Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

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 with the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time. 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 this hearing. No engaging in personal attacks of Members of this Committee, authors or staff. Please be aware that violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement procedures. We don't yet have a quorum, so we'll start as a Subcommitee. We will begin with item number one. Senator Laird, SB 280.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning, chair and Members. I'd like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for working with my office on this Bill, and we'll be accepting the amendments on pages 7 and 8 of the analysis, an analysis that I was grateful for. Senate Bill 280 will require conservators to submit a care plan to the court that contains certain information relating to the care, custody and control of the conservate.

Society has a responsibility to care for and protect the most vulnerable among us, and nowhere is the responsibility of that more apparent than with conservatorships. SB 280 is an outstanding, unenacted policy recommendation from the Judicial Council's Probate Conservatorship Task force 15 years ago and builds upon the reform efforts that have happened since then. The Bill is similar to Senate Bill 602, which I authored last year and passed this Committee with bipartisan support and never received a no vote.

It was unfortunately held in Assembly appropriations, but given the overall wellness benefit for conservatives, I've brought it back and I have worked really hard to address the concerns that remained on the Bill. One of the amendments taken today will exempt certain family Member conservatives from the provisions of this Bill, and that removes ARC and the United Cerebral palsy. California collaborations Opposition, and that is noted in the analysis. Opposition remains from the public fiduciaries who are concerned about the civil penalty and the duplicative work.

To address the concern about the penalty, it has been reduced. The penalty is at the discretion of the judge. So in the event a judge was firm, we further kept the fee from $1000 to $500. When it comes to the issue of duplicative work, items mentioned in their opposition letter were already removed when SB 280 was introduced. This includes items like assets to be sold in the next 12 months. There are few remaining issues that they talk about about it being duplicative.

One on the Form GC 355 that's used to determine the conservative's appropriate level. We believe that a conservator plan goes much past what is in that form and it is not duplicative. But the analysis suggests that we continue to work and if there is genuine duplication that exists, we will continue to address it in this I don't have any main witnesses with me did receive support letters from the California Judges Association and protect our loved ones.

This Bill, passed out of the Senate overwhelmingly with no no votes, has had no no votes in the process and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And before we take witnesses, we do have a quorum so ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein? Here. Essayli? Here. Connolly? Dixon? Here. Haney? Kalra? Pacheco? Here. Papan? Here. Reyes? Rivas? Sanchez?

Thank you. Witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition?

Thank you Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Lindsey with the Arcana Hydropolese California collaboration. We really appreciate working with the Committee and the author's office. The amendments that have been taken have removed all of our concerns and so we really appreciate again all the work and the efforts on behalf of the issues that remain with conservatorship. And thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Trent Smith representing the California State Association of Public Conservators, Public Guardians and Public Administrators. We still are opposed and have a couple of concerns alluded to by the Senator with regards to the duplicative work.

All we're seeking is some language, probably a sentence or two that says that anything if we use this care plan, that we're not required to fill out the five or six other forms that we currently fill out, that overlap so that we don't have to fill out two forms. So we're not looking to avoid any work that we should, we just don't want to do two forms with regards to the fine just by background. Public conservators and public guardians are county employees.

They are public servants, they do not get to pick the cases that they take on. The court assigns those, unlike a private fiduciary, which gets to apply and cherry pick the cases they want. Unfortunately, most of the public conservators and public guardians in their counties are overworked with way too many cases that they can handle. And the Senator is correct. This proposal comes from a report 15 years ago.

Another recommendation in that report was funding for public conservators and public guardians, and that funding hasn't been implemented either. And so our client has a hard time having a fine for public servants who are doing the work, frankly, that most people wouldn't want to do. And having a fine for a public servant at a time when the state isn't shipping in any money to help them hire more people and to lower the case work, that's a difficult pill for them to swallow.

So we're asking that the fine only apply for private fiduciaries, again, who make a profit from this work, whereas we are just doing the work on behalf of the county. The last thing I'll say is the amendments that are being taken with regards to family Members, those are great amendments.

And in fact, we would suggest those amendments apply to all family Members or at least give the judge the discretion, because a family Member is unlikely to take on this type of work if they are faced with a big report and the prospect of a fine. And then if they don't take it on, guess who gets to do it? We do. The public conservators and public guardians, which exacerbates the problem we already have with an overburdened workload. So we're just seeking those amendments.

Those would remove our opposition. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I turn it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments or a motion? Motion from Mr. Kalra.

Second, but I do have a question.

Yep, second from Ms. Papan. Ms. Papan.

What do you think about those amendments? I mean, it does seem fairly reasonable as it relates to the public folks.

We'll keep working with them. Right now, the Bill says unless the court can find good cause not to assess the penalty. And so there is a way that that is addressed, but we will look at that. And with regard to the forms, some of the forms are really different than what this is, and we'll just see if there is a way to accommodate their interest as we move forward.

Great. Yeah, double the work is the one I was more interested or worried about.

Okay, Ms. Dixon.

And to follow up on that. Thank you for this. I felt that those reasons were of good cause for consideration. Also on the care court is that in reference to the new care courts that are being implemented throughout California. So I just would hope that there would be, because it's obvious that there probably is some conservatorship or public conservatorship aspects to it. So I just hope, just for efficiency's sake, that the effort can be coordinated.

I think this would apply either way and would be incorporated into that, but we'll double check to make sure.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second, as seen. No further comment. Senator Laird may close.

Just I really appreciate the debate, and we will continue to look at some things, although I think it's gotten to a really good place. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Maienschein? Maienschein aye. Essayli? Essayli aye. Connolly? Dixon? Dixon aye. Haney? Kalra? Kalra aye. Pacheco? Pacheco aye. Papan? Papan aye. Reyes? Rivas? Sanchez?

Your Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next is item two, SB 343. Skinner. And as Senator Skinner approaches, do we have a motion on the consent agenda? Motion for Mr. Kalra, second from Ms. Papan. The consent agenda includes SB 21 Umberg, SB 522 Niello, and SB 727 Limon, we have a motion. Second ask Clerk, call the roll.

Maienschein? Maienschein aye. Essayli? Essayli aye. Connolly? Dixon? Dixon aye. Haney? Kalra? Kalra aye. Pacheco? Pacheco aye. Papan? Papan aye. Reyes? Rivas? Sanchez?

Consent agenda passes. Welcome, Senator Skinner. You may proceed.

Thank you so much. Good morning, all. Pleased to present SB 343. In 2016, the Federal Office of Child Enforcement, Child Support Enforcement completed the first comprehensive review of child support rules and did a revision. And it was the first time in 20 years. And they called it the Final Rule.

And that what the federal office, the changes they made requires the orders to be based on the evidence of the individual's financial circumstances, screens for ability to pay before incarcerating the parent for failure to pay, and ensures that incarcerated parents are able to adjust their payment based on income. California has to implement this rule by September 1, 2024. SB 343 ensures California's conformity with the federal rule I described, so allow me to have my witness in support speak to it. And he is Stephen Goldberg from Legal Services of Northern California

May proceed.

Thank you. SB 343 has two primary purposes. The first is to implement the federal Final Rule, which, among other things, requires an end to orders based on presumed income and to base orders on the facts of the individual case. And the bill properly does that. The second is two changes to right-size child support orders in California. Orders have historically been unaffordable for low income obligors, and this bill attempts to right-size those orders in two different ways.

The first is a change to the K factor in the child support formula, which has not been updated since 1992, to help orders reflect the actual ability to pay for low income obligors. The second change is an increase in the low income adjustment to full time minimum wage, which is an attempt anyway to reflect an order that is actually affordable and realistic for low income obligors.

These are important changes to comply with the federal Final Rule and to help right-size orders to make them affordable and also helpful for children. And for those reasons, I urge the Committee to support it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition and GRACE End Child Poverty California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll turn it to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Motion? MotIon from Mr. Kalra, second from Ms. Papan. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, you may close.

Thank you. I want to thank committee staff and the staff from both houses, leadership who worked on this over the last year to come together with how California could comply. And so their work was very helpfuL. And this bill represents that. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion, a second. The motion is do pass to Human Services. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. Aye. Essayli, aye. Connolly. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Haney. Kalra. Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Rivas. And Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye.

Your bill is out. Thank you. We need more authors here. Senators Wiener, Ashby, and then Assembly Members Low or Jackson. Ask them to get here quickly.

Open the door. Opens, you're like, wait.

We're never disappointed with these.

Never ones. Yeah. Pictures, certification. I can barely hike. That is such a great trail. Have you ever. How many steps are you? 900.

And you're running it?

Oh, yeah. Don, that. Good morning. Yeah, hi. And.

That's a great way.

It is. So definitely love their weekly having. Right? Yeah. Respect. Friday after camping. It's.

Okay, great. We have a member here. Item four, SB 824, Ashby.

Hi. So much for having me. I am Senator Ashby, for those of you that I haven't met yet. So thanks for having me at your committee hearing, and I am here to present to you. Hi. Good morning.

SB 824. This is a crucial follow up to a Senator Skinner bill, which was called SB 354 in 2021. California's foster care placement process have been improved in recent years due largely to legislative efforts by many of you and my colleagues in the Senate. Unfortunately, it still excludes far too many individuals who are both fit and willing to foster a child, but do not qualify under current law due to previous criminal convictions.

SB 824 grants counties and courts the ability to consider and approve family-like individuals with criminal histories as potential foster caregivers, so long as there are no health and safety risks to the child. Studies have shown that foster children in kinship care are more likely to be employed or enrolled in higher education. They're also less likely to need public assistance, experience homelessness, be incarcerated, compared to children placed in non-kinship care.

I probably don't have to tell you that over 50% of the people experiencing homelessness on our streets across California identify as former foster youth. So anything that we can do to intervene earlier in the lives of these children is helpful. Kinship care promotes school stability, increases the likelihood of siblings remaining together, and reduces reliance on congregate care, which is something that this legislature has worked to eliminate over the last few years.

SB 824 would ensure that non-relative family members and extended family members and tribes with criminal histories are no longer automatically disqualified from fostering a child. Additionally, this bill expands the eligibility for kinship guardianship assistance payment programs for caregivers who choose to become a guardian or to adopt a child. Senator Skinner's bill, SB 354, had already led to heartwarming stories across the state of children staying with family members and relatives that felt like home instead of foster care.

It's clear that kinship care provides a more stable and nurturing environment for foster youth and that we should seek this at every available opportunity. SB 824 further guarantees that loved ones can foster a child in their time of need, which is crucial for the child's safety, stability, and well being. And before I hand this to my witnesses, this bill really does two things. It adds on to Senator Skinner's work in two ways. One, it extends the definition of family to include family-like relatives.

I don't know about you, but if something happened to me, there are some of my relatives that I may not prefer my kids to go with, but my best friend would probably be a great replacement for me. This allows you to have that consideration for these kiddos who they're actually already spending their life with.

And the second thing and most important thing that it does is that it removes the existing bar of a criminal history from being a fate fatale for anyone who would like to step into the life of a child and help them. Many of the families who would love to step in and help in a kinship placement are barred from doing so because of their own past.

Even if they have overcome that past, paid their price, and are good citizens in our community contributing, they can't even be considered. So this will allow us to move forward. In that regard, I brought with me support witnesses Amanda Kirchner, who's the Director of Legislative Advocacy for the California Welfare Directors Association, and Kristin Power, who's the Vice President of Policy and Advocacy for the Alliance for Children's Rights. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and we'll hand it over to my witnesses.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association. We know that children who are with their caregivers or non-related extended family members do better in foster care. They have better connections, they have better overall outcomes. Right now, we have about 18,000 children who are in those types of family-like placements. Additionally, there's about 185 children in tribally approved homes. Under the continuum of care reform, California has really prioritized trying to keep these kids in home-based placements.

But we also know that we've had particular problems with keeping children with families in communities of color, where there's been over-surveillance and over-policing. And so as a follow up to SB 354, which Senator Skinner carried, we are bringing in SB 824 to address some of these additional gaps. And really what we just want to say is we think it strengthens our commitment to families who have been impacted by the child welfare system. And we think that these changes will help us keep kids placed in homelike settings and give those families the resources and support they need to take care of the children. Thank you.

I know she said, kiddos see better in foster care. She meant kinship care. It's okay.

Good morning. Kristin Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights, and as a co-sponsor of the predecessor bill, SB 354, I just wanted to tell you a quick story about one of the families that was impacted by that bill and will be continued to be impacted by Senator Ashby's 824. When SB 354 went into effect in early 2022, our attorneys worked with LA County children's attorneys and other courts to assist numerous relative caregivers in obtaining approval and funding based on the new law.

Here's just one story. While SB 354 was moving through the Legislature, a little girl whom we'll call Sarah was removed from her mother and placed with her aunt and uncle. The aunt and uncle had always been a loving presence in Sarah's life, and she thrived in their care. But when the aunt and uncle applied for resource family approval, the uncle's felony conviction from 30 years prior resurfaced. He was honest about the situation and provided all information requested by the county.

But the resource family application was denied. And while Sarah stayed in their care, they had to pay all costs out of pocket, and their future with Sarah remained very uncertain. After 354 went into effect, things changed for Sarah and her caregivers. The Alliance assisted the family in requesting that they be granted resource family approval under the new provisions under SB 354. Five days after the law went into effect, the uncle's conviction was exempted and the approval process was able to move forward.

We can bring that kind of stability and support to even more children in foster care who would thrive in the home of a non-relative, extended family member, or extended family member. We can also ensure that if Sarah's aunt and uncle want to adopt her to become a more permanent legal guardian or adoptive parent, they will receive the financial support to continue to be her caregiver that they've stepped up to be. We appreciate Senator Ashby's leadership on this issue and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Noah Bartelt, on behalf of the ACLU, California Action in support.

Michelle Castagne on behalf of the California Tribal Families Coalition in strong support. Thank you.

Ann Quirk, Children's Law Center of California, co-sponsor of this bill, strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions, comments from the Committee or a motion? Motion from Mr. Haney? Second from Ms. Reyes, I guess. Sounds right. See no other questions or comments. You may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

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

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Aye. Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Aye. Papan, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye.

Your bill is out.

Thank you very much Mr. Chair and Committee Members. First off, Happy Pride Month. Thank you very much for allowing me to present on Assembly Constitutional Amendment Five. I have notes, but I'm not going to use any of the notes just because this is very personal. As some may recall, back in 2008, voters of California eliminated the rights of same sex couples to marry.

And as a 20 something year old during that period of time, I remember the painful experience that that has caused, not just to me, but so many others, countless Californians who were left wondering, what did we do wrong? Why would our rights be eliminated? Why would the majority of Californians vote to eliminate a fundamental, basic human right? This proposal before us helps to enshrine that marriage is a fundamental right. If you believe that interracial marriage is a fundamental right, that is what is before you.

This does not change the definition of marriage. This fundamentally removes Proposition eight from the California Constitution and enshrines the equality protections that we all deserve. We want what is equal, what is fair, to demonstrate the love in the State of California. And I respectfully ask for aye and have additional witnesses here in support as well.

Thank you, Mr. Low. First witness.

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action Sponsors of ACA Five While marriage equality is currently the law of the land, thanks to past US Supreme Court decisions, recent decisions issued by the current court demonstrate a willingness to overrule its own long standing precedents protecting civil rights. If the Supreme Court were to overturn its marriage equality decisions, marriage rights for California same sex couples would be in jeopardy due to the exclusionary language added to our state Constitution by Prop Eight.

In 2008, ACA Five would put on the ballot a constitutional amendment to protect the fundamental freedom to marry as part of the existing rights to due process, equal protection, enjoyment of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and privacy. This will help ensure that everyone in California continues to enjoy the freedom to marry the person they love.

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court revisits its decisions in Obergefell or loving, ACA Five is an important opportunity to reaffirm the freedom to marry and protect loving couples and families across California who deserve to have their marriages protected and respected under the law.

Protecting marriage equality is critical for families and children who rely on the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, but it's important to remember that it will not end all discrimination against LGBTQ plus people across the country or the hateful rhetoric from anti LGBTQ plus politicians and extremists, especially the growing attacks on the Trans community. ACA Five is, however, an opportunity to affirm that we are all entitled to live equally and with dignity.

Our California Constitution should protect fundamental civil rights for all people, and ACA Five will help protect the freedom to marry for same sex couples as well as for interracial couples. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Francisco Castillo, a father of two beautiful kids, a husband, and a proud Member of Equality California Board of Directors. I stand before you today with a fire in my heart and a resounding call for justice. I'm here to passionately advocate for California's ACA Five, a constitutional amendment that will not only protect my marriage, but will also eradicate the discriminatory language of Proposition Eight from our state's constitution.

For nearly four years, I have been fortunate enough to be in a same sex interracial marriage. It has been a journey of love, strength and resilience. But throughout this journey, there has been a constant reminder that our love is not universally accepted. Proposition Eight's declaration that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California felt like a deep wound inflicted upon our hearts. Love knows no boundaries, no gender, and no race.

Love is the most profound and sacred emotion that two individuals can share. It is a force that unites us, transcending societal expectations and prejudices. And yet, despite the strides we have made towards equality, the shackles of discrimination still persist in our Constitution. We are at a critical crossroads. Today, we have the chance to rectify the wrongs of the past and pave the way for a future where love triumphs over bigotry.

ACA Five represents a significant step towards achieving true equality for all Californians, regardless of their race, gender and sex orientation. By removing Proposition Eight's discriminatory language, we have the power to restore the dignity and rights that all loving couples deserve. Marriage is not just a legal contract. It's a celebration of love and commitment. It's a promise that my partner and I made to stand by each other's side through the trials and triumphs of life.

By embracing marriage equality, we demonstrate our society's willingness to recognize and celebrate the diverse expressions of love. We ensure everyone has the opportunity to build a stable, secure and nurturing environment to our families. And we show that California stands firmly on the side of progress and that discrimination has no place within our borders. I urge each and every one of you to consider the tremendous impact of ACA Five that it can have on the lives of countless of Californians like myself.

This is not just a matter of policy. It's a matter of humanity. It's about recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, irrespective of who they are or who they love. Today, you can choose to embrace the passion and urgency of this moment. Stand with us. Stand for love and stand for justice. Support ACA Five, and let California shine as a beacon of hope, progress, and inclusivity. The time for change is now. The world is watching. Thank you for your time, your courage, and your dedication for a more equitable future.

Thank you. Witnesses in support, name and organization.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Leanne Traton, on behalf of Black women for wellness in strong support.

Good morning. Sumaya Nahar with the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists in Support.

Good morning. Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California Proud co sponsor in strong support. Good morning.

Nick Cruz, California Labor Federation, in support.

Good morning. Ryan Souza, on behalf of the San Francisco AIDS foundation and Essential Access Health in support.

Good morning. James Michael Agpalo with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, California Strong Support.

Good morning. Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of the California Faculty Association and the City of West Hollywood, in support.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, in support.

Michelle Warshaw, on behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, proud co sponsor in support.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, as a proud co sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Serena Nuran from Assembly District Six in strong support.

Good morning. Molly Robeson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in strong support.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association in Support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Motion for Mr. Kalra, I think second from Ms. Reyes. First witness, two minutes each.

My name is Pastor Jim Domen. I'm married to my wife Amanda, and we have three children. And I'm the founder of ChurchUnited.com, based in Newport Beach. I'm also representing our network of 2500 Spanish speaking and English speaking pastors as one of the majority of the Californians who voted to add Article one, Section 7.5 of California's Constitution, more commonly known as Proposition Eight. I'm also a former homosexual. When I was gay, gay marriage was not an option for LGBTQ people.

My partner and I wore rings on our left hand, as straight couples do. But I'm sorry, my partner and I wore rings on our right hand, like opposite of what straight couples do, to show we were committed to each other. Our gay marriage took nothing into account except our own selfish desires for physical pleasure. When I married my wife Amanda, and we had three children, I learned that marriage is about selflessness. Marriage is about family. About my wife and children. It's no longer about me.

Marriage is the bedrock of every culture and respective religions. I called each of your offices to inquire if you had a faith or religious background. Only two staffers were able to share their Member had a faith background. Member Essayli. Thank you. As a Muslim and Member Sanchez as a Catholic. So I took a different approach. This Committee's diverse background represents countries in multiple continents across the globe, and each of those countries have only defined marriage as a man and a woman.

When a man cleaves with a woman, the two become one. The ability to naturally procreate produces the opportunity to have children. This fundamental and biological occurrence creates an environment for children to thrive. Sociologically, children are less dependent upon government if they have a mom and a dad, and they even excel academically in schools. I spoke with the Archbishop of the Catholic Church in California last week, and he shared that the Conference of Catholic Bishops also oppose ACA Five. That's 11 million Catholics in the state. Assemblymen Low. I ask that you would reconsider.

Sir, I need you to wrap up.

And with your withdrawal and withdraw your constitutional amendment. Your 2018 Bill, 29 43, was withdrawn by you on August 31 of that same year. Sir, when you advocated that Bill.

I need you to wrap up. Okay, everybody has one more sentence. Yeah, everyone.

But wisely, you withdrew. I exhort you not to screw with God, because God will not be marked. This is The God of the United States Declaration of Independence, who is the God of the preamble of California's Constitution. And, Mr. Low, this. God loves you, too. Okay.

Thank you.

So, Members of the Judiciary Committee on behalf.

Sir, that's more than. We have rules at the Committee. I went over them. I don't know if you were here at the beginning of the meeting. I went over them at the beginning of the meeting. Main witnesses get two minutes. You are well over that. I've asked you several times to please conclude, and you still have not. We are concluded. Next witness.

My name is Sarah Sumner. I've lived in California for 30 years. I love this state and the people of this state. I was asked to appear today because I wrote a book called Just How Married do you want to be? Plus, I have taught two different courses at Trinity Law School in Santa Ana and served as an appellate judge in Mott Court.

I have also worked full time for 15 years in two of California's universities, I hold a PhD in systematic theology, an expansive discipline that addresses the subject of how everything fits with everything. So here the subject pertains to how California constitutional law about marriage fits with what God has revealed generally to everyone, at all times, in all places. God has generally revealed that human beings are a unique species. Intuitively, we all know that people are distinguished from every other creature and every kind of object.

No person is an angel, or a demon, or a vegetable, or a beast, or mere tissue or a machine. No person is an object because no one is an object. It is wrong to objectify any person for any reason on the basis of any argument, under any framework. My argument today recognizes every person as a subject, not an object. Though we all have our subjective views and prefer to get our own way at some level, we all know that we are not God.

Philosophers as diverse as Aristotle, Rene Descartes, and Jacques Derrida all agree that we are not God. The God who is has specially revealed that when a husband and wife are married, God joins them together through the physical consummation of the male organ entering into the female vaginal orifice. Something spiritual happens in this physical union. Mysteriously, the two become one flesh. When marriage is defined as not between one man and one woman, the two do not become one.

You have two more sentences to wrap up.

This observation that I'm saying accords with California law, Family Code, Section 300, that says marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone constitute marriage.

Any other witnesses in support? Excuse me, in opposition.

Name and organization only.

Rochelle Conner, abolitionist, Frederick Douglass Foundation California, on behalf of disenfranchised, unrepresented families and husbands and wives of color, in opposition, respectfully request a no vote.

Reverend George McGehee, Oasis Christian Fellowship, I strongly, strongly oppose.

Pastor Tim Benefield of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Modesto, Central California, with strong opposition to this.

Pastor Donny Wilson, Lighthouse Baptist Church, Moreno Valley, California, in strong opposition of this vote.

Brandon Campbell, Northern California Director of California Capital Connection for Baptist Churches and Pastor of the Faith Baptist Church in Wheatland, California, in opposition.

Chris Gregory from Faith Baptist Church in Wheatland in opposition.

Kaylee Gregory, from Faith Baptist Church in strong opposition.

Christine Campbell, Faith Baptist Church as well, strong opposition.

Pastor AJ Harold, pastor and representing Solid Rock Baptist Tabernacle in Los Angeles County, also professor at Pacific Baptist College, also in Los Angeles County, strongly in opposition.

Rich Miller, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Atwater, California, in opposition.

Greg Burt, with the California Family Council, in opposition.

Ethan Lee, also with the California Family Council, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, turn it over to the Committee, Mr. Kalra, then, Ms. Pacheco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Senator Low for bringing this forward. I also recall Proposition 8, and that time period is a very dark time, and that cloud still hovers over our Constitution. I had the pleasure on Sunday of officiating a wedding of two dear friends of mine, both women. That wedding was a lot of love and love and support from family and friends and community that everyone should have, not just privilege, but right to be able to share their love with one another.

And our state should absolutely stand with love and not with bigotry, not with those that seek to divide, but those that seek to actually bring a loving community together. And so I'm grateful that the voters will have a chance, an opportunity to make it very clear where Californians stand. I believe that they will stand on the side of love, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to build a vote for this. Actually add me as a co-author. I noticed I wasn't and would love to have my name on there as well. Thank you.

Ms. Pacheco.

So I just want to also thank the author for bringing this ACA forward. I also stand with love, so I would be honored to also be added as a co-author.

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

Assembly Member Pacheco, please add me as a co-author. Thank you.

Mr. Essayli.

Just a quick question, Mr. Low. I read it's actually a very short text, and I noticed in there, it doesn't contain a definition of marriage. So what is your understanding what the legal definition would be if this were to pass?

Thank you very much, Assemblyman. As you may know, this does not change the definition of marriage. It simply helps to enshrine the marriage equality protections that we are afforded with respect to interracial marriage and also same sex marriage as well.

So is it your understanding that this would provide marriage between two adults which.

Is consistent with the existing law.

Existing law. And existing law doesn't permit things like polygamy.

Okay. Just want to clarify what your understanding of marriage is. Thank you.

Correct.

Yes.

Ms. Reyes.

Thank you. Listening to the testimony, Assembly Member Low, on many occasions, you've shared on the floor what you've gone through, and I apologize to you for what you have had to go through through your entire life. I would assume sometimes by well meaning people, but to confuse Christianity with the kind of bigotry that we sometimes express, I think it shouldn't be in the same sentence. I think there are assumptions that same sex parents can't be good parents.

And our witness, I appreciate the testimony about being that loving parent. It assumes that you can't be loving partners beyond just selfish pleasures. And I think that once we get over these assumptions, we will recognize that love is love. So I thank you for bringing this forward.

Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee. Mr. Low, I want to thank you for bringing this. Very proud to be a co-author of this. This is another step on the journey to make sure that all of California citizens and residents receive true equality under the Constitution of our state. And so this is important.

It's important to a lot of people to show that certainly in our state, at least, which is what all of us up here are elected to represent, marriage equality will be recognized, will be accepted. And so I think this sends a heartening message to a lot of people out there. So thank you for bringing this, and with that, you may close.

Thank you very much, Committee Members. It is well recognized for your grace and empathy, especially when we're thinking about the fundamental protections that we should be afforded for all Californians, being stewards of public trust. Listening to the testimony, you may think that the clock is backwards, and we're going backwards in time and in history. As the Vice Chair referenced, the bill and the legislative proposal before you is quite simple, basic, fundamental.

Do we believe that the State of California should provide fundamental protections to Californians with respect to interracial marriage, with respect to same sex couples? Everyone in this Committee knows someone a loved one, a family member who is a member of the community.

And do we believe that they should be provided the same type of human dignity, then I would just implore those in opposition to find it in your hearts in recognizing where we are today and how we will help lead with the basic dignity and humanity that we should all be folded in the State of California as a governmental entity. I ask that very sincerely, and with that, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. The motion is to be adopted to the Appropriations Committee. I'd ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. Not voting. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Sanchez. Sanchez, no.

It's out. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, Assembly Member Jackson, Item or ACA Seven? You may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. I present ACA Seven, which would allow the Governor to approve Proposition 209 waiver applications from state and local entities to use state funds for the implementation of research-based or research-informed and culturally specific programs or interventions to increase the life expectancy of, improve the educational outcomes for, or lift out of poverty, specific ethnic groups or marginalized genders.

Particularly, I want to make sure that I state that I accept the Committee's amendments and thank the Chair and his staff for working with our office on this measure. Proposition 209, quite frankly, was a failed experiment, and we have learned through the preponderance of the research that the best way to serve specific groups is to ensure that the intervention is culturally informed, culturally appropriate, and meets their specific needs.

And too often, when we try to look at, when researchers and practitioners try to utilize state funds for specific interventions, that's been proven to work to save lives, such as diabetes prevention, such as hypertension and other things. Unfortunately, our Constitution does not allow for that because it's deemed to be unconstitutional. So, simply, ACA seven seeks to provide a balanced approach to ensure that if local or state agencies would like to provide interventions to meet specific cultural groups, that they can apply for a waiver to be able to do so. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Witnesses in support.

Mr. Chairman, I'm Brian Rivas on behalf of the Education Trust West. Happy to be here in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Motion? Motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Mr. Haney. With that. Oh, sorry, Mr. Essayli.

Good morning, Mr. Jackson. I know I've expressed, I have a different philosophical viewpoint on this. I guess my question is, is the intent of the bill to create equal opportunities for all members in society? Is it to guarantee equal outcomes?

It is to save lives. Specifically, the language is very specific. It is meant to increase the life expectancy of specific groups, It's meant to improve the educational outcomes of specific groups, and lift out of poverty specific groups to ensure that we are serving all people with the dignity and humanity that they deserve.

And why do you think it's important that the government consider people's race when providing these services, as opposed to just providing services to all disadvantaged Californians?

I think that statement is just simply false. Number one, I don't think. The research is clear. And when I say research, I don't mean blogs. I don't mean news articles. I mean peer reviewed research articles that have been thoroughly vetted. It's been clear. And the preponderance of the evidence is that the best way to serve, for instance, the Afghanistan refugees that are coming to California.

It would be naive to think that we can speak to them in English, that we can not understand the cultural nuances about what's acceptable to them or not, what are the best practices for them to be able to serve them in the right way, to not take that into account with simply not being able to serve them to the fullest capacity. And so I think for me, this is not a theoretical thing. The research is clear on it.

And the question just becomes, do you believe that people have the right to be served according to their specific needs, historical, cultural needs, or do you just believe that you believe that you have the best solution for them? I think that's the question that has to be answered.

Alright, well, I appreciate your perspective. I just fundamentally...

Not a perspective. This is a fact. So let's not get it twisted here. This is a fact. There is no opinion that I am exercising. This is not something that I am willing to engage in a cultural narrative over. The fact is that this is the right thing to do. There are a number of interventions that cannot be used right now that is proven to save lives.

I appreciate your comments. I respectfully disagree. I think 57% of Californians disagree.

But you're wrong.

Excuse me, I'd like to finish speaking. 57% of Californians disagree who approve Prop 209. I believe it is a mistake in the United States of America to go backwards and to inject race into government policy. I think all people are created equal and the government should treat people equally, and we can provide services to disadvantaged communities without making race a factor. And I support that.

I think everyone should have an equal opportunity in the United States. I am a minority. I came from minority background, and I don't want the government to treat me differently than anyone else. I want to be treated equally. And so with that, I respect your viewpoint, but I respectfully disagree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Any other. Seeing no other questions or comments from the. Oh, Ms. Reyes.

Dr. Jackson, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I think that in a perfect society, everybody should be treated equally. But as you have noted, studies are clear. People are not treated differently. The hue of their skin, the accent of their speech causes others to treat them differently. And sometimes we need to be reminded that we do need to be treated differently. But equality is not necessarily what we need to look for. It has to be equity, because many have been left behind.

And if you're trying to bring everybody up at the same level, you have to go back to those that you have intentionally or unintentionally left behind or pushed down to bring them up to the same level before we can start saying we're treating everybody equally. So with that, I would move this bill. It's already been moved.

We already have a motion in a second. With that, I see no further comment. Question or comment. Mr. Jackson, you may close.

Sure. I would just close by saying that, at the end of the day, what Is clear, and what the research also shows, is that even when an intervention is well meaning, if it's not the proper intervention and the best intervention for their specific needs, even that intervention can be harmful. And so the idea that one intervention is good for everybody is simply wrong. It's simply misguided, and this ACA is designed to get it right. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is to be adopted as amended to the Appropriations Committee. I'd ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. No. Essayli, no. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Not voting. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Sanchez. No. Sanchez, no.

Your bill is out.

Thank you. And our final bill of the day is SB 365. Senator Wiener, welcome. You may begin. Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, and thank you to the Chair and to the committee staff for the thoughtful and thorough analysis of the bill. SB 365 will create more fairness in our procedural approach to appeals of motions to compel arbitration that are denied. It'll prevent, typically, large corporations from using delay tactics in delaying justice for consumers, for public entities, and for workers.

The bill closes a legal loophole, a procedural loophole that allows corporations to automatically, no matter what, delay, potentially for years, trial court proceedings simply by filing a motion to compel arbitration. Even if there was no arbitration agreement, all you have to do is file a motion. Even if it's an incredibly, absolutely frivolous argument, you just have to file the motion, the court denies it, and you are automatically entitled to an appeal, and it automatically puts on ice that lawsuit, potentially for years.

Because we know that the appellate process is typically not fast. This bill is incredibly reasonable and based on amendments that we made in Assembly and Senate Appropriations. All it does is provide the Superior Court judge with the discretion to decide whether to stay the case during the appeal or whether not to stay the case, or whether to have a partial stay, whether to let it go up until trial and then stay it during trial, whether to allow some discovery but not others. It is up to the Superior Court judge based on the facts of that case, and that is an incredibly reasonable approach. This does not regulate arbitration agreements. It is simply about California's procedural or civil procedure.

There are other states who go way beyond what we're doing, including, for example, I think it's in the analysis, in the State of Georgia, that doesn't let you even have an automatic appeal for the denial of a motion to compel arbitration unless the Superior Court judge or the trial court judge says you can. So all of these arguments about preemption under the Federal Arbitration Act, respectfully, are specious. This is our approach to civil procedure in California. We don't have to even allow an interlocutory appeal.

We do, and we're not taking that away. We're simply saying that the Superior Court judge should have the ability to decide whether to stay the proceedings during that appeal. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify are Matthew Goldberg, who is the Chief Attorney for the Worker Protection Unit at the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, and Sarah London, an Attorney and Executive Board Member of Consumer Attorneys of California. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you to the Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here really on behalf of my client, Maya Curtis, who asked me to come here and share her story. After years of intensive, painful, and expensive procedures to preserve her fertility options, she woke up to an email letting her know that all of the eggs she had frozen and stored at a fertility clinic had been damaged or destroyed by a tank failure. So in an instant, her well laid plans to build her family were dashed.

She contacted me and wanted to be very involved in litigation to uncover the truth about what happened and try to make change so that this wouldn't happen to anyone else. Maya was very active in the litigation and really set out to be a representative of others who could not come forward. But a loophole in California's procedural law derailed her case. Now, even though Maya and others similarly situated had no contract at all with the tank manufacturer, the company moved to compel arbitration anyway.

To be clear, neither Maya nor the company had signed any agreement with one another or an agreement to arbitrate. The trial court denied that motion. But taking advantage of California's procedural loophole, the company appealed that which immediately paused all of the proceedings in the trial court for nearly four years, while the Court of Appeal. While it was pending in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal eventually, of course, upheld the trial court decision.

But it was only then, nearly five years after the tank failed, that we could even begin discovery. In this case, justice delayed really means justice denied in many circumstances, especially the case like this one, where time is of the essence. Fertility options dwindle every month, and even though the case was paused, she could not pause her biological clock. It does not need to be this way in California, and we can change it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Chair Maienschein and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity. My Boss and your former colleague, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, sends his regards. This is a very modest but essential Bill that is going to address a growing and real world problem. The impact is on all Californians. You just heard a very compelLing, specific example. I'd like to just highlight how this has played out in the public sector, where the outcomes have been particularly absurd and, in my view, particularly damaging.

Here in California, as you all know, a wide range of government entities, cities, counties, Das, and state agencies, file lawsuits to protect the public, cases combating consumer fraud, wage theft, environmental degradation, and so on. And while these cases are, of course, designed to benefit and protect the public, the government entities do not formally represent any victims. Government entities, of course, have not signed arbitration agreements, which is, of course, why they are not bound by any such agreements.

But increasingly, corporate defendants nonetheless seek to compel the government into arbitration. They've done so several times in recent years. It's a growing trend. This has impacted consumer and worker cases with the San Diego City Attorney's Office, the San Francisco District Attorney, our State Department of Civil Rights and a multi public entity litigation against Uber and Lyft for misclassifying their drivers. And the process and the outcome is the same in every case. Defendants file these frivolous or thin motions.

They lose, they appeal and get their automatic stay, and then eventually they lose their appeals. But by that point, the damage is already done. The cases have been delayed upwards of a couple of years, and it's particularly egregious in these cases that are designed to protect the public, often our most vulnerable residents. A final point, just in response to one piece of opposition. This absolutely does not run afoul of federal law or in any way disadvantaged arbitration agreements that are valid.

All courts are obligated to figure out whether there's a valid arbitration agreement or not, and you all have the authority to determine the procedural rules about how California courts are going to handle whether or not cases are stayed or can proceed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation also in support.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co sponsor and tech equity collaborative in Strong support.

Saveena Takhar, on behalf of the Consumer attorneys, consumers for auto reliability and safety and the Teamsters in support.

Justin Rouse, Office of Attorney General Rob Bonta, Proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Quality California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support, witnesses in opposition, and could I just ask you to move over one chair? You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Courtney Jensen, on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. Currently, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 9116 applies to arbitration and far more, and it stays trial court proceedings pending appeal of a motion to compel arbitration.

Long standing intent of this is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction and ensure that the trial court is not doing anything that would disrupt the appeal, which includes where the very purpose of the appeal is to avoid the need for the proceeding. SB 365 allows a court to continue a case while an appeal is pending, allowing a judge to spend court time and resources, and party time and resources, going through a trial that could end up being mooted by the result of the appeal.

Senate appropriations determined that this Bill could have potentially significant court workload cost pressures in order to adjudicate civil cases that ultimately will be ordered to arbitration after a decision by the appellate court. Proponents paint the picture that every appeal of a denial of a motion to compel is frivolous or for delay only. We strongly dispute this.

In fact, a case is pending before the US Supreme Court right now in which the underlying issue is the denial of the motion to appeal, and both Circuit court judges said this is a very close call and they would not be surprised if they were reversed on appeal. One of the Amiki cited 99 cases in which the Court of Appeals had overturned trial court's denials of a motion to compel arbitration.

The brief dictates all the discovery and motion practice that they had to go through unnecessarily when ultimately the trial court reversed. A decision in the pending case is expected as early as the end of this month. So we continue to believe this Bill is premature pending the outcome of that case. Also, if there is a frivolous appeal, there are three different procedural mechanisms you can bring for motions to get sanctions, fees, and costs.

Proponents also point to the fact that the employees and consumers cannot immediately appeal if a motion to compel arbitration is granted. If that is the concern, then why not propose a mutual right to immediately appeal instead of forcing courts and parties to proceed through discovery and trial if the appeal could render it all moot. Thank you.

Next witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber and the La Area Chamber, and sorry to have my back to some of the Members, I wanted to make three quick points. The first statements have been made that frivolous or that this is a loophole. If you look at the short provisions of CCP Section 9116, what you'll note is that this is applicable to appeals in civil actions across the board involving any judgment or order. It's very broad.

Everyone is treated alike, so there is no loophole to close. That is a matter of existing law. The second is this claim about frivolousness, et cetera. And I would note that if there is this great litany of intentional delays as well as frivolous appeals, then I would hope that there's a litany of cases that can be cited in which the parties and the attorneys bringing those intentionally delaying and frivolous appeals have been rightfully sanctioned.

The third, and respectfully, is that we believe that this Bill is clearly preempted by the FAA. There is a large group of court cases, primarily starting in California with at T Mobility versus Concepcion. And since that case, there's been repeated efforts over the last decade to undermine arbitration. The most recent, that was signed into law about five years ago, was struck down by the 9th Circuit in a very well reasoned decision. Why is it preempted?

Look, states can regulate arbitration, but they have to do so under General contract principles. For example, the federal courts in Saturn said the focus should be on whether the statute, either on its face or as applied, imposes burdens on arbitration agreements that do not apply to contracts generally. As you can see here, by adding this subdivision in 1294, Subdivision A of the CCP.

I need you to wrap up.

Sorry. You're singling out arbitration. The other thing is that it's going to be undermined. And just one last final quote, if I can, Mr. Chair.

In Concepcione, the court said we have a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary.

You oversold your three quick points, Mr. McKayley.

My apologies, Mr. Chairman.

Just a little commentary for you with that. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Jaime Huff with the Civil Justice Association of California strongly opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association. We're opposed as well.

Good morning. Melanie Cuevas with the California Bankers Association also in opposition.

Good morning, Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Matthew Allen with Western Grovers Association, also opposed.

Good morning. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, I'll turn it to the Committee. Any questions, comments? Motion? Okay, so we have a few questions. Motion from Ms. Reyes. Do I have a second? 2nd from Mr. Connolly. I'll start with Mr. Essayli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for the opposition. Have you guys proposed any, offered any amendments?

I can speak. Go ahead. Yes, in the Senate, we did propose amendments that would have allowed limited discovery to continue when a case is stayed in order to begin the discovery process. In limited case to start the process as was discussed by the proponents. I think there was some concern around losing evidence or losing witnesses if the case did get kicked back to the trial court.

So we had proposed amendments around that, and to my understanding, those were not accepted by the sponsors or the author of the Bill, but we did propose those amendments in the Senate.

Okay. And Senator, I see your point about how this could be misused or abused, and the automatic stay is pretty powerful. But my concern is that if there's just a blanket policy that there's no stay. It's almost like the other extreme now where people with arbitration agreements are going to be forced to incur a lot of expenses. And discovery, which is the purpose of arbitration, is to limit expenses.

So is there something in the middle between the two where we have limited discovery or some sort of process to get relief from the stay if it truly is a frivolous appeal?

Yes. Thank you for that question. There is something in the middle, and that is the Bill in print, because the way you described the Bill at the beginning is the original version of the Bill, but not the version that's before you today. When I first introduced the Bill, it eliminated the possibility of a stay. It simply said no stay. And so it took it from the one end to the other end. It just eliminated that possibility entirely.

We then coming off of approach, this was an author amendment. This was not imposed on either by the Appropriations Committee. We took all the feedback, including from the chair of Senate Judiciary and others, and the Bill now simply provides the Superior Court the discretion to decide whether to say or not a Superior Court judge could say, I think that this is a close call. I denied the motion to appeal. It's a close call.

I'm staying this on appeal, or I'm going to let you do discovery, but I'm not going to let you go to trial until the appeal is over. The judge can look at the facts of the case, the strength of the motion, whether it was a closed call, all of those other factors, and they can decide. So I think the Bill right now is very much in the middle.

I guess my concern with that is by allowing the same judge that ruled that the arbitration is unenforceable to have the discretion of whether to do the stay or not, most judges, in my experience, are not going to want to stay their own rulings. There are some that might, but I think the opposition here is concerned with forum shopping. There are some judges that are very hostile to arbitration agreements. California has been routinely overturned for hostile judgments on that.

Why not allow the Court of Appeal to make the decision on the stay or not have an expedited process?

First of all, my understanding is the Court of Appeal always has that ability. But I think I have seen, having also practiced law for longer than I'd care to admit before running for office, that the judges do stay their own rulings. There are plenty of times, and you just heard from some of them, where a judge will issue a ruling on arbitration and say, I acknowledge that this is a close call.

And so I don't think it's the case that judges are so obtuse that they're not able to be self aware about what could happen on appeal. So I do think that this is a very right down the middle of the road approach. It takes into account the concerns of both sides.

I appreciate your response. I just want a final comment. Mr. Chair. I think also what's being highlighted, I think here, too, is we do have injustice going on in our judicial system. It is taking way too long to resolve cases, and I hope that maybe as a body we can look at making the system better. I do think justice delayed is justice denied, and we should treat the judiciary as a third branch of government. And so that is just an overall comment that I share those concerns.

I think there's broad based agreement there.

Thank you, Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, chair. I'm trying to get my head wrapped around if we're trying for the individual aggrieved party such as your witness presented, although I think there are other alternatives than waiting five years to resolve that personal conflict or tragedy, I would think that forcing a matter like this into the judicial, the court process, I mean, that's just the opposite of why the whole arbitration procedure was established, is to expedite resolution through the court process and to throw everything into the court process just could be another series of, I mean, the backup in courts we know goes on for a long time.

I believe that the arbitration process, if it is flawed, can be far beyond me to come up with that. That is something that others can create, but it could be a way to enhance the protection such as has already been discussed. But why throw everything into the court process, which to me would be mired in longer delays, and it only just further benefits lawyers?

Why not get this resolved, and I'm married to a lawyer, so I'm not against lawyers, but why not get this resolved at the arbitration level? If there are flaws, which the courts apparently don't disagree that there are, try to fix them. But to me, automatically discarding the arbitration process and throwing this in the court system is more to the disadvantage of the plaintiff, in my opinion.

That's not what's happening here. This is a situation where a court has ruled that it is not an arbitration, an arbitrable case, and it's being appealed. So the court's already made that ruling, and these appeals absolutely prolong the process. It doesn't result in a fast resolution.

Well, all right, then maybe there's another fix within that. I mean, that work it out and not automatically deny that arbitration and work it out. I mean, I just think this is a draconian change to force all parties into the court process. That's my opinion.

Thank you, Ms. Pacheco.

Thank you to the author. I know we had some conversation yesterday. I just had some questions, and I understand the purpose of this Bill, and I like the fact that there's judicial discretion involved in this. And my question is, is there any way to maybe work with opposition, to maybe fine tune the language as to limited discovery like what was mentioned? Is there any conversations happening with respect to that, or is it now just hardline? No, I'm not going to work with, continue working with opposition. I'm just curious as to how the conversations are continuing.

Well, just as the Chamber of Commerce, I think, can acknowledge, I work with the chamber pretty regularly. I have another big Bill that I think is not going to come to this Committee. We thought it would, but it's not that. You and I also discussed yesterday that we have worked for two years with the chamber on. We still have a disagreement, but I'm always open to folks who are opposed to my Bill.

My philosophy is that even if someone is fighting me hard on my Bill, if they raise valid points, I want my Bill to be as good as it can be. And so I will sometimes accept amendments from people who are still going to fight me even after that because if they have good ideas, then so be it. Here. It's very late in the process. We looked at the chamber's amendments in good faith, and we just don't think that they cut it. Just to be Frank.

And having accepted chamber amendments on other bills, I do take those amendments seriously. We just have a disagreement. And again, I voluntarily made an author, amendment and Senate approach to move this from banning the stay. The original version of the Bill said no stay, period, no discretion. And I voluntarily moved it to the middle to say the court now has discretion, and the court can say, I'm only going to allow limited discovery.

The court has broad discretion, as we regularly give judges on a lot of these procedural matters. And so I think this is a very middle of the road approach. And so that's sort of where we are.

And I'm curious as to opposition. Are there any further amendments besides the one that was previously mentioned that would make this Bill better in your eyes?

You know, I, as the Senator said, we, we work with the Senator often on issues. We're always open and willing to have more conversations. Obviously, this Bill is moving very quickly. It's not currently going to Appropriations Committee. It will be straight on the floor.

If there's an opportunity to take a little time and let it sit on the floor for us to have those conversations, I think we could come and see if there's another set of amendments that may be an opportunity to have that type of conversation. Right now, we do not have any additional amendments currently drafted.

Maybe having a certain set of criteria as to what a judge should look into before deciding how to proceed in trial court proceeding. Would that be helpful? I know, is there discretion, but is there any kind of criteria that would be helpful so that way a judge can decide for the benefit of the parties? I'm just curious.

Yeah, Mr. McKayley, feel free to jump in here, too, but I'd have to go back and have those conversations right now. I don't have anything on the table to work through to be able to have a detailed conversation about what may help in this situation.

We really are concerned about litigating on two fronts while the appeal is pending and having all of those resources, all of that court time, all of that party time taken, was something that is going to end up not being a valid process or being mooted anyway. So I don't necessarily know exactly what makes that better right now to give you that. But again, we are always willing and happy to have conversations and appreciate the Senator saying that.

And we have an open door and we were informed yesterday that the Bill is going to apropes.

It is. For the record, the motion is to pass to the appropriations.

So we'll be going there.

Yes.

A non fiscal Bill going to apropes. We will continue to have an open door, as always.

But again, I really appreciate that amendment was taken to at least have judicial review or discretion. I'm just curious if there's any way to make it a little better so that way we don't have that situation where we have a trial court proceeding and then you have an appeal happening and the time and resources spent in having both proceedings happening at the same time. So I do have some concerns about that. But again, I really appreciate that amendment that was made to add that judicial discretion. So hopefully more conversations happen. But I will be supporting this Bill today.

Ms. Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Arbitration uses and abuses have been the subject here of our Judiciary Committee, I'm sure, before I started. But for the six years that I've been here in this Committee, there have been different ways to try to address this. And I think that I, like the Assembly Member, also appreciate the fact that it was amended.

Even in its initial form, there was lots of positive to the way it was already written, but to provide, and as the analysis indicates, that the Bill prohibits civil legal proceedings from automatically being stayed or delayed during the pendency of an appeal. Whereas before it would have been that they just couldn't be. But now with this judicial discretion, I think it makes it stronger.

But I really appreciate your work in this space, because the truth is we do need to protect the consumers, we do need to protect the workers. And finding the balance, it sounds like you found that balance. And I'm sure that the conversations will continue, but I sincerely appreciate your efforts specifically having to do with arbitrations. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. The motion is due pass the Appropriations Committee. With that, you may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Motion is do pass to appropriations. Maienschein.

Aye.

Maienschein aye. Essayli.

No.

Essayli no. Connolly.

Aye.

Connolly aye. Dixon.

No.

Dixon no. Haney.

Aye.

Haney aye. Kalra. Pacheco.

Aye.

Pacheco aye. Papan.

Aye.

Papan aye. Reyes.

Aye.

Reyes aye. Rivas.

Aye.

Rivas aye. Sanchez.

No.

Sanchez no.

Your Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes the items we need to hear today. We will do add ons. So we will start with the consent agenda. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Connolly.

Aye.

Connolly aye. Haney.

Aye.

Haney aye. Reyes.

Aye.

Reyes aye. Rivas.

Aye.

Rivas aye. Sanchez.

Aye.

Sanchez aye.

Next, we will move to item number one, SB 280. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Dick. Sorry. Haney. Haney, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Aye. Rivas, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye.

Item number two, SB 343. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Rivas Aye. Rivas, aye.

Item number three, Wiener. I believe we have everybody. Sorry. Ask Clerk to please call a roll.

Kalra. Aye. Kalra, aye.

Item number four, SB 824. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

Rivas. Aye. Rivas, aye.

Item number five, ACA five. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

Rivas. Rivas, aye.

Item number six, ACA seven. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

Kalra. Kalra, aye. Rivas. Rivas, aye.

Thank you. Now we'll entertain vote changes. Ms. Dixon. Okay. ACA item number six, ACA seven. Ms. Dixon changes her vote from a not voting to a no. With that, seeing no other vote changes, that concludes this meeting of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you all very much.