Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Well, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The rules for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two minutes, two main witnesses. Each witnesses have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill. Additional witnesses should state their names, organization, if any, and their position.

As you proceed with witness and public comment. I want to make sure everyone understands the Committee has rules to ensure we maintain order to run a fair and efficient hearing. I'll go over those rules in more detail if necessary, but I hope that won't be necessary. And we have a nice, orderly meeting this morning.

We have our Vice Chair myself here today, so we'll go ahead and begin out of respect for our Senator, who's here in a timely fashion. We'll start as a Subcommitee and Chair Umberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 940, should we start with that?

Yes.

All right. Well, thank you. Thank you to Mr. Nicholas Leitke. Thank you for your help. Thank you for your assistance on this bill. It's a bill that concerns arbitration and has several different aspects to it. One of the focuses is on consumer arbitration.

If you've ever bought a cell phone or you engage any sort of consumer contract, you'll note that you basically don't have any choices. And if you have a dispute, you may note that that dispute needs to be resolved by arbitration.

You may also note that that arbitration may be required in person in another state, which in my mind means you have no recourse. And so this bill, among other things, says, look it, consumer arbitration clauses that provide for arbitration in another state, that those are void.

It also provides that if your dispute is within the jurisdictional limit of small claims court, $12,500, then you can adjudicate that in small claims court or by arbitration. It's your choice.

It also provides for some, it provides for a conflict of interest code with respect to arbitration firms or ADR firms, alternative dispute resolution firms, that, for example, take on other disputes while a arbitration is basically proceeding. That provision is a work in progress.

I understand that if you've got an arbitration in New York or arbitration in Los Angeles, it may not be a conflict, but there certainly would be a conflict if one arbitrator is taking on multiple matters from the same party. And so we're working on that. We're working on that to resolve that issue.

We also, as part of this bill, are authorizing the state bar to be able to create a mechanism to certify firms, not to certify them in order for them to be able to engage in alternative dispute resolution, but to basically have a system where they can get a certification, much like, for example, a family law practitioner or a criminal law specialist, that kind of thing.

And the bar, of course, can charge whatever fee is necessary to be able to adjudicate, run that process. So with me here today to testify is Julian Burns King with the California Employment Lawyers Association.

Thank you, Mr Chair and Members. My name is Julian Burns King, and I am testifying on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support of SB 940.

I would like to focus my comments on Section 4 and 5 of the bill, which would address the financial incentives and conflicts of interest that occur when arbitrators take repeat business from the same party. Another Sela member's recent arbitration experience illustrates how the repeat player phenomenon stacks the deck against employees in mandatory arbitration.

In that case, the worker sued his employer to recover unpaid sales commissions that were owed to him, and he was compelled to arbitration. During the pendency of that arbitration, the arbitrator deciding his claims disclosed that he had accepted 44 additional matters from the same defense firm representing the defendant in that case.

Our firm currently has about a dozen arbitrations, and we receive these disclosures on a weekly basis. This clearly creates a conflict, or at least the appearance of a conflict, between the arbitrator and the defense. This is amplified because many of the arbitrators are themselves shareholders in the arbitration bodies that administer these claims.

Importantly, this bill does not create a categorical prohibition on arbitrators accepting new business with the same party. It simply requires mutual consent of the parties before any solicitations are made. Another ethical issue that SB 940 addresses is the market reality that creates serious financial conflicts between providers and employers.

A provider like JAMS stands to make thousands, if not millions of dollars if they are named as the sole provider in a company's standard employment or consumer agreements. Right now, these providers are putting on seminars called how to win in arbitration and holding secret meetings with companies to try to lure their business.

Those kinds of practices, whether done by the arbitrators or their agents, should not be permitted, and providers and repeat players in arbitration should be required to disclose marketing and solicitation of cases. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 940?

The California Employment Lawyers Association also registering support on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 940?

That's serious. Yeah.

Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Senator. Good morning, Chair and Members. Jamie Huff, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully opposing one of the five sections. Just one. CJAC does not take issue with most of the senator's goals here.

Our concern is primarily focused on the unnecessary restrictions placed on arbitrators that would stifle the operational efficiencies of arbitration, particularly without seeing any objective evidence that systematic bias is actually occurring. Our specific concern is with the written consent for future employment piece of the bill.

Requiring written consent of all parties without any parameters or restrictions will only serve to slow the process and will be used as a tool of manipulation. There is already so much gamesmanship built into this process. The fear from arbitrators that I've spoken with is that written consent would be used as a tactical move that would have nothing to do with the concern over arbitrator impartiality and everything to do with dragging out the process.

The problematic language is almost verbatim of a bill that was vetoed by Governor Brown in 2016, who stated in his message, arbitrators in California are already subject to stringent disclosure requirements under existing state law and Judicial Council standards. I'm reluctant to add additional disclosure rules and further prohibitions about evidence of a problem.

Further, the existing Judicial Council procedure for amending arbitration ethics standards is a deliberate and public process that can more appropriately consider additional requirements. Governor Brown's message is still on point today. In fact, under Judicial Council standards, an arbitration award can be vacated if there is actually evidence of corruption or misconduct on the part of an arbitrator.

We also believe this portion of the bill faces preemption issues under the Federal Arbitration Act, which was pointed out in the very well written and fair analysis. And we absolutely agree. We support the fair and accountable administration of arbitration and have had continuous conversations with the senator, which we very much appreciate, and his staff on how to get there with the bill. While we've not come to an agreement yet, we hope to remain in negotiations and hope for the future. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris McCauley, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, and hopefully I get a moment before the time starts to also compliment your council's thorough and fair analysis of this measure as well as some of the recommendations that have been made.

Our concern, of course, is also on Section Four. We appreciate the senator's time, as well as the time of his personal and Committee staff, both committees in fact, on their efforts to come to some sort of an agreement. We think that the current protections in law are more than adequate.

We recognize that there are certainly some instances in which perception is of concern with the so-called repeat play. But we also believe that the repeat player concerns are well overstated here. We think that the current standards are working. The provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Arbitration Act, you know, have a half a dozen disclosures similar to those that are utilized by judges Judicial Council standards.

And philosophically, I know that there's obviously some debate that was well outlined in your Committee analysis, but I think that these sort of procedural hurdles with the broad prohibitions that are currently contained in Section Four do give legitimate rise to a federal preemption argument.

I think, as your Committee analysis also points out, there are significant First Amendment concerns as well, dealing with free speech and the ability to advertise the arbitrator services. So for those reasons, we respectfully opposed, unless amended this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 940?

Yes. Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Robert Moutrie, also in opposition for the reasons stated on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you.

Good morning. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, would like to align ourselves with the comments of Chris McCauley. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Just clarification for me, does this? What is this bill number?

940.

Does this exceed the federal arbitration law? Does this go further?

Well, we are hoping it's consistent with the federal, both the statutes as well as the case law. This is an area that is quickly evolving. That the issue with respect to the jurisdictional limits, small claims court, for example, that I don't believe is going to be an issue.

And also the issue with respect to out of state arbitration of claims, it would be interesting if a federal court found that you somehow had some right recourse if you're required to arbitrate a claim face to face, out of state, for a claim that's less than $12,500. But I no doubt that this will be tested.

And then, thank you, Senator. One other question. I understand that Judicial Council has weighed in on this. Are you in concert with their recommendations or what is their position?

So I don't recall what Judicial Council has to say. Do you happen to know what Judicial Council had to say? So I don't recall what they had to say.

I don't believe they. According to our wonderful staff member, I don't believe that they've weighed in.

Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you so much.

Okay. Well, we don't have quorum yet, and so we'll take up this matter as soon as possible. But I really appreciate you, Chair Umberg, for the presentation, for your work in this really difficult issue. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Oh, last, my last question. Do you accept the amendments?

Oh, if I didn't say that at the outset.

Just want to make sure. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Yes.

SB 1022 and SB 1144. You'll be starting with 1022.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you. See if I do this without my glasses right now.

And you may want to pull the microphone a little closer?

Okay, good idea.

Thank you.

And allow me to get my glasses out.

Take your time.

Hi. Pleased to present SB 1022. What the bill does is it provides our Civil Rights Department the time needed to effectively investigate and respond to systemic, complaints of systemic discrimination in the workplace or housing.

Now, when I say that a single complaint isn't necessarily one that shows a systemic pattern, what this means, what this does is the Civil Rights Department has something which is known as director's complaints and those. So, let's say I work somewhere, I make a complaint. That's just a single complaint.

But the next year, three people in that workplace make a complaint, and the following year, four or five. Then all of a sudden, the Department is seeing a pattern. So that's when a complaint would rise to the level of director's complaint.

And what this does is clarify the amount of time, and it makes it more comparable to the time period that the Federal Government has for its investigation of such types of complaints.

This does not change the statute of limitation, but hopefully, by allowing this time, it would lessen the number of lawsuits, because then it gives the ability for the Department to interact with, and I'm using now an employer. There could. It could be housing complaints, it could be something else.

But to interact with the employer to bring attention to these pattern of complaints, to come up with solutions that don't necessarily involve going to court around them. So, that's part of the objective, is to try to avoid that and to instead get agreements and remedies without court action.

All right, so now I'd like to introduce my witnesses in support. They are Sela Steiger from the Legal Aid at Work, and Kel O'hara, who is the Senior Attorney at Equal Rights Advocates.

Thank you. Up to two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Sela Steiger. I'm a staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work. We are a legal nonprofit supporting low-wage workers in asserting their workplace rights, and we have done so for over 100 years. Through our work, we have worked extensively with the Civil Rights Department, both in referring individual complainants to the agency, as well as representing claimants and settling numerous cases, including group and class complaints.

Through this work, we know that, realistically, the CRD provides the only process and remedy for many low wage workers who do not have the ability to seek independent counsel or to litigate their claims. This is particularly true for workers facing systemic discrimination, where reports of unlawful practices often go ignored.

Employees are singled out, harassed, they're unlawfully terminated, and they're made to feel that complaining would be futile. It may even take years for people to realize that there are laws that protect them, particularly in sex harassment and sexual assault cases where they realize that there are laws protecting them from discrimination and abuse at work.

These claimants are often facing severe economic hardship as a result of this discriminatory practices, making individual litigation unfeasible and also making settlement through the CRD that much more meaningful. SB 1022 empowers the California Civil Rights Department to effectively and proactively investigate systemic discrimination, which is the purpose of the agency's powers in this area.

Indeed, that power was recently reaffirmed by this Legislature in 2022 by unanimously passing AB 2662 to affirm the CRD's role as a public prosecutor, to represent the interests of the state, and to effectuate California's public policy. We applaud that effort, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Kel O'Hara on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, a proud co-sponsor of SB 1022. Our organization has represented workers for over 50 years. We see firsthand just how critical it is for the Civil Rights Department to have the proper tools to adequately enforce their anti-discrimination laws.

You've already heard how effectively addressing systemic legal violations requires clarifying the statute of limitations applicable to the Department. Accordingly, I'll briefly highlight two other provisions of the bill that would benefit all parties involved.

First, SB 1022 would allow CRD to pause investigations of complaints that are already the subject of ongoing group or class investigations or civil actions. This will allow CRD to more efficiently use its limited resources to address broad systemic legal violations and to resolve the maximum number of claims pertaining to the same underlying discriminatory practices.

Allowing a pause will also benefit respondents who are already engaged in group investigations or litigation because they will not have to simultaneously and separately respond to related individual complaints. Second, SB 1022 would clarify that the deadline for CRD to complete an investigation and potentially file in court may be told by voluntary agreement with a respondent.

Such mutually agreed upon holds are well recognized tools to facilitate settlement and avoid litigation. This will both benefit respondents and reduce the workload of the courts. For many Californians, CRD provides the only meaningful avenue to address discriminatory housing and employment practices.

SB 1022 will ensure that the Department can adequately represent the interests of the state in enforcing existing laws and will result in greater efficiencies for the agency, the parties, and the courts. For these reasons, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1022?

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

Thank you.

Jessica Stender here on behalf of the California Work and Family Coalition, in support.

Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Thank you.

Elmer Lazardi on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 2022? And while you're coming up here, Madam Secretary, if we can roll call for quorum3

[Roll call]

And I'd like to welcome Assembly Member Patterson to the Judiciary Committee. But, you know, keep some thoughts to yourself. Anyway, just kidding. Just kidding. All right. Yeah, please.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce, filling in for my colleague Ashley. And we are respectfully opposed to SB 1022. I want to be clear. We're not opposed to enforcement of the relevant statutes, and we're not opposed to many of the portions of the Bill.

Our opposition is focused on what we see as a change to the statute of limitations to extend it to seven years. I want to note a couple of differences broadly on the statute of limitations issue first.

The majority of statute of limitations in California, as noted by our letter and correctly reflected analysis, range from two to five years. For suits against public entities, it can be as little as six months.

So, when we talk about seven years and this idea of complicated cases need this, we think it's important to remember the context of what most cases deal with and what most litigants, no matter how complicated the case, are able to deal with on a private or public matter. The complexity of the case is important.

For example, when you deal with civil rights cases or class actions, we don't see this statute of limitations in those cases, despite their complexity and difficulty. So, the argument that these cases are unique and must have more time pre-filing, we just don't see as borne out in facts or justified.

Notably, this is the timeline before filing, too, so that complexity can be addressed in discovery, post filing. What we're talking about here is the beginning of when that case must be brought to court. Right? So, we think those issues are distinct and not a justification for change here.

I want to briefly give an example because statute limitations often is abstract and not very interesting. So, I'll do my best to make it interesting.

If a Member of this Committee heard an inappropriate remark today, not that this would happen, but let's say our friend Mister Micheli said something terrible, which he could be sued on. And again, this would not happen obviously.

He would never.

He is faultlessly polite, but if such a thing were to happen, we would want to incentivize that suit to be brought as soon as possible while we remember, oh, who was he sitting next to? Where was he? Where was I? Right? So, we talk about. Oh, I'm sorry, I'll wrap up.

When we talk about seven years, we think of what we'll remember. That's why statute limitations are shorter and why they push for evidence sooner. And we think that's good policy. Appreciate the extra time, and with that, I'll close. Thank you for all.

Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1022?

Jamie Huff, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Chair. my colleague, Brian Little of the California Farm Bureau Federation asked that I express their respectful opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, bring it back to Committee. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, what is the current statute of limitations that applies to these cases?

Appreciate your asking the question through the Chair. So, I stated, and is not incorrect, that this does not change the statute of limitations. Notice that our representative opposition described in the individual complaint he used poor Mister Micheli as an example.

If Mister Micheli was the only complainant, that's an individual complaint, the existing statute of limitations would still apply. Neither he or the office would be able to take an action on the individual complaint.

However, what this does do is clarify that on these director's complaints, these systemic investigations, which involve more than a single complaint, then they would have a seven-year period for being able to look back and being able to then, if necessary, but hopefully would not cause litigation.

Which is why one of our proponents from Equal Rights Advocates described that it also allows for a pause, which allows the Civil Rights Department to negotiate then with the entity and try to come with a solution rather than a lawsuit.

Rather than going to court, which I think, I'm sure the Chamber agrees, we would prefer not to have to go to court. So, we would rather deal with such complaints and change practices without having to go to court.

Okay, but what is the current statute of limitations?

Well, the the. Around these directors' complaints or investigations, it's. There's lack of clarity in the law.

Oh.

There is a clear statute of limitations around an individual complaint. There's a lack of clarity in the.

I see. Sir, did you have a comment about that?

If I may? It's our understanding from our legal research that the argument that there is not a statute of limitations on these presently has been rejected where asserted and is not present law. So, we view this as a change. I think it's a different reading of the law that we have, but we view this as the creation of a longer statute of limitations than appropriate, and don't view it as a mere clarification.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments or motions? We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. Thank you, Senator Skinner, for bringing this forward. I think it's important to be able to really get a sense of, especially if there's a pattern or practice of violations.

I think this will allow for that and to your point, allow for corrective measures, which ultimately, I think, benefits all parties. Would you like to close?

Great. Thank you. With that, I'll take it as a close. I appreciate, and I also appreciate the clarification that, of course, as the Chamber indicated, they interpret the law differently. However, I think in your analysis, it's clear that this bill is, in fact, a clarification on the law rather than a change to the statute of limitations.

And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, take a roll call vote on SB 1022.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

We'll place that on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

And then up next, item five, SB 1144.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll take that as a beginning. So, thank you very much for being able to present SB 1144--yeah, yeah, I got it--which will increase the regulations. Increase--okay, let's step back. SB 301 was a bill I did in 2022, and it established regulations for online marketplaces to verify the legality of their sellers.

It only applied to high-volume sellers, so that's in place, and we've already had, for example, our Attorney General has a retail theft task force. They've already used SB 301 to identify and go after, in effect, these organized retail theft rings. So it's been very effective.

However, we also have marketplaces where the actual money doesn't change hands on the site. Instead, the seller says, 'okay, I got all this stuff,' and then the buyer contacts them, and then they do it through PayPal. And so some of our online marketplaces are saying, 'hey, we don't need to collect information on those sellers.'

The difficulty of that is that then, we--they are no longer verifying that that seller is legal, that that seller has a tax ID and has filed, you know, business license and such, and what that allows is for some of these organized theft rings to get around SB 301, which is not good.

Now, some of you may have seen the articles around the very wealthy couple in San Diego who were running one of these large operations, and what they were doing is paying people. So, you know, when we think sometimes about petty theft, you know, somebody just goes in and shoplifting a store, this, when we're talking about organized retail theft, we're talking about people who engage, they say, 'okay,' and the paper showed all the texts.

The text, you know, six people that they have under their employ--and I say employ; I'm sure they're not paying employment taxes, they're just--but they're saying, 'okay, hit a Sephora.' We need a whole lot more of X type of makeup or this type of perfume is really popular. We need a lot more of that. And then they then have a--they use a particular online marketplace and sell this stuff, right? So the person stealing it isn't selling it, it is these--they're getting paid, right?

So this is the way to get at these organized retail theft rings, which are the real source of the large volumes of stolen goods. While, you know, we've always had--and I say always, not any condoning, but, you know, shoplifting has been a reality for forever--but we are seeing this increase now because you've got this ability where these organized retail theft rings will pay you to go and steal something, and then they sell in big, big volumes. So what my bill does is get at those sellers, it gets those other marketplaces to verify that a seller is legal.

And I can talk a little bit. There's some of our--some of the online marketplaces who oppose, they say, because of privacy issues or other issues, which I can address later rather than going into a lot of detail now, but let me introduce our witnesses in support. We have Cristine Soto DeBerry from the Prosecutors Alliance of California and Margaret Gladstein from the Retailers Association.

Thank you. Up to two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Happy to be here today. Prosecutors Alliance Action brings together voices of prosecutors, victim advocates, and crime survivors to advocate for solutions to create safe, healthy communities. We're proud to co-sponsor SB 1144, a bill that does just that.

SB 1144, as you heard the author indicate, is a smart solution. It will help prevent retail theft before it happens. We're all better with a crime prevented than a crime punished. This bill builds on SB 301 and the Inform Act, creating additional smart regulations that will help us deter the sale of stolen goods in our online marketplaces. If retailers, if online marketplaces failed to collect this information, they'd be subject to civil penalties.

This will give us an enforcement mechanism to ensure, as the Senator indicated, that all of our online marketplaces, one of the major sources of commerce in this century, has the same kinds of safeguards and regulations that consumers expect when they walk into a store anywhere in the United States.

This bill will just require companies to collect information from those sellers that are selling more--making more than 200 transactions. This is not targeted at small sellers of online goods. Large resellers of online goods: 200 transactions within 12-month period totaling more than 5,000 dollars.

This bill will in no way eliminate the ability to buy and sell goods through online classified ads or any of the other online marketplaces that we currently have. It will simply require those sellers to provide small, additional amounts of information. As I indicated, this is a proactive effort to help us with the retail theft issue happening both in California and around the country. It is a smart, proactive rather than reactive response as we usually have in the criminal justice system.

Particularly important when it comes to theft, where in California, just over six percent of thefts were solved by law enforcement in 2022. We simply cannot get at the scale of the problem with a reactive solution alone. This is a smart solution for this century.

Just as we regulate pawn shops, we're asking for similar regulations of the online marketplaces that have mostly taken their place. These are simple regulations. Senator Skinner has done a smart job of reaching out to all of the major stakeholders, retailers, online marketplaces, law enforcement, criminal justice reform advocates, all supporting. This will make a difference. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Margaret Gladstein of Capitol Advocacy, here on behalf of the California Retailers Association. We're very grateful for the author for bringing this bill forward. We're in strong support. We did have the opportunity to work with the Senator as well as your committee staff when SB 301 came forward.

That was a, a very hopeful bill. This one just goes a little bit further to help retailers. It expands enforcement. It will help close the loophole, as Senator Skinner said, and we look forward to seeing this implemented so again, we can help stop some of the problems that we're seeing on the back end after goods are stolen. And for those reasons, the California Retailers Association is in strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1144? Hello.

Good morning. Tamar Tokat, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you.

Good evening--or sorry. Good morning.

Hopefully we will not get to evening.

Sorry about that. Niccolo De Luca in proud support and on behalf of the Cities of Buena Park, Fullerton, Oakley, Oakland, Emeryville, and Berkeley. Thank you.

Thank you.

David Jones, on behalf of the City of Stockton, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jason Ryan, League of California Cities. We're in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Devon Anderson, Political Solutions, on behalf of Target and the Home Depot, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Henderson, on behalf of Smart Justice California, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, I'm a tweener. Erin Niemela, representing Ebay. We're working toward a neutral position and just want to thank the author and staff and everyone involved for their help. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Patrick Espinoza, on behalf of the the San Diego District Attorney's Office and the California District Attorney's Association. We're in support of the print version of the bill. However, we respectfully oppose any amendments that would include some inoperability language. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1144?

All right. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jose Torres Casillas, on behalf of TechNet. So we are respectfully opposed to SB 1144. While we appreciate the recent amendments, they do not impact our main concern with this bill, which is that there is significant ambiguity in how to implement the requirements of the bill as it provides no process, direction, or clarification on how certain platforms can or should track in-person transactions, counts, and dollar amounts for compliance purposes.

And it creates separate and burdensome requirements for businesses and individuals hoping to sell in California, taking it out of alignment with the rest of the country. TechNet and our online marketplace members take the issue of organized retail crime incredibly seriously.

We've participated in a thorough stakeholder process organized by the Attorney General and have testified at informational hearings to provide information on our work in this area. We also were part of the national negotiations in 2002 on the Inform Act, participated in those conversations here in California on SB 301, and did not oppose that bill.

Both laws went into effect during the summer of last year. Since then, we are not aware of any data or evidence to justify the changes in this bill to the definition of high-volume seller. That definition was the subject of careful negotiations here and in Congress.

It was a deliberate policy choice, not a loophole, to exclude off platform sales. This is because it is impossible for certain online marketplaces to know if an item was actually sold through the platform if it did not facilitate the payment or shipment.

Without this exclusion, marketplaces will have to consider all sellers as high-volume sellers in order to comply with this law, consequently requiring those marketplaces to collect, hold, and sometimes disclose Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, and other highly sensitive information from many Californians who use these platforms.

The balance was struck to protect small sellers and their private information, as the platforms lack the expertise and technology to collect such highly personal information. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 1144. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1144?

Thank you. Chair Members Jonathan Aaronbell, on behalf of Offer Up, also in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Members. Naomi Padron, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments or motions? Senator Rohany?

I'll move the Bill. I also just want to thank the Senator and the sponsors for your leadership on this. We know that this is a year when we are all working in every way to try to confront this retail theft challenge that is causing such havoc across our state.

And when I heard about the fact that there are these avenues for folks to sell these goods in such large quantities, the stores know that these are stolen goods. They seem clearly to be stolen goods, and yet they're still allowed to be sold so openly and widely.

If we are going to confront the retail theft challenge that we have, we have to undercut their ability to make this so profitable. We have to stop them from making so much money off of stealing. It's as simple as that. This, I think, is such a smart and thoughtful solution.

I know that some of the questions around how to enforce it, and you have had a lot of experience in terms of how to do this, and I'm sure the conversation will continue there. But I'm really grateful.

I think this is the kind of thing that we obviously need to be doing to make sure that stealing isn't so easy, to make money off of things that are clearly stolen, openly and brazenly. So. We are focused on what happens on the street, for sure. But a lot of this is being sold online. We know that.

And when it's happening right in front of our eyes, we have to have the tools to be able to stop it. And we have to do it in partnership with the folks who run these important marketplaces. These marketplaces are important. They should continue. And there are, a lot of them are based in California.

But we need to work together to make sure that we're addressing the illegal activity that's happening on there. I want to thank you for that. I would love to be added as a co author on this Bill as well.

Madam Vice Chair, thank you, Chair. I, too, appreciate what you're doing with this Bill. I just have a question. Have you heard from Amazon on this? I have not. I'm just curious. I mean, because Amazon, you read and any Wall Street Journal anywhere of how small businesses have become successful as small sellers of items on Amazon.

And I think if you look at Amazon's data again, I'm just going on my own recollection is that a large part of their sales come from these small sellers. So how are these sellers assuming they're legitimate? I support what you're doing and I applaud what you're doing, but how will you protect the legitimate small sellers?

Appreciate the question. First, I just wanted a clarification from our retailers. Amazon is now neutral or support. Go ahead. I believe they're in support of the overall organized retail theft package, but they've not necessarily weighed in on each Bill. So, but back to your key point.

So right now, the way the Bill is constructed is that you would have to have 200 transactions on the marketplace before the regulations in the Bill would be triggered. Now, your point?

There may be a quote unquote small seller who does more than 200 interactions, but in a way, this should not be a difficult thing for that small seller because what they would be having to provide is their tax ID. And they're just showing that, yeah, they're a legitimate seller.

And the reason now you could say, hey, a illegitimate seller, meaning somebody selling stolen goods. zero, they could have a tax ID. They could have. And so couldn't anybody just fool this? Yes, they could.

However, by having that info, we are able to track it and we're able to, then the AG's office and their retail, organized retail theft are able to, it allows for enforcement. We have no enforcement if we don't have that data. Now, interestingly enough, to the point of this requires certain online platforms to collect data they don't collect.

Now, in fact, if you look at some of these, if you yourself want to be a seller on some of them and you notice to be a seller, you have to agree to their terms.

Many of them, most of them, and I had my staff look up the terms include you're giving them your name, your email, a tax ID, or a bank account info, variety of the things that we're asking for.

So when they describe this as being a hardship, while they may not currently collect that info, they have already, you, the seller to use it, have already agreed to their terms which allowed them to collect. So that's already in place and one can verify that.

But again, this would only affect sellers of over 200 transactions and over a certain dollar amount in total.

Okay, so just, just base the question in my mind. Again, I'm supportive and I appreciate what you're doing. I'm just thinking of the mechanics. So where are these online sales occurring if Amazon is doing its checking? If some, some of these other online platform stores are aggregating merchandise to resell who are they?

Where do we see them as consumers? How can we protect ourselves?

Well, that's another. I'm glad you asked that question, because that's another feature of the Bill. It allows for the consumer to be able to report, to ask the online marketplace, do you have information about the seller?

Can I verify that this is a legitimate seller, and it allows the consumer to be able to report when they believe that it is stolen goods.

Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. You're welcome. Appreciate it. Thank you. Senator McKenna.

Yes, I'd like to thank the Senator for this smart solution to petit theft. I would also like to be a co author on this Bill.

And then I would like to ask my fellow from tech neck, when you ask, when you said about the, the bank account, when you spoke about bank accounts and tax ids, when we buy something online, we usually have to give our accounts or sell something online.

Don't we have to already put in some type of credit card or bank account number in order to even purchase something anyway? So you guys already have that information, is that correct?

In that instance? That is correct. Our concern is just the, the further collection of that and much more sensitive information. Sensitive information.

Is there any proof of, if they're resellers, is there any proof that they have to show of buying the merchandise that they're reselling?

That's what our enforcement entities would do once it was brought to their attention that a seller may be engaged in selling stolen goods. But, of course, the purpose of the Bill is to enable our enforcement entities to get the information about the seller so they can pursue enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Haney, I was just flagged something in the analysis, which you may be aware of, that after praising the Bill, which I still praise, that some of the language may have inadvertently entirely exempted my city and county.

The analysis has a piece around the enforcement because we're a city and county just clarifying the way that our city attorney operates. We don't have a county attorney, and there's probably just a small technical amendment that is needed according to the analysis.

We can certainly look at that, at chaptering, but this does enable city attorneys to enforce.

We definitely, yeah, I'll just, I'll just flag it in the analysis. They thought that that might be an issue, and we'd hate to have that. Okay. Definitely.

Will obviously was inadvertent. I need to continue that conversation to make sure that we're not in conflict.

Yeah. And our judiciary staff will work with you on any clarifying to ensure those issues are resolved.

Senator McConnelly. Yeah. Also like to be added as a co author and appreciate the work. Thanks. Great. Well, thank you so much, Sandra. I'd also like to be added as a co author. I really appreciate your work in this, but you continued work in this space.

Great.

It is complicated, but I think ultimately, as to the, as to my colleagues points, you know, at some point the flow, especially in the online, which is the toughest area to regulate, needs to stop because it's a supply and demand issue. It was so easy to get into the online market.

It's really going to be hard on the ground to stop the pressure for folks. As you mentioned, the couple in San Diego that was really helping other folks, paying other folks.

And they're not the ones that end up getting caught, and they usually are not the ones that end up being subject to new laws or enforcement at the local law enforcement level, but they're the ones that are helping to facilitate this huge industry online. And so I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this. Would you like to close?

Thanks so much. I think we're all aware that the days of, you know, let's say you are just a shoplifter selling on the corner or selling out of the trunk of your car. That's over. And plus, you never made that much money doing that anyway. So now you can have this very wealthy couple.

I mean, they, according to the reports, they lived in an over $2.5 million house in San Diego, pay you and hire you to steal things. Right? So that's what we're trying to get at. I appreciate all the conversation, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call vote on SB 1144.

[Roll Call]

We'll place that on call. Needs one more vote, Senator Bradford. So, Senator Bradford, if you want to make your way up here in the meantime, as Senator Bradford makes his way up, Madam Secretary, if you take a roll call vote on the consent calendar.

Consent includes SB 382, Becker. SB 782, limone to appropriations. SB 1051, Eggman. SB 1150 declared as amended.

Motion.

We have a motion on the consent calendar. Motion in a second.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so the consent calendar is out, and we'll bring it back now to Senator Bradford, who has three bills, and is there a particular order you'd like to take the bills in?

I'll start with 1403.

Sounds great. So that's Item--Line Item Eight: SB 1403.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 1403, which will establish the framework, the foundation for reparations here in the State of California. We're here today because of the leadership of our former colleague in the Assembly, now Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who authored AB 3121, which established the task force, which concluded its work a year ago this month.

I was honored to serve on that task force for the last two years, and in conclusion, we came up with 115 recommendations. The foundation for any reparations was the Task Force, so the California American Freedmen Agency will be that agency that will stand up and determine communities of eligibility, what reparations looks like, who entitled to it, and how do we dispense it and monitor those resources.

This is a priority, and let me be clear: this is a priority of the Legislative Black Caucus and one of the most essential recommendations, again, from the Reparations Task Force final report. The work of the Task Force was well-documented in great detail of the history of slavery in California and the pattern of systemic racial injustice that continued for long after slavery, and we all have to agree, it still exists today. And many might say, 'why California?' California wasn't a slave state. In name only.

California practiced everything that Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia did. If you came here as a slave, you were treated as a slave. If you gave birth here as a slave, your child was born a slave. We had a fugitive slave law, so if you ran away and came to California, they returned you back to the plantation in which you ran away from. So we were a slave state in all practical causes and the first Governor of California owned slaves. The agency will be necessary foundation for the implementation and success of reparations.

The most important responsibility of this agency, again, will be to determine which individuals are eligible for reparations based on the definition of descendants recommended by--the descendants of slavery--recommended by the Reparations Task Force. 1403 will create an office to help research and confirm an individual's lineage.

While in no way does this excuse the federal government or local governments from taking their own actions, California still bears a great responsibility. The state government permitted and committed grave injustices against African Americans. These injustices include enslavement, lynching, legal, public, and private segregation, discrimination in estate funding and programming, and stigmatization.

The majority of Californians agree that the harms of slavery are still felt today. This agency is the first step for California to take the right steps in correcting these wrongs. With me today to provide testimony is Brandon Greene to Western Center on Law and Poverty and Stephanie Roberson with the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative, and I thank you in advance for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, and just for the record, I want to note that Assembly Member Mike Gipson and Assembly Member Akilah Weber are also here, members of the Black Caucus here in support of your efforts.

Thank you. Brandon Greene, Policy Director, Western Center. The original Freedmen's Bureau, established in 1865, only lasted for seven years as racist sentiment forced its closure. Though it was helpful, why open the promises for a better future with the full establishment of and restoration of descendants of slaves went largely unfulfilled.

At present, our country has seen an extreme resurgence of racist attitudes and unprecedented attacks on racial equity inclusion. The very institutions, courts, policy mechanisms, other protections have quickly fallen. Civil rights laws passed to stop anti-black discrimination are now being perverted to attack progress. The racial reckoning that was promised has not come to fruition.

California, through the Reparations Task Force, which I was lucky enough to testify before twice, stepped into the void to show leadership for the rest of the country. It's now time to continue this work by establishing the Freedmen Affairs Agency to be housed in government so that the work of reparations can continue until its completion. This is important both for continuity and fidelity of purpose. We ask for an aye vote today.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, can you hear me? Good?

Yes.

Okay. Stephanie Roberson, on behalf of the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative and the California Organizations for Reparations Coalition, and I've been authorized to speak on behalf of the City of Oakland who's going to come on and support your bill, Senator.

We are in full support of SB 1403 by Senator Bradford. As Senator Bradford laid out, the Reparations Task Force report to the Legislature details the systemic harms and disparities experienced by Black families across key indicators of quality of life, including education, housing, environment, and physical and mental health. The Task Force specifically calls for the creation of the American Freedman Affairs Agency as a first step in implementing their full list of recommendations.

This historic agency is essential in establishing the infrastructure for reparations in California as a priority, as the Senator said, of the California Legislative Black Caucus and members represented it here today. California has the opportunity to continue to lead the nation by operationalizing reparative justice and embedding this work in the fabric of our state government.

Focused investments in Black families can transform our communities and institutions, create healthy and equitable living conditions, and finally, end the longest and most persistent life expectancy difference in the country. Notably, the State of New Mexico has established an Office of American Indian Affairs--African American Affairs, excuse me--and our great State of California has established the Office of Tribal Affairs, creating this precedent for this type of work.

So while our government has made strides toward advancing racial equity, now is the time to prioritize focused investments and infrastructure in Black health and well-being and start repairing the harms of discrimination and disinvestment. The California Organization for Reparations Coalition, or CORE, is a statewide advocacy group committed to implementing the recommendations of the California Reparations Task Force through advocacy, policy, and systemic change.

We bridge a diversity of perspectives and ideologies to stand united in addressing the unique harms experienced by descendants of enslaved people and acknowledge the collective harms of anti-black racism. CORE envisions a California with reparative justice for a thriving, healthy, and resilient Black community. Members of the CORE Coalition, City of Oakland, and Bar High, strongly supports 1403 and respectfully requests your aye vote. Committee, thank you for your time.

Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1403?

Taneicia Herring, on behalf of the California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP, in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Colonel McCarty. I write songs and I wrote that song 'time keep on slipping into the future.' Come on. Let's go into the future with this.

Thank you.

Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, in support.

Thank you.

Chris Lawson, Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, on behalf of the American Redress Coalition of California, Sacramento, American Redress Coalition of California, Bay Area, Lineage Equity and Advancement Project, and the California Black Lineage Society; also authorized to speak on behalf of Rising Communities, all in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Aisha Kareem, Stockton, California, and I'm in support.

Thank you.

Lynette Jackson, Discovery Bay, California, and I am in support.

Thank you.

Yes. Darlene Crumedy, a member of the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, as well as the American Redress Corporation of Bay Area. I am in total, full support of SB 1403. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Mims with Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, American Redress Coalition of California, Sacramento Branch, and Amend the Mass Media, in full and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Randy Sarahucci, on behalf of Kingmakers of Oakland, in support.

Thank you.

Richard Ehrlich, constituent of Kevin McCarty, support.

Thank you.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Adam Keigwin, on behalf of City Year, in support.

Thank you.

Good day. Thank you. I am Omolara 'Double O' Odofin, in support, on behalf of Community Services Coalition, Go Green Foundation, and BUCA, which is the Black United Community Advocacy. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Marvel Wilson. I'm also a member of the Black Community Advocacy. I'm co-founder of Cade, creativity, arts, and educational development. I'm also a member with the Hooked on Fishing Not on Violence, and I advocate for this bill vehemently.

Thank you.

My name's Charlton Curry, Co-Chair of National Black Wall Street Project. I am in support of Senator Bradford, also speaking for Reverend Tony Pierce, the CEO, and Khameelah Shabazz, Co-Chair, and I thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1403? Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Senator McKinnor.

Assembly Member--sorry--Senator Bradford, I am so proud of you and proud of this bill. This is the beginning of a long journey that we will take over the next ten--I feel like about ten years--but this is the ground. This is where we need to get started, and I thank you so much for your vision and your hard work on reparations. Thank you.

Do we have a motion?

I'd like to motion.

We have a motion and a second. I also want to thank you, Senator Bradford, for your tireless work, for your tireless work on this, as well as members of the--our colleagues in the Legislative Black Caucus. This is an incredibly, incredibly important piece of legislation.

I think that anyone that knows any history, not just of our state, but of our country, knows that Black Americans, Black Californians, have been asked to wait and wait and wait for far too long, and of course, the longer you wait, then you have folks saying, 'well, that was so long ago.'

The reality is the impacts are felt deeply today in terms of how we as a state, and obviously as a nation, treated our Black brothers and sisters for so many generations. So I do want to thank you for bringing this forward. It's very--we know that after the commission report was released, now is when the real work begins, and so having the commission report is important, but it really is rendered meaningless if we just leave it at that. And so with this, I really, really appreciate your work on this. If it's okay with you, I would like to be added as a co-author.

Love you. Love to have you.

Thank you so much. Senator Bryan, would you like to add any comments?

I would. Thank you, Senator Bradford, for bringing this measure forward. I think, as has been stated, you and Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer and Black folks all across California engaged in the multi-year listening and building process that resulted in one of the most profound documents that's ever been produced by the Department of Justice in the state.

And in that came a number of recommendations that have a fierce implementation hurdle, and that implementation can't happen without some sort of overseeing agency that helps facilitate it. And so I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I want to thank you for forcing us to contemplate the creation of this agency as early as last year. I want to thank you for your urgency, not just in this year, but throughout your tenure in the Legislature. A proud member of the Black Caucus today, and I imagine there's a motion on the table. I'd like to second, third, or fourth, whatever it is.

Well, again, thank you, Senator. Would you like to close?

Yes. I want to thank all of my colleagues here that are in support of this motion, but also just stress the importance and the urgency of now. Dr. King often spoke of the urgency of now, and that's where we find ourselves today. And many people, again, will say, 'well, California wasn't a slave state.' Yes, we were, and it's about time that we open our eyes and understand the harms that are still in existence here in California and across this nation because of slavery. And I just encourage my colleagues who haven't read the report. It's 1,100 pages. It's not an easy read, but it's a truthful read.

And if you're not up for the 1,100 pages, I encourage you to read the executive summary, and it speaks to why this agency is so important and why the 115 recommendations, as Assembly Member McKinnor stated, will be a long and arduous process of implementation, but they need--we need it.

I mean, those recommendations need to be acted upon. And this is just a foundation, as we stated. We have a tribal affairs for our Native Americans. We've done all those things. We created reparations and helped our Japanese brothers and sisters who are interned in World War II, and this is just an example of, again, the leadership that we can provide here in California and for the rest of the nation. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Madam Secretary, take a roll call vote.

Motion is: do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right, we will place that Bill on call. And then up next. Is it SB 1331?

Again, I'm here to present 1331, which will establish the Fund for reparations and reparative justice and authorizes is to receive grants from the federal, state, and local and private institutions. The cost of reparations will be high, let's make no joke about that.

But the cost of the harms make this minuscule, based on the debt and harm that was created through slavery. But again, harms that were done to African Americans are still felt today. The harms and the disparities it created continues in every aspect of life, not only here in California, but across this nation.

I have the privilege, again, to serve in the Legislature for the last 14 years, and we have voted on dozens of bills dealing with wage theft. Slavery was over 250 years of wage theft, and we need to accept that and realize that the harm of this wage theft again, still exists today.

And the question is, how will California pay for reparations? The reparations task force is painstakingly again documented California's role in slavery and decades of systemic discrimination that followed. People will also say, well, I didn't own slaves. Why should I have to pay? Well, if you can inherit generational wealth, you can inherit generational debt.

And this is a debt that is owed to the people who built this country. It's time for us to own up and face up to California and America's role and the harm that is done and that still exists in this country today because of slavery. The right, and it's time to write these historic wrongs and restore and repair the damages that have been done. We often say that state budget is a reflection of our values and priorities. Well, this should be an example of that, because again, it should be a priority.

This Bill does not redistribute $800 billion as reparations are a call for a tax act, just another lie by the descendants and individuals who just want to find a way. Dissenters, I should say, find a way not to support this.

Comments such as these are very misleading, disingenuous and undermining the two year work that the reparations task force did to provide the clear data of how we could pay for this. SB 1331 is a straightforward measure that shows California serious about reparations and owning up to this debt.

With me today to testify is Rachel Bhagwat, ACLU California action, and Chris Lodgson. I'm sorry, Chris, with Coalition For A Just & Equitable California. And I respect last for your. I vote.

Thank you. Up to two minutes each.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Rachel Bhagwat. And I'm a legislative advocate at ACLU California action. As a proud Member of the California Organizations for Reparations Coalition, the ACLU supports SB 1331. This Bill would be a critical step forward in California's journey to address and begin to repair the harms it has caused in its past.

California has an ugly history of race based slavery, racially discriminatory laws and policies, and entrenched anti black biases. This legacy has continued to impact the conditions of descendants of African Americans subject to chattel slavery in the United States and descendants of free black persons living in the United States prior to the end of the 19th century.

By creating a designated place in the state treasury for reparations funds, SB 1331 would give California a foundation to pay the debts that are owed to descendants of those most directly harmed by the United States in California's racist past and to secure the path forward for families to recover from generations of harmful policies and thrive in a more equitable California.

From the deprivation of opportunities for stable housing and wealth building via race based residential segregation to persistent inequities in the criminal justice and education system, California has denied these descendants opportunities for economic advancement at nearly every turn.

While reparations cannot cure ongoing systemic racism or all harm stemming from it, reparations are an incredibly important step in addressing the economic disadvantages that California has compounded upon descendants of those formerly enslaved by the United States. We should not hesitate to lead the nation by enacting SB 1331. Thank you.

Thank you.

I just want to first give honor to my ancestors. I'm a descendant of someone, and those who were enslaved in this country were in the United States before there was a United States. Good morning, esteemed Committee Members.

My name is Chris Lodgson with the Coalition for Just an Equitable California, which is California's first and only statewide grassroots organization born to achieve reparations and repair to justice, specifically for residents whose ancestors were enslaved and emancipated in these United States.

I'm here today to express our strong support for SB 1331, which would establish the California Reparations and Reparative Justice Fund, and to respectfully ask for your I vote the California Reparations and Repair of Justice Fund will be used to facilitate funding to address historical and ongoing harms experienced by residents who are descendants of persons enslaved in the United States or descendants of free black persons who were living in the United States before the year 1900.

The Fund may receive money from any federal, state or local grant, or from private donation or grants as well, but the Fund is not only a crucial step toward addressing state sanctioned harm to these descendants, the creation of this Fund also represents a commitment to transforming the recommendations of California's first in the nation Reparations Task Force into actionable policies.

Furthermore, the creation of this Fund is also a practical necessity to facilitate meaningful reparations policies and programs. Here's why the proposed Fund will serve as a key early part of the fiscal infrastructure needed to support reparations initiatives approved by both the Legislature and the Governor.

By taking this step forward to create a fiscal foundation and backbone, we ensure that reparative efforts are not symbolic but successful, impactful and enduring. Creating this Fund also helps to ensure that funding for state reparations efforts, when ultimately approved by the state, are organized and coordinated.

Now, organizing and coordinating funding for state reparations efforts will help support the success of these efforts. The more organized and coordinated we are, the better. In addition, the creation of this Fund will foster fiscal transparency and responsibility and government spending by allowing for the Fund set aside for reparations to be tracked and accounted for effectively.

In closing, I urge Members of this Committee to support the establishment of the California Reparations and Reparative Justice Fund. And for these reasons and more, and with respect to my ancestors, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1331? Name, organization and your position on the Bill, please.

Sherman Laguardier. First giving, Thank you, Senators and congressmen, if you are okay this Bill, I plan on putting something in this Bill. Please remember me. I'm the person that in our past when Governor Schwarzenegger crossed the stage with a large check. I'm that person that put that cash in that check. Please honor this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good day Omolara double 'O' Odofin again. And I forgot to mention the Black National Wall street project. I represent. I also represent the Gold Green foundation, the Community Services Coalition and the Black United Community Advocacy foundation. And we all are in support of the Bill. And thank you, Senator Bradford and brother Chris. And you too. Thank you.

How do you follow that? Just want to say thank you for all your support, all your efforts. And thank you for including me. Okay. Thank you for including my answers. Thank you for including my children. This opportunity will be able to provide a legacy for my children, for my nieces and nephews who don't even.

Don't even have this history. Thank you. I need support.

Yes. Ayesha Kareem from Stockton and I'm in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Taneicia Herring on behalf of the California, Hawaii NAACP and strong support. Thank you.

Strong support. Thank you.

My name is Charlton Currie. On behalf of the National Black Wall street project, I support the work of Senator Bradford. Thank you.

Thank you again. My name is Marvell Wilson. I am a Member of, or an Executive board Member of the Black United Community Advocacy. I am also a Member of CJ. Yes, sir, I am.

What I'd like to do is urge this Committee to consider the apology that was made in 2006 and proceed with the amends that accompanies such an apology. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Doctor Truthbury. I'm the minister of justice for the Black Panther Party and the Haitian American Youth Council, as well as an adjunct of CJEC. Official, we ask you to please. I vote for all. Thank you, Bryant.

Thank you.

Melanie Morales with the Green Lighting Institute and support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair Member. Stephanie Roberson, on behalf of the Bay Area Regional Health and Equities Initiative and also authorized to speak on behalf of City of Oakland and support this Bill. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Brandon Greene, Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Darlene Crumity, a Member of CJEC as well as ARC Bay Area. Full support for SB 1331. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim Mims with CJEC, ARC Sacramento and ETM Media Group in full support of 1331, SB 1331 and respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Richard Ehrlich, constituent to Kevin McCarty, support. Thank you.

Kel O'Hara, representing Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you.

Adam Kegwin. On behalf of Alliance College-Ready Public Schools in support. Thank you.

Randy Saraguchi. On behalf of Kingmakers of Oakland, strong support.

Thank you. All right, Committee Members assigned. Bryan?

No, I'll be brief. I just want to thank the Senator for bringing this forward. It didn't occur to me at the start of this year that every meaningful reparations proposal introduced was going to come through judiciary. It's also interesting that this Committee had no black Members last year and now has two.

And so I think that's a reflection of the leadership of the speaker and the direction of the chair and of the Senator for bringing this forward. I want to thank all the community Members who made it up to Sacramento to speak in support of this. Of this important piece of legislation.

And, Mister Chair, I'd like to make a motion to move the Bill.

Motion and a second. And actually, we have a motion. A second registered. I did not ask if there's anyone in opposition to SB 1331 here, so I apologize. Is there anyone here in opposition? That's not on the dais. Okay. Senator Sanchez, thank you.

To be honest, I'm concerned about the proposal to help facilitate the distribution of reparations. Economists, consultants from the task force reported the total amount could be as much as 800 billion. 800 billion. That's two and a half times the size of our entire state budget.

To pay for that, you'd need a major tax hike unlike anything this state has ever seen before. I recognize and acknowledge the painful part of our history. The pains of our past should not be paid by the people of today. The majority of our state is Latino and Asian, making up 55% of our population.

Most of them, like me, are 2nd, 1st, 2nd, or third generation immigrants who had nothing to do with slavery, discrimination, Jim Crow laws, nothing. It is fundamentally unfair to force these people to pay for this. And because of that, I will be opposing today.

Senator Bryan?

Yeah. I just want to thank our Republican colleagues for coming to Committee today. After boycotting the previous Committee, it's really important to go on the record and formally oppose reparations. So I want to thank them for doing so.

Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I want to thank Senator Bradford once again for bringing this forward. Again, as I said earlier, it's one thing if you have a Commission report, what have you, but the reality is that actions are necessary, and that includes reparations. It includes in some cases, monetary reparations.

There's many different ways and different forms that can take place as the Commission report recommends. It's not going to come out of an $800, $800 billion balloon payment from the state budget. But there are. But at the end of the day, compensation is necessary.

You know, I understand that it's hard to ask those of us currently sitting in the Legislature to make those commitments, but no one asked black families over generations if it was okay to take their wealth, if it was okay to enslave them, if it was okay to, if it was okay to put their children in generations of poverty.

This country became a superpower based upon free labor of African descendants over hundreds of years. We need to recognize it. I know it's not going to be easy. It's not supposed to be easy. It's not supposed to be easy to actually admit when you've caused pain.

It's not supposed to be easy when you actually try to repair and heal that pain. And yes, we do benefit. We still benefit to this day from what happened to our brothers and sisters in the black community over so many generations. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair Members. You want to comment? Go ahead, create it.

Just want to make a quick comment. Assembly Member Sanchez, I want to thank you for your comments, want to correct you. So our organization, we went to every single task force hearing. We traveled, followed the task force. We were at every single moment of every single hearing.

Task force did not, and the economists of the task force did not say that the state should pay $800 billion. The task force economists said that the State of California stole $800 billion in wealth from the descendants. That is what the state stole from us. Now it's up to this Legislature to decide what the Bill is.

But your comments are incorrect. The task force said that what was taken from us was $800 billion. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you for that clarification. And again, we could be here till the cows come home because you couldn't assess a real value of the harm that was done to families here in California and across this nation who toiled in the fields, lost their lives, were tortured, were mutilated, were maimed to build this nation's wealth.

Our largest insurance companies was built on the back of slave because of the slave industry. Our bank institution, financial institutions were built on the slave economy. And people say, well, why should we pay descendants of slaves? Well, let me share something with you.

Every slave owner who owned a slave was paid when those slaves were emancipated because they were insured. And the insurance companies that stand here today are just as guilty. So, again, as my colleagues have stated, this is not about seeing California is going to pay $800 billion. They're seeing what was stolen.

And you can't assess a value on really what was stolen and what is still being taken and denied to African Americans, from home ownership to education, you name it. Our reparations task force recommended that reparations could be in the form of free college at our UC's and CSUs.

It'd be in the form of first time home buyers assistance because there are generations of African Americans who have lived here for over 200 years who have never owned property because of redlining, because of Jim Crow, because of racism. Again, many of those restrictions still exist today. So it could be ongoing healthcare.

So reparations can take a form of many different forms. But again, throw out 800 billion, that's dropping a bucket on what was really stolen from the people who helped build this nation. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call vote on 1330. SB 1331, please.

Motions do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We will place that bill on call. And, Senator Bradford, your last item for today, SB 1050, item three.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Yeah, this is my final bill. This bill will create a pathway to return land or provide restitution to Californians who've had their land, or their property taken by the state or local governments by racially motivated reasons. Many Californians are now familiar with the legislation that I authored three years ago dealing with Bruce's Beach.

It was a partial beachfront land in Manhattan Beach that was once a thriving resort owned by Charles and Willa Bruce, an African American couple who invested and created a successful business. But the City of Manhattan Beach resented the Bruce's success and wanted to put them out of business.

The city used the power of eminent domain to take the Bruce's land and to do so for far less than what the fair value was. In 2022, as stated, I authored legislation that allowed the current owner, the County of Los Angeles, to return the land to the descendants of Charles and Willard Bruce.

And just like with Bruce's Beach, SB 1050 will create a pathway to justice for others harmed by similar racist policies and practices of the distant and recent past. We know Bruce's Beach is not a single story of unjust and racist government actions.

The power of eminent domain has been abused to move Black and brown people off their land, to destroy homes, to devastate opportunities for families to build generational wealth to the owning of land. This type of injustice also occurred in San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Palm Springs, and Russell City, just to name a few.

We're even being made aware of what happened in Palm Springs as I mean in Santa Monica right now. A piece of property that was owned by Silas White, a successful Black business owner, had the City of Santa Monica took his property in 1960 because the city said we need a parking lot.

Well, today, a four-star hotel sits on the land that is still owned by the City of Santa Monica, and they reap benefits from that property on a monthly basis. That money should be going to the White family. And let's talk about Russell City.

This was a Black and Latino community that is now part of the City of Hayward in the East Bay. In the 1920s. Through the 1950s, Russell City was a thriving community of homes and businesses.

But the town was annexed to the City of Hayward and then eminent domain was used to evict the residents in order to build an industrial park. As amended, SB 1050 will empower the state to review claims and make determinations of whether compensation is warranted.

The amendments also specify that the bill would not impact private property owners, meaning that land that is currently in private hands with a good faith owner could not be reclaimed. Only publicly held land could be reconsidered for being returned, and only if it is feasible.

If a freeways now occupies the land that was taken, the claimant will be eligible to similarly held land, if any exist, or more likely, monetary compensation.

With that finding, the fact and recommendations in hand from the Freedom Affairs agency, the claimant would be able to seek restitution from the government entity, whether it's the city, county or special district that actually caused the harm.

The amendments would change the source of restitution from the Fund of Reparations and Reparative Justice to an actual government entity that should be held responsible for committing the racially motivated act. The last significant amendment deals with the statute of limitations.

Since the statute of limitations for most claims and challenging imminent domain is five years, we know many of these racially motivated abuses of law occurred decades ago. SB 1050 will remove the statute of limitations specifically for claims of racially motivated abuses of eminent domain.

These changes stay true today to the original intent of the Bill while adding more details to what the path of justice would look like for victims of racially motivated taking. And here today to testify is an individual who can attest firsthand to property that was stolen. I'm honored to have Miss Jessie Johnson.

Miss Johnson lives in Russel City. Before she was forcefully removed from her home. She is here today with her son Vincent. And Miss Johnson, the floor is yours.

Good morning. My name is Jessie Johnson, and I was a nursing student living with my grandparents, who were forced out in 1960. Beginning of 1964, they owned their own land. They paid the taxes on that land, as well as my mother-in-law, who was named Jessie Johnson-Henry.

She had half a block one way, half a block another way. So it was quite a bit of land that wherein they were forced out.

And so, as a result of that, my waiting on my husband to come home, serving in the navy, we thought we would be able to build on my grandfather's land, who was Bernie Patterson, and his father was Joe Patterson. So, at that time, we thought that we would have the liberty to build on my grandfather's land.

So, unfortunately, eminent domain took over, took and made my grandfather very sad. His name was Bernie Patterson, and it was very sad for me to drive. I had to move to Oakland, bought my home.

My husband and I eventually bought our home in Oakland, but at that time, we had to go back and watch my grandparents leave in the early 1964. So, at that time, we did what we had to do.

We put our kids, my husband and I put our children through college with law degrees, with doctor's degrees, you know, and we continued on to work very hard. But the pain is something that you cannot see. If I slap your face and you say, ow, and you ask me to show you where the pain is, I can't.

But the pain, we just put it under and kept moving. So. I'm asking for reparations to be granted. I'm expectant that those who are for us will help to mend the problems for my descendants because I'm standing on their shoulders. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Miss Johnson, is there anyone else here in support of SB 1050?

Good seeing you again.

I'll go first again so I can record. Omolara 00 Odofin in support and representing the Go Green Foundation, the Black United Community Advocacy foundation, also representing the National Black Wall Street Project and Community Services Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Andy Liebenbaum on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in proud support.

Thank you.

So, I'm supporting. Thank you, Senator Bradford, for bringing this bill. Master Chairman and thank you for bringing this bill again. It's so important. I lived on the streets of Arden and Wadd Avenue for years because someone took my house after I bought the land, built the house. And so here I am asking for this bill, too.

Thank you.

And I'm Ayesha Kareem Stockton, and I'm in support strongly.

Thank you.

Lynette Jackson, Modesto, California. Strongly, strongly in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tinise Aaron from the California Hawaii NAACP in strong support.

Thank you.

Mel Assagai, Greater Sacramento Urban League, strong support.

Thank you.

Rachel Bhagwat, ACLU California Action, in support.

Thank you.

Marvell Wilson. Very, very strongly in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Doctor. [inaudible] Minister of Justice for Black Panther party, strongly support SB 1050.

Thank you.

Bob Naylor, representing field student company. That's Howard Amundsen Junior, an Orange County philanthropist, in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Brandon Greene, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Stephanie Roberson, on behalf of the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative, and also authorized to speak on behalf of City of Oakland in support of this bill. And I was in Manhattan Beach when that property was returned to the family, so that was a definite pride and privilege. Thank you for all the work that you've done in this body for this. Strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Again, Darlene Crumity, a member of CJEC as well as ARC Bay Area, full support for SB 1050. And thank you, Senator Bradford for everything.

Thank you.

Kim Mims, Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, ARCC Sacramento and Amend the Mass Media Group in full and strong support. Thank you, Senator Bradford, for your work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Richard Ehrlich, constituent of Kevin McCarty, support.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Charlton Curry, co-chair of the National and Black Wall Street Project in Northern California and also at Big C Sports Podcast. I strongly support your work and I so much appreciate you, Senator Bradford.

Thank you.

Randy Saraguchi, on behalf of Kingmakers of Oakland, in strong support.

Thank you.

Jordan Hepcart, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, in strong support.

Thank you. And, Senator Bradford, will you be accepting the amendments?

Thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Actually, is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1050? There wasn't registered opposition, so I tend to skip it sometimes. I apologize for that. Bring it back to the Committee. Assembly Member. Patterson.

Yes.

Joe Patterson.

Joe, yeah. Joe Patterson.

Yes, I would. Well, thank you for the testimony. It really turned me on this bill, particularly the relatives named Joe Patterson. But I happen to serve as the Vice Chair of the Housing Committee and you know, we talk a lot about eminent domain issues or really just, you know, property rights in general.

And that's always kind of been a foundation of mine when I talk about housing issues, which sometimes gets me in some conflict with some people who are registered the same party as me.

But, you know, you learn from a very young age that property and real estate generally for people should be part of the American dream, and that's how you build wealth and things like that. So, I think eminent domain in general needs to be extremely limited.

I've read about the case in Manhattan Beach, and I think circumstances in which, obviously it's racially motivated is even worse than just taking somebody's private property and not compensating them fair market value. But I'm 100% something where you say you have to be compensated fair market value if the government's going to take your property.

And so, because of that, I'm going to support this measure. I think there's some things that, you know, I think that none of us write perfect bills or yours are close to perfect, Senator Bradford. But, you know, there's some things that do cause me some pause.

But I think the general policy of making sure people are compensated when the government comes in and takes their land and impedes their ability to build their wealth is a problem. So, I'll look forward to supporting it. So, thank you for bringing it.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bryan.

Yeah. Haven't ever spoken this much in a row, but haven't had this many important bills coming through. It's important to remember that these racialized takings were also often accompanied by racialized terror. Right? These were not nice uses of eminent domain. They were often very violent.

I'm thinking about Section 14 and Palm Springs, where they forced black folks out by fire, literally. It's also important to remember that the descendants of these racialized takings are still with us today. They have lost out on that generational wealth that should be theirs.

It's also starkingly apparent to me that we have such a legacy of racialized motivated takings and the highest disproportionate amount of black people who live on our streets. These things are interlinked, and that's the true legacy of slavery in California. That is why the Senator rightfully corrects the record that California has participated in slavery.

That's why a piece of legislation like this are so important. Thank you, Senator, for bringing it forward. I'd like to make a motion to move the bill.

A motion and a second. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. I'm sorry I missed the other two presentations. I was in another Committee. But I just want to echo the comments of my colleague from Los Angeles. I think this bill seems so obvious because it's a constitutional right. I mean, you cannot take someone's land without just compensation. It is guaranteed in our constitution.

And yet we know that so many rights in our constitution, as fundamental as the right to vote and others, have been denied to people of color throughout history. And so, you know, it is so critically important that we take the steps we can to right those wrongs. And I want to thank you for doing that.

You know, I appreciated the analysis and the focus on making sure these processes work. The last thing we want is for folks to go through this process and then have a court not honor it. So, I hope that that work continues to make sure these processes are as effective as I know you intend them to be, Senator.

But I think there's just no question that where one has been violated in such a fundamental way that our constitution dictates that it is our job to fix that if we can. And so, I want to thank everyone who came here today for speaking up, for telling your story.

You know, I often sit here and think about the ways in which our histories are intertwined. My family's land was taken during the Holocaust, and, you know, we made our way back and never saw those rights wronged in a lot of ways.

But this is something that has happened to people throughout history, and all of those rights should be wrong. And so, it's such an honor to sit here and to be able to do that for other people. So, I want to thank you. With that, I'm happy to support it.

Thank you. Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you. Senator, the comment was made that you write very good bills, and I appreciate that. But I've got to tell you that one of the most important things of bill presentations are the witnesses that we bring forward.

And to have Miss Johnson here come to testify to talk about something that's very personal, I think that it reminds us why we introduced these bills.

Also to have the witness from the young, and I didn't get the full acronym, but to have our youth here come in support of this bill to know the history and to know that although they may not know all the history, they may have read it in the history books here, they're seeing history being made and true history being shared, and they're going to see that history be corrected in a particular way.

That can only be done here in this capitol. And eventually, when signed by the Governor, so I want to thank you, Miss Johnson, for coming to provide your testimony.

Thank you. Thanks to my colleagues for the commentary. I do want to thank everyone that came here from around the state on all three of these related bills from Senator for Bradford, all very important pieces of legislation. I want to thank Miss Johnson for sharing your story, for your perseverance, and your resilience.

And I want to make note that in your particular instance, this land quote acquisition occurred in 1964. I think a lot of times we think about these things happening in the 1800s or early 1900s.

But a lot of them happened in the fifties and sixties as the civil rights movement was growing because it was seen as a last opportunity to take this land away from black families. And so, it's certainly very recent in that regard.

And so, I thank you for standing up not just for your own family, for so many other families. And again, I want to thank Senator Bradford for his work in this space. As Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan indicated, this story is repeated in different ways globally.

My family, during the partition in India, lost their land and were refugees in their own country for many years. But many years later they were given just compensation by getting to the best of their ability some land back where they resettled in India.

And that gave them some kind of foundation that so many Black families have never been given. And so, I think it's important for us to recognize whatever we can do to help bring some semblance of justice. We need to do that. And so, I would love to be added as a co-author to this bill if it's okay with you, Senator.

We'd love to have you.

And would you like to close?

Thank you. It's been so well articulated by Missus Johnson and all our witnesses here today the racially motivated taking of land through eminent domain. It's not just a one-off. It's happened all across the state, all across this country. And I challenge you to ask the question of where you see a freeway in an urban area.

Believe me, that property belonged to Black and brown people. Right in my own district, the 105 freeway that exists today that connects you from the 605 freeway all the way to the airport. I took music as a small child in South LA. That freeway took my music teachers home and thousands of people, 3,500 families lost their home.

The majority of them were Black and brown. The 10 freeway from starting from western all the way until you get to Santa Monica. Much of that property belonged to African Americans. It was a place called Sugar Hill where Marvin Gaye's family lived. That freeway went straight through there.

But you want to know where that freeway doesn't go through a community? Where we've been fighting for 60 years, four bills since I've been in Legislature, to finish a freeway. And that's the 710 freeway that stops soon as you get to Pasadena. It was supposed to connect to the 210 freeway. It has never been completed.

That was the original design because it goes to a White neighborhood. When you look at Tulsa, Oklahoma, there is a freeway there today. And you talk about the violent taking. They bombed a city from the air. They bombed a city that had hotels, restaurants, you name it, a self-sustaining city.

And they were jealous of it and they destroyed it. And we can look here again in California, in Allensworth, a thriving community in Tulare County, with Colonel Allensworth, a World War I veteran who had every intentions on establishing the Tuskegee of the West.

And those individuals at that time, cut off the train stop and cut off the well water well so they couldn't grow their crops. Again, the racially motivated taking of property. And it existed in this country, and it's in many ways still exists today.

And for anyone who has ever taken a train in downtown LA at Union Station, do you know who that property belonged to? A African American woman by the name of Biddy Mason. And yes, they say she sold it, but they stole it.

So, this bill allows us to do that small opportunity of looking at where racially motivated, taking a property where we used a law to commit a crime and take people's homes and hopefully justly compensate those individuals. We'll never make them whole, because as we all know, generational wealth is through land ownership.

And the most wealthiest people in the world is not about the money they have in the bank. It's about the property that they own. This allows us to at least create some type of generational wealth for those individuals. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if we take roll call vote on SB 1050.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator, for your presentations today.

Thank you. Appreciate the Committee and your leadership.

All right, we have file item seven, SB 1356. Senator Wahab, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Chair, colleagues and Members of the public, SB 1356 requires judicial counsel to consider the role of gender in court proceedings and meeting the needs of litigants in unique situations of vulnerability when developing trainings.

While training regarding domestic violence is covered under existing law and training on gender bias exists, there are still gender discrepancies in gender judicial decisions. Women are still fighting in court for pay equity. Incarcerated women can plainly point to how intimate partner violence played a role in their incarceration.

It is clear we must do more to incorporate a gender perspective in our systems to accomplish equality and non discrimination in the justice system. This Bill would expand upon existing training to ensure a gender perspective is incorporated across the court system. Finally, we worked collaboratively with Judicial Council on the language in print.

My witness, Ann Ravel, was unable to join us today. She prepared a statement that my staff - that I actually will read with permission. Thank you. Ann Ravel's testimony: Honorable Members of the Assembly. Many women and minorities in California find themselves unable to evade pervasive bias in our justice system when they are before the court on many different legal issues, including disparity in pay, maltreatment in working conditions, spousal abuse, and violence towards women.

A 2023 UCLA report found that lengthy sentences for women function in part as punishment in the criminal justice system rather than much needed rehabilitation. The report also found that women in the criminal legal system had often survived multiple forms of racialized, gendered, and sexualized violence directly and indirectly tied to the charges that they faced.

SB 1356 will expand judicial training programs to include understanding of how power and gender dynamics have impacted women and minorities. Training of judges in the proposed law will address implicit and explicit bias, discrimination, and stereotyping of women in court decisions. Additionally, it will explain to judges how to recognize and be sensitive to issues facing women and minorities in vulnerable situations. Judges are the best and final defense of a system that is inherently skewed.

Judges have immense power and ability to shape the outcome of a case to assure that justice prevails over prejudice and to recognize the unique vulnerabilities faced by marginalized communities and women. To assure impartiality in judicial decision making, judges should receive training to understand gender sensitivities and differences in court proceedings, including the elimination of stereotypes about women, assessing inequities in power, and understanding the needs and remedies for the groups of people in unique situations of vulnerability.

In order to have confidence in the California justice system, it is crucial that judges make decisions that are impartial, fair, and non discriminatory against women or minorities. It is essential that our justice system must always result in equal treatment under the law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1356?

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates and California Women Lawyers, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1356? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Is there a motion or comments? We have a motion. And a second and a third. Any further comment? Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan?

Senator, I want to thank you for this. The first time I ever made an appearance as an attorney in a courtroom, I was told I wasn't allowed to speak because I was wearing pants. That was in 2005. I think people don't realize how far we have to go as it relates to women in the legal profession and in the courtroom. And I want to give a huge shout out to our Governor, who has done incredible work in diversifying our bench with his appointments of women and people of color.

But there is so much further to go, and every single woman that appears in a courtroom, whether as an attorney or as plaintiff or defendant, deserves justice. And part of that is dealing with what you have here today. And I remember in that moment, I was worried about me. I was worried about my client, because when an attorney is told that their client doesn't get the representation he or she deserves, and so the work here, I think, is really critically important, and I think it will move the ball forward. And I just want to thank you for your work.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, also for bringing this important Bill forward. I experienced the same thing when I would go to court. Even in law school, we were told how to dress. We had to wear skirts certain length. We had to wear certain colors. So I think this Bill is an important Bill, and I would like to be added as a co author.

Thank you.

Any other?

Me, too, please.

RBK too.

Assemblymember Patterson.

Great. Thank you. You know, I was thinking more from the defendant's perspective. I'm not a lawyer, so probably not a great Member of this Committee, by the way. I was going to joke in another Bill. Can you explain what a statute of limitations is?

But I think, you know, from the defendant's perspective, when we've had a lot of talk in this building on human trafficking and a lot of that, the concerns around the proposed laws has been the women who are actually, they're victims, but they become a part of the system.

And that really is a power struggle right between, you know, people that are exploiting that are really abusing women and making them become, unfortunately or coercing them to become a part of this system of human trafficking. And so I was thinking about it from that angle, and that would be an important component for judges and people within the legal community to be more inept to.

So we can make sure that the proper justice is given that if you're a part of the human trafficking system, for example, you know, you become a part of it, that it's. There's a power struggle there, you know, and that it's something that can't be dismissed. And so I think there are some things in the findings and declarations that probably, you know, if that was part of statute, I might have a little bit of concerns with.

But the overall objective of the Bill, I think, is, you know, something that we should really consider for support. And I don't think it's a bad thing to consider power structures and how it has to do with gender and having that kind of training. Otherwise, you're just getting implicit bias training or something, which is not necessarily.

Sometimes - we give so many, we require so many trainings for all sorts of things, and we're just trying to check a box. Right. But I feel like this is a little bit more interactive. So, so I'm going to support this. I don't like, support every word in the Bill, but like I said to the Senator Bradford, you're very close to having perfect Bills as well, but most of us don't have perfect Bills. But I'll support this today. So thank you.

I do appreciate that.

Assemblymember Reyes.

I think the idea of implicit bias means we're not really thinking that we're biased. Well, we really are. And I think to have this training is extremely important. There is good training and then there is bad training. And as long as we get the good training and you self test yourself, you realize that there is a bias.

Even though you can say, I am the most unbiased person in the world, and I really appreciate the Bill and the fact that now it's relating to gender based biases. I've had the training as a judge pro tem, and you realize that as unbiased as you think you are, you're not. And you've got to really check yourself. So with that, I would absolutely support it. Thank you.

Thank you. I agree with all the comments of my colleagues, and I think the good news is now we have more effective training than we probably ever had, and so there's more opportunities for courts to take advantage of it. I think it's incredibly important to, again, as others have mentioned, on paper, we've done a lot on explicit bias. I mean, obviously, there's laws against explicit bias that are very clear. But I think implicit bias is really what we need to target, because, as others have stated, you don't necessarily know that you're doing it.

And I think that given the consequences in the court system, it's incredibly important that we're very conscious and direct and explicit in our actions to actually try to root out that implicit bias. So I. Sure. So I really appreciate your work on this. I would love to be added as a co author as well.

Thank you.

And I'll allow our Vice Chair to have last word.

I'm sorry I missed the first end of it being over in another Committee hearing. I certainly support any efforts to root out any forms of discrimination, and especially in the judicial, any area. But especially in judicial area. Have you worked with the Judicial Council as far as. I mean, they do the training? Are they embracing this concept to go a little bit further?

Yes, in my talking points, that was very much a part of that. So they've offered suggested language as well. So we've been in close collaboration with as many people as possible.

Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to. Oh, of course, yeah. Oh, so, Assemblymember Reyes and Connolly would like to both also be added as a co author. Bryan, as well. And Assemblymember Bryan. And so, Senator Wahab, would you like to close?

Yes. Number one, I just want to appreciate all the comments here. This Bill was brought up because in Mexico, they actually passed a constitutional amendment to prioritize women as much as possible. And oftentimes, you know, I'm not one for specific type of language or anything like that, but we often talk about equity, and when we're talking about women in particular, we don't prioritize equity enough.

And I do think that by prioritizing women, especially with gender perspective training and much more, we are making it more equitable. Women have been second class citizens for literally centuries, regardless of culture. You can be black, white, Latino, you can be Asian. You could be in a different part of the world. And yet we constantly see women being treated poorly. Right. So I think that this is one step forward. I do appreciate Ann Ravel for working with me on this as well, and appreciate all your comments. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. We take a roll call vote.

Motion is due passed to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, that Bill is out. Thank you.

Okay, so let's go ahead, and while we have folks here, we're waiting for two more authors. If we can do. If we can get a motion on SB 940. That's file item one. Umberg, we have a motion. Is there a second? And there's a second if we can take a roll call vote on SB 940, please.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so that Bill will be placed on call. If we can go to actually, let's do. Let's do consent calendar for those that weren't here, this add on on consent just to get everybody caught up for consent.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. File item two, SB 1022. Skinner is on call. Move the call.

[Roll Call]

Reyes I alright, that Bill is out. File item. Let's see what's on call here. Five. Skinner SB 1144. Move the call.

[Roll Call]

Reyes I okay, that Bill is out. File item six, SB 1331. Bradford. Move the call.

[Roll Call]

We'll place that back on call. Still needs one more vote. Item eight, SB 1403. Bradford will move the call.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, and I believe we're all caught up. Just look at the timing as we catch up here. Senator Allen, file item nine, SB 1441.

I just was anxious to make sure everyone got to add on. Thank you so much, Mister chair. Appreciate it. This Bill is ultimately, this Bill would provide clear timelines in the election petition review process and help local governments handle costs from added workloads.

When a petition fails to qualify for the ballot due to insufficient signatures, proponents have the right to examine the petition and reasons for signature rejections. State law establishes a timeline for the initiation of the review process, but it's silent on the timeline for concluding the examination.

And while most petition reviews take just a few days to a couple of weeks to complete, there was one recent case that lasted 14 months, and it cost the county just this one review alone cost the county $1.5 million.

So the lack of a clear deadline in law allowed for the review to be dragged on and created significant financial impacts for the county. And while this was a clear outlier, it highlighted the potential for exploitation of the process and the really considerable expense associated until there are more guardrails instituted.

So this Bill addresses this challenge by establishing a reasonable 60 day limit for proponents to examine a failed petition. This will help county election officials better allocate resources for free and fair elections and assure proponents don't abuse the review process while still protecting this critical transparency opportunity.

And with me today to testify and support is Audelia Losada, who's here on behalf of the LA County Registrar Recorder's office.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Kalra and Members of the Committee. My name is Audelia Losada and I am the division manager for the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder, county clerk's office. Thank you to Senator Allen for this opportunity to speak to the honorable Members of the Committee. Los Angeles County is proud to sponsor SB 1441.

As Senator Allen stated, this Bill does two things. First, it establishes a 60 day period for the proponents of failed petitions to examine disqualified signatures. And second, this Bill allows elections officials to recover the costs of inspecting those disqualified signatures.

The cost recovery provisions of SB 1441 help to ensure that additional public funds are not used when proponents of a failed petition request extraordinarily burdensome review periods. Currently, existing law does not address how proponents how long proponents may examine disqualified signatures, nor does it address who pays the costs to securely present these documents for inspection.

By addressing this gap in law, SB 1441 significantly improves the elections officials ability to manage the examination of failed petitions efficiently and responsibly. I respectfully request the Committee's Aye vote on SB 1441, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1441?

Clear? Andy Liebenbaum, on behalf of LA County. Supporting the Bill, thank you.

Good morning. I'm Eric Ler. On behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Larissa Mercado, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, excuse me. Proud co sponsor in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1441? All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any comments or motions? Assembly Member Reyes just wanted to say that.

When my staff presented this Bill, I said, so what is the time limitation. Now she says there isn't one. I said, okay, I'm sure that you were wrong, so would you please confirm? And she sure did. Where is she? Sure did check. And she says, no, there really isn't a time limitation.

So I am so glad you're presenting this. I mean, what a waste of money and time when something can be. We want to protect everybody's rights, but there should be a limitation and there should be reimbursement. So thank you. Has the Bill been moved? I will move the Bill.