Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right, the Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding this Committee hearing in Room 2100 of the O Street Building. I ask that all Members of the Committee present themselves in Room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We're actually going to begin as a subcommittee here.

Before presentations on today's bill, I would like to establish a quorum, but we have 50% of the Republicans here and probably about 20% of the Democrats. So the Committee Assistant has not noted a quorum yet. I want to welcome our new Committee Assistant, Ryan Samoville. Thank you very much, Ryan. Welcome to the team.

Also want to welcome Senator Arreguín, who is joining this Committee as a temporary replacement for Senator Reyes. And he was here, and I just saw him walking down the hallway, and he'll be back in a second. Let me just announce what's on the consent calendar in case you're here for the consent calendar. We have four bills.

File item number one, SB 361 by Senator Becker. File item number four, SB 394 by Senator Allen. File number six, SB 50, by Senator Ashby. And lo and behold, file number nine, SB 66 by Senator Umberg. Don't pull that one off this, Mr. Vice Chair. All right, so what we're going to do is we're going to do is.

We're going to, I believe Senator Hurtado is here and ready to roll. Let me just announce the rules. I know we've announced them once before, but these rules will apply to all our hearings throughout the year unless ordered otherwise. And that means that we'll have two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition.

Each primary witness in support will have two minutes, and each primary witness in opposition will also have two minutes. After the support, I'll invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation, and their position. Their name, their affiliation, and their position. I'll do the same thing with opposition.

And after we've heard from the support and opposition, we'll turn to comments from Committee Members. If you wish to provide additional information, you may do so in writing by submitting a letter to the portal that you'll find on the Judiciary Committee's website.

And I know I announced this last year, but the same holds true this year is that there are many people who believe that we cannot read. Not true. We all can read. All right, so, Senator Hurtado, if you would like, you may present to subcommittee. And that would be SB 446.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And yes, I would like to present to the subcommittee. I'm here today to present SB 446, the Data Protection and Notification Reform Act. We all know that cybersecurity is something that is of much importance and especially here in our state. This bill looks...

Existing law mandates that any data breach affecting more than 500 residents be reported to the AG's office. However, the statute does not establish a specific deadline for disclosure, resulting in significant delays that leave consumers vulnerable. SB 446 would protect consumers by requiring a data breach disclosure be made to California residents within 30 days.

And it expands on existing law by requiring individuals and businesses to notify the Office of the Attorney General within 15 days of a security breach. The bill does not change existing thresholds of when notifications are required. It simply requires a disclosure of security breach to be made in a timely manner.

I will say that some concerns have been raised by industry regarding these changes. They highlight that 15 days is really not enough time, which I agree and will continue to adequately assess and work on those concerns that were raised. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Witnesses in support. Do we have witnesses, primary witnesses in support? Seeing no one approaching. Anyone wish to provide me too testimony in support? Please approach. Seeing no one approaching. Let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 446, please approach. Seeing no one approaching. All right, questions by Committee Members. Seeing no questions or comments. Senator? Oh, almost. Senator Niello.

There is some stated concerns, I guess, relative to the time limit. Are you working with those entities?

Absolutely. Yeah, we are.

Okay.

Okay. All right. Senator Hurtado, would you like to close?

Yeah. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. We are a subcommittee, and at such time as the Committee presents itself, assuming there's a motion, we will then call the roll. Yes. Oh, okay. Okay. Do you accept the amendments as proposed?

Yes.

All right. Thank you very much. We are, we're now at five. Two more Members. Two more Members. Senator Menjivar is here. Senator Menjivar, would you like to present file item number three, SB 450 to the subcommittee? Okay. Senator Menjivar, file number three, SB 450.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee Members, SB 450 will clarify and reaffirm California's long standing jurisdiction for adoption proceedings, including confirming adoptions in cases where the families no longer or never lived in California, but the child was in fact born here in the state.

It's just looking to add clear jurisdictional language to our family code that right now is a Little bit ambiguous. It reaffirms that California is a safe haven for LGBT plus families. By providing that clarity that I just mentioned.

And access to the state's streamlined confirmatory adoptions for all children born in California, which already existed, ensures that if a family needs to move out for whatever reason and now resides in a less supportive state, they can come back and obtain our streamlined process so long as that child is born here, here to testify.

Because it's a pretty simple clarifying Bill is Mr. Chair, if I could turn to my witnesses here to testify on behalf of SB450 or two individuals.

All right, thank you very much. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon. Craig Pulsmer, on behalf of Equality California, proud co sponsor. As many of you, over the past several years, we've witnessed growing attacks on the legal rights of LGBTQ people across the country. And many LGBTQ parents are understandably concerned about how these threats will impact themselves and their families.

One of the most important things LGBTQ parents can do to protect their families is to secure a court ordered adoption decree which must be recognized in all 50 states.

This ensures that, like the Senator said, if for whatever reason, they relocate to another state that is less supportive of LGBTQ families, but their legal relationship with their child will remain protected.

Unfortunately, under existing law, there currently is a lack of clarity as to whether LGBTQ parents can access the state's streamlined confirmatory adoptions process if their child was born in California, but they no longer live here.

This streamlined process is important because it allows same sex couples to secure legal recognition of parentage without requiring home studies or unnecessary legal barriers. SB 450 is straightforward. It simply amends the California Family Code to clarify California's long standing jurisdiction for these proceedings where the child is born in California, even if the parents no longer live here.

An important measure to protect all families in California and respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Members, Alice Kessler. I'm here on behalf of the Academy of California Adoption and Assisted Reproduction Lawyers. So this is an academy of lawyers that are experts in adoption. They look at the law regularly. They look for deficiencies in the law, they look for trends.

This is an area that we've identified this year because, as Mr. Pulsifer mentioned, the changing national landscape. We think it's important to make this clarification in code and ensure that families are protected if a child was born here in California.

Happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have about adoption, but would ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much.

All Right. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Provide us your name, your affiliation, your position. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB450, please approach. Seeing no one approaching for either primary or MeToo testimony, we'll come back to the Committee questions by Committee Members.

You gotta walk fast here, huh?

Yeah, well, we're practicing Senator Medjavar for later on in the year. All right. Seeing no questions or comments. You have a question? All right. Senator Stern has moved the Bill, but we don't have a quorum quite yet. So Senator Stern, when appropriate, he will move the Bill. Senator Menjavar, would you like to close?

No. Nothing further. Respectfully asking for an I vote.

Okay. At the appropriate time, I accept a motion from Senator Stern, and then we'll move forward. Okay, so we are now without authors. So you're on consent. Do you want to take your Bill off consent, Senator Allen? zero, okay. All right. That was a good move.

All right, so Senator Ashby, Senator Laird, I already informed he's tied up another Committee. Senator Wiener, first come, first serve.

Can we play the Jeopardy. Music in the background? Yes. At this point.

So Senator Ashby, Senator Laird, or Senator Wiener, whoever appears first will be able to come to the rostrum immediately. Very good point, Senator Weber Pearson reminds me that we are just short of a quorum. We need one more person. Thank you. Yes. Senator Valaderas is here. So one more. Senator, Tiles are already presented. zero, yeah.

He did say 259, right?

Yeah. So we now have. Let's see, we have four Democrats. We have 100% of the Republican contingent here. Yeah, right. You know what? I could. I'll present.

All right, let's do this. If I could ask the Committee Assistant, Erica Porter, to please call the roll for purposes of establishing a quorum.

For establishing a quorum. [Roll Call] You have a quorum.

We have a quorum. All right, now, why don't we go ahead and, since we have a quorum, let us call the roll on the consent calendar, then let's turn to the other matters, and then we'll have Senator Laird present his bill. So Senator Laird moves the consent calendar. All right. All right. Assistant, Committee Assistant, Ms. Erica Porter, please call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call] You have 7 to 0 on the consent calendar with...

7-0. All right, we're going to place that on call. Committee Assistant Porter, if you would open the roll on the matters that are on call and call the roll.

File item one, SB 361 by Senator Becker. Oh, no, I'm sorry. That's on consent. File item number two, SB 446 by Senator Hurtado. Needs a motion.

Need a motion. Senator Stern moves. Senator Stern moves SB 446.

Okay. This is file item two, SB 446. The motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call] You have six to zero.

6-0. Okay, we're going to put that on call. File number three. Senator Stern moves file number three, SB 450. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.

File item number three, SB 450. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call] Seven to zero.

All right, 7-0. We're going to put that on call. Next, we have file number seven, SB 29 by Senator Laird. Senator Laird is ready. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. I am presenting Senate Bill 29 in 2021, I authored Senate Bill 447 which remedied a long term injustice in California law.

Prior to the passage of SB449, California was one of five states that denied victims and their families the ability to recover damages for pain and suffering if the victim passed away before the case was concluded.

Due to the court backlog worsened at that time by the pandemic and the prudential length of an appeal, it could take years to resolve such claims. The delay created no incentive to settle these cases before the claimant's death and before the change in law.

Many claimants died before they could settle settled their pain and suffering claims and tragedy and tragically their right to these damages died with them. In the time since SB447 was signed into law in 2021, there have been four documented cases reported to the Judicial Council where this law was used.

I am sure there are additional cases in which settlements were made due to the disincentive being removed so that they would finalize these cases. If SB447 is allowed to Sunset, California would regress to being just one of four states where such an outdated and restrictive standard undoing this progress would stand.

The bill before you SB29 removes the sunset and allows this reform to continue. Pain and suffering damages are essential for elders, children, stay at home, parents, low income workers, and others whose losses are not primarily based on income.

For these individuals, pain and suffering damages may represent their most significant harm and denying them this form of justice is inherently unfair. Since the enactment of this stalling tactics have lessened as there's no longer a perverse incentive to prolong cases until a plaintiff's death.

Now, there have been a number of concerns expressed about this bill, many of them in in the last few days and hours and let me talk about some of them.

It is said that this bill will open the floodgates and liability costs will skyrocket with four cases reported to the Judicial Council in the four years since this bill was enacted. That is simply not true.

It has been said that the original bill was passed due to the COVID backlog and it was understood that the sunset was there just until the COVID pandemic passed.

But as the Legislator who authored the original bill and presented it in every hearing in both houses that year, there was never such an understanding and it was never stated in a hearing once by me or supporter of the bill that that was the case.

It's been inferred that the MICRA agreement negotiations that resulted in AB35 in 2022 would allow SB447 to sunset. There is no evidence of such a discussion and agreement. And in fact, I was a principal co author of SB35, which implemented the Microdeal in 2022.

And believe me, if there was a thing in there that said this would sunset, I would not have done that. That just to me seems the proof in the pudding. It's been argued that the bill allows double dipping of punitive and pain and suffering damages. However, punitive damages and pain suffering damages are separate damages with different purposes.

They're not applicable in every case. And in fact, for punitive damages, one must prove malice, fraud or oppression. A high and difficult standard to meet. And California does not even allow punitive damages against public entities. The implication that there can be so called double dipping in every case is not true.

There's been a chart that says that in 2022, before the micro caps were lifted, as part of that deal, you could recover 250,000 in wrongful death judgments and 250,000 in pain and suffering judgments. And with Micra, those caps increase over time.

The chart presumes a long and painful wrongful death because pain and suffering is really only allowed as a damage over some measure of time. And wrongful death many times is immediate. So they do not apply in every case. If you look at that chart, the implication is it's double dipping in every case and it is not.

Additionally, medical malpractice victims can already receive pain and suffering damages at the capped amounts under existing law. SB 29 just ensures victims who endure immense pain and suffering are not denied justice simply because they don't live long enough to see their day in court.

We owe it to them and to their families to ensure that their suffering is not ignored or dismissed. With me to testify in support is Jeff Wells, President of the Consumer Attorneys of California, Amy Martel, a board Member of the Consumer Attorneys, who is here with her client, Erica Cole, to share her mother's story.

I appreciate the ability to present on these facts and at the appropriate time, I will respectfully request an iPhone.

Thank you. Senator Laird. Mr. Wells?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm Jeff Wells. I'm President of the Consumer Attorneys of California. This year, I'm a partner with the Green Broilet and Wheeler firm in El Segundo, California. I'm here to urge your vote in support of SB29. Ensuring justice for victims should not be a temporary privilege.

It must remain a permanent right. SB 29 is a critical piece of Legislation that eliminates the sunset provisions on pain and suffering damages in survival actions and ensures that families can continue to seek the justice their loved ones deserve.

Without SB 29, this vital protection will expire in 2026, reverting California back to an outdated, deeply unjust legal framework. And it would align us with such states as Idaho, Arizona and Colorado. This would undermine the progress we made thanks to SB447 from Senator Laird in 2021, which affirmed that justice should not die with a victim.

SB447 recognizes the profound injustice of allowing wrongdoers to benefit by delaying and waiting for the plaintiff to die in order to avoid their responsibility in these cases. Many times these cases take two to five years to be resolved and they outlive the victims.

However, with the sunset clause in place, these hard won protections would vanish once again creating an environment where delay tactics can be weaponized by wrongdoers to escape full accountability. SB29 ensures that this loophole is closed for good, protecting the rights of victims and their families forever. This is not just good legal principles.

It's about basic fairness, accountability, and justice for these families who have already endured the death of a loved one. I urge you to vote aye on this Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, next witness, please.

Mr. Chairman, the Committee. My name is Amy Martell. I'm on the Board of Consumer Attorneys of California. I practice in San Diego, mainly in the area of medical malpractice.

I'm here today with my courageous client, Erica Cole, who will express to you and share with you a story of her mother's death and how this law impacts families like hers. I'll be happy to answer any questions as it relates to medical malpractice or personal injury cases in SB 29.

Alrighty. Thank you.

My name is Erica Cole, and I'm here to speak on behalf of my mom, Pamela Gray. My mom was a kind, loving woman who is the heart of our family. She was taken from us far too soon due to the negligence of those who were responsible for her care.

On November 42023 my mom was rushed to Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla after taking a bad fall and fracturing her ankle while in the trauma unit. She was immediately sedated, intubated and given multiple medications. After her ankle surgery, my mom kept telling us that something wasn't right.

She struggled to breathe and said that breathing treatments weren't working. She kept failing her swallowing test and felt weaker as the days went on. We watched her suffer and begged for answers. But none came. She was eventually sent to a skilled nursing rehab facility where her issues continued.

On Wednesday, December 6th, I got the call that my mom was being rushed back to Scripps Hospital because her blood pressure had plummeted and she was barely hanging on. She suffered with acute hypoxic respiratory failure. The ICU Doctor informed us that he needed to put a camera into her airway and asked us to step out.

A few minutes later, we hear the page over the loud intercom. Sorry, code blue, room 437. After six long minutes, they got a pulse and the Doctor said he needed to do. He needed to do a camera into her airway. He said that he found a blue medicine cap in her airway.

He told us it was one of the medications she was given in November when she was intubated. This blue medicine cap had been lodged in her airway for over a month. And this is why she struggled to breathe all this time. Needless to say, this was all too much for her body to handle.

She was on full life support while her body was shutting down. I stayed by my mom's side that entire seven days.

Ms. Cole, I'm sorry for your loss, but unfortunately going to have to cut you off. So if you just wrap it up.

Sure. What happened to my mom highlights the need for Senate bill 29 which closes a gap that denies justice to families like mine. And I'm just asking that people be given the opportunity to honor their loved ones who aren't here to fight for themselves.

Thank you very much. Again, I'm sorry. Sorry for your loss. All right. Others who are in support to provide me too testimony, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council as well as the District Council of Ironworkers who were original co-sponsors of 447. I would like to attest that the remembrance. Remembrance of the Senator and how we. Discussed this bill was accurate. This bill is important. We'd ask for your support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We were a co sponsor of the bill a few years ago and we remain a co-sponsor today. Urge your support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danny Kando Kaiser, on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elmer Lazardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mari Lopez, on behalf of the California Nurses Association, in support, thank you.

Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters. In support, thank you.

My name is Alan Pierce. I represent the Asbestos Workers Local 16 Retirees Club, and we are in support.

Thank you.

My name is Claude Mcbride. I represent the Local 16 Asbestos Workers and we're in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB29, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of. California. A couple of points. First of all, we believe that California law appropriately provides expedited processes for both trial and depositions in these types of cases.

We think that despite the low number of reported instances, that it has driven up quite a few settlements and the value of those settlements, those costs ultimately get borne by consumers and the health care system.

And also we believe that the sunset was put in there for the reason that the courts were clogged due to the COVID 19 pandemic and the substantial backlog that's noted in the Assembly and Senate Committee analyses of the bill in 2021.

And we believe that that sunset should be allowed to take place and so that this is not made permanent. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Just a note here, we we allowed the proponents to go an extra 50 seconds. So to the extent that you would like another 50 seconds or your colleague, you're welcome to it.

I'll do my best. Mr. Chair Member. Stuart Thompson, on behalf of the California Medical Association, I just want to start by thanking the author for having an open dialogue. We do disagree on this bill, but that is not because lack of dialogue. So I do want to thank the author and his office for that.

We fully recognize that these are difficult discussions and difficult debates. It really is what is fair compensation to an injured individual, but at the same time balancing those impacts to the health care system. Physicians in the State of California all basically carry medical malpractice insurance.

The cost of that is reflected in what the cost of the court system is. And so by increasing some of these policies, it does increase healthcare costs on the back end. That's just a fact. And it's one that we kind of have to wrestle with as we try to tackle these really important issues.

You know, I will say on the reporting requirement, while there was four reported cases, as this Committee knows, the vast, vast, vast majority of court cases are settled. There's no reporting requirement on the settlement. And so we have no information as to how this policy might have driven up costs in the settlement proceedings.

So we just want to recognize that while there is a reporting requirement, we believe it lacks requisite data to really make informed decisions about the impact of this policy. Looking at this bill, we would argue from CMA's perspective that the original bill was passed largely in a pandemic frame in 2021.

Courts were closed, courts were backlogged, and a lot of the arguments. We recognize that this issue has not come about by the pandemic, but largely justified because of the closure of the courts. Of why we needed this provision.

In the interim between 2021 and now, we worked together with the sponsors of this bill and CMA to pass AB35. Thank you. The chair and the Members who participated in that to update the Micro Modernization Act. Right now, damages that are collected are far above what they were in 2021. So we do have to tackle some.

Some tough issues about, you know, what is fair compensation and what policies the state falls into. I will say, you know, this state, through the Office of Health Care Affordability, has asked its health care providers to limit to 3.5% some hospitals who I don't represent, but one at 1.8%.

And so I think we keep that in mind while we consider these types of policies that do increase health care costs. At the same time, the state is asking its providers to really limit the growth on their side. So respectfully ask for a no vote and thank the Committee for their Time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. All right. Others who wish to provide their name, their affiliation and their position.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members. I'm Bill Barnaby. I'm here to express the support of the doctors company for. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Barnaby.

Good afternoon. Sherry McHugh, representing Californians Allied for Patient Protection and opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. McHugh.

Hi, Mr. Chair. Members Darby Kernan representing Leading Age California and the Association of California Health Care Districts. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yvonne Chung, on behalf of the California Association of Health Facilities, we represent skilled nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled and opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Molly Mallow, on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Members Tim Madden, representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, the California Rheumatology alliance, the California Society of Plastic Surgeons, in the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology, all with opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Awed Kadani representing the California Children's Hospital Association. Echo the comic comments of my colleagues. And fortunately we have a opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

So just. Just to clarify and. And for others they're going to oppose unless amend it if that amendment. Maybe you could just tell us if that amendment is to basically carve out med malpractice. Is that.

Yes, Chair. That's my fault that we do. We are opposing less amendment to exempt med mal cases from the application of the bill. Got it. I apologize. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Monica Miller on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology. And we are opposing this amendment as well. Thank you.

Hello. Mason Vega with the Central Valley Health Network. Opposing unless amended. Thank you.

Danielle Parsons on behalf of the California Assisted Living Association. In opposition.

Mr. Chair, Members, Denniscos Romero on behalf of the California Primary Care Association. Advocates opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Rowe on behalf of the Physicians Association of California. In opposition. Good afternoon.

Jessica Moran on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Practitioners. In opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Members, Matt Back representing the Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California. Opposed unless amended.

Good afternoon. Katie Layton on behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition. We also have an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association. Also with an opposed unless amended position.

Good afternoon. Shane Levine on behalf of the Cooperative of American Physicians. In opposition. Thank you.

Afternoon. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Lawrence Gaydon on behalf of the California Dental Association with an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Unless there's someone else which approached microphone seeing no one approached. Let's bring it back to Committee for questions, comments, questions, comments. Yes. Senator Ashby.

Good afternoon. Senator Laird, thanks for calling me actually over the weekend. I know it was your celebration weekend, but you spent some time talking to me and I appreciate that because I did have some questions.

This is so such a tough issue and I really value the personal testimony from the family with a loss really does put a fine point on what can happen here. And the difficulty of these jobs up here is trying to balance everything between costs and making sure that health care is affordable.

And affordability is such a theme for us right now because especially in the healthcare world, things are skyrocketing for us and getting very difficult. So my. Let me say right away that I intend to support you today as I told you I would. But I do have serious questions.

And the reason I'm supporting you is because you work very hard on your bills and I know you will talk to the folks who have an issue with it and hopefully you'll come to some kind of consensus on that and I'll be able to be truly supportive in the future.

But if this were a one time only vote, I wouldn't be able to to support the bill. But I want to support you working further on it. But here are my concerns. It is a long list of folks that oppose it and many of them are our affordability health care partners like Planned Parenthood.

You know, you got the hospital Association's cap, the whole Micra group. I doubt there is a single Legislator alive or even, you know, recently not alive that wants to relitigate Micra. I know that was just one of the most difficult fights ever in this building. And kudos to Senator Umberg and others.

I think Assemblymember Reyes, people who took that on. I certainly have no interest as a person with a few years ahead of me if the good people of Sacramento decide to reelect me in taking micro one line at a time again.

So I want to make sure that that's not what's happening here because that is one of the things that the opposition has said to me when they come to visit. I also think that the two sides are working from two different sets of statistics.

And you talked about the four cases that have been reported, but the medical Association talked about a little bit more about how some cases are not yet reported. So that number might not be. Well, definitely is not reflective of the whole or what the potential horizon of this could be. That's somewhat concerning.

I don't know enough about medical malpractice to interject my own opinion on that. But I'd love to know that you all have come to some kind of agreement on which set of statistics or data is most accurate for us to be able to predict from.

And then I think one of the pieces that bothers me, there's a lot good in the bill. But this is the original fact sheet from the consumer attorneys that was given to me and sent over to my team.

And this line that's highlighted here says that this bill that you're presenting exempts medical malpractice cases and even mentions the act.

And so I asked, I asked the consumer attorneys when they came to see me about this line because it's my understanding based on the opposition's request for an amendment, it is just one line that says this section would not apply to Section 333.2, which is restatement of the fact sheet.

So I asked the consumer attorneys, I think the opposition is actually just wanting your fact sheet to be accurate. And what they said to me was, we're going to change our fact sheet. To which I said, well, that. That doesn't change that this is what your fact sheet says right now. So I don't know.

I haven't seen a more recent version of this fact sheet.

And maybe they did decide that was an error, but originally their original analysis did have an exemption, I assume probably for this exact reason, because they knew there would be a lofty debate around the cost that this would, you know, generate in a really sensitive area that we're dealing with right now around access to health care.

So I don't know what the answer is. And I again have already said I'm going to vote for your bill to give you more time to work on it.

But that is a significant concern to me what the affordability outcome will be, how do we keep people whole and how do we address a solid remedy, but at the same time not overburden healthcare so much that some of our great partners, like Planned Parenthood really struggle? So that's my. I mean, I.

You don't really have to answer all of it, but I know there are some things in there you would like to address, and I hope that you'll work on those things in the hearings to come.

So thank you, Senator Ashby. It is my understanding that there is not a carve out for medical malpractice cases, but that's correct.

And I will address her comments in my close because I suspect other people have different comments and I can tie it all together.

Yeah. Just to your point, Chair. Right. That's my point. Their original fact sheet said there was. There actually is not. The opposition is asking that there could be. In other words, they'd like the original fact sheet to be accurate. So.

Okay. Well, the one thing I would say if I can comment. Mr. Chair, one second.

Okay. Senator Laird, do you want to address it now or in your close?

Well, I was going to address it over on the close, but since that point got repeated, I thought I would address that point right now because when I met with the opposition, they had a fact sheet that had a couple of things that weren't exactly accurate.

They were really now I can't remember which one it was either that this was done because of COVID and only was going to be limited to Covid or medical malpractice negotiations really assumed this would expire, in my view, neither of which were true.

And so I think what we're doing with my opening comments and with this debate is we have refined the points to get to where they really are, and hopefully neither side will hold to a couple of things they said at the beginning that are corrected. And I will address the rest of your comments in the close.

Thank you, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's clearly a difference of opinion as to whether this was intended to be a sunset, a true sunset issue or not.

But what I think is true is that it gets at the issue of affordability and the, I believe, compromise of micra and making this per permanent, I think would cause pressures on insurance for the medical profession, which is what MICRA is all about.

And so that being the case, the difference with regard to the validity of the sunset or not, and also the fact that this gets right at the issue of medical affordability in the same fashion that MICRA was intended to address, I can't support the bill today.

I would echo a lot of the things that Senator Ashby said, but I line up on the other side of the vote.

All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? Yes, Dr. Weber Pierson.

Thank you. Chair. Want to thank Senator Laird for the conversations that we've had and reaching out and taking time to come and talk with me about this bill. You know, I look at it from a variety of different perspectives. First, I do want to thank the witness who came and gave her personal testimony.

That's always been really, really challenging. And I am very, very sorry about what happened to your mother. That should not have happened. You know, I look at this from a variety of different issues, and I think being the only physician in the Senate gives me a different perspective, especially around the areas of medical malpractice.

Yes, I am very concerned about the issues of healthcare costs, as we all should be. But I look at it from a. From an aspect of also providing access to medical providers here in California. We already have a shortage of providers, especially in certain areas.

And we're constantly talking about it, constantly trying to figure out how we can increase the number of providers that we have or that stay here in California. Medical malpractice is a real issue. I come from a field that is the most litigious field as an obgyn.

And I remember when I was finishing a residency, we were told where not to practice based on Medeco malpractice insurance. California is a very expensive state to live, very expensive state to practice.

I was very encouraged by the MICRA deal because I felt that it caused a good balance between allowing for things to to the caps to go up based on where we are, but also kept it at a range where I didn't feel that it would impede providers from coming to practice here in California.

I think that the carve out for medical that the opposition has requested is very, in my opinion, very reasonable. And for that I will not be supporting it today, as you are aware. But hopefully you will continue to have conversations and we'll see what the bill looks like if it gets to the floor. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right, Other questions or comments? Just a couple comments on my own here and a couple questions. This is a difficult issue because you've got two different values that come into conflict with one another.

One is affordable health care and the other is making sure that justice is afforded to those who have been impacted by another's negligence. And there are three positions. I think. There's the support position, there's the opposed position, which means that basically we're not going to remove the sunset for any purpose. Then there's opposed unless amended.

And I assume the opposed unless amended is consistent with what Mr. Thompson said, is that that means that folks would support it if you removed basically medical malpractice from the equation. I'm also concerned about the issue and how it relates to micra.

While a Legislature is not bound by so called stakeholder deals from a previous Legislature, at least, I want folks to come together on difficult issues in compromise. And I thought that's what MICRA did. It was a very, very difficult issue as pointed out by Senator Ashby. And it was resolved because each side compromised.

And we want to make sure that we don't undermine that sentiment, even if we're not necessarily bound by it. And I don't want to undermine it. And so I actually did sort of my own reflection research on as to whether or not this bill or this sunset was a component of the micro negotiation.

And I actually came to the personal conclusion that it was not, for example, a predicate or a condition with respect to the enactment of micra. But I do have a question though, and I suppose I'll ask Mr. Thompson or Mr. Mckinley.

What I'm trying to wrestle with is if someone is in a car accident and that car accident is the result of another's negligence, and for example, there's a fire and someone is caught in that fire and they suffer for three months and then die, as I understand it, that you believe that that is compensable Is that accurate, at least your position?

I don't want to put you on the spot, but I guess I am.

I probably limited to talking about medical malpractice cases. To the extent that this covers on. On kind of wrongful death outside of medical malpractice. I'd leave it to my colleague. I think for us, we're taking a limited view on the application of this bill to medical malpractice.

You have no. Just to be clear, you have no position as to whether or not someone who was in an automobile accident as a consequence of negligence should be able to recover for pain and suffering if they survive for three months. That's the medical Association. Doesn't matter. You're okay with that?

Yeah. Our purview into this bill is its application to medical malpractice cases, the application to larger wrongful death cases. The CMA does not take a position on it.

And what's the. What I'm wrestling. What is the difference if someone suffers for three months with some, you know, capsule lodged in their lungs? What is the difference between being an automobile accident and the suffering as a consequence of someone's negligence and suffering for the same period of time based on another's negligence? What's the difference?

I think for us, we'd reframe it, as these are difficult conversations because the awards through a medical malpractice claim are paid through premiums paid by physicians. So we have a different type of connection. The cost is reflected into the healthcare system, and physicians pay basically for the premiums on the healthcare side.

So to the extent that this pertains to wrongful death cases or that don't apply to medical malpractice cases, CMA's purview and kind of the health care, you know, our focus has been obviously, medical malpractice. To the extent that there's wrongful death cases, that's not typically issues we get involved in.

And as some of you know, actually practice law, my partners don't agree, but I think I do, that there is a premium on delay. If you're on defense, Usually the longer you delay, the better your case gets and the worse the plaintiff's case gets.

And the point made by Senator Laird is that there's a even stronger incentive if, at the time of death, those damages are extinguished. So why would a defense counsel not want to continue and delay wrongful death cases or potential wrongful death cases as long as possible?

Mr. Chair, not having been kind of in the trenches and handled in a specific case, I don't think I could talk to specifics about what a defense counsel may or may not do strategically. We really look at this from a holistic approach on its effect on the healthcare system.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. I don't mean to pick on you, but you were right the person here in front of us. So. All right. Other questions or comments by Committee Members? No. Yes, Senator. Senator Stern.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe something you can certainly you can cover in your close. But I, yeah, I just, I guess I want to just pull that thread more and understand. Yeah. Just what we anticipate to be. The.

Consequence there was that discussion about reporting data not being the right kind of reporting of the four isn't quite accurate. I don't know how you, if you have a comment about or perhaps the opposition to just articulate further what's missing. Like what we're not getting the full scope of what the.

Well, I can presume what he's going to say. You go first. And we are not in disagreement because I said it in my opening statement for quantified cases, we cannot quantify the number of settlements and the number of settlements that might have been made because the incentive was removed to stall it until somebody died.

And I still think overall it is not this major financial impact. But that's the point that was made is the settlements are not quantified, but the four that were reported to the Judicial Council were.

That's actually helpful. So I know this Committee was the Committee, in fact, where we put the sunset on the first bill. I was looking back at the analysis just now actually of when we took that vote. I was here for it. So I'm just trying to get a sense of where you think this bill's going to evolve.

And just the vote today. I like that. The. When we had that compromise in this Committee the last time, I sort of knew what it was going to be and I don't think that provision evolved much.

So, yeah, I know it's a chair. If I can comment. You may. There was an inflection at the end of his sentence and it was a question. There actually were additional amendments in the Assembly and there were additional amendments on the timing of each side of the period and some of the eligibility.

The fact that this Committee moved the sunset on it allowed it to really move. And then which is what I was going to say in my close with regard to Senator Ashby's comments.

It was really getting it out of the Senate that convinced everybody they needed to come to the table and have a serious conversation in the Assembly I hope for the same thing this time.

Well, I hope that happens before we see this again. I'll be supporting the measure today. I just, I don't know. There's a lot of question marks for me going into this vote about what the actual implications will be on, say, affordability or on insurance that Dr. Our physician colleague mentioned.

So I'm sensitive to that, too, as someone who has sister who just moved home to try to raise a family in the greater LA region and is dealing with a lot of that. And I know as an ob. It.

Does something to you how you practice with that hanging over your head and sometimes, you know, makes doctors deliver certain kinds of care that otherwise you might be willing to take more chances.

And I just, I see it play out, you know, with, you know, higher rates of cesareans or inductions or things that are going to be, quote, unquote, lower risk of things like, you know, that worst case happening. But it's on my mind.

So I appreciate the work of this Committee and I wish you Godspeed on trying to get some work product done here.

Thank you, Senator Stern. Senator Allen.

I just, I just want to associate myself with some of the concerns raised by Senators Ashby and Stern. Happy to let you keep working on it. But we've been going back and looking at the old analysis and, you know, it does appear that it was about COVID and it was about court, you know, closures.

And so there's lots of different narratives floating around. But, but happy to give you the opportunity to see what you can land.

All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or come. zero, I'm sorry, Senator Valladeres.

So clarification, were amendments given to exempt. MICRA from, from this bill?

Amendments have been requested to do that. Okay.

And so that's, I feel like there is some consensus on the dais here. Of us appreciating that possibility. I can't get to a support right now. I remember being here in the Assembly. When the MICRA negotiations happened and there. Was a lot of people on all sides that did a lot of work.

To get it to a point where. There was pretty significant support for it. And I feel like for me, supporting. This bill in its current framework undermines that delicate balance of work that was done. So I'm not going to be able to get to a support today.

And again, hearing the comments from my colleagues here, it is something that I hope you will work with the opposition on getting to a point where it can be supported.

Thank you. All right, Other questions or Comments seeing. No other questions or comments seeing. Senator Laird, would you like to close?

Thank you. And I was able to do a bunch before getting here. But let me say, I appreciate the debate. I appreciate Senator Ashby's comments. And I would repeat that I intend to work on this and work with people. And last time, for me, the major thing that unleashed it all the way was in the Assembly.

I think that I would remind people of something I said at the beginning. As much as everybody wants to hang on the outcome of other things or things that were said, really. Yes, this was enacted at the height of COVID Yes, that was pointed out.

But no, there was not an intent that it was a Covid only bill. I think that was. Was clear at the time. And with Micra, believe me, I do not want to relitigate Micra if Senator Wahab has arrived.

And when we had the debate on Micra on the floor, her predecessor stood up and the first thing he said in the debate was, thank you or you're welcome. And the reason he said, you're welcome. Was to all the future legislators that.

Would not have to go through what we went through in that debate as it went along. And so that was Senator Wykowski, since that's being asked right over there. And so this really, I think it's being confused in ways that every micro case does not apply to every pain and suffering case.

Every punitive damages is not necessarily a pain and suffering case.

And I could go down some of the other lists and just remember, if we do not in some form remove this sunset or extend it for a period of time, we go back to the old system where we will be one of four states in the United States that if it cannot be adjudicated while you're still alive, those rights will die.

That's the reason we changed this, is we did not want to be in that situation. And so I will work with people, and hopefully it will get to the Assembly and people will realize they have to come to the table and they have to get to a good outcome.

We'll work to refine the information, we'll work to do this, but I want to make sure we don't return to that former injustice. And so with that, I would respectfully ask for an iPhone.

All right, Is there a motion.

Senator Durazo moves the bill. Alright. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.

This is File item number 7, SB 29. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations.

[ROLL CALL] Nine to two with members missing.

Caballero.

Who's missing?

Okay. Alright, we'll put that on call. Thank you.

Say the vote, nine to two.

Nine. Two. Right. Put it on call. Alright. Next.

Alright.

Okay. Senator Ashby, file number five, SB 11. Senator Ashby, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try to make this as brief as possible. I know I have a colleague behind me who has a witness with a time constraint too, so I'll try to be quick. I am presenting SB 11 here today. It's an AI Abuse Protection Act, which establishes a legal framework for regulating artificial intelligence, voice, image, and video cloning technology. The rise of AI presents an opportunity for innovation in various industries and these technologies are powerful tools for continued advancement in California, of course.

However, the lack of a comprehensive legal framework for addressing deep fakes and non-consensual images and videos is troubling. This leaves individuals vulnerable to various forms of exploitation, identity theft, scams, misinformation, and misrepresentation of character. Unfortunately, this technology has disproportionately impacted women and young girls.

Though not exclusively of course. Through the creation of sexually explicit photos and videos many have been harmed. In one well known case, pornographic AI generated images created of Taylor Swift gained over 45 million views on social media in a 17 hour period.

A similar instance occurred with the singer songwriter Billie Eilish. Of deepfake videos found on the Internet, over 95% are sexually explicit and feature women who did not consent to their creation. While some deep fakes target public figures, easily accessible AI software allows users to create non-consensual content featuring anyone.

SB 11 addresses the misuse of AI technology by establishing guardrails that protect consumers from harm. By clarifying the existence the existing definition of likeness to include AI content, requiring a consumer warning on AI software, establishing violations for the misuse of AI technology, and preventing AI generated evidence tampering in our courts. This bill provides a balanced approach to AI regulations while providing remedies for victims of AI abuse. With me to testify today is Jai Jaisimha. Did I get it even Close to right?

Pretty good.

Pretty good. Okay. Good. Good. All right, thank you. Mr. Jaisimha is a PhD and an AI developer and the co-founder of Transparency Coalition.ai.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. Committee, thank you so much for giving me the time to speak here. My name is Jai Jaisimha. I'm testifying in support of SB 11. As Senator Ashby mentioned, I'm the co-founder of Transparency Coalition. We're an independent nonprofit founded by former techies which advocates for increased transparency and accountability in AI and generative AI. Related to this bill, Transparency Coalition also supported other legislation which passed in this state which required the inclusion of latent disclosures in audio, video, and image content.

And here's some reasons why we think you should support SB11. As Senator Ashby has mentioned, there's clear evidence of consumer harm. We don't need to look far for evidence of consumer harms through pornographic deep fakes as well as financial and other scams based on voice cloning. Clearly, AI model developers have a duty of care that they're not fulfilling.

AI models are able to produce pornographic deepfakes because model developers have adopted a more is better attitude towards acquiring and ingesting training data, which includes pornographic imagery, without exercising proper care to curate and remove these abhorrent elements. If they weren't ingesting pornographic imagery, they would not be able to produce pornographic deepfakes.

Something that's just I want to make sure is clear. There's already technical solutions out there that are consistent can provide an implementation of providing provenance information in evidence, for example, but there must be consistency in how they're implemented.

The best way to think about provenance information is imagine if you got a resume and it just said, I have some post secondary education. Would you be happy with that? You'd probably want to know what level of education they went through, where they went to school, what major they had, maybe even what their grades are.

Think of provenance information as something that really documents what has happened to a piece of content as it goes through the chain of custody as evidence. So we hope that the enactment of this bill will empower the Judicial Council to require a sufficient level of detail.

All right, thank you, sir. Could you wrap it up, please?

Sure. We're also very, we've also seen that clear and explicit consumer warnings have been shown to change behavior. So there's evidence from digital piracy and other realms. And so we think that this bill is strong and needs to be supported. Thank you so much, and I urge you all to stand up for SB 11.

All right, thank you very much. Others in support of SB 11, please approach the microphone.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Shane Gusman, on behalf of SAG-AFTRA. We are in support of the bill. We'd like to thank the author and her staff for working very hard to get us amendments that I believe will be taken soon and that get us into a good place. This is an incredibly important issue for us. Our members are often victims of this conduct, and we look forward to working with the author and all of you on this in the future. Thank you.

Brandon Knapp representing Chamber of Progress in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in support. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 11, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce. First, I want to be clear. We have an opposed unless amended position at this point in time. We thank the author for her willingness to work with us, specifically around the consumer warning provisions of the bill. We just think that it could be more clarity in what exactly we're telling people there is misuse is. So we look forward to those conversations. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bennett. Mr. London.

Senator Umberg, how are you? Mr. Chairman and Members, Carl London here on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America. We aren't in opposition to the measure. We do have some concerns about the warning issue as well. We have discussed them with our artist partners at SAG-AFTRA and have presented a set of amendments for the author to consider. We're hopeful to work those through as we go through the process. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you. Anyone else opposed? Concerned? Just want to say something?

Chair and Members, Jose Torres with TechNet. Wanting to align our comments with Chamber but in respectfully opposition.

Thank you. All right. Anyone else in any of those categories I mentioned? Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Let's turn it back to the Committee. Committee Members, questions, concerns, motions, any of those things? Senator Durazo moves the bill. All right. Senator... Oh, I'm sorry. Oh. Senator Ashby, would you like to close?

She was trying to make a motion. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. All right. Committee Assistant, please call the roll.

This is file item number five, SB 11. The motion is do pass to Senate Public Safety. [Roll Call] 11 to 0 with Members missing.

11-0. We'll put it on call. Alrighty. Last and finally, item number eight, SJR 1, known as the Bullet Dodged Self Inflicted Wound Resolution. So. Go ahead, Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, colleagues, thank you for hearing this joint resolution today. SJR1 will blanket rescind all of California's previous calls for a federal constitutional convention going back more than a century.

We know that in recent years, California and other states, not just recent years, but over time, have called for various constitutional conventions typically limited to a specific subject. And we know that we are getting close to the number of states needed to trigger a constitutional convention, which is 34.

And we know that there are some people who actually. Some Republicans who think that we have actually reached the threshold, and some have taken that position. The way that the US Constitution is written, there are not any real specific rules about what happens when a constitutional convention is triggered.

It is unclear whether a constitutional convention can be limited to a specific subject. There are no rules in the Constitution about how the convention is convened, who decides who gets to be a delegate, whether they are or aren't constrained, and so forth.

And so while this legislature, over time, has called for various constitutional conventions on what I believe are righteous subjects, whether it's gun safety or repealing, overturning Citizens United, we also know that there is a risk, a real risk, that we could have a runaway convention that is not limited to that one subject.

And given everything happening in the country today, I don't think that that is a risk that we should take. We have the President of the United States who is already claiming that there are people who are citizens of this country who are not really citizens. And I don't want.

I don't think we should be risking a rewrite of the Constitution at this moment in time. And so SJR1 will blanket rescind all of California's calls for a constitutional convention.

With me today to testify are Dora Rose, Deputy Director at League of Women Voters of California, sponsor of the resolution, and Mckay Cunningham, constitutional law professor at the College of Idaho.

Good afternoon. I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California. Here as a sponsor of SJR1. I feel like with that title, my work here is done and I should just sit down. So, the league has long cautioned against the perils of an Article 5 Convention.

There are no rules or guardrails in Article 5 that limit the scope of a constitutional convention potentially placing every constitutional right and civil liberty at risk. And as the Senator noted, in today's political climate, the hazards are even graver. Even if it's called for a single issue, once convened, conventions can become a runaway train.

Unable to rewrite, able to rewrite any part of our Constitution with no mechanisms to stop it. Right. Common Cause has assessed that 28 states have active calls for constitutional conventions on various topics. That number could actually be higher, depending on how calls are counted. California's got seven active calls in the books.

Rescinding them ensures that California, known for protecting civil rights and liberties, doesn't help open the door to a process that could undermine them entirely. The threat is real. We've already seen the federal administration shrugging off constitutional rights in pursuit of their political agenda.

Far right groups, including allies of President Trump, have called for a convention that could end up targeting reproductive freedom right protections for LGBTQ people, communities of color.

And by limiting the power and the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, which is a chief aspect of their platform, it could decimate the federal infrastructure to the extent it hasn't already been decimated. That, among other things, protects voting rights. We need to believe what they are telling us. They are very, very serious about this.

Right now, one influential group is circulating a petition stating, sign our open letter to President Trump. Only an Article 5 convention can make his administrative changes permanent. SJR1 sends us clear message. California will not be complicit in dismantling our democracy or the rights that we fought so hard to protect.

The League of Women Voters of California urges an aye vote to remove us from the slate of states supporting this dangerous past.

Thank you very much. Alright, next witness.

Chair Committee. My name is Mckay Cunningham. I'm a lawyer and a constitutional law professor. I'm here to answer more specific questions, if you have them, but principally talk about the issue at hand. What is the effect of rescinding prior calls for a constitutional convention?

Which begs the more basic question, what is even a valid call for a petition for a constitutional convention? And the- the unheartening answer to those questions, constitutionally speaking, is that they remain very much unclear. The legal analysis begins, as it should, with the actual language of Article 5.

The Article 5 language is devoid of detail with regard to these questions. What constitutes an actual petition and how can you rescind it? On top of that, the Supreme Court, in an analogous situation, has suggested that Supreme Court will not get involved.

For the lawyers on the panel here, they call it a political question, a non justiciable political question. This is a game, guys, that has no rules and has no referee. And just by way of example, some prognosticators have suggested that over 700 calls or petitions for a constitutional convention have occurred since the 1790s.

Proponents of a constitutional convention say, hey, look, we are due dozen, more than a dozen constitutional conventions to date. We haven't had them. Opponents, on the other hand, say you have to count the petitions in a particular way, categorize them in a particular way in order to meet that threshold of 34 states.

All of this to illustrate the uncertainty at the heart of this question. The current administration has been clear, as has been suggested, they've been transparent. They want a third term for this president, which is in clear conflict with the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution.

They want to end birthright citizenship, which is in clear conflict with the 14th Amendment. They want to restrict the freedom of the press. Clear conflict with the First Amendment. All of these objectives.

Professor, thank you. If you could wrap it up, please.

Yeah, yeah. I was just going to say that the US needs California now more than ever. And if we as Californians want to say that a constitutional convention is something that we do not want to do, I'm almost done.

Okay, thank you, professor. Okay. I've got a technical question for you. A second. So, no, I'm going to wait till other committee members have questions and anybody else who wishes to testify in support.

David Bullock. No matter what party or what administration is in power, we should not mess with our Constitution. Thank you for bringing this forth, Senator Wiener.

Thank you. Alright, others. Others in support. Seeing no one else. Oh, here we go.

Last one. Marie Lopez, California Nurses Association, in support.

Okay, thank you. Alright, others in support, seeing no one else. Opposition? Anyone opposed to SJR, number one, saying no one approaches microphone. Let's bring it back to the committee. Questions by committee members. Yes. Senator Niello.

No question. A comment. I am really pleased to see this measure coming forward. I would have supported this two years ago, my first year here, I would have supported this. When I was in the assembly.

I have always believed that convening a constitutional convention under the provision allowing a number of states to do it comes under the category of be careful of what you ask for because you just might get it. I concur with the. With the contention that it would be convened with no guardrails.

And I would be concerned about that from the standpoint of just about any issue that we deal with here, those articulated by Senator Wiener as, as well as many others. So thank you for finally solving this problem that's been sort of pregnant sitting out there.

Okay, other questions or comments? I have a technical question. Anybody else? Technical question for the professor. Just. Just one question. As a constitutional scholar, you've observed other states and including California, is that right?

That's correct.

Is this the stupidest thing we've done as a legislature?

That sounds like a trick question, sir.

It's not a trick question.

I'm just wondering, among stupid things we've done, is this the stupidest?

No, I do not think it's stupid. I think there are times when a constitutional convention is actually merit.

That wasn't the right answer, but-

Right. Right. Okay.

But it is my answer.

Citizens.

Okay, thank you. I got it. It wasn't the worst thing. And we'll talk about later what we could have done that was even more stupid. So, Senator Wiener.

Thank you. You know, I want to say, like, there are plenty of ways that all of us can think of where we'd want to amend the Constitution in good ways. We may or may not always agree on what those are. And I. And so I think I understand why people want to have a convention.

And I'm not critical of that, even though I have my own views.

But right now, and I'll be honest that it makes me sad about our country that we are in a moment in time and it's been this way for a while, where things are coming off the rails in such a way that it's just not vaguely worth the risk of triggering a convention.

I hope that we come to a day where we can, as a country, have an intelligent, thoughtful conversation about how the Constitution should be changed and where it's not. People like Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene rewriting the Constitution. But we're not there right now. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to your resolution. I was referring to the reason for this resolution as being among the dumbest things we've ever done. So. Alright. Senator Wiener urges an aye vote. Is there a motion so moved? Who was that? Senator Stern. Senator Stern moves resolution. All right.

Committee assistant, please call the roll.

This is File item number 8, SJR 1. The motion is that the resolution be adopted. [VOTE CALLED] 12 to 0. With members missing.

The vote is 12 to 0. 12-0. Everyone voting? No. Okay, we'll keep the roll open. All right, that concludes our business here. We'll go through the roll Committee system. Porter, if you would, go through the. The matters before us, and we'll, I hope, just go one time through the. Through the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call] 13 to 0.

13-0. The consent calendar is adopted.

File item number two, SB446. [Roll Call] 12 to 0.

12-0. Bill's out.

File item number three, SB 450. [Roll Call] 11 to 0.

11-0. Bill's out.

File item number 5, SB 11. [Roll Call] 12 to 0.

12-0. Bill's out.

File item Number 7. SB 29. [Roll Call] 9 to 2.

9-2. Bill's out.

File item number 8, SJR 1. [Roll Call] 12-0.

12-0. Bill's out or resolution is adopted. Okay. All right. That concludes our business here today. So we'll come back next Tuesday. Yeah. Okay.

Did say we're adjourned? Yes. All right.