Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda, allow everyone equal time the rules for witness testimony or each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Each witnesses will 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. As you proceed with witness and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time.

The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noise from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and limited to your name, organization and support or opposition of a bill before the committee. Comments on other issues will be ruled out of order and the microphone may be disconnected.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violation of these rules may subject you to removal from the hearing or other enforcement processes. We do not have quorum. However, with myself and the vice chair here, we can. We will proceed as a subcommitee.

And we have with us our author for item one, SB 27, along with one other item on the agenda. And so, Senator Umberg, if you'd like to go ahead and come on up and receive whenever you're ready.

Good morning.

Morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Have before you...actually, we have two bills that are before you. The first is SB 27, which is the annual CARE Court cleanup Bill. Thank you, Ms. Marilees, for your assistance on this Bill.

This is a cleanup Bill and requires the courts to consider CARE referral as an option for misdemeanor "incompetent to stand trial" defendants, those who are charged with misdemeanor who are deemed to be not competent to be able to stand trial, to be able to assist counsel in their defense.

It also combines certain hearings to create more efficiency, allows the sharing of data between CARE partners who are licensed medical professionals. It also changes the eligibility and definitions in terms of those who are eligible.

For example, it allows those with mood disorders with psychotic features to also be included in the universe of those who are eligible for CARE Court.

With me to testify today is Dr. Aaron Meyer, a behavioral health officer, City of San Diego, as well as Anne Hadreas with the Judicial Council of the State of California.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Kalra. Members of the Committee, my name is Aaron Meyer. I'm a practicing psychiatrist and assistant clinical Professor at the University of California, San Diego. I'm not speaking on behalf of the University of California, but I'm here today as a Contracted Behavioral Health Officer of the City of San Diego, proud supporter of Senate Bill 27.

So, one of the current challenges in implementing the CARE act is that the phrase "clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment" is not defined. Sadly, petitions have been dismissed because enrollment in an ACT program alone has been equated with stabilization.

Stability in an ACT program must be questioned when someone is calling 911 more than 20 times in a month, even after enrollment. City first responders know all too well that simple enrollment and successful engagement are two different things.

So Senate Bill 27 clarifies the meaning of "clinically stabilized" to mean that someone is stable and not deteriorating, likely to survive safely in the community without supervision, managing symptoms through medication or other therapeutic interventions, and that their mental health condition is not negatively impacting their ability to live safely within the community or current housing situation.

This matters now. In Los Angeles County, 33% of their dismissed petitions was because the person was adequately treated in outpatient mental health. Why would 33% of petitions be submitted if the person was currently stable?

And so, as an example, a pending CARE petition involves an individual who has not changed their clothes in over a year, requiring prompting to eat, someone else is using their EBT card. They're unable to utilize SSI benefits.

They refuse to move to a more supported setting due to paranoia. Reporting adherence to medications, despite those medications not being in their possession. This person is already enrolled in an ACT program. So, but without a definition of clinically stabilized and ongoing voluntary treatment, that petition could be dismissed too.

Go ahead and finish up.

So the hope of the CARE act program was to hold counties accountable for treating those with the most severe mental illness whose vulnerability and severity of illness causes them to slip through the cracks of a system that caters to those who are less functionally impaired.

Senate Bill 27 creates clarity, so individuals who require more support receive it. So thank you, Senator Umberg, for your commitment to the most vulnerable who are all too often seen the most, but treated the least.

Thank you.

Good morning. Anne Hadreas from the Judicial Council. And just to clarify, the Council has not taken a position on this Bill. I'm here to provide any technical assistance regarding questions about the court process as it exists now and how it might exist under these amendments.

The goal is streamlining to try to increase efficiency but also increase flexibility for courts to find what works the best for an individual respondent.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 27.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Bakersfield and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members. Moira Topp here on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and the City of San Diego and support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in op-? There's actually more support. Yeah, come on up if you are support. Yeah, just your name, organization if any, and your support position on the Bill.

Good morning. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and support.

Hi, I'm Dr. Susan Partovi. I'm a street medicine doctor in Los Angeles and I am in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 27?

I'm here representing CAMHPRO California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organizations and we strongly oppose SB 27.

Good morning. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty opposing this Bill.

Okay, thank you.

Tremmel Watson with Disability Rights California and we stand in total opposition to this Bill.

Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Let's just do the me-toos first then.

Clifton Wilson. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Danny Thirakul on behalf of the California Youth Empowerment Network in opposition.

Thank you.

Karen Vicari on behalf of Mental Health America of California and Cal Voices in opposition.

Thank you.

Andi Liebenbaum on behalf of LA County with a clarification. Our support was prior to the June 17 amendments. We are contemplating our position. We are hoping to be able to work with the author on serious concerns that we have.

Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Backes, Drug Policy Alliance in opposition. Thank you.

Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association actually in support. Just got here a little late.

Thank you. All right, and let's go to the witnesses. In opposition. Go ahead.

Great.

Thank you. Chair, good morning. My name is Eric Harris. I'm the Associate Executive Director of External Affairs at Disability Rights California. And we are in opposition of SB27. Our reasons are articulated in our coalition's letter.

One of the many reasons that we oppose include the expansion of adding mood disorders with psychotic features to the criteria for CARE Court. As Fannie Lou Hamer once said, we are sick and tired of being sick and tired.

In 2022, my colleagues and I were told by the champions of CARE Court that it would be a voluntary and only- that it would be voluntary and only cover a small portion of the disability community. Ever since, every year the champions of CARE Court push for expansion.

California remains in a housing crisis and the state still is not providing enough accessible mental health services for those who need it. We warned the community and policymakers then that the champions of CARE Court would not stop, but would expand to cover more unhoused people with mental health disabilities and beyond and this is what SB 27 would do.

After our experts with mental health disabilities and other community Members were disrespected by the champions of CARE Court and told that this is what the community wanted. the latest data shows that only 100 people actually have gone through the entire process. Not 100,000. 100 people.

There are probably 100 people in this room right now. Approximately 70 million dollars has been spent so far. No housing has been provided for any individuals involved. As experts from our community warned, CARE Court is a waste of money, and so would SB 27.

As we warned, Black people are disproportionately represented in the CARE Court process, and of the people forced into this process are impacted by many other systems. Let's actually put forward policies to provide services and housing for the community.

If the state wants to actually work with the community, with the community members impacted by these systems and disabled leaders, we are not hard to find. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Michelle Cabrera, Executive Director for the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, representing the behavioral health directors for all 58 California counties currently implementing CARE Court faithfully.

Our Members are proud of the work that we have done through CARE Court to lift this program up in short order across all 58 counties, and the partnership that we've developed not only with the Governor in moving forward this initiative, but with more importantly, local communities with clients, et cetera.

We unfortunately were not aware of the proposed significant amendments to this Bill, which are extensive.

And given the urgency clause, we urge the Committee to consider what it would mean in terms of the quality and access and to drive an individual into the CARE Court process really without the supports and resources needed for them.

For example, and I know that some of this is highlighted in the Committee's analysis, but currently the eligible population in terms of prevalence of individuals with schizophrenia is around 0.33 to 0.75 of the total population...

...whereas mood disorders - the proposed expansion - encompasses 9.7% of the population. Even when you take down to people with psychotic features who have mood disorders, that's still 10 to 20% of that 10% expansion of the population.

We're talking about order of magnitude, really, really outside of the scope of what we are prepared to do immediately upon enactment of this law, not to mention the lack of housing which our colleagues with DRC mentioned, CARE Court did not bring with it necessarily resources.

Counties have been implementing one time behavioral health bridge housing which has assisted, but we would not have the staff, the resources, or the housing to responsibly care for individuals. And for those reasons, in addition to some others, we are respectfully opposed to this measure.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that has not had a chance to express either support or opposition? Okay, I will bring it back to Committee. We don't have a quorum. So there are any questions or comments? Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

Aa couple things to the author. I really applaud what you've been trying to do since 2022. This is important law and now proposed expansion as has been described. And I think it's really important in our communities to help the people who need help. And the law has prevented access to those individuals.

I am curious with your comments, ma' am. So you support the CARE Court process. This is a matter of resourcing because of the expansion of the definitions. But you're in support of what CARE Court is doing to help people.

But maybe housing is a problem and other staff resources are a problem. But the intent of what Senator Umberg is doing, the author is doing, is do you object to that?

There are several dimensions, right. We're making it easier for different systems to refer in through the referrals becoming petitions part of this Bill. So that expedites the number of referrals in of all types. And then you're expanding the eligible population very significantly.

And we have not had an opportunity to talk through what the ramifications or appropriateness of that would be because we've only just learned about these amendments. And so I think there are. Our Members are very proud of the work that they've done within CARE Court.

The secret sauce is really in that high touch outreach and engagement to individuals who may not realize that they need help. And CARE Court provides the first ever avenue really for us to get resourcing to do that.

And so I think to the point of some of our colleagues with the consumer groups, there are ways to achieve the outcomes of Care Court without some of the other pieces to this. But we just want people to get help.

And so any way that we can facilitate doing that, we are really excited to partner with the state on.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to have the author respond.

Well, let me respond to both. As to Mr. Harris, he is correct that we would be much better off in California if everyone who had any sort of mental illness had a stable place to get well. We'd be much better off in California if we had the behavioral health resources, including personnel, to make sure that everyone got well.

We'd be much better off in California if we had the, besides the behavioral health resources, also the other attendant resources to make sure that everyone got well. And we don't have all those resources.

This CARE Court is focused on a very small population, but a very ill population. And it is interesting, as Mr. Harris points out, we've had very few people in CARE Court. But - I'm sorry, your name again, your last name is?

Cabrera.

And Ms. Cabrera points out, it's too big. So I suppose we're trying to do the Goldilocks approach where we're trying to make sure that those who have psychotic episodes who have schizophrenia can avail themselves of CARE Court.

Doesn't mean that they all will be in CARE Court. It requires a petition, often a family Member who seeks the structure of care Court. What this Bill does is this Bill does, as was pointed out, it does streamline the process.

Part of the challenge is we want a number of touches, both touches in the community, but we also want the court to basically hold the system accountable, not just the individual, but the county and those who are responsible to help this person get well be held accountable.

But we don't want to harass people. We don't have them come to court for no ostensible behavioral purpose. So just simply showing up for some administrative matter is not worthwhile. So we're trying to combine things.

We're also trying to make sure that we do capture those who have psychotic episodes, people who we all observe who are experiencing psychotic episodes on the street. And we want to make sure that they are eligible, at least. Eligible doesn't mean they're enrolled, just means that they could be potentially enrolled.

And could you care to comment if it's relevant? A year ago, with the Prop 1 passage for bond measure for increased medical facilities, does that interface with CARE Court in any way? I don't know. So I'm...

That's a great question. Prop 1 largely provided for housing and part of CARE Court is to provide a stabilized environment for someone to get well. Judges can order counties to provide housing. So I would hope that there's a, there's connectivity.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Zbur.

Good morning, Senator. Thank you for being here today. You know, I'm supportive of the CARE Courts program - so thank you for bringing this and I'll be supporting the Bill today - but I do have a number of concerns and questions.

You know, the expansion of the eligibility criterion seems to be relatively significant and goes beyond the most mentally, severely mentally ill, which is what the program is intended to serve.

In looking at the definition of mood disorders with psychotic features, can you. Is that a clearly defined term in medical literature? Could you sort of speak to that?

I saw that the county behavioral health directors noted that almost 10% of the population has been diagnosed with some form of mood disorder. So I'm trying to get a sense of how big an expansion of the program this is and whether or not this is likely to bring into the program folks that actually should and can be making decisions for themselves.

So fortunately, I brought a psychiatrist along, and perhaps he can help with the definition. I'll follow on with the rest of your question.

So, typically, mood disorders are inclusive of major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Those are the most common mood disorders. With major depressive disorder, probably about 2 to 5% of those individuals have some degree of psychosis in their lifetime.

So a very small fraction of those with major depressive disorder. With bipolar disorder, anywhere from 40 to 60% in their lifetime. With bipolar depression, 20% in their lifetime. So it is a fraction of people with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder.

And that's also in the context of, in order to be eligible for the CARE Act program, you have to not be clinically stabilized in ongoing treatment, unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision, and participation in a care plan or care agreement would be the least restrictive alternative necessary. So you have the diagnosis, which is...

Say it one more time.

...participation in a care plan....Oh, unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision, and the person's condition is substantially deteriorating.

So you have the diagnosis, but then you have all the other elements that must be met in order to be eligible for the CARE Act program. So it really is a sliver of even the diagnostic specifier of psychosis with the mood disorder.

Chair, can I allow the? Sounds like you had a comment on that.

Indeed. Yeah. The sources, the medical literature suggests that the numbers are much higher. So again, we're talking about. When you compare the population that has schizophrenia, it's between 0.33, and then you have to add all the CARE Court criteria on top of that. So it limits that population pretty significantly.

When you're talking about mood disorders, we're talking about 9.7% of the overall population. Now, for people with major depressive disorder, the estimates are that between 10 and 20% of those individuals also have psychotic features.

And for people who experience hospitalization due to depression, the rates can be as high as 25 to 40%, 45% of that much larger population. So we are talking about an exponential increase just on the major depressive disorder side of things.

With bipolar disorder, estimates range between 40 to 60% where they have a manic and mixed episode where around 20% of the overall population with bipolar disorder may experience some form of psychosis.

Again, these numbers are, when you take that percentage out of the 10% of the overall population, much, much larger group of people who would qualify.

And I think part of what we're driving at is we haven't had a policy conversation about the appropriateness of this. We also would in no way be resourced or ready to receive the volume of interest from our court partners, from our state hospitals, as well as from the community. And yet we would be obligated.

There's been a lot of talk about accountability for the county, right? And so the courts would have significant levers to penalize counties for not immediately being responsive to the housing and treatment needs.

And while Prop 1 does provide for a build out of treatment capacity, people by and large do not live in mental health treatment facilities. They live in housing. And so there, there is still a significant lack of available housing resources.

Thank you. So, you know, I, I think, you know, obviously I've, I've supported the CARE Courts. I think it's an important program. I mean I have personal history with members of my family who over many years had combinations of mental health issues with substance abuse there.

We had trouble where they, I think were not able to make decisions in their best interest and so understand the importance of this. On the other hand, I think the expansion is something that I'd ask you to pay really close attention to the standards.

I'm nervous about, you know, cases where we're bringing people into the system that actually have the ability to make decisions on their own and, and it being sort of, sort of over broad. So I'm going to support this today. I want to thank you for your work. I think it's important work.

But I would hope that you'll work with the Assembly Health Committee and the Public Safety Committee to ensure that it's striking the right balance between how many people are in the, are eligible for the program and that there's really pretty strong guardrails.

I'm nervous about the mood disorders piece of it because it does seem like that is pretty vague to me and when I'm reading this and could pick up a lot of people that should be in the, in the program so thank you.

Thank you, Senator Papan.

Good morning. Well, I want to tell you first that I am going to support the Bill. And the reason I'm going to support the Bill is that I think people are getting a bit short shrifted on the idea that mental health diversion, they're getting two full years of it, and it takes a long time to place somebody.

And I think the CARE Courts do it faster. So I like the idea that the Bill is sort of leveraging here, care courts and getting treatment faster. I know that it's shorter, but I'm glad that it is faster.

But I was a little confused, I must tell you, about this idea of graduation and who thinks they're ready for it and how that interacts with a judge's perception of one's idea that they're ready for graduation. So if you could just elaborate on that.

But I like the idea that this is faster treatment and mental health diversion oftentimes is not that way and we are not getting people 24 months. So I think faster might be better than perhaps a longer treatment.

So in terms of graduation, ultimately it's the team that makes that determination, makes a recommendation to the judge who decides whether someone is stable enough to basically come back in the community. But it doesn't mean that all resources stop at that point in time.

It does mean that there is a warm handoff to other resources, whether it's housing, whether it's behavioral health. This is a challenge, as is pointed out. I mean, we have a huge challenge in terms of treatment of mental illness in California. This is a small population.

One of the criticisms which is legitimate is that this has not served, as Mr. Harris points out, this has not served a huge population in California. I think that the criteria that we are adopting, mood disorder with psychotic features, who also basically can't take care of themselves in the community using all three of those criteria.

Again, although it's an expansion, it's a relatively small expansion of who might be eligible. The underlying sort of. The underlying theory of CARE Court is that it is voluntary. So you can always basically, in essence, drop out of care court if you want to.

Now, one of the common misconceptions of schizophrenia, those who have lived experience in this space know that schizophrenics are not always psychotic. There are periods of lucidity, particularly if you're receiving medication.

And at that point in time, you can make decisions. You can make informed, intelligent decisions as to what you want to be done if you're having a psychotic episode, medications to be administered, those kinds of things.

And that is part of the CARE Court program. As you point out. It can be as long as two years. It could be shorter as well if you're stable. I don't know if, doctor, you have any further response to that?

No, I think it's the great thing about CARE Court is it really is a collaborative process and I think one that I think one of the benefits of SB 27 also is the introduction of additional review hearings for the broad majority of people in CARE Court have CARE agreements versus I think there's only three people with court-ordered CARE plans.

So I think that speaks to how well received and welcomed I think the CARE Act program has been in California.

Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you for the additional time. I, at the local government level when I served on local government in Orange County and see that the number of homeless people has increased. We have it and I'm sure it's typical for all counties.

And now that I've been in Sacramento for three and a half years now and my own personal experience in encountering people who I think in my amateur unprofessional observation, I run every morning from 5 to 6am from 26th street to the Capitol and back...

...and on K Street, it's very sad, the number of homeless people who are in tents in our capital city and not so much that they're just sleeping in it. They're not sleeping at between 5 and 6. They're waking up and just this morning and this has happened to me a couple of times, I haven't felt threatened and I'm prepared for that.

But people have approached me, they're waking up and they clearly are having a moment of mental...I don't know what is happening, I'm not a doctor...but nonetheless, they're singing, they're talking, they're lighting fires, they need help.

And I think that is why in my first remarks I'm appreciative of what the CARE Court is trying to do and that only 100 people have been helped in the State of California to me says we have a larger need to address the behavioral part of it, the housing part of it, the mental facilities.

These people need help and for whatever reason they're not getting into the CARE Court system. I've called the police on some of the fires that I've observed and the police do not come and it is very sad. And they're wandering our streets and they need help.

And however we can move them into some permanent facility to help them treat their illness, I applaud any method. And I know it's bigger than just this care court, but to concentrate on the behavioral side and the housing side, there's just a lot more that needs to be done. And this is an important step in that direction.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. If you can establish quorum, please.

[ROLL CALL]

Right. We've established quorum. Any other questions or comments? So I appreciate the conversation here. And I think that as was alluded to, you know, I think a lot of folks are getting up to speed on what some of these changes are, and there are quite a number of them.

And as referenced by our colleague, this is triple referred. So it is going to Health Committee as well as Public Safety Committee. And of course, you know, the original CARE Court, I famously did not support it for a lot of the reasons and concerns that have been stated already, including the resource aspect.

And having worked for many, many years representing clients in drug treatment court as public defender as well, that, you know, in many instances overlap with mental health issues as well.

It's hard for folks to expect folks to be able to be successful in these kinds of programs if they don't have housing, which I think is the underlying issue that really addressed that it's an underlying issue for so many things we're dealing with in our state.

But also, you know, once it was voted into law and just like with the counties at the time that didn't necessarily support it, but once it was voted into law, they're doing heroic work to try to implement it as we've directed.

And so I, given the fact that, you know, it is triple referred, I do want to give the chair an opportunity to continue to work with opposition on some of the issues that have been raised.

A couple that we have as a Judiciary Committee have to do with some technical fixes as well as the graduation aspect that was raised. And I look forward to our staff's always work well together. So I look forward to continuing to work on that aspect of it.

But the other areas that I have concern about include what has been raised already in terms of mood disorders. I think that's more appropriately dealt with with the Health Committee. Their consultants will have the expertise to better advise, I think, Members on some of the questions that were raised.

And then the other one has to do with the eligibility and criteria for granting diversion and what have you. I think that's more appropriately resolved in the Public Safety Committee.

And so I want to give an opportunity for you to work with those Committees, those Chairs, those consultants to deal with those issues and continue to work with opposition on some of those issues.

The resource issue is always going to be an issue, I think, when it comes to this. And I think that's the other question that was raised in the analysis, just how much money is being spent in this program.

And I mean, it's ultimately, I think, both philosophical and practical question of whether it's worth it or not. And I think that your efforts are trying to make it worth it by getting the right people into the program. And so I understand that and respect that.

And so I do have an aye recommendation today to allow you the opportunity to continue to work on some of the questions that have been raised in the analysis and by the opposition and some of the questions that the Members have brought forth as you move on.

If this does pass on to Health Committee, I think that that Committee in particular is going to be able to dive a little deeper into some of the areas of most concern that folks might have. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, you are right. This is triple referred. This is the third year we've had a CARE Court Bill before this Committee. And I expect that next year we'll have another CARE Court Bill in front of this Committee because this is a new dynamic, it's evolving. I appreciate the stakeholders.

Stakeholders have been most helpful, whether it's the behavioral health specialists, county officials, or disability community to improve the CARE Court process. I think there are more than 100, in fact, I know that there are more than 100 people who have been involved in care court over the last year. It is new.

Most counties in California just began last December. And it is expanding in the sense that there are more and more people who are engaged in CARE Court. Again, we have not provided enough support to those who are mentally ill in California.

And this is while it's an important effort, it's not a panacea for all those who are mentally ill, but it's important to point out what the alternative is. So, for example, when we're talking about misdemeanor misdemeanants who are deemed to be incompetent to stand trial, here's what happens.

You, you know, you, you commit a misdemeanor, you vandalize some property or you shoplift or something like that, and you clearly have a psychotic disorder, so you're not competent to stand trial.

So what do you do? Well, you just. Right now we just release them. Go ahead, please don't steal anymore. Please don't vandalize anymore. And please do get well. Please do whatever you can to get well.

What this Bill does, this modification says now you can be referred to CARE Courts so you actually get well. And it has benefits, obviously for the individual and for the family, but also has public safety and community benefits.

And so I appreciate the work that you've done, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to continue to work on this. So with that, I urge an ate vote.

We do need a motion. We have a motion. Is there a second? And we have a second. Madam Secretary, take roll call vote on SB 27, please.

[ROLL CALL]

We'll place that on call.

Thank you. And then...

If I might indulge the Chair of the Committee to have SB 82 heard as well.

Yeah. Item four, SB 82.

SB 82 is a bill that was, in essence, that was inspired by an event that happened with respect to an individual who signed up for streaming service and then found themselves basically committed to arbitration for all acts where the streaming service parent company may be a defendant.

So if you sign up for fill in the blank platform to be able to watch movies at home, and a year later you're driving down the street and a truck hits you from that same service, and the entity says, you know what, you signed up for arbitration. And they say you don't have an opportunity to go to court.

And what this does is it simply says that it's basically within the scope of what you intended to sign up for. It's a relatively simple bill. I want to thank Manuela Boucher for your help in refining this bill. I have Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California and Professor David Horton from the University of California Davis School of Law.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm David Horton. I'm Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis. I've written extensively about this problem of infinite arbitration clauses. In fact, at the risk of bragging, I coined the term. Infinite arbitration clauses are seriously problematic because they defy consumers' expectations and cause absurd results.

Let me give you a simple example. Say you have an iPhone that runs on AT&T Mobility's network. When you accepted Mobility's terms and conditions, you also agreed to arbitrate any dispute you will ever have with any member of Mobility's corporate family, including AT&T, for the rest of your life. Consider what that means.

Suppose you're crossing an intersection and a Mobility van hits you. Your tort claim has to go to arbitration. Or you hear a false statement by a Mobility executive and you buy mobility stock. Your securities fraud claim has to go to arbitration. Or Mobility affiliate DirecTV makes obnoxious robocalls to your landline.

Your Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim has to go to arbitration even though there's no contract whatsoever between you and DirecTV. Infinite arbitration clauses are less a kind of contractual term and more an arbitration servitude. SB 82 offers an elegant solution to this problem. It requires dispute resolution terms in a consumer contract to pertain only to the product or service provided.

As a result, it would prevent companies from compelling arbitration in surprising and bizarre ways. In addition, although the Federal Arbitration Act often preempts state regulation of arbitration, it doesn't do so here. And to see why, you don't need to look beyond the text of the FAA. Its centerpiece, Section 2, only applies to efforts to compel arbitration of controversies that, quote, arise out of the contract with the arbitration clause.

As a result, a growing number of courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, have recognized that the FAA doesn't apply at all unless there's some nexus between a plaintiff's claim and the contract with the arbitration clause. States can fill this gap in the FAA, and that's exactly what SB 82 does.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California, a proud co-sponsor, along with Consumer Federation of California and Consumer Watchdog. SB 82 addresses an increasingly common and deeply unjust problem, the use of infant arbitration clauses.

These clauses are so broad, as described here. And to be clear, this bill does not ban arbitration, as the professor said. It simply ensures that it only applies to the transaction between the consumer and the business they agreed to. We've seen real harm in these clauses. You just heard about the Disney case. There's also a case where a couple was hit by an Uber.

Their daughter had an Uber Eats account. They were forced into arbitration. There is an issue with a boy who was hurt on a defective diving board at an Airbnb. Wasn't his Airbnb, but he was forced into arbitration for his claim. We saw this in the Wells Fargo case where there was fake accounts. They were forced into arbitration even though they didn't sign up for those accounts. So this is a very simple but important measure. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 82?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dani Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition in support.

Good morning. Rosemary Shahan, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. We love this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Griselda Chavez with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alfred Ramirez in support of the bill, and also representing the AARP.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 82?

Morning, Mr. Chair, Members, Senator Umberg. As this... Sorry. As the Senator is aware from the first conversation we had about the bill, there are some cases in which his concerns are legitimate, and we're hoping to come to some resolution in terms of addressing this. I would also... Oh, I'm sorry.

Chris Micheli on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. I also want to compliment the staff counsel's analysis of the bill. Getting to the language itself, we have a couple of concerns. We think that the language is too restrictive. We understand the purpose and intent as outlined by the author and the sponsors.

We think that there are instances where some reasonably related transactions will be caught up in this and therefore will be subject to litigation. We're also concerned that there could lead, the current language could lead to, if you will, excessive contracting between a consumer and a business.

For example, for example, if you bought, you know, tickets to the opera or something and you had a slip and fall at the opera house, is that covered or not covered, for example? The second thing is in the earlier iteration of the bill, it applied to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026.

That language is no longer here. We would like explicit provision that it's to be applied prospectively only. And then the Subdivision D, I think in the current version of the bill talks about being liberally construed in favor of the consumer. We think that provision should be struck out because arbitration is beneficial to both parties and they should be on equal footing. With that, we respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 82?

Chris Shultz with the California Bankers. We align ourselves with the comments of the Civil Justice Association.

Thank you.

Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, or motions. Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author. I want to thank the opposition. I think that this is a good bill. In my experience there have been just, I think, a proliferation of arbitration clauses that have forced practicing attorneys into arbitrations when I don't think you would have imagined having to arbitrate those types of claims. I do think that, however, the opposition has a good argument about the retroactivity. So where are you on that issue and has that been resolved here or is that still something that you're considering?

I think existing law takes care of that. I mean, unless we somehow specifically say that it's retroactive, it's not retroactive. To the extent that we need to basically recodify existing law, we'll consider that. But clearly, if you've entered into an arbitration agreement a couple years ago, we can't void something unless we specifically say this is retroactive. So we'll work with Professor Micheli to continue to see if we can't further define terms. But I think, I think existing law takes care of that.

Okay, I'll move the bill. Just would love to see you continue to work on that.

Is there a second? Any other questions or comments? Assembly Member Zbur.

I also think this is a good bill. I'm actually a little bit concerned that it wouldn't be retroactive if we have all these arbitration clauses sort of embedded in these contracts. I mean, I know how many times I've clicked on something that I haven't read because I'm trying to get to the website or whatever it is.

So I actually think this is a good bill. I assume that, I'm just sort of reading this, that it's sort of the bill's effect happens just generally by operation of law going forward. Right? If so you actually have one of these arbitration agreements is embedded in something, if it's there, it's just automatically null and void. The court would make that determination in a contract dispute? In a case brought before the court.

Yeah, you know, I should probably turn to the professor here. But I think it may be on a case by case basis so as to whether or not it would apply or not apply. But, you know, the general state of the law is that laws that we pass here are prospective versus retrospective. So if it's a clarification, I don't think we specified this is a clarification of law versus enactment of a new law.

So I assume someone would sue. If there's a, if one of these is embedded in an, in one of these arbitration clauses embedded in an agreement that they've signed, then of course, the defendant would say that there's an arbitration agreement in effect and would raise that. And then the plaintiff would have the ability to sort of point to the law and say that it's not in effect.

Right, that's correct. I assume the plaintiff would say this is not retroactive necessarily. It's a clarification of the law. Does the professor, you have any further comment?

No, that sounds exactly right.

Yeah. Okay. Any other comments or questions? All right. Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. There's been a few famous cases in this space where I think this will help to clarify and ensure that the general public has the opportunity to actually not be forced into arbitration in situations where they would have no belief that they signed a contract that would require such. Would you like to close?

I urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion's do pass. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll go ahead and place that on call.

Okay. And it to accommodate the closed captioning, which we only have until a limited amount of time, we're going to actually proceed with Senator Weber Pierson's bills and then go back and file order.

So I apologize to the other senators, to Senator Hurtado, if we can go with the Weber Pierson bills because they have to be heard before 10:15 and she has two of them. And so we'll go ahead and proceed with SB 437, which is item nine.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Well, good morning, chair and members of the committee. As chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, I am here to present one of the CLBC's priority bills, SB 437.

Last Friday, the legislature passed and the governor signed into law SB AB 103, which among other things, allocated $6 million to the California State University to develop an evidence based, reproducible methodology for genealogy determination. This bill provides the necessary structure to guide the CSU in fulfilling that responsibility.

It establishes clear parameters, guardrails and guidelines to ensure that the effort is carried out consistently, transparently, and without the possible perception of bias. This bill is about good governance. SB 437 ensures that the CSU system has a framework in place to carry out this important work in a way that is organized, thoughtful and responsible.

Without SB 437, the CSU will start its work without a clear path or guidance. There will be no oversight to ensure that the allocated funds are are used for their intended purpose.

SB 437 is supported by the California State University office of the Chancellor Catalyst California, the Greater Sacramento Urban League, Equality California, Members of the California Reparations Task Force and numerous grassroots community organizations. With me today, I have Don Tamaki, a former member of the California Reparations Task Force, and Tanisi Herring, government relations specialist for the California NAACP.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, chair, members, thank you so much for having me. On behalf of the NAACP Capital Hawaii State Conference, I'm proud to be here to support our SB 437.

The bill is a critical piece of legislation that builds on the work of the California Reparations Task Force, which was tasked called for the establishment of a clear and fair process for verifying descendants of enslaved individuals.

The bill provides an accurate way of determining lineage, ensuring that those who are descendants of American slavery can access the reparative benefits that they deserve. This bill directs the CSUs to create and implement a genealogical verification process.

This approach not only adheres to the high standards of evidence based research, but also prevents misidentification and guarantees that reparative benefits are directed to those most impacted by the long lasting effects of slavery and systemic racism. SB 437 ensures that we do not have we do not leave anyone behind in this vital journey toward reparative justice.

Moreover, the bill includes provisions for transparent oversight through annual reporting, ensuring that the public and lawmakers refrain from remain informed of progress, challenges and outcomes related to findings from CSUs.

It's a forward thinking bill that acknowledges the needs of black Californians while maintaining a high standard of accuracy and fairness in the verification process and that will ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair Kalra and members of the committee. Sorry that my back is turned. I'm an attorney with Manami Tamaki LLP firm in San Francisco and I served as a member of the California Reparations Task Force. I'm also part of the multiracial statewide coalition, the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation and Truth.

As the legislature recognized when it created the task force. While the enslavement of African Americans was our nation's original sin, emancipation did not bring an end to the atrocities and deprivations brought against them through lynching, Jim Crow laws, racist policing, disenfranchisement, segregation, redlining, the erasure of history. government at all levels perpetuated the legacy of slavery.

Mass enslavement ended in 1865, but its badges and incidents have not. Descendants of those enslaved have carried the weight of these harms as trauma and loss has passed from generation to generation, resulting in huge and growing disparities in every metric that matters, from wealth to health.

With respect to two essential forms of reparations, compensation and restitution, the task force recommended that eligibility- eligibility be based on lineage, requiring an individual to be descendant of a chattel enslaved person or a free black person living in the United States prior to the end of the 19th century.

SB 437 provides the missing details of this complex recommendation by enlisting the CSU and and universities and genealogists it partners with to establish a consistent, a vetted, a fair, a credible and accountable process to verify lineage based in genealogical research and grounded in scholarship and historical accuracy. So we urge your support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 437?

Good Morning, chair, members of staff Debray Sanders but Catalyst California as well as on behalf of the Black Power Network as well as representing the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation and Truth and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Monea Jennings on behalf of the Greater Sacramento Urban League in full support. Thank you.

Thank You.

Good morning, chair, members. Chris Morales with the CSU Office of the Chancellor in support.

Thank you.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and also on behalf of BARHI in support.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 437?

Sorry, I'm slow. My name is Constance French and I'm head of Mothers on a Mission to Save Our Children and the legacy of the psychological thing of slavery to us and for the general public. They still see us as that inferior people. We need to repair this. So this is one step in terms of assisting that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. So opposition witnesses, go ahead and again, whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

No.

Opposition.

Yeah. Yeah.

Good morning. Oh, yeah, you. Good morning, assemblymembers. My name is Michael Willis and I'm a professional genealogist with 24 years experience, board chair of the African American Genealogical Society of Northern California, and author of the published book When your Ancestors Choose you Finding Binky.

The senate- The senator has repeatedly stated in numerous hearings that her family's ancestors still have not been identified. And she uses that allegation to generalize that this is the norm for most African Americans in this country. Well, nothing can be further from the truth.

When speaking of African American genealogy, she states that families were separated, names were changed, records lost, destroyed, or never created. Although those are true occurrences, they're not- they're not as prevalent as she insinuates.

Last spring, I attended an event held at the California State Archives in which the senator's own mother, Secretary Shirley Weber, talked about her father, David Nash, and how he stood up to lynch mobs in the south and subsequently her. Her family fled Hempstead County, Arkansas.

This past Saturday morning, I researched her father and found his parents who were born in the 1880s. In 20 minutes. In the next 20 minutes, I found four of his grandparents. And within the next hour and a half, I found his great grandfather, Anthony Stewart in the Freedmen's Bureau records and labor contracts just after the Civil War.

I also found the senator's four times great grandfather, Warren Hood, a native of Virginia, on the 1870 US federal census, five years after the Civil War ended. He was born in 1790. Here's the full report.

And again, although the research beyond David's parents is more than the task force requires, I share this to emphasize the proven, established methodologies that genealogists like myself use that don't require $6 million to implement. I did the same thing for former Assemblymember Jim Cooper and his four time great grandparents in the Freedmen's Bureau records.

And we appeared on Good Day Sacramento to share the discoveries. Just this weekend, the Sacramento Public Library hosted my virtual presentation on practical approaches to African American genealogy, in which I show the audience how they can apply these methods for successful results.

If the senator still intends on giving $6 million to the CSU's, I can send her my bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair, members. My name is Chris Lawson. I'm the lead volunteer organizer and advocate with the Coalition for Justice and an Equitable California.

We are the state's first only leading grassroots organization, born and bred for reparations and reparative justice, and we are here to oppose SB 437 and urge your no vote or don't vote on this flawed and misguided proposal. SB 437 is not a step forward. It's a step backward.

Rather than implementing what California's own reparations task force already recommended, the delivery of genealogy services directly to residents immediately, this bill proposes an academic study of genealogy with no requirement that any of its findings be acted upon. A study of genealogy, which even top genealogists in the state tell us is unnecessary. I cannot underscore this point enough.

Members genealogists are opposing this genealogy study. This bill also presents a legal and practical contradiction. It proposes to study genealogy when the task force already concluded that the state must do genealogy, that is, provide actual services to help black Californians trace their lineage back to US shadow slavery.

SB 437 delays that work, and in so doing, it slows to a halt future reparations policies, benefits and rights owed and bestowed upon descendants, many of which will pass through this committee's jurisdiction. And if that wasn't enough, the proposal in SB 437 conflicts with another bill, SB 518, which authorizes a separate different genealogy process. The result?

Bureaucratic red tape, confusion, overlapping mandates, and prolonged delays, all at taxpayer expense. This isn't justice, it's obstruction. California doesn't need more research into whether it should act. It needs to act. We urge you to vote no or abstain on SB 437. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 437?

Samuel Washington, as a member of the community, in opposition.

Thank you.

Carol Toliver, member of CJC Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, definitely oppose this delayed tactic SB 437 bill. Hopefully, you will consider my opposition and either vote no or abstain. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Lynette Jackson here with the California Coalition for Equality and Justice. I appoint emphatically oppose the.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Harold Simpson and my father was served in the army and my ancestors were slaves and I oppose this bill.

Aisha Kareem from Stockton and I'm opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Darlene Crumminy. Good morning. I'm Darlene Crumminy. On behalf of the- the American- behalf of the American Redress Coordinates in the California Arc, as well as Lennon's Equity and Advancement Leap and California Black Lineage Society, I urge you to vote no on this unnecessary bill, SB 437. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Yahsmeen Abdusami Oakley, and I'm a part of East Palo Alto for Reparations as well as the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California. We are absolute no on SB 437. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Mims with the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, Arc Sacramento and Amend the Mass Media Group. I implore you to vote no on SB 437. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Lyon with the Coalition for Just and Equitable California and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Oops, sorry, I was confused. I thought this. I'm for the genealogy law study- I'm for the genealogy in the reparations bill. I'm not for another study. Absolutely. Come on, y' all. Thank you. We don't need any more studies. Thank you. Thank you.

Ditto. I agree.

Thank you. Alright, I bring it back to committee for any questions, comments, motions. We have a motion, a motion and a second. And I know senator, you have another bill after this, and I'll just pose a question because I think it'll be related to both. With this bill, does this still allow-

If this bill were to pass and if the next bill were to pass, would it allow the actions of the subsequent bill to continue to move forward or would this delay actions on- on- on the subsequent bill?

Yeah, thank you so much, chair, for that question. This bill does not delay the subsequent actions of the next bill. The next bill, which we'll discuss later, is actually establishing the agency for- for- for of American chattel slavery. That is going to take some time. Right.

All this bill does is give a framework for the money that we already allocated and voted and signed into law on Friday. So I didn't. I don't have $6 million to give. We as the legislature passed the budget bill last Friday and the governor already signed it, allocating $6 million to CSU for this purpose.

This provides the structure. It provides oversight. It provides accountability so that they have a start date, they have an end date. They have to report back to the legislature. Without this bill, they just have the $6 million.

And does anything prevent the CSU from either using their own academic genealogists or consulting with outside genealogists in their construction of the framework?

So this bill allows for them to utilize other universities, other genealogists, other entities. They are just the host. But without this bill, they can take the $6 million and create whatever framework they want to do and not have to come back and talk with us.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Bryan.

Madam Chair. Did you say. Mr. Chair. Madam Chair of the Caucus, did you say the bill now has an end date on.

Has a start date and an end date, which really only goes into effect if this bill is passed. Otherwise, like I said, since we've already given the CSU the 6 million, they can take as long as they want.

I've read every page of the reparations report cited in the footnotes a half dozen times in several sections for a scholarship back at UCLA. I didn't see a methodology for determining someone's lineage articulated in the report, only the question about who should be eligible. Is that your understanding as well?

There was no methodology, which is why we as a state have given $6 million to the CSU to help determine that methodology. And this bill right here will give them oversight and a framework to accomplish that in a specific time frame.

There are disagreements from some folks about the best way to go about doing this. You believe this is the best way to do it, correct?

I believe this is the best way to do it. The California Legislative Black Caucus believes this is the best way to do it. And I believe that when you give money to an institution to do this, you should have a framework and oversight and the ability to hold them accountable. And that's what this bill does.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, chair. So I just want to kind of reconcile the two sides here. So the professional genealogists believe this bill is not necessary because the information is readily available within minutes, essentially to do a search process. Am I stating that correctly?

It's not just that the information is readily available, it's that we have a proven methodology. This is a book that I purchased 20 years ago. Professional genealogy genealogists have been doing this for decades. So we have an established, proven methodology. We have a framework for how to research. So there's no need for the CSUs to be involved.

They don't have I think you mentioned that their own genealogists, they don't have their own genealogists. Board chair of the African American Genealogy Society of Northern California. We've been around since 1996, and we teach these methodologies.

So it's not that I disagree that the CSUs need to create a framework or study how to create a framework for something that we already know how to do. In my personal opinion, I would think it would be better if the CSUs needed to get involved, work with the genealogist to create a sort of.

Because it keeps coming up in these hearings that the words keep coming up as far as making it valid and making sure that there's credibility and oversight and all of this stuff. If you're concerned about credibility, work with the genealogy societies, develop a certification program.

That would probably be better if there's such a concern over genie, because it seems to me like there's a concern that us as genealogists, there's an issue with us doing the research versus the CSUs.

If that's your concern, then have the CSUs work with us to create a certification program according to how the state wants to frame it. So that way there is no issue, there is no concern with us doing the work, because clearly I can do the work. There are many, and I'm just one of many.

And I do mean many. Thank you.

Okay, follow up question.

I'm sorry, I just want to. I don't mean to interrupt, but I just want to clarify that in this bill, it would allow the CSUs to work with outside genealogists.

Okay.

Like the individual who's testing an opposition.

Thank you very much, senator. In your binder there, the work that you've done since 1996, have you been specifically researching the genealogy of descendants of slaves in California?

The organization has been around since 1996. I have been a genealogist the last 24 years. And yes, that is exactly what we.

So is that repository of information, is that available today?

Yes, yes. And I you know, when we talk about methodologies, the methodologies that we teach people, start with yourself, work your way backwards, talk to your oldest living relatives, if possible. Gather resources, Bibles, obituaries, funeral programs, things of that nature, and then develop research questions. We go over these things all the time. Develop the research questions, then-

then learn and identify the available resources that are out there. There's a lot of public information that's already out there. We teach people how to go to courthouses, we teach people how to go to state archives where all this information is.

And then once you've gathered certain facts, wash, rinse and repeat, go right back to the information, you- you- you develop more research questions which will then lead to more research.

So you have documented information on the descendants. All is, I mean, thoroughly investigated research through that methodology you just described?

Absolutely. I wrote an entire book on it and published it.

So I guess that begs the question, senator, why do we need, if we've already, if we already have resource data that identifies and that is the foundational element to determine reparations if that were to go forward, what more would this bill and your other bill do to create that database of information?

Well, the other bill is different. So we'll get to this bill when I present that. However, this is based on the recommendation from the task force. And in the task force, as was stated by Assemblymember Bryan, there was no clear there, there was nothing in there to say this is how you should determine someone's lineage.

Therefore, the state, we have given the CSU $6 million already to develop a methodology for this and work with other universities, work with other genealogists so that it is clear it is evidence based, it is reproducible as a state because we are concerned about oversight of funds.

I don't think you or anyone else would just want to give money away to something that we have no oversight. We have oversight into the CSU system.

And that's why it's very broad in terms of who they can and should work with in order to create a method that works for everyone, regardless of if you know your, your mother, your father, your sister, your brother, or you don't. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Bryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Chair, there's- is there anything in your bill that precludes the CSU from contracting and bringing in experts like this gentleman right here?

And sir, we've never met before. Love to address you by your name.

No.

Michael. Michael Willis.

For children in foster care in closed cases who don't know their biological parents or maybe second generation foster children because their parents were also in the system, how do you determine their lineage?

That because they have absolutely no knowledge and maybe no evidence of who their, their parents were, that's where you would have to rely on genetic genealogy.

And with genetic genealogy, they would, once they take a test for, let's just say, for example, ancestry.com when they take the test, it's going to show them a list of all of the relatives who've also taken the test, who they're related to.

And we would have to start, it would be an investigation of starting with the most closely related relatives in the database because it sorts them from the most closely related to the most distant. So if they have second or third cousins in there, we start with that. And at that point you're doing traditional genealogy.

You have to identify those individuals and trace, trace their ancestries back and see where the pedigrees merge to common ancestors. So you're still going to do genealogy, is there?

No, I, I've got different. One of my uncles is a genealogist who traced back family going way, way back. Okay. Familiar with some of the steps, but I do think for some of those cases, it's, it is tricky and unique and it doesn't appear that there is kind of a standard accepted method.

For example, you just mentioned Ancestry.com is that like the, is that the partner for genealogists? Because--

It's just a tool. No, it's just a tool in a toolbox.

And that's part of my point because 23andMe, for example, is one of those tools now under intense litigation and selling people's data to private companies and the Department of Justice is actually suing them or trying to prevent them from being acquired by this private company who might have nefarious means.

And I think that's part of what the chair is trying to. But I don't answer. I don't see where the, I don't see where the CSU have anything to do with that.

I think regardless of the CSU or otherwise, I think there's not a, there is not a determined way for all people who have to go through non traditional routes. That's not true. For example. That's not true. Let me finish my question, sir. Which tool to use, for example, which tool of the DNA testing is more valid?

Should there be some sort of public tool that is.

So is the state going to develop a DNA testing?

I think all of those are the questions that I think yourself and scholars and others who are experts in this field need to critically ask how do we protect people's information going through this process and verify it and validate it and use the traditional methods that exist once you start going down that pathway.

And I think, you know, I think those are the things that, and I don't want to speak for the author trying to grapple with what's the best way to keep people as safe as possible, as valid as possible, and respect documentation that currently exists and not just leave folks who have major gaps hanging because we know the systems that have erased our history, come from that same, that same history of family erasure and last name erasure, culture erasure.

That is a direct afterlife of slavery. So that's not really a question. That's me doing my best to understand where my colleague is coming from and want to thank y' all for the conversation.

And I respect, I respect your concerns and your concerns are very valid. We have leading experts in genetic genealogy, one I can name in particular, Blaine Bettinger, who's written books about the methodologies involved in tracing genealogy. And these are the concerns that in our industry we face all the time.

And we, we are talking, we do talk about how to address them. There are multiple companies. It's not just ancestors, not just 23. There's myheritage, there's family tree DNA. Yes, there would be. And we can give our expertise and advice on which tools that we think are the best.

We don't, we're impartial to all of them, you know, but what happened with 23andMe, it is, it's sad. It's a tragedy. And I do, I do respect your concerns on it.

And I'm looking forward to getting to know you on a personal level and better understanding. Absolutely. You know how your expertise can help inform this process because I think we're doing really important things. Absolutely. Thank you, sir.

Thank you all. We do have a motion on the table and I think that, I think the conversation indicates that there. And it's very common at a state level to find a state agency, it could be a CSU, it could be a department, to actually be the one that oversees this type of process.

And that's what's happening here. I think that you clearly have great expertise and I hope you do stay connected with the author and offer some of the other folks that you might know so that when it does get set up at the CSU and they actually have genealogists that are experts that can help to create that framework.

I don't think there's a conflict here. I can understand frustration from the community seeing that, oh, this is just going to delay the process. The reality is if you don't have a framework, there is no process. And so I think with that, I would offer the opportunity for the senator to close.

Well, thank you very much, chair. I want to definitely thank you for your closing remarks because you are spot on. Want to thank the members of the committee for your questions and your dialogue.

Want to thank my fellow CLBC member, Assemblymember Bryan, for bringing up the other issue which is why it was very important to put it at a CSU which deals with privacy.

And unfortunately, what we're seeing with some of these private companies is that when they start to lose money, the first thing they do is look to sell off some of their information, which unfortunately is genetic information of those who have put their trust in them to run their lineage. And so this is actually a very important bill.

It's what we talk about all the time in the legislature, which is about establishing guidelines, oversight, giving clear start date end dates, ensuring that when we're giving money out, when we're tasking an agency at this point is the CSU for this particular bill with a specific task, that it's very clear what we want them to do, that they are required to come back and give us reports.

And yet we also give them the flexibility to work with others outside of the CSU that may be more experts in that particular area. And so with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 437. Thank you.

Thank you.

Motions do pass to appropriations. [roll call]

We'll place that bill on call. And next bill up is item 10, SB 518.

Okay.

Well, thank you. Good morning, chair and esteemed members of the committee still. Excited to get the opportunity to talk with you about SB 518, which is also a priority bill for the California Legislative Black Caucus. I will be accepting the committee amendments today. Thank you very much for that.

Just like SB 437, SB 518 is rooted in the recommendations of the California Reparations Task Force, which developed a comprehensive rollback to begin addressing the lasting harms of slavery and systemic discrimination in our state. The task force was established by Assembly Bill 3121 in 2020.

They spent several years conducting research, gathering public testimony, and analyzing the historical and ongoing impacts of slavery and related discriminatory policies here in California. In its final report, the task force documented the continuing harm of these injustices that have caused families and communities across generations.

Among the key recommendations of the task force was the establishment of a centralized state agency, a permanent institution tasked with overseeing, coordinating, and implementing reparative policies and programs for those who can demonstrate lineage to people enslaved in the United States. SB 518 brings that recommendation to life by creating the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery.

The bureau will include, initially, several key divisions: a Genealogy Division which will assist individuals in tracing their ancestry, utilizing the most appropriate methodology as determined by the efforts like those outlined in SB 437, a Property Reclamation Division, which will examine and document cases where land or property was unjustly taken due to racially discriminatory practices and provide a pathway for resolution, an Outreach and Education Division and Legal Affairs Division, which will facilitate public engagement, education, and provide legal guidance to support the bureau's mission.

Through this structure, SB 518 creates a permanent institutional foundation for the state's reparative work, ensuring that these issues are not only acknowledged but addressed through sustained and effective programs and services.

SB 518 is supported by the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth, the Greater Sacramento Urban League, the California Hawaii State Conference of NAACP, California Faculty Association, Western Center on Law and Poverty, members of the California Reparations Task Force, and numerous advocacy and community-based organizations.

With me are Taneicia Herring, Government Relations Specialist for the California NAACP, and Don Tamaki, a member of the California Reparations Task Force and longtime advocate for equality, equity, and justice. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, again. I just want to state that California has long been a leader in addressing historical inequities, and SB 518 builds on that legacy. SB 518 is a critical step towards ensuring accountability and fairness for descendants of enslaved individuals in California.

By creating the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery, this bill establishes a structured process for verifying eligibility for state author benefits designed to address historical and systemic racial disparities. For too long, descendants of enslaved people have faced barriers to economic and social mobility due to generations of discriminatory policies, wealth deprivation, and racial exclusion. This bill ensures that those directly affected by the legacy of slavery and its aftermath receive the benefits and reparative measures that California is implementing.

By supporting SB 518, the state conferences of advocating for a formalized process to verify eligibility for state programs aimed at descendants of enslaved people, ensuring resources are properly distributed, a recognition of historical injustices, and a commitment to targeted solutions that specifically address the harms done to Black communities, greater accountability in implementing reparative policies, preventing misuse or misallocation of resources meant for affected individuals.

This bill is a necessary and responsible measure to ensure California's efforts at racial and economic justice are affected, targeted, and impactful for communities most in need. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair Kalra, members of the Judiciary Committee. Again, my name is Don Tamaki. I served as one of the members of the California Reparations Task Force. After two years of work, the task force presented its groundbreaking 1,100 page report drawing a through line covering 400 years from enslavement to Jim Crow to exclusion and decades more of discrimination resulting in today's disparities, for which we made over 115 recommendations to repair the lingering harms which descendants of U.S. chattel slavery had to suffer and to address historical and ongoing systemic injustices.

Senate Bill 518 is in alignment with the task force report, chapter 18, pages 633 and 634, recommending the formation of a bureau as the infrastructure necessary to effectuate the task force's recommendations. My community, Japanese American community, has some experience with bureaus. I was involved in the movement for reparations for Japanese Americans incarcerated in concentration camps.

I was part of the legal team that reopened the U.S. Supreme Court case Korematsu vs. The United States, long remembered as a civil liberties disaster. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 established a bureau, the Office of Redress Administration, to verify eligibility, to administer benefits, and to educate the public of this wrong.

Likewise, it is crucial that California establishes a similar framework to carry out the reparative policies passed by the Legislature. Of course, this would include a standardized process for determining eligibility, identification of persons whose property was unjustly seized, public education to shine a light on this cascading, cumulative, and continuing harm flowing from redlining and displacement, and legal resources in order to address these persistent harms that impact the community as a whole. We urge support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 518?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, also in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Marshal Arnwine, on behalf of the ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Monea Jennings, on behalf of the Greater Sacramento Urban League, in full support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Debrea Sanders with Catalyst California, as well as on behalf of the Black Power Network with the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Benjamin Henderson, on behalf of the Western Center on BARHII, in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association, in support.

Thank you. All right. Anyone in opposition to SB 518?

All right. Good morning, again, chair and members. My name is Chris Lodgson, here again on behalf of the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, the state's original grassroots reparations advocacy organization, and we rise in strong opposition to SB 518. The bill itself presents three serious problems that must not be overlooked.

First, SB 518 duplicates and overlaps with what we just heard: SB 437. Both bills propose competing processes for genealogical verification, one through the DOJ and the other through the CSU system. So which is it? This overlap only guarantees delay, bureaucracy, and confusion, the exact opposite of the decisive action we need.

Second, as mentioned, this bill proposes to house the new Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery inside the California Department of Justice, one of the country's biggest law enforcement bodies. This means the most sensitive data about our families and identities could be controlled by the same institutions that have historically harmed us.

The risk of surveillance, misuse, or breaches is not theoretical. It's real and it's dangerous. No reparation system should run through law enforcement, period. Lastly, and perhaps most offensively, this bill expands the bureau's scope beyond descendants to include, quote, 'other communities.' That's a betrayal. That disrespects our history.

It ignores the specificity of our harm and violates the clear recommendations of the Reparations Task Force to keep reparations lineage-based. Chair and members, for these reasons and more, we respectfully ask you to vote no or don't vote on SB 518. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to SB 518?

Okay. Anybody who is a descendant and has any intelligence or knowledge would not be supporting a bill that would put our--

Thank you, ma'am. Your name, and if you're with an organization and your position on the bill, please.

Okay. My name is Constance French. Mothers on the Mission to Save our Children. The Department of Justice--come on. I mean, just a common sense--

Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it.

I'm opposed to this version of what we're supposed to be doing with reparations.

Thank you.

Lynette Jackson, California Equal Justice League. I am emphatically opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. Again, my name is Darlene Carmody, and also on behalf of Arc, Bay Area, LEAP, and CBLC, as well as my great great grandparents, Zoe Dupree, 1836 to 1913, Dublin R. Rose, 1820 to 1894, we respectfully ask you to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. Carol Toliver, CJEC, Coalition for a Just an Equitable California. I also oppose SB 518. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Kim Mims, Coalition for A Just and Equitable California, ARC Sacramento Branch, and Amend the Mass Media Group in strong opposition to SB518. Respectfully, I ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Good morning again. Molly Lyon with the Coalition for A Just and Equitable California, strongly opposed to SB518. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I too Aisha Kareem Stockton, am opposed. Thank you.

I personally think that there's a.

All right, we'll bring it back to Committee for any questions, comments or motions. We have a motion. Is there a second and a second. Madam Vice Chair.

Further clarification, and I'll ask the author if I. Well, let me just state what I think I understand. So this is to create within the Department of Justice this body of information that comes from the CSU study. Are the two related in that way?

So that is one part of this bureau. The Genealogy Division is one part, and the amendments from this Committee, which I know you have, and hopefully they've read as well, clarify any question of any conflict with the previous Bill.

Okay. As creating the Department of Justice as a repository of all this personal information, may I ask the witness, I heard your comments. Is that a concern? Is that something that should be protected? Had you had this previous discussion before?

Thank you so much for that. So the Department of Justice worked very closely with the California Reparations Task Force and actually were the ones that produced the 1,100 plus page report. Very knowledgeable about the things that have occurred, the history, the things that need to happen. Additionally, they have the legal support if there are any issues where someone may need some legal assistance.

We are in continued conversations with the Department of Justice and a couple of other departments. So this may not be where it ultimately lands, but as of right now, this is where it is, and the Department of Justice has done tremendous work in the area of reparations here in California. Okay.

Can I address your question? So just if I could. It's just your question, Member, and thank you for the question, by the way. Vice Vice Chair. So I was at every single California Reparations Task Force hearing, every single moment of them.

And I can tell you from personal experience that with respect to the DOJ, and I know a lot of the staff there, a lot of the staff did great, were. But there were serious concerns and serious problems with the DOJ's involvement in the California Reparation Task Force process from day one, actually, from the first hearing that.

Member Tamaki, you're here. You can speak to this, too. There was serious problems with the DOJ's involvement in the California Reparation Task Force process. So that's the first point. Second point is the Senators correct? Yeah. The DOJ knows a lot about the problem because they were a part of creating the problem in the first place.

They're part of the reason why we need reparations in the first place. Why would you put our reparations process inside of the states and the country's largest law enforcement body? It's disrespectful. It's a little racist, to be quite honest with you. You put the black people stuff.

All right, Assembly Member Bryan.

You put the black people stuff inside of the. Inside of the apartments. Okay.

I'm sorry, are you, Are you asking a question?

Yeah, the Chair's question. And with-

Mr. Watson, there's no further question posed to you, but if there is one, we'll go ahead. Thank you.

The final point is there is serious conflict again with this bill and SB5 and SB437. Okay. And those need to be addressed before these bills move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you, Chris. I think when we're talking about the protection of data, I think that's part of the conversation Mike and I were just having, you know, and I don't disagree with the Department of Justice being a complicated entity.

And in fact, I think prosecutors and federal prosecutors and all of them have been very complicated for the history of black folks, and working with them, whether they were formerly Assembly Members or not, is a very complicated position to be in. I will say that the Department of Justice houses the office or the Division of Civil Rights.

currently. The Division of Civil Rights then transitioned into a Department of Civil Rights in 2022.

Right now, it's my understanding that there's no money in the state budget for either an agency or a division or bureau, which means, if anything is to get established, it's probably going to take some incredible lifting from the Black Caucus because that's ongoing funds. We're not talking about one time money.

We're talking about ongoing money during a deficit.

I think building infrastructure is important, and refusing to build infrastructure or stopping any step towards building that infrastructure, whether it's a division, wherever Madam Chair, you decide to put a bureau, whether it's in the Department of Civil Rights, the Department of Justice, or some other place that you think it belongs as you scale up to a full blown agency, I think that's part of how government infrastructure gets built.

My bigger fear is that neither happens because of distractions this year and the easy out to not do anything budgetarily because folks are confused by spectacles like this, and so you have my support today.

And I'm hopeful that that the advocacy of you and the members of the Black Caucus can secure ongoing funding to build this and other infrastructure because as has been mentioned today and many other days, we should not delay any further.

And I think it's important for the Governor to put dollars into this effort and I think it's important for the state to put efforts in this. And I'm hoping there's future budget trailer bills coming down the line that include priorities for black Californians. And that's certainly what I know your focus is through the remainder of this session.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I add one thing in defense of the Department of Justice briefly? Please do. Part of the you know, the member and and it produced a magnificent, monumental piece of work. This 1,100 page report will be referenced in California and nationwide. And these are folks who work day and night to put this together.

This Department of Justice was really responsible for the success of the task force and it would not have been possible for its efforts.

Any other questions or comments? Well, I do want to thank the author. And look, you know, everything about our democracy, or at least as long as we have it, is complicated.

The same Supreme Court that decided the Dred Scott case and same Supreme Court that decided Brown First Board of Education, the same Department of Justice that has imposed cruelty upon Californians over many generations is the same one that is suing the Trump Administration now over two dozen lawsuits, trying to maintain birthright citizenship, trying to stand up for DEI, trying to stand up for our communities.

Those are the tools that we have and they represent who we are, whether for the good, the bad, the ugly. And there have been times in our history they've absolutely represented the ugly. We're trying to use those same tools for good.

And to Assembly Member Bryant's point, you know, especially in the Civil Rights Department Division, there's huge opportunities for us to be to have a well resourced operation.

There have been guardrails put in place through amendments to ensure that the data and what is being warehoused there is used for the specific purpose of the intentions of the reparations task force and the work that's going to be going moving forward.

I do think that we will be this is my personal opinion, I think we'll be far more successful if we unite behind resources to be put towards the effort as it moves forward. But you know, everyone has the right to their own opinion and that's what we're hearing here. And that's fine. I personally think.

We have a huge opportunity here to be able to move forward under the leadership and guidance of Chair of the Black Caucus and Members of the Black Caucus in working with the community, working with genealogists, working with our Department of Justice to ensure that we get to that promise of what the task force, the reparation task force report has put forth in eventually getting reparations in, you know, to community Members that deserve it.

I would like to be added as a co-author, if that is okay with the author. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I want to really thank all those who have, you know, participated in this discussion. Absolutely would love to have you as a co-author. Chair, you have been a strong supporter of the California Legislative Black Caucus. Want to thank my colleague, Vice Chair Bryan, for his comments. Respectfully urge for your support for SB518.

This is a critical, responsible and much needed and much delayed step towards addressing enduring harms of slavery and systemic racism right here in California. This Bill establishes the infrastructure needed to move from recommendations to real implementation, ensuring that California leads with both accountability and action. As we all are aware, we are currently in a huge deficit.

Establishing this agency as a standalone at this point is not economically feasible.

Placing it at this point in an institution that has resources and knowledge to assist with with its beginning steps so that we do not have to delay until California is on a better financial footing is critical and extremely important for the Members of the California Legislative Black Caucus.

The amendments which I have taken deal with any discrepancies or questions as to whether or not SB437 conflicts with SB518. So thank you very much for that. And like I said, we are in continuing conversations to figure out where this will will bureau will eventually land. But we definitely know that it must land.

And for that, respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB518.

Thank you.

Roll Call

Oh, I'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Yeah, we have Senator Perez, SB52. And I

I know that we, we just had some bills, had a lot of conversation, but at this pace, we'll be done at 5pm so just to let folks know that, you know, I'm game if y' all are, but I think that we'd all prefer to not be here till 5pm all right. Senator Perez whenever you're ready.

Can I begin? Alrighty. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members, I'm here to present SB 52, the End AI Rent Hikes Act. I first want to thank Judiciary and Privacy Committee staff for their recent amendments. They are taking significant steps towards addressing opposition.

My office and sponsors are continuing conversations with stakeholders to find common ground on this needed policy. SB52 will make using algorithms to collude and artificially inflate rental prices illegal in California. California is facing a severe rental housing affordability crisis in the most expensive state to rent.

Californians need to earn an hourly wage of $47.38 to afford a two bedroom apartment. While the rental housing affordability crisis is not new, landlords are using AI to inflate rents beyond what is fair. AI companies are using algorithms to set rent prices based on rental data from thousands of landlords and other sources.

These AI driven rent setting algorithms turn competitors into collaborators, facilitating a seemingly unlawful information sharing operation that manipulates the housing market for an anti competitive gain. Algorithmic rent pricing has become deeply embedded in our housing market across the country.

Although existing federal and state laws set precedents defining illegal antitrust business practices, the use of AI backed rent setting algorithms continues. Landlords are still sharing and compiling competitive data through this and other platforms in a backroom collusive manner to fix prices beyond market rates.

While federal and state have begun taking legal action, local government officials have already begun taking action because we cannot afford to wait for the court when landlords are coordinating to raise rents and setting commercial terms that are worsening the affordability crisis.

Now we need to act quickly to keep up with the speed and scale at which tech enabling is rent fixing and to clarify protections for renters trying to get by. SB52 makes it clear that the use of these algorithms for rent fixing is illegal, while also providing mechanisms for accountability and enforcement for using these algorithms.

With me to speak in support and provide technical feedback for questions are Megan Abell, Senior Director of Advocacy for Tech Equity, as well as Lee Hepner, Senior Legal Counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Megan Abell. I'm the Senior Director of Advocacy with Tech Equity. We we are a research and policy advocacy organization that is focused on ensuring that tech is responsible for building prosperity and is held accountable for the harms that its products and business models create in our communities.

As coordinated pricing algorithms proliferate and the models that undergird them continue to evolve, we must act to interrupt these anti competitive schemes and the tools that facilitate the undermining of a fair and competitive market, particularly as California faces a critical affordability crisis and tenants grapple with crushing rents.

We are still looking at the amendments and thank the Committee and staff for your work on this. And we look forward to continuing the conversation with this Committee and Privacy Committee as well as stakeholders to ensure that we're fully and thoughtfully addressing this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB52? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. In addition to the second witness, is there anyone else, please?

Thank you, Chair Kalra. My name is Lee Hepner. I'm an antitrust attorney and Senior Counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, where we have been studying the proliferation of price-fixing algorithms across the economy and within the rental housing market.

We authored a report last year on the proliferation of rent fixing algorithms specifically in this year and 18 states have introduced bills to address this problem. Another dozen Attorney Generals have brought cases. The Biden Justice Department has brought a case against RealPage. And we have every reason to believe that the Trump Administration is continuing that case.

One of the leading private, private cases is pending here in the Central District of California. Rent fixing is an existential threat to the fair function of housing markets.

An economic study by the White House estimated that tenants pay $3.8 billion per more in rent per year due directly to the proliferation of these rent fixing algorithms. The Legislature has worked very hard to increase housing supply. And rent fixing algorithms also provide a restraint on new housing supply, blocking housing starts and leaving units vacant.

Furthermore, we know that building new housing into a rigged market is not going to deliver the lower rents promised by that new supply. For these reasons, the Supreme Court has called price fixing the supreme evil of antitrust. The problem here before you has elicited two key policy responses that are distinct and complementary.

The first is a ban on non public data exchanges. Obviously, there is no rational reason for a competing landlord to share their sensitive data with their competitors, but for their participation in some type of illegal scheme to coordinate. But non public data exchanges are only one way to infer the illegal agreement.

So another category of policies confront the use of algorithms to coordinate pricing strategies across competitors. Here the intent is also to preserve the competitive intensity of that price setting process. And we've referred to these proposals as bans on common pricing algorithms.

The Bill before you seeks to ban both of these practices, as was a recent Bill that was successful in Colorado, at least for the Legislature recently. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, anyone else in support of SB52?

Good morning, Members of the Committee. Tremmel Watson with Disability Rights California. We urge your yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you.