Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to welcome you all here today. I am Senator Sabrina Cervantes, proud to serve as Chair of the Senate Elections Committee on Constitutional Amendments. I want to begin by recognizing that we have many new faces in the room today and that this hearing may be one of the most widely broadcasted hearings in this committee in decades. The eyes of the nation are on California, and rightfully so.

We are in a defining moment, a time of choosing. If California does not push back against President Trump's attacks to rig our elections through partisan gerrymandering in states like Texas, we risk losing one of the most fundamental pillars of our system, the right of every community to fair representation. Unlike Governor Abbott, California will not bend the knee to authoritarian demands.

We will not allow red states to strip seats in Congress, and we will not stand silent while the communities we represent are robbed of their voices. Let me be clear. California is not acting unilaterally. This legislative package is a response, a safeguard only if Texas and other states move first to redraw their maps for partisanship gain.

Now, I know some will raise the question of whether these maps should be drawn now or later. That debate has been at the center of discussion for the past month. Here's the reality. There is only one responsible way to do redistricting in this moment, and that is to be fully transparent with the people of California.

Unlike other states, we have put these maps on public display for everyone to see months before the election. Voters will have the chance to review them and ultimately decide at the ballot box whether they should be used if Texas and other states follow the President's demands for more seats. This is the most transparent process in the nation.

Drawing maps later after the election would mean little to no transparency and no direct voter approval. Let me be clear. Drawing maps later simply does not work with the election calendar. Anyone suggesting otherwise either hasn't looked at the deadlines or isn't being honest. Do we really want to delay the June primaries to September? Do we really want voters not knowing their candidate options?

Our responsibility is to ensure that California stands as a firewall against the abuse of power. At the end of the day, our system of government is only as strong as our willingness to defend it. And today, that defense depends on us. With that, I want to thank everyone for attending today's hearing. We will now begin with the first file item, ACA 8, Senator Cabaldon. Please approach. Begin when you are ready.

Madam Chair, thank you so much.

And to Members of the Committee and Members of the public, and I know, Madam Chair, you've reported that more than 13,000 Californians have already weighed on this issue and very much appreciate the opportunity to present one of the pieces of legislation that are necessary for the public to have the ability to chart their own course for California and vote on the maps.

I'm here today to present on behalf of Speaker Rebus Assembly constitutional amendment number eight, which if enacted by the Legislature, will go directly to a vote of the people in the November election.

ACA 8 is intended to make possible the public vote that the chair just described, to make it possible for the first time in California history for California voters to draw their own maps at the ballot box. Not just the first in the country, but the first in California as well.

Redistricting has a long history in the California constitution. Since the 1920s, there have been ballot measures placed before the people of California to create independent commissions to have redistricted by judges. And over and over and over and over and over again, from the 20s until the 2000s, the voters have overwhelmingly rejected them.

It was in 2008, after rejecting independent commissions in 2005-1989-1984-1994, repeatedly by 2 to 1 margins, that the voters, finally, by the slightest margin that you can imagine, I was one of them who voted yes on the constitutional amendment in 2008 that passed with 50.8% of the vote, the narrowest of margins.

In order to amend our constitution to create the independent redistricting Commission, that Commission in the Constitution is charged with remove, with protecting communities of interest, fundamentally with hearing from the public during the process of redistricting and incorporating their own views, not just big political views, but their own views about what their districts should be.

So in a community like Rancho Cordova just down the highway, where does Rancho Cordova belong? In a district? When we talk about these districts, they are not just about big partisan issues. They are about which communities are able to work together to elect representatives that see them, that represent them.

That's what the Commission was set up to do. And so today we're asking through ACA 8 for the opportunity for the voters to enact the maps that are in separate legislation, but that are referenced directly in this constitutional amendment.

And therefore the ballot measure that would enact the maps that the people, that the Commission itself would have enacted if it had been given the charge by the people of California to do what the chair just said.

That is, if California voters came to the polls in November or today and said, we want maps that will fight back against Texas efforts to rig the 2006 congressional election to fight back against the efforts to undo the deep unpopularity that has been caused not just by HR1 and the elimination of health care for millions of Californians, for the attacks on our public universities, but also the unbridled enforcement actions and disappearances and kidnappings on our streets from Ayes that the voters, not just of California, but of America, are sick and tired of it and they want change.

That's what democracy is about. You can either change your policies, you can defend your policies, but one option that is not before us in a democracy is that you can change your voters, that you can change the rules. And so fighting back is absolutely essential. And Californians want to fight.

They recognize that as the largest state in the Union, as the largest economy in the country, that we're obligated to stand up and protect our democracy. And that's what this ACA will allow us to do. And it does that by putting the maps directly before the voters.

And it does that by giving the voters the transparent option over these next several months to evaluate them and to vote. It also protects the Independent Commission. And that process will return just as it is in the Constitution. Today, nothing changes.

The Constitution simply provides today that every 10 years after the census, the Commission is convened and it draws our district lines for the Congress based on its testimony from thousands and thousands and thousands of Californians, based on its own research, based on letters that are received from every big city and small town and hamlet across the state.

And they will continue to do that after the next census when we draw the new lines. But I want to emphasize also that the lines that would be enacted by the voters under ACA 8 are the lines that the Commission would have drawn if it could. How can we say that? How do we know that?

Well, the map drawing, which was done with our.

With our partners in the congressional delegation, was done by reviewing the testimony, the files, the letters, the deliberations by the Commission just a couple of years ago that were heard from, I know, voters in my district, even in my own city, who urged the Commission to put West Sacramento in one place or another, or voters in Winters who testified, please don't put us with Davis, or please do put us with Davis.

Davis. That all of that testimony on the ground from Californians about what it meant to them in redistricting has been incorporated and heard in this process, that this constitutional amendment will allow voters to enact maps that divide fewer communities, that protect the Voting Rights Act. That's the essential. That's what the Constitution calls for.

This is the most constitutionally oriented redistricting that we've ever done in California. And it is absolutely necessary. We will return to the Commission after that. The constitutional amendment here today before you guarantee guarantees that. And finally, I want to emphasize that the constitutional amendment assures that this is the right move for the right moment.

It is triggered only if, only if another state, at the behest of the White House, decides to try to cheat and rig the election. Texas is front of, is front and center. A couple of other states are looking at it as well. We have to be the last line of defense for our democracy in California.

If those states stand down, then so will California. We didn't ask for this fight. They brought this fight to us. And California cannot stand down if other states are attempting to cheat and rig the election in 2006 to maintain Republican control of Congress. So I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Madam Chair, we have two witnesses here with us. First is Jody Hicks from Planned Parenthood, and second is Sarah Sadhwani.

Thank you. If the two support witnesses could approach. You each have three minutes. Begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I am Jody Hicks, the CEO and President of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, representing seven affiliates and over 100 health centers throughout the state.

And I'm here today in support, strong support of ACA 8 and California's response to President Trump, to Texas Republicans and their plan to game the 2026 midterm elections and hold on to their party's power in Congress and why Planned Parenthood and such strong support.

I just want to remind this Legislature, all of you here today, all of the strong work that you have done to expand reproductive health care and access to that care here in California, to really strengthen any policies that have been done since Roe was overturned.

And 67%, 67% of Californians voted to enshrine reproductive freedom into the California Constitution and ensure that here in California we have access to reproductive health care.

Despite that this Congress, in that bill they love to call beautiful, defunded Planned Parenthood here in California in their attempt to take away access to reproductive health care, in their attempt to shut down our footprint over 100 health centers here in the State of California, despite the fact that one in four women rely on that care here in the State of Californians.

And what they know is that Congress Members know is that it is deeply unpopular to attack and undermine reproductive freedom. And when organizations like Planned Parenthood begin talking to Californians, educating them on the impact of what just happened, they know those Members know that they will be held accountable.

So to put it simply, the President and Republicans, they recognize that their majority in Congress hangs in the balance, and their best chance to maintain power is to rig this election before the voters even have a chance to Voice their reaction. ACA8 is a proactive and principled response to undermine efforts that are happening across this country.

The bill asks California voters to approve a policy that will push back on this unprecedented power grab and make it clear that we will only move forward with these efforts temporarily in response to to another state's action. First, Planned Parenthood's mission is to fight and protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive health care.

And if we don't fight back, federal attacks on reproductive health care will only get worse. They'll continue to escalate, and a nationwide abortion ban is a possibility. As the country's leading reproductive freedom state, California has no choice but to pursue every opportunity to push back on this.

It is the right thing to do, and I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Sarah Sadhwani. I'm a political science professor and a commissioner on the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. In addition to these roles, I serve a few other roles.

I serve as a Democracy Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Ashe Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation in Los Angeles. I've provided guidance to the LA City Council on the development of an independent redistricting Commission for the city, which passed overwhelmingly in 2024 at the ballot box.

And I also served as an appointee of Supervisor Lindsey Horvath for the implementation of Measure G in Los Angeles County, which seeks to overhaul the first overhaul in a century of LA County's governance structure. The through line through all of these hats that I wear is good governance and strengthening our democratic institutions.

It's an honor for me to be here today. I'm glad it's happening today, because next week I would be back in the classroom starting off the semester where I will be teaching Introduction to American Politics. Lecture one of Intro to American Politics for incoming undergraduate students is what is Democracy?

One of the basic principles of democracy, as I'm sure you all are aware, is of popular sovereignty and that is of free and fair elections. That citizens must be able to choose their representatives in a process that is transparent, impartial and equitable.

Yet this principle, the very foundation of our democracy for our nation, has been repeatedly diminished and and by the actions of our President in 2020, he called the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, asking him to find him 12,000 votes. Raffensperger, a Member of the Republican Party, said no.

He acted swiftly and decisively and stood up for free and fair elections for our nation. The President also publicly attacked Philadelphia Elections Commissioner Al Schmidt, leading to threats against Schmidt and and his family, who had to go into hiding. Schmidt, also a Republican, refuted the President's claims of election fraud.

He, too, stood up for free and fair elections in our nation. Our founding fathers put into place a federalist system as a check on national power. And in 2020, that Federalist system held up with proud Americans like Raffensberger and Schmidt, who stood up for democracy and defended free and fair elections.

Upholding the basic principles of democracy is a responsibility that Democrats and Republicans alike share. We can disagree on any given policy, and I think that's where my perspective here is somewhat different from the prior speakers. We take turns being humbled at the ballot box. That's a part of our democratic system.

But the rules of the game, the core constitutional principles, should not be in dispute. Fast forwarding to today.

President Trump has now called upon Texas Governor Greg Abbott to bend the rules of the game yet again in his favor and to find him five seats in Congress so that his agenda can be rubber stamped by the House of Representatives.

But unlike Raffensperger and Schmidt, who stood up to the overreach of power of Executive power, Governor Abbott has gotten on his knees.

10 seconds.

These are extreme attacks on our core democratic principles, and these attacks must be met with decisive action. It brings me no joy to see the maps that we passed fairly by the Commission to be tossed aside for this new set of maps. The Commission is an excellent process.

I'm happy to talk more about it in Q and A, but I do believe this is a necessary step in a much bigger battle to shore up free and fair elections in our nation. Thank you so much.

If we can now bring up the lead opposition witnesses, if you could approach. Good morning. Please begin when you are ready. You each have three minutes. Connie.

I'm Connie Archbold Robinson, independent from Oceanside, speaking also on behalf of my fellow rotating chairs of the First Citizens Redistricting Commission, Democrats Jean Raya of San Gabriel, Democrat Cynthia Dye of San Francisco, Republicans Jody Folkins Weber of Riverside and Peter Yau of Claremont.

Commissioners are chosen to be impartial, to reflect the state's demographics and to apply constitutional criteria to ensure fair electoral districts. We also cannot run for office in the districts that we draw as you may remember, Californians voted three times against gerrymandering, placing independent redistricting in our Constitution.

Last week's Citron center poll confirms that Californians still support the CRC 2 1. YouGov's national poll shows furthermore that 3/4 of Americans think gerrymandering is unfair. Over 2/3 think it should be outright illegal. The current CRC, which we fully support, considered over 35,000 public comments as they created and finalized their maps.

And they made many difficult trade offs as we did to protect communities. This new map was developed by legislators and their consultants. Behind closed doors. The CRC was prohibited from considering partisan interests. This map had only that safe seats. All the CRC draft maps were posted for 14 days to allow for thoughtful public input.

These maps, as you know, just came out and yet here we are, voting. Why are you not hearing from more good governance organizations in this process today? Because it takes time to inform Members to engage in debate and dialogue and to form coherent positions. This legislation is being touted as the only way to resist authoritarianism.

This is a false choice. Thanks to the crc, California has some of the country's most competitive districts. Twice as many of our current districts are up for grabs as this new partisan gerrymander would result in. It means developing candidates and platforms that speak to what voters care about and getting them to the polls.

That's what we believe democracy looks like, voters choosing their representatives and not the other way around. At a minimum, if this moves forward, we would strongly urge you to release the data and rationale for these lines as all of the CRCs have modeled. And better yet, you could do mid cycle redistricting in the California way.

Instead of spending over $200 million on a special election, you could invest a fraction of that in the CRC and have them engage the public, create updated districts and pass them with a cross partisan super majority vote. We urge you to serve your constituents by defending our independent process and rejecting this partisan gerrymandering. Thank you.

And Members of the Committee. My name is Jean Raya, I am a resident of San Gabriel, which is in Los Angeles County and I was privileged to serve on the first independent Commission in 2010.

That Commission was independent, was composed of a diverse array of citizens of California, and was an initiative brought to the ballot by good government advocacy groups who put voters first. The approval of that Commission ended the backroom political gerrymandering that had characterized redistricting for decades.

We drew new maps with full transparency, giving citizens access to the process through well over 100 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 that would give them a fair chance of electing an accountable representative. What were some of the results? In particular the percentage of women in the Legislature doubled. AAPI representation tripled. Black representation nearly doubled.

Latinos advantaged by 8%. The California Commission set a gold standard such that the Harvard Kennedy School of Government awarded us a grant to travel to other states that were severely gerrymandered where citizens were like the people of California trying to create independent commissions and repair their democracy. If only Texas could learn from California.

Their current attempt to rig the 2026 election in favor of Republicans represents the basis of self interest of officials who are so fearful of losing their power 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, but by sidelining the Independent Commission and holding a special election just this once. I'm a registered Democrat.

I have always been a Democrat and I would celebrate replacing any congressional Member who has forgotten his or her oath to serve 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 by Texas Republicans call for a retaliatory strike?

We witness daily the chaos and mistrust created by revenge politics in Washington. That is not a model for the responsible government Californians deserve. It's not a model for spending millions of dollars on a gamble that different congressional districts will produce the sought after change.

Does the Legislature want to risk losing incumbents in more competitive districts or second or fail to elect the magic number needed to win this electoral war? The maps presented and offered to voters are like a menu that only has steak but you prefer fish. That's not a choice.

Please reconsider and consider the comments of my colleague in ways that this might be done at least to protect the independent transparent process that voters approved in 2008. Thank you and I'm happy to remain for questions.

Yes, that would be wonderful if you all could remain for questions. We will now like to move forward with public testimony public comment. If you are in support, please come into the hearing room. State your name, affiliation and position only.

Go ahead and start bringing in support.

Madam Chair, Members. Sara Flocks, the California Federation of Labor Unions, in strong support of both of the bills.

Honorable Chair and Members. Amy Hines-Shaikh with UDW/AFSCME Local 3930 and Unite Here Local 11 in strong support of both bills. Thank you.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support. Also doing additional support for CTA. Thank you.

Julie Nielsen, National Union of Healthcare Workers, in support of both. Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in support.

Good morning. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in strong support. Thank you.

Seeing no additional witnesses in support. We will now move to witnesses in opposition. Name, affiliation, position.

Denise Aguilar, co-founder of Freedom Angels, opposed.

Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels, opposed.

Sofia Karstens, Decentralize America and on behalf of the LA County GOP, strongly opposed.

Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in opposition.

Nick Busse, Roseville, California. And on the behalf of the families and veterans leaving California, fairness of good governance and fiscal responsibility, I oppose this.

Amber Arias, Calvary Chapel Solano County, in strong opposition.

Catherine Lau, Tracy, California, in strong opposition.

Hi. Virginia Barbro, native of California, Solano County resident, in complete opposition of this.

Twila Nixon, Solano County resident, opposed to it.

Since we didn't get the opportunity to ask questions in an informational hearing, I'm going to come up here and say... Tony Strickland, State Senator, opposed because we need to keep the Citizens Redistricting Commission power of the people.

Senator Suzette Valladares, representing the 23rd Senate District, over a million voters, and also the 40 million voters in California saying do not dilute their power. Do not take their their power away for politicians.

Thank you. Seeing no additional... Would you like to approach please?

Olivia... Excuse me. Olivia Angeli from Elk Grove, strongly opposed.

Bella Minor from Stockton, strongly opposed.

Renee Zepeda-Blankenship from Fresno County, opposed.

Debbie Gonzalez, Fresno County, opposed.

Jose Carrillo, Riverside, California, a constituent of Sabrina Cervantes, and I strongly oppose.

My name is Angel Arellano. I'm from Pomona, and I oppose.

Hello. Shan K. from Orange County, California, representing California Parents Rights Act Now, and I oppose.

Maria Carrillo, Riverside County, constituent of Sabrina Cervantes, strongly opposed.

Emily Jones, resident of Shasta County, representing Home Tribe, and oppose.

Good morning. Jennifer Lee representing Los Angeles. I strongly oppose.

Gina Bax, president for the Chico Evening Republican Woman. I completely oppose this. Thank you.

Florentina Di Gennaro from the Yuba Sutter area, opposed.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Lance Christensen, vice president of the California Policy Center. We oppose these redistricting schemes. Thank you.

Heather Masten, El Dorado County Republican Party, no.

Michael Friend, California native, retired state employee, strongly opposed.

Darcy Lucero, California native, strongly opposed.

Rika Shivitz, Orange County resident, and I strongly oppose.

Oscar Avila, Fortuna, California, with the California Movement. We strongly oppose.

David Bolog, a constituent of the 27th Senate District, representing Serving Family Values Alliance and Moms for Liberty. We are in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Assembly Member Tom Lackey, strong opposition.

Seeing no additional individuals who'd like to step and offer support or opposition, I will now turn it back to the Committee Members on the dais. We'll start with Vice Chair Choi.

Thank you, Chair. Before I start asking questions, this being the public hearing non-voting item, we have a couple Senators in the audience. Can we extend invitation for them to sit on the dais, asking some questions?

This is only for Members of the Committee for this bill hearing. You may proceed with your questions or comments.

Okay. This is, as you have heard, a very important historic decision that we are hearing and three different measures. A couple of them just for hearing, and the later last item will be voted upon.

You can defend either side, but from my point of view there are so many illegal and also unethical elements in this attempt by changing these ACA 8 in the Constitution. And the reason is that we do have already chosen so called independent Citizens Redistricting Commission that had been already appointed and only based upon 2020 election.

On 2020 the population census data, the districts have been already drawn and that was from to me it was very decisive ballots. Rather than just a bare over 50% was 61% to my data was 61.3% voter approved of commission. So I have a total trust on the election redistricting commission. And 10 year cycle comes very quickly and the preparation for that.

And then also the whole process of hearing the citizens input into the process before the final map has been drawn. It takes a lot of time, but this one is just for next three election cycles in reaction as a retaliatory reaction to other states which you are condemning. And if you follow the same condemnable actions, then Californians should be condemned by other people.

Why should we follow that same suit and we destroy our good model that we have chosen? You are talking about defending the democracy. Which side is a better action to defend the fair election redistricting that has been fairly and approved by citizens and that cycle is going to be only applied next three election cycles. Who can guarantee that?

So with that statement, I have also some statements and then also some questions to ask to the first of all opposition witness. Governor Newsom has said that this legislation and the ballot measure have the explicit goal of electing the more Democrats to Congress. Right? That was his statement. Do you agree that the main purpose of redrawing the maps is to elect more Democrats to the House of Representatives?

Is that a question for the author?

No. To the opposition witness. So yes or no? Yes.

Yes, that is the stated purpose is to elect more Democrats.

Okay...

May I add something to this? In all due fairness, none of us... Pardon?

Through the Chair.

Oh, I'm sorry. May I just add something briefly? Because none of us were actually, as citizen commissioners, involved in this process, this would be within your power to request for the rationale and the data to be released so that we have a clear understanding. With the commissions, it was very public and transparent what the drivers were. But this is what has been publicly said is that it is to elect more Democrats.

Okay, thank you. And then I'm going to ask the Senator Cabaldon because you are right now speaking on behalf of the author. It is my understanding that these new maps only take effect. You stated the answer to that, but I want to reaffirm. If some of the states redistricts, in other words, our all effort, even if this passes will be nullified?

That's correct, Senator. These only become effective at any stage in this process if another state adopts a new congressional district map that isn't required by a court order.

So obviously I'm the only Republican Member among the five Members of this Election Committee and Constitutional Amendment. Vote will be taken place. But I am kind of worried that my single vote is not going to defend or win, so we'll see how it goes. But if it passes and the ACA 8 is placed in the ballot measure, and let's suppose the that the citizens approve of that. Even then, can you stop it?

Yes. So the terms of the constitutional amendment itself that the voters will vote on is what includes the trigger. And so the trigger, if the voters approve it and the trigger isn't pulled, then it doesn't take effect.

So that will be condition that the other states will redistrict?

Yes. And that's directly in the measure, this measure that the people of California would vote upon themselves.

Okay. And then I will move on to would that mean that these maps will go into effect next year even though no state is restricting this year? So you said that that is not the case. It's not going to trigger, correct?

That's correct. So the plain language of the bills and what the voters will vote on is that these will become operative only if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map that takes effect after August 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2031 unless that redistricting is required by a court order in another state.

Okay, then how long does this condition last? If Texas decides to do the mid decade redistricting because of the court order in two years, do these maps automatically take effect?

I see that the committee chief consultant wanted to provide a clarification.

You already answered this.

Okay. Yeah. So the period that this applies to is August 1st of this year until January 1st of 2031. After that point, then the commission, the commission process that is in the current constitution and is undisturbed by this measure would recommence after the conclusion of the census.

Okay. Now this leads to next question. Is this a condition triggered if Democrats run state redistricts? In other words, whichever city among the state that that may be, that will be in the ballot measure that the trigger clause will be embedded in there.

Yes, that's correct. The language of this meas without regard to the partisan makeup of any of the other states. It's important to note no Democratic state has or has been considering independently rigging the elections or the congressional districts in this way.

So the practical effect certainly is only, quote, unquote, red states because it's only Texas, Florida, and some of their colleagues that have been contemplating this aggressive action to attack the elections next year. But yes, the actual language of this measure that would be voted upon by the people would affect blue states and red states equally.

Okay. This question is also related. Is this condition triggered if an independent commission in another state redistricts and it results in a net gain of Democratic congressional seats?

As I understand... And the committee staff or others want to interject, that's fine. But none of the other states that have independent commissions that those commissions are not authorized to do mid decade redistricting either, just as ours is not. So that hypothetical cannot happen in the absence of a constitutional amendment in other states.

Okay. Under current law, the Legislature cannot draw the lines, draw them for the purpose of partisan gerrymandering, or draw them mid decade. Shouldn't we be asking the people's permission first to do these things rather than drawing the lines and then asking the voters to approve our unconstitutional actions? In other words, placing cart before the horse.

Well, Senator, like you, I served as a mayor for quite a long time, and my experience has been that voters want us to get to the point and sending them two or three different stages when we all know what it is that we are attempting to accomplish does not advance democracy.

That in this case the voters will have all their choices at once to vote on, the authorization in the Constitution and the maps themselves. So they're able to vote on the abstract question with the actual maps that they can choose and look at themselves and evaluate them according to those criteria. The Constitution... Let's be clear. The Constitution doesn't say what you said about the Legislature.

What it says is that the Legislature can't intervene in the decennial in the every 10 year process. When the Commission is convened after the census and it draws the maps according to that process, the Legislature may not intervene in that process to do the things that you said or to impose a party purpose on it. The Constitution is silent with respect to mid decade redistricting, and this measure allows the people to decide if, when, and how that will proceed.

We have other Committee Members who'd like to ask questions and comments. Senator Choi, we can move right back to you.

One more question.

Let me come back to you. Let me allow Senator Umberg. Would you defer? Okay, go ahead. Vice Chair Choi, you may ask your question.

Yeah. Are the voters being given to opportunity to see each congressional map on the ballot as well opportunity directly approve each congressional map as promised by the Governor?

Yes. The voters have already the opportunities to see those maps. This is the first time ever. So there was a decade, I don't remember the year, when the voters voted in a referendum on district maps previously once before. And I remember being a voter in that case. And I thought, how do I get this map?

How do I know? How do I make sense of it? And this time there is an interactive map that has been up since last week already for those maps to be available. And I want to, you know, emphasize to this point because we also heard it in the opposition testimony.

In the commission's normal process There is a 14 day period by which those maps before they are voted on by the commission are available for public inspection. In this case the maps have been published. They have been on this committee's website since Friday, and they will be available for 78 days for public inspection.

And they are available in the most user friendly form, which is an interactive web based map that we are that all Californians are used to be able to inspect. As well and in every other form possible, including the 300 page bill that we had last night for those who love to look at census tracts.

But these are transparent maps so that voters can zoom in, see exactly where they live, what their communities of interest are, and evaluate them on their own when they cast their votes whether or not to approve these maps in November.

Thank you. Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Irvine for your courage. As I understood what you said, you condemn what they're doing in Texas, and I also condemn what they're doing in Texas.

And by extension, if you're condemning what they're doing in Texas, I assume that you condemn the President of the United States for in essence, ordering the folks in Texas to redraw their maps mid decade. And I think it's a bold move for a Republican basically to condemn both the process in Texas as well as the President of the United States. So I congratulate you for your courage.

What I meant was let's don't become the bad one. Just follow the bad actors if you are condemning them. I didn't criticize or evaluate their actions because you labeled in the beginning. In the presentation, he labeled it in such a way. I took that word and it was not my judgment or statement.

Okay, well, let me retract. If you didn't think that what they're doing in Texas is inappropriate, then I retract what you said. I thought you had actually condemned what they did in Texas and also condemned, by extension, the President of the United States. Let me direct some questions to Ms. Robinson and Ms. Raya.

First of all, thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your service on the redistricting commission. I realize it was in 2010 and 2011 and a very, very important process, and I think we can all agree that that process is absolutely essential. And I assume, Ms. Robinson, I read what you said in 2011 that...

Or actually it wasn't what you said, it was the President of La Sierra College said that you were committed to service, fairness, and bettering the community. And I assume that that's one of the reasons you applied to be on the commission. Am I correct in that assumption?

Yes. I believe most commissioners share those lofty goals.

Yes. Well, thank you. I thank you. And Ms. Raya, I think you said back in 2011, we must do all we can do to ensure that citizens maintain faith in representative democracy. Do you remember saying that in 2011?

I do. I do. And I've said it many times since.

And you believe that today?

I do.

And I assume that both of you applied to be on the commission because you wanted to improve the quality of life of Californians, that ultimately you thought you were bettering the community. Is that right, Ms. Robinson?

I assume that's also what drove you to your service. And, yes, I think that's unilateral.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Same thing with you, Ms. Raya?

Of course.

Yes. I assume you didn't do it so you could sell watches. Right? Or you could, for example, sell cryptocurrency or get a free airplane? You didn't do it for any of those reasons. You came to public service to improve the community. Is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Ms. Raya, you think so?

Came to serve. Yes.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. And I think you, Ms. Robinson, also said, as we can see from the experience of other states, when redistricting is not done well, it can have a really grave impact. Do you agree with that today still?

Yes.

And do you agree with the statement that not only that grave impact may impact the state in which the redistricting is done improperly, but the entire nation? Do you agree with that?

In my capacity as both a commissioner and as someone who was supported by the Harvard Center to travel across the country and support many other states and advocates in those states to create other models in their states, absolutely. I've seen both the impact at the local level, at the state level, and across the nation in other states. I don't know if you'd want to add anything on that.

No, I would share that, absolutely. The impact can be seen in many ways, I think, including by the statistics that I cited, what I think is improved representation in our Legislature as a result of the districts that have been drawn in the last two decades.

I completely agree with your statement that what happens in other states can have a grave impact on the entire nation. And I assume both of you are following what's going on in Texas. Are you following that, Ms. Robinson?

Yes, sir.

Yes. And do you approve of what's going on in Texas?

I do not approve of what's going on in Texas, and I am a commissioner and a resident in California, and so that is my primary focus today.

And, Ms. Raya, do you approve what's going on in Texas?

I don't know that anyone other than the Republicans in Texas and the White House approve of what's going on. But I would have to repeat what Ms. Robinson has said, that we're concerned about our state right now.

All right. And going back to my earlier statement that whatever goes on in Texas actually impacts us here in California. Do you agree with that?

Yes, sir. We are all part of the same country.

Right. No, I completely agree. One of the founders, James Madison, I'm going to quote him here, said the accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced as the very definition of tyranny.

So do you agree with me that basically that the Congress of the United States has in essence approved everything that this President has proposed? Do you agree with that, Ms. Robinson?

I'm not here to comment on Texas. I am here to comment on California. And there are ways that California's elected officials can have the national impact that we want and that we need through using the competitive districts that have been established through the citizen approved independent Commission.

So let me ask, Ms. Ryan, you understand, let me ask you if you share my understanding that the Republican Members of the California delegation have basically voted with the President on all things that the President has proposed that impact California. Do you agree with me on that supposition? Ms. Ryan?

I would say that that the results we're seeing in Washington come from are there happening for many reasons. Some of that is perhaps how elected officials are actively responding to what this President wants. It may also be because there are not enough other strong voices to counter it.

It may also be because the courts seem to have been sidelined to some extent in upholding the separation of powers, upholding the rule of law. I think it's a complex issue that is really not what this proposed action in California is about. This action is about doing a partisan redistricting absolutely. In conflict with California law.

That's what I can speak to. I'm not an expert on national politics. I don't know that anybody really cares what my opinion is on national politics. So again, I, you know, I really would prefer that we're directing the conversation to what is going to happen here in California.

And I agree with you 100% that we should focus on what's happening in California and what impacts the Congress action or inaction, whether they're supine or actually active as a check on the Executive, how it impacts California.

But I think you agree with me that the Congress has not been a check on the President whatsoever, including our Members, including our Republican Members in the House of Representatives. I think you agreed with me on that. Is that right?

I would say that Congress has not acted responsibly in general.

All right. So in terms, and I read the quote from James Madison that basically we no longer have an effective check on the President of the United States. Do you understand that the President of the United States has in essence ordered Texas to reconfigure their congressional seats to add five Republican seats.

Do you remember the President saying that, Ms. Ryan?

I do.

You do. And how about you, Ms. Robinson?

Yes, I do.

And you understand that the balance of power in the House of Representatives is very narrowly divided, Is that right? Yes. Ms. Rya. Okay. Ms. Rice says. And Ms. Robinson? Yes. So you, you also, I want to get your views on what the President has done here in California. Are you familiar with AmeriCorps? Are you familiar with AmeriCorps?

Ms. Riot? Yes, you are. And Ms. Robinson, you're familiar with AmeriCorps? Yes. You understand the President has basically, by his action eliminated 5,600AmeriCorps, public service workers and $60 million. You think that's a detriment to California? Ms. Robinson Absolutely. Absolutely. Ms. Raya. Of course. And also, I assume you're familiar with Ayes raids here in California right now.

Are you familiar with that? Ms. Robinson Absolutely. And Ms. Ryan yes. And that in fact, 71% of those who have been arrested do not have criminal convictions. There's been 57,861 people detained and 71% of those had no criminal convictions. Do you think that's appropriate?

Ms. Robinson. Absolutely not.

No. Mr. I. How about you? You don't think that's appropriate? You understand that that's basically the initiative of the President, United States, to basically do that. You understand that? Ms. Robinson yes. You understand that Congress has been absolutely supine in terms of acting as a check on the President of the United States.

Absolutely.

And that the only check that really exists today is the Congress of the United States, at least theoretically. You know what? I don't know how long you Mr. I. How long have you lived here in California?

My entire life.

All right. I want to know how old you are. I'll tell you how old I am. I'm 69 years old. I came to California to go to UCLA a bunch of years ago, a bunch of years ago. And when I came here, the air quality was horrible, was absolutely horrible.

And I don't know about you, Ms. Robinson, if you've lived here long enough to remember how horrible the air quality was and you understand the President of the United States has said California can no longer enact its own emission standards, that we now have to defer to Alabama and Mississippi in terms of our clean air.

Ms. Rya, do you think that's good for California's quality of life?

I think we have a lot of quality of life issues to address, and I think one way to address them in California is to have representatives elected by the people who understand and represent the communities of interest that voters come from.

So you agree with me the air quality is actually improved. You've been here your whole life actually improved in California. Do you agree with me on that?

Yeah, it's improved all right.

And that by reversing our emission standards that we're going to basically go back to where we were 50 years ago. Do you agree with me on that?

I would guess that that's so not, not a scientist either. So.

And you're familiar with the $1.0 billion that the President has tried to extort from UCLA. Does that improve the quality of life here in California, you think? Ms. Robinson?

No, sir.

No, Ms. Ryan.

No.

And the same thing with the $584 million research grants that the President is trying to basically quash here in California. I think you agree with me that does not add to the quality of life of Californians. Is that right? I think both of you are shaking. Ms. Robinson, you agree with me, right?

I think there's more we're in agreement than disagreement. I think what we're here to speak on is the means to get to the end.

And in my humble opinion, not as an elected official, not as a national political expert, but someone who is an engaged citizen, an engaged voter, and has been a volunteer Commissioner who skipped my children's first days of school to actually be here and express my voice to all of you that we have competitive districts in California where we have excellent electeds and candidates in the pipeline.

Across partisan lines.

I am speaking as an independent who absolutely can address these issues without resorting to a partisan gerrymander that has no checks and balances such as we suggested, including being fully transparent with the data that was used to develop these lines, empowering the very successful current seated Citizens Redistricting Commission to be able to play a role in that process and to continue building on the trust and faith that has been created, not just with Californians, but as I went and traveled and trained and educated people across the country, our citizens in other parts of the country who are being held hostage by politicians who do not represent their interests, have been looking to California as the alternative, as the model.

If we got our the great work that we have been doing there, then not only do we lose our credibility, those efforts actually get stalled and get reversed. That's what I'm here to express. I understand that you are in a difficult position as our elected officials and as our leaders.

There are no easy answers to any of this.

Madam Chair, I'd like to just take a moment to see if there's any Members who want to provide comment or.

Can I just ask one final, or at least one interim final question, Madam Chair.

Yeah. Point of order. Point of order.

What is your point of order?

Listening to cross examining the witnesses as if they are sitting here in defense of the Donald Trump. We are discussing the Bill right now. Aca8 and we need to address to the Bill content not defending Trump Administration policies. This is not quotable rules and cross examining just like the attorneys are doing.

And then I object that I hope that the chair will stop his cross examining style of questioning.

Point well taken. We will one more question at the moment and then I will turn to Senator Limon if she has any questions. If not, I will jump in. Thank you.

Let me just ask the two opposite. Do you think we in California should do what we can within the bounds of the law to dissuade Texas from engaging in what I think you both characterize as inappropriate activity? Ms. Rya, we'll start with you.

Do you think we should do in California what we can within the bounds of the law to dissuade Texas from engaging in their gerrymanders?

That's a point of order Again. It is right now. How can they say that in the Texas or is there they are doing whatever they think they are right. But we are not defending Texas or Trump Administration Detroit.

We will maintain decorum and yeah, ruled.

The point was well taken and he keeps on continuing.

We will. Let me allow Senator Umberg to ask.

The question and I'll ask the last question. Do you think. Let me first ask Ms. Ryan, then, Ms. Robinson, do you think we in California should do what we can within the bounds of the law to dissuade Texas from engaging in the partisan gerrymandering that they. I think they're about to do.

Ms. Rya, what is happening in Texas is reprehensible and I admire the Texas Democrats who have resisted. But I think those people, those elected representatives in Texas are capable of resolving this issue for Texas. We're concerned about resolving a similar issue in California.

Ms. Robinson, do you think we should do what we can within the bounds of the law to dissuade Texas from engaging in this partisan gerrymandering?

I have spent the last 15 years of my life promoting independent redistricting, both in California and nationally. I have spent decades expanding democracy, partnering across the aisle on a number of good government initiatives in my capacity as an advocate, in my capacity as working with philanthropy, working with elected officials, working with registers of voters. I would continue.

I see this testimony today as part of that trajectory and absolutely continue to promote fair and equal playing field in terms of redistricting around the country.

So I take that as a yes.

Yes. Madam Chair. Mayor, if I may just weigh in. I just wanted to acknowledge my two colleagues here. We didn't serve on the same Commission, but I'm incredibly proud of you for the responses that you've given to the Senators. Very difficult questioning, line of questioning. But I think that those are appropriate questions.

Yes, please.

This is the kind of moral conflict that if this goes to the ballot that every California voter is going to be faced with. And these are not easy decisions.

And so I actually really appreciated this exchange and just wanted to acknowledge my colleagues here because I know that that wasn't difficult to be sitting here having to defend all of the ills that have come before California. But I do think that this is the challenge that every California voter will have.

And I think this is probably going to be going through the minds of so many voters over the next several months if this plan moves forward.

Thank you. And if I may, I want to just say that how much I respect the work of the crc. Thank you for the time loss being here today. I understand what that means. Many of us do. So I want to make that clear. There was a comment made that we're putting the cart before the horse.

This is the cart with the horse. The voters get to decide who and what. At the same time, this November 4th, we are proud of our state's Citizens Redistricting Commission. It is a gold standard for our country. In fact, we want to support policy for nationwide nonpartisan citizens Redistricting commissions.

We are in a moment where we have to respond to an existential threat. Do you expect Californians to unilaterally disarm ourselves when the Trump Republicans are wielding their control of state governments like weapons against democracy?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding is that there are twice as many competitive seats that can be mobilized as there would be seats that are created by the maps that have just been released in the recent days. So to me, this is not disarmament.

This is being able to really organize the platform and leverage what we already have within the parameters of our voter approved constitutional amendments and the existing district that our fellow commissioners on the current Commissioner worked so hard to and diligently to create. If there is an interest in and need, we understand that the context evolves.

A lot can happen in 10 years.

As we can see, there is the opportunity to go back to communities and to update the community of interest testimony and do some adjustments based on those lines or release the information upon which these maps were drafted and those types of provisions were not included in this Bill and easily could be.

And again, I just want to reiterate that Texas is actively reducing their own competitive seat count. So then do you expect our communities to remain silent While their voices are being stripped away from Washington.

I never expect communities to be silent. In fact, I would encourage people to speak on to this very issue. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't. Everybody in this room talks to people who are terrified, who are living with extreme anxiety.

When you talk about the raids, yes, we're in the middle of them in Los Angeles and in my area and people close to me. So, you know, we're living with that and even despair that people have about the current political climate.

But I am not convinced, I can't be convinced that just putting up a map that's already decided is something that people can react to other than if you're encouraging just a visceral reaction. Let's get the National Administration by approving this Bill.

That is not good government, that is not responsible government, that's not engaged government, that is not giving citizens the information they need. The 78 days. 78 days to look at a map that's done, not a map that can be modified in the interest of the communities it's supposed to serve.

Given that we still have two additional measures on file today, I want to make sure that we can keep our questions concise. But let me turn it over to Senator Limon.

Thank you. Thank you. And I want to first start off by thanking all of you for being here. It's not often that we get to see a panel of all women to take on a very difficult issue. This deliberation has been important for me, and it continues to be a very important conversation.

And in this deliberation, I have heard consensus around the importance of expanding democracy. And I'm actually using your words, Ms. Robinson, expanding democracy. And I think about the fact that we are living. And I'm using your words now, Ms. Raya. We are living in moments of extreme anxiety and despair.

And it is very important to serve the interest of the communities and in many ways, and I think that this clearly is part of this process where we are all asking ourselves what is in the best interest of our communities.

And yet we are also trying to identify how we ensure that we expand democracy and not limit it, not inhibit it, and certainly not get rid of it.

What has prompted our state and us as legislators to be here are the real concerns that we are limiting democracy, that we are inhibiting democracy, and that we are seeing a decline of democracy. I have a question to the opposition.

Under what conditions would you do something to stop the limit of democracy, to stop the decline of democracy? When would you act? Can you describe what those conditions would look like.

Well, as Ms. Robinson said, this is something we've been doing all our lives. I certainly have many years on most of you who are sitting up there, including Mr. Umberg. So, you know, the question for me is not what might I do in the future, what might happen?

I'm here right now because this is what I've done all my life. I come from generations of people who engaged in public service to assure justice in the electoral process, justice in education, in health care, in the legal system. So for me, this is an ongoing thing.

This isn't something we take up because we happen to have somebody in the White House who has lost sight of the Constitution and the rule of law. This is something we do every day in any way that we can.

We just happen to have had the privilege of serving on the most innovative revolutionary election incident or vote in California. So we have the privilege of being part of really making democracy happen in the electoral process, of engaging citizens, drawing more people into the process.

And maybe those people will continue day to day to continue to fight the good fight wherever they may find it. So, you know, for me, this is not declaring, you know, declaring an emergency. And now what do we do? This is every day we need to be doing something to make the system work.

And today what we need to do is to protect the Independence, the non partisanship of drawing lines so that parties can go out and campaign on their message and elect representatives that will actually serve the people.

So I will say I agree with you. For me, this is about what we do every single day to protect our communities, to ensure, as you said, justice in education, justice in healthcare space, justice in the legal space.

And I will add that I think that we have met the conditions in this country for California to take a stand and say what you are describing, that you have done every day and that we continue to do every day. Those conditions have been met.

And today is the day that we have to decide how we move forward. Because we have the shared goal of doing everything we can every day for, for Californians, for our community. And this is certainly an important piece that I consider into my decision making, into how I deliberate about the issue.

And I think it's also, as I heard the testimony and support, opening up classes, and thank goodness we still have a class in California on democracy and ensuring that we have health centers that continue to open and continue to serve the people of California.

I appreciate again the robust discussion and my line of questioning and the process was simply to say that for me I will speak for myself. The conditions have been met for us to take action, and we have the same goal in mind, which is doing everything we can.

There is no expanding democracy if democracy falls apart and we don't do anything about it. Again, unbelievable gratitude to all of you, all women panelists here.

I know we may not all be on the same side of how we land on this particular vote, but I have utmost respect and recognition for the work that all of you do to protect our democracy. Thank you.

Thank you. We will go to our next item, but before we do, I will allow Senator Cabaldon to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, and to all of the witnesses on both sides of the issue. Commissioner Sedwani at the beginning said that the point of. In a democracy, we. And I love this quote, that we take turns being humbled at the ballot box, that that is how democracy works.

But what if you have the cheat code? And you could say, well, I'm not taking my turn. That's what's at stake here today. And I think part of what we're trying to accomplish here is that democracy is not slowly eroding. People aren't accidentally absentmindedly doing bad things. It is a crisis.

And we're trying to assure the Commissioner Sadwani's course on American government. And democracy doesn't get moved to the History Department as something that we used to have, but it is the fundamental course that every undergraduate must have in order to be American citizen.

So I know in my own district, the number one question, the number one question that people ask is what can I do? Not what. Not what can the Senator do? What can I do about what is happening to our democracy, which is in crisis, which is threatened like it has never been threatened before?

That's what ACA8 is about. It is about giving the voters of California. They can say yes, they can say no, but it will be their choice, their actions, to fight back. We heard, and I absolutely agree that California is seen as a model here.

But looking to other states, for example, the Texas delegation, they have been here twice. They and their constituents have been very clear. We cannot. When authoritarianism goes so far as this, our most valiant efforts cannot prevail. We need.

America needs California to stand up and to be not just a model of what the policy should be, but to model democracy and inaction.

My own view is that the best thing we can do for independent redistricting, which is an important innovation that the voters of California has created, and our commissioners have taken and curated so superbly over the last two cycles. The best thing that we can do to preserve independent redistricting is to make sure that redistricting doesn't become.

Does not become a tool of holding on to power, of avoiding the humbling at the ballot box. That's the only way forward here. When, when the ballot procession was up in 2008 to create the Redistricting Commission and it passed with 50.8% of the vote, the Sacramento Bee and I think the Bay Area Garden were the.

Were the two papers that editorialized against it. And they said, this is a great idea.

But our worry is that what happens with the other states when they gerrymander like crazy and we have allowed our ethical orientation to lead when they are using their most base partisan instincts, the voters very narrowly said that might be a good point, but we're going to do it anyway.

Well, it turns out they were right this year. They were wrong about the overall issue, but they were right this year. And the way to preserve redistricting in the future is to make sure that that doesn't become the case.

If California, if a year from now or a month from now, or if a week from now, if your cousin is kidnapped off the street, if UCLA closes down, if we announce that there won't be an election, if the census that we're relying on for the Commission's next stab at redistricting doesn't include 1.5 million Californians in it, if we have no democracy left and we look back and said, if only we could have done something, well, the nice thing about this is that we are in a time machine.

We can do something. We know what is coming because it's in Project 2025. It's meant and implemented in every way and most in the most base way possible. We must take action if we're going to save not just democracy, but the Commission itself in independent redistricting.

I know as a former city councilmember, we would often fall into this, what I think is a little bit of a trap. We would think, why would we want to put something on the ballot?

The voters elected us to be the democracy, and we've heard that today that the most democratic thing would be not to ask the voters, but to ask 14 people on the Commission to have some hearings and they decide what the map should be based on testimony.

Well, far better than the testimony will be the votes of 40 million Californians. And through a vigorous debate over the next several weeks and months leading up to that election, that is what democracy is in action. I want just a couple of the smaller points.

I want to emphasize the question that has been raised by the Vice Chair of the Committee about mid cycle redistricting. Since 1980, the Republican caucuses and the California Republican Party have submitted not one but more than 30 ballot measures to go to the people of California for constitutional amendments mid cycle about redistricting.

More than 30 times they've submitted ballot measures mid cycle to the Secretary of State to amend the Constitution for redistricting. So there's no high ground here that it should only be every 10 years. This is all. Redistricting has always been an issue before the public because they know that redistricting is essential to protecting our democracy.

Then last I want to emphasize what the Chair said, which is that the very first provision of this, of AC8, this constitutional amendment does what I think all of us agree.

It calls upon the Congress to do its job and propose to the states a constitutional amendment, an amendment to the United States Constitution that does exactly what our Commission colleagues have said, which is redistricting nationwide in every state should be fair. It should be based on community's data and should not be partisan.

That is the only way forward. And this Constitutional amendment will ask Congress to do that.

That is the test that we should be asking not just of ourselves, not just by reputation and by intention, but be insisting that Texas, Florida, Ohio, every state in the nation plays fair, doesn't seek to cheat, to win elections, and that we preserve our democracy forever.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to present today.

Thank you Senator Cabaldon, and thank you to each of you who participated today and all those in the hearing room as well. We will move to the next item on file, which is SB280 that I will be speaking on and we will turn it to our Vice Chair. The witnesses can stay. I believe we still.

Yes, Vice Chair Choi, I will turn it to you.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Now Chair is going to present next Bl. SB 280 and I will be presiding over.

Right now.

Okay.

Okay. This will be again hearing only, so. Okay. Senator Savantes, when you're ready.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Today I'm proud to present Senate Bill 280 which calls for a statewide special election on November 4th of this year.

The special election would allow California voters to consider a constitutional amendment, ACA 8, which would allow this Legislature to engage in a one time mid decade redistricting of our state's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Citizens Redistricting Commission would then be able to engage in its regularly scheduled independent redistricting process after the 2030 census.

SB 280 also appropriates the funding necessary for the Secretary of State and our county registrars to administer the special election. The bill also makes the necessary statutory changes to allow the June 2026 statewide primary election to be held on time. California did not start this redistricting fight. This fight was brought to us.

We are here because President Trump and Republicans in Congress know that their agenda is deeply unpopular. They see the writing on the wall. They know that mass deportation that uses secret police to kidnap people off the streets and into unmarked vehicles goes against every American value.

They know that voters will hold them accountable for the spending cuts they jammed through Congress, stripping health care away from millions of Americans. They know that giving tax cuts to billionaires while Trump imposes tariff taxes on essential goods like coffee and bananas are raising the cost of living that will hurt working families.

What Trump knows is that the only path for Republicans to hold onto the House in the midterms is to change the rules in the middle of the game.

That is why in Texas and in other red states, Republican legislators are preparing to redraw their congressional map so that Republican politicians get to choose their voters instead of letting voters choose their representatives.

They want to silence the voices of Latino voters, black voters, API voters, LGBTQ voters, and essentially, Trump wants to change again the rules of the game in the fifth inning so that Republicans get four strikes and Democrats only get three.

Their goal is simple, to rig congressional maps in Republican states across the country to make it impossible for Democrats to retake control of the House of Representatives in 2026. California cannot stand by while Donald Trump dismantles our democracy piece by piece.

We will not let him determine the outcome of future elections years in advance before any votes are cast to prop up his authoritarian presidency.

And if you doubt that Trump is trying to become a dictator, remember that he sent armed federal agents to harass the peaceful press conference that we held last week with Governor Newsom in Los Angeles.

The truth of the matter is, if we let Donald Trump get away with rigging elections through gerrymandering, we will not have free or fair elections in the United States in the future. If Donald Trump pursues this partisan power grab, then California is ready to respond.

But let me be clear, only our plan will only go into effect if Texas and other red states move forward. If Trump does the right thing and gives up on redrawing congressional maps in Republican states' red held seats, California's current districts will remain in place. Nothing changes.

And ultimately, this is our preferred outcome because we value California's independent redistricting commission, as we all know, the gold standard in the country. And this crisis shows that we need to enact national redistricting commissions.

If every state followed California's example and adopted independent redistricting commissions, or if Congress required their creation, then we wouldn't even be facing this crisis today. Gerrymandering would be a thing of the past. Finally, I want to address the Republicans, Members of Congress from California. You can all stop this from happening today. The power is in your hands.

I appeal to your better angles, but if you refuse to listen to those angles, then I will rely on your ambition, your self interest, and your desire to keep your House seat and your paycheck. You can ask President Trump to end this. You can tell him to call off these partisan gerrymanderings in Texas and in other states.

But if he decides to move forward with his plan to steal Democratic seats, then Californians will be the firewall. We have defended authoritarians before and will do so once again, but with the power of our votes. Today, we have two individuals here to testify and support.

Jodi Hicks, CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and Professor Sara Sadhwani, a Member of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members. And I am Jodi Hicks with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, representing all seven affiliates and over 100 health centers throughout the state in strong support of this measure. I think this Committee has heard a lot about the importance of the Commission. California is a model.

I am here to talk about the impact of what's happening in California on the ground. I'm representing Planned Parenthood. I can talk about health care. But we've seen what's happened in our with education, with ICE raids that I was also at that press conference where ICE raids were happening on the street, including arrests.

California is a model with our Commission. I'm not here to be an expert. I know there's other witnesses are. But California is also a model when it comes to our values. We are a model with diversity and our values around diversity, around inclusivity.

Certainly, as a state that values reproductive freedom, that values access to health care.l This Administration and this Congress continues to put economic sanctions, policies that disproportionately impact California, disproportionately impact our patients, people going to school, people trying to go to work. That is a fact.

And when people voted on this independent Commission, they voted on it without the facts of what's happening today, which is knowing that they have an opportunity in the midterm elections to respond to what just happened with almost a million patients in Planned Parenthood alone that just got defunded trying to close down health centers throughout the State of California.

I heard a speaker earlier say, if only Texas could learn from California, if only Texas could learn from California. You can see the data on what's happening with their health care there in that state. Women have died. Women have died.

And those policies are now being imported into a state like California without an ability to fight back because they're rigging the elections right now and trying to change the rules. And so, yes, California is a model. And we're also a model in fighting back and standing up for Californians when we have to.

And that's what this measure does. I implore you to vote yes and do what we have to do so that California does not become a state like Texas.

So that we all stand up for the values that we all know is important, that we all know that all of California agrees upon every single time they go to the ballot box, Every single time they've had an opportunity to fight back and to vote on protecting reproductive freedom, they have done that in droves. And this measure will go to the voters again, different than what's happening in Texas. And I implore you to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. You have three minutes.

Thank you so much. There we go. Again, my name is Sara Sadhwani. I'm a professor of political science and as Commissioner on the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, I'm so overjoyed to hear all of the support for the independent redistricting process. I didn't always hear that level of support while the process was moving forward.

So it's really warming my heart to hear broad support, and I hope that that continues as I see that it does continue in this measure being moved forward today. Serving on the Commission was one of the highlights of my career thus far. I worked with some of the finest Californians coming from all different walks of life.

Five independent, five, excuse me, five Democrats, five Republicans and four independents. We came together, we worked collaboratively, we nearly 40,000 pieces of community testimony. We agreed to disagree in many parts of the state, as you no doubt have seen in the maps that we have here in California.

But at the end of the day, we did what many politicians have not often been able to do. We passed our maps unanimously on a very diverse body of individuals. And I couldn't be more proud of that. We have received zero lawsuits against our maps, this is the kind of redistricting that we need to have nationwide.

It brings me no joy to see these maps being tossed aside. As I spoke earlier in my testimony, I have very real concerns about the state of our national democracy. I think in my prior comments I talked about our federalist system.

But I think Senator Umberg's comments, of course, around checks and balances within the branches of government is absolutely direct and to the point. And I certainly agree with that as well, that we have seen Republicans in Congress fail to stand up to the executive overreaches of power.

We have seen the use of political violence and the encouragement of political violence. We've most certainly seen intimidation tactics and the deployment of the National Guard turning many of our cities across this nation into police states. These are not actions that are consistent with a strong democracy. Quite the opposite.

They are actions that reflect a democracy in peril. And so it's for this reason that I do feel like California needs to stand up in these times. We need to take strong, bold and concisive action to be the check on executive power because we're not seeing it anywhere else. I'll leave my comments there. Happy to take questions. Thank you so much for having me here today.

Okay. No other support witnesses. I would like to ask the public in support of the measure. You can come up and state your name and just your position. Support or oppose.

Mr. Vice Chair, Members, Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, in strong support.

Honorable Chair and Members, Amy Hines-Shaikh with UDW AFSCME Local 3930 and UNITE HERE Local 11 in strong support. Thank you.

Honorable Chair and Member, Tiffany Mock in support of the Bill on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, and also adding a support for the California Teachers Association. Thank you.

Hello, Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Terry Brennand on behalf of SEIU California, in strong support of this and the entire redistricting package. Thank you.

Hi, Chair and Members, Daniel Schoorl on behalf of SEIU Local 1000 state workers, in strong support. Thank you.

Okay.

Hi, Julie Nielsen with the National Union of Healthcare Workers, in support.

Any more? Okay, then we'll move on to opposition main witnesses. Each person will have three minutes. No. Robinson, would you like to say in opposition?

I think that our position as former commissioners stands clear. We hope that if this moves forward, that you as our representatives, will put more transparency and public participation safeguards in place, even in light of the extraordinary circumstances that we all agree must be addressed.

Okay. Any other. Any other in the public in opposition? You can come forward and state your name and state your position. Okay. I don't see anyone. Then I will bring back to our Members on the dias. You can ask any questions. No. Okay. Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ms. Robinson. I know you're in a difficult position here, in essence asking us to vote no on what we believe, at least I believe, is a response to what the President is doing around the country. I think that Senator Limon asked the critical question here.

The critical question is what conditions exist? What conditions exist where we stand up and we do something that is extraordinary? And this is extraordinary. I think this is incredibly extraordinary.

I 20 years ago had my own when Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a redistricting Commission that was comprised of retired judges who volunteered for a year, which I thought was rather skewed universe of those who should be the decision makers. I had my own proposal which was rejected both by my caucus as well as by the Governor.

And so I am a strong proponent of exactly what we're doing here. I'm a strong proponent of citizens coming forward who have the same commitment to public service that you have to serve in this fairly thankless job.

And the conditions that exist, I think, are only those where there are massed federal agents picking up citizens or those who have not committed any crime and incarcerating them.

I think those conditions exist when this Administration has targeted our children here in California. Targeted them to reduce their health care, targeted them to in essence reduce after school care, even their 9 to 5 education, targeted our institutions here in California to in my view, to diminish if not destroy us as a state.

So when those conditions exist that we have to within again within the bounds of the law, we have to respond. And this is an extraordinary response. But this is a response that we hope will dissuade other states from moving forward.

We wouldn't be in this position if other states we wouldn't be in this position if the President of the United States wasn't using his extraordinary power and influence, which seems to be plenary, to change the dynamic. And so I appreciate your testimony, I appreciate the awkward position you're in. But these conditions have been met, at least for me. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Any other.

Okay, let me just ask a few questions and make some comments. I'm so disappointed. Why? Presenter and also Committee Members and the witnesses, we are making this Committee meeting as a forum for attacking Federal Government and the President and other states action. We should be focusing on our matter, what is good for our state.

We should administer and oppose any actions that we don't, we don't believe that is the right action then we should oppose. And let me ask anyone, author or witnesses, opposing witnesses, support witnesses, does anyone can answer if political gerrymandering good or bad? Is it good or bad?

I mean, I think it depends whose interests you are advancing as a citizen. I'm not an elected official, so my answer to that might be different than yours as a voter. As a citizen, I want to pick my representatives. I do not want my representatives to pick me.

And the partisan gerrymandering and the perpetuation of it continues to get us into a race to the bottom that we've seen over recent years. And that will only continue with the route that we are going. Which is why the voters have a different model sense.

It has a connotation of a negative connotation nobody likes to hear. The election was a rigged because of the gerrymandering and the political gerrymandering by majority party or whoever the party in power they want to draw to to their own advantage. And that's the reason nobody wants to have that kind of gerrymandering to take place.

That's the reason we elected to have our independent Redistricting Commission. And whether we support or not, that is our system we have set up and was so glad to here that the 2020 redistricting was unanimously voted by bipartisan way. I mean that is a democracy. So my understanding of this very map drawing was done. Okay, let me ask that question. Who did that drawing of the map supposedly on the website?

Does anybody know does this bill does not pertain to the map. This is the calling of the election.

I know this is. But just like you are saying this is germane to the SB 280 but everybody went outside attacking the person, Administration, President and the current Administration. So that is very well related. So that's the reason I'm asking that question.

So this bill, SB 280, is administering to allow that ACA to be on the ballot measure and properly that this bill will pass and then allowing State Secretary to execute the election. So that's the whole process we are doing. But there's a lot of things related. And let me ask a specific other question.

How much time do counties normally have to prepare for an election and how does the timeline proposed for this election compare? I would like to address that to the author.

There are many statutory changes that you can find in the Committee Analysis that address what we needed to make happen based off of the conversations with the Secretary of State and those are all outlined in pages three through seven.

Okay, next question. So we are reducing the time the voters have to decide whether they want to amend to do this. Is there concern that you are depriving the voters of adequate time to educate themselves on their major constitutional issues?

Again, the bill before us today is making sure we make the statutory changes to call for a special election on November 4 and to ensure that there is a June primary.

Okay, now will the maps be on the actually physically on the ballot?

Again, that is a question you can ask the relevant authority of the next item on file.

Because if that is not visibly physically available for all those who will be voting on and if you refer to online, there are so many people who would not have any online access, no wi fi and that's what I hear that remote areas, countryside, rural areas will not have access to Internet.

So how are we going to compensate that the lack of knowledge people will be asked to vote on?

Again, there has been a public portal for voters to look at for a number of days now. They'll have several months, two and a half months before the election to take a very thorough review on what they will make a decision on on November 4th.

Election portal that I mentioned that not everybody I hear many, many times that the.

Vice Chair, there will also be a voter guide that goes out to every single voter in the state.

Well that the voter guide have all the maps and the entire district, congressional, district 52 maps will be on the ballot, voter guide?

The voter guide will have all the information as it pertains to the election.

Now I'm asking the maps.

Again. The voter guide will have all the information as it pertains to the election. So a voter can make a very thorough decision, November 4th. Educated decision on November 4th.

Okay.

It will have the detailed information on the maps that we are discussing and what will be up for discussion on the next file item.

Okay, let me ask next question. The special election is estimated to cost the taxpayers upward of quarter $1.0 billion. With the state facing $12 billion deficit, there is some money. Where is the money going to come from to pay for this?

The election is going to cost as much as a new ballroom that Trump is proposing in the White House. That is $200 million approximately that will be given to the Secretary of State and the county registrars to administer the election.

So that is a good idea. In the mid decade special election when we face that kind of $12 billion, the General Fund quarter $1.0 billion will be spent for this, to me, unnecessary election.

Again, $200 million we believe is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the federal funding that we would get back that we are losing today. 5 to $10 billion in federal funding that we're losing in California.

Okay. And there will be quarter $1.0 billion to my data that I got was $250 million. That's a quarter $1.0 billion, B with a B, $1.0 billion deficit the expenses.

But if that quarter $1.0 billion will come from General Fund, that's what General Fund I read the cost will come from, when we unexpectedly use that amount of large sums of money. What programs do you plan to cut down that originally planned for?

Again this bill is addressing the call of the election. The statutory changes that need to be made in order to have the election on November 4 and the funding for that election.

Okay. I think we need to address all that preparations with the unexpected expenditure. What can we impact in General Fund exercising and how that will impact state operations? My last question is that as you might have seen some polls, this redistricting idea is very unpopular.

There's no guarantee just because you place it on the ballot measure. It will pass to my some data that I heard was about 68% of people oppose it. And this franchise Democratic party ruling party forcing this.

Just as in the beginning I asked how you view as political gerrymandering as a good idea, bad idea, general connotation I mentioned that the general people don't like that kind of idea. So when you place that in the general election, there's a special election, there's no guarantee it will pass. There may be a retaliatory reaction that.

Are you prepared the Democrats to accept that? You may lose more seats in order to gain? You need to think about it. Okay, I will stop here and you may close your statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to make a clarifying statement that there will be visual depictions of the maps created by AB 604 and will be on the voter guide. In my closing, the bill before you today, SB 280. This is a response, a direct response to Trump's election rigging scheme.

And this is an emergency for our democracy. This bill today holds an election to give California voters a voice. To give California voters a voice that Texas Republicans are denying Texans. Let's let California voters have a say at the ballot box. And SB 280 will call for the election and the administration of that election. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. As far as I know, that is not the vote today.

That is I will ask for your support as it gets out and onto the floor, respectfully.

Yeah. So far two bills we heard was for hearing purposes only. Next bill is going to be what the voted on after hearing. So that is AB 604. Are you going to present that 604 or somebody else? Okay. Chair will take over now.

Thank you. We will now adjourn the informational hearing and we will move on to the file. Next file item AB 604. Let it. Committee Secretary, if we could establish a quorum, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The Secretary notes a quorum has been established. We have Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, our Majority Leader here with us, as well as Senator Gonzalez, our Majority Leader in the Senate. You may begin.

Good morning. Thank you for having us. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senators, let's not dance around the issue here. If California Democrats had our way, the midterms would continue as they are with a map drawn by the state's independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

But that's not good enough for this President or the Republicans following his commands In Texas and D.C. we weren't planning on redistricting until they made attempts to rig the 2026 election by stacking the deck in other states. We did not start this, but we won't roll over.

This bill lays out the new Congressional districts only if voters pass ACA 8. If voters approve the new map, the independent Redistricting Commission will continue its mission after the 2030 census. If California voters approve the plan. The temporary maps only happen in if D.C. Republicans and the Republican led states push through mid decade partisan maps first.

Unlike Texas which is forcing maps on their voters, we are asking ours for an approval. There is nothing more Democratic than letting the California voters decide. Unlike the map proposed in Texas, the map in AB 604 respects California's constitutional requirement for maintaining communities of interest. With this bill, there is less breakup of our local jurisdictions.

With this bill, we seek the public's input. The voters will decide. So if our Republican colleagues in California want to stop this, they don't need us to do it. They can convince their Republican colleagues in Texas and D.C. to stop trying to rig the 2026 elections and these shenanigans.

And they can ask Congressional Republicans to pass the Republican proposal to make midterm redistricting illegal. To finally create a system where every state uses a fair independent districting system. Again, colleagues, their choice is to stand down or support a fair system in every state. That's how this ends.

Until the President and his followers stop trying to rig elections, we won't and can't sit on our hands. What happens next year is up to the President, it's up to the national Republicans and it's up to California voters. So with me today to testify is Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez.

And speaking in support with me today will be Terry Brennan from SEIU and Tom Willis with Olson Remco to answer technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. As been mentioned by Assembly Majority Leader, I'm here in partnership with her to AB 604. It represents a reasonable and rational response to the anti democratic actions of the federal Administration. As been mentioned, Californians and all Americans are facing the endless cycle of worry under this reckless federal Administration.

Families have been separated. Immigrant communities have been literally traumatized. SNAP benefits for families taken away. Medicare at over nearly 4 million Californians will be potentially kicked off of Medicare. K12 funding has been threatened. $1 billion away from the UC system. The list goes on and on and on.

So if we're asking about urgency, that is the urgency as to why we need to do this and move this today.

And unlike in Texas, where Republican legislators are literally on a lockdown and the Governor is moving unilaterally on an undemocratic and partisan effort, here in California, we want to ensure has been mentioned by the Assembly Majority Leader that California voters have the final word at the ballot box.

And I'm beyond saddened to see what is happening, as many of you have, and whether you're Republican or Democrat, you should be saddened to see Texas legislators that are being locked, you know, essentially locked up and being asked for a requirement to be followed by law enforcement to basically dismantle their communities and disrupt the Voting Rights Act.

This is how we fight back in California, though. We want to protect our democracy. And again, regardless of where you live, regardless of what party affiliation you pledge allegiance to, we want to restore democracy. Here to testify in support of the bill, we have Tom Willis, an attorney at Olson Remco, and of course Harry Brennan with seiu.

And I'm very proud to stand alongside my colleagues here today.

You may proceed. You have three minutes.

Madam Chair and Senators, Terry Brown on behalf of Service Employees International Union, California SEIU.

Locals in California are made up of of workers in the frontline central roles across the state, including nurses, healthcare workers, janitors, social workers, security officers in home caregivers, school and University employees, court workers, airport workers, city, county, state employees, all of whom are a target of this Administration, the Federal Government.

On behalf of the more than 750,000 workers and 17 local unions, we're in strong support of this bill and the entire redistricting package. It represents a sensible and in fact potentially the only path for California to fight back against Trump's. Attempts to steal the next election.

As has been stated already, the bill only goes into effect if Trump and MAGA continue are successful with their efforts in redistricting in other states, it will not happen if those are ended. While SEIU wouldn't have chosen this path had the other states not acted to redistrict in the midterm, we're proud that California is responding. This isn't.

We are not just going to sit here and let Texas and Trump manipulate our democracy.

Unlike Texas, which obliterated their current congressional district and drafting their maps, California reinforces their commitment to our democracy and the vote for every California the maps proposed in Assembly Bill 604 build upon the work of the Redistricting Commission and keep the majority of districts established by the Commission intact.

The plan you will get to vote on and the voters will get to vote on in November was created using the traditional redistricting criteria consistent with the State Commission criteria and the Fair Maps act, but with the additional criteria of improving partisan gains and in response to the Texas and other states conducting mid decade redistricting.

Using objective metrics, the districts maintain and even in some cases improve district compactness compared to the existing Commission maps. For people who are concerned about splitting up cities, it should be noted that the AB604 maps split fewer cities than the Commission maps. In contrast, Texan Republicans maximize their gains.

They split 142 cities, more than double the number of cities compared to in the California map. Not only does the California redistricting plan better represent the people of California, but the California plan leaves nine districts untouched, 20 districts with fewer than 10% of the residents impacted.

This is in great contrast to Texas, which redrew all but one of their districts. SEOU Members in our communities have worked too hard to protect and strengthen democracy to stand by while President Trump attempts to silence our voice. We're ready to move forward and stand by.

Our authors of the entire redistricting package, legislative leaders, our Governor and together we want to take this fight to Californians because they deserve to fight back. If the Texas trigger is pulled, Californians will get a chance to vote on our future and every American's voice and their vote will be at stake.

For these reasons, we ask you to vote I on AB604 and the entire redistricting package. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Please proceed.

Good morning. Tom Willis with Olson Rencho and I've been involved in redistricting efforts for several decades now. I just have a couple of points that other speakers have raised. The importance of AB604 is that the voters get to decide. These maps will be before the voters for 74 days if the election is called on November 4.

And the maps will be widely disseminated publicly. And as some speakers have already mentioned, the SB 280 Bill specifically requires the voter pamphlet to contain information about these maps.

So whereas in Texas it was a partisan redistricting that was not public, this is going to be a very public process with the voters deciding ultimately and the voters having these maps before them for 74 days. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any technical questions you may have.

Thank you. We will now bring up if we could have folks state their position, step up to the microphone. Support witnesses. Name, affiliation, position.

Hello. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis in support. Thank you.

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

Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in strong support.

Kristen Heidelbach on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in strong support.

Honorable Chair and Members, Amy Hindshyk with UDW AFSCME Local 3930 and Unite Here Local 11 in strong support. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Daniel Shirl on behalf of SEIU Local 1000 State Workers in strong support. Thank you.

Julie Nielsen on behalf of the National Union of Healthcare Workers in support. Thank you.

Honorable chair and Members, Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFT, A Union of Educators and Classified Professionals and also on behalf of CTA in support. Thank you.

We will now move on to our lead witnesses in opposition.

Good.

Okay. Well, then why don't we ask for any other additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room or outside the hearing room?

I know. Okay. We scared him. Well, there's 235 pages.

Okay, CNN. Let's bring this back to the Committee Members for any questions, comments, Vice Chair Choi.

Okay, that's all connected to previous hearing items. This AB 604 is actually to implement how the election will take place. So let me ask following questions to the author. What was the Legislature's process for drawing maps? Can you explain?

We're in the process right now of drawing the map. So we have examples that are out there right now. And we just got the information out to everyone yesterday. And so we have 74 days to follow up.

I understand that these amendments that we voted on on the floor yesterday, I dare to try to understand this. I took them. But these are all thousands of thousands of precincts and numbers. Which one will be drawn into certain precincts that will be drawn into the map with this Kind of information. I cannot understand how this.

Who decided all these precincts would be in there? Was there any legislators involved? So if you can specify who exactly was involved making the amendments for this current district, maps to the amended bills that we have voted on yesterday.

Yes, we will certainly turn it over to our witnesses. But these maps, just to be clear has been reiterated by the former author and the other authors, is that these maps are available online.

So Even though there's 235 pages of census tracts and precincts, these maps have been available both on the Assembly website as well as the Senate website will be available. There will be a link in the sample ballot once folks are able in California to vote on this and have more information on what their exact neighborhood looks like.

But I will also kick it to our witnesses to talk about how the maps were developed. And obviously respecting what we do here in California is we respect the Voting Rights Act. And we also, I will say has been mentioned by one of our witnesses.

The maps are really an adjustment of the existing Citizens Redistricting Commission drawn maps. About 10 of them are not touched at all. Another 12 have less than 5% change. And over about 80% of them will of people in California will actually have their same congressional district. The map changes.

The maps change 58% of districts by less than 20% and 37% by less than 10%. So wanted to give that data to you. This is not a dramatic overhaul. These are, you know, a bit of changes. But very much respecting the good work of the redistricting Committee.

With that, I will kick it to our witnesses for additional comments.

And before I turn to our witnesses, I do want to state that there is a legal description of the maps on our Committee website. But I will turn to Mr. Willis.

Sure.

Thank you. Yeah. These obviously are a long set of census blocks, but those do end up being in interactive maps that anyone, anyone in the public can review and look up their address and see where they are.

And that will be again, public information that I'm sure will be discussed widely throughout the state for the next 7874 days. So while AB 604 is a long list of census blocks, both that raw information is available, but also the maps themselves, which are so important to the public, are available.

Okay then with that, do you agree that we have not had as many hearings as were held by the Citizen District Commission?

Well, I would say that the Citizens Redistricting Commission, as I understand it, their final map is only shown. I mean, obviously we are supportive of the CRC and the redistricting Commission and what they did historically. But ultimately their final map is only publicly available for 14 days and this map will be publicly available for 74 days.

So again, this is a map that the voters will be asked to review and approve, not the Legislature, not the crc. It's the voters that will have the right to look at this map and decide for themselves.

But you do agree that we have not followed the same requirements in drawing the lines as the redistricting Commission was required to under the California Constitution. In other words, we had a lot of inputs from the public before the line was proposed, but this one is already drawn with a very limited data.

Well, again, voters will have 70. They will have a long period of time to review those very, very carefully and determine how important that is.

Election processes are not adjusting the district. Either you vote or either give the blessing or not. That's about what the voters will have a choice. I'm talking about the process, how this proposed map was presented.

Well, I think some of the. I think some of the speakers have already spoken to that issue, which is that the map that you are seeing today is in large part based on the good work from the congressional redistricting. I mean, from the redistricting Commission itself.

And if I I don't have the exact figure, but I think it's about 7576% of the population has not been moved to different districts. So in other words, the bones and the architecture of what the Commission itself did is really the fundamental basis for this map.

So that really leads to Next question. California's population has significantly changed, even though you are stating that not much there since the 2020 census. What is the demographic data on which the Legislature, this particular map proposal was relying to draw? The final maps that you have placed.