpoena power to get the cell site data stuff. But just a quick example, I had a case where postal trucks were being robbed in transit, and we knew the trucks that were robbed and we knew where they were robbed, but we had no leads on who the people were.

And because we had multiple locations, we could do a cell site data dump and try and find the common number at each location. And because of that, it led to the suspect. So would we not be able to do that under, if this Bill were to pass? Well, so you'd need probable cause to know that a person was in the relevant place.

And the problem is that even if you have a set of locations, including where a postal truck went, for example, or where a crime was committed, there are a lot of people who are completely innocent who have done nothing wrong and are just in that place at a particular time. The odds of the same person being at all three places when it happened is very Low.

Well, in that, wouldn't you be able to establish, establish probable cause in order to be able to get a warrant that would allow you to be able to get that cell site data?

Yeah, I think in my case, we didn't even know who they were. We had no leads on who the people were. It's just something to think about. No, this is a really nuanced, complicated issue. I know the same stuff was used on January 6. Defendants, they pulled everyone's data that was at the Capitol, so it has different contexts, but. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you answering my questions.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. We have a motion. And we have a second.

The motion is do pass, as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please. zero, I apologize, Ms. Bonta, you may close.

Thank you. Chair, I respectfully request your vote.

Thank you. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your Bill is out, Mr. Berman. Item number four, AB 537, we have a motion from Mr. Kalra, second from Ms. Reyes.

Appreciate the quick motion. And second, we'll keep this short. I'd like to begin by thanking Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I will be accepting the amendments included in the analysis to clarify the bill's meaning and for parity to include county council as it relates to enforcement. AB 537 is a common sense consumer protection Bill that cracks down on short term lodging.

Hidden fees. This is not a partisan issue. Nebraska's Attorney General, a Republican, filed suit over resort fees. Pennsylvania's Attorney General, a Democrat, also filed suit over resort fees. It's time to take action on behalf of California consumers and to put an end to this deceptive practice. It'd be 537 would prohibit hidden fees by ensuring that the advertised or offered cost of the stay be disclosed in the upfront price, including all taxes and fees required to stay at the short term lodging.

Californians are frankly sick and tired of being misled. The advertised or offered price of your stay should be the real price that you pay. The Bill is supported by numerous consumer organizations, and my staff has been in communication with stakeholders in opposition, including myself, an hour ago in the hallway, and will continue to receive feedback. And I look forward to continuing these conversations on the Bill, respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me is Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of Consumer Federation California. We are the sponsors of this measure. This is really common sense. Let people know how much they're going to pay and let them make consumers make an informed decision. Here for the Republicans on Committee, I would note that J. Obernolte, now in Congress, had previously supported actively just such an approach. So this is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan issue.

Data shows that 85% of Americans have been impacted by this issue in one way or another. We are the thread between a six Bill package on junk and hidden fees, and this is a very important component of that. Since you want to hit your noon deadline, Mr. Chairman, I'll keep it short and ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

We appreciate that. Any other witnesses in support?

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of CalPERS in support.

Witnesses in opposition.

Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce we are respectfully opposed. AB 553. First, I want to say agree with the goal. We're not here in defense of the destination fees, resort fee issues. I've spoken to the Member and staff about it, including an hour ago in the hallway. Our concern really is a collateral damage issue around effects on competition.

And if you start including, for example, all taxes, tots, tids in the amounts displayed, if you're looking for a booking in California, how that will look versus bookings in other states, I do want to comment on the analysis and thank them for the thorough analysis on it. One point I want to flag is the analysis notes that one third of visitors are in state and so this won't change their activities is the argument.

I would flag that that means two thirds of visitors are out of state who do are looking at choices and where they travel. And those prices, we think will have an effect. The analysis, I think leans on price inelasticity, meaning consumers. It won't matter to everyone California is more expensive or looks that way. That's not our experience. So we are concerned about that appearance of a higher price in the interest of noon, as you said, I will just say thank you. Understand the goal working with the author, but still are opposed at this point.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Emellia Zamani with the California Travel Association, respectfully opposed for now.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee. Ms. Dixon.

Just curious, kind of a technical point. Why do you call the Bill, short term lodging when it really affects all of hospitality hotels, motels, etc.

I think it's a technical term, an industry term. It's a construct of the existing code, basically, and it's a construct of the existing code. There you go.

Because I just wonder if hotels are realizing this. I totally agree with transparency. I'm a big transparency person. However, I'm mindful of what the gentleman just said about just apples to apples and comparing prices. Do you envision, whether it's short term lodging or a hotel rate, that it would list the total, but also the breakdown on that home page? So it's all there. The composition, the accumulated number or the aggregate of all the numbers is listed in that same space. Do you envision that?

So my priority and my understanding is that you just have to have the total number. If you want to have a click down that says kind of break it down, then you can have that. And I imagine that would be at the choice of the establishment. But for me, the important thing is making sure that you have the total cost per room, including all destination fees.

Cleaning fees in parentheses would say that under that $650 includes all taxes, fees, et cetera, et cetera.

Exactly.

So that would be a full disclosure.

Yeah, it's not required that you do the full breakdown. So, for example, some of what I refer to as the consolidator sites Assembly Member used to be able to have a little link where it says taxes and fees and used to click on that and then it would break down what's taxes and fees. That's not happening as much now. I think partly because some of the consolidators don't want to reveal how many profit fees they've embedded in that.

So it's the top line number that is the most important. In some cases, consumers have been forced to pay destination charges, resort fees, things like that at the end of their stay, and they never even knew that that was going to be part of the cost until sort of after the fact. So if you look at the Pennsylvania settlement with Marriott, for example, that has directly led, for those of you who are bonvoy Members, I have the app and the card and they've got me. Right.

You can toggle a little button that says price includes all taxes and fees. That and other changes were part of that settlement. So you're starting to see some of the industry leaders modify their behavior. But we just think it's really important that you know whether that, and per your other question, whether it's a hotel, a motel, an Airbnb a Vrbo, whatever.

That's the whole point, as the Bill is structured by the author to include on the VrBO Airbnb side, you're seeing these massive cleaning fees, for example, that sometimes dwarf the nightly stay cost. So we just want consumers to know what they're getting at.

Is there any way you could change the title of that code? Because hotels were here before short term rentals. Really?

Yeah.

I just think it would be more transparent to say who is impacted by this.

We'll take a look at that. Assembly Member. I think it's a good Bill for next year.

All right, thank you very much.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Do we have a motion? Yes, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Burmer, thank you for this. I think we want transparency. We want honesty. All of us have gone through the frustration of going on, going on one of these sites, seeing a price. We thought we were paying the cleaning fees, the resort fees, all these additional fees that may or may not even in fact, be something. It may not actually be a resort.

All the times I've been charged a resort fee for going to my daughter's softball tournament in a place that was far from a resort. You had a bathtub, though. Maybe that was the resort fee. Was the spa having a functioning bathroom? Most of the time functioning. So I appreciate this Bill very much, and with that, I'd ask the Clerk to please call the roll. zero, you may close. No, all good. Thanks. Yep. Ask Clerk to please call the aye Maienschein.

[Roll Call]

No, it's out. Thank you very much, Ms. Schiavo. Motion from Ms. Reyes. Do we have a second? 2nd from Ms. Pappin.

I will be very fast. This is super simple and straightforward. AB 911 is a cleanup measure to AB 721 by Bloom in 2021 and provides confidence to affordable housing developers who want to purchase real estate for 100% affordable developments. Some properties may have restrictive density requirements and require only owners of the property to remove them.

Unfortunately for housing developers who are in the process of purchasing real estate, they're unable to remove those covenants until after they have purchased the property and are the legal owners of the real estate in question. AB 911 streamlines the covenant removal process by allowing affordable housing developers to remove the restrictive density requirements prior to the purchase of property, of purchasing the property allowing for faster delivery of affordable homes and confidence in financing of additional homes throughout California.

This legislation not only helps my district, but everyone's district to have an efficient process for having more affordable homes in their districts. Joining me today is Michael Lane, the State Policy Director for SPUR, who will also testify in support.

Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Well done. Other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Pardon, I'm in support. On behalf of the California Housing Consortium, Jennifer Armenta in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? We have a motion and a second. Ms. Schiavo, you may close.

Respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Ask Clerk to call roll.

[Roll call]

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Ms. Mckinnor. Item 16, AB 1547. Ms. Mckinnor, you may proceed.

Good morning. Thank you. Chair and Members of the Committee, I am here to present AB 1547, which would extend the statue of limitations for civil cases on childhood sexual assault. During the tough on crime era, California had over 130,000 youth detained across 292 local jails and lockups. Now these youth have grown up to be adults. They have had time to process that they were sexually assaulted while incarcerated. Recently, nearly 300 formerly incarcerated individuals have come forward with sexual assault allegations against employees who worked at several different juvenile detention facilities in California. In 2010, LA County conducted an internal investigation that revealed a report of abuse by 31 officers, 18 of which have been charged and 10 have been convicted. The existing statute of limitation for childhood sexual assault requires that victims file action for damages by the age of 40 or within five years of the date the victim discovers they have experienced psychological injuries or illnesses from sexual assault. Because many victims were denied legal representation due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez ran AB 218 in 2019, which provided a three year extension to cases that had expired. Unfortunately, this three year extension just expired on January 1st 2023, and many victims still would like to come forward and report their abuse. AB 1547 will extend AB 218 for an additional year, giving victims of childhood sexual assault a chance to bring their abuser to justice. My witnesses with me today are Lashima Raspberry and Aquila Jefferson.

Thank you, first witness.

Hi, my name is Aquila Jefferson. I live in Victorville, California. I am currently working intervention services as advocates for peace and urban unity in South Central LA. I want to thank the chair and the Members of this community for allowing me to speak here today. I'm truly honored. What happened to me as a child in the custody of LA County probation system is sad and disturbing. Since coming forward, I have learned it is not unusual, and I'm not the only one. I was born to two teenage parents. My mother is also a sexual abuse survivor. She abandoned me, leaving my grandmother to raise me. As a teenager, I began skipping school, and this landed me in Camp Joseph Scott. Camp Scott was billed as a boot camp designed to rehabilitate vague routines through a combination of military style discipline, education, and tough love. I didn't find much love at Camp Scott. Instead, I found years of sexual abuse. It began at 16, when I was serving four months sentence for truancy. A deputy probation officer began paying me special attention, being that I didn't get visits. I really didn't speak to my family, so he began showering me with gifts, food, compliments. He quickly progressed to a routine and frequent sexual abuse in laundry rooms, the office, the guard shack, any other secluded locations throughout the camp. He threatened me that if I told anyone, I would suffer consequences. I believed him. He wore the uniform. He was in charge. Because he was my probation officer, I felt I had to comply with everything he did. So it continued after I left Scott. Everything. The abuse, the control. In a way, I have been fortunate. I was able to deal with my emotional trauma and seek legal assistance before the window of California statute of limitations closed in January. Others haven't been fortunate. As we know, sexual abuse sees no age, gender, tax bracket, or race. AB 1547 will open a window for additional year to give victims of juvenile probation and other places the chance to, want to, say, face their abusers in the system. So I'm hoping that you guys give us approval today.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi, my name is Lashima Raspberry. Sorry, I'm nervous. I was a child, raised in the system, went to Camp Scott. I was supposed to be placed there to get set straight. I was supposed to be treated with respect, learn how to obey the law. The officers were there to teach me discipline, enforce the rules, and keep us safe. That's not what happened. Not long after I got to Camp Scott, I noticed one of the probation officers paying attention to me, watching us in the showers. One more. I saw him rubbing himself, touching himself. He soon begun to masturbate in the laundry room. He was an adult man in uniform. I was a scared 15 year old girl under his control. I did what he told me to do. He threatened me. He threatened that if I told anyone about his sexual abuse, your life would be miserable, and you will be locked up for more months. I thought maybe I was the only one. I tried to forget about it. I spoke with my sister and other girls about smaller experience and were filing lawsuits. I contacted a lawyer, only to learn that I could be too late. Luckily for me, it wasn't. But for so many others, it was. That's it.

Thank you for your sharing, both of you, thank you for sharing your stories. Any other witnesses in support?

Rebecca Marcus. On behalf of my colleagues at the consumer attorneys of California, in support, thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. It's important to bring justice to survivors, accountability and some semblance of healing. And I just want to thank these very courageous survivors for coming forward. It's very difficult to hear, and it's supposed to be difficult to hear, and we should be hearing your stories. I'm glad that you have an author that is listening and bringing your stories to us so we can make sure that there's more accountability and that folks aren't locked out of seeking their justice as well. So thank you both so much.

Thank you, Ms. Reyes..

Thank you for sharing, and I'm glad that you were able to get in under the statute of limitations. And I appreciate so much that you are here for the rest of the victims. You were okay, but the others are not. You already know this, but it was not your fault. We have horrible people that took advantage of so many of our youth. And the reports that came out about the juvenile detention center in Los Angeles, that's just one of the detention centers. But you are survivors, and I'm so glad that you're here with.

Thank you, Mr. Essayli.

I just want to say, I just want to note how incredibly brave you two ladies are. And I'm inspired by your courage and know that by you speaking out, you are helping others. It's not easy. I've worked a lot of victims or survivors, and I'm inspired. So thank you for being here.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Motion from Mr. Kalra, second from Ms. Pappin. I, too, want to say thank you. Thank you, the author. But in particular, thank you to the two witnesses. It's hard to come up here and talk about anything. It's hard to sit at that table underneath these lights and talk about something basic and nonpersonal. But this is highly personal. So for you to have the courage to come up here and say a story that I think all of us need to hear, as much as it's almost physically painful to hear those stories, I appreciate that you took the time to come here and share stories, your stories, on a topic in an area where we can now start making a difference. So thank you very much for that. With that, I'd ask the author if she'd like to close.

Yes. I thank these two brave women for standing up and speaking their truth and seeking their justice. And we owe them. We owe them safety. We owe the children that are in the custody of the city and the state and the county. We owe them a safe time, and we owe them justice. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

So we have a motion and a second to pass to appropriation Committee. Escort call roll.

[Roll Call]

Your Bill is out. We are on our last Bill. Committee, well done. That was the only unanimous vote of the day. Ms. Bauer-Kahan, item two, AB 331.

You have two, is that what you said?

Item two.

Oh, item two. I was like, I don't have two bills. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here to present AB 331. First, I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments which clarify the enforcement mechanism with the Bill.

You accept the corrected amendments?

The corrected amendments, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying. With that, proud to present AB 331, which is modeled after President Biden's AI Bill of Rights. AB 331 protects individuals from algorithmic discrimination by requiring developers and users to assess automated decision tools for discriminatory bias and mitigate accordingly. Artificial intelligence and ADTs have yielded astonishing insights, and the Bill is not to hinder innovation. In fact, I'm a believer that if we do this right, automated decision systems can take bias out of the systems that already exist when humans are making those decisions.

But we've seen example after example of automated decision tools that have bias built into them because of the human developers who develop them. And we need to be checking for that, correcting for it, and ensuring that when we're making high risk decisions, that those do not contain bias. Almost 50% of decisions today under this Bill that relate to housing and lending and employment and health care, some of the most critical decisions are being made by these tools.

And it is critical that we put into place a system that ensures there is not bias and discrimination in that decision making. And that is what this Bill does. With me today in support is Taneicia Herring with the California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP.

Hello. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Thank you so much for having me. The California-Hawaii NAACP's principal objective is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of minority citizens in California and eliminate race prejudice. We are proud to support AB 331 because it stands to protect individuals from algorithmic discrimination by requiring developers and users to mitigate and assess automated decision tools, or ADTs, that make consequential decisions.

ADTs are prominent in almost every facet of an individual's life, and it is essential that when they are deployed, that they are used in a safe manner that will not result in discriminatory harm. One widely used criminal risk assessment tool is the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions, aka COMPAS. It's used within 47 states, including California. The program is used to identify high risk for violence, high risk for recidivism, and a high pretrial flight risk.

Any judge seeking to use COMPAS as a judicial aid cannot at this moment understand fully how COMPAS risk assessment score is developed, nor how factors about the defendant's profile were weighted to arrive at the given risk score. Not only does this prohibit judges from properly understanding a judicial tool meant to assist their process, but it might also deny the defendant the ability to identify a fair trial outcome should the judge base their final ruling in any way upon a score that they both cannot fully comprehend.

Impact assessments provide a sense of accountability that makes it difficult for those who use ADTs to use them as tools of discrimination and oppression, whether in employment, housing, the criminal justice system, or any other facet of life. If the livelihood of citizens is going to be placed in the hands of technology, it is imperative that developers and deployers are transparent about the impact of that said technology. Without impact assessments, there is reason to expect that more discriminating incidents, whether deliberate or not, will occur.

We thank Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan for writing this critical and crucial legislation, and we hope that AB 331 will be the starting point for the marathon ahead of us to end discriminatory practices through the use of automated decision tools. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Oh, no. We're good. We're moving on. Opposition, sir?

Not good. I just mean. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair Members. Ronak Daylami with the California Chamber of Commerce. While we are respectfully in strong opposition to AB 331 as it's currently in print and as proposed to be amended today, we are largely aligned with the author and principle.

Bias and discrimination are serious problems in our society and our members want to be part of the solution, but we feel a measured approach is needed given the complexities involved with ADTs, and that this must be done in concert with the half dozen bills and rulemaking activities that are simultaneously underway on the topics of automated decision making, AI, and bias. Unfortunately, some of the problems with the Bill will only be further exacerbated by the amendments taken today.

First, the amendments allow local ordinances to be passed on this issue, which will lead to a patchwork of different rules from one locality to the next, rendering compliance significantly more difficult. These tools are incredibly complex and they are used globally. Any company that operates across a state would face different standards depending on where the tool would be used, and consumers would be subject to different protections by nature of where they live.

Second, the private right of action is very problematic given that these tools are constantly evolving. With these amendments, there are now three separate enforcement avenues, creating additional uncertainty for businesses. We appreciate that the amendments make the AG and other public prosecutors responsible for enforcing the Bill and limit compensatory damages, but the Bill still allows the Civil Rights Department to separately assess a $10,000 administrative fine for each violation without any need to demonstrate actual harm and without clarity as to what constitutes a single violation.

Furthermore, we find it both concerning and unnecessary to add a whole new private right of action here when unlawful discrimination is still already actionable under FIHA and UNRU. In fact, we believe the example in the analysis is actually already covered under FIHA, combined with an overly narrow, illusory right to cure that applies only to actions brought by public prosecutors and that require businesses to make an impossible statement under penalty of perjury. These changes render the Bill untenable for our Members.

Nonetheless, we really appreciate the author and we are committed to working with her as the Bill moves forward. Thank you. Excuse me.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet. We too greatly appreciate the willingness of the author to work with us. In the interest of time, I'll align my comments with the Chamber. Look forward to continuing the conversations. I think this is an important policy issue and one that we desperately need to get right. So thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition, name and organization only.

Mr. Chair, Ron Kingston, representing several apartment associations. I just want to add one brief comment to this. I apologize to the author that we just got direction on this, but we use the tools and we would hope that because we don't set the policy, we don't set the technology, we don't set the design.

You've moved past brief, so name an organization.

Ron Kingston again, the Apartment Association of Orange County, East Bay Rental Apartment Association, the Escrow Institute in California, and the Affordable Housing Management Association Pacific Southwest.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors with an opposed, unless amended position. Also here this afternoon, CAA has asked me, the California Apartment Association has asked me to register their opposition as well. However it's currently drafted, we must respectfully request a no vote, but we do look forward to working with the author. Thank you so much.