Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

The Senate Committee on Appropriations will now come to order. We are meeting Today in room 2100 of the O Street building and want to thank everybody for being here and we're here so that we can... Well, first of all, let's take a vote- Let's go through the roll call for a quorum.

[roll call]

We have a quorum. Everybody is present. We are meeting today so that we can hear one Item, which is AB 604 by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry and Senator Gonzalez. This measure has had a thorough hearing yesterday in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee on the policy merits of the Bill.

Our job here in the Appropriations Committee today is to consider the state fiscal impacts of the Bill and not to engage in lengthy policy discussions or broader debates about other bills within the redistricting package that are under consideration by the Legislature.

So as I always do at the outset of a hearing, I want to remind any witnesses that are here to speak on AB 604 to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspects of this specific measure. Today we're going to allow two minutes for primary witnesses to talk about the, the bills.

But everyone, the me too's are to stick to the fiscal aspects. We have established a quorum, so we're going to move right on into the hearing to the regular business of the hearing. Well, I want to invite Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry and...

Point of order.

Yeah, point of order.

A procedural... Procedural question before we even begin.

Okay.

So that we make sure we tailor our comments to what this Committee is supposed to be covering. So we have ACA 8 that you're saying we're not hearing, SB 280, which we're not hearing. However, these two measures are also joined.

One with 604, AC 8 is joined with 604, and AC 8 also has joins with 280. So they are all connected. If we are not going to be hearing the other two, how can we include our comments? How can we exclude comments that have contributory costs for all three of those?

Because this is our only opportunity to discuss the costs to the taxpayers of this entire effort.

So what we're doing is we're hearing this one Bill today. And so we're only restricting the testimony to this particular Bill.

But it adjoins with the others.

They are related to each other. But the bottom line is, is at the end of our hearing.

If you want to make a comment, you're free to do that, but the testimony today that we're taking is on this Bill solely.

Okay? So we are not going to be hearing SB 280 or ACA 8 in the future, even though there's costs associated with those.

So I know it comes to a probes, and this is the only Bill that has come to a probe.

Thank you. That's all I need to know. All right.

So I want to welcome Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. Please come forward. I don't see Senator Gonzalez here, but if she shows up, she's free to join you.

I don't know that she will be attending today.

So welcome, and the floor is yours.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 604 lays out a temporary congressional district map, but only if the voters approve ACA 8 and only if partisan maps are pushed through in other states.

This effort was based on the work of the independent Redistricting Commission, after the 2020 Census, including the hours of hearings and public testimony received and consistent with with constitutional guidelines. We propose a November 4th special election, the date of existing local elections around the state, to help lower costs.

Cost to local government will be reimbursed by the state. Colleagues, the fiscal impact of this Bill should be minimal and pales in comparison to Trump's and congressional Republicans fiscal attacks on California over just seven months. 900 billion from Medicaid, threatening the Medi Cal coverage for more than 3 million Californians.

Defunding Planned Parenthood and threatening rural hospitals and clinics across the state. The President's budget proposes to slash 1.25 billion a year from food assistance, leaving 735,000 California farmers and working families at the risk of losing the CalFresh program. He is withholding relief from wildfire victims.

He froze over 800 million in K12 funding and cut almost 1 billion for educational programs. Trump's policies have hurt California's economy, working families and small businesses, while our Republican congressional delegation stood by and signed off on the billions of dollars in cuts. I thank staff for their work and their analysis.

I'm here today to say the cost is justified. We can't afford to let Trump and the national Republicans continue to hurt hardworking Californians, our economy and our state budget. The cost of doing nothing is way too much.

So speaking in support with me today is Pastor Trina Turner, a member of the California Citizens Redistrict Commission and the Executive pastor at Victory in Praise Church. And I also have another witness that is on their way. And I would like to offer that person to say something when they arrive. Very good, Pastor.

Thank you. Thank you for allowing me the time to be here and hearing the specific guidelines. I want to just make sure that I curtail what I'm talking about in testifying today. The cost of the election, we've heard 230, 235 million.

I'm in 100% support of this particular Bill because I believe it was stated in one of the hearings that this dollar amount could have mitigated some of the fires or health costs or healthcare in California.

And what I really want to cut to and say that is that if people are afraid to show up to their Doctor's appointments and to the hospitals, that it really won't matter that their healthcare had a few extra $100.0 million applied towards it.

People in California are suffering right now due to fear, due to what's going on in our Administration and our nation. This opportunity, this election will give the California voters an opportunity, if they would, to speak up now, to begin to dismantle, to begin to push back against what's going on in Washington.

Every single day, there's a new threat and intimidation tactic that is, I think, directly related to finances and money. We can save money on one end, but the cost of, the cost of the impact to the people in California I think far outweighs any money that's being able to be appropriated for this particular election.

The new threat every day. This is not time for neutrality. It's time for bold action. It's time for California. Even though I'm very proud of the lines that we've drawn, I wish the entire nation would be an independent redistricting Commission, however, have independent redistricting commissions, however, they don't. And that's not going to happen now.

So right now, I think for California to do what we need to do as a state to begin to push back. I think it protects Californians, and I think it's a worthy investment.

Thank you very much. Is your secondary witness here?

They are on their way. More than happy to take some- If you want to move on with the procedure. They can come in when they get here.

When they get here.

I'd really appreciate it.

That would be fine.

Thank you.

Why don't we move on to witnesses in opposition? Primary witnesses in opposition. Is there anyone here that would like to speak to this issue as a witness. Seeing none. Then why don't we go back to now is the time for the me too's.

So I want to allow anybody who wants to speak in support of this measure to please come forward as a me too.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Jp Hanna with the California Nurses Association in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Members. Elmer Lazardi here with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Benton Buer with the Davis College Democrats in strong support. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in support? How about opposition me too's. Seeing none. We'll bring back the questions to the Committee. Questions, comments.

So everybody wants me to go first. That's fine. I can do that.

I just need to see a hand and then I...

There you go.

I don't think you need to see the hand, you know. Okay. So cost estimate for the election itself. What are we looking at?

So thank you, Senator Seyarto and Members. My name is Christian Beltran. I'm with the Department of Finance. In terms of the actual number that we are looking at, specifically the language in the companion Bill, SB 280, I know we're trying to keep the relevant comments associated with this particular Bill

That was opened up by the speakers.

I appreciate that. So I just would like to emphasize that the language in the companion Bill, SB 280, requires the Department of Finance to continue to work with the Secretary of State's office over the coming weeks and potentially months to ensure that counties have the resources that they have to execute a free and fair democratic election on November 5th.

I would point you to the most recent special election that occurred back in 2021, where the total cost of that special election was a total of about $200 million, and we had previously appropriated 270 million.

The remaining balance of that funding was retained by the counties for any future potential statewide elections at that point in time, which was then used for those subsequent elections. So therefore, we can fairly estimate it'd be $200 million or potentially more.

Okay, so. And that's just to conduct the election part.

That. That is correct.

Okay does that number include anything like estimates for potential lawsuits that have already been filed defending those suits, or does that come from Attorney General Bonta's previously approved fighting against Trump money that.

That would be part of the line item budget that is currently appropriated for the Attorney General's Office. There may be separate line items specific to the comments that you made related to the litigation related to any of the Federal Government. That would be a separate pot of money.

So I just want to emphasize that the Attorney General would utilize whatever available resources that are budgetarily available for them currently and is separate from the $200 million.

Because I'm trying to get at the cost to taxpayers for going down this path. And part of that is exploring what the lawsuits can cost because there's a substantial amount that has already been spent on lawsuits. And part of that is because the Attorney General staff has had to contract out a lot of the work.

And if you have to contract this out, the cost of taxpayers, about $1,600 an hour, which is what they're paying some of their consultants already. So I think that cost needs to be added into what we're being told is the cost for going down this path and doing this, passing this particular measure.

Another area of cost I would like to explore is the cost that has already been spent on drawing up maps, because that cost was done prior to our any approval by our taxpayers, that they want to change the process. Usually you'd ask them, do you want to change the process?

And then if they do, then you come out with the process to change the maps and then they have to approve that. So we've already spent that money. Do we know what that money is, how much the money has been spent on consulting and drafting of the maps?

I do not have that information with me. I'm happy to circle back with you and your staff on that. However, I would say that the resources that were spent were already appropriated and there has been no additional funding that has been provided for that outside of what's already been there.

And no requests for money to be spent, to be clear?

Well, no requests now, but somebody's going to want to get paid later. And if we spent taxpayer dollars already on this, the taxpayers have a right to know how much money we spent because that can be added on to this.

So that. That is absolutely right. The point of that is any request in the future to cover costs will have to come through this Committee and we'll have to go through the policy committees as well. So it's pure speculation at this point that any money has been spent, taxpayer money has been spent.

Was it consultant or was it in House that did the maps?

Senator, I'm here to speak to specifically the costs.

Well, that's specifically to the cost because if it was done by a consultant, then we can call the consultant in about 10 minutes and find out what his Bill is and that will tell us what the cost for drawing these maps are. So can we do that? Is it a consultant? Because as a consultant, let's do that and then I'll circle back later with some more questions. But right now I would like to know, was it done in House? Because if it does, that's public taxpayer dollars being spent by our staff, whatever staff it was, to draw maps.

And unfortunately those staffs are tied to legislatures and governors and they are precluded from drafting maps according to the current Constitution. How do we get around that?

So the Department of Finance has the financial information they have before them today. If there are further questions, we can get them answered at a future date. But right now, what we're dealing with is this particular Bill, AB 604, and the costs that are associated with this Bill.

I understand that, but how can I responsibly approve something in appropriations and appropriate money that we apparently we supposedly don't have if we don't know what the total cost is? And we're not going to do it at a later date?

Because unless we're doing it retroactively because we're going to shove this through tomorrow and that, you know, so this winds up being just kind of a procedural thing. I want to know what the cost, the total cost for this is going to be to the taxpayers.

Since we've listed all the different costs that we're saying that justify doing this. I'm also going to talk about things that justify not doing that. So that's already been expressed in this Committee and I'm going to respond to that in just a minute.

Madam Chair, point of order.

Yes, Senator Richardson.

Madam Chair, the Member has asked the question and the answer has been provided. What we don't have the ability to do is whether you like or dislike the answer. That's not the point. The question has been asked and it's been answered. I'd like to see us move on.

That's correct.

Point of order. I would offer that the question has been asked. There is a number that somebody knows out there and for us to consider this particular thing, we need to know that number and we need to know the number before we take a vote on this.

Understood.

And so I don't think her comments are germane to what I am talking about, which is there has not been an answer, there has been a non answer and that's not acceptable for this Committee. We should be prepared to be able to answer all of our questions.

It's a non answer in your opinion. In your opinion, it's a non answer.

I have the floor.

The Department of Finance has answered the question.

So let me, let me, let me handle this. You have made your point. You've asked the questions. We don't have the answers here today because those issues are not before us. And so we're going to move on with the hearing because we're at an impasse in terms of getting you what you would like to hear.

It's not the way that we do business. We deal with the fiscal issues on a Bill by Bill basis.

I get that. And we're trying to deal with that, but we don't have the answers to it. So I just want to, I will move on. But I want to note for the record that we do not have all the fiscal information that we need to make this decision and we're going to do it anyway.

So we had talked earlier about the author introduced some of her numbers that the Federal Government is supposedly costing California and that is relevant to us actually going down this path and doing that because of the dollars amount spent.

Have you considered some of the things we are not doing in California because we're going to be spending this money elsewhere or things that we have passed on doing in California because we supposedly don't have the money, but all of a sudden now we do. Have you considered any of those?

One of the things I've considered, if Texas didn't move forward with this and the President moved forward, we would not be having this discussion that's just starting.

I don't represent Texas and Texas doesn't have a constitutional amendment that says that we have an independent citizens redistricting Commission. So they are irrelevant to the discussion today about what's going on in California.

So some of the things that I have just noted that we do not, we have passed on funding this year because we don't have money. We didn't fully Fund Prop 36. We could have paid down some of the interest for our UI debt.

We could have funded the judgeships to make that process that everybody here agrees with needs to be fixed. And we also slashed $75 million from our disabled service providers. All of that we didn't have money for. Other things that got slashed out of this Committee was GI benefits for our veterans out of $34 million.

And in fact, all of the bills that were offered in this Committee from the Republican side totaled $125 million. And they're all decent bills helping people, helping the same people that all of us advocate for, every single one of us in that chamber advocate for these people. But we were told we don't have the money for that.

And so we can't allocate money for that. But today we're being asked to allocate money for a Bill that's going to, at the low end, cost $200 million. Lord knows what it is, after all the lawsuits and all of the other costs are added in. And we're going to appropriate money for that to go down that path.

All the meanwhile, not even considering the cost of the other two bills, even though they're joined in. So I don't know that there's a really good answer for that, but I do have one more area that I need to explore. Oh, no, we already did that.

I'm going to go ahead and allow others to now join in with their questions or their counterpoints or whatever it is they wish to do. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Yes. Can I have the opportunity to have my other witness speak now? Would you like her to wait? Wait till later?

We can have your witness speak now. So if you'd like to invite them to come forward.

I would like to invite Dolores Huerta up to speak.

Thank you very much. My name is Dolores Huerta and I am the President of the Dolores Huerta Foundation. And I just wanted to say that this is so, so important. Number one, democracy does not have a price.

We know that we have a hostile Administration in Washington, D.C. that because of the cuts that have been made at the national level, it's going to affect California.

And this is the only way that we can guarantee and make sure that we will be able to get the funding that we need in the future from the Federal Government, because right now it is being withheld.

And I just want to remind everybody that you have all taken an oath to the Constitution of the United States and to the Constitution of California. So the only way that we can defend the taxpayers and the people of California is to go ahead with this really, really important Bill that we're talking about right here.

This is the only way right now that we can make sure that in the future, that the money paid for by the taxpayers in California that then goes to Washington, will come back to California. So this is the only game in town.

This is the only way that we have to make sure that we can protect the taxpayers of California. This is very sorely needed. We have a huge responsibility right now. And so I please, I want to beg you for an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for being here today. So, other Committee comments.

Thank you. Appreciate it. I want to thank the witnesses for giving their testimony as well as the author. I know that this, this is a speedy process and such an important issue for the State of California. I also want to highlight the fact that democracy is an effort for full participation. Things evolve. Nothing is in concrete.

And that is the beauty of this country. And so as things move, we also move in policy direction and advocacy and much more. With that, I will be moving this Bill. Thank you.

There's a motion made. Other comments, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to go back and reference cost, the cost of no action, the cost of inaction for the State of California is going to be far greater, far exponentially greater than taking the action that we are taking today.

So the cost of following through with this pales in comparison to what it's already cost California, but what it's going to cost if we continue down the same pathway.

So the beauty of the way this has been put together are the triggers that this very well possibly could stop and everything cease and not one more penny spent if actions from others would allow us in California to continue with our business the way we have done it in a very equitable and fair way before the voters.

And ultimately at the very end, the voters are the ones that choose whether this is going to be done or not. So with that, I support this Bill.

Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks so much to my colleague from Yolo County, the author of the Bill. I want to just first, on the technical issues that have been raised, each of us proposes legislation.

There are hundreds of bills that are introduced in this Legislature and none of, no one can submit a Bill later for the cost of drafting that legislation, even if it's 300 pages long in a GIS map. Right. So there's no pending Bill to be paid. There's no cost to this Bill whatsoever.

Let's just be very clear if anybody helped to write this. Just like with any, you know, all the bills that my constituents helped me write in my district, they, we invite them to participate in democracy, but we don't pay any bills for that. So that's a non issue here totally.

And let's put it in comparison to the every single year submission, sometimes twice a year, submission of petitions to the Secretary of State for a recall election for the Governor, for the Governor, for the Governor, one year for every statewide official, most of which have been endorsed by several of our colleagues, all of which would cost the same.

We did do one which cost hundreds of millions of dollars and overwhelmingly that recall was rejected by the people of California. But they had their say.

And so it rings a little hollow for us to obsess about this, given that this is the most important action that we can be taking to not just to rescue democracy, although that is absolutely critical, and to, and to respond not to retaliate against Texas, but to match, to nullify, to neutralize what Texas is doing while it is happening.

This is neither a response to the past, nor is it a message and a hope for the future. This is, we are on the field and Texas is bringing five unauthorized players onto that field and we have to, we cannot leave five people on the bench while that is happening.

That's what's occurring through this measure and is absolutely appropriate. This Bill costs nothing. It is the other legislation that our colleagues in the Assembly Appropriations Committee are currently considering are dealing with those issues. But it is a small price.

And as my colleagues have emphasized, not only do we know the price if we don't act, but that guillotine is hanging over us.

The too clever by half maneuver that the Congress did by saying, you know, we're going to shut, we're going to take millions of people off of Medi Cal, which will shutter health clinics and rural hospitals and districts like mine. We're going to devastate America. And we hear that that's deeply unpopular. So here's our trick.

We're going to make a lot of it not take effect until the end of 2026. But what they didn't know is that means that the people then can speak in November of 2026 to say no. And so we still have a chance to stop all of those or many of those cuts.

And our only chance to do that is by taking this action today. Those are 10, 20, 100 times bigger than the cost of an election. And we have to stand up. And I'll say one other thing, which is that this is just the beginning.

We already know from the launch of attacks on mail in elections, which are an essential part of the California landscape, but also the proposal that only the Congress and the courts will be able to stop, which is to erase 1.8 million Californians from the census so that we are down another.

We're down two congressional seats and unable to defend California. If there's something that Californians do agree on, we must defend our state and our community.

And that that effort in particular to strip us of two congressional seats and the people of our state that deserve representation cannot be, cannot be costed against the, you know, the recall or any of these other issues. And so I'm absolutely in support of this.

This Bill has no fiscal impact, but even if it did, it is worth the price to be paid in order to protect the people of California in the ways that the authors described. Thank you for bringing it forward and I also look forward to voting for it today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We do have a motion we'll allow you to conclude.

Great. Thank you very much, Chairman and Committee Members for your comments. We're not going to stop and we're not going to stand by while the Republicans continue to rig the election in other states or continue to harm our California's working people.

AB 604 is a fiscal win, minimal cost if any, to protect California from the massive cost of the Trump era politics. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We do have a motion.

Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Floor. [roll call]

Current vote is 4 to 2. We're going to leave the roll open for the one absent Members. Thank you very much for being here today and for answering the questions and thank you for following this through.

Thank you all for democracy.

Yeah, I just need to wait. I'll wait for Senator Richards and I apologize, man. I just. This is fiscal and I didn't even call on my apologies.

We're going to be in recess for the last vote.

Committee on appropriations will convene in 30 seconds.

We are back on item number one, which is AB 604. Roll call, please.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Floor. [roll call]

Final vote is 5 to 2.

The final vote is 5 to 2. That Bill is out. I want to thank everybody for attending this hearing and for the their comments that were respectfully offered and we, the Senate Committee on appropriations is adjourned.