Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

The Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding this judiciary committee hearing in Room 2100 of The Street Building. I ask that all committee members present themselves in Room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. We are gonna begin as a subcommittee. The Democrats, many of them are still in caucus.

Thank you very much, Senator Weber Pierson, for being here and to you, Senator Niello, for being 50% of the Republicans that constitute this committee.

The other one is coming shortly.

Alright. Then we have a 100% of Republicans and just a small percentage of the Democrats. Alright. There are seven measures on our agenda today, five of which are on the consent calendar. That's a very good start of the year.

Let me read to you those items that are on the consent calendar. File item number one, SB 994 by Senator Cabaldon. File item number four, SB 1100 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. File item number five, SB 1374, by our very own Senator Niello. File item number six, SB 1189, by our very own Senator Valadares.

And finally, file number seven, SCR 124 by Senator Wiener. Preliminarily, I'll go over the rules that will we will follow here during the course of the year, unless there's some, deviation that has been approved by, the chair and the vice chair. Each preliminary witness on each bill will have two minutes to speak. So in other words, the proponents of the bill will have two minutes for two witnesses for a total of four minutes, and the opponents will have the same. They will have four minutes split between two witnesses.

After we have the support witnesses testify, I'll invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation, and their position. We refer to this testimony commonly as testimony commonly as Me Too testimony. I'll do the same for the opposition. In other words, two witnesses each two minutes, and then we'll hear from the opposition in Me Too form name, affiliation, and position at the at the microphone. After that, we're gonna turn to comments and questions from committee members.

If you wish to provide us further information, you can go to our website and you'll note on our website that there's a portal for you to submit a letter to the committee using one of the methods described on the Judiciary Committee's website. So with that, we are awaiting authors. What? I'm sorry?

Once we yes. We will start as a sub committee once we have an author. So Senator Hurtado's bill is not on consent anymore. Right. So yes. And Senator Cabaldon, if we could ask first Okay. Oh, you did? Okay. Thank you. Alright.

Senator Cabaldon. File number two, SB 1159. We're gonna proceed as a subcommittee without being presumptive. My expectation is there'll be a motion at the appropriate time and once the committee establishes a quorum. So, Senator Cabaldon, at your pleasure, sb 1159.

Alright. Thank you very much, mister chairman members. Sb 1159 is an effort to try to protect both public agencies, but more importantly, the citizens of California and the right to engage and petition their government. What we've seen as a as with

the results of the advent of artificial intelligence and other similar technologies is the capability for these systems to flood the zone, to drown local governments and potentially state agencies as well in inauthentic non human engagement.

You imagine a city like I represent several that are less than 10,000 people receiving 20 or 30 or 50,000, public comments on an item maybe two days before the meeting, and action has to be taken that week. They can't possibly process that level of of, automated feedback.

And if they're real human beings, three or four in a town like Yountville or Dixon or, in my district, how do you find the three or four real human beings in the forty eight hours you're processing 30,000 automated bot generated, comments? And so the SPE eleven fifty nine is an attempt to begin to to try to tackle that challenge by making it clear that the the government agencies are not required to treat engagement by by AI or a bot as though it were a human being.

We've seen this already happen now in in Los Angeles at the regional air board.

There's an entire platform that exists in The UK called Objector AI for this specific purpose, and there are more signs of more of this to come. It's particularly challenging with autonomous AI agents that can then act without even the the the direct control of their, quote unquote, user in this process. And so, SP eleven fifty nine merely declares that for these various public participation and engagement and accountability rules that a bot or AI itself is not the human being.

We have we will continue to have work to do on on on implementing and and scoping the methodologies for detection, and there are there are both technological and procedural solutions that we, are examining and hope to to to consider in the coming weeks if the bill proceeds out of committee. But that's the essence of the of the legislation, and it's an important protection for both local governments, but even more importantly for the citizens that are trying to get transparency and get accountability in their government.

And Right.

With that, I'd ask for an aye vote, and I'll introduce my witnesses after. It seems like you need to do a quorum or may may I introduce my witnesses?

Okay. Not quite there yet.

Then great. To to testify in support of the bill is Gabriela Fasio, the senior policy strategist at the Sierra Club to be joined by vice mayor Michael Silva from the city of Vacaville.

Senator Covalon, I assume you accept the committee's amendments? Of course. Okay. Thank you. Alright.

Floor is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Umberg and members of the committee. My name is Gabriela Fasio. I'm a senior policy strategist with Sierra Club California. Sierra Club and our environmental justice partner spent years advocating for clean air standards at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, standards that would reduce smog forming pollution from gas powered furnaces and water heaters, preventing thousands of premature deaths and asthma cases.

We organized the communities, submitted comments, and engaged the process exactly as California's transparency and public partitionation participation laws intended. The network was wiped out by a consulting firm that used an AI platform to generate over 20,000 comments opposing those standards. The voices of our communities and the years of work behind them were buried under a flood of artificial noise.

Similarly, at The Bay Area Air District, a consulting firm used AI to generate false public comments opposing clean air rules, many of which were submitted under real residents' names without their knowledge or consent. These campaigns were coordinated and deliberate.

Someone hired a firm and signed a contract and directed the effort. That is deeply troubling, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Today, autonomous AI agents can be created and deployed by anyone without a consulting firm, an immediately responsible party. No coordination required, no paper trail, a single bad actor, or nor or no identifiable actor at all can flood a state agency or a local government with thousands of a generate generated comments, petitions, or public records requests in minutes.

If California does not act now while the problem is still identifiable and the perpetrators still traceable, we risk losing the ability to respond at all.

The integrity of every public participation process in the state, every environmental review, every rule making, every local planning decision is at stake. SB 1159 draws a clear and necessary line. California's public participation laws were written for people. This bill ensures they stay that way. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Perfect, by the way, in terms of timing. One second. Let us establish a quorum. Just that very ephemeral moment when we have a quorum, we don't wanna miss that.

So committee assistant Porter, could you call the roll, please? Umberg. Here.

[Roll Call]

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair Enberg and distinguished committee Members. My name is Doctor Michael Silva. I'm the vice mayor of the city of Vacaville and a professor of biotechnology at Solano Community College. Let's talk about what this bill means in practice on the ground in cities like mine. When AI generated public recreats records request arrives at City Hall, our city clerk, Michelle, has ten days to respond.

Ten days to locate records, involve the city attorney, coordinate across different departments, and deliver a response. That response is essential to maintain public trust and transparency. In the meantime, a small business owner, Sofia, is waiting on a permit and doesn't get a timely callback. Nick, a journalist from the back of a reporter, is asking his own Public Records Act request, and his request is pushed off and delayed.

Meanwhile, a mother, Kim, is asking for enhanced crosswalk safety to help make sure that her kids get to school safe.

That family did everything right. They believed in the process. They showed up. Yet the system will fail them if our leaders and I are reviewing over 10,000 AI generated public comments. I don't want our constituents' voices buried by bots.

I hear this from local electeds across California. Many of us fear being overwhelmed by AI generated content. How will we make sense of public feedback on city projects if there is no way for us to distinguish between real people's comments from AI generated noise and astroturf campaigns. We've already seen this with the South Coast and Bay Area districts. That small business owner, that journalist, that mother, each of them deserve to be heard.

Each of our constituents deserve to be heard. SB 1159 make sure that they are. I respectfully urge this committee to advance SB 59 and help us ensure that we were rep that we represent the hardworking people of California and not bots. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others who wish to testify in support to411 excuse me. Sb 1159 please approach the microphone. Your name, your affiliation, your position. Good afternoon.

Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

In support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Nick Romo on behalf of the City of San Jose and County Of Sacramento in support.

Thank you.

Eric Lohr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you. Nico Molina on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Michelle Balcava representing the County of Yolo in support.

Douglas Andreasen on behalf of the California Municipal Clerk's Association in support. Thank you.

Karen Lang on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Travis Legault with the Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you.

Dave Shukla with the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy in support. Thank you very much.

Anyone else's support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1159 the time is now for you to come and testify if you should so choose an opposition saying no one approaching in opposition. Let's bring it back to the committee. Alright.

Committee members questions, comments? Okay. Senator Wahab has moved the bill. Questions or comments? Seeing many.

Let's start with Senator D'Arssell.

Hi. I I just wanna get some clarification on hold on hold on.

This this am I on the right? Yeah. I'm not sure I'm on the right one since you're not the only okay. Yeah.

It's this one. It's this one. Hold on. Can somebody

You're sure. Senator Yello.

Thank you, mister chair. Let me state, first of all, I fully understand the problem and I agree completely with what you're trying to do. I'm trying to get a grasp on how this is gonna make a difference. And I guess it has to do with enforcement and I'm not seeing anything here with regard to enforcement. Perhaps you can straighten that out.

But the first witness said, someone hired a firm. Do they know who the someone is and do they know who the the firm is and that kinda gets to the enforcement. And the second witness said there's no way to tell and if there's no way to tell then how do you know that that's coming from artificial intelligence? And if somebody's try just trying to make mischief, which is clearly what's happening, a person could, hire a Chinese firm to, raid the jurisdiction with, artificial intelligence generated garbage.

How do we prevent that?

If this bill had passed when all of the when those instances happened, how would this bill have cured that?

Thank you for the question. This is and you're and you're getting at the at the challenge I was describing earlier with respect to detection. But I do wanna first emphasize that there's nothing to enforce in the bill because what the bill says is that it's not the obligation of the agencies to treat that are that artificial intelligence agent or bot as a human being in the first place.

It doesn't impose a burden on on on on the robot or on the AI system or on the Chinese government. Instead, it says, no, the the so I'll I'll I'll give a couple of examples of what is possible today and then other and another and maybe one about what what, you know, kind of what's in the work on the on the technical side.

So, for example, if the the Brown act is in this is in in listening to Bagley Keene act are in this list.

And and and so if you are, as we've experienced in California already, in your if if there are synthetic human beings that is not real people that AI generates a very believable video of, and that video keeps that it keeps reappearing but with a different name or a deep fake of another person that the the that the city clerk is no longer or the county board of supervisors clerk is no longer under the bill required to say, we have we're we're gonna we're we're gonna take the next 7,200 comments, and then we'll move on to the next item.

That that that they will be if the if the government agency is if if it's clear that these are not real people, that it doesn't they don't have they don't they have no obligation to those bots under the Brown Act. The Brown Act is for people, not for not for these for these agents. That's more challenging on text than it is on images and video at the moment because we we don't have the the technology is is emerging on on deepfakes and synthetic humans.

It's not perfect, but it's emerging. Text is more is more challenging. Some governments have said, well, can we use AI to to take the AI spots that we're getting and try to distinguish or summarize those? That is a potential approach, but you would have to it's still the burden's on the local government. If it is a human being, you must hear them.

So we're trying to work through both the detection protocols, what the what the standards and the duties of care are with respect to making to assuring that the human beings are the ones that are being heard. There are also technological approaches that are out there. I I wouldn't endorse them at this point, but, you know, there is one in California that's that's that's that's that's launched that's focused on determining humanness detached from identity.

So so a biometric talk technology, essentially, that can say, you are a human being without knowing or seeking to know anything about your actual who you are. That could potentially be a long term approach on this as well.

But you are hitting on the work that we still have to do in the legislation, which is how how will local governments defensively be determine that, you know, these 20,000 messages are bot generated. And these other 2,000 are part of an organizing effort that's being that's been under by undertaken by the local labor union or the Clean Air Alliance. Right? That that this bill does not in any way diminish mass engagement.

If in fact, we wanna make sure that that gets heard, but it simply cannot it has to be done by human beings at some point in that chain of command, and we'll be working over if if the bill proceeds, we'll be working on on the mechanism for that detection protocols for local governments as we along the way.

I I am gonna support the bill, but basically what you're saying is that the bill authorizes local government not to consider input that comes from a non human and that's what you're getting at. You know, it's it's interesting to me. If if I'd have read this bill back when I was on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, I would have wondered what you were smoking. But that's but my point is that's how things

And the the development of technology will always outpace the development of defenses against the undesirable effects of technology and that's what's challenging for here. It it is a horrible frustrating thing I know to see something like this. I get what you're trying to do and I and I support that. I think it's gonna be difficult.

Yes. Okay. Senator Durazo, then Senator Valadares.

Yes. This is more of a very technical question. But since this last session, I spent so much time trying to understand the Brown Act and make changes to the Brown Act. And so forgive me if how I how I ask the question may not make a lot of sense to a lot of people. But I think we've we've raised the issue of doing a separate doing an amendment that is specific and separate for each for each act.

In other words, let's see. Amending the definitions of certain terms used in the Brown Act without amending the Brown Act directly is the technical problem that we identified. So you're you're amend making one amendment which captures all of all six of the acts, and rather than go through each one individually is the clarity that we think may be missing by doing it as a group versus doing it individually.

I I I agree, Senator Senator. And I know the committee analysis also points this out. And so we but as you know from from last year's work, just on that one act of all these many, that it is a nontrivial, nontrivial, exercise that we will prove that human beings are capable of. But, yes, we need to make the specific references in each of the acts and not simply rely on the on the single statement that we currently have in

the bill. And you've accepted the amendments Okay. In our view of that. Yes. Alright.

Senator Valderas.

Yes. Thank you. I'm gonna echo the comments of Senator Niello as I'm now pronouncing it. And I understand the intent and wholeheartedly support it. I think it's gonna be very challenging and difficult.

And is is there any fear that we're actually creating a liability for local governments and that if their detection fails and they omit an opportunity for a human on text or email to have their comment heard, that they they could potentially be violating their First Amendment rights?

I I don't know if I'd go that far, but yes. I mean, to the general point, yes.

There the the and so, you know, we need to work as as we as we proceed if if we if we succeed out of this committee on exactly that question of how of of, you know, what is the is there a standard, a safe a safe harbor, and some other way in which local governments can act can affect because not they don't always arrive as, hello, this is Claude or this is Grach writing to you on behalf of, you know, Senator Viadar.

So and so so, yes, we do need to that is one of the the central questions. One is the detection side, but but the complimentary question is, if you get it right 99% of the time, what happens to the 1%?

What is there any recourse for the human being who was who was overlooked? We've been talking a lot about the testimony part, but I think the as the vice mayor of Vacaville noted, you know, some of these some of these require specific action by the local government. So there's one, it's just, oh, you know, many of you have been.

But even if here, if we had 20,000, letters that we had to post on the senate site, like, what does that really how do and we lose real public comment in that mix. But for some of these acts, public records act being a great example.

City clerks over as was noted, have to respond in a certain time period. And so and if you are a bot, it's not difficult to generate a new one every day. And public records act requests are fairly can be very broad. Like, send me any records that deal with this thing. And then tomorrow, the bot sends you another one and another one and another one.

And so those, over time, you may determine you may determine after the twenty seventh one, this isn't a this isn't a human being because you've tried to follow-up or some for that sort of thing. So we think there are cases where it will be useful from the outset, but you're exactly right as a Senator Danilo that we have some work to do.

Thank you. Alrighty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none or Senator Wahab has moved the bill, Would you like to close, Senator Kamal?

Simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you,

mister chair. Thank you very much. Alright. Committee's supporter, please call the roll.

This is file item number two, SB1159. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate privacy digital technologies and consumer protection committee.

[Roll call]

7 to zero. Alright. We're gonna put that bill on call. We have just one more bill. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon.

Senator Seyarto. And this is the the final bill that we'll hear. Senator Taro, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister, Chair. I'm here to present SB 932, a simple but important bill that addresses fairness and accountability in our judicial system. As policymakers, we know that bad actors aren't always, looking to break the system. They're looking for ways around it as well. And, unfortunately, that's exactly what's happening here.

Right now, there's a gap in how civil proceeding filings are structured. The current structure allows individuals to hide behind layers of paperwork and entities, making it difficult to see who is actually benefiting from a financial recovery. Civil proceeding claims are being done through shell companies, sometimes set up in states that don't require ownership transparency.

On paper, everything looks clean, but in reality, it allows people to collect money while avoiding the obligations they legally owe, essentially hiding assets from our judicial system, and that's the part that concerns me the most. Whether it's a victim waiting on restitution, a small business trying to recover losses, or even government agencies enforcing the law, Those obligations are being sidestepped.

S b 932 is about closing that loophole. It's straightforward and a practical solution. The bill simply requires transparency, making sure that the original real party interest, the person or entity actually benefiting, is clearly identified in the process. SB 932 is about protecting the integrity of our institutions and making sure accountability is an option. With me today is Naris Kalitian.

I'm sorry. I probably mispronounced it. A California attorney and member of the Conference of California Bar Associations who are sponsors of the bill.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon. My name is Narisse Kalatyan. I'm a delegate to the Conference of California Bar Associations, the CCBA, which is sponsoring this bill. I'm an attorney with 36 years of experience on the ground and an adjunct associate professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. I'm here not only as the spokesperson for the CCBA, but as an attorney who has seen firsthand how the assignment process can be misused in our courts.

As you know, plaintiffs can sue based on their own rights or rights that have been transferred to them or assigned to them. A plaintiff who doesn't want to be named as a plaintiff in the complaint can transfer that right to a friend or to a shell company. I have seen personally a bankruptcy debtor assign and transfer his rights to his Delaware corporation, make a recovery through that corporation anonymously without his debtors ever finding that out.

These arrangements were never intended by law, and they have the effect of, undermining the rights of those the system was designed to protect. Millions of dollars pass through assignments every year and some of them by individuals who are evading their financial responsibilities towards their victims and their creditors, which as the Senator stated, could be public agencies, individuals, and small businesses.

SB 932 is a narrowly drawn bill designed specifically to address one problem involving assignments. It imposes very minor requirements, but with colossal benefits. It maintains the definition of a real party in interest, a term of art, which has been defined by the courts over the past decades. A yes vote is a vote for accountability and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Perfect timing. Alright. Others in support of sp 932 please approach the microphone.

Seeing no one approaching, if you wish to provide me two testimony, now is the time. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments, questions? Opposition. Opposition. Oh, yes.

Right. Opposition. I'm sorry about that. If you're opposed to sb 932.

Thanks very much.

It's good to see the staffs. I universally, they all yell opposition at the same time. So right.

Thank you. Will Abrams with the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition. We certainly respect, the the effort here, and we certainly know that this is, well intended and and really is aimed at a a real need. However, we are very concerned that this, while trying to provide a simple fix to a really complicated issue, may miss the mark.

I think when you're talking about simple litigation, when you have one plaintiff and one defendant and maybe a couple real parties in interest, this may be effective at providing a little more transparency.

However, when you look at complex litigation where many wildfire survivors are, really reliant upon, as victims trying to recover, losses, what you find is you have multiple parties with really overlapping interests. So you may have an attorney that's representing one group of plaintiffs that, are going to mean, you know, millions of dollars in in restitution, while representing other parties that may represent, less restitution. And they're so, they are oftentimes in negotiated settlements sort of having, to negotiate, on either side.

So this isn't providing sort of equitable, transparency, and that's really what we would like to see in the bill. We've provided, input into that about how we can drive that.

I would also say that part of what also occurs is that we have financial conflicts that occur that aren't disclosed. Many of you are familiar that around wildfire litigation, there's often litigation financing coming from institutional investors into all sorts of different places where it doesn't belong. We feel that when there are parties who are representing multiple interests in a case, it should be required that they provide, those types of disclosures. Certainly, there are

Thank you if you'd wrap it up.

Yes. Thank you very much. Certainly, there are are bar association rules of professional conduct that are on the books, And all we're really saying is that we should take those rules and make sure they're incorporated into Alright. Legislation. Thank you very much.

Alright. Do you urge a no vote?

Yes. Okay. Oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Alright. Bringing back committee. Questions by committee members?

Comments? Anyone else in opposition? I'm forgetting my job here. Alright.

It's been a while.

So it has been a while. I'm rusty. Alright. Seeing Senator D'Arsos moved the bill. Seeing no questions or comments, Senator Tada, would you like to close?

Yes. I I appreciate the comments from the opposition today, and I you know, it's music to my ears, really. It really is. It's something that, it those that know me, I've been working on ensuring that there's, improved transparency, that there's improved accountability. There's a lot of, problems going on in our in our state, in our country that are, trying to influence and impact and undermine our democratic institutions.

And we must do more as a whole to address all these challenges. But it also has been in my experience that even something simple is a a challenge in itself to try to, pass and and and get get it signed. I think we're living in a time where there is urgency to address all the issues that have been mentioned here today, and and I think that's gonna take a a larger conversation to address all of them because it's it's it's a lot.

So, I, with that, I just respectfully ask for a nigh vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. It has been moved by Senator Rosso, committee assistant Porter. Would you please call the roll?

This is file item number three, SB 932. The motion is do pass.

[Roll call]

8 to 0. We're gonna put that on call awaiting other members arrival.

And, Mister Chair, I would move the consent item.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Laird has moved the consent calendar. Committees is important. Would you call the roll on the consent calendar?

On the consent calendar, Umberg?

[Roll call]

Laird? Is she yeah. Right?

Laird, I. Reyes. Reyes, I. Stern, Valaderas. Valaderas, I.

80. We're gonna put that on call as well. We'll wait. Just a few moments here. I'll announce in just a minute how long we'll wait.

Otherwise, thank you very much staff and committee members.

Otherwise, thank you very much staff and committee members.

Okay. I'm sorry. Why don't we go ahead and open the roll on was it file item number two? Alright.

Let's open the roll on file item number two.

File item number two, SB1159, chair voting aye. Allen, Ashby, Capillero, Stern, Wahab. Wahab, aye. Weiner. 80.

80. Okay. We're gonna put that back on call. Thank you. Alright.

We're we're back on the record. So at 02:35, for you military folks, that's 1435 committee will reconvene. At that time, we'll open the roll for one last time and then adjourn. Thank you. Alright.

Committee supporter, if you would open the roll on the on all three items.

On the consent calendar, chair voting aye. Alan, Ashby, Caballero, Stern, Weiner.

Aye.

Weiner, aye. 920.

90. Put that back on call.

File item number two, SB1159, chair voting aye. Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Stern, Weiner.

Weiner, aye. 90.

Aye.

At 90. We'll put that on call.

Right. File item number three, SB 932 chair voting aye. Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Stern, Weiner.

Aye.

Weiner, aye. 920?

90, put that back on call. Thank you very much. Senator Weiner, thank you very much. Alright. Committee assistant Porter, let's open the roll and call the roll and on all three matters, and I'm gonna turn over the gavel gavel to Senator Stern.

On the consent calendar, chair voting, aye, Alan Ashby Caballero Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. 10 to zero.

Put that on call.

File item number two, B1159, chair voting, aye. Allen Ashby Caballero Stern. Aye. Stern, aye, 10 to zero.

10 zero put that on call.

File item number 3SB932, chair voting, aye. Allen Ashby Caballero Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. 10 to 0.

10 to 0. Put that back on call. Okay. Just for avoidance of doubt, Senator Stern, thank you for assuming the chair.

Alright. We're gonna we're gonna open the role in just a moment here.

Okay.

Let me know. You good? Okay. Committee, please call the roll.

On the consent calendar, chair voting, aye, Alan Ashby Caballero. Caballero, aye, 11 to zero. File item number three, sb 932 chair voting, Aye, Alan Ashby Caballero. Caballero, Aye, 11 to zero.

Okay. We'll leave that on call. Alright. Our final member? Yes?

Okay. We're gonna open the roll for the, for the bill still on call.

On the consent calendar, chair voting, aye. Allen? Aye. Alan, aye. Ashby.

12 to zero. All members having voted. Consent calendar is

Bills out. Adopted. Consent calendar is adopted.

File item number two, SB 1159. Chair voting, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye.

Ashby, 12 to zero.

Bills out.

File item number three, SB 932. Chair voting, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye.

Ashby. 12 to zero.

Fills out. Alright. We need

to say we're adjourned.

With that, we are hereby adjourned.