Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Good morning everyone. Happy Monday. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and also via our teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment today, the participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 570096. We are going to limit phone testimony to 15 minutes total for each measure that we're going to hear today.

If you do not get a chance to address the Committee over the teleconference system, we ask you to submit your comments to the Committee so it can become part of the official record. And for more information on how to submit written comments, please visit the Committee website at the official Senate Committee website. We're holding our hearing in the O Street Building and ask all Members of the Committee to be President in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing.

There is another Committee Senate Committee meeting at this exact same time, so with memberships on both committees. So I recognize that some Members are not going to be able to be here in the hearing room, but I know that their staffs are watching all of the proceedings this morning. We have Three measures on our agenda Today. ACA 13 By Assembly Member Ward. ACA 1 By Assembly Member Aguiar Curry and ACA 6 by Assembly Member Haney.

We don't currently have a quorum, so we'll meet as a committee of the whole. And we're going to begin with our first measure, ACA 13 by Assembly Member Ward. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. First, I'd like to thank the Chair and Committee staff for working with me to create clarifying amendments that underscore that ACA 13 does not reverse or invalidate provisions of the Constitution, including Proposition 13 currently in effect, and reinforces that if approved by the voters, this would apply to future measures in 2024 and beyond. All conversations to date have reflected some of these inherent facts, but out of an abundance of clarity, I'm happy to accept those amendments today.

So, ACA 13 is a measure that asks one simple question if a measure is proposed to raise a vote threshold to greater than a majority, shouldn't the same proportion of voters be in agreement? Currently, under California law, any ballot measure approved by a majority of voters could selectively require a future measure to pass with a supermajority vote.

ACA 13 the Protect and Retain the Majority Vote Act would retain the majority vote requirement for passage of state and local initiatives by requiring any statewide initiative seeking to increase a threshold to also be approved by the same. Higher threshold that it is proposing with the pattern of abuse of our initiative process to use a comparatively lower threshold to set a higher threshold for future voters and worse, using this tactic to extract legislative action for special interests.

The time is right for the Legislature to reflect a protection afforded in the Oregon Constitution since 1998 and adopt ACA 13 to send to the voters for their consideration. The success of these tactics means that in future elections questions are decided through a veto pattern of a minority, not the will of the majority. And this is inherently undemocratic. This measure has been characterized as imminently sensible and is very basic.

If a measure is proposed to raise a vote threshold to greater than a majority, shouldn't the same level of support be shown by voters? We often see this issue paired with revenue questions and make no mistake, raising the voter threshold for local governments without the same level of support of voters, jeopardizes their ability to deliver essential services, including the funding for schools, public safety, homelessness and housing and more. But it's not just about a revenue question.

Ohio issue one attempted to raise thresholds to thwart a question on reproductive rights. Supermajority votes for local housing policies or citing shelters for homeless individuals have been floated, but really any subject could come up. So this measure will protect and retain the majority vote for these important questions. Ultimately, ACA 13 sends the question to the voters for them to decide. And I trust the voters in weighing these issues and making their decision.

It also provides clarity for the rights of local governments to submit an advisory vote to the voters subject to a majority vote to provide feedback on some of their priorities as they see fit. Now I'd like to present witnesses in support of my Bill, Carolyn Coleman from the League of California Cities and Annie Chou from the California Teachers Association and respectfully request your aye vote on ACA 13.

Thank you. Assembly Member and let me mention to all those here on this Bill and others that our committee practice has been to have two minutes testimony for two witnesses on each side. So with that, want to welcome Ms. Coleman to the committee.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and to committee Members. My name is Carolyn Coleman and I'm the Executive Director of the League of California Cities. I'm proud that my organization is here in support of ACA 13. As has been mentioned, ACA 13 is simply about fairness. It would require any initiative constitutional amendment to conform with any increased voter threshold that it seeks to impose on future measures.

ACA 13 also importantly, would preserve the right of local governments to place advisory questions on the ballot, so that they can seek their voters opinions on issues. Under current law, a simple majority may vote to require supermajority approval of future measures, even without a corresponding level of support. At the local level, supermajority voter approval has made it difficult to pass measures dedicated to funding critical local services.

Services like public safety, like providing temporary and permanent housing for residents in our communities, boosting the production of affordable housing, fixing our streets and roads and so much more. For example, from 2001 to 2018, local revenue measures with a two thirds vote requirement have enjoyed only a 51% passage rate. This is compared to a 70% passage rate of all local revenue measures over the same period of time.

The status quo is meant that cities have had to forego providing services that a majority of their residents want and a majority of their residents need. But regardless, local governments will continue to fight to protect local public services like 911 dispatchers and emergency responders. We will fight to ensure that we have clean and safe streets and roads and communities. We will provide fight to provide shelter to our unhoused.

And we will fight to ensure that our communities have the housing for our workers, our teachers, our young families, and yes, even our seniors. ACA 13 simply empowers the voters to decide if they would like to protect local revenue measures that Fund local services. What we know is true is that voters want their local governments to lead in addressing the challenges our communities face and to provide essential public services.

ACA 13 will protect their ability to make their voices heard and to ensure they have the services that they need. For these reasons, the League of California Cities is respectfully requesting an aye vote on ACA 13. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Coleman. Next up, Ms. Chou. Oh, before you begin, let's establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

Senators Glazer here. Nguyen here. Allen. McGuire. Menjivar here. Newman. Umberg here.

Terrific. We have a quorum present. Okay. Ms. Chou, thank you for your patience.

Of course.

Floor is yours.

Mr. Chair and Members, Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association supporting ACA 13, which enshrines the democratic principle of one person, one vote. ACA 13 protects school funding and local control. In addition to state General Fund allocated to schools, local governments have the ability to address their needs by using ballot measures to ask voters to approve additional funding for schools. This is funding for classrooms and libraries to support students and teachers, and for arts and music education.

Voters approve billions of dollars for education funding through local measures every election cycle. It's integral to ensure the local governments and voters retain the ability to recognize what their communities need most and can act on it. CT has been in the forefront of ensuring stability in school funding and avoiding cuts to education through Prop 30 in 2012 and its extension, Prop 55 in 2016. Prop 30 passed by 55% vote and Prop 55 passed by 63% vote.

Both occurred during presidential election years with increased voter participation and passed by a majority, but by no means a supermajority of votes. Both would have seen billions of dollars lost to schools if they did not pass. At the turn of the last decade, California ranked in the middle 30s in the nations in per people funding thanks to a focus in increased funding through Prop 30. Prop 55, as well as local measures. California is now 19th, but that is nowhere near where we should be.

As the fifth largest economy in the world, ensuring the passage of ACA 13 is incredibly important to protect students and teachers. And for those reasons, CT urges your aye vote on this priority Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. So here's the practice in the committee is that after hearing two speakers in favor, we're going to open it up for those here in the hearing room to come up to the microphone and just give their name and affiliation and their position of support.

Following that, we'll hear from two speakers in opposition, and then we'll do the same exercise those in the hearing room that want to speak, put their name on the record in opposition to come forward, and to do so. Following that, we'll go to our teleconference line and allow individuals to identify themselves for or against, and then we'll bring it back to the committee for further discussion and questions. So that's our practice. So this is the moment just to give your name and affiliation and position on the Bill. And, sir, you can begin.

Morning, chairman's, chair and committee. Nick Cruz with the California Labor Federation in support.

Good morning. Brian Molina with California Calls in support.

Good morning, chair and Members, Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association in support.

Tiffany Mok with CFT in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Kiera Ross on behalf of the cities of Glendale and Burbank in support.

Good morning, chair and Members. Erik Turner of Niemela, Pappas and Associates on behalf of the town of Apple Valley and Eastern Municipal Water District in support thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Andres Ramirez, on behalf of the Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, Danville, and San Ramon, as well as the cities of Walnut Creek and Half Moon Bay in support.

Good morning, chair and Members, Carly Shelby, on behalf of the city's Buena Park, Compton, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Oakland, Oceanside, Palo Alto, San Pablo, Santa Barbara and Concord in strong support. Thank you.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of Mayor London Breed of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members, Kirk Blackburn, here, on behalf of the city of Inglewood in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alyssa Silhi, here, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Parks Districts and also on behalf of the cities of Belmont, Mountain View, Rancho Cucamonga and Santa Rosa in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Member Scott Sear with the Desert Recreation District, Coachella Valley in support. Thank you.

Thank you, good morning. Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Janice O'Malley with AskMe California in support.

Good morning. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California professional Firefighters in support.

Good morning. Ruth Dawson ACLU California Action. In support.

Thank you. Good morning. Marcus Detweiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cindy Tuck with the association of California Water Agencies, in support of ACA 13.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Senator Umberg. Paul Gonzalves on behalf of the cities of Elk Grove, Fairfield, Irvine, Kerman, Lakewood, Norco, Norwalk and Roseville in support thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Ross Buckley, on behalf of the city of Sacramento and on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District. In support.

Morning, Andres Ramirez again on behalf of the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. In support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Sonoma Water in strong support.

Good morning. Jennifer Fearing for the California Association of Nonprofits. In support.

Good morning. Natalie Spievack on behalf of Housing California in support.

Good morning. Elizabeth Kim with PICO California in strong support.

Good morning. Raquel Mason on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance Action. Also registering support for the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network thank you.

Good morning. Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, United Way of Greater Los Angeles, and Power California in support. Thank you.

Nicole Wardelman, on behalf of the city of Ontario, in support.

Jeff Neal on behalf of the county. Of Contra Costa and the city of Chula Vista, in support.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Terry Brennan on behalf of SEIU California, in support. And proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Apologies, Members. Izzy Swindler, on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation district in support. Thank you.

Tim Cremins, International Union of Operating Engineers. In full support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. All right, last call for anybody else here in the hearing room to indicate support. Seeing no one, we're going to go to opposition to this measure. I don't know who the organized opposition is for speakers, but...

Good morning, chair and Members, Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors, here today in opposition to ACA 13. ACA 13 would require that any citizen led initiative to amend the state constitution, which attempts to increase the percentage of votes needed to pass a local or state ballot measure, must itself pass by the same percentage. The consequences of such a proposal could have disastrous effects by eroding the current voter enacted citizen led initiatives that are enshrined within the state's constitution.

ACA 13 will lead to future attacks on existing voter enacted property tax rules that impose reasonable checks and balances for tax increases. These protections that homeowners will be able to stop new property taxes that could render their homes unaffordable and inhibit their ability to keep a roof over their heads. ACA 13 leaves homeowners, housing providers, renters, and business owners with a new challenge that does not exist in the current model in order to restore those protections. Now, while the conversation has been surrounding taxes, there are other policies that may inadvertently be harmed by ACA 13.

We're increasing the voting threshold to pass future proposals, such as those related to reforms to the legislative process, which includes strengthening oversight measures, those related to human rights, or even the ability to strengthen consumer laws. All these examples prove to demonstrate that ACA 13 has broad reaching implications for voters in the state and their ability to constrain government action for whichever party leads a supermajority.

Additionally, organizations such as the Fairness Project have characterized the raising of the threshold to pass initiatives as rapidly accelerated attacks on direct democracy. They further state that these attacks have multiplied and become more nuanced and sophisticated over time, with reactionary lawmakers favoring a death by a thousand cuts approach to undermine the initiative process, which ultimately results in silencing the voices of their constituents.

The examples most recently of the supermajority in Ohio trying to raise the vote threshold to prevent an initiative it wanted to make harder to pass is the most recent attempt by primarily supermajority legislatures to prevent outcomes they fear would occur at the ballot box. Democrats from other states raise concerns regarding the negative impacts that proposals in raising the vote threshold in Ohio would have on the ability of voters to meaningfully participate in the initiative process.

CAR appreciates the Committee for Giving us the opportunity to respectfully engage and discuss our concerns on ACA 13. We remain committed to continuing this dialogue to offer solutions for greater voter transparency and access at the ballot box. At this time, we were made out of impasse for the reasons listed above, and we respectfully request your no vote on ACA 13. Thank you.

Thank you, Vanessa. Yeah.

Mr. Chairman. Members. Good morning. Rob Lapsley, President of the California Business Roundtable here in opposition to ACA 13. ACA 13 is deeply flawed. As you know, charter cities, unlike General law cities, are not bound by state statutes that are in conflict with their charter. Higher tax thresholds can only be imposed on charter cities by a constitutional amendment under Article Eleven of the Constitution. ACA 13 only applies to initiatives that amend the Constitution, not to those that enact or amend statutes.

If this is by design and intentional, it only applies to the state's largest, more urban cities. If it is a flaw, the direct result of rushing through the legislative vetting process in just two weeks, we need to stop and better assess the unintended consequences.

Since General law cities, counties, school districts, and special districts are bound by state statute, a higher vote threshold can still be imposed on these local governments through a statewide initiative statute approved by a simple majority of the vote of the statewide electorate under ACA 13. Again. Despite the proponent's claims of fairness, ACA 13 only protects the league of city's largest and wealthiest charter cities while leaving everyone else behind.

Out of the 482 cities, 58 counties, 1018 school districts and 3300 special districts, a mere 121 charter cities are all that are protected by ACA 13. Mr. Chairman and Members, I think this is an intentional strategy by the sponsors to deceive you and the Members of the Legislature in order to use your votes to try and stop the Taxpayer Protection Act and silence the more than 1.4 million voters who signed petitions to put it on the ballot.

ACA 13 is deeply flawed, creates a series of winners and losers, and unequivocally should not move forward at this hour. In fact, another flaw that the state General Fund could end up having to remedy the difference in funding between General law and charter cities. The inequities built into ACA 13, Mr. Chairman, could very well trigger an equal protections claim based upon different funding levels for the same services and whether someone lives inside or outside a charter city.

The courts determined in Serrano versus Priest, where disparities in local school funding violated the Equal Protection Clause. The state General Fund can be responsible for remedying this. Again, this was rushed through the process. For these reasons and many, many others, we respectfully ask that you oppose this Bill and push it over so discussions can continue. And if it goes to November, we have plenty of time to do that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, very much.

Mr. Lapsley. Thank you. We're going to now provide the opportunity for those who are in opposition to this measure to come to the microphone to give their name and affiliation and their position in opposition.

Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Strongly opposed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Chris McKaley on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce here today in opposition.

Tobias Wolken with the California Taxpayers Association, in respectful opposition.

Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association, representing the building Owners and Managers Association of California, NAOP of California, IRUM of California and ICSC. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I want to give one final opportunity for those who want to put their name on the record in opposition.

AJ Rossitto on behalf of the California Hotel Lodging Association. Respectfully opposed.

Okay, now that we've completed the in room testimony, we're going to go to our phone lines and invite those who would like to put their name on the record in support or in opposition to do so. Now, we've set aside 15 minutes as a maximum. And again, testimony has already been presented. We just want your name and affiliation, if any, and position so. Moderator would you invite those who wish to put their name on the record on ACA 13.

Mr. Chair, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to comment, you may press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. And our first question comes from line 59. One moment, please. And you may go ahead.

Hi, this is Christopher McGill Bowen with LA Family housing and strong support of ACA 13. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Next is line 128.

Good morning. Alejandra Ramirez...from Orange County and a California taxpayer in strong support of ACA 13.

Next we go to 147.

Hi. My name is George Pendleton. I live in Orange County in the City of Orange, and I am definitely no on ACA 13. It's an attempt to stop the taxpayer...

Thank you, sir. That's all. Operator next caller, please.

It's just a moment to go to line 105.

Good morning. Dora Rose with the League of Women Voters of California in strong support. Also, I have the proxy of California Common Cause also in strong support of ACA 13. Thank you.

Next we go to line 36. Go ahead.

Good morning. This is...in Pasadena, California taxpayer in support of ACA 13.

Next is line 104.

Good morning. Mike Dennis, United Way of Greater Los Angeles in strong support.

Next is line 53.

Yes. This is Denny Zane from Santa Monica, I'm in strong support of ACA 13.

Next is line 43.

Good morning. Joe Donlin with the United to House LA Coalition in strong support of ACA 13.

Next we go to line 64.

Good morning. My name is Tasia Stevens calling on behalf of Catalyst California in strong support.

Next is line 190.

Tammy Crow, LA County, in strong opposition to ACA 13.

Next is line 122.

Good morning. Aditi Shakkarwar with Greater Wave United. Sorry. United Way of Greater Los Angeles and strong support. Thank you.

Next we have line 169.

Mary Davis, California taxpayer, San Diego County in strong opposition to ACA 13.

Next we go to line 51.

Maggie Ty, California taxpayer in Union City, California, in support of ACA 13.

Next we go to line 66.

Hi, Sam Wilkinson with GRACE and End Child Poverty in California in strong support of ACA 13.

Next we go to line 63.

Hi. Mary Ignatius with Parent Voices California in strong support.

Next we go to line 114.

Good morning. David Wynn, and I'm calling on behalf of Community Coalition in very strong support.

Next we go to line 42. Line 42, you may go ahead.

Hi, my name is Nina Long and I'm with APIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund in support of ACA 13.

Next we go to line 156.

Hi, this is Sana Sethi calling in with San Francisco Rising in strong support of ACA 113.

Next we go to line 25.

My name is Rich Warner. I oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to line 174.

Syrus Devers, the Coachella Valley Water District in support.

Next we go to line 100.

Hi. This is Tran Nguyen from Evolve California in strong support.

Next we go to line 125.

My name is Janita Ison. I'm retired California taxpayer. I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 90.

Hi, I'm Olivia McKeeny and I am a taxpayer from Redding, California and I strongly support ACA 13.

Next is line 183. 183. You may go ahead. We will move on to line 131. Please go ahead.

Jeanette Taft, taxpayer. I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to line 134.

This is Celine Meskin and I strongly oppose ACA 13. I'm a California taxpayer from Burbank.

Next we go to line 110.

This is Julia Robles on behalf of Rancho California Water District in strong support.

Next we go to line 115.

Hi. My name is Nikki Calvin. I'm a California taxpayer and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to line 153. 153. You may go ahead.

My name is Joni Frassen. I am a California taxpayer. I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 161.

Hi. My name is Nancy Peterson. I am a property owner and taxpayer and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 160.

Hi, this is Jeffrey Ellis in Santa Cruz and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 152.

Hi. This is Steve Shin. Strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 177.

Hi, my name is Julia Sari from Lake Forest. California taxpayer, strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is 106. One.

Line 106, your line is open. You may go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Curtis Kustik. I'm a California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 155.

Hello. My name is Suzanne Marcella Camarillo. I'm a retired California taxpayer and property owner, and I very strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 123.

Hi. Brian Olney, general manager at Helix Water District in San Diego. Strongly support ACA 13. Thank you.

Next we go to 171. Please go ahead.

My name is Jeffrey Matthews, San Diego County taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 126.

Hi, I'm Caitlin Stein. I'm a property owner in San Francisco and a taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to line 102.

Good morning. First name Devin. Last name is Sawdayi. I'm a California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 176.

Yes, my name is Tom Tracy. I'm a taxpayer and a property owner in Menifee, California, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 154.

Hello, everyone. My name is Sedamar Fitzgerald, and I am a California taxpayer and a homeowner, and I strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Next we go to 150.

Good morning. I'm Susan Golino, a retired California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Next we go to 71. 71, your line is open. You may go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Lynne Digrazia. I'm a resident in Newark, California, and I strongly oppose AC 13.

Next we go to 139.

This is Melbourne Smith. I'm retired property owner in San Diego County, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we go to 140. 140, your line is open. You may go ahead. We will move on to line 86. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Ben Grieff. I'm from Evolve California, and I strongly support ACA 13.

Next is 143.

Hello, my name is Paul Abinanti, and I am a taxpayer voter in California, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 127.

My name is Richard Sanders, San Diego County taxpayer for 63 years, and I strongly oppose this proposition, ACA 13.

Next we have line 180. Hello? Go ahead.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay. This is Maria Rodriguez, taxpayer and owner property. I oppose it strongly.

Thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Next is line 201.

Good morning. This is Ross Noble calling on behalf of EMB Action, in strong support. Thank you.

Next is line 204.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the cities of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, the California Faculty Association, Mayor Karen Bass from the City of Los Angeles, and Mayor London Breed of the City and County of San Francisco, all in strong support. Thank you.

Next is line 22.

Hello, my name is Rosanna Whiteley. I'm from Murrieta, California. Longtime taxpayer. I oppose strongly ACA 13.

Next is line 129.

Hi. My name is Ron Bell. I'm a California taxpayer. I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 79.

Hi, my name is Dwight Harvey, and I'm from Thousand Oaks and a California taxpayer and homeowner. My occupation is an aircraft inspector and I strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is 48. Line 48, you may go ahead.

Hi. Hello, my name is Clarissa Doutherd. I am a California taxpayer and a public schools parent and I strongly support AC 13. Thank you.

Next is line 205.

Hi, my name is Bryan Minor representing SCOPE LA, and I'm also a taxpayer, and I'm calling in strong support of ACA 13.

Next is line 198.

Hello? Hi, this is Sonja from SCOPE, and I support ACA 13.

Thank you very much. Next call.

Next is line 77. Line 77, your line is open. You may go ahead.

Hi Sylvia Arredondo with Communities for a Better Environment and strong support of ACA 13.

Next is line 55.

Hi, I'm Joanne Shannon, resident of Bloomington, California. I'm a retired California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 44.

Hi. My name is Eli Lipmen. I am a taxpayer and a property owner, and I am a major proponent for Measure ULA and part of the United to House LA Coalition. And I super duper strongly support ACA 13.

Thank you.

Next is 58. Line 58, you may go ahead. We will move on to line 215. Please go ahead.

Hello, good morning. Inez Rosales on behalf of Public Advocates in strong support of ACA 13. Thank you.

Next we go to 145. 145, your line is open. You may go ahead. We will move on to line 202.

My name is Ernie Serrano. I'm a taxpayer and work with SCOPE. We're going to take strong support of ACA 13.

Thank you. And we're going to take one more caller, and we'll have made our 15 minutes limit on telephone testimony. Moderator, just one more please--

Line 203.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Sharon Rapport with the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and strong support.

Thank you very much. Thank you to all those who have participated here in the hearing room or on our teleconference lines. If you were not able to get your position on the record, you're welcome to send a note to our Committee, and we'll be sure it's a part of the official record. Alright, we're going to bring the measure back to the Committee for discussion and comments.

I want to allow the author, Assemblymember Ward, to respond to any of the concerns that you've heard thus far. Anything you want to share with us?

I was prepared for a closing statement. I will acknowledge that I've been spending a good amount of time with those in opposition to really, one: sort of tease out what the root cause of their concerns are and see how we can be able to improve upon that.

And one of those is in the form of the amendments that we are taking today to make absolutely crystal clear, even though I believe it's inherent because things in our constitution are not applied retroactively, that Proposition 13 is alive and well. And so we want to reflect that in both the findings and declarations and also in the amendment, the proposed ACA itself going to the voters that this is only for measures prospectively, as is already the policies on when things are enacted and to what they affect.

So, I'm happy that I think that we have been able to clarify that. So I am still finding trouble. How do we meet opposition there when, um, maybe in disagreement about the root of that opposition?

Right, the audit may prompt you then. There was a concern raised that this higher threshold limitation that's in your measure would only apply to constitutional measures, not to a state statute, could require a higher threshold for non-charter cities. Any thoughts on that?

So the thoughts on that are that what we've seen so far is what I am characterizing as a pattern of abuse and first in 1990, and then again in 2018 and 2022, and now in 2024, and likely they would enjoy future opportunities to use decisions as initiative process to change our constitution. So when I as a legislator, I'm identifying a problem. I want to be very targeted about that solution.

And of course, the Constitution as our guiding document really sets the stage for so many other underlying decisions and questions, including voter passage under statutes, which of course the Legislature has the purview to review and send additional questions to the voters as well.

So you don't see this as a loophole in your measure? You've seen it as focused on where you thought the issue was?

That's correct.

Okay, I'm going to bring it back to colleagues here on the Committee. Any thoughts or comments, Members? Alright, first of all, I want to thank you, Assemblymember, for your engagement with me and my staff throughout the last week. We had many, many conversations that continued through the weekend. And I very much appreciate your willingness to make these amendments to your measure that make it clear that this is not a measure that's trying to go backwards.

This is not a measure that's going to have any impact on Proposition 13 and the requirements of Proposition 13. And I think for me and I think for many of my colleagues, we'll appreciate that the clarity that you've enhanced in the measure now will be the bill in print. So I want to thank you for your work there.

A fundamental part of the work of this committee, Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments is to ensure that there is honesty and fairness in the work that we do and that questions that are put to voters are done in a way so there minimizes misunderstanding or manipulation. And that a part of that is to make sure that we're not putting a thumb on the scale in the work that we do.

And I am persuaded that the measure that you have put forward upholds those high standards of fairness and honesty, that what your measure will allow is local choice but done in a way with standards of fairness if your measure were to be successful, and it's for those reasons that I'm going to support it today and appreciate your work in advancing it. I'm going to recognize a motion from Senator Menjivar and give you the opportunity to make any closing arguments you wish to make.

Thank you, Senator Glazer, and it was a privilege to work with you as well and your team on making sure that this is done right. I had a Community Resource Fair this weekend, as we often do when we're out in communities, and I met somebody that I've known for 15 years and she said, 'Chris, I'm reading about this measure and what does it do? I'm trying to understand it.' And I explained it as I had to this committee in my open.

And she thought about it and she said, 'well, I really want a two-thirds vote.' And I said, 'that's great.' I said, 'but do you think that two-thirds of the people should agree with you?' And she froze.

And then I said, 'well, do you think that--what this is about is about what it takes to actually pass a question, that if you are raising something to a significant level, we know that that's going to have significant consequences somewhere down the line to our cities, our counties, our special districts, to an issue, a subject, and because of those specific consequences, possibly forever into the future, it begs in a very important question: what is the appropriate level for passage?

And I think it should be you show the same level of support that you are proposing and that'll be the standard going forward. Now, this is not unprecedented because in my city, in the City of San Diego, our second largest city, we dealt with this issue about 20 years ago where interest groups came forward and said, 'we want to amend the city charter so that all taxes, including general taxes, are going to be a two-thirds vote.'

And our police and our firefighters and city workers and others that are engaged in civics said, 'wait a minute, something's imbalanced here, something's not fair.' And so they put a countermeasure forward that said, 'look, if you want to raise in our city charter something to a supermajority vote, show that you have the same level of supermajority support,' and that passed by the voters. That is still on the books today. They have never tried that gamesmanship again.

And I have to acknowledge in the City of San Diego, Prop 13 is alive and well. So all these arguments fall flat. And what this does is, again, stops that cycle of gamesmanship and allows us in a very democratic way to make sure that we are protecting and retaining the majority vote and giving the voters the right to be able to say that. And that's what sending this measure forward to them would be able to allow them to do. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on ACA 13.

Thank you, Assemblymember. So the motion is that ACA 13 be adopted as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the role.

Aye.

Senators Glazer?

Glazer, aye. Ngyuen?

No.

Ngyuen, no. Allen? McGuire? Menjivar?

Aye.

Menjivar, Aye. Newman? Umberg?

Alright, so we're going to put that measure on call for absent members. Thank you very much, sir. Alright, next up, we're going to go to ACA 1 by Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry. She is here in the hearing room. Welcome to the Committee. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members and Senators. I'd like to start by thank you for allowing me to present this legislation initiative while we're all working so hard to wrap up the ends of session. Today, I'm presenting ACA 1 a legislative initiative which will simply ask our state's voters if they would lower the vote threshold for local affordable housing and infrastructure projects from two thirds to a 55% supermajority.

As a reminder, 55% is the same vote threshold approved by the California voters for local school construction bonds. Our state and local governments are under enormous pressure to address ongoing crisis with housing and homelessness. ACA 1 first needs to get the support of statewide voters. If approved, it would then permit let me repeat that permit the local governments to seek local voter approval for the local infrastructure they need to support housing development.

Let's face it, state and federal dollars alone will never be able to Fund every local infrastructure priority. In fact, preventing local governments from investing on local priorities they choose does not make those priorities disappear. You cannot have housing without roads and sewers and public safety facilities and approving. ACA 1 will provide the most accountable, transparent method in our state for doing so. ACA 1 is equipped with historic and unprecedented accountability and transparency measures.

The initiative requires a specific expenditure plan, a citizens oversight committee whose members will receive training to oversee expenditures under the local initiative. It will have an annual performance and financial audits reviewed by the state auditor to assure accuracy. It would prohibit general operations and public salaries from being paid for by an ACA One initiative and caps the cost of local Administration of the initiative at 5%.

ACA 1 also requires all proceeds be spent serving the community, approving the local measure, and it requires all proceeds be committed to the projects in the expenditure plan before another ACA 1 initiative can be proposed to local voters. ACA One will not only empower our local communities to address their local priorities. It protects voters and holds local governments fiscally accountable.

So I ask you today, please don't buy the false choice that we can somehow provide for our community's infrastructure needs, meet the housing crisis, shelter the unhoused, and provide for public safety for free. It is simply disingenuous to say you support solutions to those problems, but oppose the state taxes and bonds, oppose developer fees, oppose upland citizens initiatives that can approve the same type of projects in ACA 1, but at 50%.

And with no accountability measures and oppose General taxes at 50% with no list of expenditures, no limits on administrative costs, and no audits or citizen oversight. Senators, no to everything is not good public policy position. I'm honored to be joined this morning by Cindy Silva, mayor of Walnut Creek, and immediate past President of the League of California Cities, and Doug Suburbs, Director of Governmental Affairs for the California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you, Assemblywoman, and we'll follow our rules. Two minutes for each speaker. Mayor Silva. Welcome.

Good morning, Senator Glazer and Members of the committee. I'm Walnut Creek Mayor Cindy Silva, and I'm here today on behalf of the league of California cities. As I am their immediate past President. Cal Cities is the prime resource and advocate for California's 482 cities. And by extension, we're the advocate for the nearly 33 million people who live and work in our cities. As cities, we know we are the economic engines of California.

However, we also know that to keep our communities safe and our local economies working, we must continue to invest in critical infrastructure in our streets and bridges, in our storm drains, and our water systems. Further, we know that our local economies work best when our residents, our workforces, have a safe place to call home. We must invest in affordable housing.

Unfortunately, to do all of this, to continue to be the economic engines of our state, local government needs more tools to help finance critical infrastructure and affordable housing. That's why Cal Cities strongly supports ACA 1. ACA 1 will give California voters a chance to do for cities, counties, and special districts what they did for school districts just over 20 years ago.

ACA 1 will make it possible for all levels of local government, the government's closest to the people, to have the same tools to address community infrastructure and housing needs. ACA 1 can create parity. Time and again, California voters have demonstrated through their past support for school, housing, and water bonds that it's smart to invest in our local communities. So let's give California voters the opportunity to decide. Let's help to empower them so they can improve their communities. Please vote yes on ACA 1, and I thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor Silva. We'll next invite Doug Subers to share his testimony. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. My name is Doug Subers, and I'm here today on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support of ACA 1. At the outset, I would like to thank the author for her ongoing work and commitment to this important issue. In California, the odds are pretty good that residents live in a danger zone, whether it's earthquake, wildfire, or flood. The way we answer the call in California is through our world-class mutual aid response system.

That critical system depends on having robust and effective local fire, EMS, and disaster response throughout the state. But our local fire departments continue to struggle with tight budgets and dangerous threat levels. In many jurisdictions, local voters have made their priorities known by stepping up to support local measures to ensure and secure public safety funding. But overall, the ability to get dedicated, accountable revenue directed to critical public safety is stymied by the two-thirds vote requirement.

For example, in 2020, a special tax to support disaster and fire services in Sonoma County failed with 64.8% of the vote, and a parcel tax to fund fire and EMS services for Higgins Fire District in Nevada County received 58.3% of the vote and failed. The failure of this measure ultimately resulted in the district laying off six full-time positions, keeping only two of their three fire stations open at a time, and as a result, response times double.

It's time to give the voters an opportunity to reevaluate that two-thirds vote requirement. ACA 1 does not raise or approve a single tax. It simply gives voters a chance to decide whether to change the vote threshold on these types of special taxes and bond measures. Ultimately, ACA 1 gives California voters greater control over how their local tax revenues are raised and spent and makes us better able to meet the challenges we face. For these reasons, I respectfully urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we're going to now provide an opportunity for those who are here in the hearing room to put their name and affiliation, if any, on the record in support of the Bill. Please step on up.

And good morning. Nick Cruz with the California Labor Federation in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members, Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation division, in very strong support, thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members Andres Ramirez on behalf of the Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, Danville, and Santa Ramos, as well as on behalf of the cities of Fremont, Half Moon Bay, Soledad, Farmersville, Tulare, and the city of Oakland, all in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman, Members Carly Shelby, on behalf of the cities of Emeryville, Palo Alto, and Kingsburg in strong support, thank you. Izzy, soldier on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco and the Marin Board of Supervisors, all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kiera Ross, on behalf of the City of Glendale, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association in support.

Good morning, Chair. Tim Cremins, International Unit of Operating Engineers in full support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Lucas Frerichs, Yolo County Supervisor. On behalf of Yolo County, thank you. In support of ACA 1.

Julie Snyder, representing the Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission in strong support. Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, and also on behalf of the cities of Belmont, Redwood City and Santa Rosa, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Scott Sear with Desert Recreation District, Coachella Valley, in strong support.

Thank you.

Melissa Bebee, registered nurse in Yolo County in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Bryant Miramontes with AskMe California in support,

Good morning. Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in strong support, thank you.

Good morning. Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District and Habitat for Humanity. In support. Thank you.

Thank you, good morning. Jean Hurst, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara. In support, thank you.

Good morning. Marcus Detwiler, with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Merksamer, and I'm representing Yolo County, Contra Costa County, and the American Council of Engineering Companies of California. All in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Christina Di Caro, representing the California Library Association in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in strong support.

Good morning. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority and the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District in support.

Good morning. Natalie Spievack on behalf of Housing California, in support,

Good morning. Graciela Castillo-Krings on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners, Silicon Valley at Home Action Fund, and all home in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Abram Diaz with the Non-profit Housing Association in Valley, California, in support.

Mark Stivers, with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, in support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, in support. Thank you.

Chair, Members of the committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBI, in support. Thank you.

Jennifer Armenta, on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Morning, Chair, Members. Galen Dobbins with the California Coalition for Rural Housing. In strong support.

Mr. Chairman, Senators. Terry Brennan on behalf of FCIU California, over 700,000 workers and taxpayers of California.

Mr. Chair, Members Beverly Yu, on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. We are a proud co sponsor of this Bill and strong support. Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson. Sorry about that. With Shaw, Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer, and Lange on behalf of CalTrain, the San Mateo County Transit District, the San Mateo City County Association of Government, Monterey Salinas Transit, and the Solano Transportation Authority. All in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members, James Thuerwachter, on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers, and we are in strong support. Thanks.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel, here on behalf of the California Transit Association and representing our 220 member organizations in support. Thank you.

Jamie Minor on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association. Pleased to support thank you,

Mr. Chair, Members. Amy Brown, on behalf of the cities of Long Beach and West Sacramento, in support.

All right, last call. Anyone here want to put their name on the record in support? Seeing none, we're going to go to opposition. I'm inviting up opposition speakers again. Two minutes, two speakers. Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Chairman Glazer. Members of the Committee. I'm Jon Coupal. I'm President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. By amending Article 13-A of the California Constitution, ACA 1 constitutes a direct attack on Proposition 13 that is not in dispute. ACA 1 opens the floodgates to higher taxes by cutting the vote threshold needed to pass special taxes from two-thirds down to 55%. The loss of that important protection in Prop 12, 13 means that struggling taxpayers will be hit with higher local taxes again and again after every election.

ACA 1 is not necessary. According to the League of Cities, from 2001 2018, 51% of city tax measures with a two-thirds vote requirement reached that threshold and passed because cities were able to persuade two-thirds of their voters to approve those taxes. It should be noted here that all we're talking about is special taxes. General taxes can and do pass with a simple majority.

In fact, in that same period, all local tax measures pass by 70%. But for ACA 1 proponents, that's not good enough for them to be satisfied, and they want new and higher taxes must pass every time. This mindset is why Proposition 13 was approved by the voters and why they continue to support the important two-thirds vote protection. This is evidenced by passage of additional taxpayer protections like Prop . 60, 219, 86, Prop 218 and 1996, and more recently, Prop. 26 and 2010.

The damage inflicted on taxpayers from ACA 1 is not limited to Proposition 13, and this is an important point. It also repeals the requirement that local bonds, repaid only by property owners, need a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. That requirement has been in the state constitution since 1879. The logic behind a two thirds vote requirement for special taxes is the same while everyone can vote on special taxes, they are often paid only by property owners through parcel taxes, bonds, and property related assessments.

Two-thirds supermajority vote requirements have a strong constitutional foundation. The United States Constitution itself requires a two-thirds vote. For many actions, such as approval of international treaties, supermajority vote requirements are reserved for important matters. In fact, the League of Cities own bylaws requires a two-thirds majority vote to raise its dues. That makes sense if the League of Cities is going to raise dues on its members that may constitute a financial hardship. Therefore they require a supermajority.

In conclusion, I would like to note that it's been argued that ACA 1 does not raise taxes. It just puts the question before the voters. Let's be clear. ACA 1 is a vote for higher taxes and a vote against Proposition 13. I ask that you all reject ACA 1. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there another primary speaker? Mr. Cabal did go over, so there's about a little over a minute left in the time.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Peter Blocker. On behalf of the California Taxpayers Association and a broad coalition of individual and business taxpayers in opposition to ACA One, we believe Prop Thirteen's two-thirds vote threshold is an important protection for taxpayers in preventing excessive taxation, and that it's a protection that should not be weakened. It should come as no surprise that one of the biggest concerns we hear from taxpayers is the rising cost of living in California.

We think ACA 1 will worsen this problem and make the state less affordable. A vote for ACA 1 has been characterized as not being a vote to increase taxes. However, not only do we disagree with this, but we believe it is arguably something worse. According to local election data from past elections, ACA 1 will likely increase taxes by more than a quarter billion dollars every election cycle, and we believe that this is a conservative estimate.

The taxes affected by ACA 1 are regressive, meaning sales taxes and property taxes. They are not based on a person's ability to pay. So when these taxes fail, it's often because of people often voted against by people who can least afford it. Higher sales taxes cause a significant cost of manufacturing as it is layered onto every stage of production. This also applies to home building. Sales taxes are imposed on building materials, which in turn increase the overall cost of home construction.

Higher property taxes increase the burden of home ownership, makes owning and renting homes less affordable. Proponents of ACA 1 have argued that this measure is necessary because it is too difficult to pass taxes in California. When you compare California's tax rates against those in other states, this does not appear to be the case. California's sales tax rates are among the highest in the nation. In Alameda County, taxpayers pay sales tax rates as high as 10.0 75%.

In LA County, most residents pay a sales tax rate of 10.0 25%. ACA 1 would make it easier for tax rates like these to go up statewide.

You can summarize, please.

Finally, I'll just say that this measure is being pushed through the Senate and over the course of four days. We do not believe that legislation of this magnitude should be rushed when there are no deadlines preventing it from being heard next year. For these reasons, we urge you to not approve the measure. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. We're going to give an opportunity for those who are here in the hearing room to put their name on the record in opposition to this measure. And you can begin.

Faith Borges on behalf of the Family Business Association of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce here today in opposition. Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturing Technology Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association, representing the eight local BOMA Associations. The six local NAOP Associations, and ICSC in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Megan Loper, on behalf of the United Hospital Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors in an opposed amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the hearing room? Okay, let's go to our phone lines. We're going to have the same parameters as we had for the earlier measure. We're going to set aside 15 minutes for callers to put their name on the record in support or opposition to ACA 1. Just their name and affiliation, if any. Support or opposition. Moderator if you can begin.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You may press 10. If you would like to comment, we will go to line 261. You may go ahead.

My name is Eva Meyer. I'm a California taxpayer since 1966 and a homeowner in Riverside since 1985. I vehemently oppose ACA 1. Next we go to line 256. Line 256, you may go ahead. Your line is open. We will move on to 283.

Good morning. Kate Laddish of the nonpartisan democracy winters in strong support.

Next is line 203. Line 203, you are open. You may go ahead.

Good morning, Chair, Members. This is Sharon Rapport with Corporation for Supportive Housing in strong support. Thank you.

Next is line 105.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters, California, in strong support. Thank you.

Next is line 201.

Yes, good morning. This is Roth with Londonfeld calling in strong support on behalf of YIMBI Action in our 19 chapters and affiliates, including East Bay YIMBI, Mountain View YIMBI, Northern Neighbors, Peninsula for Everyone, San Francisco YIMBI, Santa Cruz YIMBI, Santa Rosa YIMBI, San Luis Obispo County YIMBI, Urban Environmentalist, Rosa, Richmond, Ventura County YIMBI, Streets for People, South Side Forward, How to ADU, People for Housing, Orange County Progress, Noe Valley South YIMBI and Napa Solana for Everyone, thank you.

Next we go to 268.

Hello. My name is Carol Borgio, Oxnard, California. I am against this movement. Thank you very much.

Next is line 303. Line 303, go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members, Sylvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the city of Santa Monica and the City of West Hollywood in support thank you.

Next is line 311.

My name is Ron Bell. I'm a California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 1.

Next is line 333.

Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members Moira Topp. On behalf of the City of San Diego in support.

Next is line 301.

Good morning. My name is Inga Lorenzen Doimer. I'm a fixed income senior citizen homeowner and I strongly oppose ACA 1. Thank you.

Next is line 310.

Hi, David Watson, homeowner, California resident and Mountain View YIMBY Member, in support.

Next is line 314.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Ryan Joy. I'm a member of House Sacramento and a resident of Davis calling in support of ACA 1.

Next is line 290.

Hi, this is Bobby Garrity from Redlands and California Envy calling in support of ACA 1.

Next is 300.

Good morning. Tracy Rye, Royal County Representative of California, in support.

Next is 349.

Yes, this is Eli Lipman. I am a taxpayer and a homeowner and I think ACA 1 is a fantastic idea and I'm calling on behalf of Move LA.

Next is line 330.

Yes. My name is Elliot Gittleman. I'm a retired fire protection engineer, taxpayer, and resident of San Francisco. I am strongly opposed to ACA 1 as this will greatly increase taxes on homeowners.

Next is 351. You are open, you may go ahead.

Jeremy Levine here, representing inclusive Lafayette and the Contra Costa Young Democrats. We are very supportive of this Bill.

Thank you. Next is line 373.

Hi, my name is Adam Bookbinder. I'm a taxpayer, I'm a homeowner, I'm a parent, I'm a worker from the South Bay and I am in support of ACA 1. Thank you.

Next is 370.

Good morning, my name is Mark Watts, rep transportation California, and a broad coalition of the transportation industry in strong support of this measure. Thank you very much.

Next is 357.

This is Sandra King, taxpayer. Opposed.

Next is line 258.

Hi. My name is Brenda Dolman. I represent families in home San Jose and we are opposed ACA 1 and ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 160. Line 160, you are open, you may go ahead. We will move on to line 279.

Hi. Hello. My name is Victor Reyes. Victor Reyes and I'm calling from the Valley Industry and Commerce Association calling in opposition to ACA 13 and ACA One. Thank you.

Next we are on line 152.

Deborah Olsen, taxpayer in opposition.

Next we go to 149.

Good morning, David Azevedo with AARP, California in support.

Next we go to 231.

Good morning. This is Missy. I'm a Member of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association and I'm vehemently opposed to ACA 1 and ACA 13.

Next we go to line 53. Line 53, you are open.

Yes, this is Denny Zane from Santa Monica Renters Rights urging you to support ACA 1.

Next we go to line 180.

Hello? Someone there?

Yeah, we can hear you. Go ahead, please.

Okay. This is Maria Rodriguez opposed to ACA 13 and ACA 1. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please, is line 305. This is Lisa Dan, the taxpayer and resident of Springfield, California in support. Next we have line 298.

My name is Robert Risey. I'm a California taxpayer here in Riverside County, and I strongly oppose ACA 1 and ACA 13.

Next is line 223.

Hello?

Go ahead.

Hello?

Go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. This is Naomi Harper and California taxpayer. I oppose both ACA 1 and ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 297. 297. You may go ahead. We will move on to line 285.

My name is Sharon Kramer, a lifelong California resident. Finding it unaffordable for all my family. I am strongly opposed to ACA 1 and ACA 13.

Next is line 383.

This is Mike Frida. I'm a self employed taxpayer here in California and I strongly oppose ACA 1 and ACA 13. Thank you.

Next we go to line 241.

Line 241. Your line is open. You may go ahead. Hello, go ahead. Hello, you may go ahead. Hello, sir, your line is open. We can hear you. You may go ahead.

Can you hear Tracy Sizemore? Yeah, we can hear you. Just your name and your position, please, sir. Yes, retired civil servant, property tax owner here in Orange County, in opposition ACA 1 and ACA 13. Thank you so much. You have a good morning. Thank you. You too.

Next is line 360, Carol Morgan, retired California taxpayer and homeowner. I strongly oppose ACA 1 and ACA 13. Thank you. Next we go to 354.

My name is Marsha Fairball. I am a taxpayer. I strongly oppose next is 346.

My name is Jim Hathway. I'm a taxpayer in California and strongly opposed ACA 13 and ACA 1. Thank you.

Next is 187. Your line is open. You may go ahead. We will move on to line 348. Trudy. Connor, California adamantly opposed to ACA 13 and ACA. 1.

Thank you. Next caller, please. We're only discussing ACA 1. For those who are on the phone lines.

Thank you. Next is 378.

Chuck Pacey, California Taxpayer. I oppose thank you. Next is 345.

Hello? We can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. My name is Joseph Segura and I strongly oppose great, thank you very much.

Next is 335. 335. Your line is open. You may go ahead. Hello?

Yeah, we can hear you. Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Michelle Tomlin. California taxpayer strongly opposed ACA 1.

Great. Thank you very much.

Next caller, please is 380.

Thomas Smith, Lafayette, California strongly opposed ACA 13.

Next is 164, line 164. You may go ahead. We will move on to 386.

Yes, good morning. Jordan Grimes, on behalf of the Green Belt Alliance, lifelong California taxpayer in strong support of ACA 1. Thank you so much.

Next is 323. Hi, my name is Michelle Fortune, homeowner, and taxpayer, strongly opposed to ACA 1. Next is 127.

Richard Sanders, taxpayer San Diego County, and strongly opposed ACA number 1. Thank you.

Next is 334 Linda Hill, California taxpayer strongly opposed ACA 1. Next is 352. Good morning.

My name is Ines Rosales, calling on behalf of public advocates in support of ACA 1. Thank you. Next is 269.

Hi, my name is Vivian Baron, homeowner former public school teacher and California native, and I strongly oppose ACA 1 and ACA 13 only because the more money.

That seems to thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Next is line 376.

Thank you.

Line 376. You may go ahead. Susan Papaw, California taxpayer and homeowners retired Orange County, California. I strongly oppose no on ACA 1.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please is 359 Lorena Legitimo, native, Californian, California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 1. Thank you, 391. You may go ahead.

My name is Deborah Derocher from Sutter County. I'm a taxpayer realtor and a Member of the Sutter Yuba Taxpayers Association strongly opposing ACA 13 ACA 1.

Thank you very much. Moderator we're going to take one more call, and we've reached our 15 minutes limit. Very good.

That's line. 312.

Crown with Housing Matters in Santa Cruz calling in support of ACA 1.

Great. Thank you very much. So that's going to complete our teleconference testimony today. If you were not able to get through on the phone lines, we welcome your indication of support or opposition to the committee. Information is available on our website.

All right, before we bring it back to the committee, I want to ask the representative of the Realtors to come back up and clarify her testimony earlier today, where you indicated you were opposed unless amended, and wanted to ask if you'd be comfortable sharing some of the amendments that you'd like to see in the measure.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors. What we would like to see is a limitation of the acquisition of single-family One to four parcels within the Bill. With that language provided on page seven, line ten. As noted in our letter, we would remove our opposition to Ace 1.

Great. Thank you. And that's the only thing you're asking?

That's correct.

Okay, good. Thank you very much, Vanessa. Okay, we're going to bring it back. I did want to give the author an opportunity to speak to that particular request. If you have thoughts about.

I want to agree with the Realtors is that we were working with them. They came to us a little bit late, like late, and we wanted to make sure that we could have the discussion about the amendment that they requested. And that's why we have some cleanup legislation in ACA 1 so that we can work on things in addition to so I completely agree with the Realtors that we don't want ACA 1 funding to compete with average homebuyers. We received language from them last night.

We'll consult with the Housing Committee and consultants from the other appropriate committees with the hope of coming to an agreement. And for the record, it is my intent to reach an agreement based on the conversation we've had. And I feel like we can work together to get that. So my intent is to continue to work forward, and I'm happy to state for the record that we will work on this together.

And this is on a limitation on the acquisition of parcels of one to four.

That's correct. That's correct.

Okay. All right. I want to bring the matter to the committee for comments or questions. Members, comments or questions. Senator Umberg?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assembly Member. We are curry for your work on this issue. Really important issue. A couple points. One is I understand that this still permits a minority of voters to thwart the will of majority of voters.

Okay, number one. Number two is that one of the two items of great interest to me personally and I think to legislatures. Care Court. Care Court is the proposal to provide for basically a court to order things like housing when you've got someone who's schizophrenic and often homeless, as I understand, this would be helpful in terms of creating additional housing.

Absolutely. It would be very helpful providing additional housing. So it's up to the again, like, to the voters have to be specific on what they want, and it has to go to the voters, and they can determine if that's important to their community or not.

And I also understand that number of cities that support in my own area anaheim, Buena Park, and Irvine have all weighed in favor of this because of their need for additional affordable housing. Your understanding also?

All right.

Yes, it is.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Yeah. And I appreciate their support.

Thank you. All right. Other comments or questions? Assembly Member one of the concerns that had been raised was that this was a last minute Bill. I pulled up the Bill here in actual form. It says it was introduced on December 5, 2022. Was it in substantially the same form as we're seeing it today?

We've added a lot more accountability and transparency on the Bill, and that was the things that people had asked us for before. And so, as you can see, I've tried to run this numerous times, and we just keep honing in on what our constituents have asked for.

So, as you can see, there's a list of a million things of what we have done to make sure that we keep the expenditures down, that we keep an aye on it, that the locals get to be part of the decision making. So we've really honed it down. And so, yes, is it tighter than it was in January or in 2022? Absolutely right.

But thank you for sharing that. And I was really trying to get to the point that this is not something that just came up out of the blue, that you've advanced this in previous years. And the Bill that we're hearing today is a Bill that you introduced last December.

That's correct.

Although you've enhanced it, as you've mentioned, at the essence of the lowering the threshold is something that's been on the record for a while.

And one of the things that's important to me is to make sure I get as many voices at the table to discuss this. And that's what we've done. And I'm really confident, and I think this is an incredible legislation that's going to help change our communities. Yesterday, I sat down with a young man who's the mayor of my little city, and he had questions about it. And when I said, well, we have an issue with Chrome Six in Winters.

How are you going to take care of that? And he just went, I don't know. And I said, well, this will give us an opportunity to upgrade our sewer and water systems. And so I think many communities are in the same boat that I am. In my little communities about different things. We have to deal with sewer and water.

I appreciate hearing that. A question that has come up is to as I understand it, there's an accompanying legislation to place this on the November ballot of 2024.

So how would you address the issue that we don't really need to act on this today? This could be something that we could work on next year in time for that ballot and allow for further conversations and potentially compromises to still take place.

That's correct.

If we don't move on this now. There is initiative pending out there. A group of individuals want to run an initiative and they would start signature gathering soon, probably by the end of September. My concern is that when we have legislation, we have some control over it and we can put in these guardrails. And so the initiative and the people that are willing to do that are just sitting on the sidelines in hopes that this will get passed rather than running an initiative.

Okay, so from your point of view, it allows us, the Legislature, to have more control over this measure and any adjustments of the measure. So in other words, as you continue to talk with those who have concerns, you would be in a position to amend this measure next year.

Absolutely.

Prior to the measure being placed on the ballot.

Absolutely.

Okay, all right, well, I've appreciated all of our conversations that we've had on this issue. This is not a new issue we've heard from. I certainly was a local government official and had to deal with the higher threshold for special taxes. And I know how that can be frustrating when you get more than a majority and still not able to have that type of local control. And for those who know me, that's a very big deal with me.

I think that while the concerns have been raised that this raises taxes, this measure in and of itself doesn't raise anything. It simply places a measure on the ballot for the voters to decide. And if the voters decide to lower the threshold, that doesn't raise taxes either. It's going to be a local choice on any future measure as to whether taxes are raised or lowered. And I find that to be fairly compelling.

I also want to compliment you for all the oversight and accountability provisions that you put in. I don't think I've ever seen a measure that has more oversight and accountability provisions than what is in ACA 1. And I know that came out of your own desire to make sure that there's high confidence in the choices that are made and accountability in the choices that are made and the transparency where taxes ever to be raised. And so for those reasons and your commitment to continuing to work with the opposition that I'm going to support the Bill today.

Thank you very much.

Any further comments or questions from Members looking for a motion? Senator Menjivar has moved the Bill. This would be that the measure be adopted and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Do you want to close?

I will make it easy and simply ask for your aye vote. Thank thank you you very much.

All right, the secretary please call the roll.

Senators Glazer aye. Nguyen no. Allen. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Newman. Umberg. Newman No. Umberg aye.

We're going to put that measure on call for an absent Member. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you very much.

Okay. All right, we're going to move to our last item on the agenda. This is ACA 6 by Assemblymember Haney. Welcome to the committee. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you and good morning, Chair and Committee Members. I am here today to present ACA 6, a constitutional amendment that would address basic labor standards for the over 200,000 people who perform work at the University of California, our state's third-largest employer. Just like all of you, I am a huge supporter and champion, and beneficiary of the University of California. I'm not only a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, I grew up in UC student family housing.

My mom went to UC Berkeley. My dad has been a professor at UC Santa Cruz for over 50 years. My sister went to UC Davis. I served for years as the Executive Director of the UC Student Association and currently represent two UC campuses in my district fighting to strengthen and support the UC, its students, its patients, its staff, its missions, its impact is in my blood. This constitutional amendment is in that tradition.

It will strengthen the University, ensuring that it continues to be a beacon of opportunity, innovation, and advancement for all of the state's residents, whether they attend courses there, receive care there, or rely on the University as one of our state's largest employers.

Right now, neither the Governor nor this Legislature, including any of us elected representatives, have the Executive or Legislative authority on behalf of our constituents to ensure basic labor standards apply to or enforced at the UC due to a 150-year-old outdated provision of the state constitution. The result of that is the over 200,000 Californians performing work at the university do not enjoy the same basic labor protections that we extend to every other employee in our state.

Public and private courts have ruled and the University of California has asserted, that critical basic labor laws passed by this Legislature, like equal pay standards, payment of minimum wage, rest and break laws, and occupational health and safety standards, do not apply to the UC or to their workers.

This outdated exemption puts them outside of the scope of critical basic labor protections that we extend to every other employee and employer in our state Californians who are currently not covered by basic labor standards include underpaid service and maintenance workers who clean toilets, Bedpans, pick up trash, cook food, perform clerical functions, and maintain buildings. The university has stated, and I think they should be commended for following the large majority of these labor laws that should be applauded.

But at the same time, they've repeatedly gone into court and prevailed on asserting immunity from those same standards, including, most recently in 2021 in cases related to minimum wage orders and the Equal Pay Act. In fact, the women who brought these violations were not even allowed to present their case in court because of this outdated exemption.

Even if the UC follows many of these labor laws, when there isn't complete clarity or even disputes over whether these workers are covered by basic labor laws, there are clearly problems that arise and are easily predictable for any employer who would exempt themselves from these laws. Not only with these laws not being followed, but also workers being unclear or left in the dark about their rights.

More contentious labor negotiations that can result in strikes like the one that we saw last year, there are, frankly, some protections that should not have to be bargained for. While we've been asked why we can't deal with this legislatively, unfortunately, because of this constitutional amendment, we have to go to the Constitution in order to address this issue. This ACA would not address or impact other critical areas of constitutional autonomy that the UC enjoys, including as it relates to academic freedom.

This amendment would extend current standards that apply to the public institutions, but it would not set those in stones. If there are particular unique circumstances or flexibility that we would like to provide to the university on labor or contracting or anything else, we have the full authority to do that on behalf of our constituents. I also want to be clear on one last thing. There is nothing about this constitutional amendment that prevents the University from contracting out when needed.

It does not prevent contracting out, period, and does not apply to current contracts. If passed, the UC would be covered under the same state contracting provisions we've passed that apply to CSU, the state state hospitals, and are very similar to those the UC currently has in policy. The amendment, as well as the state contracting code explicitly allows for exceptions if a situation is urgent, temporary, or occasional, as well as nine other permissive uses of outside contracting, including if the functions cannot be accomplished otherwise.

If this Legislature wants to give further flexibility beyond the state contracting code or even adopting what the UC currently has, we would still be able to do that under this amendment. This ACA has broad bipartisan support. It passed out of the Assembly with the support of over 60 Democrats, along with the support of the Republican leader of the Assembly. We love the University of California. I know all of you do as well. We invest on behalf of our constituents billions of public dollars.

We wouldn't allow any other employer to be exempt from such critical laws as the Equal Pay Act. That doesn't help the UC or its mission. And we should give Californians the option to weigh in on whether they think this 150 year old outdated exemption should remain. This does not mean that you necessarily even support this amendment. It just means that we need to give Californians the opportunity to weigh in on it themselves. We've made clarifying amendments that this ACA is about public sector, not private sector.

And with me here to testify in support today is Kathryn Lybarger, the President of AskMe 3299.

Very good. Thank you, Assemblymember Haney. We invite your witness to come up again as the rules for all the measures that have come before us. Two minutes, two individuals on each side. Ms. Lybarger, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good morning. Kathryn Lybarger, President of AFSME 32 99 representing service workers at the University of California in support. Article Nine. Section Nine of the state constitution was adopted nearly 150 years ago before basic labor standards were in place. Equal pay for women, minimum wage, overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, sick leave, prevailing wages, and restrictions on outsourcing of jobs. This outdated provision of the state constitution has allowed UC to repeatedly prevail in court and keep 250,000 Californians excluded from basic state labor standards.

ACA 6 is about consistency and parity. No other workers are forced to bargain for the basic labor standards every other Californian has and no other employer is granted immunity from those basic standards. California voters have kept our state's constitution as a living document. We have amended it over 500 times. We request the Senate's consideration of ACA 6 to allow California voters to change this provision. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there another witness that you have, sir?

No.

Okay, then we want to invite up those who would like to put their name on the record in support of this measure to come forward and just their name, affiliation, and position of support.

Good morning. Nick Cruz of the California Labor Federation. We're proud to co sponsor ACA 13. Thank you. Or Six. Sorry, there's so many this morning. Thank you, sir.

Melissa Bebee. I work at UC Davis Medical Center with California Nurses Association in strong support.

Thank you.

Elia Griffin with AskMe in support.

Thank you very much. Are there others here in the hearing room that would like to put their name on the record? Please come forward. Hello.

Gustavo Baron, work at UC Davis Medical Center patient transport. And I support ACA 6. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members. Beverly Yu, on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Jason Neemy, AskMe 32-99, work. At University of California, San Francisco as the surgical technician in the operating room in strong support of ACA 6. Thank you.

Diana Robles with 3299 food service worker at the UC Davis Hospital in support.

Thank you Chair and Members Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT and UC-AFT, our local proud to co-sponsor. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in the hearing room would like to put their name on the record? Seeing none, we're going to go to the opposition side now. Going to invite those who would like to speak in opposition to come to the microphone. Following that, we will go to the phone lines where we'll allocate 15 minutes to hear from those in support or in opposition. Yes, please introduce yourself.

Matt Brock on behalf of the California Teamsters Amalgamated Transit Union. Machinists unite here. Utility workers and ESC in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. John Chavan, California Nurses Association and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. My name is Katherine Newman. I am the Provost and Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs at the University of California and on behalf of UC President Michael Drake I'm here in opposition to ACA 6. ACA 6 is unnecessary and if passed, will significantly impede the university's ability to function as an educational, research and healthcare institution. With rare exception, UC already meets and often exceeds the labor standards required by state law, including those mentioned in the Bill.

Our workers are protected by many state statutes, collective bargaining agreements and UC's own extensive employee policies. The University of California strives to be a good employer and a reliable partner with our labor unions and all of our employees. During the Pandemic, for example, UC went to great lengths to protect thousands of employees at a time when many other organizations were making cuts.

The issues that Assemblymember Haney seeks to resolve through ACA 6 can be appropriately and efficiently addressed at the bargaining table or even through bills not the ballot box. For example, UC employees are covered by a number of recent bills extending specific labor protections including untimely payment of wages, contracting for services, and meal and rest breaks. These are all items mentioned in ACA 6 and none of them require a constitutional amendment.

ACA 6 would treat the University of California differently from every higher education entity in the state, both public and private. The university would be held to one set of labor and employment laws while other universities in California receive accommodations that allow them to pursue their academic, clinical, and research functions. In fact, the state expressly excludes the CSU system from many of the same requirements that ACA would impose. ACA 6 may also endanger the university's contract with the US. Department of Labor's, lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

That laboratory is currently engaged in a host of research topics that include Quantum Information Systems, clean energy, carbon management, microelectronics and artificial intelligence. Because we are once again at the cutting edge applying the world's best and brightest minds for the peaceful, scalable solutions to climate change and other challenges. UC employees already have appropriate and robust rights in the workplace. They have protected complaint and grievance mechanisms to ensure that those rights are enforceable.

The university stands ready to collaborate with legislators and with our union partners on identifying any specific labor needs that need to be addressed and in finding reasonable solutions. I am confident that we can find common ground and a path forward to support our employees and enable us to fulfill our mission without harming the UC.

Finally, ACA risks UC's academic autonomy in a way that could inject politics into lecture halls and doctor's offices at a time when politics is eclipsing facts and scholarship in classrooms and hospitals across the country. I, too, am a UC graduate three times over with nine or ten faculty, minor, ten family Members who've enjoyed the same privilege. What I want to do is see that UC remains strong, truly the envy of every other university on the planet because of its independence.

What the Assembly Member has called a 150 year outdated tradition is the reason why the University of California remains the envy of the world in terms of its quality. It is that very independence that guarantees our ability to remain the gem that the state of California depends on. I know that the families who send their young people to us will thank you for remaining true to that vision. And for all those reasons, I respectfully ask you to vote no on ACA 6. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Ms. Newman. Are there others here that did you want to testify? Because you only have about 30 seconds remaining and we welcome your testimony. Yes.

So good morning. Thank you, Chairman. I'm Talmadge King. I'm the interim Executive Vice President of UC Health. And I'm dean of the UCSF School of Medicine. UC Health oversees all six academic health centers within the UC system. As the nation's leading academic health system. The UC Medical Centers provide patients and communities across our state with health care for everyday needs and the most specialized services for complex diseases, illnesses and injuries often offering unique care not available anywhere else.

In order for to provide the needed capacity to take care of patients when they most need it. For example, during the recent COVID-19 patient surges and last winter when UC's children's hospitals was overrun with RSV flu and COVID vaccine COVID patients sir, I'm sorry.

To interrupt, but I'll ask you to summarize. I'm trying to be fair on all sides here so you can just speak to the essence of why you oppose this measure.

ACA 6 will harm patient care at UCSF and other UC medical centers as it introduces cumbersome state contracting regulations that are not tailored to the unique demands of the hospitals like ours.

Okay, very good. And there may be a follow-up question on that. So stay tuned. All right. I want to provide those who want to put their name on the record in opposition to this measure to come forward to the microphone and just provide their name and affiliation, if any, and their position in opposition. Yes sir?

Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McCauly on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the California association of public hospitals and health systems. In opposition.

Thank you. Chairman Glazer and Members. Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council, representing over 300 major employers in the Bay Area, in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members. Janet Lopez, representing Chancellor Jean Block and UCLA in opposition.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members. Dominic Demari. Here on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. In opposition.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members, Robert Mutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce and a proud Berkeley Grad in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Jasmine Diego with UCLA Health System in opposition.

Good morning. My name is Miguel Martinez. I'm here on behalf of Chancellor Carol Christ from UC Berkeley in strong opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Caitlin Shea with UC San Diego on behalf of Chancellor Khosla and Health CEO Patty Mason, we oppose.

Thank you.

Good morning. Cami Alden on behalf of Chancellor Sam Hawgood and CEO and President Suresh Gunasekaran at UCSF in opposition.

Thank you.

Tam Ma, on behalf of UC Health and our six academic health centers in opposition.

Thank you.

Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. I apologize for being out of order. We are in support.

Okay, I want to invite one last opportunity for anybody here in the hearing room who is in opposition to come forward. All right, seeing now we'll go to the phone lines. We've set aside 15 minutes maximum to hear from those in favor or against ACA 6. So, moderator, would you ask those who would like to put their name on the record on ACA 6 to please so indicate?

Yes. Thank you. And I apologize. If you've already pressed one, then zero, please do so again at this time. Thank you. We'll go to line 432, please. Go ahead.

Why are you cutting the people out? Thousands of people could not even get through on ACA 1, and now you're limiting public comments. Again, you're welcome to put your name on the record in favor of people speak, because the moderator go on to the next call, and you won't even take the phone line.

Next caller, please.

Next. We'll go to line 496, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Cesar Gomez. On behalf of UC Riverside, chancellor Kim Wilcox in strong opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 50. Six, please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Kirsten Deshler. I'm calling on. Behalf of UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Henry Yang in strong opposition to ACA 6. Thank you.

Line 471, go ahead, please.

Good morning, this is Beth Rossner calling on behalf of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce in Berkeley, California. We respectfully oppose.

Line 279, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Victor Reyes with VICA: Valley Industry and Commerce Association. In opposition to ACA 6.

Line 468, go ahead, please.

Hi. Melissa Watley. On behalf of UC Santa Cruz and Chancellor Louis calling in opposition to ACA 6. Thank you.

Line 389, please go ahead.

UCLA Center for Accessible Education I opposed.

Line 418, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Lauren Arnett with the North Valley Labor Federation in strong support of ACA 6.

Line 181, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Alia Sky on behalf of the UC Student Association, which represents over 230,000 UC undergraduates. We are in strong, strong support of this.

Line 216, please go ahead.

Good morning. Cori Lucero. On behalf of UC Merced Chancellor Juan Sanchez Munoz in opposition to ACA 6.

Line 288, please go ahead.

Morning, Merce Wu on behalf of UAW locals 2865 and 5810, representing 48,000 academic workers at UC in strong support.

Line 443, please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Andrew Martinez. I'm a senior custodian from UCLA, and I am in strong support of ACA 6. Thank you.

Line 467, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Dr. Perez with the CIR Union, which represents 8000 resident physicians in the UC in strong support of ACA 6.

Line 514, please go ahead.

This is Jackson up here with the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and we are in strong opposition to this measure.

Line 173, please go ahead.

Line 173, please go ahead. Good morning, this is Denise Nitter on behalf of the LA. County Business Federation or BizFed, in opposition, line 487, please go ahead.

Lauren T. Johnson, UCSD Medical Center, Shipping and Receiving. We are in strong support of ACA 6. Thank you very much.

Line 286, please go ahead. This is Mia McIver. I'm a faculty member at UCLA and I'm calling on behalf of University Council, American Federation of Teachers, local 1474. The 7000 faculty and librarians of UCAFT Local 1474 strongly support ACA 6 We're confident it will support and enhance.

Thank you very much for your excellent testimony. Next caller, please.

Line 136, please go ahead.

Kundu, undergraduate student of UC Santa Barbara, in strong support of ACA 6. Thank you very much.

Line 466, please go ahead. Hi, my name is Dr. Amber Gautam with the CIR/SEIU, which represents over 8000 resident physicians in the UC in strong support of ACA 6. Thank you. Line 470, please go ahead.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Moira Topp on behalf of Orange County Business Council in opposition, line 451, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Bridget Browning from the San Diego Imperial County's Labor Council in strong support line 554. Please go ahead. Line 55 please go ahead. Okay, then.

Hello, is your line muted? Yes, go ahead. Line 54.

This is Delvin Lucas with UC Riverside. I am in strong support of ACA 6.

Thank you. Line 428, please go ahead. Hi. Anne Megaro on behalf of the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources in opposition to ACA 6. Line 509, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is David Ramirez, undergraduate student at UCLA. On behalf of the Undergraduate Student Association Council at UCLA. It's the general Vice President's office of representing all undergraduate students there in strong support of ACA 6.

Line 479, please go ahead. Hi, my name is Agnes Bolos from UCSF Medical Center up to 3299, and I'm in support of ACA 6. Line 525, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. Rony Berdugo here on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition to ACA 6. Thank you.

Line 519, please go ahead. I don't know what happened, but they got themselves out of queue. There are no more in queue at this time.

All right, we'll just give it one last chance. Moderator, ask if anyone wants to put their name on the record one last time.

Yes, thank you. Please press one, then zero. Line 519, please go ahead. You should stay till midnight to hear the will of the people. You have no right.

Thank you very much.

You don't want to hear from the people, and the people know what's going on. And you know what? Line 180, please go ahead.

Hi, someone there?

We can hear you. Go ahead. Yes, name an affiliation and position, please.

My name is Maria Rodriguez. I'm a resident of LA County and I oppose.

Thank you thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Line 534, please go ahead. Your line is open.

Yes. Hi, I'm calling on behalf of. Yes, go ahead. Continue. I'm calling in strong support of ACA 6 from UC San Diego. This is Isaac Zamora, respiratory therapist. Thank you so much. Next caller, please.

Thank you. Next. We'll go to line 297, please go ahead.

Is that me?

That is you, yes.

Thank you. My name is Mike Giles. K12 educator. For decades I'm opposed to ACA. 6. Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 463, please go ahead. My name is Rosa Avalos. I work for UC Irvine and strong support ACA 6. And I'm from AskMe 3299.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 423, please go ahead. Hello. My name is Tynisha. I'm a unit coordinator from UC Davis Medical Center in strong support of ACA 6.

Thank you. Thank you. Line 536, please go ahead.

Hi. My name is John Hawley. I live in San Diego and I'm opposed to ACA 13. Thank you. Next caller, please.

Thank you. We have three more in queue. One moment. 495, please go ahead.

Jacob Nile, of University of California, Los Angeles in strong support of ACA 6.

Thank you. There's two more in queue. One moment. Line 478, please go ahead. Yes. My name is Denise Nevin. I'm a California resident and I strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you. There are no more in queue at this. Thank you.

And moderators no, that's fine. And thank you for your work today. I appreciate it. All right, we're going to bring the matter back to the committee for comments and questions. I did want to provide an opportunity for I don't know if it's the dean or the executive at the health center to answer a question I had about contracting out. Part of the assertions that are being made under this Bill is that still to place in our Constitution basic labor standards. Can you speak to the issue of contracting out and how that fits in and what kind of impact that might have in your health center?

So we augment our unionized workforce with contract labor to meet temporary and urgent staffing needs. For example, when UCSF used contract labor during the COVID-19 patient surges and again last winter when our children's hospitals were overrun with RSV flu and COVID patients, in order to provide needed capacity, we had to quickly deport contact restorative therapists, nurses and other workers.

Moreover, we have service contracts to repair and maintain very complex devices like MRI scanners, CT scanners, robots and ultrasound machines. Without the freedom to swiftly contract for these services, patients would have faced delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Thank you, sir. And let me go back to the author on that question. In this contracting out that the individual just spoke about, it's my understanding that all those folks that were contracted out have to follow all the state labor standards. Can you speak to that sure.

Well, and I appreciate that the language that was used in those situation was urgent or temporary, which is language that is in our state contracting code currently. So nothing that was described there would be prohibited in any way from being contracted out under the state contracting code. So I think none of those things would have been prevented if ACA 6 passes.

And in fact, if ACA 6 passes, the Legislature on behalf of our constituents could set those exact policies that the UC regents have in place currently. And nothing prohibits us from being adaptive if ACA 6 passes with the contracting that we allow for. But again, nothing that was described there would be prohibited in any way by ACA 6.

Right, but there's an assertion that's being made that the contracting out that somehow that this measure is all about basic labor standards. In any of the contracting out examples, could any of those individuals not follow our labor standards in the state? Is there any protections that UC contracting out means that those folks that have been contracted with don't have to follow our basic labor standards?

Well, it's the people who work for the UC right now who don't have. To follow the basic I know, but I'm speaking about contracting out because your measure goes way beyond to me, basic labor standards says you now can't contract out except under a narrow provision. I'm trying to understand whether contracting out through the University of California would somehow exempt them from any of our basic labor standards.

Well, certainly I think most of us at least I would view issues of contracting out of public functions from public institutions as an issue of basic labor standards. If you are contracting out functions that are being done by public employees and should be done by public employees, sometimes that contracting out is happening because they're paying less for that same work that is a basic labor.

But wouldn't those contractors have to meet all of our laws and standards that you yourself legislate? Minimum wage, sick leave, rest breaks, equal pay aren't those still in effect on any kind of contracting out provision?

They would. And contracting out is not prohibited by ACA 6. Although I do find it a bit ironic that we are proud to say that these private contractors are going to follow laws that the UC is not required to follow. But what this would allow for is that same type of contracting out. But it would ensure that both the workers at the UC and those who are contracted out to are following those same basically.

So let me go back to UC, maybe to answer that specific assertion that contracting out under state law that this measure would require you to follow is consistent with your standards of contracting out at the University of California.

Senator, may I answer that question on behalf of the University of California?

You identify yourself for the record, please.

Jason Murphy University Office of the President. What I would want to say is the concerns the University has raised regards to the ACA 6 Provisions affect Contract Now For Services is that this constitutional amendment would make the University applicable to a whole new set of processes and standards whereby, under government code current government code provisions that currently apply to state agencies, the University would have to propose or share our proposed contracts or services with the State Personnel Board.

State Personnel Board then has the opportunity, if asked by unions that are affected by those contracts, to review those contracts, to determine whether or not they meet the government code provisions for appropriateness and so forth. Those government code provisions the State Personnel Board have to follow start out first and foremost seeking to determine whether or not the contract saves money.

The University of California, certainly by virtue of the adoption of Regents Policy 54 two a few years back, which provides for wage and benefit parity for all of our contracted staff, have contracts in place now, contracts for services that frankly don't save money. So we're very concerned that the provisions that apply to the state personnel process don't apply that's what was noted in the Provost comments and the Dean's comments earlier. The overlay of the ACA 6 on the University doesn't make sense in light of our clinical and academic standing.

Okay, thank you very much. I want to go to colleagues for questions or comments. Colleagues, questions or comments. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to add, since we all shared our credentials, I am also benefited from this prestigious public institution as a graduate product of UCLA. And with that, it's really upsetting to see that as a woman, the women that are cleaning these universities that are doing so much work, they are not being able to get paid in parity to their male counterparts. The opposition stated in even analysis that this is signaling out the UC.

Well, with all due respect, this is the only institution that we have to signal out because when we pass laws here and I'll read them everything in relation to education, it's always we're mandating CSUS. We're mandating our California community colleges. But the language for UCs is also what we also then recommend for the UC to implement this because no one here in the dais can do anything to mandate UCs to follow any of the legislation that we pass.

So it's necessary to pass ACA 6 to ensure the basic state labor standards. And page three of the analysis really stood out to me because the things that were described on page three of A through H of what is needed are literally basic, basic, basic. The President, in her support testimony, mentioned this. I just want to say these again because this is what we're fighting for and this is what we're going to be voting for.

The payment of a minimum wage, the timely payment of wages, meal and rest breaks, paid leave, including paid sick leave. These are the things that are allotted to every single person here that are allotted to everyone outside of those working for the UC system. This isn't asking for an extra bone. This is the bare minimum that our employees deserve to have. This is what ACA 6 is standing for.

And in two days, the regents are going to be voting to purchase a close to $12 million home for the President. That's what they're voting for in the same week that they're having opposition for minimum standards. So for my colleagues here, it's an important moment to tell the state of California, our constituents, our employees, so many that live in my district who travel the 101 and the four or five to get to UCLA, LA Senoras, that go and clean, to say, we stand with you and support you getting the minimum wage.

And for that, I urge my colleagues to go up on this ACA and stand with those that are literally breaking their backs to let our future kids go to UCLA and hopefully my future kids, an education that I hold so highly. I urge everyone here to vote. I on ACA six.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar, any other comments or questions from colleagues? I want to give Assembly Member an opportunity to close.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Senator Allen, I do apologize.

I want to say that obviously we've had a number of ACAs that have come before the Legislature over the past few years that have come really close to getting onto the ballot. The same arguments are brought up about concerns about conditions within the university and then, of course, folks on the UC side talking about the importance of the independence and the sovereignty that the university has under ACA under Article Nine.

I remember there was a time when the board was far more conservative and really did not reflect the diversity of the state. And there has been long efforts over a long period of time to get a more diverse and Board of Regents, and that effort is still very much underway. The board includes folks including the former political Director of the California Labor Federation. So I've heard a lot from university folks who've come back to us saying, please don't put this into the Constitution.

I'm going to support the Chair today on that grounds. But I will say that it's really important to me that the university take a long, hard look at the issues that have been raised in the context of this debate and be responsive. Several times in the past, similar Acas have been brought forward, and then ultimately a deal was struck between the union 1399 and the university over contracting out and a couple of other issues. And it's my strong hope that that will happen here.

Again, I don't think the university obviously, if the measure goes through, that's one thing. If it doesn't go through, I think the university needs to see this as this debate as a very serious warning about how much the Legislature takes seriously the issues and concerns that have been raised with regards to labor standards within the university and fairness. It's my hope that no matter what happens, there's going to be a really robust negotiation and conversation around the table.

The Board of Regents over the fall about addressing a number of the big issues that have been raised in the context of this debate, and I'm going to be watching it very closely. I can only assume that my colleagues will be doing the same. We may very well be back again in the new year if there hasn't been a good discussion between the union and the university.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Senator. Assemblymember Haney. Senator Menjivar. Yes.

I would have assumed the UC would have taken this seriously in 2019 when they were sued, they were sued or attempted to be sued because for years this has been happening. So to my colleague in West LA, I would say this is an ongoing conversation. And to think that they will take it serious now, if they haven't done it for the past couple of years, I don't know what else is needed.

I mean, in 2019, the courts said that they're exempt from the statutes regulating the wages and benefits of workers. If that wasn't an enough warning. Outside of this, I'm not sure what else will be.

All right. I want to give Assemblymember Haney the opportunity to close, but I would note that a court saying that they don't have to doesn't mean that they aren't doing. There's a difference there, and it's an important difference. Assemblymember Haney, would you like to provide your closing argument?

Yes. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the Members for your comments and appreciate everything that has been said. I want to thank everyone from the universities who's here, both the leadership of the university and also the many people who are here who do the work every day to make the university run. This is about making sure we fulfill our responsibility to the people who are served by the university and people who work there.

Right now, we are prohibited from on behalf of our constituents, ensuring that they have a voice in these standards and protections that we've decided are a bare minimum for everyone else in our state. This is not a small employer. This is the third largest employer in the state. There are over 200,000 people who work at the university, many millions who rely on it. We've heard from the staff, we've heard from the faculty and the students who all support very strongly this measure.

We are going to continue to work on behalf of this university and support the university. ACA 6 puts us in a stronger position to be able to do that for everyone who works there and is served by there and with that chair, thank you so much for your analysis and your work, and I very respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Assemblymember Haney, let me just compliment you. I know that the measures before us because of your deep concern about basic labor standards, and I know that that comes from the heart, and your fierce advocacy for this measure speaks to how strongly you care about those issues. So thank you for doing that for me. There isn't any dispute about the basic labor standards that have been raised, whether that's equal pay or minimum wage or meal and rest breaks or sick leave break time.

All of those requirements are good standards and ones in which I strongly support. And from everything that I can tell, the University of California is complying with those standards. But at the same time, this measure brings another equally important issue to the forefront, and that's the constitutional protections of our university system. The greatest university system in the world, doing incredible things every day to educate our students and to provide the research breakthroughs that are making our world safer and healthier.

And so to on one hand say this is about just complying with our basic labor standards, and on the other hand, creating an incredible slippery slope of the Legislature engaging, I think, arguably the politics on this issue, but there are many others jeopardizing the independence of the university, I think, is a very serious issue as well. We have seen in other states politicians utilizing the manipulation or the desire to force our university systems to do different things. We've seen the scary impact of that.

I have no interest in seeing California become like Florida. We here in the Legislature have a variety of ways in which we work closely with the university and their operations. We confirm every one of their regions with, I think, a couple exceptions that are in the Constitution, but we confirm all of those leaders that are running the university system. We provide funding for more than half of their budget, billions of dollars every year, and we engage in discussions with them on the spending of that money.

And of course, the university has a collective bargaining opportunity for all represented employees that's robustly engaged in both internally, and we hear about it externally as well. So there are so many places in which the Legislature works in partnership with the university. Now, does that mean that we don't have differences of opinion over the years? Absolutely, we have differences of opinion, but most of them have been worked out through respectful conversation and negotiation. And I think that my concern on this measure.

It seeks to advance an agenda hiding in a narrative of labor standards. When you talk about regulating, contracting out, I don't think for me, that's a basic labor standard. We may have a respectful difference of opinion there, but contracting out ensures that the university can run efficiently and economically and if you don't like tuition increases, then don't hamper the university's ability to save money in its operations. Why would we do that?

We can't, on one hand, say you can't, on the other hand, say, don't raise tuition. I understand why contracting out is a union concern. I understand that. But it is not a basic labor standard, because any kind of contracting out with a private company, by law, they must adhere to all of our labor standards in the state. So it is for these reasons that, unfortunately, I can't be supportive of the measure today.

I think it attempts to solve some issues in a way that's way out of proportion to those concerns that have been raised. And if there are specific issues that do come up over the years with the university, I hope that we can be partners in working with those who have those concerns and working in partnership with the university to try to work them out and resolve. And for those reasons, it's not a measure I can support today. All right, any further?

Is there a motion on this measure? All right. Senator Menjivar moves this measure. This is to be adopted and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the role.

Senators, Glazer no. Nguyen, Allen, McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Umberg aye.

We have everybody here. All right. That measure fails with three votes in favor.

Can I ask for reconsideration?

Without objection, reconsideration is granted. All right, that completes. We have bills on call, so let's go back to the role. We're going to start off with ACA 13. Secretary, please call the role.

This is file item number one, ACA 13 with the motion be adopted as amended and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair voted aye, and the Vice Chair voted no. Senators Allen. Allen, aye. McGuire. McGuire, aye. Newman. Newman, aye. Umberg. Umberg, aye. Six to one.

That measures out six to one. Next up is ACA 1 by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. Please open the roll.

The motion is be adopted and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair voted aye, and the Vice Chair voted no. Senator Allen. Allen, aye.

That measures out five to two. That completes the work of the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. Thank you to the staff and all those who participated in our work. You're still welcome to add your name to the record and any of these measures. Please check our website for the opportunities to do that. I thank our committee staff for your good work. And with that, the committee is adjourned.