Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Good morning. My script says good afternoon. But we're Today's a special day.

So we're holding this committee hearing in Room 2100 of the 0 Street Building. I ask that all members of the committee be present Room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. Before presentations on the bill today, I have some administrative announcements. Number one, we have we just have a few bills. We have 44 bills on the agenda today.

Eight are on the consent calendar. Those bills are as follows. File number eight SB 927 by Senator Choi with amendments. File number 13 SB 1256 by Senator Jones. File number 17 SB 1357 by Senator Ochoa Bogue.

Filon number 24 SB 1192 by Senator Rubio with amendments. File number 28, SB 145 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. File number 30, SB 916 by Senator Ashby. File number 39, SB 1387 by Senator Stern. And finally, file number 40, SB 1174 by Senator Valadares.

Alright. Some other administrative announcements. File number one, SB 982 by Senator Weiner, which was in committee last week and failed passage but was granted reconsideration. Should it be heard today or should it come up today, it will not come up this morning, that there will not be any testimony. There will simply be a vote.

So there'll be no witnesses. There'll be no Me Too witnesses. There'll be no primary witnesses in support or opposition. The only action today will be an up or down vote on the bill. We're gonna hear bills until approximately noon, at which time we'll break for our respective caucuses, and then we will recommence at 01:30, thirteen thirty for you military folks.

And then we'll come back here to Room 2100 and hear the rest of the bills. The ground rules are the same today as they have been. That means that there'll be two primary witnesses in support, and there'll be two primary witnesses in opposition. Each of the two witnesses in support will be provided two minutes testimony, and each of the two witnesses in opposition the same, two minutes each.

After that, we'll ask the support witnesses to come to the microphone and give us their name, their affiliation, and their, position on the bill.

We'll do the same thing for opposition. Two opposition witnesses, then others who wish to provide me to testimony come to the microphone, give us their name, their affiliation, and their position on the bill. Today, there are a number of hearings in in the Senate, and such I have to depart myself and I'm gonna turn the gavel over to Senator Laird. We will commence as a subcommittee and I see we have a few authors here which is fortunate.

So with that, Senator Laird, if you would take the gavel, I'd be most grateful. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We're going to go in order. And so item number two, Senate bill 1112 by Senator Archuleta. Please come to the podium, and when you're ready, you can begin.

Thank you, mister chair. And good morning to everyone.

No. Oh, you're waiting for people to get settled. We're gonna go for ten hours. So if you wait for people to get settled, you could be waiting all day.

K. Once again, good morning, mister chair and committee members. I'm here to present Senate bill eleven twelve. I'd like to start off by thanking the committee for their work on this measure and to bring this version forward with the amendments accepted. The bill is in front of you as a small but necessary consumer protection measure targeted to bad actors in the towing industry.

Under current law, tow yards and vehicle storage facilities are required to post a notice of the fees they charge for towing and storage. This notice must be easily readable and visually for the consumer at these businesses. Senate bill eleven twelve increases the fines associated with violations of notice requirements from two to three times the amount charged to the consumer with a cap of $1,000.

I am continuing to work with all the stakeholders on this bill and plan to continue discussions over the next few weeks and months. Joining me today in support is Rosemarie Chauhan from Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, and John Mayhill on behalf of the Enterprise Rental Car Company.

Thank you. Welcome to the committee, and you have up to two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Laird and members. I'm Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. And I just note for the record that there are other groups that I work within a coalition that are in support. They got in their letter too late to be included in the analysis. And that's the Dolores Huerta Foundation, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Consumer Federation of California.

And all of the our groups recognize that the problem of bandit towing is a serious problem in in California. Just a few samples of the headlines that have been are being made and have been made around the state. There are rogue towers that listen to the radio signals of vehicle safety services like OnStar, respond to a crash on the side of the road, impersonate the safety service, and then charge thousands of dollars to consumers for if they wanna get their car back.

And as you know, most people are they have to have their car to keep their life together. Right?

They called the victim of the Eaton fire claiming to be authorized by the local government to remove their car from their property and then basically held it from ransom. Listening to police scanners, responding to a 911 call, pretending to be affiliated with emergency response and doing the same thing. And there have been instances where tow companies illegally towed vehicles from Camp Pendleton in violation of the Service Members Civil Relief Act. And the list goes on, you know, very often targeting vulnerable communities.

And we're hoping that the bill will move forward. And if it gets out of this committee, we look forward to having a constructive dialogue with the more legitimate, reputable tow companies, to help consumers get their cars back without having to go through a prolonged legal process.

Thank you very much. And your next witness, you have up to two minutes.

Thank you, mister chair and members. My name is John McHale. I'm here on behalf of Enterprise Mobility. First, I'd just like to say, that we concur with everything said by cars before us. We're here just to give a little bit of context in terms of numbers and the business perspective on the issue of Rogue Towers.

The leading as a leading rental car company, Enterprise Mobility has deep experience with existing rental car law. We have existing relationships with local law enforcement, CHP, the DMV. We're, well resourced to fight bad actor towers. Despite all these advantages, we're still seeing our vehicles being targeted by rogue towers. We're seeing the problem increase in scope.

So when our Southern California office first started analyzing this problem in 2023, we saw 74 vehicles taken by these operations. In 2025, the the problem had more than doubled to over a 160. Now, the average payout that we end up giving to these vehicles is, about $4,000, but that's after several days of difficult and intense negotiation. So it is not uncommon to see the starting point for these fees to be in the tens of thousands of dollars for just a few days of storage.

At this moment in time, just in Southern California alone, we have five vehicles being held for between 10 and $20,000.

Now, that's what they're willing to do to a large multinational company like Enterprise to just imagine what they are doing to everyday consumers. This bill makes sure that vehicle owners are kept aware of some of their rights and some of the limitations on what their fees can look like when the vehicle is towed. More importantly, it keeps the conversation alive about what else can be done to prevent these rogue towers from taking advantage of vehicle owners. Thank you. Really appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. This would be the opportunity for Me Too testimony in support of the bill, which would be your name, your organization, and that you actually support the bill. Seeing no one, we will move to the opposition. Is there anybody that wishes to be a primary witness here? You have up to two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Pat Whalen, Ellison Wilson Agassiz here on behalf of the California Tow Truck Association. We were in opposition to the prior bill, but in light of the amendments, we're moving our position to support. We'd, really, are supportive of the proponents of this bill to try and crack down on the bad actors in the towing industry.

And this bill takes a small but important step of, increasing the penalties for some of the bad actions. A lot of the, incidents that were mentioned by the supporters are already illegal. The problem for years has been a lack of enforcement. So we look forward to working with the author to try and get at the bad actors and thank thank the author for the, the amendments.

Is there anybody else under opposition that wants to support the bill?

Just re remove, good morning, mister chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Official Police Garages of Los Angeles. We did submit an oppose unless amended. We thank the author and his staff, the sponsors, and your chief counsel for working on these amendments. We've just removed our opposition.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody in opposition to do a Me Too opposition. Your name, your organization, and that you oppose the bill. Seeing no one, we will bring it back to the committee.

We do not have a quorum, but this is a chance for questions or comments. Senator Niello.

Very quick question. I was arrived here while you were presenting. Did you articulate what the amendments are?

The amendments, what we were trying to do to begin with was, to make sure that anyone who has legally obtained a vehicle without the consent of the owner, as an example, a vehicle that off the side of the road and we've had problems where bad apples, tow trucks would pull up and indicate that they were sent there by the police or the AAA or OnStar, some way. So, of course, the consumer said, sure. Take the vehicle.

And they'd it would be taken to the yard and time would go on and they wouldn't be able to get the car back.

And the bill went up from 2 to 3 to 4, to $5,000 to get the car back. So the insurance companies were obviously hurt by all this. Those amendments were taken out of the bill. This bill is strictly posting to let the consumer know the fees. And if the tow yard doesn't post it, yes, it's capped at a thousand dollars.

Consumers should know what is about to take place. That's where the amendments have taken place and that's where we're at now. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the rest of the members of the committee? Senator Durozo.

I I just wanna thank the author for bringing the bill forward and, you know, keeping consumers, you know, as a top consideration for what's going on out there. Just people, not only can they not afford it, it's just outright terrible to abuse people in the way that that they have been.

So, you know, the the everyday consumer, not to mention what it could have, the impact it could have on these companies, but rather the everyday consumer should be the at the core of the stakeholders that we listen to. So thank you very much and I guess I can't move. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. We don't have a quorum yet and I wanna thank you for bringing the bill. I know the chair is supportive with the amendments and at the appropriate time when we have a quorum, we would have a vote. Would you like to close?

Yes. Once again, this is a consumer protection bill and I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. We'll move to item number three, which is Senate bill eleven forty two, Senator Becker. I saw Senator Becker here. When you're ready when you're ready, Senator Becker, please present.

Thank you. I wanna thank, first, the committee and, the staff for their work on this issue. I will be accepting the committee amendments. At the beginning this year, Elon Musk's social media company, X, and it's the company AI system, Grok, was used to generate pornographic content of real people, including children. That system was released without regard for the well-being of the users or the legality of the content being generated.

As AI becomes integrated with social media, some companies are reverting to a growth at all costs mindset at the expense of the dignity dignity, reputation, and privacy of Californians. Early in 2024, an employee at a UHK engineering company, Arup, was tricked into transferring over $25,000,000 to fraudsters after attending a video conference call where every other participant, including the CFO, was actually a digital replica.

And finally, in December, nineteen year veteran of Washington State, paratrooper, or sorry, Washington State patrol trooper brought forth a suit alleging a pattern of harassment by other officers wherein they circulated an AI generated video which mocked his sexuality and falsely depicted him engaging intimate contact with other officers. These stories tell a clear message. We're entering a new era where anyone's face or voice can be replicated and used to defame, extort, harass, or defraud them.

SB 1142 is about protecting California's dignity and preventing their likeness from being weaponized against them. The bill establishes common sense obligations for large online platforms and deters bad actors who seek to abuse Californians using their digital replica. Here with me today, I have Jay from the Jay from the Transparency Coalition to provide testimony and answer any questions.

Welcome. You have up to two minutes.

Thank you, chair and members of the committee. My name is Jay Jesima, and I'm here to urge your aye vote on SB 1142. I'm testifying in support of 1142 as the cofounder of Transparency Coalition. We're an independent nonprofit which advocates for increased transparency and accountability in generative AI. We're proud to act as sponsors as a bill.

We're currently facing an epidemic of nonconsensual digital likeness abuse as the Senator stated. Bad actors are increasingly using AI to create digital replicas which are highly realistic deep fakes used for harassment, extortion, and misinformation. Today's victims are often trapped in illegal no man's land. When an AI generated intimate image of a high school student or a working professional is uploaded to a major platform, the victim currently has virtually no recourse to get regain control.

SP 1142 addresses some of these issues by creating clear penalties that strengthens civil and criminal penalties for those who knowingly distribute harmful digital replicas for the purposes of defamation, false impersonation, or unauthorized commercial gain.

And it requires platforms to implement forty eight hour takedown regimes similar to the federal take it down act upon receiving valid reports of likeness abuse, ensuring that harm is mitigated before it becomes permanent. Valid reports of likeness abuse are subject to a judicial ruling or finding before they must be addressed by the platform. To those who say this is technically impossible, the tools to manage this already exist.

Platforms already use robust content moderation systems for copyright and child safety material, and SB 1142 simply requires applying the same rigorous standards to digital replicas. Mandating a revoke mechanism and a reporting portal is a straightforward engineering task.

Dignity should not be a casualty of innovation. SB 1142 provides a robust legal tools California's need to protect their digital selves. I strongly urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other primary witnesses, this would be the opportunity for Me Too support in this bill. Name, organization, and that you support the bill. Seeing no one moving to the mic, we will move to opposition. I don't know if there's anybody that is a primary, witness. Welcome. You have up to two minutes.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Melissa Patack with the Motion Picture Association. On behalf of our member companies, members of the committee, thank you, for the opportunity to testify today and for the very productive meetings we've had with the author, with the author staff, and with the committee staff. We appreciate the amendments recommended by the committee and the author's acceptance of the amendments. Many of them do align with the concerns MPA has raised.

We have two outstanding issues. So we're in a oppose unless amended, and we expect conversations to be ongoing. We remain opposed to creating a new section of the civil code included as section four in the bill. This section penalizes technology, the the use of a digital replica without connecting it to a harm caused. Enhanced penalties should really be focused on the harms that may be caused.

Additionally, the committee amendments, to section four create duplicate statutory damages for violations of right of the right of publicity laws, in sections thirty three forty four for the living and thirty three forty four point one, for the deceased. Those sections of law already provide statutory damages. And for both, as I said, the living and the deceased, these existing violations should not be covered by new enhanced damage provisions. As you might imagine, our member companies are perceived as deep pocketed defendants.

And, including additional statutory damages makes those who may be asserting a claim more aggressive in seeking a a settlement.

And so that's why we'd like to keep the damages as is in the current law. Separately, we think subsection d is unnecessary and confusing as its language that would be tied to a right of publicity law and not just as simply a simple damage provision sort of hanging out in the bill. We've like I said, we've had very productive discussions. I expect they will continue, and we appreciate the author's consideration and the committee's consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for Me Too's in opposition, which is is there a second lead witness?

Thank you, Senator Laird. In opposition, yes.

In opposition? You have up to two minutes.

I don't know how far this is gonna reach, so I might be just bent over here. But good morning, Senator Laird, members of the committee. Aidan Downey representing the Computer and Communications Industry Association. I'd like to begin by extending our sincere gratitude to Senator Becker, chair Umberg, and the committee staff for their work in addressing several of our concerns with the bill. We appreciate the amendments, which shift the bill towards a more constitutionally sound framework.

Specifically, we thank the author for the reporting mechanism amendments. Some of the clarity there by requiring a certified court order or judgment to trigger the forty eight hour removal requirement. The bill now better respects the First Amendment principles that speech should not be compelled for removal without, prior judicial determination. We also appreciate the amendments that clarify the enhanced liability only applies when a person distributes a digital replica with actual knowledge and is subsequently found liable for defamation or guilty of criminal false impersonation.

While these changes represent a positive step forward, our coalition, remains in an oppose unless amend position due to several outstanding issues.

Removing a piece of content within forty eight hours is still a timeline we think can cause problems. There may need to be a longer time frame for the service to review the validity or scope of the court order before removing any content. We continue to believe that liability should be strictly targeted at bad actors who maliciously exploit a person's likeness rather than the intermediaries or tool providers who lack intent or knowledge of the specific misuse.

We're still reviewing the new reporting requirements standards, but our initial reading, concerns are that adding another conspicuous, prominent, or easily accessible reporting mechanism inherently degrades all the other reporting mechanisms that have that same requirement. So we're we're excited to continue to work with the Senator on that, but we appreciate the progress made to align this bill with existing California protections and constitutional requirements.

We look forward to continuing our dialogue with the Senator to ensure, eleven forty two protects Californians. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Now, this would be the opportunity for somebody to do a Me too in opposition name organization and that you oppose the bill.

Thank you. Ronak Daylami with Cal Chamber, also oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Robert Putkin with Technet. I oppose unless amended position.

Thank you. Mister chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else moving to the microphone, I'll bring the matter back to the committee. Are there questions or comments? Senator Niebuhl. And Senator Laird, you are doing a fine job as chair and I have a bill

up in elections once they get past the special consideration also, so I'd have to leave then. Perhaps this was addressed but the the the the true offender is the person that posts the content, not the platform itself, it would seem to me. So what would you say to that,

Senator Becker?

Well, with the committee amendments, this the removal trigger is is only by certified court order or judgment. The platform must remove content and known internal copies of forty eight hours. So we've we went from kind of a a a a a user reporting to a certified court order judge, and we think that's a fair standard.

Okay. Thank you.

Anything else from committee members? Then let me ask if if I know that you've taken amendments. The amendments were praised by some of the opponents, but they still have remaining issues. Could you speak to the remaining issues that they raised?

Yeah. I will have to review, a few of those was was was taking notes here. Excuse me, but I know we've had extensive discussions just in the last few days with my team and the committee and the opposition. So, you're certainly committed to to continuing those. I have to look at the section for concerns and, you know, concerns about sort of a, you know, any any sort of duplicate, you know, duplicate I'm not saying reporting, but, you know, kind of duplication duplication issues. So we'll look at those.

And which which is your way of saying you will continue to work Exactly. There's a way with Yeah. The opponents. For sure. Thank you.

I know that the chair has recommended an aye vote based on the amendments that that that did come in. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Extensive work with my team and and mention the opposition of the committee. Really appreciate that.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I think this is gonna help advances to our digital ecosystem driven by respect, accountability, and trust. And I ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. And we are subcommittee now. And at such time as we do have a quorum, we will catch up on the the bills that we have heard and have yet to take action on. So thank you very much. Okay.

Thank you. The next two bills are both by Senator Blakespear. The first one is Senate Bill 989. It has to do with the care court program. Welcome to the committee.

Whenever you're ready, please, present.

Well, thank you, Chair, Senator Laird acting as Chair, and hello, Committee members. Just want to make sure that my witnesses are in the room. Okay, good. I'm pleased to author SB 989, which is sponsored by the California Professional Firefighters. This bill would expand access to Care Court and help more Californians with schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders receive the care that they need.

Care Court was created to provide a structured coordinated pathway to treatment for individuals with severe mental illness who are too often cycling through emergency rooms, jail, and repeated law enforcement encounters. While early implementation shows promise, barriers in the current petition process are preventing the program from reaching many of the individuals it was designed to serve. Early implementation data has shown that the system is not reaching everybody that it could serve. Through 06/30/2024, there were five fifty seven petitions filed to care court statewide.

Of those, two seventeen were dismissed and only 100 individuals that's just eighteen percent ultimately developed treatment and housing plans.

Today, first responders are often the first point of contact for individuals in crisis, but under current law, they must navigate a complex court filing process, obtain sensitive medical records, and appear in court to initiate a court care petition. As a result, many individuals who would benefit from care court are never connected to the program. SB 989 creates a more practical and effective pathway by allowing first responders to request that county behavioral health agencies review and file care petitions on their behalf.

Counties are required to assess these requests within thirty business days and determine whether to file a petition when eligibility criteria are met or or likely to be met. The bill also directs the Department of Health Care Services to develop a standardized referral form, provide guidance to first responders, and establish data reporting requirements to improve transparency and program performance.

This reduces it this will reduce administrative barriers, better align responsibilities with expertise, and ensure that individuals in crisis are connected to care not lost in the system. SB 989 builds on the promise of care court by making it more accessible, more accountable, and more effective. And with me today in support to testify testify, I have Megan Soopers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters Association.

And is that your only primary way Support? Well, great. Well, welcome to the committee. We have up to two minutes.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters and pleased to be a sponsor of SB 989. CPF and our local affiliates have been leading and evolving the local response framework to improve patient care and outcomes for individuals experiencing mental health crisis.

Our members are committed to this work, and I hear again and again, for them too often running 911 calls on individuals repeatedly and feeling like they can't connect, members to the, individuals to the care that they need. We've worked in this legislature to improve access to community paramedicine programs, mobile integrated health programs, and we see care as the next step, another tool in that toolbox for our locals.

When our members have to run these calls repeatedly on individuals and take them to the hospital knowing that they're gonna have to respond to that person again, my members tell me that they feel helpless. We see, this pathway as another option for them. You may have heard from some folks, who are gonna express concerns about the underlying law of of care and care act.

I think, from our perspective, if this process if there was a way to get, individuals the treatment that they needed prior to care, we would not have care act today. And so now that we have care act, we are committed to seeing implementation work, continuing to push these individuals to seek care through the EMS system is not sustainable and not fair to the person who needs help.

In terms of the CARE Act, we have some really good examples of counties and local jurisdictions working alongside EMS and fire personnel. Those firefighters have been trained and know understand the petition process. They show up at that first petition court date and have experience doing it at the local level. However, there's not, it is not being, done in a more systematic way across the state.

So we do have jurisdictions where the, local EMS personnel do not feel equipped to do the petitions themselves, have not received that, information and training at the local level.

And this bill is aimed at those jurisdictions, giving them the resources, to, provide the information that they know about that individual to the county and having the county follow-up and do the petition based on, their expertise at the county level with county social workers and the like. So for those reasons, we are pleased to be a sponsor of this bill and ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody, with a me too support of this bill. Name, organization, and that you support the bill.

Good morning. Theresa Pasquini, NAMI member, California ambassador for the treatment advocacy center, and most importantly, Danny's mom, who's been 5150 over 50 times. I'm proud to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Elizabeth Kaino Hopper, care court petitioner for my daughter and representative for family advocates of individuals with serious mental illness from Sacramento region, member of NAMI California, NAMI Sacramento. Thank you. I support this bill.

Thank you very much.

Mary Ann Bernard, also a member of NAMI, also a member of FAFSCME, families family advocates for individuals with serious mental illness, and I support this bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support?

I'm Alice Feller. I'm also with NAMI, and I'm a psychiatrist with decades of experience treating people with severe mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. It's important. It's really important to get people with early early signs.

This is just an opportunity for you to say you're in support of the bill.

I'm sorry

Yeah. That's okay. But you haven't said that yet. I assume

I support the bill.

Yes. Okay. Thank thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else, we'll move to opposition.

Is there anybody that is a primary witness in opposition to this bill? Welcome.

Thank you, chair and members. Samuel Jain with Disability Rights California. We apologize for getting our letter in late. We did oppose this bill in Senate Health, and we would like to share those same objections with this committee. Also, I wanna thank the author and sponsor for their engagement on this bill.

The recent amendments do move the bill in a better direction, but we still have concerns and are here in opposition. Well, we share the concerns of first responders that too many people are cycling through emergency services. Funneling people into care court is not the solution. We continue to expand and add cost to care court without fully understanding if it's actually working. The numbers from the Care Court annual report are not promising.

The report found over half, fifty six percent of care participants did not receive at least one ordered mental health service. Additionally, care participants are still suffering from adverse outcomes. During care court, twenty five of twenty five percent of participants had criminal justice involvement, twenty one percent visited an emergency department, twenty percent had inpatient hospitalizations, and twenty percent experienced an involuntary hold. Further, people in care court are not actually being housed.

The report found that twenty eight percent of care participants were unhoused during their active service period.

Lastly, the cost of care court is astronomical. The state is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this program without fully understanding the efficacy of the program. A report from the state legislature last year found the program cost $713,000 per participant. SB 989, this bill would add yet another process, more complexity, and more cost to an unproven program that's struggling to meet its basic goals. For these reasons, we ask your no vote on SB 989. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for any Me too opposition, to this bill. Name, organization, and the fact that you oppose the bill. Welcome.

Alright. Danny Thirakul with Mental Health America of California and also on behalf of Calvoices in opposition.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, and the Urban Counties of California, were opposed unless amended, but with the recent amendments, we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association. Wanted to echo the comments made by our county colleagues previously. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in Me Too opposition? Seeing none, we're gonna bring the matter back, to the committee for any questions or or comments. Senator Durazo?

I just wanna say I supported the health committee, supported the bill, and I think as either you said or the witness said, we had discussed a lot of issues that were related to Care Court and concerns and information that's needed. But that's really not what's before us. We're not deciding yes or no to go forward with Care Court. We're deciding a way to help make Care Court work. And that's the that's the way I see it being presented, so glad to support.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I oh, yes. Let me recognize the co author of the bill who's returned to the committee here.

Thank you.

And and the minute this bill is done, I'm giving you the gavel back.

Okay. I can't wait. Thank you, Senator Blakespear, for carrying the torch. I've heard the end of the opposition. This is care court is still a work in progress, and I appreciate you working to continue to improve the bill.

And I would expect that next year, there'll be a bill to improve it. And the year after that, there'll be a bill to improve it. But this is a new dynamic, and I realize that there are challenges, and I'm grateful for you, helping to meet some of those challenges and continue to improve the efficacy and the efficiency of of Care Court. With that, back to you, mister chair.

Thank you. Any any further questions or comments? Seeing none, you may close.

Yes. Thank you. I I just wanna, say, thank you to Senator DeRaza, who's now heard this in both committees, for putting her finger on exactly what this bill is doing, which is it's trying to make Care Court work better for first responders who are frequently interacting with a person who should be involved in Care Court. And I think the, the many problems with Care Court that were pointed out by the opposition are all things that we can work to fix.

And when I toured CareCourt in San Diego, most of those people were actually able to access housing through CareCourt.

And we're we're it's almost like winning the lottery because in the same way that somebody who gets, a housing voucher and finds a place to live, when somebody's connected to all the services that Care Core provides, they're able to be tremendously more supported than they were when they were living on the streets or in other, situations that were less ideal.

So so I think Care Court has a lot of things that could be improved, and this is one of them, the entrance points from first responders to make that, more systematized, standardized across the state, and to allow first responders to ask counties, to, review and file the care petition. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. And we are a subcommittee. And when we do have a quorum, I'm sure we'll take this up for a vote. And then the next item is yours, item number five, and I'm gonna give the gavel back to the chair to take the next part of the hearing.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Alright. File number five, SB 1016. Senator Blakespear, so the floor is yours.

Okay. Thank you. This is the second bill that's related to care court in some way. So thank you to the chair and committee, for your work on this measure. I will be accepting the committee's amendments.

I'm here today to present SB 1016, which bridges a gap in the Care Court system that leaves those with the most serious mental illness unconnected to care. Care Court was not designed for the most severe mental illnesses including those considered gravely disabled. Some people are dismissed from care court process entirely because their illnesses are too severe. When care court is not sufficient, there is no clear or reliable pathway to escalate care.

Existing law does allow for higher levels of intervention, but in practice, that pathway is difficult to access.

Under Section 5,200 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, courts can order a comprehensive mental health evaluation for individuals who are gravely disabled or a danger to themselves or others. This process requires counties to order the pre petition screening, and many do not have the processes in place to do so. As a result, individuals frequently end up routed through emergency rooms where assessments are limited to short term crisis decisions rather than comprehensive evaluation and care planning.

SB 1016 bridges this gap by allowing a petitioner to request that the court consider a higher level mental health evaluation if the individual is unable to participate due to the severity of their condition. SB 1016 does not create a new program or Expand Care Court.

Rather, it ensures that when Care Court can't take someone, the system does not stop there. SB 1016 strengthens Care Court by making it part of a true continuum of care and not a dead end. With me today in support, I have doctor Aaron Meyer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California San Diego, and Anne Marie Council, founding partner and mental health policy advisor with Quarter Turn Strategies.

Thank you. Doctor Meyer, floor is yours.

Good morning, Chair Umbert, members of the committee. Aaron Meyer, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, proud sponsor of Senate Bill ten sixteen. So the Care Act was designed to deliver treatment options to Californians with the most severe mental illnesses, according to the Judicial Council.

Those at risk of homelessness, incarceration, and repeated psychiatric crisis, But early data shows that some of the very people it was meant to serve are still being left behind. In February 2025, LA County reported that 29 petitions were dismissed because the individual was deemed unlikely to benefit and in need of a higher level of care.

Where are those 29 people now? In February 2026, San Diego County reported that 77 petitions were dismissed due to a lack of engagement or refusal of services. But after a court has already found a prima facie showing, that lack of engagement may reflect the illness itself. Where are those 77 people now? These are often the sickest individuals, people who are deteriorating and may be unable to survive safely in the community without greater support.

SB 1016 closes that gap. It allows petitioners to alert the court when care may not be enough And for a small number of people, create a true continuum of care so the sickest receive more help, not less. The Care Act already allows court ordered mental health evaluations when safety is at risk, but counties should not be able to avoid action simply because they have not reoperationalized an existing process. San Diego County, Riverside County, Humboldt County have all demonstrated that 5,200 can be used.

SB 1016 makes clear that the absence of process cannot justify inaction.

We should all be using every available tool to prevent the most vulnerable Californians from continuing to fall through the cracks. I respectfully ask for your I

vote. Perfect. Thank

you. Good morning, Chair Umberg and members of the committee. My name is Anne Marie Council. In addition to being a mental health policy adviser, I'm a retired senior deputy city attorney from San Diego. During my twenty five years as a DCA, I served on two drug court collaborative teams, developed criminal diversion processes for defendants living with mental illness, and served as legal counsel for first responders who were seeking care for the mentally excuse me, seeking mental health care for the most vulnerable.

I was proud to help draft SB 1016 because these changes are grounded in first hand experience. Without access to mental health treatment, I saw people living with severe mental illness commit felonies and become victims of violent crime because no programs could reach them. The Care Act was a welcome and necessary new step in California, but those with severe mental illness still fall through. The state's own data confirms it. Of the first 160 care dismissals, over fifty percent received no connection to mental health treatment.

Emergency departments were never designed to be the sole entry point for people with chronic grave disability, but that is where these individualies individuals repeatedly end up when every other door is closed. SB 1016 connects laws we already have. The voluntary care program remains the primary pathway, but those who cannot benefit from voluntary outreach alone would no longer be excluded. This bill is not about overriding a choice. It is about reaching someone who is too ill to make a safe one.

I worked alongside first responders who spent years trying to get help for the same individuals. I've seen families spend decades. Many of these individuals never received care. Some ended up in state prison, some died on the street. But not because no one tried, it was because there was no bridge.

SB 1016 is that bridge. I'm here speaking to you today because of those we strive to help. But more importantly, I'm here for those we were unable to help.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Alright. Others in support of SB1016, please approach microphone.

Hello. My name is Allison Monroe. I'm with a group called, Alameda County Families Advocating for the Seriously Mentally Ill. This is my daughter, Diana, who was in the system for the seriously mentally ill for eight or ten years and died of a fentanyl overdose a couple years ago. Yes.

I'm sorry for your loss, but I we've got a number of bills today. So Yeah. If you give us your name, your affiliation, and your

I support 1016.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm Teresa Pasquini. I'm an NAMI member. I am a member of the California Grave Disability Work Group, and, California ambassador for treatment advocacy center, and Danny's mom. Proud to support this bill.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Kaino Hopper of the Sacramento region. I'm a care Family Care Act petitioner. Experienced these gaps. Also, chair of family advocates with with other individuals with and their families, who have serious mental illness who proudly endorsed this bill. We ask for your support.

Thank you.

I'm Alice Feller, and, I let's see. Oh, yeah. I'm with NAMI, and I support this bill.

Thank you very much.

Lauren Retaliata, family member of the Care Act working group for the at the state level, a member of NAMI Contra costa, and a mom. I support 1016.

Thank you.

Mary Ann Bernard, NAMI member, Fazmi, family advocates for individuals with serious mental illness member, former assistant attorney general representing mental hospitals in another state. I support this bill except for proposed Section five two zero one b, which is an abomination Right. And should be taken out of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Katie Poloni, mom. I work for Behavioral Health in Alameda County. I'm a member of FAFSCME, Families Advocating for the Seriously Mentally Ill, and NAMI, and I emphatically support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jan LaPointe. I'm the family liaison at NAMI Contra Costa, and I've I support this bill ten sixteen, and I'm here representing the families I tried to help petition, but their family members were too sick to voluntarily engage. Thank you.

Allison Marantz. I'm a mom. I'm a member of FAFSCME. I'm also a member of the working group for the Care Act on data and transparency. Strongly believe in this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Gladys Lopez, Napanami, and a family member, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Deborah Hoffman, and I strongly support this bill. Lisa Schmidt with NAMI. Yes. We definitely need to bridge this gap. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of SB 1016, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1016, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, chair members. Samuel Jan with Disability Rights California. We haven't had an opportunity to review the recent amendments from the committee, but based on our our understanding, we we would still oppose this bill. We are here in opposition to SB 1016, which would permit care courts to order respondents into involuntary treatment. The bill would allow care courts to subject respondents to an evaluation under the LPS Act.

These evaluations take place in designated facilities and can be delayed for up to three days. So this bill would allow a care court judge, not a clinician, to order someone into a locked facility and wait up to three days before they see a provider. Our system has better ways to address people in mental health crisis. We have mobile crisis teams where an individual will immediately see a provider who may provide crisis intervention services that prevent the need for involuntary hospitalization altogether.

The legal mechanism that this bill expands is a mostly unused statutory relic from sixty years ago.

These petitions are unused because we have more accurate and cost effective ways to determine whether someone needs to be taken in, for involuntary treatment or for an for an evaluation. By creating a new pathway for involuntary treatment, this bill will increase the number of people placed on involuntary holds. Care Corp currently suffers from high costs and complexity and struggles to gain the buy in of the people that it's meant to serve. This bill will make all of those issues worse.

SB 1016 adds an expensive, coercive, and convoluted layer to Care Court that will drive up costs and further road the rights and trust of the Californians that our system is supposed to help.

For these reasons, we ask your no vote on SB 1016. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Others opposed to SB 1016, please approach microphone.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in respect opposition. We appreciate the forthcoming amendments, but still hold concerns over making a voluntary process in care court involuntary, but look forward to continued conversations with the author and sponsors.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett , on behalf of the Rural County representatives of California, the urban counties of California, and the California State Association of Counties. We're currently opposed reviewing the amendments, and look forward to continued dialogue to address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you.

Danny Thirakul with Mental Health America of California in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else opposed to SB 1016? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Questions or comments?

Yes. Yes. Senator Niello.

One quickly. I support both this bill and the previous bill. Mental illness is a contributor to our significant homeless challenge, mental illness and and substance abuse, and anything that will, get more people into treatment, is a good thing. And both of these bills seek to do that.

Thank you. Let me thank you again, and and I suppose I'll stipulate to the comments that I made in the earlier bill that this is also an important improvement. One of the challenges in Care Court that we've experienced is this gap, and the bill helps to fill that gap so that there are warm hand offs so that there's a continuum of care. A couple comments to those that are here that have participated in care court.

One of the challenges is that having lived experience in this space is that I I know families are desperate for something to help their family and those who are immediately impacted.

But the entire family is impacted by mental illness. And it is a huge challenge. A huge challenge. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to provide a structure so that we can have these folks who, have schizophrenia, bipolar disorder with with psychotic features, who sadly many people think that they can never become productive members of society. And that is not true.

If they receive proper treatment, they certainly can become productive members of society and so that's what we're about. That's what Care Court 's about. So, I appreciate I appreciate that Senator Blake's here and I appreciate all the families that are here And I appreciate the patience of the families who have loved ones who have schizophrenia or psychotic or excuse me, bipolar with psychotic features. I appreciate their understanding and their patience. So with that, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Well, I appreciate your comments, Chair, and I also appreciate your comments, Vice Chair. I I just wanna, say thank you to the representatives from NAMI who who came and are humanizing this because as you said, families are desperate for the system to work better for their loved ones.

And when we have a sizable percentage, as my witnesses said, who are falling out of care court because they're too severe and it's essentially just falling back into the streets or, other situations that are not helping them.

We really want there to be the warm handoff, as you said, and, have a way for people to be connected to the care that they need. So, which is ultimately compassionate and in the best interests of them and also of their families. And so we'd like to try to make those pathways more possible. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We are still a subcommittee. At the appropriate time, I expect to be a motion, and we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you. Thank you. I Senator Cabaldon was there he is. Okay. Senator Cabaldon's here.

I think he's next in order. Senator Cabaldon, file number six, SB 1344.

Thank you, mister chair. Continuing with the theme of of of making that bridge real. SB 1344 is intended to to to help to assure that we make real the promises of proposition one, and our many, many commitments to invest in emergency shelters, in interim housing, adult and senior care facilities, and in supportive housing.

The legislature has already acted, to protect affordable housing from frivolous lawsuits that have no chance of succeeding, and existing law allows defendants in cases that are that are filed for that purpose to quickly challenge meritless lawsuits and to require plaintiffs to post a bond when their litigation risks are delaying construction. And they allow for the filing of a motion to strike, when there is no demonstrated probability of success by the plaintiff.

That applies only to affordable housing today. This bill extends those same protections to priority care developments, including projects funded through the Community Care Expansion Program, the Behavioral Health Services Act, the and the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act, including Homekey Plus. These are projects that serve our most vulnerable neighbors. They are essential to solving the the the crisis of folks living, homeless on our streets, and they should not be easier to block than the affordable housing, that is so closely tied to these programs.

So with with with me today as a witness is Janice Sandiford with the the deputy attorney general in the Office of Legislative Affairs for attorney general, Rob Bonta, the sponsor of this legislation, And here to answer, questions are in technical assistance, Alex Fish, the special attorney assistant attorney general for housing. I would respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Good morning, mister chair and committee members. My name is Jana Staniford. I'm a deputy attorney general for AG Rob Bonta. And Alex Fish is here as a technical witness to help answer questions.

On behalf of the AG, I wanna start by thanking Senator Cabaldon for authoring this important bill and you, chair Umberg, for our principal co authoring. The AG is committed to using the expertise of the Department of Justice and our housing justice team to advance housing access, affordability, and equity in California. The AG supports proven evidence based housing first policies that bring Californians inside.

SB 1344 would support that goal by deterring and more quickly resolving meritless lawsuit lawsuits that delay building housing interventions for California's most vulnerable populations. There are existing procedural tools that give courts the ability to strike a meritless claim and to impose a bond as security for costs and damages resulting from project delays from a meritless claim.

These tools protect a limited class of affordable housing projects and the cities that approve them from meritless litigation. SB 1344 would extend those protections to also apply to priority care developments, which are projects funded through the Community Care Expansion Program, the Behavioral Health Services Act, and the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act, including Homekey Plus. These programs spend emergency shelters, interim housing, adult and senior care facilities, and supportive housing, including more than $1,000,000,000 in housing investments for veterans facing behavioral health challenges.

By extending these procedural tools to apply to priority care developments, SB 1344 would protect projects that the state has prioritized by providing funding and streamlined ministerial approvals. The AG is proud to sponsor SB 1344 to facilitate urgently needed residential facilities statewide that support California's most vulnerable populations, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness, please. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to Me Too testimony on SB 1344. If you're in support of SB 1344, please approach microphone.

Good morning. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Thank you. Others in support, seeing no one else approaching, if you're opposed to SB 1344, now's a good time for you to come forward and testify. Seeing no one coming forward. Alright. Let's bring it back to committee.

Questions by committee members. Seeing no questions or comments, at the appropriate time, Senator Cabaldon, I expect a motion and we'll take it up for a vote. Would you like to close?

Simply ask for an out vote, and thank you, mister chair and members. Alright. Thank you.

Alright. Yes. Senator Durazo . Thank you very much, Senator Durazo. Senator Durazois going to be presenting for Senator Menjivar. That's file number 14 SB 915.

Okay. Thank you, mister chair. On behalf of Senator Menjivar, I'm presenting s p nine fifteen, the Care with Dignity Act. The Senator will be taking the committee amendments. Do I need to read them off?

No. That's okay. I think we've got them.

Okay. There have been numerous reports of federal immigration agents interfering with medical decisions or being present in the same room as patients when under their custody. These are actions that have no place in health care care and are a clear violation of patients rights. SB 915 closes the gap between existing law and practice by empowering health care provider entities with the tools to uphold the privacy, health, and visitation rights of patients brought in under immigration custody.

Just to share an example of the incidents, SB 915 is attempting to stop from what happening.

The LA Times recently reported an instance at Harbor UCLA Medical Center where ICE agents brought the individual to the hospital with serious leg injuries after an encounter with the ICE agents earlier that day. The ICE agents shackled him to his bed for several days despite not being able to walk. The patient was unable to speak privately with doctors, violating his right to private communication with doctors. He was interrogated while in pain and under medication.

The patient also did not have access to external communications as the hospital used pseudonym known as blackout policies preventing both his family and legal counsel from being able to access him.

This patient was monitored by federal agents for about a month and was not even charged. That is just one example as there are many cases that have come to light as we have heard from several providers and advocates that ICE is remaining in the patient room or due to lack of guidance and some hospitals are even deferring to ICE to guidance on what they can or cannot do with the patient.

There needs to be a clear overarching guidance to ensure that a patient's right to privacy and their health care rights are maintained not only when ICE agents try to enter hospitals, but also to address when individuals are in ICE custody. Testifying in support of this bill is Shu Ming Chir, deputy director of immigrant and racial justice, and, Francesco Sergi, emergency medicine resident physician in San Francisco.

Thank you very much. Floor is yours. Microphone right there.

over here. Sorry. Good morning. My name is doctor Francesco Sergi and I am an emergency medicine physician in San Francisco. As a doctor, I stand in strong support of SB915.

In the last several months, I have been involved in the care of several patients in immigration custody who were brought to our emergency department for medical care. My ability to provide life saving care for these patients has been severely restricted by ICE's behavior. ICE officers have refused to step out of my patient's rooms during sensitive medical exams. And they've attempted to act as their surrogate decision makers.

They have denied me the ability to call patients families and refused to allow to connect my patients to legal counsel.

They've even pressured me to discharge my patients to their custody without providing any information about the medical capabilities available at their facility. ICE has also instilled fear in our hospitals and kept us from doing our jobs. I have personally experienced and witnessed other healthcare workers grappling with the consequences of protecting patients' rights. Worrying that we might be threatened with legal recourse, lose our licenses, or be racially profiled by ICE agents. That fear harms patients and the Clinicians trying to care for them.

SB 915 protects patients rights, but it also addresses the real fears and challenges that providers face when interacting with ICE officers. This bill addresses the real situation where ICE refuses to comply. Asking the healthcare entity to simply document this violation in the medical record. It further reduces the burden on providers by permitting a healthcare entity to appoint or designate representatives to interact with ice. We understand the potential danger of confronting ICE and these protections can help keep healthcare workers out of harm's way.

SB 915 supports Healthcare workers in providing the same standard of care we already give every other patient And in these uncertain times, is exactly what providers need to move forward. Thank you for your time, and I urge you to support SB 915.

Thank you very much. And there's a second witness in support. Welcome. You have up to two minutes.

Good morning. Shiu Ming Cheer with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We're a proud cosponsor of SB 915 because it protects patients' rights when they're brought in by ICE. Immigration detention in health care settings endangers patient rights, patient health, and the well-being of patient care teams. Since last October, I've been talking to health providers on a weekly basis about immigration agents bringing people to hospitals for medical care.

Many of them have shared concerns about immigration agents and hospitals disrupting the provision of care and about the lack of internal policies that prioritize the privacy and well-being of patients under ICE custody. In the one case that Senator Durozel mentioned, a car wash worker suffered serious injuries during a raid. While in the hospital, he was surveilled by immigration agents nonstop. They did not allow him to meet with doctors or attorneys in private.

A clear violation of HIPAA rights as well as a right to have confidential conversations with legal counsel.

It took the filing of a lawsuit for a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order requiring immigration officials to remove the guards watching over the patient, take off his handcuffs, and leave him unrestrained. Not every patient will have attorneys by their side to file a federal lawsuit, nor should it take a lawsuit to assert long standing rights such as the right to privacy and to make independent health decisions. When armed immigration agents are present in hospitals and clinics, they create fear that undermines trust.

It's critical that health care facilities empower staff to continue providing services interference or fear. SB 915 does this by designating representatives from its personnel, management, administration, or legal counsel to implement the bill's provisions, including

who

will interact with immigration enforcement officers. The recent amendments to this bill protect both workers and health care provider entities from liability when they have attempted to carry out the provisions of the bill. We can't control what immigration agents do in response to being asked to disclose their identities or to step out of a patient room, but we can support the providers and health entities for protecting the rights of their patients and upholding their ethical and professional responsibilities.

In addition, this bill helps to make sure that we're not discharging people into deadly immigration detention centers where the conditions of care are extremely poor and over thirty five people have died in ICE custody last year. That's why over 70 health care If

you can please wrap up. You've hit your limit.

Sure. Thank you. That's why over 70 groups support this bill, and I urge you to vote aye on it.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for Me Too testimony in support. Just your name, your organization, and that you support the bill.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Thank you. Omar Al Tamimi on behalf of CPAN, the California Pan Ethnic Health Network, a proud cosponsor in support.

Thank you.

Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud cosponsor in support. Also registering support for the Clean Car Wash campaign and the California Community Foundation.

Thank you.

Lan Lee, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California and also the ACLU in support.

Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. CHIRLA in support.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Essie Justice Group in support.

Thank you.

Doctor Saketar, Callstone Emergency Medicine physician in support.

Thank you very much.

Nina Long on behalf of AAPI specific empowerment in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Matt Lege with SEIU California in support of amended position.

Thank you. Thank you.

Alexis Del Oro, worker rights director, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. We support the bill.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in line, this would be the opportunity, for primary witness in opposition. Welcome. You have up to two minutes.

Thank you. Morning. Hopefully, it won't take that long. Catherine Austin Scott with the California Hospital Association. We are in a oppose unless amended position as we are, and continue to remain concerned about putting health care workers in between, DHS and custom border patrol, patients and and patients.

So, we have been working with the committee. So thank you for the amendments, address many of our concerns and the author and sponsors, to address both the liability concerns as well as, the concerns related to how we manage that interaction. So, obviously, completely appreciate the need for the bill, but also want to make sure that as we're managing this interaction, we're not escalating the situation that would then risk our patients and our workers. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would wish to to register opposition to this bill?

Eric Gowdy with the California Dental Association. We weren't opposed unless amended the recent amendments regarding liability. We're now neutral on the bill.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else, I think I will return it to the broad membership of the committee that is here right now. And and I know that that the chair had worked with the author and that the amendments address many of the issues and he had recommended an aye vote with those amendments. Let me give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you, mister chair. I know that there are concerns on both sides. The good part is even with our opposition, we all want the same thing, which is to protect anyone who goes in as a patient and to not be told what to do by an ICE agent. So I I appreciate the the work of the opposition to address this. And actually, we're trying to make sure that nothing is the situation is not escalated.

Those healthcare workers need guidance and that's the that's the real purpose of this bill. So I ask all of my colleagues who are here to protect the health care rights and the patient privacy of all patients, regardless of their immigration status, respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you very much. And, as you well know, we're operating as a subcommittee. And when we have a quorum, we will take up this bill for action.

Thank you.

And we are going to move to your bill, which is file item 35, Senator Durazo, unlawful detainer. Whenever you're ready, you're welcome.

1243. Is is that the did you say 1243?

1243. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you, Mister chair. I wanna thank the committee for their hard work and I accept the committee amendments on page 14 of the committee analysis. SB 1243 provides a tenant with a defense against eviction for nonpayment of rent when the tenant's income has been impacted by immigration enforcement activities.

With these amendments, the bill allows tenants specifically experiencing a detention related hardship to raise this affirmative defense, a 90 day stable eviction after the hardship ends, and allow landlords to request an evidentiary hearing where tenants must show a preponderance of evidence to prove the hardship.

Starting in January 2025, the Federal Government increased significantly increased immigration enforcement activities and deportations, terrorizing communities across this nation. With nearly 11,000,000 immigrants, the highest share of immigrants than any other state, California has been a primary target with over 10,000 people detained by ICE since the Trump administration took office. And I say, citizens as well as noncitizens alike. Behind these numbers are immigrant families facing emotional and severe financial hardship.

Many have been forced to cope with the pain of seeing their loved ones detained while losing vital income and taking on additional out of pocket cost just to stay afloat.

This includes high legal expenses to defend a detained member, childcare expenses. These costs add up quickly, pushing already vulnerable households further into financial distress and close to ending up on the streets. The impact doesn't stop at individual families. It extends into the broader economy. Los Angeles County report found that 82% of surveyed businesses experienced negative consequences such as reduced staff, difficulties finding replacement workers, and reduced daily sales, impacting many, many more people than those directly facing the hardship.

These hardships on immigrant families increase the likelihood of eviction and will contribute towards homelessness. Many Californians already experienced economic challenges paying their rent. Two-thirds of undocumented workers qualify as rent burden. With detention related hardships, these challenges are only worsening. These collateral consequences make it more difficult for immigrant families to get back on their feet.

This bill addresses this, issue by providing eviction protections for not payment of rent when a tenant household experiences a detention related hardship. With us today, we have Catherine Hwang, Staff Attorney with Asian Americans Advancing Justice of Southern California, and Monica Madrid, state policy advocate with the CHIRLA. Tina Rosales-Torres from the Western Center on Law and Poverty is here to help with technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome to the committee. You have up to two minutes for your presentation.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Catherine Hwang. I'm a Staff Attorney at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, also known as AJ SoCal, and we are a proud cosponsor of SB 1243. AJ SoCal is the nation's largest legal and civil rights organization for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.

Undocumented AAPI's are well represented among the over 11,000 individuals we serve annually. Many of the people we assist are also tenants, where any interruption to a paycheck or increase in financial burdens can push them to the verge of eviction and homelessness. To make matters worse, the sudden and violent escalation of immigration enforcement is forcing tenants to choose between going to work and risking getting detained or staying home, but jeopardizing their housing.

One of our clients, Mister L, spent over two months in detention, and only a couple of weeks ago began to work began to rent her into work. Mister L and others will need community support and resources to heal from the injustices they've suffered.

With any client, the best way to deliver services is to ensure they have a home to return to. SB 1243 gives tenants the chance to stay housed as they simultaneously try to put their lives back together after they themselves or a loved one was detained or deported. This bill also recognizes the hardships that landlords, especially small mom and pop owners, may face when a tenant is unable to pay their rent.

As such, SB 1243 does not infringe upon a landlord's ability to evict a tenant not impacted by immigration enforcement activities or to collect rent from a tenant who has been impacted by such activities. It simply has the landlord give an impacted tenant just enough time to get back on and pay their rent.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote yes on SB 1243. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and welcome. You have up to two minutes.

Good morning, chair, and members of the committee. My name is Monica Madrid, and I'm a State Policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA. I'm here as a proud cosponsor of SB 1243. Across California, we are witnessing something that no child should ever have to experience. Parents taken in early morning raids, workers detained on the way on their way to provide for their families, loved ones disappearing without warning.

Through cheerless rapid response network in Los Angeles, what started as just 200 volunteers has grown to over 1,800 community members responding to these incidents in real time because the need has become that urgent, and it's that constant. What we're seeing is not just enforcement. It's unraveling of entire families. Because after a parent is taken, the crisis doesn't stop there. Rent is still due, bills still continue, and eviction notices follow.

Children are left trying to understand where to pay where their parent went while also facing the very real possibility of losing their home. That is trauma layered on trauma. SB 1243 is about stopping that second crisis, because losing a parent to detention should not mean losing your home too. The bill provides a narrow and temporary protection just enough time for families to stabilize, to seek support, and to hold on to the one thing that remains constant, their home.

Because for a child, home is not just a place, it is safety.

It is routine. It is a last sense of normalcy they have when everything else is being taken from them. We cannot control federal enforcement actions, but we can decide what happens next. We can decide whether a child already living through fear and separation is also forced into homelessness, whether or whether we step in even briefly to protect their stability and dignity. SB 1243 asks us to choose compassion, to choose stability, to choose children.

And in moments like this, that choice matters. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for any member of the public to do, Me Too testimony in support of this bill, your name, your organization, and that you support the bill.

Good morning, chair and member. Tina Rosales-Torres with Western Center on Law and Poverty and proud support, also on behalf of public advocates. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Morning, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power CA Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sophie Liu on behalf of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, in support.

Thank you. Hello, mister chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Fed in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sydney Fang, on behalf of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment, AAPI Force, proud cosponsor in support, as well as ACE Alliance for California's for Community Empowerment, as well as Viet Voices.

Thank you very much.

Hi. Nina Long, offering proxy support for OC Action, Tenants United Anaheim, and Resilience OC in support.

Thank you.

Hello. Cevadne Lee with Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in support, this would be the opportunity for a primary witness to speak in opposition to this bill. You would have up to two minutes.

Good morning, chair and senators. My name is Freddie Quintana representing the California Apartment Association, and we are respectfully opposing SB 1243. We appreciate the work of the chair and the author to prepare amendments shared in the analysis, and we will continue to look at those amendments. As proposed, SB 1243 provides a tenant with affirmative defense against eviction for nonpayment of rent if the tenant's income was impacted by immigration enforcement activities.

We are deeply sympathetic with the individuals being impacted by immigration enforcement activities.

However, the legislation as originally proposed provides a 180 of protection after the conclusion of the immigration enforcement activity. This means the financial burden from these activities are passed along to housing providers. Many of our smaller independent property owners will immediately feel the effects, the impacts, and would struggle to pay their own mortgage property taxes, insurance, and maintenance bills.

We would prefer a state assistance program to provide dollars to these tenants to help them pay the rent instead of placing the burden on rental property owners. For these reasons, we respect, the California Apartment Association respectfully opposes SB 1243.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for any me too opposition to this bill.

Mister chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association in opposition for reasons previously stated. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mister chair. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce, echoing the concerns of the apartment association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in respect for opposition and align our comments with the previous speaker. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else, in opposition, then I'm gonna bring the matter back to the committee for questions or comments. Seeing none, let me just ask. I know that the chair had recommended aye with amendments. I didn't know if you wish to speak to any of the concerns that came up in the opposition or you wanna do that in your close?

The only thing I wanted to clarify, which I can do in in closing, is that the amendments changed the stay from a 180 to 90 days. So that is a significant change to this amendment. And frankly, just you know, want to remind folks that there's a lot of a- lot of hurt out there because of the raids. A lot of uncertainty because of the raids. And if we don't address this to prevent homelessness, people will end up on the street.

These are not folks who have, you know, a savings account that could carry them over for months and months and months. So let's just remember, we do not want more people to become homeless. That's a very, very important part of this bill, and this gives them a very, very short period to stabilize, which is much better for our communities to face, rather than absorb the damage of violent enforcement. So with all due respect, I ask for an eye vote.

Thank you. And let me just say that we do not have a quorum yet and at such time as we do, we will take this bill up for a formal vote.

Thank you, Mister chair.

Did Senator Ashby leave?

Yes. He would probably say that he will be back.

Okay. Thank you very much. Then we are going to move I see, Senator Choi here is the next in line of on the file. And I'm sorry.

I can't hear you.

You Defer to Ocho.

Okay. You want Senator Ocho, but you know she has three bills. Right?

We're doing just one.

So he's deferring to you on one bill. We'd go back to him. And then if nobody in front of you in line shows up, we'd go back to your other two.

Yes.

Well, that's about as clear as some of the bills we have in front of us today. Oh, okay. Thank you. Then, in which of your three bills is it that you wish to take up?

13 0 8, sir.

I'm sorry. Can't you?

1308.

1308?

1308.

Okay. Then we will move to item number 16, which is Senate bill 1308. Welcome to the committee.

Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. I'm pleased to present Senate Bill 1308, which would allow all members and employees of the California state legislature to complete a course focused on The US and California constitution. When we, as members, take an oath of office, we commit ourselves to serving in the best interest of our communities and, most importantly, our constituents. This oath is not merely ceremonial.

It's a binding promise to uphold the rule of law and act within the framework of our constitutional authority. Unfortunately, when this promise of working within the scope of the law has been broken, it does a disservice to our constituents and does not uphold the integrity of the legislature. At its core, SB 138 is about enforcing or reinforcing our commitment to responsive governance. This includes a strong understanding of both constitutions, which is essential for sound policy making.

The California legislature already requires members and staff to participate in trainings on legislative ethics and harassment and discrimination prevention, as well as workplace safety.

SB 138 will build on this foundation by offering an additional opportunity to deepen our understanding of the governing documents that guide every action we take. A constitutional course would provide members and staff with a practical refresher on the separations of powers, individual rights, and the limits of government authority, which is incredibly important.

My goal is to reward members and staff who participate in the course with public acknowledgment of the course completion as well as acknowledgment in their email signatures and on their respective websites if this bill moves forward today. Providing access to this kind of educational research supports better decision making and promotes a greater public trust in legislature.

And I would like to add on that note that given the fact that we have so many members coming in without a background in either political science or law, many of us coming in from life experiences that have not exposed us to necessarily the constitutions, I think it's incredibly important that as we're coming in as a representative government body that we all have an opportunity to learn the basic foundations of these documents.

It is our responsibility to keep strengthening institutional integrity and ensuring our work reflects a clear understanding of the law. Here with me today is Chris McKelley, a law professor and longtime member of the capital community to share his perspective on the importance of this educational requirement. And I also have doctor Marybeth Moylan from the McGeorge Law who specializes in constitutional law.

Thank you. Welcome to the committee, and each of you will have up to two minutes to present.

Thank you. I'm not Chris. Marybeth Moylan here. I'm a professor at McGeorge Law School for the last twenty six years. And, I think Chris will go next.

So, thank you very much for hearing my thoughts on this. My colleague Leslie Jacobs has also submitted a letter in support. Leslie is a constitutional law scholar and the Anthony Kennedy Professor of Law. My comments today in support of this will focus on the idea that as lawmakers and legislators, particularly in this moment, there is a need for understanding of our United States Constitution, our California Constitution, and the intersection of those two founding documents.

When any lawmaker comes into their position, they swear to uphold both of these foundational documents.

And the idea that they would not have some training or some background that is specifically about those documents, feels absurd given that the role that they play is to uphold these documents and to pass our laws. Particularly in this moment where we have a weakening of the rule of law principles, particularly at the federal level. Our lawmakers need to understand the contours of federalism and the extent of their role in a constitutional democracy. The California Constitution is detailed.

It is much more complicated and complex than the federal Constitution.

Some of you may be familiar. I teach a course on the initiative process and it is particularly important that California legislators understand the provisions relating to the initiative process and how they can go about amending or not amending, bills that are passed through the initiative process initially. So there's a great deal of information. I think this bill is, very frankly mild and limited in its requirement of what legislators would need to do.

But it's very important that the legislative council provide some training And you are at

your limit. At your limit.

So, and I'm sure you were asking us to support the bill.

Thank you.

Okay. The other witness has arrived on the scene. Welcome to the committee. You have up to two minutes.

I am, please.

Thank you, mister chair. Chris McCauley. In a personal capacity, as I was last year on the senator's measure, I think that the effort here, it's hard to follow professor Moylan on this, but I would too emphasize that issues such as, preemption and separation of powers and delegation of, regulatory authority and other topics that could be easily covered by attorneys at ledge counsel because they do their own internal training for their lawyers there, are things that cut across all issues.

They're not just limited to those members of the Judiciary Committee. It could be in health and education and public safety and a whole myriad.

And I think the way that the Senator envisions this as similar to your, ethics training every two year legislative session, this could be easily tacked on for those purposes. And I think it would be extremely valuable for legislators and staff in this building. Also, considering the number of bills, whether it's this year or laws, excuse me, this year or in the past that have been challenged repeatedly in the federal courts to have a a better grasp of these types of legal issues. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for any Me Too testimony in support of this bill, your name, your organization, and that you support the bill. Seeing no one, we will move to opposition. I don't know if there's a primary opposing witness here. I think it's a coincidence that she's walking up.

Is there any other opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring the matter back to the committee. Are there committee questions or comments? Seeing none, I will ask a couple of questions. And the first one is the chair had asked that you take an amendment that makes this voluntary and then it gave him, if you didn't take that amendment, it gave him great concerns and he quite likely would not recommend the bill.

Is that an amendment you have considered taking or willing to take?

Thank you for the question. So, it's not. The reason I have concerns with the voluntary, it wasn't, this topic of discussion in last year's presentation of the bill. This was something new that came up this particular year with, with Senator with the chair, with wanting to this class to be voluntary. But as my comments, to Senator, to Umberk were were the fact that, first of all, it's not voluntary whether or not we as legislators take the oath. Right?

It's mandatory for us to be able to do that. And second, the other concern that I had with it was that if we were to make it voluntary, those folks that do not necessarily value or respect or see any purpose in taking this, this course would not actually take the course. So the very, very people that would be, imperative that take the course may not choose to take the course.

And those of us that see a value and respected and would like to know more about it and understand our roles as legislators, especially for those of us without a law degree or a political science background coming in, into this into this body, we thought it you know, we would actually take it. So that would those were my concerns expressed to him.

The other comment that I had was, you know, we could make it voluntary if we had a condition there that those that were willing to chair or vice chair a committee, those folks would actually be compelled to take the course because they would be in leadership positions. So we thought that that could actually be also a possibility to consider. None of those actually were were considered by the chair from what I understand because none of them were accepted.

So we haven't really come up with a resolution on that on those particular but those were my concerns about making it just voluntarily without any teeth in that component because

I appreciate your oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were done.

No. No. I thought those are my basic points and the concerns and conversations that I have with the chair.

I appreciate the advocacy for the bill. The question was really whether you're going to take an amendment in. I'm gathering from that the answer is clearly no.

Well, we offered amendments. We did offer language that could

I know. But language that the chair didn't accept.

Only voluntary with no teeth in it, I didn't think would actually

So that's a no. So not no?

Yes. A no.

Okay. That's what I was searching.

Now we're just fine. And though it wasn't written, by the way, it was just something that we were supposed to submit. The I think the statement was submit something for me that has a voluntary component in it.

It's just really unfortunate that this bill was taken up when he's not here.

I know. Because he would

articulate his position much better than I just did. But I wanted to make sure since that was his position that it was on the table. And then my other question, this relates to comments I made in the version to this bill that came up last year. And that is even though this is not the fiscal committee and if this bill were to pass out of this committee, it would go to appropriations. Do you have an estimate of what the cost would be?

I do not have an estimate, but I can't imagine it being that expensive. I don't know if I have anybody here that could possibly give an opinion on that. But I can we can try to figure that out for you and

Well, but the the let me remake the point that I made last year. When I showed up in the legislature, which is amazingly almost twenty four years ago, I was named chair of a special committee on state mandates, in the assembly. And there was one particular mandate that came exactly similar to this bill. It was that you had to, teach six historic documents in American history in the state, you know, and some were obvious, the constitution, the declaration of independence. Some weren't obvious.

I think it was Eisenhower's farewell address and and something else. And what it led to was is that any textbook that had a reference to those documents became a part of a state mandate. And it led to millions of dollars of costs. And in what we did, ironically, was make that voluntary. And we made that voluntary because we would not have the millions of dollars of costs.

I mean, they were even a clerk in school districts would count the number of pages that have those documents, and then the salary of the clerk for counting the pages would be billed to the state as part of a mandate payment.

And I think that gives some validity to what the chair is trying to do here is even though we are the policy committee and it will go to a fiscal committee, we can't help with what we do, sort of create what the fiscal outlook will be when it gets to the fiscal committee. So, I just wish he were here to be able to articulate more clearly his concerns in the back and forth. I felt obligated to articulate them in his absence.

I think, if I have it right without you taking the voluntary amendment, he still opposes the bill.

Senator, Weber Pearson.

Thank you. I wanna thank the Senator for bringing this bill forward. I do remember having conversations about this last year. I do still have significant concerns with this. I'm not sure that a one, two, three hour course every year, every other year, every four years, is really going to produce the outlook that you're looking for.

When you talk about the fact that some of the bills that have been passed, that have been reviewed by legal scholars are then overturned by higher courts, that has to do with the fact that constitution is really based on one's interpretation. And we see that at a state level. We see that at a federal level. That's why you can have some that agree, some that dissent. It's based on years of their, learning and understanding and practicing of the law.

And I'm not sure that this course is going to change that, as far as our understanding for those of us that do not have a legal background. And then my other question would be where do we stop? Because from my perspective, I think that there needs to be more information that people have on health.

It's frustrating the at times with the bills that are, suggested or brought forward because people don't have the background knowledge about how health policy works and how it's actually implemented on the ground level as Aye, as a physician, understand. So if we're gonna do that, then someone would say, well, what about education?

Or what about public safety? Or what about this? Or what about that? And so that is why in this room, we have, you know, our ledge counsel. That's why we have committee staff that have years of experience in this area.

And then, yes, some of them may be may end up being sued and and go to court and be overturned, but that is based on that particular judge's interpretation of the of the constitution. And so I'm not sure that this bill would ultimately bring about any change in that area.

And so for those reasons and and also for the fact that it's, you know, I guess, I don't know what happened with the conversations, but, you know, there wasn't the amendment or whatever that was presented or taken. Aye, unfortunately, will not be able to support it. Thank you.

Any other committee, I'll give you a chance in your close to respond to anything that comes here. Any other questions or comments? Senator Niello. Yes.

Thank you very much, mister chair. Sorry I'm late. I had to present a bill elsewhere. But I believe this is a good bill. You know, there is no educational responsibility or requirement for being a legislator.

And so this is not to cast dispersions on any of my colleagues. But are we trained in the operations of our government, our constitutional government, our separation of duties, our three co equal branch and separation of duties. I would say people who have graduated from our K through 12 system in recent years, in the last, decade, perhaps more, that level of education is not even as great as it was when I was through the k through 12 system.

So again, not to cast any dispersions, but just to make sure that we who practice lawmaking under our constitutional system, under our three co equal branches of government representing our legislature, sometimes versus the executive branch and recognizing that co equal status and the separation of duties. I think it's a very important that we hold those concepts very dear in our execution of the legislative responsibility. And this sort of training would help all of us have an equal representation of that of that knowledge. So I am very much a supporter of this bill.

Thank you. Any other comments from the committee on this?

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. And I appreciate your your dedication to this mission and this concept. And no doubt, we'd all benefit from additional education in number of different areas. I understand that well, you and I have talked about it, I understand you're you're not gonna make it voluntary. Is that right?

Well, as I mentioned earlier, in your absence was the conversation that we had, which was we can make it voluntary, but it has to have a little bit of a teeth in it. Otherwise, no one's gonna be compelled. And we talked about the fact that, those that value and understand the oath that we're taking, that we're compelled we're not optionally taking that oath as legislators. Right?

We are kind of obligated to take that oath in that governance.

And in the conversation that we had, I mentioned the fact that the people that value the constitution, both The US and the California, are going to willingly take it. Right? Because we want to learn. We wanna be better at what we're doing. And those that do not are not going to want to take it.

They're not gonna find the value in it. So my thought was, as I mentioned to you in our private conversation, was that if we had a little bit of teeth in it such as, you know, if you were to be a chair or a vice chair of a committee and you would be compelled to take the course because then you'd be in leadership position.

So I would be completely okay with something like that. That would give it a little bit of teeth. But voluntary, you know, the oath is not voluntary. It's mandatory.

So that was my conversation. That's what I mentioned to Senator or to the chair at the time, Senator Laird, with the fact that I'm okay with voluntary if you're going into leadership then making it, mandatory.

So, I have strong views on the constitution. I would expect that you probably have strong views too. I believe the constitution or the penumbra of a number of amendments protect a woman's right to choose. You you may not agree with me. I believe that there are certain other elements of the constitution, the second amendment with respect to the right to bear arms.

I believe that doesn't entitle you to an unfettered right to bear arms. I believe that for example, that the clause in the constitution that that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. I think that there are a number of different interpretations of that.

But I also believe that, my point of view and and it in a class, for example, with respect to constitution is not gonna change your point of view on a number of these issues, whether it's the second amendment, whether it's the fourth amendment. And that the issues that we would have to basically, both discuss and arrive at some common understanding are such that we're just simply not gonna change our values.

And so while we can have a class to make sure that we don't quarter soldiers, because that's also proven in the constitution, We're probably not gonna disagree on the quartering of soldiers in our homes. But anything that is of consequence that we actually have to decide here, I think that all of us bring certain values and views with respect to constitution and that this mandatory class would not, appreciably basically change that.

So I understand that you and I disagree and unfortunately, I'm not gonna be able to support it. But other other questions or comments, Senator Laird, you're currently hearing, so I'll leave it back to you.

Well, if there are no other questions or comments, this would be your opportunity to close. Oh, I'm sorry. There is one. Senator Niello.

Just with regard to the opinion of the chair in waiting, there is a difference between interpretive values of the court of the constitution and our form of government and the actual framework. And what the Senator is talking about is the framework. Then once we get the framework, we can fight all we want about the interpretation of our values. But understanding the framework is very important.

Yes.

Okay. Let me just give anybody else the opportunity if they would like to make any comments or questions.

I think we've this issue has been kicked enough. So okay. Thank you.

Having said that, you have the chance to kick it more in a close.

Thank you. And so I think first of all, I think I wanna thank Senator Niello for actually making that remark. We had the same conversation last year as far as interpretation versus the framework. This is the coursework on framework. It's never been intended to be partisan in any nature at all, and I'm gonna reiterate the fact that it's a representative government. We have a body of representatives from a variety of life experiences, many of us who have not been exposed or read or versed in the constitution. And I think when you are being elected in a representative body, such as what we do here in California, we're swearing an oath. We should know what that framework should be. And as far as, you know, where does it stop?

Well, we're not swearing an oath to uphold the medical board or the medical medicine space or field. We're not swearing enough to do that, ma'am. But we are swearing enough to uphold these two documents, and we should understand that framework, and we should have the ability to teach.

I'm gonna, I'm gonna reiterate, which I thought was in a great, great, letter, the later support from, chancellor and dean David Figman from, the William B Lockhart professor of law and John F Degardi distinguished professor of law, from the University of California College of Law of San Francisco, your alma mater, in which he said, the University of California College of Law is pleased to support Senate bill 1308, which is would provide the legislators and legislative staff with a mandatory course on the provisions of The US and California constitutions.

Go down to fully uphold the responsibilities described in the oath of office, all members and employees of the legislature should be fully informed of the provisions of both constitutions that they have sworn to abide by within their legislative duties.

And, they go on to, reference you as a distinguished alumni of the UC Law of San Francisco. I just thought I'd put that on record, because I think it's very important. But from that, we have letters of a variety of professors from Berkeley of Law, from all different law schools on, throughout the state of California really recognizing the importance of understanding that framework.

It is not intended to be partisan in whatsoever, but it would help many of us coming into this field to understand our duties. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And as I have repeatedly said and about to be chair again, will say again, we do not have a quorum. And when we do have a quorum, we will take up the bills for action that we have heard. So that completes this item. And with great pleasure, I'm gonna give the gavel back to the chair.

Oh. Oh, Senator Choi is here. Alright. Senator Choi.

So, Choi the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister chair and the committee members. I'm here to present the SB 1310, which improves information sharing between the jury commissioners, local election officials, and the secretary of state for the purpose of ensuring up to date and accurate voter information. Free and fair elections depend on accurate voter registration information. Currently, information provided that during jury eligibility screening is not consistently shared with the election officials even if they imply a person may be eligible to vote.

SB 1310 establishes a mechanism that requires jury commissioners to provide information to the secretary of state and the county elections officials about the prospective jurors who state that they are not qualified for jury service when their reasons would include make them they are ineligible to vote, such as non-citizen or not living in in the district. We've also been working with the opponents of the bill to address their concerns.

A few weeks ago, disability rights California sent an opposed letter where they expressed the concern that this bill may lead to people on a conservatorship who are ineligible to serve on juries but still are allowed to vote to accidentally have their voter registration canceled.

While I don't believe this SB 1310 will lead to unfair cancellations, I narrowed its scope to ensure that the only information shared would be, if a juror attests that they aren't a US citizen or if a juror attests that they are not they are not living on domiciled in the relevant jurisdiction. I also wanna strongly emphasize that SB 1310 does not use jury information as a sole basis for their disqualification.

It simply enhances information sharing so the elections officials will have the more information to conduct to conduct their own inquiry before making a final determination on voter registration. SB 1310 recently passed unanimously out of the Senate elections and the constitutional amendments committee, where two of the now- two members of this committee, including the chair voted in favor of favor of it. Testifying in support of this bill is Nicole Wordelman who represents Orange County, the sponsor of SB 1310. Thank you.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Mister chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on SB 1310. At its core, SB 1310 addresses a real gap. Today, individuals can attest under penalty of perjury that they are not eligible for jury service for reasons that would also make them ineligible to vote, and that information goes nowhere. That disconnect makes it harder for elections officials to fulfill their legal obligations to maintain accurate voter roles.

First, this bill has been narrowed to focus only on the most objective and administrable criteria, citizenship and residency. These are already core eligibility requirements for voting, and they are far less subjective than other jury disqualifiers. Second, on the risk of erroneous removals, SB 1310 already requires notice and an opportunity to respond before cancellation. Elections officials must independently verify eligibility using existing processes before any action is taken. This mirrors current law and builds on existing protections.

On the reliability of jury questionnaire data, we recognize that self attestation is not perfect. This bill does not treat it as definitive. It simply ensures that when someone attests under penalty of perjury to facts like non citizenship or living in another county, that information is not ignored. Today, there is no mechanism to flag that inconsistency, which undermines the state's responsibility to maintain accurate voter rolls. On administrative burden and implementation, the solution is to leverage existing infrastructure.

There's already a communication framework between courts and the Secretary of State in other contexts, and the bill can be structured to build on that system rather than create a new one. Finally, on the claims of disenfranchisement, this bill does not remove voters from the rolls based on a single data point. It initiates a process that includes notice, verification, and multiple opportunities for the voter to confirm eligibility.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. You urge an aye vote, I'll bet.

Yes, sir.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Others in support of SB 1310, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach oh, there we go.

No. No? Okay. If you're opposed to SB 1310, now's a good time to come forward.

Morning, chair members. I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California. Here in in respectful but very strong opposition to SB 1310. You know, from assembly member Demaio's Voter ID campaign to the Riverside Sheriff's seizure of ballots, we're being told that non-citizen voting requires new enforcement tools, but a vast body of evidence shows that the problem is a fiction. It's a product simply of election denialism.

SB 1310 appears to be born of the same fever dream. It's sold as more information for elections officials to help clean up voter rolls. But what it really does is open a new path to cancel a voter registration based on a source that wasn't designed for election administration. You know, a juror affidavit captures a single moment in time. Someone may truthfully check not a citizen, naturalize weeks later, and lawfully register.

And add to that the matching errors and the jury forms that aren't required to be translated into the languages the way voting materials are translated and it really becomes a pipeline for bad data and for wrongfully cancelling eligible voters, hitting limited English proficient voters and naturalized citizens the hardest. And we have the highest number of naturalized citizens in California of any state. Elsewhere in our elections code, before any kind of adverse action, we first require a verified match against the statewide voter database. Right?

Then we notice the voters' people in in the voters preferred language and a clear attestation-based response is what is required.

SB 1310 does none of these things, requires none of these things. It inactivates the registration first. Right? So that the voter is off the active roles and will not be mailed a ballot during the response window. Then it requires the voter to demonstrate demonstrate eligibility.

Alright.

Thank you very much. I'm guessing you're gonna urge a no vote.

I am.

There Alright. And your time is up. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Brittany Stonesifer with California Common Cause, an organization deeply committed to ensuring that our democracy is fair and representative. Accurate list maintenance is an essential part of election administration. At the same time, overzealous cancellation using faulty data inevitably results in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. Studies have repeatedly shown that mistaken voter purges are most likely to harm underrepresented communities, particularly people of color, those with limited English proficiency, disabilities, or lower incomes.

In recent years, this legislature, with support of both elections officials and advocates, has dramatically improved our list maintenance systems. Before these reforms, thousands of eligible voters were canceled because courts sent over inclusive lists of criminal convictions or mental incapacity determinations to local election elections officials. Now SB 1310 threatens to reverse this progress by introducing an unreliable and in irrelevant source for canceling voters. Juror affidavits are not designed to capture information regarding voter eligibility, and they aren't translated into the languages that election materials are.

They can reflect mistakes, stale citizenship information, or incorrect eligibility answers given to escape jury duty.

The bill would also impose significant new responsibilities, costs, and litigation risks on courts. Already overburdened commissioners would have to filter and transmit data from about 1,000,000 affidavits each year with any error resulting in potential disenfranchisement of an eligible California voter. We should not be reversing the progress that this legislature has made in protecting voting rights and building one of the most accurate and fair registration systems in the country. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition, SB 1310, please approach microphone. Alright.

I have a proxy of both the Asian Law Caucus and ACLU California Action in strong opposition. Alrighty.

Thank you very much. Others in opposition. Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring back committee questions by committee members. I have some, Senator Durazo.

Just the comments that I'm very troubled by the bill. I the bill would require jury commissioners to make determinations about someone's citizenship, about their legal right to vote, and share that information with election officials without privacy protections, without a way for that person to contest the determination. It would remove eligible voters from voting roles without an appeals process, disenfranchising Californians. This bill is premised on the narrative, that people you know, undocumented people are just registering to vote left and right.

There's been there's been no evidence presented that there is even a problem.

The narrative that non-citizen immigrants are voting in elections has been a talking point in recent elections. This is not about protecting the right to vote. This is about making it more difficult for people to vote. And I'm just, you know, I'm disappointed that this would be presented. I understand it's been presented many, many times over the over the years.

But this is this is this false premise is what was used to try to overturn the capital in in 2021. This false premise that false assertions of voter fraud. So, I strongly disagree and I'm saddened, Senator, because you and I work very closely on so many issues. Saddened that this issue has been brought up here again. So, I definitely will vote again.

Other comments, questions? Seeing no other comments or questions. Thank you, Senator Choi. Just a few questions. Judicial council weighed in on the bill?

Yeah. They voted unanimously out of that. Yeah. All the questions.

Judicial council voted to support?

No. They didn't.

Just I wanna just make sure.

No. Not this committee.

No. The California Judicial Council that's chaired by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, they take positions on bills. Do you know if they've taken a position on bills?

No. I'm not aware.

Okay. The notice that you referenced, what kind of notice is required? Is it written notice, email? What's the content?

Right now, the details of that nature, how to inform from a jury service director to the elections commission is undefined. However, there are so many ways. Right now, we have so many the electronic methods. I think I would assume that'll be most efficient way. But let me clarify some of the opponents' points that have been made including Senator Durazo.

This bill is not to intimidate, not to cancel any legitimate borders. The if you go to a court as a upon the sermon of the as a juror, there are a number of questions the attorney will ask. And they need to state correctly and some information. The jurors, when they are called upon, they are not necessarily all qualified. That's the reason they screen.

And among many other reasons, this bill is focusing only two specific areas. If the juror candidate states, sir, I'm not qualified because I'm not a citizen. That's number one. And so does the voter registration qualification is you gotta be citizen. And the person directly confesses he or she is not a not a citizen.

Number two is that, sir, I'm not a resident of this county, and that is directly related to the register of voters database. When the person is out of state, out of the district or county, the person has to register in the county of residence. So, this critical to information is has nothing to do with the minority, voter intimidation, language requirements, everything else, the unreliability, you know, their voting individual voting rights.

That's as long as you believe in the clean voter base, not voter database that our county voter registrars have to maintain. Many that does a voter file is a very dynamic has to be maintained. Some people die.

Some people move away. Some people are wrongfully registered. So that was the intent was not to find those people, but the self-declaration under the oath of their statement that they are not lying to the judge. And so please disqualify me because I'm not a citizen. But self-proclaiming, what else is the better proof than the self-declaration, I'm not a citizen.

We are not asking for any documentation at that time. There's a self-confessing. So clean voter race is a basis of our, voting system and the democracy. So, therefore, I don't wanna relate this particular bill to other the accusing elements as if for voter intimidation or threatening or suppressing. Nothing to do with that.