Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning. Welcome everyone to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules for each for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses each and witnesses have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the bill.

Additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the bill. And okay, so we'll start with file item four is SB477. Senator Blakespear, whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Chair. Hello Members. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 477. This Bill would clarify language in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FIFA, sorry, FEHA. So that the Civil Rights Department can more effectively investigate and prosecute discrimination, harassment and other civil rights violations.

Since it was enacted in 1959, FEHA has protected Californians from workplace and housing discrimination and harassment based on various protected characteristics. These include race, religion, disability, gender, reproductive health, decision making, and veteran status. Under FEHA, the Civil Rights Department, or CRD investigates thousands of complaints every year.

However, current law creates challenges, including strict deadlines to complete an investigation, even when all parties agree that more time is needed. Federal and state law also use different terms to describe cases in which discrimination happens to more than one person.

To better protect the rights of our fellow Californians, CRD must be empowered to work as efficiently as possible.

SB477 would resolve administrative inefficiencies and statutory inconsistencies by allowing CRD to toll deadlines when the parties all agree, updating the definition of group or class complaints, and extending the deadline for a complainant to file a case in court during CRD's appeal process.

CRD believes these changes would have a positive fiscal impact, ultimately saving taxpayers money and strengthening our commitment to California's values. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote and I have no witnesses.

Never mind, I take my money. There's a motion on the table. Is there anyone else here in support of SB477? Anyone here in opposition to SB477? Anyone here in support of SB477? Anyone here in opposition to SB477? Any questions or comments from Members?

Madam Vice Chair thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill proposes to upset or upend long standing practice where a legal matter would be resolved in the residency of of where the action is taking place.

And so this would create an inconvenience, I guess, at the most to be in different districts and the parties are not in their local district or the Nearest location for them. Could you explain that?

I don't think we perceive that to be a problem that's created by this Bill. I mean, these are. These are cleanup measures that are supported and requested by the Department that's managing these so well.

The Department versus the subjects of the action. I mean, whose convenience are we talking about, right?

Well, it's for both.

Okay. All right. My understanding is that the current practice is that you resolve these legal matters in the jurisdiction in which you reside. So this would change that, is that correct?

It does, to some degree.

Okay. All right.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator. We will take that up when we get the opportunity.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Me. Okay.

He has.

Madam Secretary, we can establish quorum, please. Cholera. Here.

[Roll call]

Thank you.

Do we have a motion on Item Item 4? A motion. Item 4. SB477. So moved. Second. The motion is second. Madam Secretary, take a roll call vote, please.

Motion motions do. Pass to Appropriations.

No.

[Roll call]

Two more.

Okay.

And if we can have a motion, please, on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

All right, the consent calendar is out, so we will await authors on our seven remaining bills. Yes. Can we do add ons on Item 4, SB 477?

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll place that back on call. We need one more vote.

If there are any Senators available, if you can make your way to the Judiciary Committee, you can even present for your friend—if your friend's not here, if you don't have a Bill in Judiciary.

All right, so we have Fie Item 3, SB 450, Menjivar. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning Members here to present to you SB450. That's really looking to just clarify and statue something that perhaps some are doing in practice right now.

But given the ever changing nature of our surrounding environments and other external variables, we want to make sure that it's completely clear in statute and reaffirm California's long standing jurisdiction for adoption proceedings, including confirmatory adoptions in cases where the families no longer live here in California, they moved, but the individual, the child that is being adopted, was born in California.

With recent amendments, this bill will also require all legal parents to be listed on the adoption order to ensure there is no confusion. And in cases where an existing parent is retaining the parental right but confirming the parental right of their partner, which is especially the case in confirmatory adoptions.

This ensures that if a family needs to move out of California for whatever reason, now resides in a less supportive state, the legal parent child relationships are protected and mitigates legal uncertainty for families here to testify. Mr. Chair and colleagues, I have two witnesses on behalf of Espy for 450.

With your permission, I'd like to now turn over to them.

Thank you.

Great.

Let's start with Craig.

Good morning. Craig Polster on behalf of Equality California, proud co-sponsor. Like the Senator said, this bill simply clarifies and reaffirms California's long standing jurisdiction over adoption proceedings for all families whose children were born in the state, even if they no longer live here.

Over the past several years, as many of you know, we've witnessed growing attacks on the legal rights of LGBTQ people across the country and, and many parents are understandably concerned about how these threats will impact their families.

One of the most important thing LGBTQ parents in particular 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 if for whatever reason the family relocates to another state, their legal relationship with their child will remain protected.

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

And this streamlined process is important because it allows same sex couples to secure legal recognition of parentage without requiring home studies or other unnecessary barriers. So SB450 is a straightforward measure. It simply amends the Family Code to clarify California's jurisdiction over these proceedings.

And importantly, this bill will not affect the application of the Interstate Compact on the placement of children or interfere with the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. This is an important measure to protect California families and respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Rocco Palin. I'm here on behalf of the Academy of California Adoption and Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers. This is an organization that provides services and education on adoption, assisted reproduction, guardianship and foster care.

An important protection for LGBTQ families is the ability to secure this court ordered adoption decree that all states have to recognize. As Mr. Pulsifer said, parents can do this via California's confirmatory adoption process. And again, because of the changing national climate, parents are increasingly concerned when they move out of California, but their child was born here.

California courts have been exercising jurisdiction over these cases historically, and SB 450 simply amends that current practice to put it into statute. These proceedings provide legal recognition without those unnecessary legal barriers, and SB450 will help California uphold its commitment to protecting all families. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB450? Let's come up. Name, organization, if any, and position on the bill, please.

I'm Maddie Roby. I'm here with Trans Family Support Services and I urge your support. Thank you.

I'm about to charge you with the California alliance of Child and Family Services and support.

Thank you.

Kanan Durham with Pride at the Pier in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB450? All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments? Assembly Members of.

I'd like to move the bill, and I'd love to be added as a co-author. I just want to thank the author.

I mean, one of the things that the author has done has been really focused a lot of attention on making sure that all families are protected and have the rights that they have to do the things that all parents do with their kids.

Right, which is be able to love them, provide for them, keep them together, and have the rights that they need. And, you know, I think a few years ago when I was at Equality California, we were always focused on how do we preserve rights in a much less hostile environment.

But today we know that we don't have sort of just a lack of rights in some states. It's not sort of a neutral playing field. We actually have absolute hostility to LGBTQ families in many states. And so it really is important that there is a forum where parents can actually affirm their legal rights for their kids.

And these kids have a nexus to California. They were born here. And it's something that is a really important thing for LGBTQ families and the kid and our kids. So I just want to thank you for bringing this strongly in support, and I want to thank the bill sponsors as well.

Thank you, Assembly. Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. I just want to concur with my colleague from Santa Monica and thank the author for this. My sister had her children in a foreign state.

She and her wife had to go through the process of the home visits, the long adoption court process, and it was one of the most painful things to watch two mothers, the only mothers these girls had ever known, so loving, so wonderful, and yet being inspected and questioned in a way that no stray parents would ever experience.

And the inequality and the lack of humanity in that process was so difficult. And I think you're really doing something incredibly important. They were my nieces were both adopted and now they're both their legal parents. But the fact that that was even a question is something that should never be.

And so I think that this is so critically important, and I'm so grateful you're doing it so that everybody can have two loving parents just like my nieces without that process.

And I will say to the credit of a lot of the social workers who had to do it, they would apologize, but it was what the law demanded and so it is great that do better for Californians. So thank you and I'd love to be out as a co-author.

Thank you for sharing that story. Assembly Member. Thank you. Assembly Member Harebedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would just like to align my comments. With both of my colleagues. Would like to thank the author. Would love to be added as a co-author. And more importantly, thank you for showing up on time and presenting your bill.

I was supposed to be number three, so I don't know.

Yeah, he was on the fence based upon what time you got here. Any other questions or comments? I also want to thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I would also like to be added as a Kat. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you like to close?

I, I, I really appreciate the supporting comments from my colleagues in the other house and sharing personal stories. I think this is really impactful. If other families are not going through this, all these barriers, then we shouldn't impose those barriers on other types of families without respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll call]

Right. That bill is up. Thank you. I was just asking that if we. Yeah, I think we're calling if we could do. If we could do add-ons, since we do have some folks here for item four, SB477, as well as the consent calendar, please.

SB477, Blake, Sphere, Brian Connolly, Kappen here. And then on consent, and then on. Consent calendar, on consent, Brian Connelly, Papin. Papin, on.

All right, pot up for those that are here. And for, for the record, SB477, with that, that vote is now out. And so we'll just keep the roll open for any add ons.

For every five minutes that goes by, we'll strike one Senate Bill from the agenda.

And we'll let members of the audience pick.

San Jose to the rescue.

All right, we are back with File Item 6, SB 683, Senator Cortese. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Thank you very much. Of course, I'm pleased to present SB 683, which strength—strengthens—protections for individuals who have had their name, image, or likeness usurped. I'll be accepting the clarifying amendments, as outlined on Page 6 of the Analysis, and I really want to thank the Committee staff for your work on this.

It's been a joy working with the Committee on something like this that is really about legal remedies. Existing law prohibits the unauthorized use of another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in any manner without consent, yet we continue to see prevalent misuse. And I should note that law has been around for nearly four decades.

The exploitation of one's likeness can have serious social, mental, and economic ramifications. Given the increasing sophistication of advertising, it's imperative that the law provide immediate individual protection. What this Bill does is it clarifies that an individual seeking relief for violation may seek an injunction or temporary restraining order, commonly referred to as a TRO.

Should a TRO be granted, the respondent must comply within two business days from the day the order is served, unless otherwise specified. So, it could be sooner. This statute has not been updated in over 40 years, as I alluded. The original intent still stands true. Our laws must provide protection from invasion of privacy.

Not only are consumers misled by unauthorized material, but the person depicted can lose compensation, career opportunities, and potentially their reputation, as I think we all know. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 683? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 683?

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Senator Cortese. Felipe Fuentes, here on behalf of the Motion Picture Association. I promise to be very, very brief because we are going to rest on the memorandum that we supply the Committee, in terms of our concerns about the First Amendment.

But I'm happy to be here and looking forward to the conversations with the Senator and his office to see if we can't resolve our concerns.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Tony Gonzalez, here on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America. I join Mr. Fuentes in his opposition to the Bill, only to the extent that we think that the Bill can be improved with clarifying language to state that the TRO should be complied with immediately, as opposed to up to two days.

Our lawyers are mystified as to why we would establish a two-day grace period, so to speak, instead of complying with the TRO immediately, which is standard practice today.

Thank you. Any other opposition to SB 683?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Danny Kando Kaiser, on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition, in opposition. Want to thank the author and his staff for continued conversation. Looking forward to continuing. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Zbur.

Senator, nice to—nice to nice to see you. I'm totally confused by this Bill. On the one hand, so what, what MPA is arguing is that section Civil Code Section 527 already requires—already allows—for injunctive relief, including for violations of Section 3344. So, what's the purpose of having an additional injunctive relief provision added to this Bill and what is the problem you're trying to address?

I understand the underlying issue about making sure that likenesses are not distributed on media platforms, but on one hand, if injunctive relief is already available, why are we adding a second kind of injunctive relief?

It didn't look to me like, other than the two-day period of time, that it would be different from any other injunctive relief under the General Statute.

And then, I guess the second question is why the two days, as well, in some cases, it seems like you might want a juncture of relief that would, I mean, why would you take the discretion of the court away? I mean some cases you should it should be immediate.

Sometimes, some cases it might be—might take longer for an entity, a motion picture producer, to actually do something that is to comply with the law. So, I'm concerned about that. So, I don't know if you can respond to it.

Sure. I can. First of all, you know, close reading the Bill will indicate that the 48 hours is a default and it's 48 hours or sooner. So, there's no judicial discretion taken away. If a judge orders immediate takedown, then that's what happens.

We—there's nothing in this, going to the other question, there's nothing in this, in this Bill, that attempts to alter 3344 in any way, shape, or form. So, there's no First Amendment issues that we're creating. It's a remedy Bill.

And to answer your question about, you know, why, why drag the 527 section, you know, into 3344 to make it clear that a TRO is available is just to make it clear that a TRO is available.

So, to be very candid, you know, the Bill doesn't do a lot in terms of adding remedies, but I think it creates a clear roadmap for, in this case, what would be plaintiff's counsel to who, as you know, as an attorney, as I know as attorney, maybe shepherdizing, maybe keyword searching, and looking for an opportunity to, you know, for some kind of rapid takedown of, of, of material.

And you know, this is really going to just allow very clearly for, you know, the council to—in effect, it kind of creates a shortcut for them to see very clearly that not only do they have injunctive relief available, but that 527 remedies are available, that a TRO is available.

And if they're in a real hurry and they're fortunate, they might get the judge to take it down even sooner.

But we wanted to make sure there was a 48-hour default, so that there wasn't ambiguity once a TRO is issued, as to how much time a respondent has to actually comply, which would just obviously, again, as you know, result in another law and motion hearing and, you know, and a lot more bickering.

It's, it's really just a clarifying Bill.

So, what—have you had examples of courts refusing to issue injunctions in this area?

We have—I, I'm not going to cite any examples, you know, today of, of that happening. But again, you know, I think, you know, I'm not putting this at your doorstep, but I think opposition is kind of trying to have it both ways, saying, look, this Bill doesn't do a lot in terms of changing the remedies.

But we're opposed because you're embedding the remedies in the Bill. So, at the end of the day, what's the imbalance here? What's the concern here?

I mean, I'm totally confused. I mean, I'm totally confused about the Bill because on one hand, why do we need it if you already have injunctive relief available? On the other hand, why is there a problem with having injunctive relief in this area unless it's different somehow?

And the things that I see are the two-day issue, and I can see maybe with MPA that you might—there may be circumstances where a judge may want to give longer than two days. So, I'm just completely confused about why we need the Bill, but also why there's opposition to the Bill.

There shouldn't be opposition to the Bill unless, you know, MPA is really jockeying for a carve out, frankly. I'll just be very candid. In a close reading of their opposition letter, really kind of indicates, hey, this Bill, on the one hand, doesn't do a lot in terms of changing remedies, so why are we doing it?

On the other hand, our, you know, our industry is, you know, concerned and, you know, those are kind of code words for once you try to help our industry. So, we're, we're talking to them, we're working with them as much as we, we can get responses back, in terms of what amendment?

You know, we've all been through this. What amendment would you like? I don't have anything like that on the table and we're happy with the Bill the way it is.

So, until, you know, we can get opposition to put something on the table, in terms of a proposed amendment, you know, we're kind of going to be in this, you know, in this no man's land, no person's land, that you and I are in right now.

Mr. Chair, may I ask for the opposition witness to come back up and ask a question?

Sure. If they want to. Opposition have any comments? I think Assemblymember Zbur wants to ask a question as well.

May I, Mr. Zbur?

Yes.

I'm not prepared today to take on the First Amendment concerns that the Motion Picture Association has, it—but we are happy to continue the conversation and unfortunately, today will rest on the memo only in our position.

I should clarify, Mr. Zbur, that this 3344 applies only to commercial—commercial speech, commercial publication. So, again, we need to get to where and when.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, you know, in the industry that the opposition is representing, but we need to hear more about that, so we can see if there's something we can do about it in the Bill.

But you're, you're committed to working with them if they come up with proposed amendments?

Absolutely. We've, we've already started and I really appreciate their respectful approach because I, I think they've come in acknowledging that we've already, you know, begun the dialogue and it's been serious and I've, you know, we have our best people on it in the office.

Yeah, I mean, the only reason I'm saying then—it's the last thing I'll say is—you know, just sort of confused about the Bill. It just, on one hand, it doesn't seem like it does very much other than some of these limitations, so I don't understand why it's needed.

On the other hand, I don't understand why there's opposition to it, but I do sort of care about for me, when you are reducing discretion of the judge, I tend to be nervous about it because in some cases, and in fact, if it's, you know, harming a major industry in my area, I care about making sure that, that we don't do something that's inadvertently harmful, that is not necessarily needed.

But I'll support the Bill today, given the commitment that you'll continue working with them if they come up with proposed amendments, so thank you.

Senator Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Senator. And I'm just happy that I'm not the only subject of MPA's ire in this space. So, there we go, That's my happiness on this Bill. So, I do share some of the concerns of my colleague, in part because I think that in the commercial setting, it would be incredibly hard to show irreparable harm.

I mean, I think that you would be able to get damages for that, such that a court is not likely to grant a TRO in this setting. And so, I had a couple questions. One is I think it is appropriate for this Committee to be dealing with the First Amendment issues, this being the Judiciary Committee.

So, I think—am wondering if we can try to flush those out a little bit. And I'm wondering if the First Amendment Coalition wants to come up and weigh in to expand on that, if that's okay with the Chair.

If they have feedback that they'd like to offer to your comment, sure.

Yeah. I will say again that I do appreciate the conversation that we've had with the author's office. We don't—we're not openly opposed to the Bill.

I think that, you know, as others have said, if I can reference the letter, you know, the, the concern that we have here would be the allowing of a plaintiff to seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to compel the takedown of a name or likeness on the allegation that the publication is for improper commercial use.

We, we're not outright opposed to the Bill, but do think that the Bill is, is, is fundamentally not, not really moving the ball forward. I'll say that. Okay.

So, that's a soft concern, so that was helpful.

It is a soft concern.

Thank you. So, given that, I mean, I think, again, this is commercial speech, and I think it is incredibly important that the court has discretion. So, I want to thank the Committee for that Amendment because I think it's really important.

My main concern was actually setting a precedent where we set a temporary restraining order could go for 48 hours, because where you're showing irreparable harm, 48 hours can be a very long time. And most TROs are immediate for a reason.

I think we're in a setting where, you know, obviously technology is difficult, so I think that's why you're giving them a little more time. But I think the judge is in the best position to decide what the soonest possible moment is, and that's what the judge should, should do in a—given if you've met this standard.

Then, the last question I had for you was most of your support is from domestic violence organizations. That was a little bit confusing to me because, again, commercial settings only for this Bill. So, I do understand how deepfakes can be used in many ways to harass, to threaten in a domestic violence setting.

But it surprised me that that would be true under this Bill where it's commercial in nature. Can you touch on that a little bit? The letters didn't.

Well, I think there can be.

Draw that out.

Yeah. I think under commercial speech, or pure political speech, or any other speech that's covered in the First Amendment, you can have exploitation as one of the types of expression that occurs.

And I think domestic violence advocates see that and, and feel that. 3344 again, which has been around since John Vasconcellos was here and wrote the Bill, is a commercial speech bill.

So, I think many of us in the Legislature are taking, I don't want to say baby steps, but the steps that we can take to make sure that remedies are clear and are as immediate as possible.

Again, as you acknowledge this Bill, it really creates a backstop at 48 hours, but doesn't preclude judicial discretion on the speed of the remedy, the TRO, nor does it.

And I think this is the most important thing I'll say is it takes absolutely nothing away from the judge in terms of making the baseline judgment as to whether or not there's content issues, First Amendment issues, that need to be protected or not, whether there's imminent harm or not.

But I don't think it's hard to come up with examples of commercial speech. You know, I think even maybe more so today than 40 years ago, where you have it is commercial speech because it's embedded with promotion, with advertising, and so forth. And, you know, somebody's—somebody's image is hijacked as part of that.

I'm reluctant to give specific examples because the Bill is not about any one specific example, or platform, or medium. But, I mean, it's pretty—I see it. You know, I do 10 minutes of looking at commercial speech just about every night, and.

You have a lot of restraint, Senator. That's a lot of restraint, to be on social media for 10 minutes.

As we know, all you have to do is turn on streaming. But this, this Bill doesn't, you know, it's not necessarily about that or about, you know, what I see, or what examples I could come up with. I just think the examples are ubiquitous at this point.

And, you know, plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel, I think will be well served, you know, to have us, in effect, put a little bit of a marquee up in 3344 and say, you know, a TRO is available to you under the right circumstances.

You don't need to do a lot of further research or shepardizing trying to figure out how to get to a TRO if your client, whether they're from Hollywood or anywhere else, you know, has been usurped side by side, you know, with, you know, with what otherwise would be, you know, some kind of mainstream advertising.

Okay, well, thank you, Senator, for answering the questions. I saw those letters, and I...

Thank you for your work. I appreciate it.

Thanks. And I take seriously the domestic violence advocates, and I think this new age of technology does make survivors of domestic violence more vulnerable. So, I wanted to address that a little bit, but appreciate it. I'll be supporting it as well, because I concur with my colleague that I think this is already the law.

I think you've said that actually, in saying that you're just putting up a marquee. And I think that remedies—courts are best poised to decide what the appropriate remedy is, and this is one of them.

And so, I think, I don't see it being applied often, given that I think often, besides the domestic violence setting, perhaps, which is why I thought those letters were of note, there would be irreparable harm. I think in other cases, you could just compensate the individual. So, with that, I don't know if it's been moved, but I would.

If not, I would move it.

Motion. We have a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second? Okay, we have a second. And before we go to further comments, I just want to note that, as has been indicated, the author did accept amendments to give the courts judicial discretion. If they determine that the TRO needs to be put in place immediately, they can do so.

Also, I would just note on Pages 5 and 6, you'll see the excellent staff analysis. The, the opposition came in just a few days ago, so there hasn't been much time for the author to absorb it or for work together with opposition. But as we heard from opposition, they're all eager to continue to work with the Senator which is good. Assemblymember Pacheco.

Yes, thank you. I think I'm on the same page as my colleague, Assemblmember Zbur, of our little confused as to the opposition. I can understand why you're doing it. I know the courts already have the authority to do the TRO or an injunction—or injunctive relief, sorry. But I'm curious.

Maybe opposition could say, is one of the reasons to oppose because more time is needed? I was actually reading the memo right now and so, is more time needed? I know in the Bill currently, it's two days and motion pictures, I don't know. I know with the other opposition it's you would like to see immediate injunctive relief.

Is that what it is?

With the Chair's permission?

Tony Gonzalez, on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America. First, I have to apologize. We did not submit a letter. We've been trying to secure a meeting with the Senator for about a month and that hasn't happened yet. But here we are today.

Our concern really is just that the two-day default in the statute is averse to the interests of the rights' holders and that the if the word "immediate" is offensive, that we would be happy to propose instead "technically and practically feasible," which in my understanding is common in federal law in this regard.

Our interest is in securing—protecting—the copyright holders' rights and if it's not technically and practically feasible within three days or five days, as determined by court, fine. But if it's technically and practically feasible immediately, that should be the standing order.

So, I understand the, the, the framework of the perspective of the Bill immediate, or that the court would have up to two day—or grant up to two days.

But we think that up to two days would become the default and would be adverse to the interest of artists and you know, the celebrated circumstances, whether it's Taylor Swift having her image misused for commercial purposes in offensive ways or songs being used for political campaigns—and I think we're familiar with that—where an injunction was granted and was enforced immediately. We think that should be the default.

But if I'm reading the Bill correctly, it says that the court can require faster compliance.

Can, but up to two days. And we're concerned that up to two days would be the standing default and we're not sure why, why two days? Why not technically and practically feasible, which could be 1 minute, 1 hour, or 10 days.

In our world, this is really important because the, the, the status of some of these artists and what can be done with their image or, or their songs in that period of time in which they're being misappropriated.

Okay.

And then, I'm curious to hear from the Motion Picture Association whether the Motion Picture Association also agrees with these comments.

Again, assemblymember my apologies. We are having those conversations. We're trying to align our concerns with some of the other stakeholders, and I promise that we're eager to have this conversation, but I'm not prepared today to do that.

Okay. Well, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I know opposition came in late, even though you already made it through the senate. So I'm hopeful that conversations will continue. I'm a little baffled as to the opposition, and so I am supporting your bill today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm kind of baffled by this discussion. Having sat through many hearings in the last year on privacy and misuse of personal information and remedies related to that, I find this compellingly powerful because it's so simple. If you have domestic violence victims and you have the college players, athletes involved, there's a problem here somewhere.

And if I understand what you're trying to do is just if you have to have an injunction and if it's not a permanent injunction, give 20-48 hours to just review and see if there's merit to the police. So I think it's a smart bill, frankly, because it's is simple and straightforward. I agree.

I don't know why the opposition would be opposed, but I, having seen all the complexities on platforms and issues related to platforms and all the things that we're dealing with in privacy and these kinds of issues, I think this is very straightforward. I'll support the bill.

I'm just trying to see, listening to all this, what don't I understand, But I think I do. So thank you. Thank you. I'll be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Papan.

I just thank you for the bill. I too, am a little confused. Has there been temporary restraining orders that have been issued and there's been a dearth of specificity out there.

I can't even say it, let alone have it exist, but nonetheless, because usually judges are exercising their discretion and saying this is what I think is fair with how you should comply with it.

And again, as you know, you have to plead for what you want. I mean, it's a rare judge that you go into law and motion with, with a general request for injunctive relief that, you know, comes back in a lands, you know, writes the remedy for you. So we're just again trying to telegraph to folks.

We've- We've, I'll tell you what I have heard and you know, I, if I have to in this committee, I'll give the name of the family.

But I've had families come to us from Santa Clara County, from the chair of same county who have lost young people as young as 15 years old who have said the problem, what caused- what caused the suicide, what caused the self infliction is we couldn't get it down, right? We couldn't get it down.

And when, you know, you can push back on that like we're all doing here as attorneys and say, well probably you could have gotten it down had you had the right attorney and gone in for injunctive release and asked for a 527 relief and you know, said, I need this down immediately, it's my 15 year old kid, you know, but the fact that people aren't finding that remedy and don't know it exists and are sitting there flailing, trying to figure out can the DA or somebody do something about this when they have a plain specific remedy available to them under 527, we're just trying to put that there in the bill on the commercial speech side at least that, you know, that would protect them if it was commercial speech.

And you know, just no more- no more guessing about what's available to you. And then the question becomes, I think, you know, in terms of opposition, I respect their industries. Not the same as every fact pattern that's going to come up.

But, you know, how long is too long, you know, in those kind of circumstances, you know, where a minor, for example, has been the subject of what would be in effect a 3344 violation, should we wait a week to take that down? What if it's illicit, you know, how long should we leave that up?

So I think the bill strikes a balance between saying, look, in today's world, in two business days you should be able to get it down. I haven't heard anybody actually show us, you know, logistically why that can't happen.

But if someone can, you know, in the, in, you know, in terms of making sure we're not disrupting the stream of commerce or practicality, we should probably take a look at that.

They just need to be specific and say, you know, where does that occur in, in today's world that you can't, something that you put up in a matter of seconds, you can't take down in two business days.

Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur.

Sorry to belabor this. I've just been looking at the, at the documents. I mean, I. So first of all, I think the genesis of the bill is obvious, obviously worthwhile. I mean people- people, you know, through deepfakes and using people's likenesses, especially with kids.

You know, I understand why you would want to flag the, the ability to seek injunctive relief. You know, in looking at this though, you know, I am concerned about the two day period from both, both sides.

And we've got the copyright holders who are worried about two days becoming a presumptive amount of time when it should be shorter.

I assume that you've got the Motion Picture Association looking at, at limiting the judge's discretion where you might have a TRO that becomes immediate, but the things that they're ordered to do may take longer than two days. And so I would urge you to try to conform this to the normal standards for injunctive relief.

And then I just like to have a, you know, the other set of issues that they're raising, and this is not an area that I know at all, but you know, is related to prior restraints on speech, which I do think are different both for the copyright holders and the MPA and frankly, probably what you're trying to do, given sort of who else is supporting this.

So just want to ask again, your commitment to both work on the free speech issues and conforming the injunctive relief. I think if, you know, if the thing that is compelling to me is actually highlighting the availability to this, but I am concerned about the differences between this standard and unintended consequences.

And so I urge you to try to conform this to the normal procedures.

Absolutely. You know, we'll keep looking at it. My understanding of my own bill is that the judge has discretion again, as amended, has discretion even over the 48 hours. So I think that's, you know, I hope I didn't lean in too hard on the 48 hours as a backstop and mislead anybody.

But the way the bill is amended now, it's completely up to the judge, you know, but it certainly encourages the plaintiff to walk into law and motion and make that plea. I'll acknowledge that that's what I'm trying to do. Judge, we need 48 hours.

But the way the bill is written, the judge still gets to say no, I think it should be four days. You know, that's the way we left it. So I think.

But I, as a commitment to you and your concern, which I feel is obviously very genuine, we'll go back and reread and make sure and actually come back to committee staff. That's okay with the chair and make sure we've got it exactly right.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Comments? Well, for a bill that purportedly doesn't do a whole lot. A whole lot of conversation. But in all seriousness, I do think this is a very important clarification. The stakeholders you're representing have lobbyists and all what have you, and I do appreciate the opposition being here and raising these concerns.

As a colleague mentioned, this did make it through the senate and is here now. But at the end of the day, it looks like opposition. And you are all willing to continue to work on some of the details that might be unique to certain industries, which is not necessarily the focus of what your intentions are.

But we want to make sure that concerns are dealt with in an appropriate manner. This is a space that I know our Chair of Privacy, myself and others have done some work in. So I really appreciate you leaning in on an issue that.

That whose focus is really those victims that don't have folks to stand up for them oftentimes. So I really appreciate that. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you again. And the motion is due. Pass as amended, to privacy and consumer protection. Kara.

[roll call]

Alright, that bill is out unanimously. Thank you. Yeah. Chair Umberg. Yeah. So I believe Senator Umberg will be presenting both his own bill as well as SB 11 on behalf of Senator Ashby. You can choose whatever order you would like, sir.

Alright, well, let's do SCR 66 first. Okay.

We have a motion. Is there a second? And a second.

Oh, you know what? I do have a witness here for Senator Ashby's bill, so I'm gonna change my mind.

We won't table that bill with the motion. We'll have the motion sitting around on the table somewhere. And we'll come back to SB 11.

All right. SB11. Artificial intelligence abuse, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, I am presenting the bill this morning for Senator Ashby, who unfortunately could not be here. I'd like to accept the Committee's amendments. The AI Abuse Protection Act establishes a legal framework for regulating artificial intelligence, voice, image and video cloning technology.

It requires a warning when someone is basically purveying an artificial intelligence model that says, hey, this could be misused. It also requires that the Judicial Council develop standards for regulating artificial intelligence in connection with evidence, with me here to testify is Dr. Professor Jay Jassima, AI Developer and co-founder of Transparency Coalition. Thank you.

Chair, please. Thank you, Sharon. Members of the Committee. Thank you. Senator Umberg. We're an independent nonprofit which advocates for increased transparency and accountability in generative AI. And here are the reasons why I think you should support SB11. I think, as we all know, that there's clear evidence of consumer harm from creation or abuse of these tools.

The second is that AI model developers have a duty of care that they're not fulfilling. They're able to produce images because when these models are being developed or tested, proper care is not being exercised. There's also third evidence that consumer warnings can affect behavior. And obviously the State of California is a leader in deploying them.

We also believe that strong penalties and legal recourse will encourage model developers to exercise greater care, especially with a penal code violation and civil litigation provision. We think that that's a very important provision. I think the last thing we want to say about this is that the Judicial Council guidelines are super important.

There's a lot of concern around the integrity of judicial evidence, and there's technologies available to properly label and ensure that the data is secure all the way through to consideration. So. But I think making that clear in the law would be super helpful, and this Bill calls for that.

So, Israeli, thank you for the opportunity and urge the Committee to pass with a strong recommendation.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB11?

Good morning. Crystal Straight representing Common Sense Media in support. Thank you.

Ellie Fenton, student intern at Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Brandon Knapp representing Chamber of Progress in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB11? We have a motion and a second. Any further comment or questions? Well, thank you, Senator. This is, as mentioned, a space that many of us have also done work in, and it's very complicated.

Yet I know that you and your team have been working diligently and appreciate your work with our Committee of Staff as well. Would you like to close?

I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The recommendations do pass. As amended to public safety. Karlra.

[Roll call]

Thank you. That bill is out, so we'll thank Senator Ashby and Her team for their work on that. And thank you for presenting Senator Umberg. And then you have SCR66.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Typically, a Law Day resolution would be like recognizing California's potato growers. Not particularly controversial. Not so much this year. This recognizes May 1st as Law Day. I know we passed May 1st, but it's still an important resolution. It's an important resolution to recognize May 1st.

The reason that we have Law Day on May 1st is because President Eisenhower noticed that in what's now the former Soviet Union and in many Eastern Bloc countries, as well as other countries that are controlled by Communist dictatorships, that that was an important day. It was a day of celebration, much like our fourth of July.

And to counterpose what we do in the United States, he established Law Day to recognize the rule of law and the importance in terms of maintaining democracy. I think that that issue has been characterized as fairly esoteric.

In fact, at a recent meeting with some of my constituents, person asked me, said, what does the rule of law do to the price of eggs? Why do I care about the rule of law in connection with the price of eggs?

And the response is, the reason you care about the rule of law and the price of eggs is because without the rule of law, we don't have eggs. Without the rule of law, we don't have democracy.

It's an esoteric topic, but we have not done, and I'll take responsibility myself for communicating to our constituents the importance of the rule of law. Particularly important today with what's going on in and around California and the United States.

The challenge that we have is that there are some who don't recognize the rule of law as others might.

So, for example, where you basically try to put law firms out of business because you don't like their clients or you don't like the individuals that may be associated or involved or employed by that law firm, you basically attempt to put them out of business.

And this resolution commends those law firms that have stood up and said, look it, this is an abrogation of what we stood for for the last couple centuries and how important it is for those of us in the profession to stand up for the rule of law.

And I count eight Members of the profession here on this Committee, which is more than exists in the entire State Senate. So I hope that you'll join with me. You'll join with me in recognizing May 1st as Law Day and establishing our support for the rule of law, but that I originally vote. All right, is there.

Is there anyone else Here in support of SCR66. Anyone here in opposition? SCR66 Committee? We already have a motion. Any other further questions or comments, Assembly Member Pacheco?

I would love to be added as a co-author.

Happy to do so.

Thank you, Assembly Mayor Bryan?

No, I think this is incredibly timely, Senator. I think it probably should have sailed through on consent, but I think things that make a lot of common sense seem to be controversial in the current moment. I didn't recognize it was President Eisenhower who singled out May 1.

He's been a very interesting topic as of late for his willingness to follow the directives of the Supreme Court in regards to Brown vs Board of Education and other important rulings that they had.

He also was one of the very few presidents who commandeered the National Guard of the State of Arkansas, I believe, to overrule George Wallace, Governor Wallace and local law enforcement who were preventing black children from integrating schools and getting equal access to education, decisively different than what we're seeing here in California in this exact moment, with a case being heard today about the constitutionality and the rule of law under the actions of the current President.

So I just want to thank you for bringing this resolution forward. I think sometimes things happen at the time and speed in which they're supposed to. And so even though we've missed May 1st, I think it's. It's. I'm grateful to be hearing this today, and you definitely have my support, Senator Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this. And I think that all of us who practice law are reflecting on what the law means at this moment. My first internship in law school was at the ACLU. I remember they were at the time working on a case for protecting the constitutional rights of neo Nazis.

As the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, that made me incredibly uncomfortable. But I also understood that the rule of law is the rule of law, and a constitutional right is meaningless unless it's protected for everybody. I then went on to work at a big law firm.

Many of our clients, people thought, were not folks who you would want to be aligned with. And I don't think we believed we were aligned with them.

We believed that the judicial system only works when everybody has access to counsel and that it was our job to represent faithfully our clients and for the other side to do the same and for the courts to find justice where appropriate.

And I find it incredibly frightening at this moment that we would have attorneys who would choose clients for any other reason that they deserve representation, because that is what will make the judicial system I Think crumble.

And so I really appreciate this, and I know there are so many lawyers out there who right now are standing up and speaking out loudly to your point, to defend the rule of law, to defend the judiciary. But it is not about whether we agree or disagree on the merits of a case.

It is about allowing for the law to do its thing and decide where the chips fall at the end of very difficult arguments, long cases, and then complying, because that is what allows our society to stand up, which you've so adeptly talked about.

And so I think this is really important at this moment, and I hope that we can all sort of take a moment to pause and realize what our role is at this moment in protecting law and the judiciary so that we have a democracy that is as strong as it needs to be.

So I appreciate that, and I'd also like to be out as a co author.

All right. Any other comments or questions? Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I think it's important at this point also to recognize and commend those who have the courage to stand up for the rule of law.

In particular, I want to commend the President, the current President of the United States, for appointing US District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez, District Judge Carl Nichols, US District Court Judge Stephanie Gallagher, US District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, and US District Court Judge Trevor Mcfadden, all of whom were appointed by the current President, all of whom have stood up for the rule of law and ruled against the current Administration.

And with that, I urge an aye vote.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Members, add ons for a consent calendar.

For consent calendar. Brian. Brian I. Connolly. Connolly, on consent. Damon Connolly on consent. Connolly. Aye. And then also the two of them.

All right, so add ons for item three.

Item three is SB450. Brian. Brian I. Connolly. Connolly, I.

Okay. And then item four. SB 477.

[Roll call]

Okay. All right. We have Senator Caballero, item seven, SB808.

Wow, perfect timing.

Yeah. We have a motion, a second.

That's always good news.

Yeah.

Well, good afternoon. Well, it's not afternoon yet, but it's still good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. To present SB 808, which would create an expedited judicial review process when a local housing permit application is denied in violation of state law.

California, as you all know, faces a housing affordability crisis fueled in large part by our state's housing shortage and the inability to build new housing. As a body, this legislature has taken action to encourage housing production through various legislative and investment strategies.

We've streamlined permitting processes, we've decreased increased density, we've created by right processes, we've required local governments to use transparent processes to evaluate housing proposal, and we have invested billions of dollars over the course of the last decade. Despite these policy and budget efforts, our housing supply is still woefully inadequate to meet the needs of our residents.

Some local agencies, in an attempt to block projects from moving forward, knowingly deny housing permits in violation of state law, while housing developers have the ability to contest an impermissible impermissible permit denial via litigation. The fact is that most of these project denials will never go to court because of the time and cost associated with legal action.

And even though the Attorney General's Office also has the authority to contest improper housing denials, they simply don't have the capacity to bring these challenges. When local agencies deny housing projects, they don't only harm developers and housing projects, but they also exacerbate our state's affordability crisis.

To address these concerns, SB 808 would create an expedited judicial review, bring swift resolution to these cases to allow projects to move quickly, and will incentivize local governments to process applications in accordance with state law without altering the authority of local governments.

With me to testify today in support of the bill is Sosan Madanat, representing California DMB, and Deputy Attorney General Jana Staniford, Legislative advocate for Attorney General Robert Rob Bonta. Additionally, we have Alex Fish, Special Assistant Attorney General for Housing, available to answer any technical questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Jana Staniford for the Attorney General's Office. I want to start by thanking Senator Caballero for authoring this important bill which the AG is proud to sponsor. AG Bonta is committed to using all the tools available to the Department of Justice to advance housing access, affordability and equity in California.

He understands that Californians are counting on their elected officials to bring the cost of living down. And we know that lack of housing supply is leading to skyrocketing housing prices.

The legislature has passed laws to ensure that local governments will approve lawful housing projects and use quick and clear processes to make decisions about housing proposals in accordance with their own plans and with state law. But sometimes there's still resistance at the local level.

And sometimes local governments still force builders to choose between asserting their rights in court or just walking away from building housing that supposed to be allowed by state law. Litigation delay can kill a project altogether.

It also drives up the cost of building housing, which especially impacts smaller builders and smaller projects which can't support the cost of monthly legal bills and interest payments. So litigation delay becomes a real barrier to building homes.

SB 808 would create an expedited RIP procedure to speed up processing of Housing Accountability act and ministerial approval law cases which are brought as writ actions under a code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 or 1085. We want to avoid projects folding during the litigation process and incentivize local governments to do the right thing without litigation.

There's already expedited judicial review for other housing laws, including housing element cases and certain First Amendment related housing permitting disputes.

We think it makes a lot of sense, especially in this, you know, this very dire housing crisis that's making life unaffordable for so many Californians to also expedite judicial review of these project level disputes where local governments have failed to follow the law and process and approve applications to build housing. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee, Sosan Madanat here today speaking in support of SB 808 on behalf of California EMB. California EMB is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state a more affordable place to live, work and raise a family.

SB 808 tackles a frustrating and all too common problem in California. Housing projects that comply with local plans and comply with state law, but are still denied by local governments for reasons that don't hold up in court. These denials are not just wrong, but affect the state's progress towards reaching its housing goals.

Every unlawful delay means more families are priced out, more workers are commuting hours to their jobs, and more children are growing up without a secure place to call home. When developers, especially smaller local builders, try to fight in court for authority to build more homes, they face years of costly litigation.

Often this litigation prevents projects from ever breaking ground. SB 808 creates a faster, more efficient judicial process to resolve these disputes. It doesn't strip local control. It simply states that if a denial violates state law, that issue should be resolved swiftly, fairly and without unnecessary delay.

We have found ways to expedite judicial review in other areas throughout the state on other policies, and we believe it's time to apply that same urgency to the housing crisis. With that, I respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 808?

Mr. Chair, members. Bob Naylor, representing Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. an Orange County philanthropist. In strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Buckeye Properties, Council of Infill Builders, Habitat for Humanity California, Lennar, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, and SPUR, all in strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB808?

Hello, Mr. Chair and members. Have the rest of the chairs here with Judicial Council of California in respectful opposition. The Judicial Council does appreciate, understand, and sympathize with the desire to add housing.

However, due to the adroitly written analysis, the committee, or excuse me, the council is opposed, as this bill would establish an unreasonable, expedited judicial review process. It would also require the court to hear matters and issue decisions within unreasonable time frames.

And it requires temporary assignment of judicial officers, which sounds like a relief gap, but it really is not as though that because there are not other judges in which us to reassign. So for those reasons, the counsel is opposed.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB808?

David Bollog, on my behalf of myself in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. A motion. We already have a motion on the table. Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Battle Cahan.

I want to thank the Senator for this bill, and I venture to actually say something that I think she might agree with. But we keep expediting things in the courts, and I agree this should be expedited, but I also think it just highlights a major problem in our courts.

And every time we fast-track something, it means somebody else who needs access to justice is being pushed further back in line. And so I support the bill. I'm happy to vote for it.

But I think in addition to this, we also need to make sure we're working on getting our courts to a place where everyone has expedited access to justice, because that is what justice means. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I'm of two minds. I certainly am a strong advocate for housing. We all know that, without even speaking about it.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

However, as long as we've been speaking about it and coming from the local perspective, serving on City Council, when all these bills, starting in 2016, 17, 18, 19, to the present times, have been coming and stripping away local control, a lot of it has already happened taking away local control.

And while we do all these bills to expedite, to strip away, to give power to the state, the end of the day, the elephant in the room is CEQA. And one of the speakers were talking about the costly litigation. Developers today go through extremely long delays dealing with CEQA. And I think this is a bipartisan issue.

I know certain assemblymembers also have spoken who have been involved in the housing issue, have spoken about CEQA, and to my colleagues, comments about the court delays also.

And I think in the current budget, someone could correct me if I'm wrong, that the Judicial Council's recommendation for additional manpower and courtrooms has been denied in the current budget. So we're squeezing the court system. And the real problem is CEQA. And I understand if there's a law that the cities should comply.

So I'm not defending cities disobeying the law. But I think the real problem being thrust upon cities is that CEQA is creating the cost. Cities are being blamed or held responsible when the real cost for housing and the statistics still exist.

10, 20,000 dollars per housing unit is passed on from a developer after having spent years and years and years and years in court battling CEQA. And yet now the cities are saying they're the bad guys because they're slowing things down.

I actually thought in one of these laws that were passed during my time on the City Council, I can't remember what year it was, but in the last six or seven years that there was a limit put on the number of hearings that a housing development could be heard before a local agency.

So there is a cap on the number of hearings, and I think there is a time period. So I'm trying to understand why we're putting little fixes when the bigger problem is CEQA, as well as the problem, and it's going to occur in the court system.

That means a lot to me because we all know that the courts are overloaded. So I have great respect for the Judicial Council's point of view. So I have two minds on this. The local control, the courtrooms, the CEQA issues. I don't think this is the answer to what we need to do.

And I'm hearing it all these years. I'm getting more bills, more bills, more bills. And we still have a housing crisis. Why don't we get to the core of the problem? And that's my comment. So, thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a lot to unpack in that. First, I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I found it particularly compelling. The witness, who formerly served as the mayor of Culver City and a good friend, local friend. CEQA is one of the is the most important environmental protection law we have on the books.

It has also caused delays at times. And you have seen no time in California's history when there's been greater CEQA reform. This has nothing to do with CEQA. This has to do with local jurisdictions denying improperly using existing law to stop housing that they also don't want to build.

This is about bad actors at the local level and delay tactics to stall out housing development projects and providing expedited review. That's important. That's one of the main tweaks we do to CEQA is expedite judicial review so it can't be used to delay, increase costs, or stop developments altogether.

We do have a motion.

This is a smart and sensible bill and I want to thank the author who always brings smart and sensible bills. And if there's not a motion, I'd be happy to make one.

Thank you. And thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I do understand, and I could be corrected. Judicial Council just recently submitted their opposition letter. Right. It wasn't submitted in the Senate. And is that correct? I don't know if the opposition wants to chime in.

Assemblymember Pacheco.

Through the chair I believe we submitted in appropriations in the first house.

Yeah, we've had discussions about this for a while, but I don't remember if there was a letter, to tell you the truth. But we knew that there was opposition by the Judicial Council. And with all due respect to the Judicial Council, they always object to every expedited review. So it's kind of like par for the course.

With all due respect, really, honestly, because I also recognize that during tough budget times, it's easy to say no to the Judicial Council as opposed to feeding people and making sure kids get to school and all that kind of good stuff. So I really do respect the position, which is that they need resources.

And I completely understand that. And I think from reading the analysis, there's a way to get to a point where the courts would be okay with this bill. So I'm looking forward to the conversations that you have with judicial counsel, especially since they're, you know, late in submitting a letter, maybe an approach in the Senate.

Thank you.

So I'm looking forward to the conversations that will be held. Looking forward to the, the final version of this bill, and I will be supporting it today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other question or comment? I want to thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And, and I, I'm definitely sensitive to concerns from Judicial Council. You know, whenever, especially when you add expedited processes. It does require resources. At the same time, they're going to be, I guess, other.

Some of the cases that may be, may have been extended for many months or years, but also I guess reduce some of the, the work in the courts on the back end. But it's that short end cost of making sure that we have enough judges and enough court staff to be able to handle it.

And so I look forward to continued conversations there. At the end of the day, there's only. There's a limitation as to what the court's going to do unless we give them more resources collectively. And I think all of us support doing that. It's just how do we do it in the budget environment.

We have to, I think, always understand that the court system is not a department of the government or the executive branch.

It's a separate branch of the government that we need to be very respectful of in terms of ensuring that we're appropriately funding, so that some of the important work that's being done by you and others can be done in a way that we intend. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate all the comments. I, it is my hope, and you know one, when you create a solution that's going to expedite a process, the first few cases that go through are the painful ones.

And after that, I believe that the cities and the counties are going to recognize that with an expedited process, they might as well move things along because otherwise you're paying expensive litigation defenses that will impact. I think the impact on the court is not going to be as bad as they think it's going to be.

But I also recognize that we need to fund them and it may make sense to put a special cadre of judges that have expertise in housing law.

Because the challenge is you've got to come up to speed with what the housing law says in order to evaluate whether they're the city or the county is being recalcitrant and not following the law in, in their processes. So it's my belief that it won't. It will not.

There will not be as many cases as as projected by the Judicial Council.

Thank you.

Motions do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, bill's out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you for being here.

Senator Wiener, with our final two bills, File Item 2, SP59, and File Item 5, SP497.

Which one would you like first?

Whichever one you'd like to go with.

We'll start with SB 59 Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Colleagues here to present SB 59 to protect the privacy of transgender people in California and to protect them from harassment, doxing, and other forms of intimidation that were that are all too common today. I'm happy to accept the Committee's amendments. Thank you for working with us.

SB 59 will protect privacy and safety of trans and non binary people by requiring that any petition for a change of gender, sex identifier and name and any papers associated with that proceeding will be kept confidential automatically by the court. This builds on a 2023 law authored by Assemblymember Ward that enacted these protections for minors.

This will expand those protections to adults as well. SB 69 also makes retroactive these protections for people over the age of 18. Colleagues, I think you're very aware that Trans people are facing a brutal assault from our federal Administration. This started at the grassroots, extremist level in terms of online campaigns harassing, just horribly mistreating and slandering Trans people.

It rose up to state legislatures a few years back with laws to criminalize parents of Trans kids for seeking health care for them. A movement that supposedly believes in parental rights decided to start literally criminalizing parents, criminalizing doctors, you know, banning trans people from basically participating in any form of public life.

And we have now seen this rise to the. To the White House, where we have a President who in the first two weeks of being in office, with all the problems in the world, decided to focus half a dozen Executive orders on trans people, 1% of the population.

We know that Ttans people are at exceptionally high risk of being victimized by violence, up to and including death. And it's important for California to stand strong with our Trans neighbors. And this is a very basic common sense measure to help protect their privacy so that they are not doxxed and intimidated online and elsewhere.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify is Kanan Durham, founder and Executive Director of Pride at the Pier, and Jonathan Clay, who is representing alliance for Trans Youth Rights.

Thank you.

Hello. I'd like to advise today that my testimony today involves the retelling of a deeply personal experience of mine and will reference some direct quotes that include some upsetting language. Thank you for understanding my name. Is Kanan Durham and I'm a transgender man from Huntington Beach.

I'm also the founder and Executive Director of Pride at the Pier, a non profit organization dedicated to educating and empowering the LGBTQ community to get involved in local politics and civic systems.

This bill is immensely important to me as I've personally experienced the trauma of having my legal dead name being spread online for the purposes of intimidation and humiliation. Last spring, I received notification of a series of posts that were being spread around social media.

A group of self identified, quote, surf nazis from my community had doxxed me, sharing my personal, personally identifying information online and inviting people to use that information to hurt me. Front and center was my formal legal name, which I had changed in the court system. They said, quote, reason for the docs.

Kanan Durham runs and created the Pride of the Pier organization which organizes protests, making of pride flags and other degeneracy throughout Orange County. Also Tranny, unquote.

The group behind the docs, which was never caught, continue to spread this information online with posts like, quote, these people are finally learning we don't want to see their degenerate and homosexual ideology anymore, unquote. Concluding each post with, quote, faggots. They even escalated to sending things to my home.

The day that I received my court approved name change was one of the best days of my life. Being able to update my IDs and my voter registration was an incredible freedom. Since I was doxed, that joy has been tainted with fear and concern for my safety.

Please pass SB 59 and help other Trans people be safe from experiences like mine. At a time when the transgender community is under attack, allowing Trans people to choose when and how they decide to share their personal information information is vital to protect their safety and well being. We all have a right to basic dignity and privacy.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Jonathan Clay here on this one. Just get a little closer there here. On behalf of the alliance for Trans Youth Rights and Trans Family Support Services, please to be co sponsors on SB 59. Senator Wiener and Kanan did a great job of highlighting the issues facing transgender people these days.

And I'd like to kind of get into the weeds a little bit about why having the changes embodied in SB 59 are so important, especially for the families that are using the services of Trans Family Support Services.

As Senator Wiener mentioned, The Legislature passed AB 223 in 2023, providing levels of confidentiality and protection for those youth going through name and gender change. This was because of the threats those people were facing. As well as families wanted to protect their own privacy.

One of the issues being addressed in SB 59 is that anyone that went through this process prior to AB 223 becoming law don't have those same protections. The Legislature said this is the policy of the state, but yet a whole class of people don't have those protections or an easy way to be able to get those.

If you want to try and get confidentiality for a name and gender change that happened before 223 took effect, you have to basically hire attorney, go through the court process, have a hearing before a judge. This is an expensive and difficult process to navigate if you don't have the experience.

And SB 59 is attempting to bring the same level of ministerial actions that were done for 223 to anyone that went through that process prior and specific to the current court process.

We've had families go through the process in the same regional court, but yet it had different outcomes, even though they've had the same documents based on just the judge. And you know how that process goes. So SB 59 will also then be able to bring kind of a equalizing of how people experience going through that process.

Happy to answer any other questions or about the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 59?

Mr. Chair Members, thank you. Mr. Chair Members. Kobe Pizotti on behalf of the City of Redwood City in strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

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

Erin Evans on behalf of the County of Santa Clara and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Ryan Souza on behalf of APLA Health. San Francisco AIDS foundation and Essential Access. Health and support, thank you.

Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth and support, thank you.

Symphoni Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood. Affiliates of California in support, thank you.

Marty Roby with Trans Family Support Services. And support, thank you.

Sumaya Nahar here on behalf of the San Mateo county in support, thank you.

Craig Pulsar on behalf of Equality California Proud co-sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Alicia Benavies on behalf of ACLU Cal. Action and strong support, thank you.

Second, we have a motion. A second. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 59?

Romy Mancini, former attorney for the ACLU, current Member of our duty, and a Member of the gay community. SB59 automatically seals sex marker and name changes both prospectively and retroactively, while imposing severe penalties of at least 5, $5,000 plus attorney's fees on anyone who discloses this information. Even without a showing of actual harm.

This Bill violates the First Amendment. Judicial records are presumptively public. Courts seal them only in rare circumstances after careful review. SB59 creates a blanket disclosure ban without any court finding. This is blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that the sealing of public records serve a compelling interest through narrowly tailored means.

Under this Bill, neither of those requirements would be fulfilled. The premise of this Bill is also faulty. In 2023, only two of the 26 Trans identified murder victims were killed because of their identification as Trans, according to the FBI. Meanwhile, a single Trans identified individual, Audrey Hale, murdered six people, including three children at a Christian school.

Christians face hate crimes at four times the rate of Trans identified people. The practical consequences of this Bill are severe. Women fighting for Title 9 protections would not be able to present crucial evidence. Researchers wouldn't be able to study policy impacts. Law enforcement investigations would be compromised. Children could be forever lost to traffickers with their identities erased.

This Bill prioritizes political theater over transparency, accountability and public safety. Vote no on SB59.

Thank you.

My turn. Yes. Okay.

My name is Layla Jane. I'm a California detransitioner, one of thousands. SB59 is based upon a false premise. No human has ever changed or will ever change sex. And a piece of paper, even one filed with the government, will not alter that fact. The UK's highest court has unanimously ruled that way, as will our our Supreme Court.

Soon. It turns out that Trans women are males and Trans men are females. I know this firsthand. When I was 11 years old, I was convinced by all of my medical providers that I could become a boy. All I needed was puberty blockers, hormones, and to chop my breasts off. In presto, I would be a real boy.

Just like in the story of Pinocchio. I followed the Doctor's advice. I endured menopause as a child, thickened my vocal cords, irreversibly grew hair like a male, broadened my shoulders and wreaked havoc on my uterus. And finally, my healthy breasts were amputated just after I turned 13, leaving me with phantom pain and numbness.

I might never be able to carry a child, and I certainly won't be able to breastfeed. One look at Me? Am I a man? Of course not. I'm a woman whose body is marked with the scars of a lie. Even if I kept injecting those syringes of testosterone into my body, I would never change sex.

SB59 perpetuates this lie, the lie that not only hurts kids and women, but those who may spend their lives waking up every day to don a costume, hoping that no one clocks them as the sex they truly are and always will be. Vote no on SB59. Governments should not collude with a lie.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB59?

Greg Burt with the California Family Council, in opposition.

Thank you.

Meg Madden of Women Are Real and. Cause Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law, in proud opposition.

Aaron Friday, licensed attorney, President of Our duty, mother of a daughter who used to believe she was a boy. In opposition.

Jerry Bright. I'm with Pro Reality California, and I proudly oppose this.

My name is Susan Pete. What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. I oppose this. Thank you.

David Bollock, on behalf of. Free speech without any financial penalties, no. Matter how despicable that speech is. Now opposition. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Beth Born. I'm the a mother of a child who has also desisted from her boy identity. I'm the chair of Moms for Liberty with Yolo County, and I also represent the Coalition of Sane People.

All right, we back to Committee. We do have a motion on the table. Any questions or comments, assignment Members? Of.

Course. I want to thank the author and thank the sponsors of this Bill. You know, this is incredibly, incredibly important.

I hear every week from people in the LGBTQ community more broadly, and Trans people and parents and kids in particular, about the extreme level of fear that they are living in now at a level that I have never seen in my lifetime.

You know, the sad thing is that I'm not surprised by the story that you conveyed now. And I just want to thank you for your bravery in coming forth and telling that story. But unfortunately, that's a story that many Trans people are able to tell now. Many of us who are in this community understand the.

The risk of doxing of people. Anyone who's high profile, I think, has. Has faced at certain times death threats because of their LGBTQ and in particular, Trans status. This is incredibly important to maintain the safety of Trans people now. It's also important to make sure that people can get the services that they need in just normal life.

I mean, we're seeing Health care providers shut down gender affirming care because of the practice areas are being shut down because of the focus of the Federal Government in shutting these things down. Those folks need to find other kinds of care generally in at institutions where that's not focused.

And it's really important that they're able to maintain the privacy that they need to obtain the services that. Services that we all need. You know, medical care, being able to rent, rent a house, buy a house. I mean, everything that, you know, we're heading into.

We are in a period now where the Federal Government's strategy is to try to race Trans people. And we need to do everything we can to protect them. So I just want to thank the author. I want to thank the sponsors of the Bill. I want to thank the witness today.

This is incredibly important and obviously in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Simon. Mayor Bauer Cahan, thank you.

I want to start by thanking the author for bringing this Bill. And I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. And I. I'm really bad at names, so I don't remember anybody's name. So I apologize about that. But I want to thank both of you for being here.

I want to live in a state where everybody gets to live their truth, no matter what that truth looks like. And privacy is such an important piece of that. And that's what this Bill is fundamentally about. And so I think it's really critically important that we do that.

I really wanted to speak in part because one of the things you said, you said only two people who were Trans were killed because of their Trans status. And I was shook by the word only. I'm Jewish, and I had someone recently say to me, only one person was beat because they're Jewish.

The word only should never go before that sentence. One person is too many. And so I just wanted to say that because I don't think we need to compare hate crimes. The harms you described against Christian individuals are also horrific.

And every single one of those should be prevented, and every crime against Trans people should be prevented, and nobody should ever be hurt or killed because of their identity, full stop.

And so I just didn't want that to go without being said because never should we allow someone to say only two of anybody was killed because those were precious lives. And I know, I think you agree with me that every life is precious and that, you know, my faith teaches me that.

And so, you know, I just wanted to acknowledge that those lives lost were too many. And that if this Bill saves even one life that to me, that is critically important and valuable, and I'm happy to support it.

Assembly Stephanie.

Thank you, Chair. And I want to thank Senator for bringing this Bill. I don't want to get emotional, but I have a Trans brother. And the fact that you stand up for Trans people and the hatred that is out there is just so devastating to me.

I think, based on what you said, something Member of our Cahan, that we should all really examine ourselves and try so much harder to love one another for who we are, whatever that is. And what I'm seeing in today's society is just devastating to me.

And I think I'm emotional because my stepmom just passed away and this is my Trans brother. It's his mom. And I see the damage that can be done when people hate people for who they need to be and who they are. And I just am so tired of it.

And I just thank you so much for everything that you do for people. And I'm sorry that people have different views about it, but just try harder to love people for just who they are. That message needs to get out. And I'm just.

I'm devastated by the acts of hate that I see in this, that directed towards this community. It just devastates me for my brother and it devastates me for everyone. So thank you so much for bringing this forward.

Senator Haribadian. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author, thank you to all the testifying witnesses and obviously my colleagues for very powerful statements. I wanted to circle back on 1.0 that was raised and just allow the author to address it.

The public safety aspects of confidentiality, I would assume, and I think it goes without saying, that there is always a burden that to the extent that there were a public safety concern, some sort of investigation, the confidentiality could be lifted if necessary.

So I wanted to give you that opportunity to respond just to make sure that everyone was on the same page.

Yeah. You know, unfortunately, we see a narrative about Trans people that it's all like. Like a scam, fraudulent, and it's. It's really, you know, offensive and harmful. But thank you for raising this, because the Bill does not preclude, if you have. Whether it's a law enforcement investigation or even like a creditor or it can be.

With a motion, it can be lifted. And so this is. It becomes confidential. But if there's a. If there's a legal reason that it needs to be lifted, that can happen via a motion.

No. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Yes, Senator. I just have a quick Question on the implementation. So the Judicial Council has stated, I think, in their letter that I think you've amended it to go back only five years. Is that correct?

Five years. And then we gave them more time per the Committee's amendments.

Okay. So I'm just looking at the practical aspects of opening up every name change document or how. What. What are you targeting? Because how do you identify that particular file?

Yeah, I mean, we think they can do it. We understand. I respect the judicial counsel and obviously that it is, you know, some work that they're going to have to. To do. But we did make amendments to limit it to the five years of retroactivity instead of, you know, no limitation. And then per the amendments, they getting.

Until I think it's the end of 26 or. Yeah, end of 2026. And so we tried. You know, we've been flexible in that regard. We're trying to strike a balance. We want to be mindful of their. Of their workload and not put unreasonable burdens on them, but also understand that this is impacting real people, real lives.

And I also, we, you know, I said this at the beginning. We have to also be conscious of the time period that we're in right now with, you know, the. The attacks that are being launched daily against Trans people.

I mean, the President just posted yesterday, his post was about escalating immigration enforcement in several cities, announcing that he was doing that, and then felt a need to take a potshot at Trans people as part of that. I mean, in a way, it literally was completely unrelated to what he was posting about in terms of immigration enforcement.

So he is like this culture war against Trans people to dehumanize them because it's like red meat for the base or whatever his rationale is, that has real impact on people's lives, causes people to live in fear, puts people at risk. The doxy you just heard about that, unfortunately, that's a common occurrence. And I see it online.

I'm not Trans, but I see it online, and it's really scary. So we're trying to strike that balance, and I think we did that with this Bill.

Okay. All right.

Thank you very much.

Well, I want to thank you, Senator, and for the comments from our colleagues validating everyone that's come here to speak today. And I think that the suggestion that someone would feign a Trans identity in order to commit some crime or fraud or whatever it might be, I think that is ludicrous.

The amount of hatred and as mentioned by our author, even coming from the highest places, it Makes it really challenging and difficult, a difficult moment for our Trans community. But I know that those that endure do it because they do want to live their true selves. They want to live their true.

They want to be their true selves. And any opportunity we have to create some sense of comfort in that, some sense of security in that we should do, I think that's what we have here today.

And so I'm very grateful, Senator Wiener, for you bringing this forward and working one once again, bringing a piece of legislation forward that allows to give. Allows some sense of comfort or security or space that should be the obligation of the state to do. Would you like to close?

I think everyone has said it beautifully, so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Motions do pass. As amended to appropriations. Kalra Aye. Kalra Aye. Dixon. Bar Kahan. Bahan. Aye. Brian. Brian Aye. Connolly. Connolly. Aye. Harabedian. Harabedian. Aye. Pacheco. Pacheco. Aye. Papin. Papin. Aye. Sanchez. Sanchez. No. Stephanie. Stephanie Aye. Zabur. Zabur. Aye.

Thank you. That bill is out. And we have item five, SB 497.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Here to present Senate Bill 497 to protect the privacy and safety of individuals seeking gender affirming care in California, and building on previous law that I authored and this Committee passed, SB 107. SB 497 protects individuals by requiring warrants for out of state law enforcement requests through the state's Prescription Drug Management Program system, establishing that accessing and knowingly sharing this data without a warrant to unauthorized parties is a misdemeanor.

Expanding California's transgender shield law per SB 107 to prohibit healthcare providers from complying with subpoenas requiring the disclosure of medical information relating to gender affirming care and protecting teachers who are treating their trans students as full human beings.