Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning.

Good morning. Do that again.

Good morning.

I'd like to call the August 192025 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. Before we proceed, let's call the roll and establish a quorum. Madam Secretary.

Pellerin. Here. Pellerin. Here. Macedo. Here. Macedo. Here. Bennett? Berman. Here. Berman. Here. Salache.

Present.

Salache. Here. Stephanie? Here. Stephanie. Here. Tangipa.

He was here. We have a quorum. Wonderful. I'd like to welcome. zero, there's Tagipa.

Madam Chair, I motion to adjourn. I'm asking for the same amount of time to prepare for this that my Democrat colleagues did.

Just give me one second here, please. The motion to adjourn is not debatable and it will take a majority of those present and voting. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The motion fails. Now, let me begin. I'd like to welcome everyone who is here in the hearing room today and who's watching the hearing online. For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person, and we are also accepting written testimony through the Legislature's position letter portal or through the Committee's redistricting public comment portal.

Both of these portals can be accessed through the Committee's [email protected]. Today's hearing is going to be a little different than the typical Assembly Elections Committee Bill hearing. So I want to set the stage for what to expect. The Committee is hearing two measures today.

ACA 8 related to congressional redistricting and SB 280 related to election Administration and funding. As with a normal bill hearing, those items will be up for a vote in Committee today. In addition to voting on those two bills, the Committee will also be holding an informational hearing on the subject matter of AB604 related to proposed congressional districts.

I expect that the Committee will begin by discussing and voting on ACA 8 after the Committee has dispensed with ACA 8 in order to make the best use of the time of the Committee and of the Members of the public who are here in the hearing room or who are watching this hearing online.

The order in which the Committee hears the other two bills may depend on the availability of the bill authors to come present in the Committee. If the Committee hears AB604 before SB280 or for procedural reasons, the Committee will be recessing the bill hearing and proceeding to the informational hearing on AB 604.

The Committee would then reconvene the bill hearing after completing the informational hearing on AB604. If that occurs, I will make an appropriate announcement at that time.

When we hear the bills on the agenda, including the informational hearing on AB 604, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support of and two primary witnesses in opposition of the bill, with a limit of three minutes per witness. As a reminder, primary witnesses in support are those designated by the author.

To provide additional opportunity for public input, we will allow other witnesses to speak for no more than 30 seconds in order to permit as many people as possible to testify. I will enforce that time limit strictly. My 27 years as Santa Cruz County's Chief Elections official is what I carried into these conversations about mid decade redistricting.

And let me be clear, what we are building in California is the most transparent process in the nation. For example, we've launched a public redistricting comment portal right on the Committee's website so voters can speak directly to this process. Since Wednesday, it's received more than 16,000 submissions.

Madam Chair, we aren't asking California based. On that information, I answered.

The Vice Chair wouldn't interrupt the Chair while she's speaking.

It's relevant to what she's saying.

It would be nice if the Vice Chair would let the Chair finish her comments. May I finish my comments?

Will I be able to make my motion? Yes, may I finish my comments? Thank you. We aren't asking Californians to rubber snap maps drawn behind closed doors. We're putting the maps front and center and giving voters the final say. This is not about cherry picking when we follow our independent redistricting process.

As a former elections official, I would never stand for that. It would go counter to my core values and my life's work. This is about defending democracy itself, making sure the checks and balances our kids learn in government class are alive and well after the 2026 elections.

Let's be honest, Donald Trump lit this fire when he pressured Texas to change the rules mid game. California is answering that attack not by breaking democracy, but by protecting it. The bills we are hearing today only take effect if another state rigs the election maps. California believes in independent redistricting.

We want every state to adopt it and our Independent Redistricting Commission retains its authority to draw a line to draw the maps in 2020 and beyond. I understand this is a fast process, but we are focusing on transparency and ensuring voters have the final say on whether to enact temporary adjustments to our congressional districts.

Our democracy is under attack, and we simply do not have the ability to delay action so our county elections officials can administer a secure, transparent, accurate and accessible election. Because at the end of the day, this isn't about partisanship. It's about principle.

It's about trust, and it's about making sure every voter knows their voice still matters in America. We will seek to protect the rights of all who participate in this legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on critical issues facing California. In order to facilitate the Committee's business and public participation in today's hearing, we.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action. So before we move on to the agenda, I have an additional announcement to make.

I have a letter from Speaker Revis requesting that Assemblymember Berman be permitted to present ACA 8 on his behalf. So with those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda. And Madam Vice Chair, you had a comment?

Yes, I am motioning. As you said, 16,000 comments were submitted. I have not seen those comments. I'm not sure if other Members of the Committee have seen those comments, but those would be pertinent to the discussion that's here today.

So I either motion that those comments be read into the record or all of us to hear, or that we recess until a time that we can review those comments second.

So the comments are part of the bill file, and I did not hear a motion. Are you making a motion?

I'm motioning to read those comments into the record here today.

Okay, we'll take up that motion. It will be a majority of those present in voting. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Pellerin, no. Pellerin, no. Macedo, Aye. Macedo, Aye. Bennett, no. Bennett, no. Berman, No. Berman, no. Solache, no. Solache, no. Stefani, no. Stefani, no. Tangipa, Aye. Tangipa, Aye.

Motion fails.

Then I make another motion to recess until every Member of this Committee has time to review all 16,000 public comments.

Second. Okay, we have a motion to recess until they could read the comments. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Pellerin, No. Pellerin, No. Macedo, Aye. Macedo, Aye. Bennett, no. Bennett, no. Berman, No. Berman, No. Solache, No. Solache, No. Stefani, No. Stefani, No. Tangipa, Aye. Tangipa, Aye.

Motion fails 2 to 5. We're now going to get on to our hearing and let's bring Assemblymember Berman up to the presentation table to present ACA 8. You may begin when you're ready.

Madam Chair, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.

One minute, please. You may proceed.

In the letter Mr. Reavis wrote, did he give a reason why he would not be joining us today to present his ACA.

It's the regular business of the Committee to allow Members to ask another Member to present their Bill. So we will begin with Assemblymember Berman presenting ACA 8. You may begin.

Thank you Madam Chair and colleagues. Good morning. I'm pleased to present ACA 8 on behalf of Speaker Rivas, McGuire and dozens of co-authors both here in the Assembly and in the Senate. But make no mistake, I'm not happy to be here. One of the reasons was alluded to, which I'm a new dad.

My baby boy turned one month old today and I'd rather be hanging out with him and his mom. But ACA 8 and its companion bills are the culmination of a fight that we don't want. And it's a fight that we didn't choose. But with our democracy on the line, we cannot run away from this fight.

ACA 8 is before you today because President Trump and Republicans in Texas and other states across the country are attempting to redraw congressional districts mid decade in an effort to rig the upcoming election. Americans and Californians deserve better. And ACA 8, is our response to this undemocratic and un-American power grab known as the Election rigging response act.

ACA 8 would allow for the temporary use of voter approved, voter approved congressional district boundaries contained in AB 604. First and foremost, California voters will have the final say on whether or not these new district boundaries get used or not.

Should ACA 8 and its companion bills pass, voters will have their say in a special election on November 4, 2025. Because here in California, unlike in Texas and other Republican led states, we respect the will of the voters.

Second, these maps would be used through the 2030 congressional term if and only if Texas or another state enacts a partisan gerrymander of its own Congressional districts before the 2030 census.

This trigger provision is carefully crafted to ensure that a mid decade redistricting required by federal court order does not result in California changing the maps. It is about the partisan gerrymandering that President Trump has demanded of his party.

After the 2030 census, ACA 8 returns all congressional district line drawing powers back to the Citizen Redistricting Commission. It is important to note that nothing in this Bill package impacts the role of the Citizens Redistricting Commission in drawing the Assembly, the Senate or the Board of Equalization boundaries.

Third, ACA 8 calls on Congress to pass legislation and propose a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution to require the use of fair, independent and nonpartisan redistricting nationwide. I call this the put up or shut up clause.

I don't want to hear from you if you support political gerrymandering in Republican states but not Democrat states and vice versa. We believe in nonpartisan redistricting for California and for every state in the country.

The bottom line is that ACA 8 sends a strong message to other states that they cannot play by different rules when it comes to redistricting and it upholds California's values by neutralizing partisan gerrymandering by other states, all while giving California voters the final say on the matter.

This situation is an emergency and California is responding by empowering our voters with transparency. With respect for our independent Commission, but with a will to act, I respectfully request an aye vote on ACA 8 and I'm joined today by Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association and Danny Curtin with the California State Council of Carpenters.

You each have three minutes. Thank you.

Okay, Danny Curtin with the Carpenters that you heard. I'm going to sort of read a letter into the record. So that's one out of 16,000.

It is with great reluctance but firm resolve that I'm testifying on behalf of the California Conference of Carpenters to strongly urge your support for ACA 8. The extraordinary measure of redrawing our congressional district maps in mid decade rather than historically established national norm of realignment following the census at the end of the decade.

A constitutionally required census to count every person living in the country for the purposes of democratic political representation. Part of the great democratic experiment that is the United States. And quite revolutionary at the time, I might add. Unfortunately, these are not normal times and this isn't politics as usual.

Not only has the Trump Administration denied disaster assistance to victims of California devastating forest fires, it is also seriously damaging our California economy with targeted arrest of law abiding workers without warrants, which I'm sure many of you are aware of. The Trump Administration is now unilaterally withdrawing from legally binding union collective bargaining agreements with federal workforce unions.

The President has made it clear that this is just the beginning. Whatever your opinion of the carpenters union, you all know we are willing to work across the aisle to find solutions. We supported and still support the bipartisan reform work of Governor Schwarzenegger's Administration and this Legislature on redistricting to establish California Citizen Redistricting Commission.

We believe every state should require the use of fair, nonpartisan redistricting commissions. I'm going to get that before I'm done. But they don't. Using that loophole, the Trump Administration is now blatantly attempting to selectively change election rules in the middle of the game. Everybody knows why. To ensure unquestioned congressional support for his unilateral political agenda.

For that reason and that reason alone, we urge you to enact a one time redistricting for congressional districts only to give California voters the ability to have their voice heard loud and clear on the national level. We also support the return to redistricting by Commission following the census. I have a couple of other items.

I don't know how much more time I have, but let me just start. 45 seconds. When a press conference by the Governor and the political leaders to discuss this topic is greeted by a mass gang of Rambo wannabes in full combat gear with automatic weapons just to intimidate, you know something's wrong.

And I mean, all of you know something's wrong. Whatever reasons, when the speaker of the House condemns California for going to a vote of the people to address this blatant power grab to but ignores Texas for redistricting without a vote of the people, the hypocrisy is overwhelming. You know something is wrong here, all of you.

I heard on the radio this morning, President Trump told Sean Hannity that Vladimir Putin said, quote,"your election was rigged because you have mail in voting"

If you could wrap up, please.

Putin got 88% of the vote. His other buddy, Jim Kung, whatever his name. Forget that. You know something's wrong here when you take advice from Putin on voting. Thank you very much. Please support this measure, and I know it's difficult for some of you, but it needs to be done. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move on to the next witness in support. You have three minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association representing a 310,000 public school educators here to speak in support of ACA 8. The Trump Administration is waging a war on every public institution we hold dear.

In a few short months that he's been in office, he has worked to freeze funds for critical education programs, including after school teacher training and migrant education program. He's cut health care for millions of our students and their families, attempted to dismantle the Department of Education, and passed a new voucher program designed to destroy public education entirely.

There's also been unprecedented attacks to our immigrant communities and our LGBTQIA+ students and families. The Trump administration's removal of school as safe zones from ICE has unleashed a level of trauma and fear that no one should ever endure, let alone our children.

Just this month, a 15 year old in Los Angeles was detained by federal agents right outside her high school. Our students deserve better. They deserve to feel safe and supported at school. They deserve every tool they're afforded to ensure that they are set up for success in life.

A majority of Americans are not with him on these vicious attacks. So what does Trump do, rig the next election and steal our right for fair representation. He wants his Republican allies to redistrict in states where they hold power so that he can stack the deck to continue to harm our students.

As my secretary, Treasurer Erica Jones said, I taught my kindergarteners to be kind and help each other, not to cheat and be a bully, 5 year old get it, why doesn't he. My Members and our colleagues at NEA spent months reaching out to our Republican representatives in California.

Several refused to even meet with local teachers in their district and in their Capitol offices. Some lied directly to our faces and promised they wouldn't vote for the draconian cuts for schools and our health care.

When the lawmakers went back to D.C. they proved that they'd rather take orders from Trump, even if it was at the expense of students and teachers in California. We must fight back. CTA supports the great work that the redistricting Commission. I caught yours, Danny.

Did in 2021, but there must be some type of check and balance against these federal attacks. We're living in the most unprecedented of times. This requires us to meet the moment to protect our communities. CT stands in full support of bringing the Brown initiat outlined in ACA 8.

We're ready to do whatever it takes to stop the power grab and fight back against any and all attacks against our democracy, our students and public education. And California has a duty to stand up and take action.

ACA 8 simply empowers California voters to support a temporary change in our congressional districts until the next redistricting cycle to ensure that our students and families are protected. And for those reasons, CTA urges your aye vote. And I'm also adding support for the California Federation of Teachers.

Thank you so much. We'll now move on to additional witnesses. They come up to the mic.

Madam Chair, I make a motion to amend.

Second.

Amend what?

Amend ACA. And I would like that the sergeants pass these amendments out so that way everybody could read them.

Give me one second please. Are the amendments in Ledge Council form.

Staff to reanalyze the Bill, constitutional amendment or resolution.

Just give me a second so we can answer your question here. So these are not author's amendments. So the rule you cited is not relevant.

It says a Member does not say the author.

But they are not author's amendments.

Once again, it's.

The Committee rules are clear that this is related to authors amendments only. These are not being offered by the author of the ACA. The author is Rivas and McGuire in.

In section two it says that we authored this, actually prepared this ACA.

Okay. Give me one moment to thoroughly answer your question. My ruling is the amendments are not in order.

There is a motion on the table.

And your motion is not in order as well.

Madam Chair, I asked to read the amendments into the Journal.

Second.

I reject that. No.

On what grounds Madam Chair.

My decision.

So there's transparency and bipartisanship.

Yes. The selling Members.

I like to move the Bill for approval.

We have a motion to approve the Bill.

Madam, the motion to read into the Journal.

One second please.

I'd like to recognize Assemblymember Stefani. Okay. There's a motion and a second to amend ACA 8. I'd like to recognize the Assemblymember Stefani. I move to lay the amendments on the table.

So you're not going to allow us to debate or present these amendments for anybody to read. They're just going to vote on them, Correct.

We are going to, the motion is to lay the Amendments on the table.

So none of my colleagues are going to read this before they vote on it. Correct. I just want to clear.

It is, I'm good.

Madam Chair, we just.

You could make them better.

We just heard both testimony from the author.

We haven't even heard all the testimony. So let's try to get through this hearing on the Bill. All right. Let's try to hear the Bill in its current form. We have a motion to lay the amendments on the table. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Madam Chair, we made the statement that we're making this very transparent.

We have a motion to lay the amendments on the table.

And I'm just.

We're going to proceed with that motion.

Wait a second. The whole thing is that this is about transparency and that you want fairness in this. We got the language at 8 o'Clock. All we're asking is for our input to be taken. You didn't talk to me as your Vice Chair about this, so here's our opportunity.

Madam Chair, all we're asking for is participation in this. And Mr. Tangipa came prepared. The rules state this, that I would be happy to bring the Chief Clerk in to review this. I don't know why you're shutting this down.

And Madam Chair, I would have presented this to you sometime soon or at any other time. I had no time. We didn't receive this, and yet there are authors on this before I even got to see this. I didn't get this till last night because we were not informed.

So my question is, since everybody's prepared, since you're so fine with the ACA, is how much time did they get to prepare before I did. Why am I not deserve that same for the 500,000 representatives that I get to represent in my district. Why am I not granted that same right to defend them.

I believe we have a law in California that Members get 72 hours before final vote on any legislation. To review the legislation and the language of the legislation before they vote. On that Language, I saw this language yesterday. I saw this language yesterday.

You saw this.

It was in print yesterday morning. Correct.

And that's when I saw. And that's when I saw it.

It was in print but when was it seen.

In print and you are a co-author on it immediately. Yeah. So you had seen that even before it was printed. You were already a co-author.

But I did not have that same.

Yeah, I absolutely support the concept. I had faith in the author is to get to draft the right language. They did and I support it.

But you didn't even read the language.

I did not have that same ability.

You weren't aware of the concept. You weren't aware of the news, that we were planning on doing that.

Excuse me. We have, we have the chief Clerk here.

I am simply just for the same amount of time so that way I can go into this just as much as everybody.

I saw the language, when it went on the print yesterday morning.

And I understand that and I have a different opinion on it and that's okay because I'm granted that. I'm asking for it.

We're going to stop this right now. This back and forth, okay. We have to have some civility in here. We have our chief Clerk, Sue Parker. If you could please come on up for a consult, please. All right. We're going to take a temporary recess. We'll be back in 10 minutes. Thanks.

All right, we're going to bring the committee back. Thank you for giving us the time to figure this out. In the spirit of transparency, we're going to go ahead and allow those amendments to be presented and we're going to give you three minutes to do so. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's all I'm asking for is a fair and equal opportunity to talk for my representatives. So I appreciate that, and really as the presenter of the bill had stated, that he was assigned as a co-author and there were multiple members on this committee--

Oh, I'm sorry. One second. Could we distribute the amendments? Sorry.

Oh. Thank you.

And we'll stop the clock and start it again.

And the sergeants? So as was stated, and not only that, we see that there are multiple co-authors on this bill that I hope don't have the same regards, as the presenter of this stated that they were a co-author before they even saw this bill.

I believe that these amendments actually help make sure that we are protecting the democracy in which was stated earlier today, that we're making sure that this is as transparent, and if you're actually fighting for the people of California that you buy into this.

So there would be no reason for them to deny this amendment unless they have a vested interest in the maps that are being presented before us in the changes in these congressional districts.

So simply to read the amendment is: 'a member of the Legislature who voted in favor of Assembly Constitutional Amendment Eight of the 2025-2026 Regular Session shall not be a candidate for congressional office in any congressional district adopted pursuant Section Four.'

All in an essence of, if everybody here is saying that they are doing this to protect democracy, to do it, to make sure that they don't have a vested interest, and especially when we have seen reports reported by KCRA that stated that the pro temp asked for a specific district to be drawn so he could be included in that, that the DCCC wrote these maps and it shows that there is so much political gains and political partisanship that has been played, that has been lied to the California people.

You now have the ability to prove that you are in this for those same right reasons that the presenter actually asked us to do. You have the ability right now to say that you're doing this for those specific reasons. So when you cast your vote on these amendments, you will declare to the California people that you do believe in democracy, that every statement and the amount of placating that we heard earlier today, that your words are true.

And this gives you the chance to tell the truth, to tell the California people that you have no vested interest in this, that you believe in everything that was stated, that the author and the presenters and all of the other co-authors on this say that I'm not running for this congressional seat because of my personal gain; I'm doing this, these districts, because it's what you believe in.

So you have the chance to do so. Every single person who's a co-author on this who didn't read the bill--okay, if you didn't read the bill, then you shouldn't have any issues adding this as an amendment because you don't have any problems with it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member Stefani.

I move to lay the amendments on the table.

We have a motion to lay the amendments on the table. Madam Secretary, please--oh, is there a second?

Can I just make a comment?

Yes, you may.

I'll second the--I don't have a comment. You know, it's, it's really hard for me to consider any amendments when the first motion within seconds of starting this meeting was to adjourn this meeting. So I have a question for, for the, for the proposed amendments. How did you plan to submit these amendments if you were planning to end discussion in the first couple of seconds of starting this meeting?

Well, because I spent 12 hours--

But you could've--you were ready with some amendments, so how are you going to have even this discussion when you were making a motion and a second to adjourn?

Yes. Thank you for the question.

And discussion.

Thank you for the question. The main reason why that motion was made in the beginning was because we just need more time. I did not have as much time as the majority party in this state as they've seen the maps. They've had these maps, they've had these bills, they've had the language significantly longer.

We didn't even set the committee hearing on our member portfolio until yesterday. So we've had less than 24 hours to even know that this meeting was going to be here. That's why the motion to end the meeting was there: just to give us time. Shouldn't we have more than 24 hours? Doesn't it worry you, my friend?

Thank you.

And the motion to lay the amendments on the table is not debatable. I've given you a little time to have some comments.

But doesn't it, doesn't it worry you that--

But, Madam Secretary, now, please call the roll.

That's all I'm trying to do is read this.

[Roll Call].

So the motion to lay the amendments on the table succeeded so we will now move on to the other witnesses in support of ACA 8. You may come to the mic, and as I stated previously, we are giving you 30 seconds to provide some information. Your name, organization.

This is people in support?

This is for people in support of ACA 8. Okay, there's folks outside. We'll give you a minute. This is for support and to ACA 8.

Thank you. Elmer Lazardi, here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions and also here in support of UFCW Western States Council. Thank you.

Thank you. Angela Pontus, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in support.

Thank you, Chair. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, in strong support and appreciation.

Thank you, Chair and members. Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California PEOPLE, in support.

Sadalia King with UDW Local--AFSCME Local 3930, in strong support.

Good morning. Krystal Coles from SEIU Local 1000, in strong support.

Good morning. Annalisa Quintero with Local 1000, proud UAW member, in strong support.

Good morning, Chair. My name is Constance Hill, SEIU 2015. I strongly support.

Good morning. Kaden Hart, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support.

Good afternoon. Faith Darling from Kern County, and support very much.

Jim Shaffer from Taft, California. Support very much.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, we'll now move on to the primary witnesses in opposition. Please come to the--this is just for the primary right now. Primary witnesses, come to the presentation table. And you each will have three minutes.

And then there's plenty of seats. Yeah.

Should we both sit over there?

No, it doesn't matter.

You may begin when you're ready.

Chair Pellerin and members, I'm Cynthia Dye, a San Francisco Democrat, testifying also for fellow rotating chairs of the First Citizens Redistricting Commission: Riverside Republican Jodie Filkins Webber and Claremont Republican Peter Yao, San Gabriel Democrat Jeanne Raya, and Oceanside Independent Connie Archbold Robinson.

Commissioners are chosen to be impartial, reflect their state's demographics, and apply constitutional criteria to ensure fair districts for all Californians, and commissioners cannot run for office in the districts they drop. The people enshrined independent redistricting in our constitution, voting three times against gerrymandering.

The Citrin Center poll released just last week confirms Californians still support the CRC two to one, and a national YouGov poll shows that 76% of Americans think gerrymandering is unfair and 69% think it should be illegal. The current CRC considered over 35,000 public comments to develop their maps, making difficult trade-offs to protect communities.

This new proposed map was developed by legislators and their consultants in a back room. The CRC was prohibited from considering partisan interests. The new map has only that goal: adding safe seats. CRC draft maps were posted for 14 days to allow for thoughtful public input. This map was released yesterday yet you're voting today.

And why are you not hearing from good government organizations? Because it takes time for organizations to inform their members, debate, formulate, and agree upon a position statement. That's what democracy looks like. We recognize that many believe we face an existential threat and this legislation has been touted as the only way to fight back and resist authoritarianism, but this is a false choice.

Thanks to the CRC, California has some of the most competitive districts in the nation. In fact, there are twice as many districts up for grabs as proponents of this legislation hope to eke out through gerrymandering.

It just means that parties have to do the work of appealing--fielding appealing candidates, developing a platform that speaks to the issues voters care about, and getting them to the polls. That's what democracy looks like.

Despite the serious attacks against our democracy, we cannot preserve it by torching its fundamental tenet: that voters choose their representatives, not the other way around. At minimum, release the data and provide the rationale for your lines. If you want to do a mid-cycle redistricting right, do it the California way.

Instead of spending over $200 million on a special election, fund the CRC to engage the public, create updated districts, and pass them by a cross-partisan supermajority vote. We urge you to serve your constituents by defending California's independent process and rejecting this expensive and misguided attempt to bring back partisan gerrymandering. We welcome any questions.

Thank you. Next witness, three minutes.

Thank you. Chair Pellerin and members of the committee--and I apologize for my back being to some of you--my name is Jeanne Raya. I was privileged to serve on the first Independent Redistricting Commission starting in 2010.

It was Independent, composed of a diverse pool, representative of California's diversity, and it was an initiative brought by good government groups to put voters first. Approving that independent commission effectively ended the backroom political gerrymandering that had characterized redistricting for decades.

We drew new maps with full transparency, giving citizens access to the process in real time through public meetings and the means to submit written comments. Voters had the opportunity to describe their communities, their environment, their infrastructure, and their economy so they could be placed in a district with a fair chance of electing accountable representatives.

And in fact, there were significant changes to the Legislature over the last two commissions, including the percentage of women in the Legislature doubled, AAPI representation tripled, Black representation nearly doubled, and Latinos increased by eight percent. If only Texas could learn from California.

Their current attempts to rig the 2026 election in favor of Republicans represents the basest self-interest of officials who are so fearful of losing their power that all they can think to do is cheat.

Their determination to stack the congressional deck in their favor has prompted our governor to threaten this retaliatory mid-cycle redistricting in an effort to elect more Democrats by sidelining the independent commission and holding a special election just this once.

I'm a registered Democrat--always have been--and I would celebrate replacing any congressional member who has forgotten his or her oath to represent their constituents and protect the Constitution, but this can't be at the expense of the California Constitution, nor the California voters who mandated fair, nonpartisan redistricting. Does the threat really call for retaliation?

We have witnessed on a daily basis the chaos and mistrust that has come from revenge politics in Washington. That is not a model for the responsible government Californians deserve.

It's not a model for which we should spend millions of dollars on a gamble that different districts would produce different results or that we might not lose incumbents in more competitive districts and fail to elect whatever magic number is needed to win this electoral war against Texas and whatever other states.

The governor says the American people--the American people need a fair chance. We have a fair chance here in California. We have choice. We have a voice. It's called the Independent Redistricting Commission. The maps that have been proposed are like a menu that offers you steak, but you're a vegetarian. Sorry, that's all we have. California set the gold standard for--

If you could wrap up, please?

Yes. California set the gold standard for redistricting. This is not the time to take a step back from innovative democracy. Thank you.

Madam Chair, before we proceed--I'm sorry. You weren't introduced. Who are you at sitting at the table? I'm so sorry.

Sorry. My name is Aaron Silva. I'm with the law firm Olson Remcho. I'm here mainly to answer technical questions about the measure.

Okay, thank you.

My technical witness.

Thank you. We'll now go ahead and bring in witnesses who are in opposition to ACA 8. You may come to the mic.

And, and Madam Chair, are we going to have an opp--are we going to have an opportunity to ask questions to the opposition?

We will. Yeah, we're going through our normal procedure where we hear from the witnesses first.

Okay, just making sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Apologies on being late. My name is JP Hanna, on behalf of the California Nurses Association. We are in strong support of this measure. Just wanted to make sure I on the record. Thank you so much.

Thank you. You threw me off there. Okay.

Strong support. Strong support.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll now take the opposition. Please come to the mic.

Linda Willis, President of Bakersfield Republican Women Federated, member of Greater Bakersfield Republican Assembly, California Republican Assembly, Revere Resource Group, and other Republican organizations, as well as a church-going Christian. Strong opposition to this bullying method you're using.

Margaret Drake, citizen California, strongly oppose this, this bill as a Santa Cruz California resident.

Hello. Thank you. My name is Gina Bax, I'm an immigrant, and I'm also the president for the Chico Evening Republican Women, and I strongly oppose this. Thank you.

30 seconds?

You may take 30 seconds.

Thank you. My name is Nick Bussey, and I'm here on the behalf of the Placer County Republicans Assembly, and look; redistricting, we could just have a simple blame for Trump for everything that goes on, and trust me, if it was that simple, I would blame the score board whenever the Niners have lost.

Now I'm hearing words like transparency, representation, and fairness, and it saddens me to be here today in this chamber and the other chamber and see the absolute opposite that's going on. Now under a supermajority, California's drowning in crime, we're not funding things like Proposition 36, unfounded Prop--

That is 30 seconds. Thank you so much.

Thank you. That was not 30 seconds.

It wasn't? It was.

Oh, yeah. I oppose.

We got that. Thank you.

It's a pleasure to be with you all. My name is Nathaniel Noriega. So the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' The California Independent Redistricting Commission was a bipartisan support, something that is nearly impossible today.

As a check on all of you politicians, there's a reason why those words were spoken by Reagan. 'Just because they're doing it, we can do it too' is an argument that only a child will make. We're not Texas, we are California. We are held to a different standard or at least we should be. It is my first time in our state's Capitol. It's beautiful, but when I see--when I look outside and see someone smoking crystal meth--

And that is 30 seconds. Thank you.

On our Capitol steps, it makes me wonder.

Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Denise Aguilar. I'm a co-founder of Freedom Angels, in opposition. We represent thousands of families across the State of California, and I'm just a little confused on why the California Teachers Association is one of the main witnesses as our children are graduating illiterate. I think that the Teachers Association should focus on our children's education. Thank you. And I oppose.

Hi. Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels. I actually didn't have anything prepared to say. I'm just really shocked when we shouldn't be doing this. Wrong is wrong and the people don't want this. We want independent. I happen to be from one of the districts that will get decimated with zero representation, but even if I wasn't, this isn't the right way to go, and you actually don't have the support of the people on it. You have a mandate to be independent and to not do political gerrymandering. I oppose.

Sophia Carstens, Decentralized America. You can't actually redistrict without changing the ten-year rule around the census and you can't do that without amending the California Constitution, which is very robust on this issue, and you can't do that without repealing the Equal Protections Clause, which you cannot do. All due respect, the argument is that we want to preserve democracy. You cannot preserve democracy by suspending it. I oppose.

Sonja Shaw, Chino Valley Unified School Board President and candidate for State Superintendent trying to take back this insane California. You call it democratic and transparent. Give me a break. California's collapsing under Newsom and his cronies'--most of you are here--failed leadership. Just look around: lawlessness in our streets, schools are failing. Our kids can only--only 47% can read at grade level and the CTA is over here doing this?

Shame on you, CTA. You make me nauseated. Anyways, pushing ideologies in the classroom is something Newsom's wife--I mean, first partner in destruction--is well aware of because she's pocketing while our kids are selling there--

That is 30 seconds. Thank you so much.

Put barf bags behind the seats.

Thank you so much.

Kelly Abdosh, not only citizen of this republic, but also wife and campaign coordinator to a campaign--oh, goodness--person running for State Assembly in complete opposition of this far overreach. Thank you.

Heather Mastin with the elder--El Dorado County Republican Party. 63% of Californians do not want this. I strongly oppose.

Doug Williams, El Dorado Republican Central Committee. I strongly oppose this. I am from South Lake Tahoe. I don't see any transparency on how these maps were drawn during the redistricting. They had complete transparency. We could see where the maps were. I have nothing in common with Sacramento and neither does any of the people in South Lake Tahoe or the Tahoe Basin.

Hello. My name is Oscar Avila, with California Movement, totally opposed to this. This is election interference at the highest level. You're going to use past results of elections to base the new maps to rig the election. This is, this is election interference at the highest level. You know, it's not fair.

You can literally move around the boundaries to make sure you get more votes to remove Republican seats. People voted for the state republic and you can remove those seats by stealing an election. You guys are trying to commit a crime. It's a, it's a, it's a--

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

Thank you. No.

Florentina De Janaro, representing moms in California with MOM Army, also representing Glad Tidings Church in Yuba City and Freedom Coalition in Yuba City. Oppose.

Good morning. Shan Kay, proud wife of an International Union of Elevator Constructors Local 18, and I oppose.

Yvette Corcoran, resident of San Francisco, and strongly oppose this redistricting.

Hello. My name is Priya Patel, representing the Voters of Los Angeles County, and I strongly oppose AB 604 and recognize it as an uprooting of our constitutional rights and democratic process in this county--in the State of California.

This bill violates state constitutional law as well as the Voters Rights Act, and it seems to me that the author of the bill and the co-authors that signed off on this bill haven't actually read the wording and verbiage of the bill, so I think that the voters of Democ--of California deserve more.

That is 30 seconds and this is for ACA 8. Thank you.

Jessica Kong, from an affected district, in strong opposition.

David Bolog, member in good standing in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, also representing the California GOP Labor Caucus with the majority of our members being represented in collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association. California Republicans are already disenfranchised with representation. We're 60/40 states--60% Republicans, 40% Democrats. Excuse me, got that backwards--60% Democrats, 40% Republican. This will disenfranchise us more, and we see that in the legislation already. We're 75/20%.

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Angel Ariano. I came over six hours to--from Pomona, California to say that I am in opposition and also that I am shocked to see the lack of dignity in this room, and to use the existing processes that we have, and that's my statement.

My name is Jose Carrillo, constituent of Riverside County. I'm a proud member of the National Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union in good standing, so I have my ticket and I don't know what unions are being are a part of this, but I'm just a union member and I strongly oppose this. Yeah.

Maria Carrillo, mother, representing Riverside County, all the mothers that are fighting for our children's freedoms and protections in every school. Transparency--you guys keep bringing it up, but there's no transparency here. TDS is a real thing. Stop hating Trump and just blaming him for everything. This is not right, and Newsom said the people will speak. We the people will speak if that thing goes on the ballot on November 4th.

Hi. Virginia Barbro from Solano County. I'm also a California native and I strongly oppose, and I'm asking all of you to support real transparency and have real issues and work together and listen to the people because the people of California are being slaughtered by regulations and all that you're proposing to do. It's not real. Your assertions are off, and you need to...come up.

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

My name is Twyla Nixon. I'm a native Californian from Solano County, and I oppose the bill, and everything is becoming very demonic. We're just asking for God's guidance on this and pray that the Lord will see us through this. Praise the Lord. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Oracio Gonzalez, on behalf of California's Business Roundtable, one of the early sponsors of California's independent redistricting process. We urge you to reject both bills and keep our process free of politics. Thank you.

Greg Burt with the California Family Council, in opposition. Some people have already brought the issue of transparency. What was this I saw today out in the hallway was anything but transparent. I'm not sure if the Republicans know this, but while you were trying to get your amendments laid out, they were shutting your mic off, right?

So if you go back and listen to the recording, the mic was going off while you were talking. How is that transparent? Right? You're shutting people from just open conversation. We're all talking about democracy. Let's have an open debate. You are not doing that. Right? And then you go out and have a secret conversation when nobody saw what you decided.

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

All right.

Hi. Reverend Dr. Angelo Frazier from Bakersfield, California. I oppose the bill. I'm a Christian, I'm a Republican, and I just happen to be Black. This is racism 101 all over again.

My name is Dina Burrell. I'm from Tulare County, Visalia, California, and I oppose this bill. I am a Christian. I'm not in any kind of organization, but I'm an American citizen and I want my voice to be heard that I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

I'm Ruth Brokaw. I'm from Visalia, California. I'm part of the pastoral staff at Legacy Church. I represent a lot of people who along with me oppose this bill.

I'm Matt Beither. Appreciate you taking the time. I'm a native Californian, strongly oppose the bill, and we'll go down fighting for kids' voice and everything. So appreciate you listening to our voice.

Hi. I'm Tina Anderson. I'm coming from Tulare County, Visalia, California, representing Central California, predominantly Republican, and we oppose this bill strongly.

My name is Patricia Weiser. I'm from Tulare County. I'm a first-generation American. I do not believe that my rights or my nationality, my primary nationality, is affected by redistricting, so I oppose the bill.

My name is Myrna Aguirre. I'm here from Visalia, California, representing Deep Rooted Church, and I stand strongly against this bill.

My name is Mary Jimenez from Visalia, California, Tulare County. I am in the pastoral ministry also, strong Christian Republican, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Addie Camarillo from Visalia. I'm just a grandma, but thank you so much for listening to our voice. Thank you very, very much, and I do oppose this bill. Thank you.

My turn? Okay. My name is Tim Williams. I go by Tiki Tim from Suisun, California. You guys have probably heard a lot about us, about the California ForNever, you know, scam that's going on, right? You know? But I heard about this meeting today and, yeah, really disturbs me. You guys could put my children in jeopardy. I'm a little upset.

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

I'm a little upset about this.

We hear you. Thank you so much. Next speaker. Yeah, 30 seconds. Yes.

Remember, you're gonna get judged.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

God is going to judge you.

Thank you so much.

It's not a laughing matter.

I'm not laughing.

Yes you are.

Next speaker.

Hi. My name is Euphemia Muñoz. I was born and raised in Tulare, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Good morning. My name is Iani Meñoza. I was born and raised in Tulare, California also. I'm an Independent by choice. My opinion on this whole redistricting matter just seems to me the old adage of 'monkey see, monkey do,' and it's unfortunate that we have to go in this direction simply to oppose another state that's trying to do the same thing, which in general, I believe they had the right to do. However, California has already done this and now is simply throwing a monkey wrench into something to try to do it also. Thank you very much. I strongly oppose it.

Hi. My name is Ellen Woitalla. I am a citizen of Visalia and I am also an elected member of the Tulare County GOP. I spent 30 years plus being an elementary school teacher and one of the basic tenets of education is learning to be fair. This bill is not fair, so I stand before you as a retired teacher saying, 'let's do better, let's not redistrict, let's not gerrymander--

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Hi. My name is Sandra Verdugo. I live in Visalia, California, Tulare County, and I strongly oppose this bill on behalf of myself and my family. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Juventina Barajas, known as Tina, born in Mexico, but a U.S. citizen. I oppose this bill. We need to be fair and I believe it's just going to cause more problems. I oppose this bill.

Hi. I'm Kirsty Vaughn. I'm at Visalia California, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Valrie Snyder, and I'm from Visalia, California, and I oppose this bill.

Hi. I'm Troy Staib from Exeter, California and, and I oppose the waste of my money, my tax dollars. They, they, they seem like they keep going because y'all keep taking more of them. I'd like to have some of that back and wasting that money on, on doing, doing these type, this type of legislation is unacceptable to me.

I'm opposed to it, obviously, and I would like to see you guys focus on things that are more pertinent to, to our day-to-day activities like reduce the cost of doing business in California.

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

My name is Tom Brumley, and I'm here from Visalia, California. I speak on behalf of the 30, 37% of the GOP of California, and opposing this legislation, and I believe it's a waste of time and I don't understand how you guys can be in favor or even see it manageable where you're trying to get back at what Texas is doing. Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hi. My name is Jessica Brumley from Visalia, California, and I absolutely oppose this bill as there's way better ways to spend our tax dollars. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Judy Escobedo. I'm from Visalia, California. I'm here as a citizen of this state and I would like to make sure that you understand that I vehemently oppose this bill. We chose, we voted for this bill. We voted for this state to have a nonpartisan commission so that we could pick our politicians, not have our politicians pick our voters. So I'm hoping--

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Sylvia Escobedo, and I'm originally from Texas, moved here back in '64, and we stayed here because we love California, but lately I'm thinking I need to move back to Texas. Anyway, I greatly oppose this bill.

My name is Maria Santiago, Visalia, California, strongly oppose the bill, and I tell you right now: you think you're going to get away with something, but don't forget you do--will answer. You will answer to God and God Almighty. Leave the children alone and leave our money alone. Use our money for the right things, not your own desires. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Carmen Morris from Tulare County, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Good morning. Thank you for hearing us today. My name is Rachelle Pierce. I'm from the Visalia Republican Women. I'm a former member of the California PTA Board of Managers, I'm a retired military spouse, mother of three college students, and a proud native Texan. I oppose this bill.

Your everyday constituent is confused about where their district is, who their representative is. I've been working on the ground. People cannot tell me these things and I think that redistricting would actually make it even worse. Thank you so much for hearing us today.

Hi. My name is Gail Babb. I'm from Visalia, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.

I am Marla Morley. I was bred and born in Southern California, moved to Visalia about 20 years ago, and I strongly oppose this bill.

My name is Eddie Escarsega. I'm from Visalia, born and raised there, Tulare County. I'm representing all of the Central Valley also. Strongly oppose this bill.

My name is Gilbert Galvan from Visalia, California, Tulare County. As the famous words as Greta Thunberg, 'listen to me. Listen to me.' How dare you? How dare every one of you guys for trying to pass this bill. Shame on all of you. Shame, shame, shame. I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Evelyn Galvan. I'm from Tulare, California, and I oppose this bill strongly also.

Jim Shaffer, native Californian, Republican taxpayer, live in Taft, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Faith Darling, Bakersfield, Kern County, and I have been speaking with a lot of Democrats that are--I guess you call them fence-riders--and so many of them are very confused as the rest of us, and they, they are getting help from a lot of us because they didn't sign up for this either, so just to let you know, you think you have a lot of votes on your side and you really don't. I strongly oppose the redistricting.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. We supported independent redistricting on the ballot and we will defend it when it's on the ballot. We oppose this measure. Thank you.

Lance Christensen, California Policy Center. The one thing I love about this place is we can actually have a debate when it's allowed. When I started in this building 20 years ago, my boss said, 'I may not like the results for the outcome, but I appreciate the process,' and what we've seen today is a show, a circus and a show trial, so I hope the people of California see through this, and we oppose this redistricting effort. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sandra Ramos. I'm also from Visalia, California, and I strongly oppose this bill because it's wrong and should never have even come to this, you know, and also because it's going to cost taxpayer money. Use the money on something good and useful. Don't waste your time on this. Thank you.

Good morning and God bless you all. My name is Daniel Ramos from Legacy Church, Visalia, California. I'd like to say that I strongly oppose this bill. I strongly oppose the nonsense of the leadership of Gavin Newsom and all the Democratic leaders that they have nothing good to do except to drive people out of California because they have no substance to them. We need to have common sense again in government, so--

That is 30 seconds. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, honorable members. Michael Friend, native Californian. I was always brought up to believe that two wrongs do not make a right. I strongly oppose this bill and the blatant hypocrisy. What a joke.

My name is Bernie Johnson. I'm a resident here, I'm born and raised here in California, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Jennifer Jackson. I'm from Burbank, California, and I'm here to speak for the 16,000 people that wrote in, took their time to write comments, and you don't have the time to look at them and you won't put them in as part of this meeting. That's despicable. I am strongly opposed to this bill. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Lynn Sandoval from Hemet in Riverside County, strongly opposing this whole measure. This is my first time in Sacramento and observing what goes on here, and I also am really frustrated by seeing how you're silencing the voices, and it's a huge waste of money. How do we have this kind of money to waste at a time like this in California when so much is getting cut? Thank you.

Hi, Mr. Bourbon.

Good to see you.

Hello. My name is Rudy Sandoval, and I'm from Hemet, California, native Californian, and I drove all the way from Hemet just to see what a rig operation you guys run over here in Sacramento, and I just want to thank you for proving me right. Thank you. I do totally oppose this bill.

Good morning. My name is David Kroll. I am from San Diego, California, and I strongly oppose this bill, and this is highly, highly unpopular, and you guys are actually doing us a favor. So thank you because people are going to come out in mass against this. Have a, have a great day. God bless.

Hi. My name is Deborah Kirkendall. I'm from Hilmar, Merced County, and I first want to thank you for this honor. My dad and my husband, a disabled army veteran--sorry--with brain damage--because they fought for our country, I get to come and speak before you and I thank you for that. That's an honor. But I want to tell you, my husband with brain damage, he knows this is wrong and I'm here to say no for me and for him. Thank you for the honor to give my word.

Bella Minor with Central Valley Republican Party, and I strongly oppose this bill and shame on everyone who is a support for this bill.

Hi. I'm Catherine Lau from Tracy, California in San Joaquin County, and I represent Central Valley Impact Republicans as well as Jim Shoemaker for Congress, and as a native Californian, fourth-generation, I am just appalled that you would take this opportunity to try to redistrict and not even--in less than 24 hours--and not even read the bill; it's, it's really, truly appalling and I'm really saddened to hear this, and I strongly oppose--

That's 30 seconds. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, committee. My name is Max Bonilla. I'm from Sacramento, California. I'm a taxpayer who would definitely love to see our money going to better things. 230 million could definitely do things like helping rebuild the Palisades or communities that have been impacted by recent fire--wildfires, but not this, not this political gerrymandering, not this political posturing, not these ridiculous talking points by Governor Gavin Newsom. Thank you very much.

My name's Donnella, and I oppose.

Good morning. I'm Dennis Gregory. I'm from Eastvale, here in California, and if you people weren't suffering so much from Trump derangement syndrome, you'd see the right thing and you'd understand what needs to be done in this state and this country. Open your eyes before it's too late.

Good morning. Olivia Angeli from Elk Grove. Strongly oppose this.

Good afternoon. My name is Lena Plent from Chino Hills, California. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Good morning. Lars Knutson, El Dorado County. There's no political solution to this spiritual problem. And I've been praying for Gavin Newsom. Since he was the mayor. And I'd encourage all of us to take a look at our own hearts. Be led by the true spirit of the living God. And I just ask God to bless you.

May his wisdom flow and tell the devil to get out in Jesus name.

My name is Riley Niimi. I'm from Temecula, California. And I want to tell you to oppose this because Republicans in California are already greatly underrepresented. We only have nine congressional seats out of 52, which means we have less than 20% representation in Congress, although Republicans make up 40% of the State of California. So thank you.

Good morning. I'm Priscilla Allers from Montrose, California and Los Angeles County, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Adan Pantoja from Riverside. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Sophia Pantoja from Riverside. California, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Cecilia Pantoja, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Annette Pantoja, and I'm. From Riverside, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Timothy Johnson from Fontana. There is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel against the Lord. I strongly oppose this Bill.

I'm Jim Shoemaker, and I'm a candidate for the 9th congressional district. So I do oppose this Bill. I see that what's happening. We need to go back and let the Commission handle all these things. I'd appreciate you guys to vote now.

Hello, Dave Schultz, Baker, California. I oppose this Bill. I don't understand why we are so involved that we have to re-district, our districts because something is happening halfway across the country. I oppose this Bill. I think we should pay attention to what is really important to the people of California.

Okay. Seeing no witnesses and opposition. We'll bring it back to the dais. Members, any questions, Comments. Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the indulgence. I have nine points, I'm going to read them. I'd like to speak them all, but I want to make sure I actually get this said properly.

And the first point is the fundamental question I think in front of us is who should have control of the power, the vast power of the Federal Government.

And our founding fathers agreed hundreds of years ago on a special form of democracy designed to protect our democracy from power grabs, they created the rules and norms for how we compete for power. That's the fundamental problem that democracies are created to solve. We could have it just be military might. Whoever's strongest, they get the power.

Not in the United States. We created these rules, and we're a rule of law, not men. We have checks and balances. We have a free press. And we created all kinds of historical norms that kept us all agreeing. We would follow those rules rather than go to war with each other over power.

Democracy requires many of these critical components to work. Not just one of them, but all of these critical components need to work for democracy to thrive. Autocrats around the world today have learned to grab power by weakening these democratic institutions, rules, and norms.

Weakening democracy by attacking and ignoring those rules and norms by intimidation, by deceit, by militarization of our civilian life. Those are all ways you weaken those norms that we have to have if we want to transfer power peacefully, and here in the United States.

Autocrats count on democratic advocates to play by the old rules while they grab power using their new rules. And I want to repeat that. Autocrats count on democracy advocates to play by the old rules while they grab power using their new rules. It's a false scenario to say we can win simply by working harder. Right.

While autocrats grab power using their old rules. A few decades ago, Russia was a democracy. Today, democratic advocates, no matter how hard they work, have no chance of voting Putin out of power. He will kill off any of the stronger opponents that he has. Many of us prefer the old rules. We prefer the agreement. We all had to play by those rules.

But when autocrats change the rules and the norms that we are using to decide who has power, we can either fight back or we can potentially permanently lose the ability ever to fight back again in the future.

That is the question in front of us, in spite of all kinds of other distractions, we will have. What are the rules and norms for how we transfer power. This is an attempt to grab control of the power of the House of Representatives with redistricting and permanently, potentially grab that control.

That is too big of a risk for us to say, well we like doing it the other way. We like the more, get along, everybody follow democratic way. We simply don't have that choice today. I strongly support this Bill. I appreciate the Speaker's leadership, I appreciate the chair's leadership in bringing this forward. Thank you very much.

Senator Tangipa.

Okay. I hope you bear with me because it spends a lot of time trying to catch up, trying to read, trying to inform myself as much as possible because we've had so little time, so little time that even the presenters stated that they didn't even read the Bill.

And I would hope that the authors or the other co-authors on this Bill, I hope they don't hold the same sentiment that the people of California don't even deserve a read on a Bill. I have a few technical questions actually. And first and foremost I do want to say thank you to the opposition testimony.

I can say this, what we've seen today is I know I'm a conservative, I know I'm a Republican, I know that we have differences, but the maps that both of you worked on, especially in the beginning too, did give representation.

Now I can say that I did not vote on the Fair Commission mainly because I was 12 years old at the time, but I respected it. I truly respected it and a lot of the work and the deliberation because I was one of those kids that was overly, overly into, you know, our elected leaders.

And a big portion of that is because I grew up right down the street from the Capitol in one of the poorest communities in the entire State of California, in actually one of the roughest gang affiliated communities. And it was those gang Members that actually protected me, paid for me to get into this position.

And now I can proudly say as the first Polynesian individual ever elected to the State of California. It was done by an independent redistricting Commission that actually believed in the efficacy of what this state can be.

There's a lot that we've heard today of testimony, you know, and we've seen a true bipartisan coalition here just trying to protect because California should lead the way. When other states decide to do something else, we shouldn't react to them.

We should prove by example that we can do this better, that we create the foundations for the rest of the nation. Because it's supposed to go as California goes, the nation. That's, we've lost that. And that's what we've seen and heard today.

We can't even read our own Bill, but we'll decide to present it and vote on it too. That's insanity. And that's heartbreaking to the rest of Californians because again, I was one of those kids who just obsessed that the policymakers in this building actually cared about the people of California.

But how can you say you actually care about the people of California if you didn't even read it, you know, and that breaks my heart because I spend so much time on this. Because I'll work myself to death trying, trying, trying to make sure. I didn't ask a question but I just wanted to make sure.

You're misrepresenting what I said, Mr. Tangipa and you're doing it over and over and over again. And I will correct the record when it's my time. I'm just asking.

Assemblymember Tangipa, let's let Assemblymember Berman speak.

But you stated that you supported it prior to seeing it. Is that not what you said verbatim.

Go ahead. Just know Tanngipa is absolutely misrepresenting what I said over and over. Okay. what he need to do is justifies on this Bill And I understand that.

What I said is that there were discussions about the concept of the Bill and I absolutely support those concepts. The Bill is five pages long. I'm sorry it took you so long to read it. I'm sorry that and I understand yesterday morning was too long. To be able to read a five page Bill.

But we discuss as legislators, right. We discuss concepts, we discuss ideas. We decide whether or not support things. So I don't understand why that's a new concept for you. That's okay. But I'm glad that you took 36 hours to read a five page Bill. It does.

It does take me time because I will take 36 hours to read a five page Bill for 40 million people in this state. Because they deserve it. Because they deserve it. It's five pages, Mr. Tangipa. That's okay.

We're not debating the length of the time it takes to read five pages. Let's stick to the substance of the Bill, please.

Exactly. Thank you Madam Chair. So truly I appreciate it all some of my technical questions too. The lawyer that is here. So you have gone through the Bill, right. You have read the language. It probably took you, you got through it a lot faster than I did, I assume. Can I ask you who is.

And actually we're going to become really good friends. I hope you know that because who.

Excuse me, Madam Chair. The Assembly Member seems to be making veiled threats to my witness, which I don't appreciate. Well, I don't know why he's talking about becoming really good friends. Let's just ask some questions and get some answers.

If we could definitely stick to just asking the questions. Yes. Through the chair. Thank you.

Because he is here to answer the legal question doesn't mean he's going to be Your friend. Okay.

Madam Chair, are we going to allow my colleague to ask questions or is this going to be drawn even longer.

I just would like to.

It's kind of going back and forth there. Let's have one person speak at a time. Assemblymember Tangipa, please ask your question to the witness.

As long as you don't make veiled threats to my witnesses, that's no problem.

Okay, let's just let a Assemblymember Tangipa ask his question, please.

Well, who is funding the retainer for you to be here and how long have you seen the language in this Bill. When did you first get it and when did you start seeing it. Because I did not get it till yesterday. So how much time did you have to review this.

Mr. Tangipa, I'm here to answer technical questions about how the Bill works. I'm not here to talk reveal attorney client privilege information about the representation I provide or anything that went into the work product. I can answer questions about the face of the measure.

Well, just for me, since it takes me so long to read. I just wanted to know how long you had to read it and if you as a representative.

Let's stick to the Merits of the Bill. Let's ask questions about.

This is not the merits.

We consult with people before we introduce those bills. This isn't a foreign concept. This isn't a lack of transparency.

How long it takes somebody to read a Bill is not.

Assemblymember Tangipa, if you have a question about the merits of the Bill, please ask it.

Okay, then we'll go into even more of the merits. So under the new redistricting proposal in a lot of these and the main reason why I'm asking for so much time is because the questions that I prepped yesterday when I saw this all changed because the maps changed at 8:00PM last night.

And I think that it's well within the process to say, like I should know, the maps changed at 8 o'clock. At 8:00PM last night.

The maps were released on Friday, I believe, and they have not changed.

They change per the census tract. Madam Chair, the fact that you don't know that should cause worry to everybody. I'm sorry.

8:00AM yesterday. Sorry, so sorry.

Changed at 8:00PM last night there was a change at 8:00PM.

At my understanding it was 8:00AM but regardless. What is your question to the merit of the Bill.

Okay, well, then Clovis would be split into three different congressional districts. Not anymore, because the last change that I got as of 2 hours ago on the new maps, now they are kept into one district.

Can you explain the rationale for splitting up Clovis residents, thus weakening their voice.

I think that would be a better question for the authors of the Bill. That actually has to do with the maps. My Bill has to do with putting or the constitutional amendment has to do with giving voters the opportunity to have their voices heard and whether or not we will have a special election on November 4.

Well, the maps are pertinent to this ACA because they are all.

So I am not prepared to speak to the specific iterations of the maps, but I believe somebody will be presenting that Bill after this ACA, who hopefully will be better prepared to discuss individual line drawing of, communities.

AC is to give voters the voice and an opportunity to have their voices heard on whether or not they want to have a mid decade redistricting.

How much is, that recall was done by the Citizens Initiative. It wasn't done by this body.

About the same as the recall.

Can you speak to the cost of the ACA and how much it's going to cost the taxpayers of California then.

The answer remains the same, that it's the same cost. Your question was what's the cost, And I said it's the same as the recall.

But how could you say its the same as the recall, since 2021 to where we're at now, we've seen 40% inflation rates. So is it 40% more.

Tramp just put into effect, it's probably more than 40% inflation rates, but I believe the cost of the, of the special experiment, approximately $200 million.

Mr. Tangipa, excuse me, can you just let him answer the question. He's doing so close your mouth, open your ears, listen to him for a second.

$200 million.

We all need to listen to each other. So when someone else is speaking, let's have one speaker at a time.

Why do I have to close my mouth, when somebody else interrupts me.

I'm saying it to both of you. I'm going to say that to both of you. Please, please refrain from speaking when the other person is speaking.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ask the question, how much does this cost. Is there a actual fiscal analysis on how much this will cost the State of California in its current 2025-2026 cost. Not to the 2021, you can't.

Well, I think the refund is approximately $200 million. So this will be over $200 million. Okay. I think somewhere between 200 and $250 million. Okay.

And so with a rolling and looming $20 billion deficit predicted by the LAO all the way until 2028, you believe that it's within the right State of California, and this legislative body, not the people who put it on the initiative. When it came to the recall election, that was done through a citizens initiative. Nobody here did that.

This is being done by us, the legislators here. Hang on.

By all means, I'll let you pontificate as long as you want.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. Is, do you believe that that 200 and we can adjust cost for inflation. $300 million is what a state in a massive deficit and a rolling deficit year over year predicted by the LAO is what this state should be spending money on.

Can I answer. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Tangipa. So absolutely, and the reason for that is because the damage that this Republican Congress has done to the State of California makes $250 million looks like couch cushion change.

One of my communities that I represent, Santa Clara County is going to voters to the ballot to try to recoup some of the over $1 billion.

Over $1 billion, just to the the County of Santa Clara to their health system because of Trump's big beautiful Bill and the decimation that that is having that all nine Republican Members of California's congressional delegation voted on like a bunch of feckless followers.

No matter the damage that is doing to their communities, the billions of dollars that the Republican Congress is taking away and the cost that that's having for Californians and California taxpayers.

And so if that's just Santa Clara County, 2 million people and it' $1 billion hit that their health care system is taking that the poorest residents of Santa Clara County rely on just to get their basic health care over $1 billion. Imagine the cost that this Republican Congress is costing the entire State of California.

So do I think that we should spend $200 million for the opportunity to avoid billions of dollars in Republican hits to our budget. I absolutely do. And I'm curious to see if voters will agree with me. Thank you.

Thank you. The biggest thing that I'm looking at and again, we've had very, very little time, very little time to the question for the Members that were on the Citizens Redistricting Commission, how much time on average did you spend when it comes to developing maps.

Well, we were the First Commission and because the voters act for Congress voted first act for Congress passed pretty late. We got the congressional map along with the state legislative maps and then we had to do it one month earlier. So I think in total we had seven and a half months.

Seven and a half months, yeah.

Which we worked pretty, pretty long hours to meet the deadlines.

How many meetings do you think you can estimate around.

We had about 100 meetings. Some of them were dedicated public input hearings and some of them were business meetings. We always had public input available at those meetings.

Thank you. And how many hours do you think.

It would be the same. The Commission was very diligent in all Members participating to the fullest.

What do you think were some of the best protections that the independent redistricting really implemented. Some of the rules and stipulations. Can you go over that.

Because I just have very large, very large worries, especially with this ACA, that not only does it open us up for litigation just simply in the way that it's written, but that we're going to do this.

And then, you know, some of us believe that we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something that will be sued and will be challenged or could be implemented, and then, I mean, we don't even, it won't even work by getting this onto the ballot.

And the big reason why I say that is because when it states here that redistricting in all the other states, so there's a portion of the Bill that talks about that this won't kick into effect unless Texas, Florida and all the other states don't redistrict. Unless court ordered. Unless court ordered. That's in the Bill.

Texas, on the 7th of July got a DOJ notice, stated that they had a, they had to do something different.

So if they eventually get a court order and we come back to this, we're going to do this ACA and it's not even going to be able to be implemented because the rules and stipulations under this ACA change that. So the protections under the independent redistricting Commission. Can you speak to the merits of that.

So when we talk about the CRC, we talk about its Independence, its transparency and the fact that it's community centered. So the independents is that it's a multipartisan Commission consisting of five Democrats, five Republicans and four Independents.

And as you may have heard me mention, we rotated the chair and the Vice Chair, so that every meeting we switched it up so that no party was in control at any time. For transparency, everything we did was in the light of day.

We drew lines in real time when we could, especially during the refinement period, every map that we asked, we directed our line drawing consultants to create was immediately shared with the public. People were allowed to comment as these maps are being presented and we would receive that input and put it in the public input file.

The current Commission, by the way, has a very nice dashboard showing all of the public comment they got and interactive. Wish we had that technology back in 2011. And then finally that it's a very community center process.

So the fact that we had 100 meetings that anyone could come and testify or they could email, we were getting tweets at the time and letters, hand drawn maps, all kinds of different public testimony that we all worked really hard to read. We had over, I think, 22,000 public comments in our cycle.

I think the current Commission had about 35,000 public comments, thanks to new technology. So that was a very critical part, was this collaboration and interaction with the public.

Yeah, I spent a lot of time just listening in to these commissions and I could tell you what I truly, truly thank you for the sacrifice that you made to sit on there because I mean, I did it from a phone and I got to listen because I cared about my community.

This is before any political aspirations, any, any goals, just to listen into the Commission. And it's something that I can say, you know, as I drew the maps in real time. That's a process, right, that the maps have to be drawn in public view and you can see the lines. That's part of the Redistricting Commission, right.

Yeah. Just to be clear, the initial maps, you know, we would give direction in public to our line drawing consultants because took a lot of computer crunching and they would come back and present them to make sure it was consistent with our direction. And those were available for the public to view and comment on.

And when they were official draft maps, they had to be posted for 14 days with no changes.

One of the coolest things that I got to see is like, which communities would come out and they'd all say, keep us together and do all this. And just to see the people of California really to just say, like, have a vested interest.

I think there's no doubt that we support the work of the independent redistricting Commission. But if we can bring the conversation back to the merits of the Bill.

Could you continue some of the transparency portions of that and how the transparency is different compared to the Bill that we're seeing today.

As well, so live map drawing, interactive map drying. We were not allowed to discuss redistricting matters outside of a public meeting. So commissioners were barred from discussing anything not in public.

And I'd like to bring in a assemblymember Bennett, you have a question.

Yeah, I just have a question that is that, you know, when you watch committees at the national level, and oftentimes committees have some kind of time limit on each Member in terms of the amount of time they get to talk.

Or else literally, we could keep going and asking more questions about transparency and more questions about transparency. I'm just raising the question. I would propose that this, this issue may be one of those ones where we need to have some kind of time limit. I want it to be fair, want everybody to have, but there's there.

It is appropriate for legislative bodies to at some point in time identify so a Member can focus on their most important questions before their time limit is up.

Absolutely. We're trying to bring the conversation back to the merits of the Bill. There's no doubt that we honor and appreciate the work that you've done for our state, but these are. These are very uncertain in different times now, and we're no longer governing in a democracy.

Madam Chair, I'm not. I'm not done yet. Okay, I know.

So we are having to move quickly in order to meet the timelines of doing this work and giving the voters an opportunity to vote on whether they support these maps or not. Does any Member have a question on the content of the Bill.

What is your question about the merits of the Bill.

Yeah, it's mainly, I'm just trying to highlight the transparency differences between the ACA and that so, and I think.

Let's focus on the merits of this Bill. On what's being proposed today.

Is a comparison to the current iteration of what we do now, to what we're trying to do, not to the merits of this Bill. Is that what you're saying.

I think you've made your point on that. And if we can ask any of the questions about ACA 8, please do so.