Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

As we proceed with witness and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Committee has rules to ensure we maintain order to run a fair and efficient hearing. In order to facilitate this goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

I'd like to call on our Committee Members to please come to the hearing room so that we can commence with our business for the day. And we will start as a Subcommitee in a moment, regardless whether anybody else shows up.

Okay, we'll go ahead and proceed as a Subcommittee, and I'd like to call up Assembly Member Weber, AB 1815, and you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Member. I'd like to first start by thanking staff. I'd like to thank you all so much for all of your work with this bill. I'm here to present AB 18, an expansion of the original CROWN Act of 2019. When this Legislature passed and the Governor signed the original CROWN Act, it was truly groundbreaking and the first of this nation. Many states have since followed California's lead in prohibiting hair discrimination.

Unfortunately, what we have learned is that the original CROWN Act did not cover all areas where people can be discriminated or treated differently based on their hair. Stories are coming to light all over the nation about young student athletes being asked to change their natural hair to participate in sporting events, like Andrew Johnson, a 16-year-old wrestler being forced to cut his dreadlocks or forfeit his match or 16-year-old Nicole Pyles, a softball player, also forced to cut her hair to continue playing her softball game.

These are incredibly dehumanizing events. Our hair is a symbol of who we are, and these cases around the country are exactly why the California Reparations Task Force made this expansion one of their policy recommendations the Legislature to extend to reach the original CROWN Act and to explicitly include competitive sports within California.

This is also one of the reasons why this bill, AB 1819, is included in the California Legislative Black Caucus Reparation Package for this legislative season. AB 1815 will expand this law to include competitive sports from sports clubs or organizations, ensuring that no athlete in California is subject to discrimination and exclusion based on their natural hair.

Specifically, AB 1815 will accomplish this by amending the Unruh Act in the same way FEHA and the Education Code were amended to include this definition of race, making sure that this is applied to all businesses, nonprofits, or non-business organizations that are open to members of the public. This bill is sponsored by the Western Center of Law and Poverty, and supported by the California Federation of Teachers, Black Equity Collective, NAACP, and others. Here to speak with me today in support is Brandon Greene from the Western Center.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Brandon Greene. I'm the Policy Director for the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are enthusiastically in support of this bill. As you all can see, I have dreadlocks past my shoulder. This is important because I began growing my hair out when I was a public defender in Contra Costa County, being one of the only Black folks appearing in court. I also have children who play sports outside of the scholastic context.

I think it's really important to note that, that the vast majority of kids, particularly elementary school kids, middle school kids, et cetera, who are playing sports, would be doing so outside of school, and while we have the CROWN Act, 1.0 that was passed, we've seen in recent weeks various things. We saw the Texas case that went all the way to the Texas Supreme Court and said that, for example, 'length wasn't contemplated.'

And we are currently in a social political climate in which everything, racial justice, everything DEI, is under attack, and so it's very important that we extend this protection, not only because of what I said in terms of the vast majority of kids playing sports outside of the school context, but also because we know that despite there being a great deal of progress, that Black hairstyles are still not generally seen as professional.

We still are in a space where, generally speaking, eurocentric beauty standards are the standards of the day. I know in my own experience, when I went to law school, I was told to not grow my hair out, for example, because it would not be professional. Now, ten years is into my time as an attorney, I really don't care about any of those things, but I had to actually push back at risk to myself. We also have the Racial Equity Commission that is doing its work. California has taken a great deal of steps to advance racial equity, and I hope that you all support this.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1815?

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Melanie Morelos, on behalf of the Greenlining Institute, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and we are in strong support of this bill as we supported the previous version. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rachel Bhagwat, ACLU California Action, in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Mel Assagai for the Greater Sacramento Urban League, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Desirée Nguyen Orth from EBCLC, in strong support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 1815? Any questions or comments from the Committee? Dr. Weber, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I recall in 2019 when Senator Mitchell brought this, the original CROWN Act, it was a crowning achievement of sorts for that year. It was really set the tone for what we would see around the nation, and I do agree that we have more work yet to do.

And that's what happens when you have this kind of landmark legislation, you say, 'okay, where is it working, where is it not?' And so I think it's absolutely appropriate for us to revisit and it may not be the last time we do, and that's okay. And a little known fact, when I was in law school, I also had really long hair and was told the same thing. Cut it if you want to be taken seriously and all that, right? But I really appreciate coming forward. I would love to be added as a co-author, and would you like to close?

I would. Well, first of all, I'd like to once again close by thanking the Committee for all of your work. I know that you were very helpful and instrumental with the original CROWN Act and really want to thank you for your continued help and support with this updated version. I want to thank the sponsors, you know, Brandon for coming, and just reiterate what, you know, something that he said. Most kids today do not play sports within their school.

I have two young boys who do not play for their school, and as my oldest is considering twisting his hair, as his mother recently just locked her hair, you know, it's important that he will not be discriminated if that is a choice that he makes. And so whether your hair is braided, locked, twist, long, all forms of natural hair belong in all spaces without any altercation that would meet anyone else's discomfort. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Dr. Weber. When we get quorum, we'll take up the matter further, but thank you.

Which one is it?

It's the Judiciary--the Committee Bill 3283.

Okay, thank you, Mr. chair. Item 14 AB 3283. Please proceed.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill proposes a minor procedural fix to a critical issue in debt collection cases. Under existing law, when a debtor appears in court to file a claim of exemption, essentially seeking protection for certain assets from being collected to pay a judgment, it's considered a general appearance. This seemingly small act, however, has significant consequences.

By merely showing up to protect their exempt property, debtors unintentionally surrender their ability to challenge the court's jurisdiction in the underlying debt collection case, even if they were improperly served or are not the correct party. This bill offers a simple yet crucial solution to this unfair situation. It ensures that appearing for a claim of exemption hearing does not equate to consenting to the court's jurisdiction for the entire case. Instead, this bill would limit the court's authority solely to determine the claim of exemption.

This means that debtors can still seek exemption from collection without forfeiting their right to challenge the validity of the underlying judgment based on jurisdictional issues. This bill does not eliminate lawful debts. Rather, it protects the fundamental principle of due process by allowing debtors to challenge the court's jurisdiction if they were improperly served or mistakenly identified. By safeguarding this right, we aim to prevent unjust judgments and ensure fairness in our legal system. I have with me Desiree Nguyen Orth, the Director of the East Bay Community Law Center's Consumer Justice Clinic, to testify and to answer any technical questions.

Good morning, Committee. Thank you for having me. I am Desiree Nguyen Orth, Director of the Consumer Justice Practice at East Bay Community Law Center and lecturer at UC Berkeley Law. AB 3283 is a nonpartisan correction to the Code of Civil procedure. As it is currently written in Section 703.580, the claim of exemption constitutes the pleadings subject to the power of the court to permit amendments in the interest of justice.

This tramples the basic due process rights of people who are not properly served and find themselves to be the subject of enforcement through a default judgment. At this juncture, a claimant has two options. Either A, forego a claim of exemption and bear the burden of the enforcement while seeking a set aside, or B, forfeit their right to due process in order to stop the bleeding of the ill gotten judgment by proceeding with a necessary claim of exemption.

Under the first option, a person must be able to live under a wage garnishment or bank levy enforcement for several months. The filing procedures to have a motion heard varies from county to county, with many having openings not earlier than three months out. This is an incredibly long time for people who live paycheck to paycheck. In this situation, the person is paying the price of this section's overreach while they pursue their due process rights.

Under the second option, a person surrenders the right to proper service in the name of cauterizing a financial wound. In doing so, the person gives up their right to set aside using a special appearance. And the issue is made moot because the current language is explicit about the treatment of the claim of exemption as a pleading. Before I answer some questions today, I'd like to address some anticipated skepticism. Will this bill incentivize people to ignore service or dodge service? No.

This bill does not change the status of jurisdiction on persons who were properly served. Properly served includes substitute service, so the colloquial dodging is near impossible. The change that we seek only lets through the fish that should not be in the net in the first place. It does nothing for the people who are properly under the jurisdiction of the court. Additionally, there will be bad actors in nearly all avenues where it is possible to evade the law.

This minority is not a valid reason to continue to deny due process rights to the majority of people in our society. The current law incentivizes the rampant sewer services that we receive today, and it's a windfall for many plaintiffs. Why don't people just get a set aside? To just get a set aside requires a lot of legal know-how. It is not something that I could ever advise a client to do themselves.

It takes months to go through the process than to have the motion heard in front of a judge, all while money is draining from the person's pocket. I'd like to thank the Members of this Committee that have signed on to bringing this as a Committee bill. As a service provider who deals with issues like this every day, your dedication to the preservation of basic due process rights is heartening. And with that, I respectfully urge your aye vote and I will take any questions.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Chair, you may close.

Respectfully asked for an aye vote, Mr. Chair. With the appropriate time, right. Thank you.

Thank you. I know.

All right, we'll continue to operate as a Subcommitee and call item six AB 2785 Assemblymember Wilson, whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you. Let me share my.

Yeah, we're right here, wherever the mic is closest. Awesome. Thank you. Well, good morning, chair and Assembly Members. So I'm here today to present AB 2785 a Bill that aims to significantly improve conditions for renters across California. In California, nearly half of the population, almost 17 million people, are renters. Over half of these renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, with 27% dedicated more than half of their income solely on rent.

Renting is not only increasingly costly and competitive, but the application process itself often involves significant costs for a prospective tenant. This further limits access to housing for Low income renters and in turn, worsens the state's housing crisis. AB 2785 targets this crisis head on by introducing critical reforms to rental application fees and security deposit management. As highlighted by a 2022 survey by Zillow, Black and Latino renters face disproportionate challenges and rental application processes.

They are nearly twice as likely to submit five or more applications and report paying higher median fees compared to white renters. These application fees quickly accumulate into hundreds of dollars, exacerbating the financial challenges faced by individuals who are already struggling to afford California's high cost of living. AB 2785 directly addresses this issue by capping rental fees at $50 and ensuring that these fees are fully refundable to any applicant not selected.

This Bill is a step towards leveling the playing field, making the search for housing more equitable and lessening the financial hardship of securing housing. We've also heard from folks concerned about the refund to non selected candidates. While it is current law to provide a refund for any amount of the screening fee that is not used to perform a personal reference check or does not obtain a consumer credit report. We definitely plan to work further with opposition to explore all options.

AB 2785 also implements protections for tenants security deposits. This Bill would require landlords to place a tenant security deposit into a dedicated account at the state or federally regulated financial institution within 30 days of receipt, ensuring that this account exists solely to maintain funds from security deposits. Furthermore, we've made clear that any interest collected on tenant security deposit belongs to the tenant. This practice recognizes security deposits for what they are the property of the renters, not an additional revenue stream for landlords.

I want to take this opportunity to address some things stated about the Bill as well as share amendments. We've chosen to include some have expressed concerns that these security deposit protections will add administrative burden onto landlords. However, this practice has already enacted in more than a dozen states. Even several cities in California, including the City of Berkeley and the County of Santa Cruz, have already local laws that require landlords to provide tenants with interest payments on their security deposits.

We have listened to concerns over trust accounts, so we've chosen to make the interest bearing aspect optional rather than required. Additionally, we agree with the Judiciary Committee's analysis that this will not create any tax implications on security deposits. However, in case those taxes do apply, we added a clarifying amendment so the landlord may deduct tax before returning the security deposit interest to the tenant. We've also been in frequent conversation with the opposition. We look forward to having continued dialogue on this Bill.

My goal always is to find a pathway forward where everyone can agree and be on the same page. AB 2785 is a significant step towards ensuring fairness and security in the rental market. It safeguards tenants rights and promotes transparency and accountability among landlords by reducing the financial burden of application fees and ensuring the fair treatment of security deposits. It not only protects tenants funds, but also promotes trust and the landlord tenant relationship. I'd like to now introduce my two witnesses, Xenia Vidal.

they/them pronouns with the Women's Foundation, California Solis Policy Institute, and then Shanti Singh from Tenants Together.

Thank you.

I can go first chair Kalra and Assembly Members. My name is Xenia Vidal. I use they/them pronouns. I'm the Campaign Manager at Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. I'm also part of a cohort of six incredible BIPOC reproductive justice advocates and organizers from from across the state serving as Doctor Beatriz Maria Solis Policy Institute fellows under the Women's Foundation. Together, we've collaborated with Assemblymember Wilson in drafting AB 2785.

It's also worth noting that all six of us are also among the nearly 17 million Californians who are renters. Recently, our teammate Sochil has been going through the housing application process with their spouse. In the course of one week, they applied for eight different residences while in unstable housing. Each location they applied for had a different application fee. Many refused to utilize the credit report that Sochil provided, as in accordance with AB 2559.

They were also told at one location that they'd be charged more for bringing their own credit report for them to verify its legitimacy. So let's break that down. In the course of one week, they applied for eight places. Eight places with an average of dollar 78 per applicant, as no process was similar. Eight places with two of them applying, making it an average of $158 per applicant. In total, that is over $1,250 in just application fees in just one week.

All six of us had similar experiences, as do the renters with children, renters fleeing circumstances, renters impacted by the justice system, Black, Indigenous, people of color, queer and transgender renters all face intensified housing injustices compared to compared to homeowners often forced to make decisions similar to Sochil having to choose between application fees or groceries that week.

AB 2785 stands as a creative solution to not only address the pressing issues of tenant vulnerability, but also champion fairness and transparency, bringing really in a new era of equitable housing for all Californians. With that, I ask for your support of 2785.

Thank you.

Good morning chair calorie and Committee Members. Sorry, awkward positioning, but my name is Shanti Singh. I am a renter as well. I actually live in a city where some of these protections have already taken effect at the local level, and I am the Legislative Director for Tenants Together. We're a statewide coalition of over 60 tenant led community organizations across the State of California. Our Members are proud to support AB 2785.

We've actually sponsored legislation like this back in 2013, so we run a free statewide tenant helpline with trained volunteer counselors and one of the most common types of calls that we get concern the unethical retention of security deposits and the proliferation of unreasonable and unregulated fees on renters. Everything from this is a real example.

Refrigerator depreciation to a spot on a carpet can lead to the loss of a security deposit, while tenants can be charged fees for seemingly everything we've seen, even legal fees, quote unquote, where tenants are being charged for a potential future legal dispute or even an eviction. That's all to say, AB 2785 is a common sense basic consumer protection.

Screening fees and interest on security deposits may feel like small amounts here and there, but for California working families trying to stretch every dollar to access housing, it matters. In such a competitive rental market, where half of tenants are paying over 50% of their income to rent, tenant screening fees add up especially fast for people who already are disadvantaged by virtue of their lower income or access to credit, especially people of color.

Prospective tenants who are not approved for tenancy in one place are paying under regulated screening fees over and over and over again. That money adds up, and it makes it harder for working class Californians to access the housing market.

Not only do many US states already have laws on the books protecting tenant security deposits by requiring their safekeeping in a separate account many also guarantee the interest, as do several California cities that already have laws like this on the books, including the one that I live in. A tenant who has done everything right should be able to claim the interest that's earned on their deposit. And we believe that only bad actor landlords who misuse tenants deposits would have anything to lose from this Bill.

I urge your Aye vote and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson, just to clarify, you're accepting the Committee amendments?

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2785?

Hello. Desiree Wynn Orth, East Bay Community Law Center and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sawait Seyoum. On behalf of Disability Rights California and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Robinson, on behalf of Black Women for Wellness and Black Women for Wellness Action Project and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Faith Chinnapong in Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity and we are in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Stephanie Estrada. On behalf of California Latinas for Reproductive Justice and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Savannah Jorgensen with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy, California and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Gabrielle Brown with Black Women for Wellness and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lisa Matsubara, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Zonnie Thompson with the Stockton Housing Justice Coalition and strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2785? Okay, you can go ahead and take a seat up here if you'd like. And we're gonna take a pause for a moment and establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have quorum established. Thank you so much. Any as please? Up to two minutes. Actually, up to four minutes. We really want four minutes, but other side had four minutes. I can't tell you to save two, but go ahead.

Thank you very much. My name is Embert Madison from the California Apartment Association and we are in opposition of this Bill for three reasons. First, AB 2785 will require owners to return a screening fee after they've analyzed an application but cannot rent to that tenant. Here's the problem. An applicant may fill out an application but fail to mention. Maybe they owe thousands of dollars in credit card debt. Maybe they have unpaid child support.

Maybe life has just happened and they did not put that on the application. But unfortunately, once we run that application, the dollars that landlords spend cannot be taken back. And for that reason TAA recommends that for this Bill and a previous Bill that has come before this Committee on a similar topic, that the owner be required to select the first qualified applicant. In doing so, that would stop the process or not cause multiple people to apply for the same unit when somebody has been selected.

We believe this is a fair solution to the problem in this case. The second reason we have opposition is that the cap currently is pegged to CPI for good reason. As we all know, costs rise over time. Landlords right now, they do not make money on the fees. Screening fees. There is existing law that limits the amount of the screening fees. It is not a profit center for landlords.

So as the cap is right now pegged for CPI, it compensates owners for the exact costs that they spend on running these applications. I know on the analysis that the author graciously is going to accept mentions using a reusable credit report. CAA recommends that that be an option in addition to the option I mentioned before about the selection electing the first qualified applicant. And finally, as we get to the topic on interest on security deposits, we acknowledge those amendments that the author is accepting.

But please understand, there are also other fees. There are administrative fees. Other states have recognized that if a landlord is going to pay interest on a security deposit in the bank account, there are administrative fees that come with that. Usually that administrative fee is 1%. We would ask that that be included in the Bill because that would be a fair compromise. We understand that there may not be tax implications, but somebody still has to go through and prepare these documents and make sure they're accurate.

And this does cost money. And unfortunately, if the 1% fee is not taken into account, it is possible that rent will be increased to account for that increased business expense. And for those three reasons, that's why CAA opposes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members of the Committee, Ron Kingston. I represent two regional apartment associations, Apartment Association Orange County, and the Members own local Association, the East Bay Rental Housing Association. We two are opposed to Bill. I just want to focus on the Bill as proposed to be amended on one particular aspect, and that's refunding. Should all the application fee should an applicant not be selected. There's nothing in law that precludes the applicant from asking about the credit standards before they pay the fees. This Bill unfortunately doesn't do that.

This Bill seems to recognize that every time anybody walks in to apply for an apartment, they automatically pay the fees. That's just unfortunately not true. It is good that we have that form of an inquiry to ask about the credit standards. That's what this Bill should be about. Instead of the Bill saying if I am not as an applicant selected because of my poor credit standards, that it's to be refunded.

In no other case, there is not a retail installment credit application or any home mortgage, car loan that if you're denied the ability to buy a car on credit, a house on credit, whatever, that all those costs have to be refunded back to the applicant that should apply here. Consequently, we would strongly recommend that the author amend the Bill to delete this exact portion and say an affirmative statement by the applicant, what are the credit standards? And then they can make that evaluation.

Should they then pay the fees? That is the reasonable, logical choice. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2785?

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members Kareem Brisi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in strong opposition to the Bill in print as well as proposed to be amended, respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Kate Bell, on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association and Apartment Association of Greater LA. Still in opposition with the amendments, but look forward to working with the Office.

Thank you.

Mister chair Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association, appreciate the amendments, but we still have concerns as outlined by CAA. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Senator Bauer-Kahan.

Sorry, I think you raised your hand first. Hi. Thank you all for being here. And I think, you know, tenant protections are obviously critically important. But in order for the rental market to work, we also need a health rental market. And I feel like we need to be careful not to make it too difficult and onerous to rent out a unit. And I know you guys spoke about many bad actors. I was in the pro Bono legal field for many years and I don't doubt that.

I know it's true, but I also know there are a lot of mom and pops out there that do this and that rent their apartments and that are just charging the cost. Right.

And this is not a profit center, but there are people who you run an application for who you don't rent to because they are not qualified or whatever the case may be, and for that cost to be shifted back to the landlord where it really is just covering the cost that the landlord bore feels like a cost shift that should be dictated by the market and not necessarily by law.

And I guess so you have three reasons here that it would be returned, two of which obviously if exceeds the permitted by law. Hopefully nobody has an issue with that.

And if the cost wasn't born right, so if they didn't perform a credit check, and both of those seem justifiable to me, and fine, but this third one where you just, the tenant didn't qualify and perhaps didn't provide the information in advance, I think that one I really struggle with, and I would also say that putting the cap, I really like that right now the cap has inflation increases because the costs do increase, and putting that into law without inflation increases feels a little bit challenging to me.

So I guess I just, I want to make sure that we continue to have small landlords, because I think small landlords, in my experience as a renter, and I don't know if this, your experience is they're better, they tend to treat their tenants in a lot of cases well. And so making it so hard for those folks to do this because we keep shifting all the costs and the burden to them, I think is really concerning to me.

So for me, it is just that cost shift that is an issue and I hope the author will address.

Yeah, absolutely. I think that the opposition has been very clear from the very first meeting that that was a concern of theirs, and we've been working with them to figure out how can we thread the needle, so to speak, and get the spirit of why the refund, why we wanted the refund option in there in the first place. And I'm definitely open to that.

And I think most people know that I have a reputation of finding pathways forward and figuring out what the solutions are and wanting everybody to be in a win-win place.

So you have my absolute commitment to continue those discussions, if it gets out of this Committee, to ensure that by the time we get to something on the floor, it's something that is, is good, protects tenants, but also at the same time recognizes we need a healthy rental market or because majority of people, it says over 50%, are renters. Right. And so we need a healthy market.

And to the point that opposition made is that I may not charge you in the application or I may have all these costs. What's gonna do is I'm just gonna raise the rent to cover it, and we don't want that. And so that's counterintuitive to what our intent is in the Bill. And so I will be sure to continue to have those discussions and come up with solutions.

We have a few solutions in mind, but we'll continue to have those discussions and see if we can find a pathway forward.

So I appreciate that, and I'll support it today so it can keep moving. So I think it does do a lot of really important things. The interest piece, I think, makes perfect sense. That's money the renter should have. Again, those other pieces of returning the money make sense, but I do want to see it. Hopefully, when I see it on the floor, it will be in a way that I can support it. Thank you.

Senator Bryan.

I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill in for this robust conversation. Also, always good to see a Solis policy Institute witness. I am curious from my friends at CAA, what is a qualified applicant? What does that mean? Because it's my understanding that based on. I've lived in five different places since I first ran for office here in my district, every year we tend to move when the rent goes up, usually further south. And we were passed up, I think, five times.

We paid five different fees this last time before we got our place on Crenshaw. My fiance and I both also paid applicant fees, even though she's a trademark and copyright attorney with the 700 credit score, I was wondering why they needed anything from me. Thought I made up married good.

But I'm wondering what choosing the first qualified applicant means. If there's some discretion in what a qualifying credit score or credit history means, especially if you have an income or a perfect rental history, for example. I'm just wondering, what does that mean? If we were to say, hey, choose the first qualified applicant, what does that mean?

Well, first I will say, I haven't met your wife, but it sounds like she did marry up. And what that means is generally, landlords, the landlords that we represent, upstanding landlords, they have objective criteria. One of them is, you know, we often see make three times rent. They would list what their credit score requirements are in the advertisement, things like that. That's a qualified applicant.

And what we mean by first in time is the first person to view the apartment, submit an application, and they're qualified, they meet those objective standards, they would be selected.

Gotcha.

So the second person that comes wouldn't.

Have to worry about that.

Correct.

That makes a lot of sense to me. I just. I've never seen a credit score listed on an application, and I don't know that I want to either. Right. Because I know that there's a lot of, you know, I mean, I don't even want to go through the things that I did as an undergrad to try to make ends meet. And what that did to my credit, that took years to repair, despite a flawless rental history.

And I know, that's not uncommon for the 54% of Los Angeles or the 17 million folks across the state. I just want to figure out how to make this all work, because it seems to. Seems like we all agree on some of the problems and challenges here. And I think I'm excited about an author that I know can land this plane, so to speak. But I was curious what that meant and I appreciate all that you've shared.

Mr. Bryan, I also want to do a couple things. We may select the very first qualified applicant, but they've maybe applied in an apartment or a fourplex right down the street. So sometimes we may select the first and second and we may want like a backup. It happens in buying houses, buying cars, whatever. And so we would request that, that to be included into this really very important equation.

The CAA witness talks about three times rent that is well known in law as a result of long-standing appellate court case memorializing a free time rent to be reasonable as well as things happen. All of a sudden I'm making this income, but now I've lost my job or due to health reasons or whatever. So, you know, there are many things that go into the equation. So the first person may not be the actual person who rents apartment number three.

Right. And I think that that makes a lot of sense. I think there's a way to land this, and I think I trust the author to do that. And I think the concern, at least with those rental fees, is, like I said, I've lived in five different locations just since being an office and say an average of five applications per year. Right. There's 200, $5300 that we don't get back every year. It's a new annual expense.

And that, you know, that's just something that can be more challenging for folks who are already spending half of their discretionary income on rent just to survive to begin with. And so I think there's something to do here. But I'm glad everybody is at the table and I appreciate what you both shared.

Thank you. And I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward and for having these important conversations. I also have this same crimson arms as the apartment Association. You know, I worry about small mom and pop landlords and all their concerns are the same exact concerns that I had. And I appreciate that you've taken, the author has taken numerous amendments, and I know that you're going to continue working with opposition.

And I'm glad to hear that the opposition is at the table and dialogue is happening and that we're perfecting this Bill. So I will be supporting this Bill today. I'm looking forward to the final outcome of this Bill. And again, I appreciate the author for bringing it forward. Thank you.

Move the Bill. Is there a second? There's a motion? A second. I want to also thank the author, and I think, as indicated by the amendments already accepted, which were quite significant and addressed some of the concerns of opposition, I think that's a clear sign that there's not only more dialogue that will happen, that will be constructive based upon how you approach legislation and the opposition being at the table. I think you've identified an issue and how to find that path forward.

That's a smooth path forward is the challenging part, but you're already on your way there. And I think this dialogue has been very helpful to have this open dialogue on what the, the issue is.

And look, you know, someone as a venture for that, has experiences, you know, on both sides of this with my family, we have to recognize when we, even when we say small mom and pop landlords, they're still in a far greater leveraging position, leverage position than a tenant that is struggling to find a place to live.

And so I'm less concerned personally about how much money the small mom and pop may be out as to the procedural aspect of it, which can be challenging, like trying to figure out how do you actually maneuver through the process. And so I think that as the conversations go forward, that, in my opinion, at least, should be kind of the focus. Like, how do we have a system that both the tenant and landlord can understand?

That's clear and that's fair, but doesn't, you know, that continues to recognize the challenges that tenants face every single day in our state? And so for that, I just want to show my appreciation to you and would you like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate the robust discussion, and, you know, you have my commitment. I will continue the discussion, not just for the commitment to my colleagues, but commitment to opposition, both, you know, as primary witnesses and those who did the me too statements in the back. And we're all committed. You know, I have witnesses in support who care deeply about this issue, who do work in this space continually. This is top of mind for them.

And so I know we'll find a way where everybody can feel like we're in a good place. And with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. If we take wall calling the vote, please.

Motions do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Okay, so that Bill will be placed on call. Thank you so much. If you can have a motion on the consent calendar, please. The motion in a second roll call vote on the consent calendar, please.

Consent calendar is AB 1785, Pacheco, as amended to Appropriations. AB 1900, Weber, do pass as amended. AB 2929, Juan Carrillo, do pass to Human Services. AB 3072 and Petrie-Norris, do pass. AB 3083, Lackey, do pass as amended to Public Safety, and AB 3280, Judiciary, do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. A motion, a second. 1815.

Do pass to Appropriations. This is AB 1815. [Roll Call]

Up next is Assembly Member Ward.

And we'll start with item two, AB 1979.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, two bills before this Committee this morning, both of which are essentially meant to be able to protect victims. And so AB 1979 is first up. I want to start by thanking you and your staff for all the helpful work with my office. And I'll be accepting the Committee amendments which are technical in nature. Presenting AB 1979, the Doxxing Victims Resourse Act, which is joint authored with Assembly Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry.

This bill provides relief and support for victims who have been harmed as a result of being doxxed by allowing them to pursue civil action to receive restitution for the harms that they endured. Doxxing, as some of you know, is a harassment tactic that occurs when a person releases another individual's private, personally identifying information without their consent with the intent to cause that person harm. It's already defined in law. Under California Penal Code 653.2. the crime of doxxing is a misdemeanor.

However, in order for an offender of doxxing to be held accountable, an arrest must first be made and a prosecutor must pursue the case through the criminal legal system. But in the Civil Code, protections and recourse is absent. A victim of doxxing is left to work through emotional, physical, financial, and other damages without being made whole for the harms that they've incurred. As hate and extremism continues to increase in our nation, people face a heightened risk of being doxxed.

The Anti Defamation League's 2022 online hate and harassment report showed that of those who experienced severe online harassment, such as doxxing, 65% were hate based, which are attacks or abuse of people based on their civil protected identity status, such as their religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristic. With hate based threats and attacks evolving alongside advances in technology, such as through the emergence of new social media platforms, the risk of malicious acts such as doxxing are heightened.

AB 1979 provides a doxxing victim an avenue to be made whole via restitution for the harms that they endured due to the actions of the offender, thus allowing the victims support to get their lives back on track. With me to speak in support of this bill are our co-sponsors, Teresa Drenick, Deputy Regional Director of the Anti Defamation League, and Kathy Moley, on behalf of Trans Family Support Services and Trans Youth Liberation.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Teresa Drenick and I'm the Deputy Director for the Anti Defamation League in the Central Pacific region, which works with the northern two thirds of California. The ADL founded in 1913 in response to an escalating climate of anti semitism and bigotry, we've now become a leading anti hate organization nationally. As we work to fulfill our founding mission, which is to secure justice and fair treatment for all.

Our final goal is a world in which no individual and no group suffers from bias, discrimination, or hate. As we know, our laws here in California have not kept up with the hate and harassment that users experience online. The consequences for such offenses must be taken into consideration.

The serious and lasting effects of online hate and harassment. One of the most common tactics that we see of this type of harassment is doxxing, meaning the public shaming of an, excuse me, the public sharing of an individual's personal information with the intent that that information be used against the target for an unlawful purpose. The growth of online hate and harassment targeting marginalized groups is a growing trend that deserves action by policymakers.

According to our own study from 2023, 52% of Americans experience some form of hate or harassment online. Of those individuals we surveyed who experienced any type of this harassment, 47% of those who identify as LGBTQ experienced hate and harassment in the last 12 months online due to their identity. This is very closely followed by members of additional marginalized communities.

With over 30% of those individuals reporting hate and harassment online, California has the opportunity to be a leader and to take strong, strong, concrete action in addressing the rise of doxxing by passing AB 1979. Doxxing must be codified into the California State law so we can protect targets and hold perpetrators accountable for their malicious and reckless actions.

This bill is an excellent first step in addressing online hate and protecting marginalized communities, bringing forward language that ensures that the bill would not only address the threat of doxxing, but also is cautious in protecting First Amendment rights. We thank you for your support, and I look forward to any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and esteemed Members of the Committee. My name is Kathy Moehlig. She/her are my pronouns, and I appear before you today not only as an advocate, but also a survivor of a deeply disturbing act that not only endangered my safety, but also that of my family. As the founder of Trans Family Support Services, I've dedicated myself to championing the well being of transgender youth and their families across California.

I was thrust into the realm of victimhood through doxxing, an insidious practice that exposed my personal information to the darkest corners of the Internet. Suddenly, my family and I found ourselves living under the shadow of fear, unsure of what dangers lurked around each digital corner. The very work I've poured my heart and soul into has made me a target of hate. However, my story is not unique.

Every day, countless individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities, like the Trans population, face similar threats to their safety and well being. With the troubling rise of extremism and hate in our nation, individuals are increasingly vulnerable to becoming targets of doxxing. The proliferation of online harassment and the spread of hateful rhetoric has fostered a climate of fear that erodes the foundation of our society.

When someone falls victim to doxxing, they not only endure the immediate impacts of these harms, but are also left feeling as though there are limited resources available to hold the perpetrators accountable. This is why I'm here today to express my support for AB 1979. This legislation is not merely a symbolic gesture. It's a beacon of hope for those who have been silenced by fear.

By establishing mechanisms to hold doxxing perpetrators accountable and offering recourse to victims, this bill sends a resounding message that hate and intolerance have no place in our digital landscape. However, let us not lose sight of the human toll behind the statistics and the legislative battles. I've experienced firsthand the chilling effects of doxxing, enduring sleepless nights, anxiety, and an overwhelming sense of vulnerability. Yet I refuse to be silenced by fear. Together, we must stand in solidarity against online harassment and discrimination.

We must ensure that every individual, regardless of gender identity or any other protected characteristic, can live free from the specter of doxxing and targeted attacks. I implore you to prioritize the passage of AB 1979 and to heed the voices of those who have been silenced by fear. Let us unite to forge a safer, more inclusive online environment for all individuals in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1979?

Craig Pulser for on behalf of Equality California in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Ross Buckley on behalf of Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, in support.

Thank you.

San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott, as the city's prosecutor in strong support.

Thank you. Is everyone here in opposition to AB 1979? Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, motions? We have a motion. We have a motion and a second. Senator Ward, thank you so much for bringing this forward. I know you have a couple of bills that are focusing on the protection of our community and I really appreciate that. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Appreciate your consideration of this. I think as we are seeing activity continue to evolve out there and trying to figure out how to respond to our commitment to make sure that hate has no place here in California, it's important to be able to support victims' rights and hopefully provide more deterrence from these actions happening in the first place. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on the vote.

Motions do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll place that on call.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

And then up next file, item seven, AB 3024. Do we have a motion? Second?

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, for the quick motion. I'll be brief. First, I wanted to thank the Committee for their work on this Bill and accept the proposed amendments. According to the Anti-Defamation League, last year had the highest number of reported hate incidents in the United States since 1979.

This includes a staggering 38% rise in hate motivated propaganda efforts, including hate littering in the form of racist, anti semitic, and anti LGBTQ flyers placed directly on a victim's personal property with the intent to make them fear for the safety. This is encouraging neighbors to hate their neighbors. This is encouraging the victims to tell them, I know where you live. This has a chilling effect.

This has rapidly become a preferred tactic by hate groups because it is effective, it allows for increased personal impact, and it exists in a legal gray area, making it extremely hard for law enforcement to prosecute. Now, we do have some of the strongest hate crime statutes in the country, but these activities often do not rise to the level of hate crimes or trigger California's Anti-hate Prohibitions on activities such as cross-burning.

As a state, we must recognize that these materials are not just pieces of paper or merely an expression of speech. These are direct threats placed on the personal property of targeted community Members and their neighbors with the intention to terrorize, harass, intimidate, harm, and dehumanize them. AB 3024, before you will make necessary improvements to existing law by strengthening the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 to ensure that victims are provided adequate protections against hate littering and create new legal tools to hold offenders accountable.

The Ralph Act states that all Californians have the right to live free from violence or the intimidation by threat of violence. And this Bill specifically clarifies that the definition of intimidation by threat of violence includes the distribution of hateful materials with the intent to terrorize. Violations of the Ralph Act offer civil penalty for relief for those that are harmed, and a strong deterrence for offenders to consider in the first place.

For witnesses and support, I again have Teresa Drenick, the Deputy Regional Director of the ADL Central Pacific, and my City Attorney from City of San Diego, Mara Elliott.

Thank you so much.

Good morning again. I'm again Teresa Drenick from the Anti-Defamation League. ADL's work today is more important than ever in combating hate and bigotry, as we have seen a precipitous rise in hate across the State of California. According to our Center on Extremism, the organizational tracking our organization has tracked a significant increase in white supremacist propaganda efforts in 2023. These included the distribution of threatening, racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ messaging. The study found that anti-Semitic propaganda increased by 30% in 2023 across the country.

Much of that occurred here in the Golden State. Last year, flyers with horrific anti-semitic and anti-LGBTQ messages were distributed in the dark of night, attacking not only the values that we hold as a community but threatening the individuals who live in our communities. We must all do what we can to speak out against this extremist activity and conduct that seeks to have our communities live in fear of hate and in fear of potential violence.

AB 3024 will make the necessary improvements to existing law by strengthening the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 to ensure that victims are provided adequate protections against the tactics that we are seeing with the distribution of these materials, while creating new legal tools to deter the terrorizing activity and holding accountable those who perpetrate this awful and, quite frankly, terrorizing activity.

We are once again grateful to the work of Assemblymember Ward to ensure that our communities are welcoming and most importantly, safe places in which everybody can live. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott. I'm also the elected City Prosecutor and I am proud to co-sponsor the Stop Hate Littering Act with Assemblymember Ward. This legislation makes it crystal clear to peddlers of hate that threatening materials are not just pieces of paper. Distributing hate flyers with the intent to intimidate and dehumanize people is unacceptable and under this Bill, unlawful. This Bill makes clear that free speech isn't a free pass to terrorize our communities.

In San Diego, this struggle started with the cowardly distribution of liars designed to terrorize our Jewish neighbors and divide our city. We saw that again when these hateful groups also targeted our LGBTQ community. This problem isn't limited to San Diego. It is a statewide issue deserving of a unified statewide response.

This Bill will make necessary improvements to the existing law by strengthening the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 to ensure victims are provided adequate protections against hate littering and to create new tools, legal tools, to deter terrorizing activity and hold offenders accountable. I respectfully urge your yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And, Senator Ward, do you accept the Committee Amendments?

I did.

Thank you. You probably said it, but just to clarify. Yes. Is anyone else here in support of AB 3024?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Moira Todd, here on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, Councilmember Raul Campillo, and the full City of San Diego. We're co-sponsors of the measure. We appreciate your support today. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Kathie Moehlig, Executive Director of TransYouth Liberation in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 3024? We'll bring it back to Committee. Senator, Bauer-Kahan.

Assemblymember Ward. I just want to thank you for this. A few years ago, I got back to my car with my young children. My son was running ahead of me and said, Mom, look, someone left something on our car. And there were swastikas all over our car. And as the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors who's raised my children, to understand our history, right, I mean, it's personally painful, but I think more importantly, what you're doing here is so critical because we are at a moment in time.

And what was highlighted here was many of the groups across California, anti-Asian hate, anti-black hate, LGBTQ hate, anti-semitism that is on the rise. And the propaganda that has spread to try to get communities to hate these people who are part of these minority groups. Sometimes it works. Right? And I think that's what the Holocaust taught us and what so many chapters in our history have taught us.

And so it is so incumbent upon us as government to do everything we can to stop the spread of such propaganda, to instead teach our communities to love one another rather than to hate one another. And so I just really want to thank you because we do need every tool in our toolbox to do this. And I want to thank you, Secretary Elliott, for your work on the ground doing this and to all the other folks in Government up and down the state enforcing these laws.

Thank you. Assemblymember McKinnor.

I also would like to thank the author for his work on what he's doing, and I would like to be a co-author. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss McKinner.

Anyone else? We do have a motion. I also would like to thank the author, as the witness indicated, that it's not limited to San Diego, but it's great to see Assemblymember Ward and City Attorney Elliott, Mayor Gloria, come to San Diego contingent taking the lead on this because it is a statewide issue.

But you definitely need a community to really push forward legislation like this, and it's great to see all of you working together to make this happen and to really have all of us as a state recognize the need for these kinds of protections. With that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And on that point, yes, I think the last year in the City, of San Diego. That we're aware of, because people have reported this, neighbors have said, you know, hundreds of flyers eight times over, over the course of the year in one targeted neighborhood that has a high density of Jewish households. And of course, our LGBT historic community as well, has been offended. But not just San Diego. Incidences in the Los Angeles region, Bay Area, particularly in the San Mateo area.

Just last month, Fresno, the City of Fresno, had reports. So this is something of statewide concern. Deeply appreciate the Committee's work on this and your respectful consideration and would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Take roll call on the vote for AB 3024.

Motions do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll place it on call. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Assemblymember Gabriel, we have a motion and a second.

Thank you for your patience.

Of course. Thank you. I got the message. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very much appreciate the opportunity to be here. First, let me just say thank you to you and your staff for the very helpful feedback and thoughtful feedback on the amendments that I think make the Bill stronger. Pleased today to present AB 2505, which require Attorneys in California to report whether or not they provided any pro-bono legal services in the prior year.

I think those of us that have practiced know that pro-bono is an incredibly powerful tool to advance justice, particularly for low-income Californians. And unfortunately, all of the data from the State Bar has shown us that California has fallen behind other states in expanding access to justice. We know that many other states have already established reporting requirements for pro-bono hours.

Florida was actually the first state to do it in 1993, and since then, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, and numerous other states have joined them. I will note those are red states, blue states, purple states, everything in between. This is something that the American Bar Association has found that can actually increase the delivery of legal services to individuals in need and improve access to justice.

And so, just to be clear, the reporting here is confidential, and there would be no penalty for failing to report or for failing to provide any pro-bono legal services. But what this will do is provide us, the Bar, the access to Justice Commission, and legal services providers with helpful information so that we can design better policy solutions here. This proposal was developed in close coordination with the State Bar and with Attorneys in private practice.

It's supported by the Access to Justice Commission and numerous of the incredibly highly regarded legal service nonprofits throughout California, and it has no opposition. So with me here today, I have Jenni Gomez-Haddad, the Pro-Bono Manager at Legal Services of Northern California, and Sawait Seyoum, Senior Policy Advocate at Disability Rights of California, who can speak more. Thank you. And respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, up to two minutes each.

Thank you so much, Chairman Kalra and Members of the Committee. My name is Jenni Gomez-Haddad, and I am the Pro-Bono Manager at Legal Services of Northern California, or LSNC. I'm also a former Board Member of the Legal Aid Association of California, or LAC, the sponsor of this Bill. On behalf of LSNC, LAC, and the Legal Aid Community, I support AB 2505. As a practicing legal aid attorney for more than a decade, I know firsthand that legal aid providers are overburdened.

We only are able to provide a fraction of the individuals and families who need help. Due to the limited staffing resources, we rely heavily on pro-bono attorneys and other volunteers in order to better meet the needs of our client communities. I will never forget the crucial role pro-bono attorneys played in the aftermath of the devastating Paradise Campfire located in our service area. While staff from all eight of our offices worked overtime to assist survivors, it was simply not enough.

The pro-bono attorneys jumped into action, providing know-your-rights presentations, attending clinics, and taking on limited and full-scope cases where LSNC did not have the capacity or expertise. While legal aid organizations like mine often express our appreciation to pro-bono attorneys, the proposed pro-bono reporting requirement will do more. It will encourage pro-bono attorneys to meaningfully assist legal aid providers like LSNC, and the attorneys can feel good about the hours they've donated.

Additionally, the reporting requirements will produce data that can highlight pro-bono gaps and opportunities, leading to enlightened conversations around equitable access for justice for all Californians. As you know, California attorneys are concentrated in the state's urban centers in rural areas of the state that experience high poverty rates, legal aid organizations like mine have traditionally had less access to pro-bono help.

As a rural service provider, I look forward to the data that will come from mandatory reporting, and I'm hopeful that it can inform our outreach efforts to attorneys statewide about the ease of remote access assistance and the benefits of offering pro-bono services to indigent clients across the strait. Finally, I appreciate that this Bill provides a positive incentive to engage in pro-bono work without mandating attorneys to do so.

The Legal Aid Clegal acknowledges that pro-bono work is not the only solution to California's justice gap, but it's definitely an essential part of the solution. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Sawait Seyoum on behalf of Disability Rights California and we are in strong support of Assembly Bill 2505. I want to share that DRC works with law firms, attorneys, and others who provide pro-bono disability, civil, and service rights matters. Our work would not be possible if it were not for the generous contributions of many volunteers and pro-bono counsel to meet the needs of our client communities.

I want to also note that the COVID pandemic really had a significant impact on pro-bono work, those willing to provide it. We believe that Assembly Bill 2505 really goes a long way to improve access to these critical services that the most vulnerable of us depend on. Also want to note that many disabled people struggle financially and are not able to afford the cost of legal representation. And so this Bill is critical.

Pro-bono legal services ensure that disabled people are able to get the services and advocacy that they need without taking away from their daily needs. And lastly, just want to note that California really does have an opportunity to be a leader on this issue, to provide, to ensure access to critical legal services, again, that are most vulnerable, really should have access to. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2505? Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

I want to thank the Assemblymember for bringing this Bill. I ran my offices pro-bono program in San Francisco for many years and it was one of the highlights of my career was people's faces when you got to tell them they were going to get meaningful access to justice because without counsel we know our system is really hard to navigate.

And it was interesting to hear you talk about the way the pandemic hurt access to pro-bono services when I think we have so much to learn from the way we provided access in ways that made it easier. And I know being a San Francisco lawyer, we always talked about how the inmates at San Quentin had way better access to justice than inmates in the Central Valley because there was just more access to pro-bone attorneys closer to city centers.

So I think that, I guess I would urge that this is great, I'm going to support it. But how do we also look at those access to Zoom, modify the way our courts work to allow easier access to attorneys in our urban centers, to provide rural access? Because it really is a weakness in our system. And I think there's more that we can potentially do there through the way we use remote participation to make this access more meaningful. So just something to think about. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward and highlighting an important, very important aspect of the legal profession or many all professions. There's pro-bono opportunities for people in all professions to lend their professional capabilities to nonprofit organizations, legal or otherwise, however, and I believe that volunteer service, of course, is admirable, I've spent my entire career volunteering and offering my professional expertise, such as it is to many nonprofit organizations.

And it's for the public good that everyone, not just lawyers, should be encouraged to use their talents and abilities to help the needy in any way we can. That is really a moral obligation. However, I do not believe that person should be forced to provide free labor. The professional wisdom for free government coercion that is a concern of mine. Pro-bono is a concept that is really important in the legal profession. And absolutely it's an upstanding value. I just don't think it should be coerced.

And the accountability and the reporting and the shaming of people if they don't perform X number of hours per year. In fact, it's really ironic that the Assembly recently passed ACA 8 to provide that persons cannot be compelled to provide free labor by the use of threat or legal coercion. And this Bill, ironically, it conflicts with that policy. If we are going to coerce lawyers into providing free labor, it does not make any sense to provide an exemption for lawyers who happen to work for government.

For those reasons, I cannot support this Bill, but I wholly support pro-bono work, the encouragement of it. I just don't like it being coerced. So thank you.

Assemblymember Gabriel.

May I respond? Thank you so much. And thank you for that, Madam Vice Chair. Let me just add a few thoughts, if I may. I appreciate the perspective. I'll say part of, I think, the DNA of the practice of law is the provision of pro-bono legal services. And I'd argue respectfully, that it's different than other professions because there are things that lawyers can do that all of us that have been lawyers experience that members of the general public can't do.

And what I have been very grateful for in my opportunities to provide pro-bono is that most of it is nonpartisan or entirely bipartisan in the support. There's a strong tradition in the Conservative Legal Movement of providing pro-bono legal services, of recognizing that that is part of the responsibility of being an officer of the court and being granted the privilege to be a Member of the Bar and to do these things that members of the general public can't do.

On the coercion part, let me just to help clear up some confusion, potentially, the reporting here is entirely confidential, so the data will be released in aggregated, anonymized form. But no one will know when I go log on to my State Bar profile and report this. And that's how I do it. And I do that every year, and I pay my fees, and I decide if I want to contribute to various access to justice funds or sign on to various, various working groups, I'll report that.

But no one will ever know publicly how many hours of pro-bono Jesse Gabriel did, if any. So it's entirely anonymous. And it's also very clear in the Bill that there's no penalty for failing to report that or for not doing any pro-bono. So there isn't any coercion here. Right? People can decide whether or not they want to report it.

This is, I think, in many ways just giving people the opportunity that want to, to report that. We've worked very closely with attorneys in private practice and many of the major law firms who've been very enthusiastically supportive of this. And again, this is the same role that has been adopted in deeply conservative states like Mississippi and Indiana and other places where they're sensitive to this.

So I would just respectfully, you know, if we were talking about mandatory pro-bono, that you had to do a certain number of pro-bono hours a year to have your law license. That might be a different conversation, but this is a, I would argue, a very light touch approach of confidential reporting.

And again, many of the services that folks are going to provide here are helping a domestic violence victim, helping somebody who is the victim of a natural disaster, facilitating an adoption, working with a victim of human trafficking, helping a church or a local YMCA to negotiate a lease. I mean, these are services that so many people in our community, irrespective of their political ideology, rely on.

And so I think to provide this opportunity for people to report that, to aggregate that data, to be able to develop better policies so that we can provide those services across the state, argue has public benefit. So apologies if there's any confusion about the coercion of part of this. Again, this is entirely confidential and there is no penalty for failing to do so.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, there's subtle coercion and shaming the legal profession as well as the medical profession, I believe, because I know a lot of doctors who do Doctors without Borders and that type of thing. I mean, it is essential in our community for the pro-bono volunteerism. That's fundamental when one becomes a lawyer to know that they will be giving back. So I don't know why this is necessary. I really don't know.

And there are wonderful organizations, legal aid societies that populate the legal community. And all of our communities are essential to the Administration of Justice. I just don't know why. And this gets to the essence of all the laws that we pass. Why do we need another law when lawyers are already doing, maybe you want 1000 more lawyers to do pro-bono work? Well, the State Bar can administer that and encourage that. And that can be part of the continuing education to encourage.

I mean, lawyers go to continuing education X number of hours every year. Why isn't that part of the encouragement to use the law to coerce? I'll still use that word, to me, is heavy handed. When there are other means to encourage people to give back into the community, many, many, many hundreds of lawyers I've known over my lifetime have never been forced to do pro-bono work. They do it out of their moral commitment to justice.

I don't know why we need a law to do that.

I would just respectfully say I don't think we're forcing anybody to do anything here. And again, the rationale here is gathering that data. You heard about the geographic disparities in the state. That data is going to help us develop better policy solutions so that we can help people in rural areas of the state, in underserved areas of state get these legal services that they desperately need. So I think there's a very strong policy rationale here. And respectfully, there's no coercion.

I mean, you'd be arguing the same, that the option to be an organ donor on your license is coercion. We're giving people the option to report data. If they would like to do so.

Why not make a volunteer? If somebody wants to do that, to help bring a greater, shine a greater light on where there are legal service needs in our, in our rural communities, just make it voluntary.

I don't, again, this is, this is voluntary. There's no consequence for failing to.

Thank you very much.

Senator Pacheco.

So I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. And I just wanted to add upon, I wasn't actually going to make any comments, but I just want to add upon what you mentioned about, you know, as attorneys, we're not required to do pro-bono work, but it's kind of something that we all naturally do. I went to a law school that it was required to do pro-bono work to graduate.

So I went to Loyola Law School and we had to do 25 hours of mandatory pro-bono work. But even after I graduated, after I became an attorney, we voluntarily do pro pro-bono. A number of us are a part of different service groups that do pro-bono work, from the Mexican American Bar Association to the Southeast District Bar Association. We volunteer hours on the weekends. So it's something that's the norm for us as attorneys. And this is only gathering data. It's voluntary.

Whether it's, whether the attorney submits it online is voluntary. Whether the attorney completes pro-bono work is voluntary. But at least we're gathering that data. So none of this, I just want to reiterate what the author said. None of this is mandatory for an attorney. It's just gathering that information. So I just felt the need to also speak on behalf of this Bill. And I want to thank the author for this Bill.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Gabriel. Yeah, I think it's probably the least coercive manner in which we can encourage folks to, as lawyers, to actually give back. And, you know, we're talking about less than an hour a week that we're asking lawyers. And the reality is the Bar suggests that there's a very small percentage they don't really actually know because they're not asking the question. And I think one of the really important points is rural access.

You know, people tend to volunteer in their own neighborhood, in their own community. It makes sense. You're going to have a lot more folks volunteering in urban communities. But with the use of video conferencing, what have you, if the data shows, you know what, we really need a lot more pro-bono service in the Central Valley or up north, Northern California, we can have those in urban communities make that choice, say, you know what?

I can do some video conferencing and help this person with their landlord tenant issue or help this person with their immigration, whatever it might be that they choose to volunteer. To Senator Pacheco's point, the opportunities to volunteer are really limitless. I think that folks, part of what I see this doing is the Bar Association being able to market those opportunities better once they have a more clear sense of the data.

And I want to thank you, Assemblymember Gabriel, from the moment you've joined the Assembly, you've been laser focused. I don't want access to justice, particularly in the civil realm, for those that don't have means. And so I appreciate your continued work in this area. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you very much. I just want to thank everybody for the conversation. Appreciate it. I want to just acknowledge what the Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, Assemblymember Pacheco said.

The work that I did as an attorney, the pro-bone work I did, will forever be among some of the proudest things that I have done in my lifetime, even of the work I'm proud of in the Assembly when I, hopefully when I'm an old man sitting back in my rocking chair reflecting on the pro-bono cases that I'm a part of will be among my proudest accomplishments. The reason to do this through the bar is about meeting people where they are.

This is where attorneys get information. This is where they decide to join different sections or learn about things. And let me just close by offering for other Republican colleagues the additional 13 states that have voluntary reporting requirements include Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.

So I think there is a strong bipartisan tradition, there's a strong tradition in red and in blue states of helping attorneys to do that pro-bono work to gather that data, and with that would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Take roll call on AB 2505.

Motions do pass, as amended. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Assemblymember Gabriel. That's our first Bill.

All right, we got a Bill out, everything else on call. But you know what? We have Assemblymember Reyes is here, so why don't we go ahead and go to file item eight, and we'll get to the voting stuff later. AB 3136.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I'm presenting AB 3136, which will codify the Bureau of Environmental justice within the Department of Justice and require that they be maintained at their current staffing levels.

The Bureau of Environmental Justice is an administratively created entity within the Department of Justice whose mission it is to protect people and communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazards.

The bureau has a number of different tools available to reach their mission, such as sending comment letters outlining environmental justice concerns for projects around the state, developing best practices related to warehouse sightings and SB 1000 implementation, filing lawsuits when projects violate CEQA or other state laws, intervening on behalf of communities and state entities, as well as engaging federal rulemaking. While the past two attorney generals have supported and expanded the bureau, there is no guarantee that a future Attorney General will continue this work.

Vulnerable communities public health should not be conditioned on the whims of public sentiment. Codifying the EJ Bureau will give our constituents a guaranteed state ally in the fight for environmental justice. Here to testify and support is Marquis Mason with California Environmental Voters. Thank you.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Marquis King Mason, and I'm honored to speak on behalf of California Environmental Voters. It's imperative to acknowledge the environmental justice burdens faced by millions of Californians. From industrial pollution and fossil fuel extraction in your schools and homes, contaminated water for families and young children, pesticides affecting agricultural workers in nearby communities. The challenges are substantial and numerous.

AB 3136 is needed to ensure that millions of Californians on the front line continue to have a voice in the Department of Justice. Alongside the Attorney General, the Bureau of Environmental Justice, armed with various tools, has been at the forefront of combating environmental injustices since 2018. From sending comment letters to developing best practices and filing lawsuits, the bureau ensures compliance with laws like the California Environmental Quality act and penalizes illegal pollution discharge. It also challenges federal actions that compromise public health and environmental protections.

A 2022 study by PPIC revealed a troubling sentiment among California voters, with roughly seven out of 10 feeling that local government aren't doing enough to address water issues. This underscores the urgent need for continued action. Building on the legacy of SB 1000, which mandated local governments to identify and address environmental justice in their General plans, the Attorney General's Office reached an agreement with Huntington Park in 2021 after the city neglected environmental justice considerations in its 2030 General Plan.

This agreement prioritized robust community engagement and addressed critical issues like housing. Cities like Hunting park, burdened with some of the highest pollution levels in the state, face higher health risks for their residents, including asthma and cardiovascular disease. Despite past support from attorney generals, the future remains uncertain. There's no guarantee that future administrations will continue prioritizing environmental justice. That's why this is needed. Establishing a codified state entity will ensure that Californians always have a dedicated partner.

And in this critical fight, let California continue to embody moral clarity and leadership by standing with impacted communities. With the full authority of the Department of Justice, let us pass AB 316 and reaffirm our commitment to a future where every Californian, regardless of their race, their creed, their culture or income, can live in a healthy and thriving environment. Thank you so much.

Hi. So I have to. So I was. I did environmental regulatory actions as part of my career. I went up against the California Department of Justice Environmental Division, which is a lot more than 12 lawyers.

Thank you. Is anyone else here in support of AB 3136? Is everyone here in opposition to AB 3136? All right, we'll bring it back to Committee Assembly member Kahan.

And although I think this office is important, I actually think that the entire environmental division of the California Department of Justice should be imbued with an environmental justice lens. I think when our prosecutors are making decisions about which actions to seek, it should be the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which often is our environmental justice communities. That's where we need to be focused on clean water and clean air.

And, you know, there are different attorney generals, but I would say that's not always the way those prosecuting decisions are made. And so I feel like I'm gonna support this Bill because it's better than nothing. But I actually think the right answer is for us to have an ethos of that being part of the decisions being made in the much larger environmental division of DOJ.

And so I worry that having a separate office, and that's where environmental justice is being taken care of takes that out of the decision being made by the many line prosecutors that are protecting our air and water across California every single day. And so I think maybe it's a both, but I think that's a really important thing for us to be talking about and thinking about because so many cases are being done by that environmental division and they too should be helping our underserved communities. Thank you.

Yes, thank you, chair. I'm going to be supporting this Bill because my district and communities in my district had a direct experience with the Department of Justice. When we had a oil spill, I think it was in October of 2022. Anyway, it was the fast remediation, legal remediation of the number of parties. There were various oil freighters and maybe there was an anchor or moving a line.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dixon.

Thank you, Senator Bryan.

It could have wounded up in the courts for years, but because of this Department and the dedication of whether it's 12 or 25 people, but it was resolved quickly to the benefit of our community in Orange County. So serving not just to go after local companies or oil companies, it's just that when there's a problem, let's get it solved quickly and efficiently and judiciously. So I will be supporting the Bill. So thank you.

I want to thank my colleague from the Inland Empire for this Bill forward. When this office was established by then Attorney General Becerra, people were looking at it skeptically. It showed tremendous potential and that's why Attorney General Bontaz expanded it. It's all been done administratively, though, so we know a rogue Attorney General or somebody who doesn't share those values that are held by, I believe, an overwhelming majority of Californians that we represent could dismantle this office.

I think codifying it and its importance is a goal that we should have and one that I share. So if you are looking for any co authors, I would happily join you in this fight. And if there's not a motion, I'd be happy to make one Mister Chair.

So moved in a second assemblyman Connolly.

Well, it was then Attorney Becerra established it in February of 2018.

Yeah, I agree with that. I'd like to be listed as a co-author as well. So the impression is there is now a track record for this office. It's been in existence for about five years. I don't know. Does the author want to comment on that? What kind of enhanced activities or efforts have been done as a result?

And as my colleague mentioned there was an expansion under now Attorney General Bonta, the number of attorneys, an amendment that we took specifically so that we knew the minimum number of attorneys. The expansion, I think, is going to depend on the next Attorney General. But the services, as our colleagues have mentioned, these are services to the entire community, whether it's going after someone who is harming the community or helping to facilitate the resolution of an issue that has come up like the oil spill.

Thank you. And thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Senator Reyes. I already listed as a co author and grateful that other Members of the Committee see the value in this, in wanting to join on. I think it's important to Senator Bryan's point, codifying this as a value of our estate to continue the DOJ's actions as our Vice Chair. So, outgoing put forth. Would you like to close?

I hope that answers the question, at least for today.

Yes, I think that this is very telling, that we have bipartisan support on something this important, because it is all Californians who benefit. And finding ways to see every issue through an EJ lens is something that I would absolutely agree with, and any efforts in that regard I will absolutely be supportive of. I thank Members Connolly and Bryan for being our newest co authors. Of course, I welcome many others who want to be co authors. Clean air, clean water, this is a human right.

Thank you. Roll call on AB 3136.

California is deserve it. And we need to have an ally at the state level that's going to make sure to protect our rights. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Roll Call

Roll Call

All right, that Bill is out. And up. Next, file item 10, SCR at 113. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. We have a motion in a second.

Afternoon. Afternoon, colleagues. It is my absolute pleasure to be here with you and to present SCR 113, which is the State's Senate's companion resolution to your ACR 135 that Assembly member Weber introduced and brought to this Committee earlier this year. For the first time, California is acknowledging its role in perpetuating the harms and the ongoing effects of slavery on black people across the state and the nation.

And this resolution simply acknowledges that while we'd like to think that the enslavement of black Americans is a relic of the past, we are still coming to terms with the long term effects that the dehumanization of slavery and on black people in this country continues to have. And certainly we know we are dealing with it every day. Whether it's in public safety, whether it's in housing, whether it's in Health Committee, we see the disparities.

And that's why in 2020, the state Legislature passed AB 3121, which established the reparations task force to not only study the harmful effects that the legacy of slavery has had on black Californians, but to also bring forward real policies to address these harms. The task force report has affirmed from exhaustive fact gathering and checking and research that black people in this country have already known all too well this truth, that the violence and the harms of slavery did not end in 1865.

These harms against black people actually date back to 1619, when Africans were brutally brought to America against their will. And unlike no other human experience in this country, millions of black people were ripped from their homeland 5000 miles away, auctioned off like cattle, kept in terrorizing bondage, and forced to endure genocidal labor under the most inhumane conditions.

It's estimated that $20 trillion was amassed on the backs of enslaved black labor, making the US the largest economic power in the world, creating for us the oldest wage theft claim that is yet to be paid. California further perpetuated these harms against black Americans by enforcing racist laws and discriminatory policies emanating from the state's origin and continues institutionally in many ways today. And while California entered the union in 1850 as a free state, it did not enact laws to guarantee freedom for all.

California's first elected Governor in 1849, Peter Hardeman Burnett was a white supremacist who encouraged laws to exclude black people from living free in the state. And in fact, they called him Burnett the Whip, because he actually would whip, not just exclude, but whip black folks across the borders. That was a form of border patrol in the state, whipping black folks across the borders of California.

In 1852, the California Supreme Court enforced the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed for the capture and the return of runaway enslaved people for over a decade until the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted. The California State Legislature prohibited interracial marriages by passing anti miscegenation laws in the first legislative session in 1849. And in 1874, the California Supreme Court ruled school segregation was in fact legal. The harms to black people in California continued to reverberate the State of California, created racial barriers to voting.

We had poll taxes, literacy tests, further disenfranchising black citizens. And California propagated discrimination in housing policies through redlining, beginning in the 1930s, when the state enabled mortgage companies to mark black neighborhoods as red on internal maps, preventing black people from securing loans, much less obtaining home ownership, a practice that we well know in my district through covenants, which many folks, when they look at their mortgage, some of those clauses are still there.

California enacted restrictive zoning ordinances, licensing laws, fire safety codes, anti nuisance laws to disrupt the operations of black businesses, largely shutting them down.

The chains of bondage took on many other forms and a long list of other racist and at times, deadly practices in California further disenfranchised black people in this state, from the lack of access to quality health care and education, involuntary scientific experimentation, to the assassination of progressive leaders, to systemic barriers of employment, where right now, in this country, 90% of those employed are black. When confronted with the moral obligation to Detour away from slavery, California decision makers instead did what many other states were doing.

They capitulated the immoral and popular anti-black racist sentiment that helped and continues to be a detrimental spiral for so many black Californians. In the coming months, the California Legislative Black Caucus, along with all of you, will be reviewing and moving forward policies that will begin to address these harms. And I want to say there is not a dollar amount that is high enough, there is not a policy that is strong enough to deal with over 500 years of slavery and disenfranchisement.

So what we're doing is trying to repair the harm. We recognize how black community, in this history of slavery, is our foundation, and it's broken. And when a house's foundation is broken, the rest of the house is precarious. And so when we think about all of the challenges that we have in California today, and I talked about the homelessness crisis, the mass incarceration crisis, the educational achievement gap crisis, it leads back to this foundation.

And so this resolution is really just a moment to say that we can't say we didn't know. We can't say we didn't know because we had our task force produce this incredible 1100 page report of scholarship that details the harm. So there will be other bills that will ask for, you know, formal apologies. There will be other bills that will ask for ways in which we deal with systemic and individual harms.

But today, this resolution is simply an acknowledgement of what has happened and acknowledging what the task force has done. And so with that, I encourage all of you, if you have not read this, the Executive summary is short, but it does get to all of the details, and I encourage all of us to go deeper.

And I see some of our colleagues from the Legislative Black Caucus and our commitment to work with you to build the foundation of knowledge needed for us to take this journey together. But today, it's about acknowledging the power of information and beginning the first steps of restoring California to where it absolutely must be. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SCR 113? Is there anyone here in opposition to SCR 113? Bring it back to the Committee. Senator Bryan?

Yeah. I want to thank the Senator from Los Angeles for bringing this resolution forward. We talked about this with our Assembly counterpart not that long ago, but I felt compelled to just remind us, slavery in this country, we enslave folks, and then we enslave their children, and then their children, and then their children, and then their children and then their children. That could keep going for all 13 generations that slavery lasted in this country.

And we often ask ourselves in California, what does that have to do with us? We were a free state. People say that so quickly, one, having not known that before this process began, and then two, to dismiss all the work that's been put into articulating what that actually means in California. As the author has articulated, you could bring your slaves and still own them. If you were an enslaved person seeking freedom, you were not guaranteed that freedom.

We had the most draconian fugitive slave law anywhere in the country. We participated in land takings. We participated in racialized terror in the State of California. The Department of Justice and the community's task force documented this in that report with 150 recommendations. This resolution, as the author mentioned, is simply us acknowledging receipt of that history, of this report, of that documentation. We can't say we didn't know. And the bigger question for us is, what are we going to do about it?

But today, I'd like to make the motion that acknowledges that this Committee, in fact, does know now, having received this resolution from our Senate counterpart.

Yes. I'd like to thank the author from Los Angeles for bringing this forward, and I'd also like to thank my other partner over there from the black caucus. The black caucus. We are making a commitment to make sure that we educate, that we educate each and every one of our Members about what happened to the descendants of slaves, to slavery. What happened to us? What happened to this country? This country was poor.

Thank you. So, Mckinnor

Senator Bauer-Kahan.

You know, we had come in, we'd taken it away from Native Americans, and we settled. But it was poor, and this country became very, very rich off the backs of slaves, backs of African Americans. And so we should at least acknowledge. I'm glad to stand shoulder to show to here with you guys to acknowledge that we've received this document that we can't say we didn't know and that we will go forward with fixing this with reparations. Thank you,

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. As my colleague from LA said, we had this conversation with our Assembly colleague, and I think it's so important that we have the conversation both about the historical wrongs, but also I live in a community that was redlined and that today remains very predominantly white as a result of that historic legacy. And so it's not over. And I think it's really important for us to look that in the face and talk about it. And that's part of important conversation.

But since that hearing, I actually have engaged the Austrian government in reparations for what happened to my family during the Holocaust. And they sent me a letter, and I wish my grandmother was alive to read it because it said, thank you for trusting us by seeking reparations. You're trusting that we're in a different place than we were in the forties. And that hit me right here, because it does, it takes trust to be willing to come forward and say, I trust you're different.

I trust you're willing to make reparations. And so I want to thank you for bringing this, and I want to thank you for the trust you're placing in California, because that is what it takes to be willing to make this move, and it's a big one. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. As mentioned, we did have conversation on this when our colleague summer Weber brought this forward. And I want to thank you. I want to thank the.

The California Legislative Black Caucus for the work that's been done, the Commission, the Commission report, and the steps that are necessary. And this is an initial step of acknowledgment, acknowledging that we are aware, but there will be a reckoning, and we have to decide as a state, as a Legislature, are we going to shy away from the reckoning? Are we going to resist it? Or are we actually going to do something that's righteous and that follows up these acknowledgments with action?

And I know that's the goal of the Black Caucus, and I stand with you in the caucus in doing that. And I hope that our colleagues will continue to stand with the Black Caucus when the tough decisions have to get made as to what actions we're going to take to rectify the history to this day of what we've put descendants of slaves, as well as many generations subsequent to that, through some of the practices that this state endorsed and codified in many ways.

I'd be honored to be added as a co-author and offer you the opportunity to close.

Well, thank you for that, and thank you for those heartfelt words. We have a journey to take together, and I think this journey that we're going to take is going to determine the California we're going to be moving forward for my children. I grew up with my big mama who's. It was in the 1970s, and she lived in our North Carolina home. And her grandmother was a slave. This is a woman who taught me how to blow a kiss. And her grandmother was a slave.

And my mother did not get to pick the high school that she wanted to go to. I was really the first born free fully in my family. So we're not talking ancient history, we're talking the current history. And where we go in the future is us acknowledging it. If we can't face it, we can't change it. And so we want to make sure that California's future is brighter. And it begins with knowledge. Knowledge is power in that, and with that, I respectfully ask for your. aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call vote on SCR 113.

Motions be adopted.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out. We have one more author we're awaiting, but we have a lot of votes to take. And first of all, we need a motion on the Committee Bill AB 3283. That's file nine. We have motion or a second?

Is there a second on the Committee Bill? Second. Madam Secretary, if we could take a roll call vote on AB 3283.

Motion is due pass.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is out. And then consent calendar. It's still on call, so if we can roll through Members present.

This is consent.

[Roll Call]

Okay, and that Bill is out. And we still have a couple folks. All right? And so let's go on to item two, AB 19. No, actually, item one is still on call. AB 1815 Weber.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so that bill's out. Item two, AB 1979 Ward. Will lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is out. We'll do add ons for item three.

[Roll Call]

Okay, item six. We'll lift the call on item six. AB 2785 Wilson.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is out. Item seven. AB 3024 Ward. Its on call. Lift the call.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Item eight is. Yeah. You are not voting. zero, no.

On AB 3024. Dixon no.

Okay. Item nine. Neither of them are here. So I think we're all caught up. Except for those that aren't here. All right. Do we have any idea of when?

So. Consent calendar. Add on.

On Consent. [Roll Call]

Item 1, 1815 Weber.

[Roll Call]

Item three, Gabriel. Item three, AB 25. No. Sorry. AB two. Item two, AB 1979 Ward.

[Roll Call]

Item three, AB 2505.

[Roll Call]

That one is done. Item six, AB 2785.

[Roll Call]

He's in the elevator.

Item seven, AB 3024.

[Roll Call]

And item eight, AB 3136.

[Roll Call]

Item nine, AB 3283.

[Roll Call]

AB 3283.

[Roll Call]

Okay. And item 10. SCR 113.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Which one do you want to go back to? Okay. Item seven. Change vote to not voting for item seven. AB 3024. Maienschein. Not voting. So he's all caught up.

Maienschein not voting. AB 3024.

Change. Not voting. She has called it out. Change. Not voting. On AB 3024. Yeah. To not voting. Okay. All right.

It's on item 6, 2785.

Sorry. It's not item seven. It's item six. Okay.

AB 2785. Maienschein. Not voting.

Okay, item. We're gonna go to item five. AB 2766. Low.

Thank you very much, Mister chair and Committee Members, for indulging on this hectic schedule today and allowing me to present, along with Assemblywoman Dixon, on Assembly Bill 2766 on clarity and public transparency for early release credits. As the Chair may also recall, there was a recent shooting in the City of San Jose in which my brother and his partner were involved in a shooting. My brother's partner was shot in the line of duty.

And she was the first female police officer to be shot in the line of duty in the City of San Jose. And so, hoping to ensure that we have clarity and transparency. And I want to acknowledge the Committee's hard work and would also be accepting the Committee amendments as well, too. Thank you for allowing me to present. I'll pass it over to my joint author, Assemblywoman, Diane Dixon.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. And I am proud to be here today, present alongside my colleague, Assemblymember Low.. We have worked diligently with all stakeholders and Committee staff on the language. The Bill reflects amendments to address the concerns that were discussed last year when AB 15, its predecessor, was heard in Assembly public safety. This Bill is critical to provide more transparency as it relates to early release credits for incarcerated individuals.

As Assemblymember Lowe recited that unfortunate, tragic experience, there was another incident happened two years ago here in Sacramento where six people were murdered blocks from this building. There were three people that were each charged with three counts of murder. Of the group, one individual was a felon in possession of a firearm. CDCR later confirmed that he was released from prison a little over a month before the shooting after serving only five and a half years of a 10 year sentence.

CBS News Sacramento, seeking to understand how a defendant in a gang related multiple homicide case was able to be released so early, submitted a Public Records Act request. CDCR responded by denying the news station's request, arguing that credit earning information was confidential. The people of California deserve to know why incarcerated individuals are released earlier than their scheduled release date by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and before full rehabilitation may have been achieved and documented. And the people of California deserve transparency.

AB 2766 offers a remedy by amending the Public Records Act to provide that the calculation of a prison inmates release date, which includes a summary of how the inmate earned any release credits, including education and good behavior, is not confidential and is a public record subject to disclosure. When an incarcerated person serves a fraction of their sentence imposed by the judge, the public is entitled to know why that is the case. I am proud to sit alongside my colleague who has personal experience why this policy is so important. Thank you.

Thank you. And just to clarify accepting the Committee amendments. Thank you, Assemblymember Low. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2766?

Good morning Mister Chair and Committee Members. I'm Zach Cefalu. On behalf of the League of California Cities testifying in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Committee Members. Jared Moss, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs, in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 2766? I know that some of the amendments relieve some of the concerns of opposition, so I appreciate you working with our staff on that. And there is a motion on the table. No, we need a motion. We have a motion and a second. Are there any questions or comments? All right, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank you again for allowing Assemblymember Dixon and I to present.

Great, of course. Our pleasure, Madam Secretary. Take roll call on AB 2766.

Motion is due pass as amended. [Roll Call].

All right, that Bill is out. Thank you all. I believe. I believe. Yeah, I think everyone here is all caught up. We have a couple other Members that we're waiting on.

On AB 3024 Maienschein is an aye.

Okay. We are now ready to do add ons.

Consent calendar. [Roll Call]. Item one, which is AB 1815. [Roll Call]. Item two, which is AB 1979 Ward. [Roll Call]. I have everyone on item three. Item five is AB 2766 Low. [Roll Call]. Item five, AB 2766 Low. [Roll Call].

Item six is AB 2785 Wilson. [Roll Call]. Item seven is AB 3024 Ward. [Roll Call]. I've got everyone on item eight. Item nine is AB 3283 by Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]. And item 10 is SCR 113. [Roll Call].

Judiciary Committee has now adjourned. Thank you.