Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is present with the Members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery. Please rise. We will be led in prayer this morning by Senator Durazzo, after which, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Thank you, Madam President. Merciful and compassionate God, we ask you to abide with us in all the needs of our lives, enable our caring to be wise, our support honest, and our concerns thoughtful. May our loves as well as our fears be accurate.

May our spirits be so open to your guidance that we will become faithfully daring, expectantly patient and responsibly hopeful with each other and with your people in our neighborhoods, our state and our nation. We ask this in your name. Amen.

Members, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance. Majority Leader, you are recognized at your desk. Thank you, Madam President. We'll be calling a Democratic caucus in the Maddie Lounge immediate. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

The Republicans will caucus as well.

Senate will recess for caucus.

Members of Senate will now reconvene. We are back at privileges of the floor. There are none. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read, Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Members, just a reminder.

Pursuant to our rules, we may not debate more than two times on one measure on the same day. We will now move to motions, resolutions and notices. Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized at your desk. Thank you, Madam President. I move that Senate Rule 2910 be suspended as it relates to Senate Bill 2 at. This is not debatable.

Senator Jones, you are recognized. Thank you. Senator Jones is asking for a no vote. Senator Gonzalez is asking for an aye vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 30. noes 9. Sorry. That measure carries.

Okay.

Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I move that Senate Rule 19 be suspended as it relates to Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8.

This is not debatable. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. In an effort to minimize our lawlessness and rule breaking, we simply ask for a no vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto is asking for a no vote. Senator Gonzalez is asking for an aye vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 30. Noes, 9. The rules are suspended. Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you. Madam President. There is a resolution at the desk requesting that Joint Rule 10.5 be suspended as it relates to Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8. Secretary, can you please read the resolution?

Resolve that joint rule 10.5 be dispensed with.

This is also non-debatable. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to make a substitute motion that ACA 8, because of its costs, be referred to the Committee on Appropriations for a full hearing and vote. Since it was not done before.

Senator, I apologize, but your motion is not in order. It does need to be approved by the Rules Committee.

I wish to appeal that ruling. It should be.

We will now appeal vote to appeal the ruling of the chair. I put the question to the body. Shall the ruling of the chair be upheld? Secretary, please read. Call the roll. Senator Syarto is asking for a no vote. I am asking for an aye vote.

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 30. Noes 9. The ruling stands. We'll go back to the motion that was made by Senator Gonzalez. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 30. Noes 9. Joint rules are suspended. Senator Valladares, you are recognized. Madam President, I move to remove AB 1214 from the from the consent file. At the request of the author. The desk will note not seeing any other Members wishing to remove anything from the consent file. We will now move to consideration of the daily file.

We will begin with second reading file.

Secretary, please read Assembly Bill 42 with amendments 1255 with amendments 1103 with amendments 696 with amendments.

Second reading will be deemed read. We will now move to Assembly. Third reading file. Item 226 A.B. 604 by Senator Gonzalez.

Secretary, please read.

Assembly Bill 604 by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. An act relating to redistricting and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. And Senators, I rise today as a proud joint author to present AB604, which is a reasonable and rational response to the anti Democratic actions of the Republican Party as they attempt to rig our congressional elections.

AB 604 contains the census block data that will define the temporary congressional districts that we are being forced to adopt through the actions of the President and his complicit party leaders.

Just yesterday, the Texas House passed an aggressively partisan map giving President Trump the gerrymander he requested to produce five new Republican seats in the US House next year. These undemocratic actions are a betrayal to the values of our great nation and to the people we all swore to represent, defend and protect.

Unlike Texas actions, the decision to approve the temporary maps outlined in this bill will ultimately be in the hands of California voters. This Bill gives voters a choice, a choice to keep the current districts or adopt maps to counter the actions of MAGA extremists in Texas who are obediently working to tip the scales for President Trump.

Despite the minority party's hypocrisy and their attempts to confuse the narrative with sound bites and tweets, the truth is clear that the maps are based on the work, comments and hearings of the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is a bipartisan Commission.

In hearings over the last few days, I was actually very shocked to learn of the minority party's well timed epiphany that independent redistricting commissions are actually beneficial to voters and democracy. Well, what do you know?

This timely awakening of the Republican Party is actually very surprising given that Members of the party have voted against redistricting bills and reform bills for independent redistricting on at least 30 different occasions over the last 14 years in this state.

I'm hopeful that my colleagues across the aisle will use their newfound enthusiasm for redistricting reform to reach out to their colleagues and to the President in DC.

If you have his number in your phone book, please call him and demand that they adopt these commissions nationwide and stop the President's illegal gerrymandering efforts so we can shelf the bill and get back to serving our constituents and the daily needs that they have.

As this body is now on the same page on the value of the independent Redistricting Commission, I think it's important to highlight how the temporary maps described in this bill are grounded in the Commission's work. The adjustments in the maps are are as follows.

Again, they were supported by maps and testimony, supported by maps and testimony submitted by the public Commissioner testimony and draft or completed Commission maps. They also include eight districts that will be identical to the lines drawn by the Commission.

And as I mentioned over and over again in Committee, over 76% of Californians will actually be in their same congressional district, 58% of the maps in this bill are changed by less than 20% and 37% are changed by less than 10%.

The Redistricting Commission that completed the work and was rooted and the maps that are rooted in this work was comprised of five Republicans, five Democrats and four no party preference individuals who did the hard work to to create over 76% of the maps you see in this Bill.

Demonstrating the real Independence and non partisanship that informed the original maps and guided these temporary maps Members, the greatest consequence for us today is inaction. Today, the decks are stacked against us. So what we have to do is fight back.

We know that right now President Trump is gutting vital programs and increasing economic uncertainty and chaos to some of our most vulnerable Californians. Medicaid cut $1.0 trillion over the next decade. With California at risk of losing 28 billion in federal funding. That puts 3.4 million Californians at risk. 3.1 families will lose.

SNAP food assistance benefits mostly children. Billions will be cut from classrooms and institutes of higher learning. UCLA is being ransomed by President Trump now for $1.0 billion. This is what we're talking about here. California stands to lose so much more. Over 7.8 billion in lost tax revenue due to the Trump tax tariffs.

And the list goes on and on. And our communities absolutely deserve better. What do we do? Just sit back and do nothing? Or do we fight back and provide some chance for our Californians to see themselves in this democracy?

And while the minority party will continue to misdirect and misinform the public today, with dramatic ties and cries about transparency, process and rushed timelines, the truth is that they hold the power to stop all of this. It's very clear you all hold the power to stop this today. And again, actions do have consequences.

And if the Republican Party truly wanted to stop these temporary maps, again, you have the power to do so. And by voting against this today, that means you are unwilling to stand up against a dictator, a leader that has taken so much from our most vulnerable constituents, regardless if they live in Republican or Democratic districts.

Again, I will close by sharing that AB 604 is temporary solution that provides California voters with the final say so that we don't tip the scales and allow this unchecked power to continue. This is how we fight back and protect our democracy. I request, respectfully request, an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you. Senator Blakespear, you are recognizing.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, we could debate many details here today, but here's the bottom line. Republicans are trying to cheat to win congressional midterm elections under their unpopular President. And Democrats are fighting back. This is about trying to level the national playing field so we can have something close to fair elections for Congress in 2026, period.

Full stop. Republicans are trying to corrupt democracy. Democrats are trying to honor it. Republicans can say what they want, but their party started this madness racing to gerrymander in Texas and other Republican controlled states to stack the deck for themselves in next year's election.

Yes, it is lamentable that we are pausing California's superior process for drawing districts through a nonpartisan citizen Commission that was started 17 years ago, but that was a different political time under different political circumstances, and it was a different electorate. We're giving the voters a choice to be politically relevant.

It would be naive and foolish to stick to an old model, an old set of rules, when Texas and likely other Republican states are rewriting the rules to rig the game.

The Trump Administration has made clear in all of its actions that it believes might makes right, that it has no respect for the US Constitution, the separation of powers, the courts, or the democratic process. Corrupting our elections is the first step toward fake elections. Donald Trump is trying to remake America in Russia's image.

Total control, no dissent, no democracy. Fake news and fake elections. What did we learn at the outset of the Second World War? That aggressors and bullies take whatever you give them. There is no appeasing them. The only way to counter aggressors and bullies and wannabe autocrats like Donald Trump is to challenge them and to fight them.

Strong, straight up. There are many decent people in this chamber, both Democrats and Republicans. All of us are committed to serving constituents and doing what's best for California. We do have our disagreements on policy and on politics, and we work through them as best we can to serve the people who elected us.

But today's debate is not about California politics. It's about national politics. It's about owning up to the realities of the national political landscape and a Republican President who will stop at nothing to consolidate power, including corrupting congressional midterm elections. And we in California cannot stand idly by and do nothing.

And with that, I am proud to be a strong Aye for this measure.

Thank you, Senator Strickland. You are recognized at your desk.

Questions for the author.

Will the author take a question? Absolutely. Absolutely.

It was stated that Governor Newsom announced that this legislation and ballot measure has the explicit goal of electing more Democrats in response to Texas redistricting.

Would you therefore agree with Governor Newsom that the predominant purpose why we're here today of this constitutional amendment is to redraw these maps to elect more Members of the Democratic Party to the House.

Of Representatives through the President? Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the question. I would say again, Texas started this. It is very clear.

And when our democracy is at stake has been mentioned when there are millions of people in California that will be kicked off of Medicaid and kicked off of SNAP benefits because of your party's control, we absolutely have to react. And that means doing this bill today AB604.

And that means ensuring that the voters of California in November have a say. They will have a say ultimately.

Okay. So it sounds like the answer is yes. Another question for the author.

Just a moment. Excuse me. Will the author take another question?

Yes,

You may proceed.

Did you use the 2020 census to draw these maps through the President?

Thank you for the question. Again. Over 76% of this the maps that you see here today are based off of the 2020 Redistricting Commission, which is a bipartisan Commission that we all like to praise.

And I'm hopeful that at the end of this that we actually get your side of the aisle to support a nationwide independent redistricting Commission plan. Provisions of that are included in the ACA 8 which will be taken up later today. And that is the hope is that we can do that. But yes, absolutely. Over 77%.

There's minor tweaks to this bill has been mentioned or to the to the previous maps has been mentioned.

So it sounds like the answer is yes, they used the 2020 census because I found it interesting. I'll get to that later. Another question for the author.

Will the author take the third question?

Under current law the Legislature cannot draw the lines. But it's been reported this week that the Legislature draw the lines but no Member of either body of the Senate or Assembly has said they participated in drawing these lines. One, did you draw these lines or had any influence on these lines?

And two, what Member of the Legislature participated in drawing these lines?

You may proceed. Thank you Again. The Legislature has the constitutional right to send an amendment to the voters which we are will be doing later today. And the voters will have the ultimate say. The maps have been online since Friday evening. Very public process which in the Assembly and the Senate both had portals.

Thank you to the election chairs, the good Senator from Riverside as well as the good Assembly Member from the Central coast providing a ton the maps online on Friday and soliciting thousands, thousands of responses which folks can do even today.

And in fact what was stated in the Committee as well is that the voters now will have over 70 days to actually before they make a vote hit the ballot box. And November 4th we'll have over 70 days to view these maps which is is incredible.

It's actually many times more than the current redistricting process we have through the independent redistricting Commission which only allows 14 days. So that is the current process as it stands now.

Okay. Thank you for an answer because under the current Constitution no Member is allowed to adjust these lines. So my next question for the author.

Will the author take a fourth question?

Who has seen these maps in the Legislature before they were introduced in the Legislature and when did you see them.

The first time again, Friday. They were all available publicly online. The Assembly, the Senate provided opportunity for the public to see these maps. And you have what we have now. There were slight tweaks made in amendments this past Monday which we all debated.

And now we're in the midst of continuing to view those maps and solicit input from the public. And again, ultimately the California voters will vote on this.

A follow up question on that same so is your testimony or your statement here today that no Member of the Legislature saw these maps before they were public?

Again, I will reiterate that these maps were available publicly on Friday and we had the ability, all of us, to solicit our residents and provide additional they had the ability to provide additional input. And so that's what we're doing today.

And what we're not talking about, unfortunately is the fact that you know, Texas has continuously gerrymandered mid cycle. We, Texas has every single year since 1965 violated the Voting Rights act every single time. We're going down a rabbit hole here on transparency and all of the procedural matters.

But what's not included here is the reaction that Texas, your colleagues in Texas have continuously violated the Voting Rights Act, have continuously mid cycle gerrymandered. It's, it's unfortunate.

So on my own time it sounds like the, the statements today is that no Member of this Legislature saw these masks before they were public. And we all know that's not true.

And I'm encouraging the media to follow up with every Member of the Legislature because under current constitution not one Member on this, in this body on either house is allowed to adjust a map. And it was reported that there was different Members that adjusted these maps.

And if you wanted to do it correctly, you should have gone to the people of California, get the authority and then draw the maps. So any Member here, let's be crystal clear and I'm asking the media to follow up.

Any Member here that adjusted these maps violated the constitution today and is again evasive answers that we know that now. It just shows that there's no transparency because no one can answer one Member on this floor that had participated in drawing these maps.

You say it's a Legislature, you're the author, but you didn't have any participation in these maps. Again, that's not transparency. And I'm urging The media to follow up with each and every one of these Members as this moves forward. If you get the 2/3 vote, which I believe you will, to ask these questions.

Now, if I had the power, as was stated by the way, I don't know one Member of the Texas Legislature, not one. I was elected here in California, not Texas. And it was stated in the opening, you have the power to shut this down. If I had the power to stop this, I would stop it.

I'm telling the media right now, if the Republicans in California had the power to stop this, we would stop this today. And they are misrepresenting what is the actual truth moving forward. Redistricting Commission. Let's make it clear. The redistricting. Nonpartisan redistricting.

Senator Strickland, if you can please address the body and not the media. When you're.

I'm looking around my other colleagues. I could look around my. Excuse me, Senator Strickland, I'm only allowed to look forward.

Please look at me while you are making your address. Thank you.

That's a new rule that I haven't heard of before.

I would appreciate if you.

I've been here over.

Everything is through the presiding officer. Thank you.

It is through the presiding officer. Exactly.

So you can direct your comments to me or if you have a question, so direct it. Let's be clear. Excuse me.

Okay.

If you have a question, you can direct it to that Member. But if you're speaking, please direct it to the presiding officer. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's be clear. It was stated in the opening that the Redistricting Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission drew these lines and these maps. That's a false. They might have took it as a blueprint, but the Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission did not draw these maps as it was stated in the opening.

Again, people are trying to be misled of what this actually is. Members, this week's actions demonstrate why we need a nonpartisan citizens redistricting Commission and why it was passed in the first place. For my colleagues on the other side, who I deeply respect, sometimes I believe you think the ends justify the means.

Let's go through what happened this week with no transparency, no input from the community across the state to draw these maps. And these maps were drawn behind closed doors with the Governor and what I understand, legislative leadership. No one admits that they had any participation in these maps. They just came out with thin air.

But again, let's look what happened this week in terms of transparency. You violated your own rule, the 30 day rule to push this through. No one will admit that they drew these maps.

And to the media, I'm saying you need to move forward as this moves forward, to the famous line, what did they know and when did they know it? Which lawmakers saw these maps and had influence on these maps? Who paid for these maps? And the lack of transparency keeps going on and on and on.

Let's see what we have here today, currently, before you go to the voters in November. What we have here today is the gold standard for redistricting nationally. It should be the national model and not thrown out. It's something that we should brag about here in the State of California.

The fact that the people pick the lines, not the politicians. We have full transparency. In fact, we have hundreds, hundreds of hearings throughout the State of California, in every corner of the State of California, so citizens can participate in the drawing of these maps that keep communities together, of whole cities and counties.

And the lines are drawn in public in front of everybody, in front of the world. Members. Fair districts lead to fair representation.

And if you pass this bill moving forward, and if it passes in November, which I don't believe it will, but if it does, what you're striving for is predetermined elections, meaning that there won't be one competitive race for Congress in California for the next three cycles. Members, that's not good for Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

You're taking the voice away from Californians in terms of having fair representation and earning the trust of your voters. Not having a predetermined election. Here in California, we have a system where citizens pick the representatives and not politicians picking the citizens. That's what you want to throw away.

And what I heard from many of my colleagues on the other side, this is going to be temporary. From my experience, I have over a decade of experience here, nothing is temporary when you do it. Former President Ronald Reagan said it best. We have long discovered that nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program.

Even this week, the Assembly Elections Chair stated that the Democrats should do what we're doing here today in 2030 was quoted already. So when you say to the people of California, this is temporary, my experience is nothing's temporary here. I don't believe one second that this will be temporary and neither should the people of California.

Now, I do have A Joint Resolution 10. It's not up yet. I put it across the desk that says we should have nonpartisan registering districts and make it a model nationwide. I do believe it is wrong for Texas to do this. I do believe it's Wrong for Illinois to do this.

I do believe it's wrong for every other state where the politicians pick their citizens. It is wrong both on the Democrat and Republican side. We should be promoting what we do here in California, not throwing it away. And that's what you're going to do if this is successful.

You're going to take what is the national model for redistricting and putting power in the people, and you're going to take it back to put in the power of the politicians so you don't have to really earn the vote of your constituents because the election will be predetermined.

I also support Congressman Kevin Kiley's legislation that bans mid decade redistricting nationwide Members. I heard that Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats from the DCCC from California were here. What would be more constructive is that you jump on board to Kevin Kiley's Bill, pass it on the national level, and therefore we won't have mid decade redistricting Members again.

Going back to the Census 2020, there's been massive population shifts since 2020. And when you look at these maps, for example, Los Angeles has lost representation in the last five years, but under these maps, they pick up a seat. The Inland Empire has gained population over the last five years, but they lose a seat.

And it's very clear in federal law that these districts have to be equal in representation. So if you use the 2020 census, as was stated here before us, this will be thrown out by courts because it is very crystal clear that the deviation that you have when you draw congressional districts is very, very small.

And Members, you know this is wrong. You know what you're doing today is wrong. You know it's not good for democracy in California. And you weren't elected by anybody. You weren't elected by the people of Illinois. You weren't elected by the people of Texas. You weren't elected by the people of New York or North Carolina.

You were elected by the people of California. And you were elected to defend the Constitution. The Constitution. Again, I believe my colleagues, whether you knew it or not, violated the oath of the Constitution that you swore to. And I do believe. I understand. But the ends don't justify the means. You know this is bad.

Or for independents, Democrats and Republicans throughout the State of California. I want you to look deep inside your soul and you know this is wrong. Moving forward, you know this is not good for democracy in California. And I'm urging your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. May I respond?

Respond.

So. Would you like to respond in your closed?

I can do that, too, but I just wanted to make sure that it was known, if I may, just to refute some of the misinformation that had been put out.

Can you hold on for just one moment?

You're going to respond to every speaker.

Senator Gonzalez, unless someone has asked you a specific question, which there was not a question, we're going to have you use those in your clothes, okay? Senator Niello, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, I hope you will indulge me for a moment for a bit of digression into some political history. No misdirection, just the facts, ma'am. In 2008, Proposition 11 was put on the ballot to establish the Commission for Redistricting for State legislators. And I think also the BOE.

And my friend from West Sacramento was correct in the. I think, the Assembly Elections Committee yesterday when he said that that bill barely passed. It was definitely a squeaker. Maybe less than 1% over 50. 50%, that's correct. There is a rest of the story, though, which I'll get to in a moment.

Importantly, one main opponent to that Proposition was the California State Democratic Party. Well, what do you know? Now, fast forward, 2010. Proposition 20 was placed on the ballot to perhaps correct an incompletion of the previous Proposition 11 to add congressional districts to the Commission's responsibility. That's what we're talking about here, Congressional districts.

Not what Proposition 11 did, only state offices, but congressional districts. Now, the rest of the story. That Proposition passed overwhelmingly, over 60% of the vote. Interestingly, there was very little opposition to that Proposition. Now, this is important. There was a reason for that. What is the easiest way to defeat a Proposition? That's where misdirection comes in confusion.

There was also on that ballot Proposition 27, which proposed to completely abolish the Redistricting Commission. Get rid of it, not maintain it, which we're talking about supposedly here, but get rid of it. The ostensible proponent for that in the literature was UCLA Professor and former chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Daniel Lowenstein.

But he said the real sponsors were Democratic Members of Congress. Well, what do you know?

The contributors to that campaign, which ranged from 5,000 to $225,000, were Judy Chu, Anna Ashu, Zoe Lofgren, Nancy Pelosi, Doris Matsui, our own colleague here from San Pedro who was in Congress at the time, Linda Sanchez and Adam Schiff, as well as a number of others who are no longer in Congress. The confusion didn't work.

What was the result of that competing measure? It was defeated by almost an exact mirror image by which Proposition 20 passed. It was defeated with 60% saying no. So now comes a convenient opportunity, very convenient opportunity. Governor Newsom wants five more Democratic congressional seats.

And Democrats see an opportunity for California taxpayers to pay for what they could not get with Proposition 27 in 2010. It has, after all, been reported that the DCC has been involved with the current effort.

A quarter $1.0 billion or whatever the amount is to Fund this partisan effort to thwart the will of the voters is absolutely unacceptable. Members just history, not misdirection. Those are just the facts, ma'am. I urge a no vote.

Thank you, Senator Grayson. You are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President. I do have a question to the author.

Will the author take a question?

Thank you very much. First, I have two questions. I'll just ask them both and then answer all in one. The first one is the actions taken by Texas, are they permanent or temporary? And do they does Texas practice mid cycle redistricting?

And then so that was a two part question, the first one, the second question is for redistricting bills. I believe there was some reference made to that. Could there be, could the author elaborate on what was talked about as far as some redistricting bills that had been opposed?

You may proceed. Thank you for the question. And yes, first question, Texas actions. Their action yesterday is actually permanent. There is no temporary aspect to the, the gerrymandering they just approved yesterday through their House mid cycle. Redistricting is a constant and there are no, there's no input for Texas voters to weigh in.

Very opposite from what we're doing here. Ours is temporary until 2030. And of course, we are letting the voters decide whether to do this mid cycle or not, which we are doing through a constitutional amendment. So we are absolutely doing that on the second piece. Thank you for your question on redistricting.

Now, as of as mentioned, just as of last year, there have been over 30 bills last year and up until going back to about 2014, where a number of bills had been presented in this body to support an independent redistricting Commission in various parts of the State of California, in places like San Luis Obispo and Sacramento and Orange County, Riverside, Fresno, Kern and all of those bills and efforts to establish an independent citizens redistricting Committee in all parts of the State of California had been voted no by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

And so I don't, I'm not understanding what they're saying in terms of wanting now an opportunity to have an independent redistricting Commission be the end all say all while we're sitting here getting attacked by President Trump on our democracy.

Thank you for that additional information. If I may through the chair, would this, and this is just a hypothetical question on my part or maybe not. Would this measure impact any other districts outside of congressional districts? The answer is no. And another question is who will ultimately, ultimately have the final say on this matter?

And the answer is the voters of the State of California. Senators, I rise in support of this measure. Throughout my life and throughout my career, I have been guided by some very simple and basic values. First and foremost among them, fairness and respect.

With commitment to be fair and respectful of my neighbors and also to respect the rule of law. This is an impactful day, especially for all of us here in California. Which is why the mid decade redistricting efforts being conducted by other states certainly appear to undermine these values in pursuit of power, simply for the sake of power.

And what is most troubling to me is that these efforts appear to be equivalent of changing the rules of a game after it has started. Imagine a football game that is tied at halftime and one team comes out for the second half declaring that for the rest of the game their touchdowns are worth twice as many points.

Is that just, is that justice? Is this not the situation we face here where a number of states have decided to change the rules of redistricting to at halftime?

Senators, we are literally at halftime in this redistricting match that we now find ourselves in five years in to a 10 year cycle facing the same situation as the hypothetical football game that was just described.

Fairness would dictate that either all the touchdowns are worth twice as many points or none of the touchdowns are worth twice as many points. Justice would dictate that we all abide by the same rules regardless of the game. Which is exactly why we're here today. Thank you.

Thank you Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Thank you madam. And the Members, I rise today in strong opposition to this proposal for special election to redraw our congressional districts. In California many points have been raised and Texas has been described as a bad actor. Very interesting. And then also the regulations on the sports and half time changing the rules.

I would like to apply these two points. If Texas was a bad actor, are you supposed to follow the bad actor? If somebody runs through a red light or kills somebody, you do the same thing. I mean that's exactly what we are trying to do. And as a model for Texas, it's a model we now follow.

Whatever Texas does, if you say that that action is wrong, just let's don't do that. Isn't it more common sense now? Many things, many points in this direction we can argue about. But let me focus on this measure is another sense, not urgent item. It is not necessary. It is certainly not affordable.

Let me focus on the financial aspect of that. In California, we have projected to face $12 billion of deficit in the coming year. You all know that every dollar matters. Yet this proposal would drain an estimated a quarter $1.0 billion of General budget just to conduct a special election. This is money we do not have.

And the money that could be put to far better use. Think about what a quarter $1.0 billion can do or represents. It could finance tens of thousands of childcare slots for working families. It could support financial aid for thousands of college students struggling with tuition.

It could keep after school programs and mental health services available for our children. It can Fund public safety and wildfire prevention programs at a time when California depend on them most.

In order to help close the $12 billion state budget deficit, the supermajority decided to cut California peer run worm line in Orange County, a key program that has provided a free 24. 7 mental health service to millions of residents. That was only $5 million. I was hoping that you would agree to that. But it was cut off.

And here quarter $1.0 billion is just pocket money to spend on this unnecessary special election special redrawing in the mid decade as a result of Orange County where I represent the county warm line program has a laid of 127 staff Members and is now facing to end operations completely.

Think about the victims, the customers who have used this warm line and then also unburdened all the burdens that the 911 system is getting. And we know that the 911 system right now is answer so late because of a shortage of people. With the shortage of staffing in 911 answering service.

Instead of funding critical programs like this, we are being asked to throw these dollars away on a political maneuvering. This is not about the fairness. This is not about the people. And this is certainly not about protecting democracy that you all say that we must keep the democracy. Democracy, Fairness. Fairness.

This is a partisan power grab and it comes at the expense of Californians. We are here to serve.

So I ask you, my colleagues, will we tell Californians that their childcare, their education, their health care, their public safety programs don't matter as much as rushed and unnecessary special election redrawing or we will stand with them and say no to this reckless use of taxpayer dollars.

Senators and colleagues, let us show some fiscal responsibility and common sense. Please vote for no on this wasteful proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Laird, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. In 2021 a particularly egregious gerrymander was done in my district in San Luis Obispo County. It was for the Board of Supervisors districts. And it was proposed by one party. A party that was losing registration was no longer the party with the greatest plurality in that county.

And they passed a map suggested by one political Committee to egregiously gerrymander that county under the census. Minor tweaks to the existing districts would have been in order.

Instead, it was jam the Democrats into one district, make the other four districts in a way that they likely could go the other way and preserve a majority that didn't exist in the electorate at large. And it was gross. There were some people that would vote in three every two years for three cycles for supervisor.

There were some that were the opposite. There were thousands of people would have two supervisors at once. Thousands more would have no supervisor. It was a dislocation that was off the charts. And so what happened? I introduced last year Senate Bill 977 to say we would have independent redistricting for San Luis Obispo County.

We would have the Commission. That egregious line drawing would never happen again for that county. And then what happened in this body? In this body, nine Senators thought that was just fine. That that egregious redistricting that would have been rectified by Commission is what they voted against. And. And it was said just the facts on one speech.

And then there were all the names that were given about those facts. Well, let me say in just the facts, it was Senators from Jackson, Bieber, Bakersfield, San Diego, Sacramento, Yucaipa and Murrieta that said we are fine with egregious gerrymandering. We do not want to commit mission. We do not want fairness in redistricting.

Let's be clear about that. So when it was said what is known and when did we know it? In 2024 we knew that was an egregious redistricting. And nine Senators said it was just fine with them. It was said fair districts lead to fair representation. But nine Senators said not.

In San Luis Obispo County, it was said that politicians should not pick their voters. But was fine for nine Senators. In San Luis Obispo County. It was said that we are witnessing a partisan power grab. We witnessed one there. And it was fine for nine Senators in San Luis Obispo County.

So let's just call that what it is. We have born again Commission lovers here. They had a chance to have the fair redistricting in different parts of the state and it was rejected. And so I just think it's fair to expose that level of partisanship because that's what's going on.

And I think now we have a national crisis and we are responding. And I asked for an aye vote on AB604.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise in opposition of this redistricting package. All three bills that are coming before us today to redraw congressional lines. The move undermines the will of the people and the voters of this state.

I don't wholeheartedly agree with the actual Commission, the people that are on the board of the Commission, but I don't agree that legislators should be able to draw their own lines either. And I'm a Legislator, and I don't think I should be able to draw my own lines.

I think the people should be able to pick the people they want to have them represented, and it should be that a standard across the United States. I listened to your comments and I really wasn't going to speak, but I listened to all the comments and it's all about transparency. And this has been transparent. Colleagues.

This Bill, this Bill was put in print on Monday. We had a hearing on Tuesday. On Tuesday, when the hearing took place, both election chairs in the Assembly and the Senate could not answer one question. Who drew the lines? The Assembly elections chair said it was a collaboration. The Assembly elections chair said it was leadership. Leadership?

What leadership? Who's. Give us a name. The individual who was providing technical assistance in that Committee was. Would not answer any questions about who they were, who they represented, who was paying them. It's a public process. And you're asking from the dais, who do you represent? I'd rather not answer that question. Who's paying you?

I'd rather not answer that question. I mean, this is a public process where we got no answers and you're talking about transparency. They were asked who drew the lines. And in the Assembly, the response was it was a group of leadership. It was the same state Legislature.

And the response was, we're in the state Legislature and we didn't participate in that process. And they said, well, you're not in leadership. So then it fell on leadership. I watched the interview on our own elections chair here in the Senate. Who drew the lines? Well, the Rules Committee. I'm the Vice Chair of Rules.

We did not participate that I know of, of drawing any lines. My colleague from Santa Cruz sits on rules. He did not participate in drawing any lines. It was not the Rules Committee. They also said that the Rules Committee placed this information in the maps on the website. We didn't do that.

I went back through the last three hearings. We did not vote to do that. No one is being truthful and transparent when we're just trying to ask questions. Who drew the lines? Did you know about the lines before it was, you know, did you have input?

And I know that's just a simple thing and it's just one thing that needs to be brought up.

But if we're going to talk about transparency, this process put in print on Monday where lines were already drawn when the Bill was put in process with no public comment because the first public comment went up on Tuesday during the hearing and the maps were already drawn. And it's supposed to be a public process.

That's not what we're doing here. And we're better than that. And I know the rhetoric on the other side is about Texas. Let's talk about Texas for just one second. Texas was sued by the Elias Group. The Elias Group. Permission to read?

Permission granted.

The Elias Group is a mission driven firm committed to helping Democrats win citizens votes and progressives make change. That's the Elias Group. The Elias Group won a lawsuit against Texas. Like it or not, Constitution says we have three branches of government, the Executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch.

The judicial branch ordered the State of Texas to redraw their lines. The State of Texas complied with the judicial order, the, the judge's order. That's it. Now, because of the way the lawsuit was structured, Texas did take it in a way that, you know, nobody really expected, expected it to happen, but they did.

The bottom line is, is that the response that California is having because of a lawsuit from a Democrat activist lawyer group in D.C. and then California jumps on this bandwagon. We are not involved in that lawsuit. We are not involved in Texas legislation. Contrary to my colleague's statement, he knows no Texas legislators. I know several.

They're under a judicial order to redraw the lines. For us to engage in that process, I think sends a bad message across the nation because that old adage, so goes California, so goes the nation.

There is no doubt in my mind that other states will look at what we are doing to offset Texas, which is a judicial directive, a judgment against Texas to redraw those lines. And looking at what we're doing, and again, their policy is different. Legislators can redraw those lines. Our policy is separate.

It's a constitutional amendment where we have a citizens redistricting Committee and we as legislators can't draw the lines and no one in this body will answer the question, including the author that's presenting or the presenter. This morning the majority floor leader was asked by my colleague three different ways who drew the lines and there's still no response.

Why is that such a hard question? If you look at what's happening, it's going to so goes California, so goes the nation. And I'm telling you, you guys have not thought this all the way through because you don't have the votes. You just don't have the leeway that we do on our side of the wild.

From a national experience, Pitzker can't help you. He's got three Republicans out of 17. Massachusetts has zero. New York very few. This is not going to go well for your side of the aisle coming the midterm elections. And I just don't think that you've thought that through.

I can tell you that, you know, if people did participate on the lines and you can make an assumption that you have forever congressional seats here in the State of California and you're making those decisions because of the congressional lines that are going to benefit you for the rest of your life, it still doesn't help the voters in California.

All of the people that we represent, we have serious problems to solve in this state. We have a potential of refineries closing. We've got a potential of cement business going out of business. We've got LA wirefires where only four permits have been issued. We don't need to get involved in this nonsense.

The people of the State of California voted in a citizens District Commission. I didn't like that idea either. I did vote against it, but that's what we have.

And unless that has changed in a process that is not like this, if you want to work on this next year, and I realize that probably run out of time for the elections, but the bottom line is that this bill was put in print on Monday.

The people of the State of California had Tuesday and one Committee hearing to comment on it. That's not transparency. And in that Committee hearing, no one would answer those questions. That's not transparency and that's not the way this body should operate. I've been here since 2010.

I came in in the Tea Party district and I was that rant and raven individual on the Assembly floor that got my mic shut off several times. I get it. But there is a collegiality, whether you agree with policy or not, that you have on this floor and that we have to be one of 40, right?

...40 Representatives of the State of California. And I'm just telling you that the way this is put together is not right for the voters, it's not right for California, and this thing is going to backfire on you.

So, next year when all this goes down, I want you guys to say, just like you're saying right now, gosh, Groves has been screaming from the rooftops for 10 years regarding our oil and gas prices going up and the avenues that we're taking.

And next year, you're going to go, wow, Grove was saying this is going to backfire us. Mark my words, they will pick up almost 25 mid-state congressional seats. The way this process is working is not good for us, our party, your party, or the people of this nation in this state.

I support Kevin Kiley's Bill that says no midterm redistricting, no midterm redistricting, and that we should abide on the Census every 10 years just like it's set in place. Respectfully ask for a no vote based on the voters in this state and across our nation for this redistricting passage, passage, that has zero transparency. Zero transparency.

And even if you did have a hearing, you won't answer anybody's questions.

Thank you. Senator Valladares, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President, and I too want to raise my mic in opposition. So, I want to raise an issue that I think has been overlooked in this process, and that is communities of interest. Our Constitution is really clear. When we draw districts, we're supposed to keep communities together.

Cities, neighborhoods, agricultural regions, aerospace hubs, working class communities, watersheds, school districts. These are groups of people with shared and social interests who deserve to have fair and effective representation. What we're not supposed to do is draw maps around politicians, incumbents, political parties, or the partisan advantage or disadvantage of voters, yet that is exactly what these maps do.

To echo a lot of the sentiments from my colleagues on my side of the aisle, this process has been secretive from the very beginning. We don't know who drew these lines, or rather, it's difficult for those who were involved to name names, really at this point, but we all know it was politicians.

It was consultants and DC insiders that are going to all benefit from these maps. And the result, the result is truly unmistakable. Communities of interest were ignored, they were divided, and they were sacrificed for political gain. Take Modoc County. Farmers and ranchers, people who feed the world, they are now lumped in with wealthy Bay Area neighborhoods whose daily realities couldn't be further apart.

Look at Lodi, an Agriculture community split three ways, some bundled into Sacramento suburbs, others into Bay Area commuter towns.

Instead of one strong voice in Congress, their representation is now diluted and divided. In my own district, the Antelope Valley, an isolated region with shared concerns of aerospace and defense. It's the nation's backbone for defense, for innovation. It's where America's most advanced aircraft and space technologies are designed, built, and tested.

It's carved into five different congressional districts. This means no single representative is fully going to be accountable to the needs of my community in the Antelope Valley. And let's talk about Sonoma County, chopped into three districts, silencing the ability of that community to speak with one voice. This isn't just bad mapping. This, this scheme is bad governance.

The voters of California created an independent redistricting commission precisely to prevent this kind of power grab. They voted for fairness, transparency, and independence. The Constitution says maps are not to be drawn for politicians, for incumbents, or for parties.

But here we are with maps engineered in secret, rushed forward, and designed to benefit a few—select few. This is in clear conflict of interest, and it undermines public trust. And in our elections, it tells voters that their voices matter less than political insiders. And it confirms every fear they already have about Sacramento.

Colleagues, this isn't about Democrats or Republicans. In my district, I represent more Democrats than I do Republicans. I want every single voter to be represented fairly. This is about the Constitution. This is about transparency. It's about whether the people of California get what they voted for, a fair and open process, not maps drawn in back rooms for political convenience.

The people of California deserve better. They deserve fair maps. They deserve good government, and they deserve leaders who will honor California's Constitution, not undermine it. I cannot support this plan.

And I think it's ironic to hear in response to my colleague from Santa Cruz, how history is repeating itself, how right now we're seeing that across the nation and even in California, that Democrats have lost 2.1 million voters and Republicans have picked up 2.4 million and further makes me question this paragraph. Is history repeating itself?

I urge you to vote to uphold the Constitution of California today. I urge you to be the voice, to be the voice that your constituents elected you to be, to uphold their rights, their voices. Respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Senator Umberg, you are recognized.

Well, thank you, Madam President. Let me speak to some self-evident, irrefutable proofs. Truth number one is that all 39 members of the California State Senate sitting here today are here because they want to improve the lives of Californians.

Irrespective of whether they have a D or an R behind their name, they're here to improve the lives of Californians. Truth number two, we would not be here but for the President of the United States ordering Texas to create five new seats. And why? Why? Because he's concerned about the Congress potentially being a check on his power.

Truth number three. Truth number three is that the $811 million that the President has asked to be taken from California K-12 education to include after school programs that were referenced by my colleague from Irvine, that, that diminishes the quality of life of Californians.

Next truth, the billion dollars right now that is attempted to be extorted from UCLA diminishes the quality of life of Californians. Next truth.

The 57,861 individuals detained by mass agents, many unknown, that diminishes the quality of life in California and in particular, the 47,000-plus who have not had a conviction for anything other than being of a certain race and having a certain occupation. That is the only criteria that was used to detain those 47,000 individuals.

That diminishes the quality of life in California. The $164 billion taken over the next 10 years in terms of health care, that diminishes the quality of life here in California.

And in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, whatever it costs for this election, if we can save but a small portion of the amounts that the President wishes to remove, to take, to punish California, it is a cost -benefit analysis that we should engage in.

Now, James Madison in Federalist 47 said, look, here's what we do is we ask our government, we create a government with checks and balances, and the Congress is supposed to be a check on the Executive, a check on the.

But this Congress has been absolutely supine in terms of being a check, including the nine members of the Republican delegation from California have basically decided to disarm. Now, what is the response? The response is to actually respond to what the President's trying to do. Again, we wouldn't be here but for that.

Now, let me also commend and congratulate those of the Republican Party who have stood up to the President. I heard my colleague from Huntington Beach today talk about Texas say that what they're doing is wrong. That's hard. That's hard, and much harder for Republicans to say that than Democrats.

Same thing with my colleague from Irvine who condemned what the President's doing in Texas. The same thing with Kevin Kiley who's saying, look, we should not be doing midterm, mid-decade reapportionment.

The same thing with Carl DeMaio, and you're never going to hear these words spoken again, is that I commend Carl DeMaio for citing his disdain for what's going on in Texas. But that is not sufficient. And by the way, I appreciate the humility of my colleagues here, too.

That's not a trait that's common to most of us who are elected, but their humility in saying that they have no influence, they have no influence on the President. They have no influence on Texas.

Well, I invite them to join with me in the letter that I circulated asking the Governor of Texas cease and desist to stand down. If he stands down, we will stand down. The nine members of the Republican delegation in the Congress are larger than 23 states in this union.

Those nine members, plus our colleagues here in the California Legislature, they have a very strong voice, and I urge them to use that voice. I'll go to Austin with them. I urge them to basically make sure that this crisis is averted. If this crisis is not averted, then we, in California, must stand up.

We, in California, must stand up for the quality of life of Californians as we see it being assaulted. We must stand up and vote aye on AB 604. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, colleagues. Today's vote is not about us. Today's vote is not about politicians. Today's vote is about people, working people living ordinary lives. Today's vote is about whether Texas and Trump have the right to water down what is right for the people who elect us. California's average hourly wage is $7 an hour more than Texans make.

Our minimum wage is $9 more than theirs. And before any of you knee jerk to yeah, but everything is more expensive in California, consider the facts for working people beyond wages. Texas families pay $4,300 out of pocket for health insurance. Californians pay $1,100 less. 16.6% of Texans don't have any health insurance at all.

But only 6% of Californians are without it. Retirees in Texas scrape by with $600 less than California retirees. Texas utility bills are about the same as Californians. And the median home price in Texas capital city of Austin is the same as Sacramento.

This issue and our vote today is about our right to to live in a California that Californians control. Texas and Trump want to water down that right. That's what's at stake. 40 years ago, Texas state government came up with a famous anti-litter campaign slogan, "Don't mess with Texas." You know what? We aren't stupid.

Don't mess with us either. Thank you.

Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair and our Madam President. So, today, Members, I stand before you and this is going to be no surprise, I do not support what we are doing. There's a lot of reasons not to support this and I'm going to list a couple of them.

But I'm going to talk in chief about one thing in particular. For one thing, I know we've been belittled for trying to bring it up or pretending that it's something that's not. But this does lack transparency.

This effort is a week old for us, for the people out there that got to see maybe if they knew to get on the thing.

The reason it lacks transparency is because there hasn't been an opportunity for the public to be able to get engaged enough to look and see what these three bills that we're going to be doing are doing.

A lot of the public, there's a lot of people out there, they don't even know what a Senator is, but they do pay attention, eventually, and that's why there's a 31-day waiting period usually before we can do these. But we've done what we always do with our super majority. We've waived that. Let's get rid of that.

So, yeah, there is a lack of transparency in this. And then the second thing that I want to say is it also lacks integrity. You know, sometimes I'll ask a question that I know the answer to. You know why?

Because I want somebody to either tell me the answer and I'll go, good, they're being honest with me, or I'll watch them evade the answer when I know they're smart enough to—and they know the answer, and they just won't do it. They're evading the question. And, you know, when I see that happen, to me, that lacks integrity.

We asked questions in the Committee that were pretty easy. We know we know the answers to some of this, but they're kind of rumors. So, you're just kind of trying to get the, get the affirmation of what the answer is to who drew these? Was it a consultant? Was it staff?

Was it a consultant to one of our legislative offices? Because none of those are eligible under our Constitution in California to be drawing maps. And yet somehow, this map dropped out of the sky. Because I can tell you when we're told the Legislature drew the map. That was one of the answers. The Legislature.

The Legislature is not a human being. That's like saying the car drew the map. The car decided where to go. It did not. It's not a thing. I mean, it is a thing, but it's not a living thing. It can't think on its own. So, we didn't get the answers that we wanted in our Committee.

And I was told you already got the answer. No, I've asked the question. I just never got the answer. But I knew the answer and I didn't get the answer, which means people are being evasive, which, in this body and what we do up here, that lacks integrity.

It also flies in the face of the wishes of voters to make drawing of districts the sole responsibility of the Citizens Redistricting Commission. And the last thing I'll mention on this particular, reasons why we shouldn't even be doing this, as you know, and I'm glad people brought this up.

During the past few sessions, numerous bills have been introduced and passed by the Legislature, demanding that the citizen redistricting commissions be formed in counties that do not have them. And the reason, given by my colleague in Riverside, I remember her speech, the reason given was to preserve democracy. And yet, today we're told, hey, you know what?

30 of you voted against those redistricting. You know why? You know why I voted against those redistricting efforts? Number one, I'm kind of a local control guy. I think counties, cities, they need to weigh in on how they operate.

But more than that, it's because all of those reflected what a super majority will do when they're passing a Bill. They set it up for their party to be successful in the redistricting effort. So, what they did was they created a partisan makeup ahead of time. They created partisan results from a partisan commission.

So, heck, yeah, I am voting no on that. You want an independent? Don't tell us what the makeup is of it other than we have to find independent people to be able to be on a commission like that.

If you're going to tell me it has to be this many Democrats and then two Republicans and the Republican count—Republican votes don't count—we're not going to vote for that. That's why. That's why we voted against that. It's not because we are against the concept of an independent redistricting Commission.

It is because we are against the ability of a super majority to put things in, poison pills in there, to make it not so independent. So, please, enough with that. But those are just a few reasons we have to scrap this plan and move on to dealing with the real problems in California.

Because guess what, and you guys should be really proud of this, we have a lot of real problems in California, and they are not getting solved. We have water problems, energy problems. We have affordability problems. We have housing problems.

None of those are being solved, while we sit here trying to debate about what Texas did—I want to mention this. I do know Texas Legislature, a Legislator, Congressman Carter, really nice dude. He really is. But you know what? I'm not going to call him and tell him, Congressman Carter, this is Senator Seyarto, I need you to stand down. You know why?

Because they have different rules than we have. That's their process. They don't have a constitution that says, this is the process. Their process is, hey, if they're going to do it that way, they're going to do it that way. It's not for us to call them and tell them, no, you have to do this because otherwise, California—I think my colleague from Bakersfield laid it out really well.

What's going to happen. You want to bite your nose despite your face? Hey, whatever. But here, you know, earlier we had some percentages, and I was thinking, man, if I start talking percentages, people are going to go to sleep.

But since somebody already brought up percentages, I'm going to speak my percentages. Because what this deals with is this other issue I always hear from this body, and that's proportionality. Hey, when we're talking about crime stats, well, that's not in proportion to this. So, let's talk about proportionality. And here are some numbers.

46% of registered voters in this state are Democrats. Yes, that's a pretty dominant number. 25% of registered voters are Republican. But here's a little something. 29% are declined to states, no party preference, or other, which means they're registered as another party. But you know what? The representation in the Legislature for the Republicans, yes, it's very, very proportional.

We're 25% registered and we got 25% membership. You know who isn't? Is it the decline to states and the no party preference?

And one of the reasons that that's important to remember as we go forward and talk about the congressional seats is because those folks don't like the Democrats, the Democratic platform, and they don't like the Republican platform. They are in the middle. But you know what? They can't win a seat.

They can't go out there and win an election. So, it's up to us to try to make sure that we're representing them.

And the only way to do that is to understand that half of them usually break to the right and half of them break to the left, which would mean six more seats for the Dems and six more seats for the Republicans. An appropriate makeup for this body, if it were fair, is 24 Democrats, 16 Republicans.

That way we would not have a super majority. And that also reflects the voting trends in California. We vote 60-40 on constitutional offices and things like that. Right? And that's exactly what that breakdown is. But let's look at what we're—in the Legislature, it's 75% Dem.

In other words, every single one of those people that are in the middle are actually represented by Democrats. And you know what? In this state, sorry to break the news, that means it's represented by progressive Democrats. And that is exactly what they don't like. So, let's move on to the Congress. Congressional seats. We have 52 of them.

So, let's talk about democracy. 52 seats. You know how many are Republican seats? Nine. We already have 43%. That's 83%. 83% of our population, our voters in this state, are represented in the congressional level by Democrats. That means zero—zero people in the middle have representation other than from a Democrat.

And then, when you look at what we want to do, we want to push that number to 92%. Already, we got 17%. We have 8% of Republicans at that point being represented by Democrats. That's your democracy? Democrats represent 93% of our population in Congress. You guys, that's absurd. That is absurd.

So, this effort to save the nation at the expense of democracy in California, it doesn't make sense. And you know what? I have more confidence in you guys. I know you're smart enough to know that.

And I know some of you don't like this Bill and I know some of you would really like not to have to vote for it. But that's how it works in California. We got a super majority. With the super majority comes a lot of power. And with that power comes no power for the other side.

So, this notion that somehow the 10 Republicans are going to spring to this position of influence and power over all of the other states is absurd. We can't get anything done here and you know it. So, this effort is reckless.

This effort is ridiculous, and it needs to be abandoned so we can start working on the real problems that California has. And maybe, just maybe, we can start working together to make some real bipartisan solutions, not just one Republican vote on one of the bills. That's not bipartisan. So, I urge a no vote on this.

I urge us to move on. And so, thank you for indulging me today and allowing me to explore and talk about the real issues with democracy in California, not Texas. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Becker, you are recognized.

Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this important topic. And my colleague who just spoke said that he was not going to call the folks in Texas. Well, the folks in Texas called us. They called us and they said, you are our 911 call. And I got to tell you, I had chills.

I mean, it was an incredible moment, and I have such respect for them. They said, you are 911 call. We are calling you in California. We need your help. And, friends, I'm a history major, and history teaches us that we must stand up to bullies. I love the point by my colleague from Encinitas.

We must stand up to bullies or face incalculable damage. And that is what we're doing here today. We are standing up. When the bully in chief and the White House called up the Governor of Texas, he said, find me five seats. The Governor of Texas said, yes, sir. And so, now, is our chance to stand up.

And to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and usually, you know, we are very cordial here, but I've heard a lot of hypocrisy. If you want to fight for independent redistricting, then fight for independent redistricting. I know many of you have been to the White House. Go to the White House. Call the White House.

Call out the White House and tell them you want independent redistricting. Tell them to back off, and we will back off, but we will not unilaterally disarm. So, I stand here today as a father deeply concerned about the future of our country. I stand here as a patriot, as the grandson of immigrants who came, who came through Ellis Island.

Senator Becker, I'm sorry, can you please address your comments to me?

Oh, thank you.

As Presiding Officer.

You mean turn around?

Yes, thank you.

Okay. I often do this way for the cameras. Thank you. I say I stand here as a father deeply concerned for the future of my children. I stand here as a grandson of immigrants who came through Ellis Island through the Statue of Liberty. And I stand here as an elected official serving the people.

And today, I stand up for democracy. And it's been said that democracy is not a spectator sport, and we need every American engaged. Now, it's like when you go to the Airport. And you say, they say, if you see something, say something.

So, we need every American, I need my Republican colleagues, we need our Republican legislators in Congress. If you see the President doing something wrong, you need to call it out. And this is wrong. We know what he's doing is wrong. And we know that we must stand up. And California standing up, it's about time.

I've never been prouder of our state. And we need each American to act as though democracy depends on them because we know ultimately, it does. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. California deserves a redistricting process that is fair, transparent, and free from political gatemanship. It was mentioned the fact that as Republicans, we haven't supported such measures in the past.

But unfortunately, many a times when measures are placed forward in this body, because of the supermajority, many of the times we're not included to give feedback and input on these measures. And therefore, these measures don't necessarily become equitable or fulfill the full intent of that Bill.

And it's one of the reasons why we could not support the measure that was mentioned earlier by my dear colleague from Santa Cruz. I looked up the analysis for that particular Bill right after you mentioned it, and we'll have conversations after the—of this, of the session.

But going back to this particular Bill, weakening and discarding the independent Commission, even temporarily, temporarily, betrays the trust of the voters placed in us and undermines the integrity of our democracy. California has long set the standard for fair redistricting outfitted with a voter-established independent commission. Question of the author, ma'am?

Will the author take a question? Will the author take a question?

Yes.

You may proceed.

Through the President. Does the State of Texas have an independent Commission on redistricting voted by the voters of Texas?

They do not.

Okay. The Citizens Redistricting Commission was created to end decades of political gerrymandering. Rolling back the progress for short term gains, risk undoing years of hard fought reforms.

Californians deserve leaders that will protect the independent system voters demanded and preserve it for generations to come. Unlike Texas, we have this. They do not. And it falls—question of the author?

Will the author take a question?

Yes.

Absolutely.

You may proceed.

Does the Texas Legislature have the purview to redraw their lines?

They do. They don't have the purview to violate the Voting Rights Act and disenfranchise their voters, but that is what they're doing.

So, as mentioned earlier by my colleague from Bakersfield, the State of Texas was sued and was obligated to redraw their lines. Checkpoint. Before the Commission's creation, district lines were developed in secrecy through insider deals, often protecting incumbents or political insiders. California voters ended that in 2008 with Proposition 11, the Voters First Act, which established the Commission.

Two years later, Proposition 20 expanded its reach to include congressional districts. Since then, the Commission has consistently delivered maps through open, publicly reviewed processes, even successfully adapting during the Pandemic-delayed 2020 cycle, earning praise for transparency and efficiency.

If signed into law, today's proposed legislative package would strip the Commission's authority "temporarily," granting lawmakers control over congressional redistricting for the 26th, 28th, and 30th election cycles. While framed by some as reactive to nationwide redistricting trends, critics warn that it compromises California's voter approved safeguards and damages its leadership and electoral fairness.

This proposal undermines the voters' trust since the Commission was created by the voters to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Repealing it would feel like repudiating the voter intent. AB 604 was drafted without constitutional safeguards intended to promote fair and representative district maps. Stated that these maps are intended to elect five additional Democrat congressional seats.

Let's register that. This mid cycle redistricting plan undermines the state's Constitution by seeking a voter approved amendment that would temporarily waive the key provisions of the California State Constitution's Article 21, allowing politicians to redraw lines for partisan gain rather than adhering to established democratic principles.

First, the plan ignores the constitutional mandate that redistricting occur only in the year following the year in which the National Census is taken under direction of Congress at the beginning of each decade.

By pushing for changes mid-decade outside the post Census window, this proposal disrupts the every 10 year rhythm that's designed to ensure districts reflect accurate, updated population data. This could open the door to arbitrary manipulations whether political winds shift.

Second, it waives the rigorous criteria outlined in the state constitution that prioritizes geographical and social considerations to promote fairness. These include requiring districts to be geographically contiguous, Criterion 3, respecting the integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods, and communities of interest by minimizing their division, Criterion 4, and ensuring compactness where practicable, Criterion 5.

And I know that it was stated that 76% of these congressional districts fit the Redistricting Commission's criteria, meaning these, but the additional and the remaining do not, therefore violating the very intent and the guidelines of the Constitution.

The Legislature's secretive, and secretive meaning no one can divulge one where they came from, and rushed map drawing processes discards these standards, and secretly meaning that no one knows how they were drawn, but yet they've appeared secretly by an unknown hand online.

And now, they're transparent because they're there, but no one knows who placed them there and who drew them in the first place, potentially fracturing cohesive communities and creating convoluted districts that prioritize electoral outcomes over logical boundaries, as stated on this body, in this floor, today.

Finally, the plan flouts the Constitution's explicit prohibition against partisan gerrymandering, which states that districts shall not be drawn to favor or discriminate against an incumbent political candidate or political party. And yet once again, on this floor, today, it was mentioned that it was due to the reasoning of electing five Democrat congressional districts, stated on this floor.

By suspending the Citizens Redistricting Commission and empowering the Legislature to redraw these maps, this legislation invites blatant favoritism eroding the impartiality voters enshrined, voters enshrined in the Constitution, to prevent self-serving power grabs. Folks, this is serious. Ladies and gentlemen, this is very, very serious.

When we are elected, we swear an oath to uphold both the US and the California Constitution. Regardless of what any other state does, that is what we do when we stand on this floor, this red carpet, and we raise our hand. Two wrongs don't make it right.

And when it says to join our colleagues in repudiating other states for what they're doing, folks, we were elected to represent the State of California. I had a podcast I was listening to just this morning talking about whether or not term limits should exist.

And one of the arguments that were stated in this podcast was whether or not, you know, we should have term limits, and the gentleman speaking said, well, people get what they elect and if we have an electorate that is uneducated and they continue to pick someone to be elected, then that's what they get.

If Texas has not changed their constitution, if they have not created a redistricting commission, then, folks, who are we to direct the autonomy of the legislature of that state? What authority do we have to influence another state's legislature elected by their people? I think it's humbling to think that we should do that.

If we have relationships, great; have those conversations. But as a body, to go to another state as elected and think that we have the authority to tell them how to run their state, I think it's ridiculous, I think it's disrespectful to them and to the people who elected those to represent them. I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Senator Caballero, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. It's been interesting listening to the comments today. Senators, California didn't start this fight. We've always had a amicable relationship with our president, amicable, amicable because the president understands that California is a donor, a donor state to this great country, and we've lived with it for years.

We pay more in taxes than we get back. We all know that. So why come after California? Why make us an example to the rest of the country by attacking our immigrants, by putting tariffs that have hurt our farmers and that now is going to start to hurt our residents, by taking away benefits that are really important in our state as we've tried to meet the needs of our country?

So California didn't start this fight and my party didn't start this fight either. Let me be clear: I don't shy away from a good competition. I love sports--soccer, football, baseball. I love it all. In my family, we have our favorite teams that we watch and we follow and that we support, and I can tell you, they are raucous games when we have people on different sides supporting different teams. So I don't have a problem with opposition or with conflict, but what I do insist on is that the game be fair.

I do insist that everybody know what the rules are at the beginning of the game and then it's not changed. We all know how the game is played. We all need to expect that the refs are going to be fair, and, you know, we have our arguments about whether that call was right or not, but we want everybody to be treated with respect and that everyone will follow the rules, including the players. Folks, that's not what's happening in our country today. The president knows that what he's doing is hurting people, and it is. It is.

It's hurting everyday, average Americans, and that hurt is real. The prices have gone up, there's uncertainty in the market, hard to get a loan, housing isn't selling--that's not because of what we've done. That's because of the pressure of tariffs and messing around with the market. So the president's afraid he can't win.

He's afraid he can't win an election in two years to ensure that he maintains control, control over everything that's going on in the country. So he's taken an action to rig the election. It won't be a fair competition, it's playing dirty, it's cheating--it's cheating and it's making sure that he continues to be in charge even if the voters want change.

Even if the voters want change, he's rigging it. It's a power grab. We didn't pick this fight but my residents have asked me to take action to do something to relieve the pain caused by the president's attack on California and on our families, and some of that attack won't be felt until after the midterm elections, which is really cynical. Look, it didn't have to be this way.

We all could have worked together, all of us on this floor, across party lines to denounce and condemn the president's attempt to rig the next election. We could have done it together to put public pressure as leaders and as elected officials to say we want a fair game, no shenanigans, no cheating, no dirty games.

But listen: my good friends on the other side of the aisle, you haven't said a peep. You've said nothing to condemn the president's attacks on California and on our residents. Nothing, nothing, nothing. And I get it. You don't want to contradict your presidents, and so you've taken sides. Well, I choose the people in my district.

I choose to defend Californians. I choose to fight for a fair election. I choose to listen to the people who say, 'we need you to take action.' So I ask you for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Senator Cervantes, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and members. As we know, the proposed maps in this bill are not wholly new. They build upon the year-long process undertaken by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission after the 2020 Census. About 75% of Californians will remain in the same district that they reside in currently today.

These maps do a better job of avoiding splitting counties and cities than those created by the commission. And let me just say: how is it okay when their party adopts redistricting, but when it's the other party, it's a problem? Please. Spare us the hypocrisy.

That said, I am puzzled by the admiration that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are showing for independent citizens redistricting commissions. Except for our colleague from Huntington Beach who has not been present for any of these bills, every Republican of this Senate body has voted against bills creating county citizens redistricting commissions.

The legislature is entitled to propose amendments to the State Constitution, and unlike Texas, we are taking it to the voters. We are acting now to save our future. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 604.

Thank you. Senator Jones, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and members. A couple of fine points. First, Madam President, regarding the comments from our colleague from Santa Ana mentioning that if Texas goes forward with their redistricting, we will continue with our redistricting, my understanding is that the constitutional amendment has been amended to take that language out and California is moving forward regardless, but I will clarify that when the ACA comes over and ask a question of the author on that. On this particular bill, AB 604, I do have a quick question of the author, if she would be willing to take it.

Will the author take a question?

Are you familiar with or can you cite for us any lawsuit in California of somebody suing the Redistricting Commission for the lines that they drew either in 2012 or 2022, arguing that those lines were unconstitutional?

You may proceed.

I am not personally familiar with any lawsuits.

Great. Thank you. Neither am I, and that's because our process isn't unconstitutional. Now, many of us had problems with the lines with 2022 when they came out. Both Democrats and Republicans got a little gripey about some of the lines--legitimately, I believe so--but we didn't sue.

We kind of went with it and made the best of it that we could. One of the things I want to share this morning is I'm very proud of my Republican colleagues for their demeanor this morning and their professionalism in their comments, regardless of the incendiary and accusational comments of the open on this bill, AB 604, and I will share that compliment with my Democrat colleagues as well.

I think that the debate has been very professional and moving us along. One of the things I'm very concerned about in the debate this morning that I want to raise attention to is some, some, some terms that were used this morning on the floor: rigged, dictator, unchecked power, period, full stop.

That one cracks me up when you all use that one because I know the governor uses that all the time. So I don't know if you're trying to get in his good graces by imitating him or whatever. Period. Full stop. There's usually a lie behind that, by the way. Bully. Autocrats. Permission to read, Madam President?

Without seeing any objection, it is granted

While this was all going on, a term came to mind: projecting or projection, so I looked it up to make sure that I had it right. Projecting refers to a psychological defense mechanism where an individual unconsciously attributes their own unacceptable feelings, thoughts, or traits to another person.

Why did this come up in my mind today as you've been standing on this floor railing against Republicans in Texas, railing against Republicans in Washington, D.C. for not having any courage to stand up to the dictators of the governor of Texas and the president of the United States? Where's the courage for the Republicans?

Let me ask you this: every single year, we pass off this floor and the Assembly Floor a handful of bills that pass on unanimous votes. Unanimous. Every Republican, every Democrat votes for these bills. Some of these bills are authored by Democrats and some of these bills are authored by Republicans. One bill in particular comes to mind.

It's a very simple bill authored by the incoming pro tem. She's attempted to pass this bill--has passed the bill four times, and has been vetoed four times. Where's the courage when a bill has unanimous votes to conduct a veto override? You don't even need us for a veto override.

You can do it by yourselves, but we've come to you over and over and over and over every single year. We will support you in a veto override. We will help you in a veto override on a simple bill. Just pick the simplest one. Let's just do it and prove that you have the courage that you're accusing us of not having.

I will share with you there are examples of Republicans in supermajority Republican states of doing that exact same thing on a Republican governor. I encourage you to have that courage.

Point of order, Madam President. This, this dialogue has nothing to do with what's before us here and I'd ask you to, to rule in that way and ask the speaker to stick to the matter that's on the floor before us. Thank you.

Point is well-taken. If Senator Jones could please stick to the merits of the bill before us? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate our colleagues standing up and recognizing that my comments might be incendiary and accusational, similar to the opening remarks of the author.

The important thing that I think is to share here is I rise in strong opposition to AB 604. The gas-lighting that has been--or Gav-lighting, if you prefer that term better--that's been going on this morning is just the mental gymnastics that you have to do to come up with these arguments that you're making for what we're trying to do here on the floor in the State of California is just amazing to me how you do that.

And I want to share--and again, other Senators have said--I appreciate every single one of you. I count every single Senator on this floor a friend, all 30 Democrats. I honor you, I admire you, this is not an easy job, but sometimes we have to call it like it is. We have to call balls and strikes according to the gamesmanship analogies that were used earlier.

What's happening here is simple: Gavin Newsom and Democrat politicians are trying to ram through a corrupt redistricting scheme to rig California's elections.

This scheme is unconstitutional. It's undermining both the letter and the spirit of the California Constitution. It ignores the principles of germane law, election integrity, twisting the rules to benefit one party. It tramples on the will of California voters, California voters, the same people that elected all of us to office.

Those voters created an independent redistricting commission precisely to keep politicians from drawing their own lines, and those voters, it was so important to them, they put it in the Constitution. This effort slices up communities, connecting desperate areas and splitting apart regions with common interests, violating the very standard the redistricting is supposed to uphold.

Democrats are rushing this through under the guise of urgency. There is no emergency that it justifies this abuse of process. It discards years of work by the Citizens Redistricting Commission and replaces it with raw, partisan power plays. Importantly, Democrat legislators continue to refuse to answer the one simple question that's been asked dozens, if not hundreds of times, and I'll ask one more time on this floor: who drew the maps?

They claim it's a transparent process yet fail to answer the most transparent question, and it comes at an outrageous cost; has been mentioned more than $250 million for a special election at a time when California is facing a $20 billion deficit and you all are cutting vital services. The result is the maps that destroy representative proportionality are rigged for partisan gain, not fair representation. Senate Republicans, Senate Republicans are united against this abuse of power.

We're standing together to defend Californians, to uphold our Constitution, the California Constitution, and to fight for fair and honest elections. And let's make two more points before I close. The interesting thing is you all keep bringing up Texas.

Texas right now, the Republicans in Texas right now have an effort afoot to make it easier for the legislature to override, do a veto override in Texas. Republicans are trying to make it easier in Texas to conduct a veto override. I'm asking you just to try.

Now, the other interesting thing about this effort is we all know this is going to fail on the ballot. This is a loser from the beginning. So what's the win? What's the upside for all of us here on the Senate Floor to go blindly along with the governor's plan here? It's going to fail, and what's the only gain?

I'll tell you what the only gain is: Governor Gavin Newsom is getting more headlines, he's getting more name ID, and he's creating a brand across the country so that he can run for president and you're helping him.

To my colleagues across the aisle, I strongly encourage you to stand against this self-serving governor with courage rather than acting like a March of the Lemmings. I urge a no vote on AB 604.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senator Gonzalez, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much, Madam President, and I do want to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, thank you so much for this very robust debate. This is exactly what democracy means and what we want the public to see, the discourse, even if we agree to disagree or we disagree and disagree beyond measure, that is exactly what we're here for.

We were all elected to take an oath to defend our democracy and to ensure that the folks that we support and represent all can see a better quality of life, and that's why we're here today, and as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, except for one, I think of one missing member from Jackson, you know, what I will say is, I hear you on integrity, I hear you on transparency, I hear you on all of that.

And this is where I'm really confused because with all due respect, it is very hypocritical to say that you believe in all this but yet when you've been offered the opportunity to talk about what is the egregious actions by this federal government, the egregious actions by Texas legislators to disenfranchise voters, to additionally split counties and cities, to continue to violate the Voting Rights Act, to just completely ignore communities of interest and to continue to safeguard the Trump presidency--because guess what? It doesn't just stop after 2028.

Let's be real here. He wants a third term. So what does that mean for Californians if we don't do this? Well, I'll tell you what it means: it means that again, it means that there's going to be unconcern for a ransom of $1 billion to our UC System.

There's going to be silence when it comes to SNAP benefits for children who are disabled. It means there's going to be additional unconcern for the kids that won't have after-school programs and school lunches.

And it means that every budget that we put out here, because we've continued to put state budgets out here, and everyone's talking about wildfires--if we're so concerned about wildfires, why didn't the other party, why didn't you all support the wildfire package relief of $2.5 billion for Altadena and Pacific Palisades residents? Why didn't you do that?

So we can't sit here and talk about transparency and integrity and we want democracy and all of a sudden now we have an epiphany about an independent redistricting commission and we're going to stand strong for that. Well, let's do that today.

And today, again, AB 604 is an urgency measure, contains the new proposed congressional maps that will ultimately be the decision of California voters on November 4th. This bill will be in print for over 70 days.

The maps will be available for insight from our voters--and ultimately they will have the say--and would remain in effect only until the Citizens Redistricting Commission certifies a new map of congressional districts after 2030's census maps. So these maps are temporary, again, for the elections of 2026, 2028, and 2030.

Then the Redistricting Commission, which is still in effect, will then take effect, will then take the helm in 2032 to continue the good work that they've done. Again, the hypocrisy remains. Why are you so unconcerned? Why are you so unwilling? Why have you remained silent during this egregious overreach when Latino communities across California have been kidnapped? Why?

All our democracy is being dismantled and you want us as California legislators to just sit by on the sidelines and do absolutely nothing? Well, that's not good enough, and if you want to support my Republican minority leader, if you'd like to support a diversity, equity, and inclusion bill by the incoming pro tem, we are happy to provide that opportunity for you to, to do that again. So again, Californians will have the final say. I appreciate all the debate here. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call].

Ayes: 30; noes: nine. That measure passes. Members, we are now going to take a very brief 20-minute recess for lunch. Stay in the building. We will come back in 20 minutes. We are now on recess.

The Senate will now come back to session. We have a message from the Assembly Secretary, please read.

Madam President, I am directed to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8. Sue Parker, Chief Clerk of the Assembly.

We have a referral from Rules Secretary. Please read.

The Committee on rules has ordered the following bill to third reading Assembly Constitution Amendment 8.

We will now move to supplemental file number one, which is file number 262 ACA 8. Secretary, please read.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 by Assemblymember Rivas accurately to redistricting.

Senator Pro Tem McGuire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Madam President. Good afternoon, Members. I stand with Senator Cabaldin who will complete the presentation on Constitutional Amendment 8. I gotta say, it does pain me a bit to say what I'm about to say. And I want to also take a moment to acknowledge Brian Jones.

I have deep respect for Leader Jones and I know this has been a tough week on all sides. And I do want to acknowledge him and say thank you for the partnership. And I also want to say I take this very seriously.

I think that all folks know, don't really care if you have an R or D behind your name. It's about representing California. And as I said last night, people don't know us if we're a Republican or Democrat. They know us as Californians.

And that's what we need to remember as we make our way through this and come back next week. I'm really honored to represent one of the most rural districts in the State of California. Third of the California coastline. There are four counties in the district of seven that voted for Kamala Harris.

There are three counties in the district that supported President Trump. What I know when I go into Weaverville or High Palm, Crescent City or Fort Bragg in rural California, no matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican, you want a few key things for your family. You want quality health care.

You want to keep your hospital open, that rural health center open for your kids and your grandparents. You want a good job so you can stay in the community that you love. You want to send your kid to a good public school. You want to be able to live in that community you love and afford a home.

And in rural California, you don't want to use dial up Internet anymore. You want to have access to high speed broadband.

You know, there isn't a single one of us, not one, who wouldn't be here today if we hadn't put our faith in the voters of California, put our faith in fellow Californians, to walk into the voting booth or sit at their kitchen table and do their best for all of us to do the right thing.

And that's really what this is all about today. All we're asking is allow the voters to do their thing, to pass this constitutional amendment. We need to put our faith in the voters to do the right thing the way we have countless times over the decades, initiative after initiative. It's ultimately up to the voters.

There's nothing more transparent than that. Now, we're here today for one reason. The nefarious actions of the Republican leadership in Texas, California didn't pick this fight. This was not on our bingo card six weeks ago, let alone six months ago. Actions of Republicans in Texas, compounded by the inaction of some Republican leaders here in California.

That's why we're here today. All of this could have been avoided to be able to stop this, talk to Texas, talk to our President. I have been astounded this week. I've seen Republican colleague after Republican colleague go on television, hold press conferences, go live on the social media expressing outrage about California. But what about Texas?

What about Donald Trump? Who started all this? Who started this circus? You know, sometimes in life, I'm a firm believer that you just got to stand for the greater good. And you got to tell your boss no. You got to tell your boss no. Today, I hope that we can do something constructive.

We should do everything in our power to ensure free and fair elections. But let me be very clear. This action about redistricting, we all know this. We talk behind the scenes, we have a beer together, we go out to coffee.

When I talk to folks who are on the other side of the aisle, they know why we're here. I can't say it publicly, but we all know why we're here. And we also know that this is just the beginning. Mail in ballots, it's now a predominant way folks vote in the United States. Mail in ballots.