Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

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

Lord, thank you for the opportunity to be here and for the people who trusted us with this responsibility. We ask for your guidance today to lead with wisdom, to speak with honesty, and to act with humility. When we disagree, give us grace. When decisions are hard, give us courage.

Help us never forget that our work here touches real people, real families, and real communities across California. Keep our hearts grounded in service, not ego, and remind us that how we represent others truly matters. We place this day and this work in your hands. Amen.

Senators, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of...

[Pledge of Allegiance]

We are now 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 from committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. We are now at motions, resolutions, and notices. Not seeing any members with any motions, resolutions, or notices.

We will now move to introduction of reading of first bills which will be deemed read. Senators, we are now at consideration of daily file. We will start with Senate third reading, file item 58, SB 795. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 795 by Senator Richardson, an act relating to horse racing.

Senator Richardson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and members. SB 795 is amended to support the sport of horse racing by expanding the number of out of state horse races that are exempt from 75 races per day importation limit.

As you might be aware, Hollywood Park, in the 35th Senate District, was originally a horse racing track and is now home to the SoFi Stadium and the Intuit Dome. Since Hollywood Park and other venues like it across California no longer supports live horse racing, they do have the ability to host satellite racing venues.

Prior to COVID-19 and the pandemic and the closure of non-essential businesses in California, the horse racing industry has experienced challenges in terms of its attendance and seeing the decline. Because of that, SB 795 can be helpful in maintaining that industry.

This Bill is non-fiscal, has received unanimous and bipartisan support, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 40, noes zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 59, SB 762. Secretary, please call... Read.

Senate Bill 762 by Senator Arreguín, an act relating to taxation.

Senator Arreguín, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and Members. I rise to present Senate Bill 762, which is a district specific bill to address the revenue needs of the City of Hercules. Founded in 1900, Hercules was known as a company town, which later evolved into a residential suburb.

And over the years, the city has struggled to generate sufficient revenue to meet the needs of its community due to its status as a low to no property tax jurisdiction. This lack of funding jeopardizes continuing services, such as neighborhood police patrols, youth and elderly services, and park and infrastructure improvements.

Previous legislation passed by this body allows specific jurisdictions to exceed their sales tax cap. And this legislation would allow Hercules to place on the ballot a sales tax increase of up to 1% to ensure that services and infrastructure maintenance can continue. Ultimately, this gives the voters of that jurisdiction the ability to consider this increase. It does not impose the increase by statute. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 29, noes 10. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 61, SB 505. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 505 by Senator Richardson, an act relating to financial protection.

Good morning, Madam Chair and colleagues. SB 505 is a consumer protection bill focused on strengthening security for money transmitter platforms that millions of Californians use every day.

As more consumers rely upon these growing non-traditional banking platforms to pay rent, send money to family, or to make everyday purchases, these transactions have become a growing target for fraud and unauthorized access.

SB 505 addresses this risk by requiring reasonable security measures, such as the two factor or multi factor authentication to better protect user accounts from personal financial information being leaked to improper sources.

SB 505 requires many transmitters operating in California to use a two factor or multi factor authentication at user login and, importantly, it does not regulate an individual users or require them to have fees with those various consumers. By securing accounts at the login stage of SB 505, it helps prevent unauthorized access and account takeovers before financial harm occurs.

SB 505 includes a delayed operative date of January 1, 2028, so it gives businesses that we've worked with through this process ample time to implement the required security measures. I'd also like to acknowledge staff that's going on to bigger things with the CLBC.

As a Senate staffer who worked hard on this bill to bring it forward to help all Californians, and I'll continue to work with colleagues as other items may be identified through this legislative process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I do rise in support of the bill and also appreciate the author's commitment to continue to work on some of the details. This is a, it's an important breakthrough for consumer protection. Sometimes the devil's in the details, and so we're working through some of those issues. For those of you who've gone through two factor authentication, it's an very, very important security protocol. It can also be maddening.

And so one of the issues around proposals like this is that when you think about somebody who's trying to log into their banking account to pay a bill, for example. And you've got your PG&E, your Edison bill to pay, you log in and you're like, oh, I left the bill in the kitchen. Or where did, where did my spouse put that bill?

You go find it. When you come back, you've been logged out because, appropriately, the system is protecting you against abuse. So you go back in again and now you have to two factor again.

And these small, these very small changes in the user experience, essentially, for the users who get frustrated. What am I doing wrong? This thing, it doesn't work. I'm typing in this number over and over again. And so we have the technology to say, look, you logged in within the last half an hour from the same exact IP address, then perhaps we don't need to require two factor authentication.

So getting some of the details precise so that we're also not interfering with the ability of consumers to be able to use their accounts and to protect their own security is an important part of this. Very much appreciate the author's commitment to do that. But the overall bill is extremely important for assuring security, especially for those most at risk of financial abuse. I'd ask for an aye vote.

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

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. Actually, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objections. Ayes 40, noes zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 67, SB 46.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 46 by Senator Umberg, an act relating to elections.

Senator Umberg, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, as much as I would like to see Barack Obama serve a third term as President of the United States, the Constitution precludes that. I think that virtually everyone agrees that the Constitution and its amendments over the last hundred years preclude a third term.

However, there is at least one person who currently holds office that doesn't believe that, and he's supported by Professor Dershowitz and a fellow named Steve Bannon. What this bill does is simply says that if you've already served two terms as President of the United States, you may not be on the California ballot for a third term and the Secretary of State shall make that determination. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary... Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam. I opposed to this measure. It's unfortunate that one of the first bills of the year is based upon conjecture that we just guess he may Trump, President Trump may run, which is not already decided. And is that the State Secretary's role or is that the federal government's Federal Election Commission's job?

Has there been any determination California Secretary of State determines all the qualifications of the Presidency of the United States? This is completely unconstitutional and grants the Secretary of State broad power to determine who is allowed on the state ballot for the federal election. The presidency is a federal office.

The only constitutional qualifications that matter is if the candidate is at least 35 years old and a natural born US citizen. The state government does not have the power to add its own preferred requirements to who they allow to appear on the presidential ballot in California.

This is very similar to SB 27 in 2019, where this body tried adding tax return requirements in order to appear on the California presidential primary ballot. Unsurprisingly, the California Supreme Court unanimously struck down the bill, as they determined the state does not have the right to exclude candidates from the ballot who otherwise meet the federal qualifications.

In the same way that the state cannot add a tax return requirement for those seeking to appear on the ballot, they also cannot include an other affirmation requirements to those who otherwise would meet all the constitutional qualifications added needed to be on the ballot. For these reasons, I voted against the bill in the committee and I will again vote against it. And I urge your no vote.

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

Thank you. I actually agree with my colleague from Irvine that serving a third term is unconstitutional. And I agree that certain sort of delusional thoughts we should not necessarily take seriously. However... However, two years ago, if someone told me that we'd be thinking about acquiring Greenland, I'd have thought that was nuts.

Two years ago, if someone said, you know what? People born in the United States may not be US citizens, and in fact the administration is going to try to remove their citizenship, I thought, that's crazy. No one would ever try that. So when someone says, I want to serve a third term as President, I do think it's delusional, but I do think we need to prevent it, at least here in California. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Member.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 30, noes 10. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 68, SB 73. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 73 by Senator Cervantes, an act relating to elections and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Cervantes, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Senate Bill 73 is intended to protect the integrity and security of California elections. The bill builds on existing law by prohibiting county election officials from allowing federal agents to inspect or access voting machines.

This safeguard is designed to prevent improper federal interference with California elections infrastructure. This bill includes an urgency clause so that these protections are in place for the upcoming statewide primary election and future elections. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 73.

Thank you. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and Members. I rise in opposition to SB 73. You know, we had a situation in Orange County where a dog voted in the last two elections. And here in the Legislature, what you're trying to do is make sure that we don't have transparency on the voter rolls.

The key to elections is making sure our democracy does not work if people don't have faith in election outcomes. Three presidential campaigns since 2000 have called in question the national election. Al Gore, Trump, and Hillary Clinton.

You know, Members, at a time where people across this country want more voter integrity and they want to make sure they have comfort in the election outcomes that we have, the last thing we need to do is have less transparency on the be able to... I think the state and the federal government should do whatever they can.

When a dog votes in an election over the last couple elections in Orange County, you have a problem. And no, it wasn't anybody. The reason why she got caught is because she bragged about it on social media and had an I voted sticker on her dog.

Members, that should concern everybody on this floor. And then move forward and have less transparency on our elections? Remember, Members, that's not good for democracy. If you believe in democracy, and you believe in transparency, you would vote no on SB 73.

Thank you. Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Again, I rise in opposition to SB 73. I believe this bill is, again, unnecessary. Inflame election related tensions with the federal government without actually improving the California election process. Federal guidelines already prevent the Department of Justice from obtaining voting machines and other equipment for inspection without a federal grand jury subpoena. So this bill is completely unnecessary.

The author's statement reports that President Trump has made false statements regarding our voting machines. Would it not make sense for the state to partner with the federal government to ensure accurate voting machines? The best way to debunk false claims is by letting the truth come out.

Yet this bill implies that we have something to hide by unilaterally banning the inspection of our voting machines. I believe that there are plenty of issues with our voting system that require a wide array of solutions.

Banning state and local cooperation with the federal government is in regard to ensuring accurate voting machines is not one of those solutions. I voted against this bill in the committee due to the concerns, and unfortunately, they were not addressed. For these reasons, I urge you to vote no.

Thank you. Senator Caballero, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I agree that we need to make sure that our voting systems are... That we trust them, that they're being appropriately handled and managed in a way that gives the public confidence that we're doing the right thing.

But here's the thing, is that the only thing this bill does is it requires a federal court order in order to be able to look at the device or to inspect the voting machine. And in order to get an order, you have to give facts.

You have to be able to say, here are the facts and here is my basis for my belief. And I think we've seen over the past couple of years that in this administration, they don't care about facts. They rewrite the facts and they do whatever they want to do.

And all this does is say, look, if you're going to come in and you're going to inspect and look at machines, you got to get a court order. And if a judge thinks that the facts would support a court order, then the inspection can move forward. So I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Just earlier this month, the New York Times released an interview they did with the President in which he says that he regrets not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states in the days after the 2020 election.

The President is already telling us what his plans very well could be for the midterms elections that are taking place this year. It is clear that he is willing to violate every constitutional norm to stay in power. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senators, this does have an urgency clause. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will now move to file item 71., SB 327. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 327 by Senator McNerney, an act relating to public utilities.

Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to present SB327. This bill, SB327 is basically identical to a bill that passed this floor last year. It was SB24 then. This bill included a small drafting error which is fixed in this bill.

SB327 will help protect ratepayers from abuses by investor owned utilities by prohibiting IOUs from using rate payer money to lobby against efforts to create a public utility. And it strengthens oversight of the IOUs by providing public advocates office the necessary authority to discover information about IOU spending. Hey, this is common sense.

We want to protect the IOUs interest here because there's so much anger against those entities right now that the better we can improve their image, the better off they're going to be in this state. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Saying no. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Question of the author.

Will the author take a question?

If it's a good one, yes.

You may proceed.

I just am curious about. Doesn't the CPUC already have the regulatory authority to do that or. And then the Public Advocate's Office, is that a, an appointed position? I'm just trying to understand this bill as we move forward. So is it an appointed position or how is.

How do we as the legislative body have some type of authority over the Public Advocate's Office like we do with the CPUC under rules like we appoint those people, we ask them questions on all of our colleagues behalf or is this person just hired by who? I'm just interested in the. In the individual who we're giving this.

Extended this authority with. And I'm being serious. Who are we extending the authority to?

I understand the question. This is an important position. Basically we went with SB 327. We want to clarify the lines between the CPUC and the Public Advocate's Office so that they'll know in statute what they're allowed to do and what they have the power to do.

Thank you colleagues. I realize that, you know, again, I've said I've looked at bills on energy continuously and I realize that rate's going up and affordability is a huge issue. And that we have the highest utility rates in the entire nation, the highest gas prices, and we do need to do something to address that.

There are solutions out there that we don't fix. We could all have 6 cent a kilowatt energy if we would just embrace it and it can be available to all of us in eight months. It would power data centers, thousand hours of battery storage. It's really an incredible new technology that's out there. And we just.

We won't embrace it in this building. So it looks like we're going to lose that to Texas. And that is disturbing. But I. And I. So I agree in coming up with solutions to fix this problem that we have. I just don't know who has the authority over this Public Advocates Office. Does CPUC hire this person?

Do they have some type of regulatory. Do we have some type of oversight over it? Like I said in rules, we ask the questions on behalf of all of you guys on rules. When you want questions asked to CPUC or any other regulatory agency out there and who's.

Who's over this individual that we're extending this power to, that's my question. I appreciate the author's response. I don't feel like it was answered to my satisfaction. I still didn't. I don't understand where the power of this individual is. You know, who oversees this individual was the question. But thank you.

And disrespectfully asked for an aye vote till we can have clarity. Or, excuse me, a no vote till we can have clarity.

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

Thank you. I appreciate the senator's concern, but basically we need to make sure that there's an entity that can investigate, has the authority to investigate the IOUs. They're the ones that found some of the abuses that have happened in the past. And with that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 31, noes 9. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 72, SB501.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 501 by Senator Allen, an act relating to solid waste.

Senator Allen, you are now recognized.

Thank you, Members, Madam President. This Bill would expand California's extended producer responsibility program for loose batteries to include medium format batteries, such as those found in E bikes, outdoor lawn equipment, and portable power systems. Batteries are a significant source of household hazardous waste, and they pose significant safety risks when improperly managed, including fires and even explosions.

And that's one of the reasons why our waste haulers are so interested in making progress on this issue because the fires that take place in their trucks and their facilities due to batteries. Currently, consumers often face inadequate access to convenient collection options from their local jurisdiction, which can increase the chance of improper and dangerous disposal.

Local jurisdictions are also facing significant fiscal burdens from the cost of proper collection and disposal of these products. Back in in 2022, we passed AB 2440 by Jackie Irwin, which established an extended producer responsibility system to promote the safe and proper collection and management of small loose batteries.

Now, medium format batteries were not included in the Bill at the time, but, but you know, many medium format batteries are actually designed to be easily removed by the consumer, similar to other loose batteries and they've been increasing in both the marketplace and waste stream as products such as E bikes and electric scooters and portable power systems become much more popular.

A number of states, both Democrat and Republican, have included medium format batteries in recent enacted EPR programs for batteries, allowing for efficiencies in distributing costs for program administration implementation.

By closing this loophole in our current battery system, this Bill seeks to increase producer responsibility for the full life cycle of their products, reducing safety risks from improper disposal of batteries, and improving battery recycling. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 30. Noes, 10. That measure passes. We are now at file item 73, SB 608. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 608 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to sexual health.

Thank you, Madam. Senator Menjivar, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, SB6008 is the second time you're hearing this on the floor. This bill is looking to ensure that the funding we allocated last year to include and allow schools to distribute or make available contraceptions in their schools is fulfilled.

To ensure that retailers do not ask for an ID when requesting to purchase these at stores, given that there is no state law requiring for an ID and to ensure that the CYBHI program can enforce and ensure that all schools across California are making this accessible. With that respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 29, noes 8. That that measure passes, we will now move to file item 74, S.B. 691.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 691 by Senator Wahab, an act relating to body worn cameras.

Senator Wahab, you are recognized.

Thank you. SB 691 will require law enforcement agencies to update their body worn cameras to include a process for EMS professionals to request redaction to of recordings prior to public release when patients are receiving medical treatment. This will ensure we protect the privacy of patients undergoing a medical or psychological evaluation, treatment, or procedure.

The protection of a patient privacy is critical, especially when the provider of care needs to collect information vital to delivering appropriate treatment. By requiring agencies to update their body worn camera, we will ensure that we have a clear policy to protect patient privacy while also preserving the important role these cameras play in the field. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 32, noes zero. That measure passes. Senators, we are doing extremely well this morning. We are halfway through the bills that we need to get done this morning. So I think before we hear the next bill, this is a good time to wish a very happy birthday to two of our Members.

Senator Gonzalez, who celebrated her birthday yesterday, and Senator Reyes, who is celebrating her birthday today. I hope you both enjoy your very special day. All right, back to the file. File item 78, SB 288. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 288 by Senator Seyarto, an act relating to taxation, to take effect immediately, tax levy.

Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise to present SB 288. This measure is similar to one which passed off this floor unanimously last year, but was unfortunately held in the Assembly. Prop 19 passed in 2021, changed the rules for transferring family homes and limited when families can keep the property's Proposition 13 tax base.

Under Prop 19, a recipient must move into the home and claim it as their principal residence and file for the homeowner exemption within one year of receiving the property. Individuals who inherit property through probate may be unable to take possession within the required one year time frame and therefore lose their Proposition 13 protected tax valuation.

SB 288 will clarify that Prop 19 calendar year for individuals who are undergoing a probate process starts when the home is legally tax declared to be theirs. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senators, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no opposition, ayes, 40, noes, zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 79, SB 381. Secretary, please read.

Ayes 30, noes 9 on the urgency. Ayes 30, noes 9 on the measure. It passes. We will now move to file item 82. SB 555. Secretary, please read Senate Bill 555 by.

Senator Caballero and equilibrium to workers compensation.

Senator Caballero, you are recognized. Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise to present SB555, the Workers Disability Adjustment act, which ensures that injured workers who are permanently partially disabled PPD secure benefits and are protected from the rising cost of living. PPD benefits have been capped at $1,256 per month since 2014. Over a decade without adjustment.

Inflation has significantly reduced the purchasing power of these benefits, leaving injured workers struggling to afford necessities like rent, groceries and health care. These individuals have sustained injuries on the job and face lifelong limitations on their ability to work or complete tasks while they're working. Workers compensation, as we know, exists to protect workers and.

And to incentivize safer workplaces. The bill before you reflects ongoing negotiations with the opposition and the language addresses concerns regarding implementation. SB555 is about fairness and dignity. Workers who have suffered life changing injuries on the job should not be left behind as costs rise. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

Ayes. 30. noes 10. That measure passes. We are now at file item 84, SB 747.