Assembly Floor

Assembly is now in session. Assembly Member Chen notices the absence of a Quorum. Sergeant in arms will prepare the chamber and bring in the absent Members. Clerk will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members of Quorum is present. We ask our guests and visitors in the rear of the chamber and in the gallery to please stand for our prayer. Today's prayer will be offered by Reverend Patti Oshita. Reverend Oshita.

Please join me in a moment of reflection. This past Monday, I returned to my hometown of Fowler to attend the funeral for Jane Nagata. She was 95 years old and and she was my late mother's best friend. Growing up. Her three children, Brian, Kevin and Colleen, were best friends with my sister, brother and me.

The temple was overflowing. Friends traveled from out of state and even from Japan to be there. It was a great tribute to her and a nostalgic community reunion. Many of us have not seen each other in decades. Family and friends commented that she lived a full life. But a full life is not a life full of happiness.

In her 95 years, my auntie Jane experienced the fullness of life. She lived the full spectrum of life. Auntie Jane knew the happiness of love in her marriage to Uncle Tom, but also knew the profound losses of her husband of 60 years in 2014 and her son Kevin to cancer in 2021.

In her lifetime, she knew the meaning of joy and pain, fulfillment and despair. She lived through a time of hatred so deep her family home was burned to the ground, leaving them no place to return to after being released from forced incarceration during the war.

She knew what it was to live in fear, and she felt the safe embrace of acceptance. When her husband, Tom, was elected mayor of Fowler in the 1970s, Auntie Jane knew what it meant to start over again with nothing, just doing the best you can.

And I know that her life in many ways mirrored the hardships and joys of my parents generation. In attending Auntie service, I found myself going home, not just physically. I returned to the memories of my childhood, revisited my roots, and reconnected with people whose entire families remained a part of who I am.

Let's not wait too long to go home, to reconnect with the people who lives have given meaning to our own. Let's let them know that they've made a difference and if home is too far, let's hold them in our hearts and thank them with our deep gratitude, as I am right this very moment. Namami Dapsu with kindness and gratitude beyond words.

We ask our guests and visitors to remain standing to join us in the flag salute. Assembly Member Jeff Gonzalez would lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Ready Begins One nation under God, indivisible.

May be seated to our guests and visitors today. State law prohibits persons in the gallery from interfering with legislative proceedings or disrupting the orderly conduct of official business. Persons disrupting legislative proceedings are subject to removal, arrest or other appropriate legal remedies. Reading of the previous day's Journal .

Assembly Chamber Sacramento Thursday, March 6, 2025 the Assembly met at 9am The Honorable Josh Lowenthal, Speaker Pro Tempore of the Assembly.

Majority Leader Aguiar curry moves and Mr. Taw seconds, that the reading of the previous day's Journal be dispensed with presentations and petitions. There are none. Introduction and references of bills will be deferred, reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments deemed adopted. Messages from the Governor? There are none. Messages from the Senate? There are none.

Moving to motions and resolutions. The absences for the day will be deemed read and printed in the Journal. Madam Majority Leader, you are recognized for your procedural motions.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 118A to allow Assembly Member Patel to have a guest seated at her Desk today.

Without objection. Such shall be the order.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 9, Assembly Rule 96, I request unanimous consent to re refer the following bills AB 418 Wilson from the Appropriations Committee to the Judiciary Committee AB 866 Ortega from the Banking and Finance Committee to the Judiciary Committee, then back to the Banking and Finance Committee and AB 1065 Ortega from the Banking and Finance Committee to the Judiciary Committee, then back to the Banking and Finance Committee

Without objection Such shall be the order.

I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 56 to allow Appropriations Committee to notice the following bills for their hearing on Wednesday, March 19 AB253 award. Pending re referral from the Local Government Committee, AB 493, Harabedian. Pending re referral from the Banking and Finance Committee, AB 597, Harabedian pending re referral from the insurance Committee.

Without objection, such shall be the order. Assemblymember Demaio, you're recognized.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was noted that there are no messages from the Governor, but it is my understanding that the Governor has transmitted a message to this body that the Medi Cal program is on the brink of financial insolvency. Can you double check the messages from the Governor?

We've not received any messages formally at the desk. Assemblymember Patel, you are recognized for your guest introduction. Members, can I have your attention?

Hi. Good morning, Everybody. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I am honored to have at my side my daughter, Adya Nayak. She has chosen to spend her spring break with me here in Sacramento instead of doing one of the numerous other enjoyable things she could have chosen.

She's a sophomore in college at Occidental College, and she's studying diplomacy in world affairs with a minor in cognitive science. Please welcome my daughter, Adya Naik to the chamber.

Welcome to the California Assembly. Members will now be moving on to business on the daily file. Second reading. Clerk will read

Assembly Bill 414, 299 and Assembly Bill 253 With amendments.

All bills will be deemed read. All amendments will be deemed adopted. On to the Assembly. Third reading. We are going to pass and retain on file items 4 through 6 and move to file item 7 AB 321 by Assemblymember Schultz.

Assembly Bill 321 by Assembly Member Schultz an act relating to crimes.

Assemblymember Schultz, you are recognized.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Speaker and Members. I rise today to introduce Assembly Bill 321 which is affectionately known as the Better Informed Decisions Act. I have a very short summary today, and then I hope to engage in a fruitful debate. But here's what you have to understand about the State of California law. We have misdemeanors.

We have felonies, often categorized as straight felonies, serious, violent felonies. And we have a category of offenses referred to as wobblers, in which the prosecutor is able to, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, determine whether it's more appropriately charged as a felony or a misdemeanor.

Now, back in the day before California courts were consolidated and we had separate municipal and superior courts, there was this long standing rule that once the seventh, we call it a penal code 17B. Once the motion was entertained once, and it had to be raised either at or immediately after the preliminary hearing.

From that point in time to the time of sentencing, the motion could not be raised. Now California courts have consolidated and with the emergence of new digital technology, very often new evidence comes to light after a preliminary hearing. Think, for example, an Ipad or an iPhone that's being imaged and and forensically processed by your local sheriff's Department.

If new evidence should come to light that would raise an argument that a wobbler that was charged as a felony is more appropriately charged as a misdemeanor, the court is unable to review that claim until the time of sentencing. This results in a lot of wasted time, effort and money as we navigate the court system.

The Better Informed Decisions act does not add to the courts any power that they do not already possess. But what it does do is give the courts the ability to review that prosecuting decision at any stage of the proceeding. And I'll simply close with this, Mr. Speaker

, at a time when we all should be concerned about due process and the weaponization of prosecution, I think that something like the Better Informed Decisions act is exactly what we need right now to promote accountability and transparency in our justice system. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schultz. Assemblymember DeMaio, you are recognized.

I rise to oppose Assembly Bill 7. California voters literally just voted in the November election to indicate their desire that they do not want to see us water down felonies to misdemeanors, that they do not want us to undercut our district attorneys and prosecutors as they try to hold criminals accountable.

And unfortunately, this Bill has raised a lot of opposition from individual district attorneys and prosecutors across the state. It allows liberal or pro criminal judges to to literally in the middle of the proceedings, to undercut a prosecutor's case. It gives them that license.

Now, as the author of the Bill has acknowledged, there are a variety of safeguards already in state law for due process and consideration of additional evidence.

But to undercut our prosecutors seems to me not only to raise the risk of public safety and undercut our prosecutors and holding criminals accountable, but more importantly is completely inconsistent with the loud mandate delivered and rendered by the voters just this past November. This body has not fully funded Proposition 36 implementation.

So in other words, what we're saying is we know what the voters said, but we're not going to Fund it, so we're going to try to invalidate the real desire that they expressed with Prop 36.

And now with this Bill, it goes even further to once again put on the books state law that would water down felonies to misdemeanors. So I urge my colleagues, listen to the voters, understand we have a crime wave, protect the discretion of prosecutors to allow them to make their case.

Existing state law allows, as the author just noted, consideration of additional evidence. In due course, I urge a no vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Demaio. Assemblymember Kalra, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to our colleague for bringing this Bill forward. I think it's obvious our colleague from San Diego has a lot of opinions but does not have a law degree. The reality is it's not watered down anything in regards to the outcome in a criminal justice procedure.

What this does, having actually conducted and been part of literally hundreds of preliminary hearings, this has to do with with giving the judge the ability to use their discretion to determine when a particular case may warrant being reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor based upon the evidence.

Now, a preliminary hearing, the reason why this is significant is right now, the judge only has the ability to do that up until the time of the preliminary hearing. So what is a preliminary hearing? A preliminary hearing is an earlier portion of criminal proceedings where a District Attorney has the burden of showing that there is.

I mean, essentially it's a probable cause hearing. So a juror, a District Attorney, would have to show merely a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed by the defendant. That is a far lower burden than beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what does that mean for practical purposes is that at a preliminary hearing, a prosecutor does not present all the evidence they have. They may not even have all the evidence that they feel is necessary for trial. Because many felony cases take not just weeks but months to get to trial. So.

But the tweet between the time of a preliminary hearing and the actual jury trial is when a lot of the work is done in terms of not just investigation, but preparation for trial. And a lot of that evidence is thereby presented to the court.

And the defense attorney and the defense attorney also has now, with that new evidence, the ability to present more evidence in preparation for trial to the court as well.

And that is why it's relevant to give all sides the opportunity to not only gather evidence, but allow the judge to make a determination now, with more evidence on their desk, as to whether a case warrants being reduced to a misdemeanor. That's all this does. It has nothing to do with ballot initiatives.

It has nothing to do with the voters saying this or that. In fact, this will save taxpayers a whole ton of money because the actual evidence that's going to be presented at trial is now going to be presented to a judge to make a determination that the case is warranted to be reduced to a misdemeanor.

So that's all this does. Don't be. Don't allow the scare tactics and the ignorance to push us in some direction that some folks like to continue to go, even though it has nothing to do with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Kalra. Assemblymember Harabedian, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to first say thank you to my colleague from Burbank for bringing this Bill. I rise in strong support. I want to remind our colleagues that this passed unanimously at a Public Safety Committee.

And I think we have very smart folks from both sides of the aisle on that Committee that studied this Bill, that discussed this Bill with the author and with the constituents and folks on both sides. I also, as a prosecutor, have done hundreds of preliminary hearings.

I was on the opposite side of those preliminary hearings from my friend from San Jose. But I appreciate his comments. This is all about trying to get the decision right based on the evidence, based on the case as it makes its way through our justice system. Our victims are still going to get their day in court.

Our victims are still going to get justice. All we're doing is making sure that it is fair, it's equitable and it's evidence based. And I will tell you, getting charged with a felony versus a misdemeanor is a life changing, life changing decision that should not be taken lightly.

And our Members of the bench do not take this lightly. Do not let anyone confuse any sort of issue about certain judges in certain jurisdictions doing things to play with people's lives. We are trying to get all issues right here on this floor and in the Committee. The Public Safety Committee got it right by voting unanimously to get it here. And I strongly encourage an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Harabedian. Assemblymember Bryan, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I just want to echo some of the comments that have been said about our colleague from Burbank, one of the prosecutors on the floor who's actually prosecuted cases, and the chair of our Public Safety Committee. This Bill moved out of Public Safety with unanimous support and the support of the District Attorneys Association.

And the Bill has not changed even a little bit from the time that it went from Committee to this floor. Whenever we have thoughtful prosecutors and public defenders in agreement that this makes the system more fair, we have to tune out the fearful rhetoric and do what's right. Governing. And I respectfully ask your I vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bryan. Seeing and hearing no further debate. Assemblymember Schultz, would you like to close?

Yes, briefly. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I thank you for listening to all the discussion today. I do respectfully asked for your I vote. And I do want to emphasize one point that my two colleagues brought up. California District Attorneys Association did support it. I understand that some of them have reached out to you individually.

I will state right now on the record, not one elected District Attorney in the State of California has reached out to me should this Bill move to the Senate. You have my commitment to have those conversations and to hear their concerns. But it was passed on a bipartisan basis without opposition out of Committee.

This is absolutely the right thing to do. And I'll simply wrap with this. Mr. Speaker, over 10 years I've spent in the courtroom, like many of you, prosecuting cases, and I have never once feared answering the question, Mr. Schultz, why do you believe this is a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor?

I respectfully submit that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. And with that, I ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schultz. All debate having ceased, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 46. noes 5. The measure passes.

We are going to pass and retain on file items 8 and 9 and on to file item 10, ACR 47 by Assembly Member Chen. Clerk will read

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 47 by Assembly Member Chen, relative to National Surveyors Week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members for allowing me to present ACR 47, honoring March 16th through 22nd as National Surveyors Week in California. Land surveyors have uniquely important role in the development of our state. It requires collaboration and precision.

In a state as geographically diverse as the State of California, they have their work cut out for them. One of our oldest professions, land surveying, has changed quite a bit over the years. What hasn't changed, Mr. Speaker, is the importance of these surveyors to our communities. They truly are our unsung heroes.

Today, we firmly honor the contributions of over 4000 professionals Land surveyors in the State of California. Members ask that you please join me in commemorating March 16th through 22nd as National Surveyors Week.

Thank you. Assembly Member Chen, would you like the first roll to be open for co authors?

Yes, please.

Okay. All debate having ceased, Members, the Clerk will open the roll for co authors on the Bill. All Members vote who desire to vote. Members, this is for co authors. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. There are 63 CO authors added without objection.

We'll now take a voice vote on the resolution. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed no. The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted. Assemblymember Chen, you are recognized for your guest introduction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to turn our Members to attention to the gallery. We have a couple of guests with us this morning to celebrate the passage of ACR 47. First, the President of the California Land Surveyors Association and my constituent Joseph Padilla. Members, please help me welcome these amazing Californians to the State Assembly.

Welcome. Thank you so much. Assemblymember Chen. Continuing on to business on the daily file, we are going to pass and retain on file items 11 through 14 to file item 15, AB 387 by Assemblymember Alanis. The Clerk will read

Assembly Bill 387 by Assembly Member Alanis an act related to juries.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Morning, everyone. AB 387 simply expands the list of jury duty exemptions to include probation officers. Probation officers serve as the arm of the courts and are uniquely involved in the judicial process, working closely with the courts to fulfill court orders and ensure those on probation are meeting their requirements.

The success of individuals that are on probation is closely tied to the attentiveness and effectiveness of probation officers. Pulling them away from their duties impacts their ability to effectively manage critical services for probationers. If any Member of law enforcement of the community should be exempt, it should be probation officers. This Bill enjoys bipartisan support and I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Alanis. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and Tally the votes. Ayes. 64. No zero. The measure passes.

We are going to pass and retain on file item 16 and now move on to the second day consent calendar. Before we vote, we will first take up resolutions on the consent calendar for the purpose of of adding co authors on the consent calendar. Clerk will read the resolutions on the consent calendar.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 46 by Assembly Member Soria relative to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg day House Resolution 9 by Assembly Member Lackey relative to Long Covid Awareness Day and House Resolution 22 by Assembly Member Soria relative to Groundwater Awareness Week.

Clerk will now open the roll to allow any Member to add on as a co author to the resolutions on the Consent Calendar. Members this is for co authors. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll.

There are 64 co authors moving to a vote on the Consent Calendar. Does any Member wish to remove an item from the Consent Calendar? Seeing and hearing none, the Clerk will read the second day consent calendar.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 46 by Assembly Member Soria relative to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Day.

The Clerk will open the roll on the Consent calendar. All Members vote who desire to vote. All Members vote who desire to vote. All Members vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 68 no. 0 consent calendar is adopted. Clerk will read the remaining items on the Consent Calendar.

House Resolution 9 Ayes 68 no. 0 House Resolution 22 Ayes 68 no. 0 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 ayes 68 no 0

Moving on to announcements session schedules as follows. Friday, March 14 no floor session no check in session Monday, March 17 Floor session at 1pm Seeing and hearing no further business, I'm ready to entertain a motion to adjourn. Majority Leader Aguiar Curry moves and Mr. Lackey seconds that this House stands adjourned till Monday, March 17th at 1pm That's St. Patrick's Day. Quorum call is lifted and we are adjourned.