Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection

Welcome everybody to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee hearing. I have a few announcements to begin with. First of all, I am not RBK. I am sitting in to chair the committee hearing for Assemblymember Bauer Kehane. And secondly, I wanna thank and welcome Assemblymember Hart for joining us today as we have an empty seat with Assemblymember Bauer Kehane's absence.

We have eight, bills on the agenda today with four of them on the consent calendar, and they are, AB 1651 by Assemblymember Dixon with a do motion of do pass, AB 2085 by Assemblymember Alan East with a motion of do pass to appropriations, AB 2113 by Assemblymember McKinnor with a motion of do pass as amended to the Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism Committee. AB 2412 by Assemblymember Ta with a motion of do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee.

To effectively manage our time today, we'll be eliminating testimony to witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition to each bill. Each witness will be allowed two minutes to present their testimony. It is required that any witness coming forward to testify have submitted to the committee their support or opposition prior to the committee hearing.

After the support witnesses conclude their term testimony, the committee will call up additional supporters. No further testimony will be permitted. Additional supporters may only state their name, affiliation, and position for the record. Same process will be followed after the opposition witnesses, conclude their testimony. And at that time, additional opposition will be called.

They may only state their name, affiliation, and position for the record. I'd like to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. Seeing that we do not have a quorum, we are going to start today as a subcommittee. Madam Secretary, do you wanna call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay. Not quite there. We're gonna start as a subcommittee, and we'll get to the bill presentations after the following announcements about disruptions. It's important to note that the assembly has experienced a a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will not disrupt we will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. Again, it is required that any witness coming forward to testify are on record as having timely submitted their supporter opposition of the committee hearing. All public comment needs to focus on the bill and the topic presented. Comments on the other issues will be ruled out of order. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening, or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted. I will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. Conduct does not stop. I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol Building.

Thank you everyone for, hearing me through, for your cooperation, and now we can turn to the items before us today. We are gonna hear the bills and file order. However, we are going to begin with Assemblymember Irwin since she is here. That is AB 2143. You may open. Assemblymember Irwin.

Oh, thank you, very much, Chair and members. Good afternoon. The impact that noxious weeds have on our agricultural lands is devastating. These invasive plants overrun crops, damage soil health, disrupt ecosystems, and kill the biodiversity of our native plants. They are a scourge that costs our state millions of dollars.

The Department of Food and Agriculture maintains a publicly available list of noxious weeds and has banned the sale of these weeds through regulations. Despite these efforts, though, many noxious weeds continue to be sold without restraint through online ecommerce marketplaces. The ease of purchasing one of these illegal plants is staggering. Any one of us could go right now into an ecommerce website and buy one within minutes. Additionally, many consumers may not even realize that the plant they are ordering is designated as a noxious weed.

Online marketplaces have a responsibility to ensure that they do not facilitate the sale and shipment of these illegal plants. AB 2143 addresses this issue by banning online marketplaces from accepting payment for noxious weeds that would be shipped to a delivery address in that state. This ensures that online marketplaces take responsibility for their role for the role their platforms play, play in the spread of noxious weeds.

Preventing online marketplaces from selling noxious weeds will cut off a key contributor to the spread of invasive plants at the source, saving our state millions of dollars further down the line. With me to testify today in support of the bill are professor Mohsen Mesgura, weed science professor from UC Davis, and Taylor Trofeo, right on time, representing California Citrus Mutual and a series of other ag clients.

Thank you, Assemblymember. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and in support of AB 2143. When a plant is designated as a noxious weed, that designation is grounded in scientific evidence. These species are harmful, highly destructive to agriculture and natural ecosystems, and very difficult to control or eradicate. Nearly every estate maintains its own list of noxious weeds typically published by agriculture or environmental agencies.

In California, the California Department of Food and Agriculture currently list 183 noxious weeds species. However, we understand these leads lists are scattered and not easily accessible in a uniform unified form. To address this, my lab at UC Davis has compiled and harmonized this list nationwide, correcting inconsistencies and creating a comprehensive publicly available database.

And in coming weeks, we will have a functional API that will allow users to query whether a plant species is listed as not just anywhere in The United States, accounting for synonyms and naming variations. We also conducted a systematic evaluation of online marketplaces, including Amazon and Ebay, assessing the availability of almost one one thousand unique noxious weed species identified in our database.

Our findings are deeply concerning. More than one third of these highly harmful pests are readily available for purchase. The research foundation for this bill is therefore clear and well documented. To the best of my knowledge, these platforms already maintain compliance systems that restrict the sale of regulated products such as far far firearms and drugs. Extending their existing system to include a defined list of regulated plant species would be a manageable and incremental step rather than a new operational burden.

Our database provides a centralized ready to use resource to support such implementations. Prevention remains the most cost effective strategy for managing invasive species. The regulatory frame framework is already in place, and the compliance mechanisms are proven. AB 2143 simply calls for their consistent application. I so I respectfully urge your support.

Thank you.

Taylor, you may begin.

Yes. Sorry. Busy day. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Taylor Triffo on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations.

California has one of the most robust path path pest pathway prevention systems in the world, but that system was designed for a different era. Today, the rise of ecommerce where anyone can buy anything at any time from anyone has fundamentally changed how we regulate invasive species and how they enter into our state. Twenty one forty three addresses a clear and growing gap. While California law already stricts the sale and move it obnoxious weeds, those safe guards can be bypassed online.

The bill simply extends existing protections to online marketplaces by prohibiting them from facilitating the sale of noxious weeds into California.

From an agricultural perspective, this is critical. Invasive plants don't just threaten crops, but they increase production costs, reduce yield, and force greater reliance on pesticide control measures. Once established, they're incredibly expensive, if not impossible, to eradicate. They host invasive species and destructive diseases, so you'll hear me speak about agents such as psyllid and leafhopper, ligus. Last year, due to exotic fruit fly infestations across the state, the legislature had allocate allocate $40,000,000 in state general fund to address the infestation.

What's also different today is about scale and speed. A single online transaction can introduce a harmful species directly to a farm, to a backyard, to a waterway outside of the traditional inspection routes. A dramatic swing in temperatures and land use changes from climate change and SGMA will only exacerbate this. That's a structural vulnerability in our pest prevention system. 2143 is a modernized target.

It ensures that existing rules keep pace with how commerce actually works in 2026. And for agriculture, as the professor mentioned, prevention is always more effective than a response. So this bill helps close the loophole before we reach a tipping point. So we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay. Is there anybody from the public that is here to testify in support of this bill? Name, affiliation, and position only. Seeing none, are there opposition witnesses here in this bill?

Welcome. Welcome.

Thank you.

Two minutes, sir.

Alright. Good afternoon, chair members. Jose Torres with TechNet. I wanna start off by thanking some of or went for her leadership in bringing this bill to address, the spread of invasive species. TechNet and our member companies share the goal of protecting California's ecosystems and agriculture integrity.

We appreciate the conversations that are ongoing with author's office as we continue to discuss on how we create a workable framework. For now, we do remain in an opposed and less submitted position. Online marketplaces function as facilitators. They provide the online digital infrastructure or transactions. Now, they do not control what the third party sellers choose to list or how those products are described.

And this is where the discussions are currently at with the author's office on ensuring that we create these clear standards based on a reliable list from CDFA. We think there is a workable path forward, and that is one that includes a reasonable safeguard and shared responsibilities with our sellers and clear expectations so that compliance is achievable in practice. We appreciate the author's willingness to continue to work on this and allowing us to be constructive partners in getting it right.

But as we continue to have these discussions, we remain in an opposed and a cemented position. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any additional witnesses from the public that wish to speak in opposition to this bill? Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Assembly member Macedo.

I just wanna thank Assembly member Erwin for bringing this bill forward. I ran a bill last year regarding invasive species and pests because I don't think a lot of people understand just how detrimental a small invasive species can be or anything like that to a crop. And a lot of these are hobby farmers that impact, you know, our large scale farmers.

So I would love to be added as a coauthor, and I look forward also to you working with opposition because I think there's a path there. But agriculture desperately needs to make sure we're keeping invasive species out of California.

So thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember.

Assemblymember Hart.

Yeah. I just wanna add my voice to those remarks as well. This is a great bill, and I would love to be a co author. And I wanna thank the professor for the incredible work that you're doing, creating a database that is searchable and identifies these weeds and puts that in one place for folks to be able to access that. It's really tremendous work you're doing.

So thank you.

Okay. Assemblymember DeMio.

So I saw a range of fines for violations of this if it if it is passed into law. It said for the first through the third violation, there'd be a step up in fines. Is there a fine for the first violation?

I think we're still we're still working on the we're still working on the the fine structure. Because, I mean,

a seller could, in with good intention, sell something and then end up paying a very hefty fine. And if it's a small business owner, it can be significant. So I'd like to see some more clarity on that. And maybe if there's a warning on the first time, and if they've already been warned and they continue to sell, then obviously a financial penalty would be appropriate. I know what you're trying to do.

I think the goal is is great. I just really worry about the unforeseen consequence of these smaller sellers, and the supply chain maybe not knowing, and then they get hit with a a fine that could be pretty devastating.

And and, thank you for that that comment. The fines are different when when it's when they are regular small businesses. This is really specifically for the very large online marketplaces who would be able to absorb larger fines. And, hopefully, it it is enough to encourage them to change their behavior. So so it's to the the fine from, let's say, an ag commissioner would be for a nursery that is selling noxious weeds, and then that those fines are much lower.

This is really specifically for the online marketplaces. And some of them are doing a very good job of already, filtering out the, the the, noxious weeds. There's others that could do a much better job. But, again, that's something that we're we're really trying to figure out exactly what that sweet spot is to change behavior of the the large online marketplaces.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing and hearing no further debate. Assembly member Erwin, do

you wish

to close? Respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm so glad that I got to go first. Well, I wanna order.

I wanna thank assembly member Erwin for taking on this issue. Noxious weeds are already prohibited from being sold or distributed in California, yet the online marketplaces face no consequences now for allowing the continued sale and procurement of these invasive plants in our state.

By establishing financial penalties for online marketplaces that continue to sell these invasive species to Californians, e b twenty one forty three makes it clear that we will continue to prioritize and protect our environment above marketplaces bottom lines, and everybody needs to do their part. I hear opposition concerns about wanting to establish guidelines or safe harbors for marketplaces that implement safeguards. I know the author will continue to work, with them to find a solution.

And I'm happy to support AB 2143 when we have a quorum and can, have a vote. So, when that comes, we will do

so.

We'll get one more.

Assembly member Addis.

It

A B 1744. You're welcome to our open assembly member.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair and Staff and, and our advocates who are here. I'm here to present AB1744, the CLEAR Labels, CLEAR Sees Act. And we are accepting the committee amendments.

As you may know, California's rocky reefs and marine ecosystems are critical to maintaining our state's biodiversity, our fisheries, and our coastal tourism. And in fact, just five years ago in 2021, coastal tourism and recreation made up 67% of California's $51,000,000,000 coastal economy. But we all know that there are man made factors that are contributing to the decline in recent years of our coastal economy and ecosystems.

Certain chemicals, which are commonly found in sunscreen, are of particular concern because they wash off people's bodies when they enter the water, and they can disrupt photosynthesis, damage DNA, and cause coral bleaching. So despite growing awareness and state actions, we know that there, there continue to be these harmful chemicals in our oceans.

And there have been false environmental claims about the safety of sunscreen products that exploit consumers' desires to buy eco friendly products and give an unfair market advantage, and can perpetuate damage to the marine ecosystem. So we have a pretty simple bill. The solution is eight 1744, AB 1744, that will clarify that products that are marketed as reef safe, reef friendly, or any other term that implies either of those cannot contain chemical ultraviolet filters.

So we're not banning anything, but we are attempting to provide more transparency. And with me today is Mikaela Spencer, high school junior, who is presenting on behalf of the Sacramento McClatchy High School Eco Club, who came up with the idea for this bill.

Welcome, miss Spencer. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Sorry. Mikayla Spencer, on behalf of the Eco Club at CK McClatchy Senior High School in Sacramento sorry.

In Sacramento. Our club is proud to sponsor AB 1744.

Is it good? Okay.

As high school students who care deeply about the environment, we learn how everyday consumer products can have a significant impact on our ecosystems. While researching ocean conservation last summer, I was surprised to learn just how damaging chemicals commonly used in sunscreen are on marine life and fragile reef ecosystems. Scientific studies, including research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other peer reviewed sources, show that these chemicals can disrupt photosynthesis and damage DNA, which contributes to coral bleaching.

When swimmers and beachgoers enter the water, these chemicals wash off and accumulate in coastal habitats. Even small amounts can affect coral larvae, algae, fish populations, and marine vegetation such as kelp and seagrass, all plants that provide essential habitat for many species.

California's rocky reef ecosystems from the Channel Islands to our northern kelp forest support hundreds of marine species, protect our coastline, and generate billions in tourism and fisheries revenue. They are also one of the most sensitive habitats on the West Coast. Despite the science and the harms these chemicals have on marine life, some sunscreen products that contain chemical UV filters are still marketed as reef safe, reef friendly, or ocean safe. Learning this was troubling.

These claims can mislead consumers who, like us, are trying to make environmentally responsible choices.

They create an unfair marketing advantage and perpetuate greenwashing. That is why our club chose to sponsor AB1744. This bill takes a simple truth in advertising approach. It ensures sunscreen products sold in California cannot be labeled or advertised as reef safe, reef friendly, or any similar claim if they contain any chemical UV filters. For us, this bill is about honesty, protecting our oceans, and creating real change.

Consumers deserve accurate information, and our marine ecosystems deserve stronger protection. On behalf of the Eco Club at CK McClatchy Senior High School, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Spencer. That's Deaf Advocacy. We appreciate it so much. Are there any speakers from the public that are here to speak in favor of this name, affiliation, and position only, please?

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Juliana Tetlow with Fearless Advocacy on behalf of Surfrider Foundation in strong support.

Thank you. Okay. Do we have any witnesses to speak in opposition to AB 1744?

Hi, Chair.

You you may do so from

Okay our position is actually a concern, not a position. Good afternoon, chair and members. Craig Scholer on behalf of the Personal Care Product Council. Our position is concerned. Wanna thank the chair, the author, and the committee for the amendments regarding the catchall.

Greatly appreciate that. Our concerns also lie just in anything that would indicate that these, filters are unsafe, and would lead to any future limitations or bans on their use. We understand that's not what this bill does, so our position right now is good concern. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone from the public that is here to speak in opposition to this bill? Name, affiliation, and position only. Seeing none, back to the dais. Any members wish to speak on this?

Mister Hart.

Well, this is a great bill and appreciate, the author's work. And what a wonderful expert witness that you were, and an advocate for this important issue. You know, this is such a simple idea, the that consumers ought to be aware of what they're, purchasing. They're if it's, a benefit to pretend as though you're reef safe, that is such a manipulative practice. Somebody's trying to be conscious and buy the right product and they're being, deceived by the packaging.

You know, that is that is such a gross, misuse of consumer advocacy. I'm so glad that you're carrying this bill to fix that problem. So thank you.

Assemblymember Irwin?

So I I love that you have your witness here and and great bill idea. I I think that I I presume that there is no issue with the mineral sunscreens. Correct?

Correct. And this is really just, looking at what chemicals are in there and then creating a transparent, you know, transparency around labeling.

So I, I think that, for people that don't know the difference, maybe that's something also to emphasize that there is already a there's a whole group of sunscreens that are already more reef friendly. So because that's

Yes. There's there's already sunscreens that are reef friendly, and so we just want consumers to be able to understand which ones are reef friendly, which ones not necessarily which ones are not, but definitely have clarity and labeling of which ones are and then not banning anything.

I I really like the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing and hearing no further debate, Assemblymember Addis, do you wish to close?

Just we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Well, thank you so much for bringing this measure forward. I want to applaud the sponsors, the Sacramento High School Eco Club for their civic engagement in this matter. Thank you again, Miss Spencer. Some UV filters have been banned in Hawaii in order to protect the marine ecosystem, and the Santa Clara County District Attorney has brought lawsuits against companies that advertise that their sunscreens containing these chemicals are ocean safe.

This is false advertising, plain and simple. While it remains an open question whether California should consider pursuing a ban, there's no question that these chemicals in sufficient quantities can be deadly to aquatic life. This is a common sense measure. Environmentally conscious consumers who wanna do the right thing when they go into the ocean should not be misled.

And, miss Sattis, we do not have a quorum at the committee right now, so I can't entertain a motion on the bill, but we will be taking it up when a quorum is established.

Great. Thank you so much.

Oh. Oh, she's You're gonna go for town?

She's fancy.

Oh, I'm gonna go for town. She's fancy.

Oh, I'm gonna go for my notes. I got my notes rolling. I would love if my colleagues could guilt our other colleagues into coming to committee to establish quorum.

Josh Hoover, Joe Patterson, report to the capital, please.

Okay.

Mister Lackey. Mister Lackey, welcome.

Thank you.

We appreciate you.

Sorry. I'm in public safety, but we're suspended.

That's quite alright, sir. We understand that it is a challenging time to be three places at once. You may begin on AB 1861 when you are ready, sir.

Well, thank you. And we we appreciate being afforded the privilege to present this bill, which is numbered 18 assembly bill eighteen sixty one. I'd like to take the moment, first of all, to thank your committee for the work on this bill, and we do formally accept the amendments. Well, this bill has a transparency and accountability measure for special education in the state. Under current law, when families believe those rights have been violated, they can file a formal complaint with the California Department of Education.

The department is then required to investigate and issue a written decision within sixty days. While these decisions are technically public, they're only available through a, public records act request and are not maintained in any kind of centralized searchable database. In practice, this means the information exists, but it's extremely difficult for families to access or analyze.

This bill addresses this gap by requiring the California Department of Education to create and maintain a publicly accessible online database of special education complaints, ensuring that all personal student information will be redacted to maintain privacy. With me today to testify is Conrad Crump, senior policy advocate with the disability rights of California.

Thank you so much, mister Lackey. Prior to hearing your testimony, mister Krump, I'm gonna ask the secretary to call the roll and then maybe get through our consent items.

Alright. Loans excuse me. Hoover? Ortega?

Here.

Ortega, here. We have a quorum. And consent calendar.

Go ahead with the consent calendar, madam secretary.

On the consent calendar, did you pass? Lowenthal?

Aye.

Lowenthal, Aye. Masito. Aye. Masito, Aye. Brian DiMaio.

Aye. DiMaio, Aye. Hart. Aye. Heart.

Aye. Hoover. Erwin? Aye. Erwin, Aye.

McKinner. Aye. McKinner. Aye. Ortega?

Aye. Ortega, Aye. Patterson Pellerin? Petrie Norris Ward? Aye.

Ward, Aye. Wicks Wilson.

Sir, you may continue. Thank you. You have two minutes.

Alright. Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. My name is Conrad Crump, and I'm here on behalf of Disability Rights California and also in support of the bill's cosponsors, the youth youth justice education clinic at Loyola Law School and cancel the contract Antelope Valley. In my role as senior policy advocate with Disability Rights California, I work very closely with attorneys every week, and we often review discrimination complaints involving students with disabilities across the state.

These are real cases, real families that are navigating challenges around access to services or implementation of IEPs and compliance with the law. And with the dismantling of the federal office of civil rights, many families are really left without options to address their disability discrimination, which is why this bill matters. Right now, we're often looking at these issues case by case without a clear statewide picture of where problems are happening and how often they occur. And that's why eighteen sixty one helps to fill that gap.

It creates a centralized database that allows us to see patterns across districts and see where violations are happening and what laws are being violated and whether corrective actions are actually being completed.

And that kind of visibility leads to better accountability and better outcomes and, ultimately, better outcomes for students with disabilities. The bill has also been amended to address the privacy concerns and is now focused on aggregate data, not individual student records. And it also includes an opt in process requiring complainant consent. So this is a balanced approach that improves transparency while protecting students. And from where I sit working on these issues every week, the need for this kind of visibility is clear.

A AB 1861 helps us better understand what's happening across districts so we can respond more effectively and help improve outcomes for students with disabilities. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses from the public that are here to testify in support of this bill? Name, affiliation, and position, please.

Tony Anderson, the Association of Regional Center Agencies, and we're in support as amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Now we'll turn to any opposition witnesses. Opposition witness on the bill. Please state your name and affiliation.

You have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. I'm also speaking on behalf of the Kern County Superintendent Of Schools. We appreciate that the new amendments address most of the privacy concerns. However, we remain opposed to the bill because we think state resources would be better spent helping to fill the special education vacancies that are causing the struggle with compliance.

We support the transparency goals of the bill, but we would like to see a more solution oriented approach to addressing gaps in services. We also worry that the bill will highlight the challenges, the least resourced districts are facing even as they work to address gaps in services. For these reasons, we remain opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any anyone from the public here to testify in opposition to this bill? Seeing and hearing none, we'll bring it to the dais. Comments? Mister Patterson.

Great. Thank you. Sorry I arrived late, so I didn't hear the whole testimony. But, you know, of course, I'm gonna support this measure. I think, you know, it's important, to be able to see, you know, particularly where the state and where districts can do better in this regard.

One concern I have, and I'm I'm not entirely sure if I don't I don't think the amendments had them, but just something to keep in mind is, you know, obviously, a lot of, support surrounding, this population in schools is is kinda contingent on, you know, federal funding, which has been lacking for many presidential administrations. You know, it's really not a partisan thing at all. Nobody has fully funded, you know, students with disabilities, and it's such a you know, it's a federal program.

And and so, you know, at the same time, you know, I have these districts that don't receive the funding that it really takes to need to, you know, serve this population, and I know that that's the intent that I know it's very important to you as as much as anybody else, you know.

So, so I think it's important because we need to know where this and, actually, may maybe it'll help us make an argument to the Federal Government that we need more funding for this population so they can receive the education that they deserve.

But, you know, it's it's not only a state problem, unfortunately. And, obviously, feel free to respond to that. I think this important transparency measure, I just hope the Federal Government in the past and in current and in the future will give proper funding so school districts can educate these, these young kids.

Yeah. I don't think holding this population hostage to lack of federal investment is a fair reason to oppose this particular measure.

will tell you that as long as I've been living, this population has not been appropriately funded. And, I do think we're moving in the right direction most of the time, but it does vacillate back and forth. And I'm telling you, this population and and the families associated with this population are facing ridiculous challenges that are very, very unfair.

I I

And I think that this is one of the least things that we can do is afford them the ability to analyze findings so that they can take the appropriate course of action.

Assemblymember Brian.

Just wanna thank the author. We've been working on these issues together for quite some time, and I would I'd love to join you as a coauthor if you'll have me.

Thank you.

Assemblymember McKinner.

Yes. I'd also like to thank the author. Accountability is not a choice. We need to make sure that we we see what's going on. So I thank you for this panel.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing and hearing no further debate. Assemblymember Lackey, do you wish to close?

Hopefully, plead for your aye vote.

Well, I wanna thank Assemblymember Lackey for his commitment to approving special education for all children. I guess this is my opportunity to say thank you personally for all the things that I've learned from you over the last three and a half years. And your voice will be in my head over the years ahead when you are no longer with us here, but I I'm truly grateful for that.

As a parent, I'm a strong believer in transparency and accountability in education, especially when it comes to children with disabilities or exceptional needs. As proposed to be amended, this bill only discloses high level information about the number of violations in the district.

This allows families to have a better understanding of how their schools are following through on their obligations to serve our special needs children. While I hear the concerns that this bill may shine an unflattering spotlight on smaller, underfunded districts, that's not a reason to hide from the truth. It is a reason to make sure our districts are properly funded, which I support. I think that's the underlying message also mister Patterson is trying to convey.

I believe AB 1861 strikes a good balance between promoting transparency and protecting a student's privacy through the establishment of an aggregate database, and I'm excited to support this bill in its amended form.

Mr. Lackey, I'd also like to ask to be a co-author on this bill if you would have me.

Love that. Thank you.

Okay. We do have a quorum. Is there a motion on this bill?

We will

Moved by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Hart.

Secretary madam secretary, please call the roll.

Item number three, AB 1861 by Assembly member Lackey. The motion is do passed as amended to Appropriations Committee. Lowenthal?

Aye

Lowenthal, aye. Macedo?

Aye.

Macedo, aye. Bryan?

Brian, aye. Demaio?

Aye.

Aye.

De Mayo, aye. Hart?

Aye.

Hart, aye. Hoover?

Aye.

Hoover, aye. Irwin?

Erwin, aye. McKinnor?

Aye.

Aye.

McKinner, aye. Ortega?

Aye.

Ortega, aye. Patterson?

Aye.

Patterson, aye. Pellerin? Petrie-Norris?

Aye.

Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward?

Aye.

Ward, aye. Wicks? Wilson.

Bill is out. We're gonna keep it on call for absent members. And we are awaiting our friend, Assemblymember Bonta. Yeah. Let's take this opportunity to go back and, catch up on our votes.

I think we need a few motions, as a matter of fact.

Move the consent calendar.

Second.

Okay.

We have

a motion and a second on the consent calendar.

Yes.

Thank you, miss Petri Norris, for thoroughly embarrassing me.

Okay. We have eight votes. Brian,

the consent calendar. Brian, Aye, Hoover.

I like

Aye.

Hoover, Aye. McKenna. I'm sorry. Yeah. McKenna.

Patterson? Aye. Patterson, Aye. Pellerin? Petrie Norris?

Aye. Petrie Norris, aye. Wicks Wilson. Item

Let's do AB 1744 Addis.

We have

a motion by mister Hart, a seconded by assembly member McKinner. Clerk will call the roll.

Okay. AB 1744. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations committee. Lowenthal.

Aye.

Lowenthal, Aye. Moscito. Aye. Moscito, Aye. Brian?

Aye. Brian, Aye. De Mayo. Aye. De Mayo, Aye.

Hart. Aye. Hart, Aye. Hoover? Aye.

Hoover, Aye. Erwin?

Aye.

Erwin, Aye. McKinner?

Aye.

McKinner, Aye. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, Aye. Patterson?

Patterson, Aye. Pellerin? Aye. Petrie Norris? Aye.

Aye.

Petrie Norris, Aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wicks Wilson.

Okay. That bill is out with 12 votes. We'll keep the roll open for absent members. And let's do I need a motion, please, for AB 2143. Moved by Assemblymember Ward.

Seconded by Assemblymember Petrie Norris. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Okay. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Lowenthal.

Aye.

Lowenthal, Aye. Amacido.

Masido, Aye. Brian?

Aye.

Aye.

Brian, Aye. DiMaio? Aye. DiMaio, Aye. Hart.

Aye. Hart, Aye. McHoover. Aye. Hoover, Aye.

Erwin? Aye. Erwin, Aye. McHanter? Aye.

Skinner, Aye. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, Aye. Patterson.

Aye. Patterson, Aye. Appeloran. Petrie Norris? Aye.

Petrie Norris, Aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, Aye. Wicks Wilson.

Yes. Let me call this out. Okay. That bill is out with 12 votes. We'll keep the roll open for absent members.

Okay. That brings us on to our final bill our final bill of the day. That's AB 2624 by Assemblymember Bonta. Assemblymember, you may open.

Thank you. I wanna start by thanking the chair and committee for working with my office. I accept the committee amendments. AB 2624 expands Californian's safe at home program to include immigrant service providers, their employees, and volunteers. This program allows participants to keep their home and work addresses out of public records, giving them a critical layer of protection and privacy in an environment where their personal safety is increasingly at risk.

Individuals who provide immigrant support services include including legal aid, humanitarian relief, case management, and advocacy are facing targeted harassment. This is not hypothetical. Advocates and workers are receiving death threats, being targeted at courthouses, and facing coordinated online docs and campaigns, even facing this vitriol at their homes. These threats have risen sharply in 2025 and are expected to continue due to the current political climate. At the same time, personal information is increasingly easy to access.

Data brokers collect and sell information from public records, and social media can allow individuals to piece together identifying details. This makes it easier for bad actors to threaten or harm those who are simply doing their jobs. Advocates in California report doxing of staff and volunteers at immigration legal aid organizations, courthouse targeting, including coordinated death threats against service providers, anti immigrant vigilante activity directed at organizations by name and address.

Organizations serving LGBTQ plus and immigrant communities commonly hide their locations, staff information, and other details to keep their teams and their people safe. Currently, California state law does not provide adequate protections for sensitive data and information, leaving immigrants, advocates, and service providers vulnerable.

General privacy law act after harm has already occurred and were not designed to address the coordinated online politically motivated harassment that we are now seeing. This bill protects sensitive personal data in a way that empowers people to do their job safely and confidently before harm occurs by doing the following. First, shielding home and work addresses from public records.

Second, prohibiting any individual or entity from posting, displaying, selling, or distributing the personal information of images of program participants online when done with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite violence. Here today to testify and support are Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, And

Yes. Hello. My name is Cherry Javier. Greetings, chair and members. Thank you for your consideration of ADT.

Thank you. And you have two minutes.

Yes. Thank you. Okay. I am a fellow with the Solis Policy Institute, which is with the Women's Foundation of California. I'm here in full support and urging you to vote yes.

This is expanding on a program that has been around for thirty years. The Safe at Home program is part of the secretary of State's office, and it offers address confidentiality and a substitute mailing address. We believe that AB 2426 builds on a strong legacy by extending this program's protections to our immigrant support service providers, as well as their employees, volunteers, and those who face threats of harassment and intimidation because of their work with our immigration communities.

The bill is modeled after AB 82 by Assembly member Ward, which passed through here last year and expands the safe at home program for gender affirming care providers, patients, employees, and volunteers. I want you to imagine that you're a young lawyer.

You've spent years in school, and now you've dedicated yourself to working for your community. Now every time you do a filing, that filing is an opportunity for your home address to be used as a weapon against you. This is the type of harm that prevents our wonderful people of California from supporting immigrant communities as well as just doing the work that they've set out and dedicated their life for. We know that elected officials know this danger all too well, and privacy is of the utmost importance.

This committee itself sought AB 883 in January, which intends to streamline the protection of privacy information for elected officials.

I believe that everyone deserves the right to have the privacy they need so that they continue to do the work to support community members and those who are vulnerable.

In an age when the proliferation of anti immigrant hate and technologies such as AI glasses, which are gearing up to have facial recognition software, the age of data brokers and people finding websites, it is not unreasonable to to suspect that your address could be leaked at any of any time, especially because of your affiliation with an immigrant service provider or your work volunteering. With all these vulnerabilities, it's also not unreasonable to assume that even something like voting could be what gets your address doxxed.

There are so many different ways that the chains of protection could break with any of these links. So with this, I will say AB 2624 offers a needed layer of protection and provides meaningful legal tools to stop the address doxing before it escalates into physical harm so people in California can continue to serve their communities.

I respectfully urge you to support 82624 and support privacy protections for immigrant service providers and volunteers in order to create a California where people may provide and access services without fear. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Please, two minutes. Yes.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Angelica Salas. I'm the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, known as CHIRLA, and I'm here in support of AB 2624. AB 2624 is a net is necessary given the unprecedented attack on immigrants, refugee, and the organizations that serve and organize them.

Given the unrelenting anti immigrant rhetoric coming from the Trump administration followed by real actions targeting immigrants, there is real concern about being targeted, about being followed, detained, and about personal information being used in ways that could cause harm.

Throughout California, immigrants and their families live and work in fear every day because they see what's happening to their neighbors and their coworkers who look like them. The attacks are not just limited to individuals and instead also focus on immigrant serving organizations like CHIRLA and its staff who help individuals and families navigate complex immigration systems and access critical services.

At Chirla, we have experienced staff harassment by Trump loyalists and Trump supporting social media influencers at the doorstep of our office in one instant even at the doorstep of our home. Other immigrant rights organizations report the similar actions targeting them. Given the intensity of these actions, staff at immigrant serving organizations fear that this harassment will follow them home.

They ask themselves if someone who disagrees with our work can find where I live. Will my family be safe? When personal information is easy easily accessible, it creates pathways for harassment and intimidation, and we are seeing that escalation happen online and in person every day. People begin to self censor. They step away from their work.

Some leave the field entirely despite how urgently they are needed. And when that happens, the entire communities feel the loss. No one should choose between their safety and their commitment to serve others. AB 2624 responds to this reality. It recognizes that protecting personal information is directly tied to protecting people.

This is about allowing immigration immigration service providers to continue showing up for their communities without fear following them, their families, or their homes. I respectfully ask for your a I vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone from the public that is here to testify in support of this bill? Name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Monica Madrid with on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA and the Women's Foundation Police Policy Institute and the Central Valley Empowerment Alliance, and the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and Support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Juliana Tetla with Fearless Advocacy on behalf of Cal Nonprofits in support.

Ken Wang on behalf of the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy in support. Thank you.

Mike Harrell on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates and on myself personally in support.

Thank you so much. Now time for witnesses to speak in opposition to the bill. No one here to speak in opposition to the bill. Is there anyone here from the public to speak in opposition to this bill? Name, affiliation, and position, please.

Seeing and hearing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Mister DeMaio. Thank you.

So this body has voted on a number of proposals from the other side to release the identity of law enforcement officers. If this bill passes, certain political groups will have more protections, more privacy than law enforcement. How would you respond to that criticism?

This bill ensures that we have an opportunity when people are being harassed, docked, subjected to violence to have the ability to be able to protect themselves.

Shouldn't our law enforcement officers have that same right? You just said doxed, harassed

Mister DeMio, let's let the author finish her statement before you ask further questions, please.

Thank you so much, chair. I will speak to the merits of this bill, which is about whether or not people who are serving immigrant organizations should have the ability to be protected under the law.

Well, no. I asked a very specific question that you obviously don't wanna answer. I said, your bill does that for these I'm

glad that you understand what my bill does.

And we'll get to some more specifics about what your bill does and does not do and whether it's constitutional. But I asked a very specific question. Why are we treating law enforcement, sworn law enforcement differently than these agitators? You just said doxed, harassed, and threats of violence and actual violence.

Assemblymember's file, my bill doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement. If you would like to speak on the merits of this particular bill,

then the content of this bill. I'm happy to share that

Why do we have a double standard? Why do we have a double standard? You said that people who are doxed, harassed, threatened with violence deserve protection. And I think that's a laudable goal. Why do we not provide the same protection for the men and women who put on the uniform and do the job, a dangerous job every day and are sometimes are actually subjected to threats, doxing, and violence by the very groups that you now want to give anonymity to and privacy rights to.

I I think that the members of the public are gonna look at this bill and say, on the one hand, this legislature has passed bills doxing law enforcement, revealing their identities, and at the same time, the groups that are targeting them are now given protection. How do we explain the double standard?

Assembly member De Maio, that is a rhetorical question because it really has nothing to do with the nature of this bill.

And through the chair, can you But Could you clarify the actual law?

Okay. Just a second here. We're gonna speak to the merits of this bill. Mister De Maia, you have ample opportunity on this committee to express your views, but that's not a question for the author

Okay. To

opine on.

So let's continue. We won't get an we won't be able to explore the double standard, and that's fine. But I wanted to point that out in case I was missing something here, in case we suddenly decided we were gonna apply the same standards and protections and privacies for law enforcement. Does this apply to a Somali leering center?

In 06/2011, you define a designated immigration support services facility as a facility where immigration support services are provided, including but not limited to nonprofit offices, Department of Justice recognized entities, community legal clinics, law offices, accredited representative sites that provide immigration legal services, and health care facilities.

The Somali leering centers that were the subject of a national outcry on fraud, could they not be defined? Could they not fall under the definition that you've provided that if a citizen journalist or if CBS News that just showed up at a building looking at fake hospices in LA showed up at some of these so called service providers and was investigating waste, fraud, and abuse and took video of the offices and questioned Mister De Maio,

I believe that your question is is would those facilities qualify under the bill? And let's ask that question and reserve your time for your opinion afterwards.

In your scenario, assembly member Domenic D'Amayo, the the folks who were investigating that is were reporters, journalists. They were not subjecting any particular organization to violence or threats of violence. That is the nature of this bill.

No. Okay. So let me draw your attention. The reason why I wanted to establish that because in section six two one eight.one nine, it says a person, business, or association shall not knowingly publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute on the Internet websites or social media. The personal information which relates to the worksite, those fake hospices that my colleagues so diligently and effectively helped reveal in Los Angeles, or the Leering Center that mister Shirley revealed in Minnesota.

Quote, any image of any designated immigration support services provider. You just acknowledge that those organizations would fall under the definition of designated immigration support services provider.

It's only gonna be in my

own Let me finish. Acknowledge I acknowledge just to clarify, because you're mischaracterizing what I supposedly acknowledged. What I acknowledged was that under the scenario that you offered, that individuals who were investigating were journalists. This this bill has ensures that we protect lawful free speech and Well,

hold on a second.

Opportunity for criticism.

Hold on a second. You do not provide an exemption for journalists. You also do not distinguish between whether posting video, like miss Macedo, in her investigation, posted a video of, what, 90 fake hospices, and mister Shirley had dozens or, you know, fifty, sixty fake leering centers for the Somali community in Minnesota. Posting the video apparently would be punishable under your law. Are you aware of those provisions?

In this bill, applicants have to show evidence of threats, harassment, or violence. In the scenario that you've offered, neither of those things were trying

to be done.

Not under six two one eight point one nine. Now, you may want to amend your bill to clarify that, but six two one eight point one nine. Let's make it quite clear. Miss Macedo would be sued. She'd be subject to sanction if she showed up at these groups and said that somehow waste, fraud, and abuse was occurring, which I think is a matter of public import, which is certainly within her rights as a legislator on behalf of her constituents in California taxpayers.

But if she posted that video, she'd be in violation arguably of six two one eight.one nine.

I I actually don't think so. As I remember

It's your bill, and it's what it says.

Under that under that scenario, miss Macedos, apologies for invoking your name into this particular example, would be operating in her role and purpose as a legislator. She would be offering and in in conducting investigation and an opportunity to provide insight or opinion about

So politicians are exempted?

About a particular action.

Is it because she's a legislator that she gets exempted? I'm trying to figure

out what she gets exempted.

I think wait a second. Okay. Mister DeMaio, you have made your points very clear. You're very concerned about the interpretation. The author has explained that there's a difference in this situation as it relates to whether somebody is under threat of violence.

We've made these points clear. Do you have anything further that you wanna discuss?

Well, if that is your intent, then I think you have to clarify six two one eight point one nine at a minimum. I will say this. This is not about protecting people from violence. This is about threatening and intimidating people who are trying to shine a light on bad behavior. If you have nothing to hide, why fear the transparency?

But I will tell you this, the transparency is coming. You can threaten people that we're gonna fine you for taking video of the misdeeds that some of these groups are doing, but it won't pass this First Amendment rights protections that the Supreme Court affords every citizen. You can try to bully them, miss Bonta, but it will not

Mister DeMaio, let's speak with Decorin to our colleagues, please. Assembly member Wilson.

Thank you, chair. I have some questions for the assembly member. I appreciate you bringing this forward, but I just wanna clarify, something that my colleague said as it relates to law enforcement. It is my understanding that you cannot get a law enforcement's address. You cannot get their home address in any way, shape, or form currently by law, and that protections allows identifying somebody's name is not the same, which you can identify a person's name, any person's name, no matter where they work.

But as far as their address or even, quote, unquote, where they work, is not identifiable by law. Now you can go to a police station and probably find a law enforcement there or sheriff's department or whatever law enforcement agency is, but you can't identify that person. You can know their name, but you can't know where they work or, where their address is. That is shielded.

And as I understand it and I wanna clarify, you are wanting basically, under this safe haven, you're wanting to add those in immigration services that have had documented threats.

You're wanting to have that same protection for them that that individual's home or workplace could be shielded. Is that correct?

Thank you. Yes.

And is the organization is itself so so we're just gonna say, Laurie's immigration services. Right? And so if I have a business, immigration services, that is a public address. Correct? Yes.

But if an employee named Sarah who worked for me and had a threat of violence, she could be shielded where if you look her up, you would not be able to find her home or Lori's immigration services address associated with her. Is that the correct authorization? Yes. Was there anything else that's been said that you would like to provide clarity to that was inaccurate in any way, shape, form that you think needs clarity, not just for the members of this committee, but for the members

of the public? Thank you so much, assembly member. Aye, take umbrage at the insinuation I am somehow bullying anybody with this bill. In fact, what we are seeking to do is ensure that people who are doing the good work of serving our most vulnerable populations, don't have to yield to being targeted and bullied themselves and threatened with violence. This bill is a model after assembly member awards bill, which ensured that we had the ability to do that for, people who were serving LGBTQ community members.

This essentially applies that applicate applies that to, immigration legal services and immigration service organizations and the individuals who work there. And I also just wanna be clear, we don't need to agree on immigration policy. This bill asks us to understand the nature of violence and threats and intimidation, and that that has no place in our lives.

It's also important to make a distinction between somebody who is, providing, an opportunity to understand, observe, become aware or provide public information about an organization that is a far cry from having to be subjected to violence, intimidation, and doxing of one's personal information.

Thank you so much for that clarity. I appreciate it. And with that, I'd like to move the bill.

Second. Moved by Assemblymember Wilson, seconded by Assemblymember Pellerin. Mister Ward.

Thank you. I really wanna thank the author for bringing forward this bill.

You know, it is not lost on me, that if we were not living in a culture that was continuously facilitating and targeting vulnerable populations, that we would not be be be revisiting this question because the very effective safe at home program, which you are seeking to add value to or you're seeking the resource because we have a new heightened and documented incidence of vulnerable population who are our neighbors and members of our community needs to be a resource to be able to shield them from violence.

And this originates because of an intentional and targeted classification of our neighbors that are being threatened and violence akin to victims of domestic violence, akin to victims of sexual violence, akin to, yes, members of the LGBTQ community because of political violence perpetuated, on on onto them.

And so I hope this will be the last of the kinds of bills that we would need to see the the more than twenty year old save at home program be afforded to be able to protect a vulnerable population of Californians.

I'm not naive to believe that it's not gonna be the last given the culture of divisiveness, hatred, targeting, that we see permeating our country. But I wanna thank you for recognizing that people that are doing good work out in our community, who are committed to that, are gonna be having some protection afforded by the state through your bill, to be able to allow them to fulfill their life mission, and be active members of our community.

And I'd be honored to be a co author of your bill.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Patterson.

Great. Thank you, mister chair. I have a question, for your witness, if that's okay. You you had mentioned, people going to a place of work and and on one occasion, place of home and harassing, an employee and, you know, sorry to hear about that. I was curious about, what that conduct was, what was harassing about it.

I think don't don't mention being at home. I think that's a whole different ballgame. But in terms of place of work, what was harassing about that?

Our one example, there's many. We received a lot of hate calls, a lot of threats of violence against our organization, the people named I'm personally named consistently, and the threats of violence are extreme. And so, of course, we work with law enforcement and others when those threats come through. It's very consistent. But we also have individuals that are showing up, to our place of work.

Our staff, just recently, they were just going out to lunch. People out, outside asking for their names, asking for asking them questions, just really attacking their ability to move from from one place to another, trying to get into our office. And so we just see those kind of threats on the individual side. When, it, you know, it happened to me and happened to a family member. They were looking for me, ended up in my mother's home.

And so it's just really a situation that is is very scary. What kind of questions, you know, we have a monolingual English speaker who is being asked all sorts of things about their daughter. So these are the kind of things that we cannot continue to have. I'm not the only one. There's so many of my colleagues, whose, who individuals have shown up to their home, who have been threatened, and this is not just our organization, but many others.

We're willing to have a conversation about and and engage on the issues. I think it is a step too far to then way far to then start threatening individuals with violence, And that's what what's actually happening. Violence, and again, both rhetorical, but also, very consistent individuals who are literally getting in the way of people even being able to move.

The other thing that I just really wanna say is that what we're asking when we talk about transparency, when we're thinking about officers, ICE officers, others, all we're asking for is for them to identify themselves like any other local law enforcement does. That's all we're doing.

Here, what we're just saying is, we'll identify ourselves. We work for the public. We will do that, but we are not willing to have you harass us in our in the privacy of our home.

Alright. Well, thank you. I wouldn't go down that that path on that in in terms of identification of ICE because it was mentioned by, you know, the author and the chairs is a different policy issue and might get some other emotions Of course. On that. But, you know, I you know, my feelings on this, and I'm gonna raise some legitimate policy issues, and they can choose to be addressed or not.

But generally speaking, I think, you know, data brokers I think people just generally have a right to privacy. I don't care, you know, what position they're in. I think data brokers do bad things. You know, I think, also that, you know, the the threats of violence are already illegal, by the way, and I think you have a right to, protection from that. I think it's always wrong.

Any threats of violence against anybody is always wrong, 100% of the time. And I also don't believe people should have a right to disrupt places of work. And when I say disrupt, I mean, actually stopping the work from being performed. Because I do think people actually and this is kind of a concern I have of the bill is sort of is the definition in the bill, which I think comes from other, programs like this on what harassment means, including, written correspondence.

Because I think, you know, going to a place of work and, like, going into the office and and things like that, I think, you know, is is kind of a step too far.

And I think anybody in their place of work has a right to not people, you know, interfere with doing the work, and that would include, you know but also I think people should be allowed to protest them and pick at them and voice their opinions, you know, whether that's an abortion clinic or a pro life clinic. People should be allowed to express their views on those positions, including the work that you do.

People should be allowed to show up to support or oppose the work that you're doing. So I think, you know, dialing in, you know, the definition of harassment. But my and I also don't think your your place of residence should be public.

I mean, I think I think everybody's place of like, I have a concern generally of places of residence being out there, you know, for anybody. I think it's an issue.

But but the pictures part, I do have kind of concern with because, you know, if you're if if you're in a public setting especially and you're, you know, doing some kind of, like, fair or open public event or something like that and somebody's out there and recording, I mean, you know, it's a lot different than just putting putting your your your place of residence up, for example. I think those are two completely different things, you know, and it can be scary.

My picture's all over the place.

You know? In fact, there was quite of a heated heated hearing yesterday that I was at that, you know, when I walked out, it wasn't necessarily a friend a friendly crowd, you know. So I I think the public persona and the public image, I think we really have to I would take that out of the bill. It's actually it's a reason why I I can't support the bill today. But but last thing is publication of the workplace.

I think I mean, I I think the intent is to shield that information, but actually, I I kinda disagree with that. A residence is one thing. Residence is one thing. But your place of where you work, I don't know. I can't I I think people have a right to associate.

I think people have a right to protest. I think, you know, putting that information online as well as our images, unfortunately, you know, when we're doing public work, when we're doing public service, I mean, that's something that,

you know,

people have a right to do. You know? It's scary, but I it's hard to restrict that. So that's just my feeling on it. I don't think you should be harassed.

I don't think people should be coming in your office. I don't think people should be threatening you with violence, But I think people have a right to protest and express their opinion. And that's just my my view on it. So so I appreciate you answering the questions for me. And and, you know, I can't be supporting it because I do think it infringes on on those rights.

But, but thank you. And if the author wants to respond to that, obviously, she can.

Thank you, Assemblymember Patterson. I agree with the fact that the the ideal of protecting our first amendment freedoms, people should be able to express their views. I think the distinction that, needs to be made in, are twofold. One, there is a different difference between a public individual or entity organization and a private individual or organization that is doing work that supports the public good. There's a distinction to me me there.

And, and I think that that is a very important thing. I don't think that people who are working in, in immigrant serving organizations by fiat of the fact that they are working for immigrants, should be targeted in their private as as private individuals, and this essentially affords them the ability to be shielded and protected from from any violent actions.

You know, and I I I don't know if I really disagree with what you said, but, you know, I I just think of, you know, examples. I remember during, you know, the the banking crisis, you know, people going outside of banks and protesting bankers and, you know, and and, unfortunately, there were instances of violence as well. And, you know, those are private entities too, but I you know, it was such a public, you know, situation we had.

And I do I think people should be allowed to protest that and go outside the bank of whatever building and hold up signs and be upset with the situation they find themselves in? Yeah.

I you know, I and even if they disagree with the policies or things like that, I I don't know. I I mean, I get what you're saying. I just

I I don't even think that we are saying different things, perhaps. Seven year old's sense of fairness and justice, you attack the issue and not the person. That's fundamentally what this bill is intending to do.

Assembly member Pellerin.

So just, you know, the the image question here. Is it true that the bill is really just saying if you publish the image with the intent to cause bodily harm or to threaten, it's not just somebody's image out there for other purposes.

Yeah. Thank you for making that delineation, Assemblymember Pellerin. It very much focuses on on the intent to commit harm.

Any other comments? Assembly member Brian.

I was here for the presentation of this bill and then the first set of comments, and then I had to present in a different committee. The fact that we are still talking about it means some wildly inflammatory things were likely continued continued after I left. I just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It's important that people who are working to provide legal aid and basic support for Californians who are being targeted are protected themselves from being targeted.

And we afford these kind of protections to many, many other folks and especially public servants like law enforcement who have their identities protected through the California PRA process where they do not have sensitive information.

That is like, I know that because I've run a number of pieces of legislation around police disclosure of misconduct, all of which still protects the personal private identification of our law enforcement. The fact that we have community based workers who tirelessly and selflessly give themselves day in and day out to the support of the most fragile among us is honorable. The fact that they're being targeted by the president and members of his administration in this moment is shameful and sad.

This shouldn't be law in California because we shouldn't need it. The fact that we do speaks to how important it is that we pass it.

And I'm sure there's a motion in a second. I would like to add a third and happy to be a co author if you'll have me.

Assembly member Ortega.

I just again, I mean, I've my colleagues have already said everything that needs to be said. I just, again, wanna thank you, for bringing this bill forward. And I wish we didn't need this kind of bill, but the reality is that we do. That every day our communities are faced with threats, with, you know, things lies that are dangerous. And those who are providing the services at a time when we need them the most should not live in fear of going to work.

And I commend you for bringing this bill forward, and we'll be supporting it today. Thank you.

Okay. Things like looks like we're all done here. Aye, first of all, wanna say how proud I am of you for bringing this forward, and I would like to be added as coauthor on this bill as well. I wanna commend everybody that spoke on this bill today, from both sides of the aisle, even my friend from San Diego, who I've had very vulnerable conversations with, mister De Maio, at times where you have felt insecure, and I have been extremely concerned about your safety.

And we have talked about that in detail.

And, the comments that you made, my my colleague from Rockland, which ultimately lends itself to the very same thing, which is when there is ever a threat of violence to anybody who is working in the public sphere is inappropriate and is the obligation of government to make sure that that does not come to pass. And we are living in a time of deep division and increased political violence, not to mention the attacks on our immigrant communities.

And I think adding people who provide support for this community in particular since that's what we're addressing in this committee today. Yeah. It it it it's it's part of the Secretary of State's safe at home program provides important level of protection for those who

are being

threatened. California is a sanctuary state. That is the law. We have passed a number of laws over the last decade to help ensure that immigrant communities are protected, have access to legal services, and supportive services that they need to thrive in California. In order to continue serving as sanctuary state, the people who provide those critical services need to be protected too so that they can continue to do their work safely.

One thing that was raised in the analysis is the fact that we live in a time of mass surveillance, which makes it very difficult for people to protect information about where they live, who their families are, the school their children's attend, other potentially dangerous information in these situations.

Going forward, Assemblymember Bonta, you may wish to consider whether requiring the secretary of state to inform individuals in the program of adding additional privacy rights under the state's laws, including the Delete Act, and how to exercise those rights would further the goals of this bill. With that, I'm very happy to support today. We do have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, will you please call the roll?

Oh, excuse me.

I respectfully request your eyeball.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Madam Secretary.

Item number six, AB 2624 by Assemblymember Bonta. The motion is do passed as amended, to the Judiciary Committee. Lowenthal.

Aye.

Lowenthal, aye. Macedo?

No.

Macedo, no. Brian? Brian, aye. DeMeo? No.

DeMeo, no. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Erwin?

Aye. Erwin, aye. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye.

Ortega?

Aye.

Ortega, aye. Patterson? Patterson not voting. Pellerin? Aye.

Pellerin, aye. Petri Norris? Aye. Petri Norris, aye. Ward?

Aye. Ward, aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Wicks, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

Okay. That bill is out with 11 votes.

Thank you.

And two no votes. Okay. We need to catch up on our voting. Let's begin with consent. We'll begin with consent calendar, madam secretary.

And for the consent calendar, Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Wicks? Aye.

Wicks, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. It's out 15-0.

That bill is out 15-0.

Item number two, AB 1744 by Assembly Member Addis. The vote is 12, 0. [Roll Call]

That bill is out 15 to 0.

Item number three, AB 1861 by Assembly Member Lackey. The vote is 12, 0. [Roll Call]

That bill is out 15 to 0.

Item number eight, AB 2143 by Assembly Member Irwin. The vote is 12, 0. [Roll Call]15 to 0.

That bill is out 15 to 0. Privacy committee is hereby adjourned.