Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

I don't think we quite have a quorum, so we will wait until. Hello, good morning. We will wait until we have one. So we will start as a subcommitee. Okay, great. And we do have an author here, Assemblymember Pellerin. So we would be happy to start with you.

Good morning. Which ones do we start with, 2050? Yes, perfect.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, good morning. In a state with statewide mailed ballots, the accuracy of our voter records is of paramount importance.

The Electronic Registration Information Center, known as ERIC is a powerful tool elections officials can use to ensure that they have the most up-to-date voter rolls.

ERIC is a nonpartisan nonprofit governed by its member states that mutually agree to share data, such as voter registration and vehicle licensee data, in order to keep their voter rolls updated and to reach out to eligible but unregistered citizens. The Secretary of State estimates that there are 4.7 million unregistered eligible voters in California.

That is greater than the population of 26 states. When a voter moves, they often re-register to vote in their new jurisdiction but do not notify the prior county elections official that they have moved.

Due to the highly mobile nature of California's population, it is likely that there are millions of voter registration records that are out of date due to a recent move. ERIC members do not have access to any member's data or reports stored on ERIC's servers, and state voter registration systems are never connected to ERIC.

AB 2050 authorizes the Secretary of State to join ERIC on behalf of the state of California to provide the state with data on voters who have moved in-state, out-of-state or died, as well as providing data on Californians who are eligible to vote but are unregistered.

ERIC is designed to work within the framework of the National Voter Registration Act, under which states cannot remove voters from the rolls just because ERIC reports they have moved.

Before removing a voter, states must contact the voter, seek to confirm ERIC's information and leave voters on the rolls for at least two federal general election cycles, as is consistent with federal law.

Additionally, AB 2050 specifically prohibits the sending of AB 60 license data in order to ensure that no one who is ineligible to vote is included in the data set. California's efforts to increase the accessibility of our voter registration system has been a great success.

Becoming an ERIC member is a natural step in California's mission to improve the accessibility and ease of voting. AB 2050 is sponsored by the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials.

With me to testify in support of ERIC is Shane Hamlin, who's the Executive Director of Eric, and Tricia Webber, representing the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials.

Is Tricia here? Oh, thank you. You're welcome to come forward to the table here.

Yes. Pops up at the back. Oh, do you want to?

So our lead witnesses in support, you have two, and they're each given two minutes, so you may proceed when ready.

All right. Good morning, Chair Blakespear and Members of the Committee. My name is Shane Hamlin. I'm the executive director of ERIC, the Electronic Registration Information Center, and I appreciate the opportunity today to speak in favor of AB 2050.

As you heard, ERIC it's a 501(c) nonprofit membership organization currently comprised of election officials from 24 states and the District of Columbia. Our mission is to help election officials maintain more accurate voter rolls and increase access to voter registration for all eligible citizens.

Maintaining accurate voter rolls is a serious and ongoing challenge because every day voters move or die, and as you heard, many do not report moves to their election official and fewer still family members report the death of a family member. ERIC helps election officials mitigate these challenges in a secure and safe manner.

Since 2012, ERIRC has identified for its members nearly 42 million inaccurate or out-of-date voter records, including 12 and a half million voters who had moved out of state and over 600,000 deceased voters. And we've also identified nearly 60 million potentially eligible but unregistered individuals.

If California were to join ERIC, based on the experience of our current members, we estimate we'd identify in its first set of reports nearly 2 million out-of-date voter records, including about half a million Californians who've moved out of the state and about 4 million potentially eligible but unregistered individuals.

ERIC would be a secure, cost effective resource for the secretary of state and the state's 58 county election officials. ERIC membership would improve the accuracy of California voter rolls and expand access to voter registration information to potentially eligible but not yet registered Californians.

I believe you have a letter from Michael Morse at the Carey School of Law at the University of Pennsylvania that addresses some recent concerns that have been raised about using ERIC reports for list maintenance. I think it addresses all those concerns well, and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have.

And I appreciate the opportunity today to speak in favor of AB 2050.

Thank you. And you also have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Hi, I'm Tricia Webber. I am a co-chair for the California Association of Clark and Election Officials Elections Legislation Committee, and I am here to speak in support of AB 2050. We sponsored this bill because voter roll maintenance is one of our main jobs that we need to do.

And ERIC provides us ways to get data in order to make our rolls stronger and more clear that we are sending ballots to voters we need to send ballots to and that we have the ability to reach out to voters who are not registered to give them the opportunity to register.

Just actually yesterday I received in the mail a cancellation notice that was on a sheet of paper that was less than an inch in height, that had floated around several counties before making it to me from a person who registered to vote in another state.

And it was that state then had to send it to the Secretary of State who tried to interpret the registration address on it, send it to one county, who sent it to another county who sent it to me. And turns out that that person actually moved over a year ago.

Whether they filled it out just recently or whether it took a year to get to me in order to put them to cancel their registration, I do not know.

But ERIC would be a way for us to get that data quicker and be able to inform our voters that we received notification that they moved and we'd be able to cancel them or keep them active with the new mailing address. So we ask that you support this bill. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Oh, I'm sorry. Let's go to other support first. If there's other support in the room, please come forward and state your support.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City Clerks Association of California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in Support.

Good morning. Dean Logan, on behalf of Los Angeles County and support.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else in support in the room? Not seeing any now. We'll go to our lead opposition witness or witnesses. You're welcome to come forward to the table. I don't know if you want to just move over in case there's some questions. Yeah, perfect. Thank you.

And you have. And you also have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California. EIPCA has strongly opposed membership in ERIC since it was first introduced in 2023. Our several position letters are all on file and we hope you have read them carefully before you vote today.

Awareness of the deplorable conditions of California voter rolls has spread and is clearly now public knowledge. Recent data analysis showed that there are over 2 million eligible or uncertain registrant violations within the California Voter roll database. Voter rolls following the 2022 election showed that nearly 2 million votes were cast by ineligible or uncertain registrants.

It's absolutely true. The secretary of state must do something to correct the problem. But ERIC is not the answer. States that have withdrawn from ERIC membership have removed greater numbers of ineligible voters than when they were ERIC members. Ohio is but one example.

The truth is that ERIC's requirements and procedures more often than not exacerbate the problem and result in more questionable registrants being added to the voter rolls than being removed. Why is that?

One reason might be that since citizenship is not allowed to be considered when determining eligible voters, it is entirely possible that those people who receive the ERIC-required voter registration information card from the secretary of state believe that they would not have received that information in the first place had they not been eligible.

And should they register and even vote, they are exempt from any penalty or liability thanks to the new California motor voter law. Let's not compound an already horrendous problem by adding another highly questionable element to the mix.

Instead, we simply urge the secretary of state to fulfill her responsibility at the state level and actually maintain accurate voter rolls as required by federal and state laws. That's her job. ERIC is not the answer. And I'm also curious why our previous letters and even the Election Integrity Project California name was not on the analysis.

I was surprised that there was no mention of us there because we've had opposition letters since the get go.

We'll make sure and add that. All right, so we're going to take a brief break and establish a quorum since we now have a quorum here. So, secretary, please call the roll.

Senators Blakespear? Blakespear, present. Nguyen? Nguyen, here. Allen? Menjivar? Newman? Portantino? Portantino, here. Umberg? Umberg, here.

We'll take the aye on the vote for the bill.

Okay, thank you. So we now have a quorum established. Do we have any other opposition witnesses in the room who would like to add their name?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California action. We're also in respectful opposition to AB 2050, though for slightly different reasons than the former speaker. We want to thank the author and her staff for her time and collaboration in seeing whether we can reach a middle ground.

Unfortunately, we have a difference of opinion about which way the cost benefit analysis lands for this bill and remain opposed. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any other lead witness? Lead opposition witnesses, sorry. Supportive opposition. Those in opposition in the room? I don't see any more. Okay. So thank you to all of our support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to members. Any questions or comments from members? All right, not seeing any.

We will turn it back to the author. Would you like to close Assemblymember Pellerin?

Well, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. This is going to be an amazing tool for elections officials to make sure our voter rolls are up to date, and it will go into effect when the secretary of state and the DMV determine it's the right time. So thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion on AB 2050? Okay, thank you. The measure has been moved by Senator Umberg and the motion is do pass to judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

Senators Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, no. Allen? Menjivar? Newman? Portantino? Portantino, aye. Umberg? Umberg, aye.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony, and we'll leave that on call. And if you'd like to just do your second bill, since you are already here and came early, we appreciate that.

I would love to. Thank you so much. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, I'm representing AB 2839. This year, California is entering its first ever election during which disinformation powered by generative AI will pollute our information ecosystems like never before, and millions of voters will not know what images, audio or video they can trust.

Some of you have probably heard about a robocall that was disseminated back in January of President Biden, which encouraged voters not to participate in the primary election in New Hampshire. That AI generated robocall was a prime example of nefarious use of generative AI, which seeks to disrupt the elections.

This type of election disruption is not new, but the means of disseminating disinformation about an election is much more sophisticated due to the access to very sophisticated generative AI platforms.

Imagine another example in which a deepfake TV ad depicts an elections official saying that they rigged the votes in favor of one candidate or a mail mailer showing false images of tampered ballots. Today, it can be difficult for the average person to know which images before them are real or fabricated.

This type of election related disinformation can dramatically affect voter behavior and undermine faith in our elections, even if they are later debunked. AB 2839 addresses this growing threat by prohibiting bad actors from distributing digitally altered mailers, robocalls and video advertisements that are intentionally deceptive to voters and depict false information pertaining to candidates running for office, an officer conducting an election, an elected official, or voting equipment.

These criteria were carefully crafted using the input of strong defenders of the First Amendment. With me to testify and support today are Leora Gershenzon, representing the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, and Evan Minton, representing Voices for Progress.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and members, I'm Leora Gershenzon with CITED, the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of California common cause. Imagine two different TV ads. One shows a back room, and it says the candidate is up for the highest bidder.

Another is actually a deepfake of the same candidate, but it's a deepfake of them caught on tape accepting a bribe. One: you may not like either of them; one may well be misinformation, but that one you can counter with more speech. That's where it comes in. That's not true. Here's all the things I've done for my district.

The other one just is simply so bad that once it's seen, once it's out there, it can't be unseen, and people will truly believe it. It's a deepfake. It's an AI generated image of the candidate accepting a bride. They are fundamentally different, and this bill seeks to address that.

The goal is not to ban all speech, or ban all election related speech, or all election related, even misinformation. It's simply to say that there are just some things that are so bad that they just need to be removed from the election ecosystem.

Close to election times, we've worked to carefully draft this bill to make sure that it complies with the First Amendment, so that, you know, speech you may not like, but speech that is allowable under the First Amendment gets through.

And it is only the true ads that really try to defraud voters and keep them from voting or make them not make them vote for someone they never intended to or undermine. Our democracy are simply out of the ecosystem system, close to an election. We urge your support. Thank you.

Hi, Evan Minton with Voices for Progress. We're business leaders, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and major donors. Imagine a mailer going out of you just days before your next election with a photo of you doing or saying something that you didn't do.

You're hearing that it's negatively impacting voter's perceptions of you, but you don't have time to address it or correct the record. AI generated misinformation and disinformation is a growing problem, and the World Economic Forum actually states that it's the number one threat to the world in the next two years.

It's a particular problem for state and local elections because of our declining local press, which makes it a problem for candidates to be able to get the word out about correcting the record.

And this is also a particular issue for historically marginalized communities and non-English speaking communities who typically rely on non-mainstream press, where this is a pernicious problem. In particular, according to the Pew Charitable Trust, voter engagement and voter participation increase when there is trust and transparency in our elections.

And this bill does nothing more than increased trust and transparency in our elections. And for that reason, we have a priority support. Thank you so much.

Thanks very much. Do we have members who would like to express support in the room?

Good morning. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California and very strong support. I also have the proxy of Disability Rights California to likewise express strong support. Thank you.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, in support.

Good morning. Khara Boender, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, wearing a support if amended position, also offering a support if amended position on behalf of my colleague at the California Chamber of Commerce. Thanks.

Good morning, Chair, members: Jose Torres Casillas, on behalf of TechNet, also in a supportive amended position.

Thank you very much. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses who would like to come forward?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Joe Berry with the California Broadcasters Association. We're in an opposed unless amended position on this. We applaud the efforts to limit the effects of AI. This is something broadcasters are doing aggressively right now to protect the integrity of local broadcasters as a source of accurate information.

We have two objections around the implementation aspects of this. The Bill requires us to assess whether something has been deceptively manipulated.

And to the extent that that manipulation is going to deceive an average viewer, I'm not sure how an objective standard can be applied to that issue and put stations in a unique situation of having to apply a disclaimer to something that others might not think needs one.

The second issue is that disclaimer application directly conflicts with federal regulations that we're licensed by the FCC. Candidate ads, we are not allowed to edit, censor or apply any sort of disclaimer to.

So as written now, the Bill would require us to make a decision of whether we're going to violate federal law to satisfy state law or violate state law to satisfy federal law.

So it puts us in a unique situation of not being able to even accept any of the political ads candidates, congressional candidates have an absolute right of access to stations. State, local, city elections do not.

So what you would find in this is stations would be forced to deny all state, local and community-based candidates in order to protect that liability. And so leading up to the election, the 120 days beforehand, you'd find none of those advertising on local radio and TV stations.

We don't think that furthers the intent that the author has in limiting this or serves election integrity. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses here in the room?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jack Yanos on behalf of Dish and Directive e with imposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Good morning. Stephanie Ostrade, on behalf of the Motion Picture Association in respectful opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Brandon App, representing Electronic Frontier Foundation in opposition.

Thank you very much. So thank you to all of our support and opposition witnesses. I'd like to ask the author, would you like to address the opposition commentary?

If I may have my witness respond to that? That would be great.

Yes, hi. Yes, we are working with the broadcasters. We absolutely need to give them an exemption. You are quite right that federal law requires you to run these ads. We're just working on language.

We haven't fully agreed on language, but there is no question that they will get an exemption, and they need to get that exemption because they are limited by federal law. We just want to make sure that it's tight. And where federal law requires that they run ads, then they run the ads without any notice.

But if there's no requirement to federal law, then the exemption wouldn't apply.

Well, I guess what I was more curious about was the statement that there would be no advertisement because of concerns about liability for local and state electeds in this period. And what would be the response to that?

Well, the issue is if they run any ads, then they have to run all of the ads. So I think they would be afraid that if they ran any ads, they would be in trouble.

But if they have an exemption which says if federal law requires that if you run any ads, you have to run all the ads, they would have that exemption. So they would run all of them and they would not be held liable. They would be complying with federal law, and the ads would be run as is.

And we just got this information, actually, I just got it this morning. So we are definitely happy to continue working with them and coming up with that right language that's going to address their needs.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any other, yes. Senator Umberg.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that should this Bill pass, and I'm going to support it, it's going to go to Senate Judiciary. I'm informed that they're very persnickety in that Committee. Chair is quite persnickety. Yeah, we'll leave that aside.

All right. So I am looking, I'm going to support it, but I'm looking forward to the language when it comes to Senate Judiciary so that we can address these concerns. I do have grave concerns that this may have unwanted second and third-order impacts, but I think we'll get there. Okay. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you so much.

Okay, any other questions or comments from Members? All right, Assemblymember Pellerin, would you like to close?

Absolutely. So, Senators, getting the right information to voters is crucial to a functioning democracy, and it becomes very difficult to ensure the integrity of the election when convincing deepfakes are spread online, by phone or through the mail to intentionally misinform the public. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion on AB 2839? Okay, thank you. Senator Umberg has moved the measure. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, it's 3-1. We will leave it on call. Thank you. I'm sorry it's 3-0. We will leave it on call. Yes. Next we will take up our consent calendar quickly. So proposed for consent are two items, AB 453 from Cervantes and AB 3284 from Assembly Elections.

Does any Member want to pull an item from consent? If not, please call the roll. Oh, we need to have a motion actually for consent. Okay, Senator Umberg, thank you, has made a motion for the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Okay, it was 4-0 and we will leave it on call. So next we are going to go back to the file order. So, we have AB 1807 from Assemblymember Cervantes, and you may present your measure.

Thank you, Madam Chair and senators, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1807, which will make updates to the existing Riverside County Citizens Redistricting Commission. As you know, Governor Newsom signed AB 1307 into law in 2022. This bill created the Riverside County Redistricting Commission, which is empowered to redraw district boundaries for the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.

The commission would first be constituted after the next census in 2030 and would be constituted reconstituted after every decennial census thereafter. The introduction of AB 1307 kicked off the current wave of county redistricting commission bills that we are currently seeing.

In recent years, this committee has approved independent redistricting commissions for Fresno, Kern, Orange and Sacramento counties, and the Governor has signed all those bills into law. However, AB 34 by Assemblymember Valencia and SB 314 by Senator Ashby contained useful innovations that none of the previous county redistricting commission bills included.

Both of those bills were also signed by the Governor last year. The purpose of my bill is to import many of those innovations to the Riverside County Citizens Redistricting Commission. This includes updating the redistricting criteria to reflect the changes made by the enactment of the Fairs Map act of 2023, which Assemblymember Isaac Bryant and I authored.

AB 1807 would also impose stronger prohibitions on the ability of commissioners to have communications about redistricting issues outside of a public meeting of the commission.

The bill would also require the Commission to translate both its website and many of the written materials it distributes into languages spoken by at least 3% of the total voting age residents of Riverside County. The bill would also impose a more restrictions on the activities of commissioners.

For instance, three years after being appointed to the commission, commissioners would not be able to accept employment from a candidate for office or an elected official of Riverside County. Commissioners will also be prohibited from receiving a noncompetitive bid contract from Riverside County.

Finally, while serving on the Commission, commissioners will be barred from endorsing, working for, or making financial contributions to the campaign of a candidate for elective office of Riverside County. These updates will make the redistricting process for our Board of Supervisors in Riverside County fairer, more accessible and more transparent. And when appropriate, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do you have any lead witnesses in support? No. Okay. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to express support?

Good morning. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in strong support. I want to thank the author. These are excellent amendments to the bill and for bringing it into alignment with the Fair Maps Act, which League of Women voters co-sponsored. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay. We will now bring the discussion back to members. Does anybody want to make any questions or comments? Okay, I don't see any. I'll just make a comment.

This is a really good bill, and I appreciate your desire to make things consistent with the Fair Maps Act and also to make the rules clear for those who are on the front lines. So, thank you for that, and I'll bring it back to you. Would you like to close now?

Respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have a motion on AB 1807? Any motion by any member of the committee? Okay. Senator Allen has moved. Thank you. The motion is do pass to Local Government. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's 4-1 and we will leave it on call. You're taking up Carrillo's right now? Okay. I think we should let Assemblymember Bryan go because he's been waiting patiently. So, let's just come back to Carrillo.

Sure, sure. No problem.

Okay, so let's call you forward. Assemblymember Bryan, AB 544.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We appreciate your patience.

We all have to be in three places at the same time. Good morning, Ms. Chair and Senators. I'm here to present AB 544, which will create a pilot program to improve voter participation in jails for incarcerated people who currently still have the right to vote.

And before I begin, I want to thank the Committee staff for working with us on crafting the author amends that I made on June 11 to address multiple questions and suggestions that came up for both the Committee and the Secretary of State.

I'm committed to identifying the three pilot counties by the Appropriations Committee and we'd like to accept a technical amendment to fix the typo in the language, comment number five on the analysis. Voting for people who are incarcerated or who have been convicted of crimes has been a hot topic across the country in recent weeks.

Questions about whether somebody who has 34 felony convictions can run for President or even vote has sparked new voter interest. In California, we have different constitutional and state laws that govern whether people can or can't vote.

For example, if you are convicted of a felony and incarcerated in state prison, you cannot vote. If you are convicted of a felony, but you are on supervision parole you can vote. If you have been convicted of a felony but you're in the county jail, you can't vote.

But if you are being held in the county jail because you are pretrial and you haven't been convicted of anything, you're just too poor to bail out, you absolutely can vote. Because of this inconsistency or irregularity, we don't have kind of standardized voting structures or practices in all of these places and spaces, including our county jails.

County jails can facilitate elections and some do, but there's not a standardized way that's done and many counties don't have the technical assistance to ensure that all eligible voters can exercise their civic duty and participate in democracy fully. In practice, many counties have vote-by-mail programs to facilitate voting in county jails.

However, statistics indicate that incarcerated people, a group that is overwhelmingly compromised of low-income communities of color, still experience significant barriers to voting and accessing voter education materials, which results in very low voter turnout. AB 544 will create a pilot program that will provide grants to three counties to improve their voting access for people in jail.

It will require the pilot counties to establish a location where incarcerated people can vote, return their completed vote by mail ballot, update their voter registration, and conditionally register to vote. This pilot program will bring us the results that we will need to demonstrate the necessary standardized practices for voting in jails across the state.

Other jurisdictions that have made in-person voting available in their local jail facilities have seen an increased percentage of turnout, including Denver, Washington, DC, Cook County and Will County in Illinois, and Harris County in Texas. In fact, the State of Colorado just passed legislation that turned every single jail in the entire state into a polling location.

This Bill takes us a step closer to a democracy that includes everybody and closes the gaps in voting access. Here to testify with me is Bob Leibold from the sentencing project and Antoinette Radcliffe with Initiate Justice.

Thank you very much for being here. You each have two minutes.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair and Members. Before I start my testimony, I just want to lead with gratitude and acknowledgement for the brilliant mind that actually birthed this piece of legislation after witnessing firsthand the transformative power of civic engagement and civic participation while incarcerated.

That's Tan Tran of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, one of our proud co-sponsors on this Bill. I am Antoinette Ratcliffe, Executive Director with Initiate Justice, also proud co sponsor this very vital piece of legislation.

I'm a lifelong resident of California, and we all know very well that California is recognized for our brilliant, vibrant, and beautiful diversity across our communities. Unfortunately, those diverse perspectives and voices currently are not adequately represented in our democracy today.

Every election, tens of thousands of Californians who have their right to vote are silenced by the cages of our local jails. Despite having that right to vote, approximately 78,000 people in our local jails face significant barriers in accessing that right and casting their ballots. Black and Latinx people make up 66% of that population.

I want to be clear that this is, in fact, as Assemblymember Bryan said, our people's constitutional right to vote if they are not serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony. And nearly 75% of our state's jail population consists of people who haven't even been convicted of or sentenced for a crime.

In fact, people can be caged for longer than a year, sometimes 3, 4, and five years pending trial, due merely to their inability to afford bail. Sounds similar to a modern-day poll tax essentially. So with that, unfortunately, many of our state systems are inherently biased towards lower-income communities and inherently racist.

And this tarnishes our electoral systems, too. You all, as our elected leaders, have been endowed with the opportunity, or rather the responsibility, to right some of these wrongs.

So, as this Committee argued here just about two months ago, that we need to protect California's fair and honest election system and do anything that we can do to restore dignity in the electoral process, I implore you to understand that this AB 544 is one more critical step in that right direction.

With that, as prob co sponsor this Bill, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, and you also have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Bob Libal, here for the Sentencing Project, a national organization working for fair and effective US criminal justice system. We are grateful for this opportunity to testify in support of AB 544. Along with our colleagues, we have three major reasons for supporting this Bill.

First, enfranchisement is a democratic right and a racial justice issue. In local jails, the vast majority of people are eligible to vote, but research shows that contact with the criminal legal system is far more likely to result in disenfranchisement of people of color.

In California, of the 97,000 California citizens who cannot vote while serving a prison, terminal black Californians are 10 times as likely as whites to lose their right to vote. Research finds that when community members spend time in jail, voter participation declines afterwards as well, especially among people who are black and or low-income.

Secondly, jail based voting programs are successful. Jail based bullying locations are becoming more and more common across the country, as Assemblymember Bryan laid out in locales from my home State of Texas to Illinois to the District of Columbia.

And this year, Colorado Governor Jared Paul assigned SB 24072 which makes in person voting available in all jails across the state.

In Chicago, a jail-based polling location increased turnout at the Cook County jail from 7% in the absentee ballot model to over 50%, the highest rate of participation of any polling location in the city last year. And third, voting matters for better public safety outcomes. Voting has a positive relationship with improved public safety.

Research analyzed by the Sentencing Project supports the link between justice-impacted individuals having the right to vote, exercising their right to vote, and reductions in recidivism. The sentencing project applauds this Committee for taking up AB 544, and we encourage its passage as a step towards guaranteeing the right to vote for all.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other support? Witnesses in the room.

Morning. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, very proud co sponsor of this critical legislation, in strong support. Thank you. Oh, I also have the proxy of Disability Rights California also in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, proud co-sponsor and offering the support of Smart Justice California. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members, Marie Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Hi, Evan Minton. I apologize that we weren't able to get our letter in on time, but Voices for Progress and strong support.

Good morning. Eugene Dey with the Crop Organization and the Anti Recidivism Coalition in Support.

Good Morning, Chair and Members, Keeley O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Good morning. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Shana England with the California Community foundation in strong support.

Morning, Chair and Members, Chris Lodgson, Policy Manager, Anti Recidivism Coalition, strong support.

Yesenia Thomas with Anti Recidivism Coalition in Sacramento in support.

Jack Castello, a Member of the Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support of this Bill.

My name is Jessica Robinson. I'm a Member of the Anti Recidivism Coalition, and I am in strong support.

My name is Heather Swinnor. I am with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, and I'm in strong support.

Jeffrey Keene, with Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support.

My name is Mohammed Shazir, and I am with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, and I am in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Jason Bartley, on behalf of Anti Recidivism Coalition, and I'm in support. Thank you.

Cassie Scherr, a part of Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support.

Reverend Steve Hong, PCUSA, Sac X and on behalf of God of Matthew 25, I'm in support.

Lan Lee, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, in strong support.

Mark Sawyer, on behalf of Sacramento Area Congregations Together in strong support.

Good morning. Patty Shaw, Sacramento Area Congregations Together and very strong support.

Good morning. Elizabeth Kim with PICO California, representing 500,000 families throughout the state and strong support.

Well, thank you very much to everyone who took time out of your day to come and express your support for this Bill. We appreciate hearing from you. Are there any opposition, lead witnesses in the room? Anybody who wishes to express opposition in the room? Okay, not seeing any. We will bring this back to Members.

Any comments, questions from Members?

Okay, thank you. We do have a motion, but I would like to just thank the author for working so diligently on this Bill and being willing to identify the willing counties and also seeking to make this work in a tight budget year. So thank you very much. Anybody else? No? Okay, so go ahead. You may close.

Democracy thrives when it includes everybody. My personal opinion is that regardless of your incarcerated status or conviction status, you should be able to participate in democracy. That's a larger conversation.

Right now, California code currently allows for incarcerated people who have not been convicted of any wrongdoing, who are only in our jails because they couldn't afford to bail or bond out, allows them to participate in democracy. But our jails are not set up to facilitate elections in a healthy, an inclusive way.

This Bill launches the pilot program that will take us one step closer to that thriving democracy, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. So the motion from Senator Newman is do pass, as amended by the technical amendment only to Public Safety. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] okay, it's 5-1 and we'll leave it on call.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Okay, next we are going to AB 2355 by Assemblymember Carillo being presented by Assembly Member Cervantes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and senators.

On behalf of Assemblymember Carrillo and as a joint author of this bill, I am proud to present Assembly Bill 2355. This Bill will require a disclosure to be provided when generative artificial intelligence, or AI, is used in political advertising to substantially alter existing media or create content that will falsely appear to be authentic to a reasonable person.

The availability of technology to edit or alter images, video, and sound is not new. However, rapid improvements in AI and large language models that are capable of generating sound, images, and text have already resulted in the creation of materials that are likely to pass off as convincingly real, even when they are fake.

In January of this year, a robocall using the AI generated voice of President Joe Biden told New Hampshire voters to save their vote for November rather than vote in the state primary election. The individual who created the audio told NBC News that it took less than 20 minutes and cost only $1.

As this technology becomes cheaper, faster, and easier for the public to use, it is embraced by candidates and political campaigns alike. Its potential for negative effects on democracy requires us to act, and act now.

In this new world where AI is becoming more commonplace, we need common sense regulations that respect free speech and the sanctity of political expression, while providing guardrails to get ahead a widespread abuse of this technology.

Recent amendments limit this bill to the activities of state campaign committees as defined by the Political Reform act of 1974, and transfer enforcement responsibilities to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

This change sets a strong precedent of adding generative AI disclosures as a part of the existing transparency requirements, which already govern political advertisement on television, text message, and social media, just to name a few. With me to speak in support of this bill is Trent Lange, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign.

Welcome, Mister Lange, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Blakespear and members: Trent Lang, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're very happy to support AB 2355 and are grateful to the leadership of Assemblymember Carrillo and Cervantes for authoring it and to this committee.

The California Clean Money Campaign was very proud to sponsor the different California Disclose Act bills to require ballot measures and independent expenditures to clearly disclose their top funders. Most recently with the Disclosure Clarity Act by Senator Umberg and Allen, and by the Text Message Disclose Act authored by Assemblymember Cervantes.

Before the Disclose Act, voters did not know, did not usually know, who paid for political ads. They couldn't see it. Now, California faces a similar problem with political ads created or manipulated by generative AI. Generative AI can create fake content that can deceive voters into believing somebody said something they didn't say.

Was it a location that they were not at, or things that happened didn't actually happen. These deepfakes can be convincing enough that voters would never know the difference between what is fake and what is real.

AB 2355 works the same way as the Disclose Act by requiring paid political ads to clearly disclose when they were generated by generative AI or manipulated with it. Just like the Disclose Act, the burden is on the advertiser, who knows when their content was generated by aid to put it on.

We do believe that a few changes are necessary to its formatting requirements to make them more compatible with the current disclose act disclosure formats and look forward to working with the author and this committee to do so.

It is important to note that AB 2355 is not a substitute for the two other AI bills that are before this committee that address other kinds of deepfakes, that are dangerous enough close to elections that they need to be banned, and that also address election communications.

All three bills address important parts of the dangers AI pose to elections, so we hope that they pass this committee and the legislature. With that, we respectfully request your I vote for this important disclosure bill.

Thank you very much. Any other lead witnesses? Okay, how about witnesses in the room wishing to express support?

Madam Chair, may I serve as a lead witness for this?

Sure.

Sorry to think it up quickly enough. My name is Kim -

You're welcome to come sit at the table if you'd like to.

You have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Khara Boender, testifying on behalf of the computer and Communications Industry Association in support of AB 2355. CCIA is an international not for profit trade Association with about two dozen Members from a range of communications and technology firms.

We commend California lawmakers commitment to ensuring that California's elections remain free and fair. The advent of generative artificial intelligence carries great potential for beneficial uses and impacts to society. However, it is also important to identify and mitigate specific risks.

The June 11 amendments to AB 2355 will help to ensure that a covered Committee appropriately includes disclosures for content that has been generated or substantially altered by AI, while continuing to allow for other beneficial uses.

We appreciate lawmakers commitment to protecting California's election integrity while mitigating the potential risks of generative AI with our targeted approach and are proud to support this legislation. Thank you for your time.

Thanks very much. Any other witnesses in support in the room?

Good morning, chair Members Jose Torres Casillas, on behalf of technet in support. Thanks very much.

Okay, how about lead opposition witnesses? Anybody wishing to come forward? Any other opposition witnesses in the room? Okay. Not seeing any. We will then bring it back to the Committee Members.

Any Committee Members have comments or questions on this Bill? Thank you for presenting it on behalf of the Assembly Member. Okay, we have a motion. I just briefly want to say that I appreciate this Bill.

Along with the other AI bills that we have coming forward, this Committee held a joint informational hearing together with the Assembly elections Committee and talking about AI and its impact on elections. And it's important that we have bills that move forward this year because we don't.

We want to prevent the misuse of technology in elections as the landscape is changing so rapidly. So we need the rules to be clear so that voters and participants in our democracy are not deceived. Thank you very much for this Bill. And we have a motion which is, do you pass to judiciary? And it's from Senator Menjavar.

So, assistant, please call the roll. Oh, actually, I'd like to ask you to close.

Certainly. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you've heard, this Bill will preserve our integrity and our confidence in our democracy and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

So let's please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to judiciary Senators. Blakespear? Blakespear aye. Min. Allen. Menjivar. Menjivar aye. Newman. Aye. Newman aye. Portantino?

[Roll Call].

It's 5-0, and we will leave it on call. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, next. We see we have an author in the room, Assemblymember Berman. He is ready and prepared. AB 2642 is the first bill to present.

I don't know about the ready and prepared part, but I am here. Chair Blakespear and senators, California has always been a leader when it comes to protecting our elections and our democracy. While our state has strong anti-intimidation protections, there is a concerning trend that is growing across our country of intimidation and threats against election workers and California unfortunately is not immune.

Due to the alarming rise in threats and attacks against election and poll workers, there has been a nationwide exodus of workers from the job, including here in California. In the 2024 election, 44% of voters in California will have a different election administrator than they had in the 2020 election.

AB 2642, the Peace Act, would strengthen and supplement California's existing anti-intimidation laws by providing explicit civil protections for both election workers and voters. Additionally, AB 2642 would create an important presumption that people who openly carry firearms around election activities do so for the purpose of intimidation. The bill has no registered opposition and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And you have lead witnesses in support, I see. You each have two minutes.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Lauren Miller Karalunas and I'm an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting and strengthening democracy. I'm here today to offer our support for the Peace Act.

The threat of intimidation in our elections has existed for as long as our country has held elections. But each and over the years, what that intimidation looks like has evolved. But each time that has happened, lawmakers like yourselves have stepped up to confront the problem.

During the Reconstruction era, for example, intimidation took the form of the KKK, terrorizing black voters and their allies. So in response, Congress stepped up to pass the Klan Act in 1871. Nearly 100 years later, intimidation took the form of literacy tests and poll taxes that disenfranchised black Americans and violence against voters and voting rights activists.

Again, in response, Congress passed the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now we face a new threat to our election system, an effort to discredit American elections and the people who run them. And once again, it has led to a new form of intimidation. Widespread and often racist allegations of unproven fraud are driving violence and threats directed at election officials, poll workers, and voters.

Today, I ask you to follow in the footsteps of our forebears by passing the Peace Act, which would make significant strides towards addressing this new threat. California, like all states, makes it a crime to intimidate a voter or election official, yet only two states allow those voters or officials themselves to sue for damages. Private enforcement is very effective at deterring bad behavior.

What better use of it than safeguarding our democracy? California can lead the nation by taking this important step towards protecting its valued civil servants and voters. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Blakespear, Members of the Committee. I'm Dean Logan, the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for Los Angeles County, here in support of AB 2642 on behalf of the county. I want to thank Assemblymember Berman for authoring the Bill and for his leadership in support of elections, administration, and integrity in California.

California has been a leader in crafting elections laws and regulations that advance voter participation, transparency, equitable access, and security. AB 2642 adds important provisions to strengthen protections for voters, election workers, and officials, providing important tools to hold those who seek to intimidate, harass, and harm them responsible. In many respects, AB 2642 is a bill I wish was unnecessary.

Unfortunately, the current narrative around elections and the proliferation of mis-, dis-, and malinformation has resulted in notable increase in threatening activities, online harassment, and intimidation of those we rely upon to ensure free and fair elections. Over the course of 2020, 2021, and 2022 election cycles, I was subjected to a barrage of online harassment and experienced, on more than one occasion, disruption in my neighborhood by protesters outside my home, driven by inaccurate and sensationalized claims of fraud and election denialism.

My office has had to increase security in response to those threats and harassment that were received by mail, email, social media, and over the phone. Sadly and shockingly, I know of colleagues who have experienced far more aggressive activity, which has resulted in the loss of experienced, dedicated election administrators and election workers across the state and the country.

The narratives speeding this activity have not subsided and in fact show signs of escalation. They have been continuous since the 2020 election cycle and they represent a threat to this year's election. While California has existing criminal laws that prohibit threats and harassment against voters and election workers, AB 2642 adds the additional deterrent and protection of private action when and if threats of intimidation are carried out, resulting in personal harm or damage to targeted election workers and voters.

The foundation of our representative form of governing depends on free and fair elections. The voting process belongs to our electorate and must be conducted with transparency and integrity, including public observation and quality assurance. To ensure elections are carried out in that manner, voters, officials, and election workers need the assurance and protection that allows for those processes to occur without disruption, intimidation, or harm.

AB 2642 offers a reasonable and effective deterrent to those who would seek to disrupt and damage the infrastructure, people, and processes we rely on to support the voting franchise. For those reasons and with the appreciation for the voice of this body, we respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony and being willing to share your personal story. I'm sorry that you were having to go through that. Thank you for persevering and coming today. Do we have any other witnesses who'd like to express support? Go ahead.

Good morning. Jamie Minor on behalf of Giffords, proud to co-sponsor this legislation and pleased to support. Thanks.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California and very strong support. Also, I have the proxy of Disability Rights of California, also in very strong support. Thank you.

Annie Chou at the California Teachers Association in support.

Hi. Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California, here in support.

Danny Offer with Every Town for Gun Safety in strong, strong support. Thank you.

Ruth Dawson, ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Marquis Mason, California Environmental Voters in support. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Any other people wishing to express opposition? You may come forward now. Okay. Not seeing any. Then we will return it to the Members for questions. Yes, Senator Newman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, to Assemblymember Berman, I appreciate this Bill and the need for this Bill. I actually did legislation a couple of years ago to extend opportunities for additional protections to election workers, as the witness mentioned.

I think this is a sensible addition, especially given what we've seen in recent years around election-related threats and violence. I as well appreciate the witness' willingness to be here today. Glad to support the Bill. I'd asked to be added as a co-author as it moves forward and I'm glad to move it out. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have, I mean, I appreciate what you're doing and I understand it. And thank you for continuing to stand up for our election process. My question, I guess, is, does this stop people from, if there is a question of the election, does it stop and not allow people to ask, to question a recount, to question a specific precinct, to even maybe sue the registrar voters?

Because that's another, I'm looking at more the legal aspect of it. Does it completely shut down and no one can say anything at all? I mean, I don't want people in front of my house or your house either, right. I mean, we all faced, we've faced that in the past. And so, it's more of what avenue does people have? If they have a question on whether, hey, was that legitimate or not. What other process is there left for them?

Thank you, Senator. I think it's an important distinction, and I don't think that this Bill intends to take away, as I said in my testimony, the transparency and the opportunity for the public to observe and to hold accountable those who conduct the election process. That process belongs to the voters, and there are existing procedures in law to allow for that to, as you indicate, to ask for a recount to, through public records, requests, acts, or to simply be present and challenge decisions that are made by election officials.

I think what this Bill does is it focuses on the potential escalation of those activities. If you're not doing that in an appropriate manner, if you're not doing it through the legal channels that are already defined to do that. And, as you say, that happens on a regular basis. Unfortunately, we've seen, in some cases, that's where that escalation occurs. So this would address the escalation of going beyond those legal parameters to a form of harassment or intimidation that would make people fearful from carrying out their duties.

Just to follow up on that very good answer. It only applies to things that are intimidating, threatening, or coercive under a reasonable person standard.

Okay. Thank you. Yes, Senator Allen. Or let me make sure Senator Nguyen is okay. Senator Allen.

I want to, I'll move the Bill when appropriate. Appreciate it. I mean, if only, I guess. Oh, you did it. Okay. Move it again. It's a good Bill. We'll move. I mean, I wish that this Bill would solve the problem that the registrar recorder has mentioned. I mean, obviously this is an important thing for us to do, but the proliferation of misinformation and the interaction with violence and the potential for violence is very frightening.

And the idea that the people who step forward in public service to just fairly manage our electoral systems have to go through the kind of ridiculous and dangerous and frightening harassment, threatening, and intimidation that you've had to go through is just atrocious. And I wish, and unfortunately, you're not the only election official in the country who's gone through this. We know it's happening all over the place, and it's a dangerous thing. It's a dangerous thing.

And I want to express my strong support for this Bill, and I'm just hopeful that we're able to do more to protect our elections officials. And I just want to thank you and everyone else who works in this sacred space for persevering and carrying on and maintaining your commitment to a strong, fair, open, free, transparent, and just democracy.

Thank you, Senator. Would you like to close?

I couldn't have said it better myself and just want to note that this is a problem that's impacting elections officials and officers of all different parties. The prior Committee I had testifying, a Republican election official who's faced harassment and their team has faced harassment.

These are elections officials, professionals, who just want to make sure that our democracy is strong, that our ballots are counted in a fair way, that everybody gets a chance to participate. And like the senators mentioned, they shouldn't be facing the harassment they're facing, and this will just be one more layer of protection. But I don't think is a panacea. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thanks very much. I think Senator Newman got there first with making the motion, so the motion is due pass to judiciary and it's been moved by Senator Newman. So assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

it's 5-1 and we will leave it on call. Thank you very much. And next, we have a second Bill. We have a second Bill by Assemblymember Berman.

Thank you, Chair Blakespear and Sanders. Five years ago, I authored the first election deepfake Bill in the nation. And as you heard with the presentation of a Bill earlier, just a few short years later, the technology is better, cheaper, and more widely accessible.

AB 2655.

And we're seeing deepfakes used to undermine elections across the globe and here in America.

Therefore, I'm authoring AB 2655 to protect election integrity by requiring large online platforms to, for a limited time, restrict the distribution of materially deceptive content intended to affect the outcome of an election, undermine confidence in election results, or harm the reputation of a candidate for less harmful, yet still materially deceptive content.

The Bill would require the platforms to label it as election disinformation. With today's sophisticated deepfakes, voters may not know what audio or visual content they can trust, which can undermine election integrity.

Imagine if a fake video appeared online of an elected official doing or saying something that they did not do or say, like accepting a bribe or saying that they'd hacked voting machines to ensure their own victory. The Bill does not demand perfection. What it says is that platforms must act using the best available tools.

If they know or should know that the content meets the test in the Bill platforms cannot bury their head in the sand, but if they don't know, then there is no obligation.

I recognize that this Bill is legislating in an arena where technology and the law are fast evolving, and this can be challenging, but doing nothing is not an option. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today are Laura Gershenzon and David Harris, both with the California Institute for Technology and Democracy.

Thank you and welcome. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Leora Gershenzon, we're CITED the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which is a project of California Common Cause. Imagine two different videos that are going viral online. One is an influencer on TikTok saying, don't vote by mail. It's bad. You may not get your ballot counted. Go in person.

The other is the election official in your county, a deep fake of them saying don't vote by mail. We throw them all out. They're two fundamentally different things. Both are designed to impact the vote and impact two votes. But one you can counter with more information you can have saying no, come and vote.

The other one is just so bad, so fundamentally bad, that having it out there, even if it had a line on the bottom that said, this is AI, is simply not enough, that it just shouldn't be in the ecosystem, because once it's out there, it is impossible to take back.

And this Bill is trying to do that, is trying to say the worst of the worst election Deepfakes.

Those are the candidate or the elections official or an elected official doing or saying something they didn't do or say with the intent to influence the election that comes up just shouldn't be there for a short time frame around the election. And other things in a longer timeframe should be labeled as such.

The bottom line is there are just things that cannot be unseen and will impact our democracy and whether people vote or not. And we hope and pray that this is enough to be able to. This Bill and the other bills that you're hearing are enough to protect California's democracy. We urge you to vote aye.

Thank you very much. Yes, go ahead.

Chair Blakespear and Members of the Committee, it's an honor to be here speaking with you. My name is David Harris, and I'm a senior policy advisor to cited the California California Initiative for Technology and Democracy.

I am also chancellor's public scholar at UC Berkeley, where I teach classes at the Haas School of Business on topics including AI, ethics for leaders, and civic technology. I previously worked for close to five years at Facebook and Meta on the civic integrity and responsible AI teams.

I've also advised the EU, the White House, NATO, and the United nations on artificial intelligence. This Bill only applies to the largest online platforms with the greatest reach of potential election misinformation, and it's fully implementable today based on tools the companies already possess. Illegal content is complex, child sexual abuse material, terrorist content.

This Bill is very narrow and makes it impermissible to generate election disinformation. The companies have already shown that they can do it with those other types of content.

Some of these companies suggest that the requirements cannot be met, but they already are under similar requirements in Europe due to Europe's Digital Services act, which is designed to, among other things, crack down on election interference. So they are already complying there or trying to.

They've also promised to do these same types of reasonable things that the Bill provides. The tech companies made a big commitment in the AI and elections accord at the Munich Security conference this past February.

But unfortunately, the commitments that the tech companies have made in places like that are voluntary, have no timelines for implementation, and have no accountability mechanisms associated with them. The good news though is that AI companies and social media companies have been publicly calling for more regulation of their industry.

And regulation is great in this field because it creates a level playing field where all the companies have to play by the same rules. Without regulations like this, you punish the companies that are working hard to operate in the interests of society.

And I'll close by saying that we should heed the call of tech industry CEO's calling for regulation and promising to do better for democracy and give them what they are asking for with AB 2655.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Do we have any other support in the room? Please come forward to the microphone.

Morning, Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California in strong support and I have the proxy of Disability Rights California also in strong support. Thank you.

Chair, Members, Janice O'Malley AFSME California in support thank you.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Hi, Evan Minton, Voices for Progress in support thank you.

Marquise Mason, California Environment of Voters in support thanks.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign in support.

Okay, thank you very much. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition.

Hello. Welcome. Come forward. You may start when ready. You have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, again, my name is Khara Boender. On behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, in respectful opposition to AB 2655 CCIA and its Members take seriously the impact deceptive content may have on elections.

Many of our Members, as noted earlier, are working to implement tools to better detect and label AI generated content and using a combination of AI and human review. They moderate content in violation of their terms of service, including content that is illegal and potentially harmful.

But the tools that are currently available are not always reliable or accurate, and while such technology is evolving, so are the means for bad actors to evade such detection. Because covered platforms are not privy to the intent and context for which a piece of content is used, they could inadvertently overblock or over label content.

This could result in user frustration and suppression of political speech. Political speech was at the core of why our first amendment was established.

Therefore, responsibility for labeling AI generated election content and liability for deceptive content should rest with the entity that puts forth such material, the one that is most aware of the intent and context to which the content was created and shared. We also have concerns about the breadth of the Bill.

While establishes defined time periods surrounding elections and election processes for newly established prohibitions and requirements, the Bill does not specify which elections where. As noted in the Committee analysis, this could result in platforms being required to block content almost constantly in order to ensure compliance.

We appreciate the recent amendments to limit the PRA to a candidate for elective office, elected official or elections official in lieu of any resident of California. However, we're still concerned that this could still result in the weaponization of political speech that competing candidates disagree with.

For example, under the Digital Millennium Copyright act, there were studies describing political ad takedowns on both sides of the political spectrum. After receiving reports of copyright infringement. Many of these cases were ultimately deemed fair use, but platforms were inclined to err in taking down the content lest they faced liability.

For these reasons, we urge a no vote on this legislation. On behalf of CCIA, I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other opposition witnesses in the room?

Good morning. Ruth Dawson with ACLU, California Action and respectful opposition thank you.

Jose Torres Casillas, on behalf of Technet and Chamber of Commerce in respect for opposition.

Brandon Knapp, representing Electronic Frontier foundation, respectfully in opposition.

Thank you very much and we will now bring it back to our Members. And I'd like to ask the author, would you like to respond to any of the opposition witnesses statements?

Appreciate the concerns. We've been working together, having a lot of conversations with all the stakeholders since the day we introduced the Bill. You know, we believe that we have narrowly tailored the Bill to address a significant government interest. Also believe that we've put language in there to make sure that the platforms aren't held to perfect standard.

But for the big platforms that the Bill applies to, that they are using best practices that, as one of my witnesses mentioned, they're already using for other users in other parts of the world.

But at the same time, we'll absolutely continue having conversations with the opposition and looking for ways to address concerns that they have that don't totally undermine or gut the purpose of the Bill. And I'm sure my witnesses, if given the opportunity, might also have some thoughts. But through the chair.

I mean, if you'd like to, briefly, I just wanted to give you a chance.

The only thing I would add is the liability under this Bill is just injunctive relief. So all it is is a court telling the platform to take down what they should have already taken down. There is not monetary liability, liability, thanks to Section 230.

I'd just like to respond respectfully to the point raised by the opposition that the tools are not reliable or accurate.

There are well established tools for doing this, and that's why when you open up your Facebook, newsfeed, or your Instagram feed, you generally will not find pornography, child sexual abuse, terrorist recruiting content, because they can remove that type of content.

There's no fundamental difference between that type of content content and this type of content, except that this type of content is not yet illegal, and that's why the companies are not doing it. They will do it if forced to. Elon Musk got rid of about 81% of Twitter's staff after he acquired it.

Mark Zuckerberg said publicly that he admired what a lean company Elon had been able to make Twitter. And that's because activist investors are saying, cut, cut, cut, make your companies more profitable. Only do what you're legally required to do.

And it is on us and you Members of the Committee, to make it legally required to address this issue.

Okay, well, thank you very much. I appreciate that, Senator Newman.

Thank you. And so I guess I'd like to ask a question. The opposition. So, Miss Punder, you happen to be at the table, so apologies. You're representing all of those nice folks, but would you agree or disagree that this is, in fact, a fairly urgent matter, given the advances in AI and the prospective threat to our elections.

That it's important to address the impacts that AI may have on elections. But I believe that is why we are supportive of the other measures that put the responsibility on the people who are producing the content that is in fact deceptive or they know how they have produced it and in what context that they have produced it.

To back up a little bit on that front, while respectfully, the support witness over here mentioned that the reason why when you open up Facebook and you're not seeing a bunch of CSAM, I would argue that that's a fundamentally different and not apples to apples comparison as CSAM is identified using hashing values that are found at a database, which is not the case for something that may be considered more subjective when we're talking about whether a specific person said or did something.

And I think that's more difficult for a platform to know definitively whether somebody, you know, across the country, there are over 7000 state legislators in the country, whether that specific candidate did say or in fact do something. So I do think that those are fundamentally different examples that are being shared.

I appreciate that. But I guess the use case that the author is trying to address, you know, I regard as a real problem and at least visually not hard to identify once identified to the support positions point. It's really a work factor question. Right.

And so the question at issue here is, you know, what's the willingness of the major platforms to do this work? And in the absence of this legislation, how can we be assured as representatives of the public interest that you're going to do that work?

So this seems in the absence of an alternative, I'd be interested to hear an alternative solution. Seems like a very reasonable measure. So do you have, is there a better way to do this that gets at the issue? Because I think the issue is fairly clear cut.

Again, I think it's about going after the people who are producing the material originally.

Okay. That is a whack a mole Proposition unless we do that at a systems level. Okay. Clay was interested to hear but happy to support the Bill in its current form. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Assembly Member Berman, would you like to close?

I appreciate the conversation. We'll continue to work with the opposition. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Okay, Senator Newman, thank you. This is due past two. Judiciary assistant, please call the roll.

Senators Blakespear? Blakespear aye. Nguyen. Nguyen no. Allen. Allen aye. Menjivar aye. Newman. Newman aye. Portantino. Umberg.

It's 41 and we will leave it on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. So now we are on to our last item of the day here for these Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee. It's ACA 8. We will ask Assembly Member Wilson to come forward. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators. I'm pleased to speak with you today regarding Assembly Constitutional Amendment ACA 8, the End Slavery in California Act. This is a California Legislative Black Caucus priority and a part of our reparations package. I first want to start by accepting the committee amendments.

I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of you, Madam Chair, and your predecessor, as well as the staff who've worked really hard to get us to this point. Also noting that while working through these amends, we did have local govs bring up potential impacts as it relates to jails, so we are working with them to address them, and it may be in ACA 8 or our companion bill, AB 628.

So this is just an FYI. So back to ACA 8, this measure would allow Californians the opportunity to amend Article One, Section Six of the state constitution to prohibit slavery in any form without exception. Today, slavery takes on modern forms. As noted on the U.S. Department of State website, the modern form of slavery as it relates to involuntary servitude includes sex trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor, bonded labor or debt bondage, domestic servitude, forced child labor, unlawful recruitment, and use of child soldiers.

So in any form, slavery would be prohibited here in the State of California. And it should be noted that because it's wrong in all forms, California should be explicitly clear in denouncing that in our constitution. California is among only 16 states with an exception clause for involuntary servitude in its state constitution.

Most recently, voters in Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont removed involuntary servitude language from their state constitutions. Incarcerated people have long faced cruel treatment for any work absences. This includes physical violence, solitary confinement, denial of phone calls and family visits, and limiting participation in self-help groups and disciplinary write-ups that result in longer prison terms.

Such punishments or threats of such punishments are often used even when absences are due to illnesses or injuries sustained through the work. The current practice of forced labor does not prepare incarcerated people for success upon reentry and often prevents participation in rehabilitative services. Let me say it a different way.

Rehabilitative services should not be forced labor and forced labor should not be rehabilitative services. Incarcerated people's relationship to work should not be one of exploitation and little to no agency. California needs to end slavery in every single form, including involuntary servitude now, and we need to give the voters the opportunity for our constitution to reflect our values.

Now with me today to testify is Lawrence Cox, on behalf of the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and Reverend Davis Wiles from St. Mark's United Methodist Church.

Thank you. You each have two minutes. Thank you for coming.

Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to say thank you. It's an honor and it's a pleasure to be here. I'm here requesting your aye vote. I am system-impacted. Like she said, my name is Lawrence. I am the Regional Advocacy and Organizing Associate for All of Us or None. I manage our eight chapters throughout California.

I'm also--I coordinate and lead our Coalition for Family Unity, which is a group of 30 nonprofit orgs that work in advocacy work throughout the state. I've spent the last 17 years of--the last 19 years of my life, I spent 17 of them incarcerated. I am a testament to what rehabilitation looked like.

I've successfully discharged parole in conjunction with all the things that I just mentioned earlier. Like the member said, forced labor is not rehabilitation. I've been subjected to forced labor. I am system-impacted, so I understand what it means not to have your own autonomy and your own agency.

I understand what it means to be estranged from society, and I understand what rehabilitation courses do. I have been forced to work jobs and had jobs to where I couldn't get out those jobs, even when I wanted to take my on-site college courses to complete my degree. Forced labor was prioritized over my rehabilitation.

And then the excuse that I was given, well, 'don't go to work and get three write-ups, and then we'll drop you.' So there's no opportunity for individuals incarcerated to choose what their priority and what their rehabilitation process actually looks like. I request your aye vote.

I think, as a society, our constituents should be allowed to decide whether we want to still practice slavery, and we want our constitution to say that we practice slavery. If we prioritize being a slave-free state, how can we allow the last few remnants of slavery?

And that's why I'm going to keep calling it slavery, involuntary servitude, because let's just be honest, that's exactly what it is. Why are we here in 2024 still prioritizing allowing the last remnants of slavery to still exist and just say, 'okay, it's because they're convicted of a crime that they deserve to lose their humanity?'

And this bill is not about wages, this bill is just simply about autonomy. If you're prioritizing rehabilitation, we can't prioritize rehabilitation without giving individuals their own agency. You can't have a person trying to rehabilitate their self and they can't make their own decisions, because when we come into society, we're making our own decisions.

There's no one forcing us to do anything. And it's not that people don't want to work. People want to work. No one wants to sit in the cell all the time. People want to be able to be moving and be active. No one wants to be subjected to a dark cell.

But it's let me choose what I do, let me choose what I work. If I want to go to school, let me go to school, because that's what's going to better me, and that's what's going to help me increase my likelihood of maintaining gainful employment once I hit the street. And I plead with you to provide your aye vote because ACA is important.

This is a historic moment. This is time for us to show, like we usually show the rest of the states, that we are progressive, that we support society, that we support humanity, and ACA is a historic time and a historic opportunity for us to do so.

Thank you very much for your testimony. You also have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Reverend Quentisha Davis Wiles, and I just want to point out a couple of things. Before I came into my role as a clergy person, I spent over two decades as a clinical social worker working with poly complex trauma in the inner cities, as well as an organizer working with dispossessed and disenfranchised communities. I understand the challenge before us as we look at this inherited language.

The blessing and beauty of you as policymakers and legislators and decision-makers is that you have an opportunity to make a difference. You inherited some language that is not yours. Our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence let us know that if we were to do anything in this country worthwhile, if we run up against any kind of systemic problem that is harmful or dispossesses any human being, we are to transform it through the vote of the people, and I invite you to remember that language.

And I want to point out to you that incarcerated people still have rights and they have needs. They're vulnerable. Despite what we think, they have little to no power, and if we are going to be an example as a land of opportunity, if we're going to be an example as lawmakers, if we want rehabilitation to truly be a thing, we need to be mindful of this exception of language that is still in our constitution. It is glossy language.

It is fluffy language that is meant to make people feel good under the guise of subjugation. There is no such thing as 'indentured servitude.' It's called slavery. That doesn't change what it is because it is dressed up beautifully. My hope today is that you will support and pass ACA 8, the End Slavery in California Act, and remove the involuntary servitude language from the state's constitution. Corrupt the systemic evil, and I'm using the word 'evil' on purpose. It is a social injustice. It needs to be abolished, and it's exploitive.

We monetize bodies of incarcerated people under the guise of: because they are the property of the state. They are not property. They are human beings. They deserve to be humanized. They deserve to have a choice to do their work. They deserve to be recompensed.

So if they are going to work, I would ask us to consider what job training and credit looks like. If they are going to work, they need to put it on their resumes. When they come home, we need to equip them to transition back into society. Reentry doesn't start when they come home. Reentry starts before they leave there, and not just making an amends to whomever they offended, but it is building character, it is learning new skills, and it is having personal agency, and we all have an opportunity to help them make that difference.

So I really do appeal to you this day to allow those folks who are incarcerated to be treated with dignity. ACA removes the last vestige of legalized and voluntary servitude in California, and can set the stage for rehabilitation and redemption. I don't have to tell you as Senators California is a game-changer. People follow us. They look to us for leadership. Let's lead and make history. Let's remove slavery from our constitution.

Thank you very much to both of you for your moving testimony. We're going to go to support witnesses now, and for support witnesses, we have a lot inside and outside, and we appreciate you coming to share your support for this. So its name, title, and if you support.

Jesse Burleson, in-custody program coordinator, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None, 31 years incarcerated. I strongly support.

Thank you.

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

Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in strong support.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Andi Liebenbaum on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Chris Lodgson, Policy Manager, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, in strong support, also on behalf of the Coalition for Adjusting Equitable California, Lineage Equity and Advancement Project, California Black Lineage Society, American Redress Coalition of California, Bay Area, American Redress Coalition of California, Sacramento, all in strong support, all co-sponsors, and of course, on behalf of the GLAAD organization, all in strong support.

Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None. We are very proud sponsors of this bill as well. Also want to read off other co-sponsors: Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity, the Youth Leadership Institute, Bend the Ark, A New Way of Life, Caravan for Justice, Freedom for Youth, Legal Aid at Work, California Native Vote Project, the Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People and Families Movement, Work Safe, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, and Abolish Bondage Collectively. Thank you.

Morning. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in very strong support, and I also have the proxy of Initiate Justice, also in strong support. Thank you.

Eugene Dey, Policy Associate with the CROP Organization in support and ARC policy team member, also in support.

Good morning. Thank you for your time and attention. Carmen-Nicole Cox, Director of Government Affairs, ACLU California Action, proud co-sponsor.

Good morning. Debray Sanders with Cal OES California and the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Buenos Diaz. My name is Gilbert Anthony Murillo, formerly incarcerated, on All of Us or None and LSPC. Fully support.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association, in support.

Good morning. Keely O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud to be in strong support of ACA 8.

Good morning. Pattie Shaw from Sacramento ACT and the nine federations of PICO California, in strong support.

Hi. Evan Minton with Voices for Progress, in strong support. Thank you.

Hello. Mark Sawyer with Sacramento ACT, in strong support.

Reverend Steve Hong, ordained clergy with PCUSA, Sacramento ACT. Without respect to those who oppose this, with discrimination towards the poor and the oppressed, on behalf of God of Matthew 25, I support, and Janet Nguyen is a coward.

Hi. John Cannon with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and a member of All of Us or None, formerly incarcerated, in strong support.

Raymond Goins. I've been enslaved since I was 15 years old. I'm with Silicon Valley De-Bug, Coalition for Justice and Accountability, and the San Jose branch of the NAACP, and we support.

Jason Bartley, on behalf of Anti-Recidivism Coalition, full support, this ACA 8.

Jeffrey Keene with Anti-Recidivism Coalition, in strong support.

Hello. My name is Mohamed Shazier, and I'm representing the ARC, and I'm in full support for this bill. Thank you.

Jack Castello, a member of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Cassie Scherr, member of the ARC Coalition, in strong support.

My name is Jessica Robinson. I'm with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, and I am in strong support.

Good morning. Yesenia Thomas, in support from ARC, Sacramento.

Elizabeth Kim, formerly incarcerated lawyer and Legislative Director for PICO California, in strong support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support. Thank you.

Heather Swinor from ARC, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Sacramento, in strong support.

Good morning. Henry Ortiz, formerly incarcerated chapter organizer with All of Us or None, Sacramento, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support of ACA 8. Thank you.

Carlos Hernandez, with MPACT Collective, in strong support.

Hello. Austin Ocampo, formerly incarcerated, UC Berkeley alumni, strong support.

Hi. I'm Ray'Von Jones with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice or CURYJ, here as proud co-sponsors, in strong support.

Hi. Nathan Salinas, formerly incarcerated with CURYJ. Strongly support.

Hi. I'm Bernice Singh Rogers, an outside organizer with Initiate Justice and Inmate Family Council at Salinas Valley. I strongly support.

Hi. Hi. Jose Herrera from CURYJ. I strongly support. Thank you.

Hi. Chinasa Mackey, here with CURYJ, and I strongly support.

Hello. Deyci Carrillo Lopez, with CURYJ, and I strongly support.

Ruth McElhenney with St. Mark's United Methodist Church. I strongly support; also a former staff member of the California Senate.

Debra Slone, staff attorney for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None. I'm a constituent of Assemblyman Wilson, and I strongly support ACA 8. Thank you.

Lena Din, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None, formerly incarcerated, in strong support.

Eileen Bell, volunteer for Legal Services for Children, and I very strongly support.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in strong support.

Laura Larios, with outside organizing with Initiate Justice, and I strongly support.

Mavi Hidolagil, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Hannah Crenn, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Brooke Lee. I'm with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and I am in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Mitra. I'm a member of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and constituent of Senator Blakespear, and I'm in strong support.

Peace and blessings to you all. My name is Taqwaa Bonner, the Housing Advocate for All of Us or None, which is a project of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and I'm in strong support.

I'm Sienna Coburn with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Good morning. Robert Bowden, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Hazel Watson, community organizer with SAC ACT, in strong support.

Sophie from ACT Sacramento, and I support ACA 8.

Sydney Fang, on behalf of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment, in strong support.

My name is Noe Gudino, and I'm here with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None. I'm proud co-sponsors of this bill, in support.

Hi. Christina Keene, Associate Director with Community Healers, and here with All of Us or None. I'm also a mother and I have kids that are impacted by incarceration, including myself. Police arrested my son for no reason and then let him die on the floor in front of my daughter and told her it was normal, so--but I am in very strong support of this bill, and I ask that you guys continue doing the same. Thanks.

Alissa Moore, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Well, thank you very much, everybody, for coming and expressing your support today. We will now move on to opposition witnesses. Are there any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room who would like to express opposition? Okay. I want to make sure and invite my two Assembly colleagues to say anything if they wanted to. No? Okay. Would you like to? Yes. You may approach the microphone.

I'm Reggie Jones-Sawyer, Past Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, and a member of the Task Force that brought this to you, and I'm firmly--you know, I spent two years of my life working on this, bringing this to, and I thank the Assemblywoman for bringing it in. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We're happy to see Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer and Weber here. Thank you for coming. With that, we'll turn it back to my colleagues if anybody would like to make any comments. Yes. Senator Allen.

Well, I just want to thank the author for working really hard with the, both the Administration and with the Committee on this issue, and, you know, I understand the conversations are going well, and I think in the end of the day, as we discussed on a totally different matter yesterday, it's all about implementation and trying to create a system that works for the state, and so I think that those conversations are vitally important. It's part of what's going to get this thing across the finish line successfully, and I just, I'm happy to hear about the progress, I encourage you to keep those conversations going, and it's with that understanding, I'm happy to support the bill today.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, and I would also like to thank the author. It's really important that our foundational document of the constitution reflects our highest ideals, and I applaud you for carrying this forward, and I want to thank everybody who came today to speak. Yes? And Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I associate myself with your comments, but just a couple of questions here with respect to work assignments. As I understand it, that someone who is incarcerated could still be required to, in essence, take care of their personal space. Is that right?

Yes. That is not considered a work assignment. That is just--

And the same thing with a common area that they may, for example, they may use. Is that right?

For a common area that they may use, we are still working with the Administration and the Department--well, when I say Administration, I'm talking about the Department on clarifying that. We do have a companion bill, AB 628, that will address where the constitution is not clear. As you know, our constitution is like, usually set statements, and then we provide greater clarification, or guardrails, so to speak, within the companion bill. So we are looking to ensure that that is more clear within the companion bill.

All right. And the same thing, for example, with respect to carrying one's tray from the mess hall to wherever one is required to carry it for purposes of just efficiency in the dining hall? That's--

That's not considered a work consignment. So there's work consignment. So right now, in our--because of the involuntary servitude exception as it relates to punishment of a crime, we have in our Section 2700, we have language that says, 'shall require' incarcerated person or prisoner to do a faithful, I think, days labor or work.

And so we are centered around that language. And so cleaning up your own personal space is not considered work today. You know, carrying a tray is not considered work. Where you get into work is--and it'll be defined. We're asking the CDCR to create a voluntary work program so there will be some public scrutiny to the regulations associated with it, but what we're really looking at is something that is today classified as work, that now being voluntary versus something that today is not classified as work.

Just being in the prison itself would not be traditionally included, but that is something that will be clarified in the companion bill as well as in the very public process as it relates to the regulations and rulemaking of CDCR.

So, thank you, and I do think this is important that we, as a statement of values, incorporate this into our constitution, and I look forward to further definition before it comes to the floor. As we're making legislative history and defining our legislative intent right now, we don't want to have to spend lots of money and time in court sort of parsing through some of this. So I would be grateful if we could come to a definition and understanding so that it doesn't create unnecessary litigation.

No, absolutely, and that's my own disposition as a Legislator. I want to legislate and not send things to the courts, and so you have my commitment that within the companion bill and wherever else we need to to provide greater clarification. I think even amongst the coalitions' side, there's angst about some of the words because they're new words.

And every time we put a new word in, whether it's our constitution or law, can create, you know, some ambiguity if it has not been defined. And so wherever we can, we will seek to absolutely do that, and that's why I firmly believe that the companion bill that is based on the passage of ACA 8 is extremely important, just as important as ACA 8 is.

Well, thank you. I know you're a person of your word. We've worked together on a number of pieces of legislation, so thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Yes, thank you so much. Thank you for the question and then the comments from my colleague, Senator Allen, and I'd like to thank the COBC members who were able to be present today. It is a busy time, but this shows just how important it is. This is, as I stated in the beginning, this is a part of our Reparations Priority Package. This came out of the Task Force. This has been attempted in various ways. Senator Bradford has been a leader on the floor on the Senate side in this space.

Our colleague, who is now Congresswoman Kamlager-Dove, carried ACA 3, and we couldn't get across the finish line. And we, as a caucus, said that we were going to bring this back next year, and so people like to loud me as author introing it, but I did it because I'm Chair of the Black Caucus, and we as a caucus decided that this would be a priority in this legislative session. So I appreciate my colleagues of the Black Caucus as joint authors in this endeavor.

We believe it is extremely important because the legacy of slavery and forced labor runs deep in California's history, from exploitation of indigenous people in Spanish missions to Black slaves forced to mine for gold. And today, as was noted, we have a historic opportunity to take a step in the direction towards ending that legacy.

I said in my opening remarks that the U.S. Department of State has a list of involuntary servitude or forced labor of modern forms of slavery, but none of those--we would not consider child trafficking or sex trafficking state-sanctioned, the use of child prisoners state-sanctioned, but involuntary servitude in prison right now, because of our constitution, is state-sanctioned slavery. And so with that, I ask you to have a historic aye vote of ending slavery in California and voting an aye. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Do we have a motion on this? Senator Umberg, thank you. So, the measure has been moved by Senator Umberg. It is: be adopted as amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Well, thank you. It is five/zero, and we will leave it on call. Thank you. Thank you. So we--thank you. So, we will lift the call on the remaining items. So if you are a member of this committee and you need to come down here to vote, please make your way right away. We'll wait for the room to clear, just for a second. Okay, we're going to lift the call on the items, so let's go ahead and do that.

Lifting call on file item two, AB 1807. Motion is do passed to local government. Current vote is 4-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Menjivar? Aye. Umberg? Umberg? Aye. 6-1, it's out.

That is 61. And it is out.

Lifting call on file item three, AB 544. Motion is do pass as amended, to public safety. Current vote is 5-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Umberg? Umberg. Aye. 6-1 is out.

6-1, and that is out.

Lifting call on file item four, AB 2050. Motion is do pass to judiciary. Current vote is 3-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Allen? Aye. Alan? Ayevar. Benjamin? Aye. Newman? Newman aye 6-1, it's out.

6-1, it's out.

Lifting call on file item five, AB 2839. Motion is do pass to judiciary. Current vote is 3-0. Chair voted, aye. One. Allen? Allen. I. Menjivar. Aye. Newman. Aye. Newman I 6-0.

AB 2839 is 6-0. And it is out.

Lifting call on file item six, AB 2355. Motion is do pass to judiciary. Current vote is 5-0. Chair voted, aye. One. Umberg. Aye. 6-0, that's out.

AB 2355 is 6-0 and it is out.

Lifting call on file item seven, AB 2642 motion is do pass to judiciary. Current vote is 5-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Umberg? Umberg. Aye.

AB 2642 is 6-1, and it is out.

Lifting call on AB 2655. Motion is do passed to judiciary. Current vote is 4-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Portantino? Portantino? Aye. Umberg? Umberg. Aye. 6-1.

AB 2655 is 6-1, and it is out.

Lifting call on file item 10. AC eight. Motion is be adopted as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. Chair voted aye. When potentino. Aye. 6-0 out.

ACA eight is 60 and it is out.

Lifting call on the consent calendar. Items include AB 453 and AB 3284. Current vote is 4-0. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted aye. Allen? Aye. Allen? Aye. Manjavar? Aye. Manjavar? Aye. Newman? Aye. Newman?

The consent calendar is 7-0. And it's out. That's AB 2642.

Yes.

Okay, thank you. The Committee is officially adjourned.