Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. Happy Pride Month. We're holding this committee hearing in Room 2100 of the 0 Street Building.

I ask that all members of the committee be present in Room 2100, so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing. We actually are gonna begin our hearing as a subcommittee here momentarily. Alright. Let me note the bills that are currently proposed for the consent calendar. There are 16 Senate bills that are currently proposed.

Actually, no, they're not 16 Senate bills. There are 16, I think, bills on our agenda today, and nine of which are on the consent calendar. The bills on the consent calendar are as follows. File number two, AB 1817 by Assembly member Addis. File number three, AB 2155 by Assembly member, Aguirre Curry.

File number four by Assembly member Bennett. That's AB 2125. File number five, AB 1597 by Assembly member Castillo. File number nine AB 2789 by the Assembly Judiciary Committee with amendments. File number 11 AB 2199 by Assembly member Macedo.

File number 12 AB 2323 by Assembly member Mckinner with amendments. File number 13 AB 501 by Assembly member Pappen. And finally, file number 16 AB 1846 by Assembly member Stefani. Alright. So I see that we have we have a couple of authors here.

First, we have Senator McNerney and we're gonna begin with you in just one moment. Let me announce the the ground rules here. The ground rules are today just as they've always been is that what we'll do is we'll take two primary witness in support of each measure and two primary witnesses in opposition to each measure. Each of those witnesses will be afforded two minutes, two minutes each. After the witnesses in support testify, then we'll entertain, those who wish to provide Me Too testimony.

Me Too testimony consists of the following, your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill. The same thing goes for the opposition. After the two primary witnesses in opposition testify, then we will take Me Too testimony. After we hear from the proponents and opponents, then we'll turn to the committee for questions and comments.

If you wish to provide further information, further input to the committee, you can do so by going to committee's website and you will note a method and protocol for providing written communication to the Judiciary Committee and the Judiciary Committee members.

And with that, I I will call upon Senator McNerney. Senator McNerney, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Senator Umberg, vice chair Nilo, distinguished members of the committee who all might not be here at this moment. I am here to present Senate joint Resolution 18, which sends a strong message that the California legislature strongly disagrees with the infamous Citizens United decision. That's a Supreme Court decision. Additionally, this the, resolution encourages states to find ways to limit, corporation spending on elections. Since 1926, fifty years ago, the landmark Supreme Court decision, Berkeley versus Valeo, ruled that limits on independent expenditures are unconstitutional.

So basically, this opened up a lot of, what we call packs and dark dark money. That case set a precedent, which is unfortunately being extended now by Citizens United decision, which took place in 2010, that basically said corporations have the same rights as individuals, to free speech, meaning they can spend whatever they want on elections. Together, these two decisions have allowed corporations to spend unlimited quantities of money on campaigns through independent extend expenditures.

This money has infiltrated all levels of politics according to Open Secrets, which traces campaign expenditures nationwide, outside spending in 2008 amounted to $574,000,000. But by 2024, that amount ballooned to $4,600,000,000.

So that's a factor of nine a factor of nine more money being spent on elections due to the Citizens United decision. Studies have shown that this money lets has led corporation corporate interest to having an out so an outstanding impact on policy making compared to what average citizens and private grassroots groups are able to muster. Today, nine in 10 Americans believe that there is too much money corporate money in politics, and eight in 10 Americans believe that corporate campaign money is bad for democracy.

I happen to agree with that. Getting corporate money out of politics will help rebuild our trust in our institutions and help citizens feel they have more of a stake in our political system.

But I just wanna add, the Citizens United decision has opened up the door for foreign money to come in and influence our elections. This is preposterous. It's completely unacceptable, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SJR eighteen.

Thank you, Senator. Witnesses in support, SJR 18. Please approach. Going once, going twice. Me too.

Testimony seeing none. Let's now talk to the opposition. If you're opposed to SJR 18, please approach microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Alright.

Let's bring it back to the committee member. Senator Reyes Gomez Reyes.

Lucky for me. I arrived on time. Thank you so much for bringing this. I'm part of that nine of ten and eight of 10. I think that there's something that has to be done so that it's the people who get to decide corporation without a without a doubt is not a person.

And your bill is extremely important and at the appropriate time, soon I hope I will move the bill.

Alrighty. Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments. Senator McNerney, would you like to close?

Yes. Again, I think the comments of my colleague, Senator Reyes. I've personally seen that people react very positively in a strong outward way when, campaign finance reform is mentioned in rallies. That's the strongest reception I can receive, stronger even than bashing PG and E. So, I think this is something that people back home really care about.

And passing this, is just a message to the Congress that, Citizens United is a bad decision, and we get enough of these messages, I think that'll take hold. So again, with that, I'll ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. It's appropriate time. I expect there'll be a motion and a vote. Thank you, Senator McNerney.

And I see did I see I saw Assembly member Kalra here a moment. There he is. Okay. Assembly member Kalra and then Assembly member Rogers if if no one shows up. So Alright.

Assembly member Kalra. AB 2305.

Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. AB 2305 directly prohibits corporate lenders from controlling or interfering with litigation decisions. Principle is simple. When you hire a lawyer, the person making decisions about your case should be your lawyer, not a private equity entity looking for profit.

Until recently, the legal industry is one of the last industries not to take private equity investment because of long standing ethics rules prohibiting non lawyer ownership. To mitigate a growing risk of corporate influence, legislature passed my bill AB 931 last year to reinforce California's prohibition on fee sharing with ABSs. However, models like management service organizations, and alternative business structures have created loopholes by creatively restructuring their involvement with law firms such as classifying their investment as a loan.

Consequently, this risk this risks litigation decisions including whether to file a case, how to resolve the case, or to pursue a particular strategy, be influenced by return expectations rather than putting the interest of injured individuals or consumers first. For example, aggressive loan repayment timelines could lead to firms needing to encourage clients to settle cases primarily and for lower, prematurely and for lower settlement amounts.

In response, AB 2305 takes a broad approach and blanket prohibits private equity firms, hedge funds, and other corporate lenders from directing or influencing key legal decisions constituting such behaviors as an unauthorized practice of law. This bill is modeled after Senator Cabaldon's bill, SB 351 from last year, which, was enacted to similarly reign in private equity in the medical profession.

In doing so, A B in doing so, AB 2305 ensures the decisions about litigation including case strategy, resolution, and representation remains solely in the hands of licensed attorneys and their clients regardless of how a lender's entity is structured. Access to justice means more than having the right to file a lawsuit. It means having an attorney whose only obligation is what is in the best interest of the client.

With me to testify in support is Paul Matiasik, vice president of the Consumer Attorneys of California.

Mister Matiasik?

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I'm Paul Matiasik, first vice president and legislative chair of the Consumer Attorneys of California, testifying today as a sponsor of AB 2305, an important measure following up on CAOC's work to protect California consumers from the encroachment of hedge funds into the legal industry.

AB 2,305 protects a fundamental principle of our legal system, namely that when a Californian hires an attorney, litigation decisions must be made by the attorney and client, not by private equity firms, hedge funds, or other corporate lenders seeking profit.

While California law already prohibits non lawyer ownership and fee sharing, investors are increasingly using complex arrangements, like management service organizations to exert indirect influence over legal decision making. This creates a real risk that decisions about whether to file a case, how to litigate, or when to settle are driven by financial return rather than the client's best interests. AB 2305 is a necessary step to prior bills CAOC has worked on, like AB 931 with Chair Kalra last year.

AB 2305 closes any remaining loopholes by clearly stating that corporate lender influence over legal decisions constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The bill then voids contracts that violate the bill and provides for a private right of action against both the attorney and corporate lender.

This builds on the legislature's prior work and reflects the same principle we've applied in medicine with Senate Bill 351 last year. Professional judgment must remain independent when people's rights and well-being are at stake. Other states like Colorado and Illinois are following our work in California from last year and going even further. Our recent amendments add a prohibition from using any corporate lending for advertising or solicitation, mirroring Colorado's bill.

CAOC has continued to work with stakeholders like the State Bar on adding more clarity to the bill, the Civil Justice Association of California regarding discovery confidentiality provisions and exploring additional enforcement, and lastly, with the International Legal Finance Association to finalize definitions.

AB 2305 ensures that our justice system remains client centered, ethical, and free from outside financial control. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Perfect timing. Alright. Others in support of AB, 2305.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California. Pleased to support and thank you to the author and sponsor for their work on this and looking forward to future amendments as well.

Alright. Others. Others in support? Okay. Here we are.

CJAC and COC once again aligned. Others who wish to provide me two testimony?

Chair members, Baltazar Cornejo here with Brownstein on behalf of the International Legal Finance Association. I wanna express gratitude for the author. The amendments taken, so far have addressed our concerns, and we're happy to continue discussions. But Alrighty. Thank you very much. Neutral. Thank you.

Alright. Others others who wish to testify in support. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2305, now is your opportunity to come forward going once, going twice, seeing no one coming forward. Alright.

Let's bring it to the committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing no Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Reyes. Senator Gomez Reyes.

I just wanna thank you for bringing this forward. I think sometimes we forget the influence of this money in so many areas and it is As was mentioned, it's an encroachment. It's an encroachment by these hedge funds into the legal system and we we we should have legal decisions that made by attorneys rather than by financial decisions of a Fed hedge fund. So thank you for bringing this forward.

Alrighty. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Thank you, Chair Kalra. First of all, thank you.

I suppose I can't speak on behalf of the profession but I will. On behalf of the profession for your body of work in this space. The profession policing, the profession itself. We've had some challenges as a professional last few years and and I'm most grateful for your work in this space. With that, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair. Likewise. I know that we both worked on these issues. They're important. I I think there's a lot of conversations that we that are on liability and and indebtedness, what have you.

But I think that what everyone agrees on is that we need to have a system that is of the highest ethics, where we can root out fraud and root out inordinate influence from from the practice of law. And so I think this bill goes a long way in doing that in addition to the legislation that you and I have done in recent years as well as other colleagues. I wanna thank your staff for their continued work in this space as well.

And as indicated, you know, CAOC and CJAC together, I think that all of us are in agreement that this is an important step in in ensuring that we have a system that can be trusted and where ultimately is the client's interest that are being well looked after. With that respect, we asked for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. It's appropriate time. I expect there'll be a motion. Thank you.

Alright. Assembly member Erwin, is up next. And then, I won't say the name. I won't have others rush down in front of you. So I'll leave them in suspense as to where they fall on the file.

Alright. Assembly member Erwin.

Hello. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm, proud to present AB 1977. This bill is sponsored by the Secretary of State and clarifies and corrects ambiguities ambiguities and inconsistencies in the online notarization act to ensure implementation by 2030. This bill strengthens consumer protections and provides clarity for notaries, platforms, and users by aligning statutory requirements with with how online notarization will operate in practice.

With me today in support is a sponsor of the bill, the secretary secretary of State's office, Tim Cromarty, deputy secretary of State for legislation.

Thank you. Mister Cromarty, floor is yours.

Mister chair and members, thank you. Tim Cromarti on behalf of secretary of State, doctor Shirly Ann Weber. This measure is a necessary follow-up to SB 696 by Senator Portantino from 2023, which established for the first time a framework for licensed California notaries to conduct online notarizations. In implementing that groundbreaking legislation, the Secretary of State's office has identified a number of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and omissions and definitions, procedures, and security features that are significantly slowing our work by making that implementation more difficult.

AB 1977 will address these deficiencies by resolving inconsistencies in those definitions and procedures, updating existing licensing and training requirements, and providing clear guidance on how to authenticate digital seals.

In short, this legislation will expedite our implementation of online notarization in California. It was recently amended to clarify the circumstances under which notaries may charge fees. We thank Assemblymember Erwin for her leadership in bringing this measure forward. With me in the audience to answer any technical questions is Catherine Kelly, an attorney from our legal affairs office.

I thank you. Thank you very much. Alright. Other witnesses in support of AB 1977. Please approach the microphone.

Mister chair and members, Cliff Costa today on the National Notary Association would like to thank the author and thank the Secretary of State's office for working with us in a collaborative effort to address some technical issues. We have addressed those and we are so proud to be in support of the bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Alright. Others in support.

Good afternoon, mister chairman. Matt Miller, president of the California League of Independent Notaries. We also want to thank the author, the, stakeholders, and the secretary's office on their work with recent amendments. We think that this bill will position California as a leader in remote notarization, and we kindly ask for an aye vote. Thanks very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? AB 1977. Going once, going twice, going three times. Now, let's turn the opposition.

If you're opposed to AB 1977. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back committee for questions by committee members. Seeing no questions by committee members. Assembly member, soon to be Congress member Irwin, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. It's appropriate time there'll be a motion. Thank you.

Alright. Assembly member Rogers. We'd like to reward folks that show up early. So thank you.

Thank you.

Why we show up early.

There you go. Floor is yours.

I appreciate it, mister chair. I'm here to present AB 1657. What the data shows and what we know is that when a domestic violence victim tries to change the circumstances that they find themselves in, they face an increased risk in potential violence, from their alleged abuser.

And yet, in California law, it still can be the case where temporary restraining orders are denied simply because the domestic violence survivor has not given notice to the individual that they are filing the paperwork against before they can even start the paperwork process. And in fact, just on Friday in Sonoma County, where we've been working very closely with the Family Justice Center and our district attorney, we had a individual file the paperwork to seek a temporary restraining order while the courts had a chance to intervene.

Their partner, they didn't know where the whereabouts are. They know that their partner has weapons, and yet a judge denied the temporary restraining order even as a stop gap measure, because they had not supplied notice to that individual that they were seeking the restraining order. It's a simple common sense measure where the law should be protecting people, not creating additional hoops for them to jump through, and have been very proud to work with our our Family Justice Center and with the statewide coalition on this bill.

Thank you very much. Windows in support of AB 1657. Please approach the microphone.

Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sasha Horwitz on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else in support of AB 1657? Let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1657, please approach the microphone.

If you're opposed to AB 1657, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's bring it back committee. Questions, comments by committee members? Senator Gomez raised, did you have a similar question? Yeah.

Thanks for thanks for bringing us. I I think that for the next party temporary restraining order, I think this is appropriate. Is there something that's going to show what will be for a permanent restraining order or does the rule do the rules remain the same?

Yeah. So the rules around the permanent restraining order are still the same. So the way that the process works right now is you have the the TRO that's granted with a date that is then given for a formal hearing on the permanent restraining order.

What we are saying is in that upfront moment, before you actually get that date and before you actually get that permanent restraining order, we should take steps to protect victims in the meantime while the courts and the and the judge can figure things out. What we saw just even this Friday was a a judge that didn't even give a court date for that discussion about a permanent restraining order because notice had not previously been given on the t r o.

Very good. Thank you.

Alrighty. Senator Durazo, did you wanna no. Okay. When the appropriate well, would you like to close?

No. Just I respectfully ask for the aye vote. Thank you for your consideration.

Alright. Thank you very much. I assume there'll be a motion? Alright. Thank you very much.

Okay. Let's see. Assemblymember Lee. So Assemblymember Lee, you have AB 1804.

1801.

Got it. K. Okay. Assemblymember Lee.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. I'm here today to present AB 1801, which will strengthen the public engagement process for contracts with private immigration facilities. In 2017, the legislature passed SB 29, which required a one hundred and eighty day review period and at least two public hearings before local government could contract with an immigration detention center. However, recent actions in cities like McFarland and Edelanto have exposed gaps in the law.

Local officials schedule hearings early in their review period, rushed approvals, and even backdated decisions, effectively undermining meaningful public participation.

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center challenged this approval in court, arguing that each decision making body should be independently meeting the laws, notice, and hearing requirements. If federal district court agreed and temporarily blocked blocked the project, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision, finding that the city had technically complied with the law even though the process limited public input. In other words, the court confirmed that the statute as currently written allows these loopholes exist.

AB 1801 removes any ambiguity by requiring the public notice be provided a full one hundred and eighty days before any approval, ensuring hearings are held at least thirty days apart and that adequate notice is given and clarifies that all contracts and agreements related to detention facilities are subject to these transparency requirements. The courts have made it clear.

If you want meaningful transparency, the law must be explicit. Private prisons do not make good neighbors. Navy eighteen o one closes loopholes to ensure communities have a real voice in decisions that affect them for decades. With me today, I have Grisel Ruiz, senior managing attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, today as my lead witness. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. The floor is yours. Good afternoon.

Hey. My name is Grisel Ruiz, and I'm a senior managing attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Our organization is a proud cosponsor a proud sponsor of AB 1801. AB 1801 is really about meaningful community engagement, transparency, and accountability. In 2018, we passed the original statute that we're aiming to amend today, civil code section 1670.9

We passed this law because too often, detention centers would be approved quickly without real notice or public engagement. When I represented clients, I remember attorneys learning that a new detention center had opened only because their clients were suddenly transferred to a new facility and they couldn't find them anymore. This was long past, of course, the opportunity for communities to have a voice on the matter. After civil code section sixteen seventy point nine became law, we thought these problems had been solved.

But as Assemblymember Lee detailed, they had not, our organization actually had to sue on these matters.

And unfortunately, made it very clear that there was need to amend the code so that it could be effective as we intended. In '2 in 2020, we thought we saw three new detention centers enter California. And before they could be approved, this statute was tested live. And unfortunately, we saw constant efforts to circumvent the law, loopholes that we intend to close today. I was involved personally in these fights and can attest that communities received short notice.

The hearings were, held soon after, per, notice was issued. A process that was meant to be a six month process was reduced to mere weeks. Despite having only weeks, folks still came out in droves displaying how deeply people care about these issues. AB 1801 will pick up where California civil code sixteen seventy point nine left off. It will require that no permit or other local approval be executed before two public hearings, ensuring that notice and hearings don't occur within weeks of each other.

It will require that notice be posted in public areas and made available in multiple language, and we require require public access to any related documents being voted on. Ultimately, this bill is about giving communities a voice on and very important issues, that will impact communities for decades. I know that I'm at time, so we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else who wish to testify in support of AB 1801, please approach microphone. Thank you.

Thank you so much, chair. My name is Abraham Adoye, California policy and government affairs manager with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Just echoing the words of my colleague Griselle. I wanna thank Assemblymember Lee for his leadership on this bill.

I could say a lot, but I think something that we're really leaning into is, a good governance that ABH no one really reflects an idea that, regardless of where your politics stand on immigration issues that we think transparency and accountability and just civic engagement is something that we can all unite behind, and we hope to, get your all support. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Others in support, AB 1801.

Krista Ramos with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.

Thank you.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

Apologies. I forgot to read off a list of folks who couldn't be here today, but, South Bay People Power and Child Poverty, Southeast Asian Resource Action Center, CBDIO, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, empower empowering marginalized Asian communities, law of foundation of Silicon Valley, freedom for immigrants, South Bay People Power, New Light Wellness, Orange County Rapid Response Network, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, and Detention Watch Network, also in support of AB 1801. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 1801? We'll turn to opposition. Just a second.

Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

Thank you. Alright. Seeing noone else approaching the microphone in support of AB 1801, we'll now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 181, now would be an excellent time to come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee.

Questions by committee members? Seeing no questions by oh, I'm sorry. Senator Gomez Reyes.

I just want to note that from the Inland Empire, we have the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective all in support. I think giving notice, making sure good governance as was noted earlier. It's giving notice, proper notice, and really an opportunity for the community to to weigh in. So thank you for that.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lee, would you like to close?

Well, I couldn't put it better than the Senator. This is about transparency and good governance, and make sure you have good neighbors in your backyard. Certainly ask your aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Alright. Thank you very much. Though I'm sure there'll be a motion appropriate time. Alright. Thank you.

Alright. Now, we need assembly members Hart or Patel to present themselves. If you're within earshot of my voice, now would be an excellent time for either assembly member Hart or Patel to make their appearance here in Room 2100. And the first of the two will be immediately afforded the podium.

Assembly member Patel, you're up.

Sounds great.

That's right. We're a service oriented committee. When you show up, you walk right up to the podium.

Wow. I feel so valued as an Assemblymember in Senate chambers. This is a great way to start.

Look for the same courtesy in the Assembly.

Of course. Alright. Mutual aid. Right?

We believe in mutual aid.

Right.

We do. We're we're a subcommittee, and you have, AB 2179, file number 14. So you may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, mister chair and committee. I'm here to present AB 2179, which expands e filings of restraining orders to include workplace violence restraining orders, also known as WVROs. We have seen with e filings and remote appearances that, as detailed in your analysis, submitting paperwork in person for an application can be inconvenient when the individual is facing pressing needs related to their restraining order.

Bills such as AB 2960 in 2022 with gun violence and domestic violence restraining orders and AB 561 in 2025 with elder dependent adult protective orders have both increased access and provided certainty to individuals that are facing some of the most difficult and stressful times in their entire lives. AB 2179 seeks to allow for that certainty for individuals facing workplace violence.

With me is Sharon Gonzales who is testifying on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, one of the cosponsors of this message. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Gonzales. Floor is yours.

Great. Thank you and good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. Sharon Gonzales with the California Public Policy Group here today on behalf of the city of Carlsbad. We're pleased to cosponsor this measure with the San Diego County District Attorney, and thank Assemblymember Patel for carrying this bill. AB 2179 would make workplace violence restraining order procedures match other civil restraining, order types.

By one, allowing parties and witnesses to appear remotely at a hearing, and two, to require courts to accept electronic filings of petitions and related filings. Beginning next year, most restraining order types, including domestic violence, elder dependent adult abuse, and general civil harassment, civil restraining orders will, allow for electronic filings and for remote appearances. Workplace violence was not included in that authorizing legislation, and AB 12179 simply closes that gap.

In person filings and appearances can create avoidable burdens and safety risks for employees and for witnesses, especially if there's a fear of retaliation, if there's transportation issues, or concern about just proximity to that of to that of being the person being restrained. AB 2179, it's a common sense narrowly tailored fix that ensures workplace violence restraining orders are accessible, efficient, and safe as other protective orders in California. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2179, please approach the microphone. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Annabelle Urbino with the CSU chancellor's office in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Hello. Julissa Seja Cardenas on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Engineers and Scientists of California, Unite Here, the Utility Workers Union of America, and the California Conference Board of Machinists in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kindred Begley on behalf of the city of San Marcos in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've reached a very important moment here. If I could ask committee assistant Porter to please call the roll for purpose of establishing a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. I think we have to clear up the the presence of one member. So alright. Let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2179, please approach the microphone.

Going once, going twice, seeing no one opposed. Alright. Let's bring it back to committee for questions or comments by committee members. Questions or comments by committee members? Seeing none, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there a motion? So Senator Gomez moves the bill. Alright. So for the first time today, we're gonna vote. Alright. There's been a motion. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number 14, AB 2179. The motion is to pass the Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

8-0. We're gonna put that on call. Thank you very much. Alright. So we now have what I believe to be our last bill.

I see Assemblymember Hart is here. So I'm asking that committee members present themselves so that when Assemblymember Hart concludes that we can wrap up business. Alright. Assemblymember Hart, file number six, AB 1875.

Thank you, mister chair. I'm pleased to present AB 1875, a bill to protect survivors of domestic violence by allowing courts to reduce or waive California's six month divorce waiting period. Current law requires a mandatory six month six month cooling off period after filing for divorce before the divorce can become final. This makes California one of the only states in the country with the longest, one of the longest divorce waiting periods.

In contrast, states such as Arizona and Texas generally allow divorces to be finalized in about sixty days, while New York does not impose a statewide waiting period at all.

For the survivors of domestic violence, California's lengthy divorce process keeps them legally tied to an abuser longer than necessary, worsening stress and trauma. Data from the National Library of Medicine suggests that nearly seventy seven percent of domestic violence related homicides occur upon separation, and there's a seventy five percent increase of violence upon separation for at least two years. AB 1875 is a common sense fix.

It gives the judge discretion to shorten the waiting period for when victims of domestic violence are most at risk from the divorce process. We've made recent amendments to strengthen the bill by ensuring all material issues are resolved and providing a clear process for courts to follow when considering a reduction or waiver of the waiting period.

This bill ensures the judges can make case by case determinations when urgent circumstances warrant a shorter waiting period, helping survivors move forward safely while maintaining appropriate court oversight. With me today is Ken Opplinger, the executive director of Domestic Violence Solutions, speaking in support.

Thank you very much. Sir, the floor is yours.

Mister chair, members of the committee, Ken Opplinger. I'm executive director of domestic violence solutions for Santa Barbara County, which coincidentally was cofounded by a former member of this body, Senator Hannah Beth Jackson. Domestic violence survivors are in need of this judicial discretion. You know, they already have the ability to, along with the judge, assure that that six month period is extended if need be, but not curtailed.

And there are oftentimes where it is important for the survivors are going through the process of dealing with their trauma, overcoming what has occurred to them to be able to have more control over the situation, to be able to get out, from the the marriage that they're in, as quickly as they can once they are able to get through, the a lot of the issues that they have to get through in that process.

And I will say that prior to a couple weeks ago, we were not, we were essentially neutral on this bill. We liked the idea, but we had some concerns about how it might be used against survivors.

And we were very pleased that my friend Assemblymember Hart was able to make amendments to this along the lines that we have been asking for to ensure that there is very specific language about how good cause can be shown when these things are going to occur so that we don't end up victimizing survivors all over again. So we're very strongly in support of this, and we ask for your right vote.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support of AB 1875. Going once. Alright. Oh, here we go.

Hi. I'm Brock Campbell from Lighthouse Baptist Church in Santa Maria and in support. Thank you.

Emily Campbell on behalf of South Coast Baptist Church in Santa Barbara in support.

Thank you.

Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Thank you very much. Alright. Others in support, seeing no one else approaching my phone, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1875, now is a good time to come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee for questions.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. One, I I really actually appreciate you bringing this bill forward. This is actually a complaint I hear from constituents all the time. You know, I think that sometimes it even goes longer than the, typical six months, if you will, especially if it's contentious. I personally would like to move this bill.

I just think it's it's a common sense bill. Point blank. Thank you.

Alright. It's been moved by Senator Wahab. Other questions or comments? Now that we have the Baptists and Planned Parenthood coming together, there we go. CJack and COC, this is quite the hearing.

Alright. Okay. Someone over Hart, would you like to close?

I think I'll just drop the mic and say I respectfully request your item.

Okay. Excellent close. Alright. Alright. Committee assistant porter, it's been moved by Senator Wahab.

Please call the roll.

This is file item number six, AB 1875. The motion is to pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, Aye.

Nilo?

Aye.

Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Aye.

Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye.

Reyes? Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadares? Aye.

Valadares, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson?

Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. You have 90?

90? I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, Aye. 10-0.

10-0. Alright. We're gonna put that on call. That concludes all the bills today. This, I hope, is a precursor to the rest of June that we'll finish within an hour of starting time.

Oh, no. It could be so. Yeah. I'm pretty sure it's gonna happen. So let's do this.

Let's let's go through I'm gonna urge all members here who are in the capital to present themselves. But we're gonna go through the calendar, the full calendar. Right now, we need motions on most of the bills. So let's start with the consent calendar, which has been moved by Senator Wahab. Alright.

So, miss Porter, please call the roll.

On the consent calendar, Umberg?

Aye.

Umberg, Aye. Nilo?

Aye.

Nilo, Aye. Allen? Ashby? Capoehro? Aye.

Capoehro, aye. Turazo? Aye. Laird? Aye.

Laird, aye. Reyes?

Aye.

Reyes, aye. Stern. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, Aye.

Valadares. Aye. Valadares, Aye. Weber Pearson.

Aye.

Weber Pearson, Aye. Weiner. Aye. Weiner, Aye. 10 to zero.

Ten zero. Put the consent calendar on call. Alright. Let's let's go down the the list here, committee assistant reporter.

File item number 7 AB 1977. This needs a motion.

Alright. Moved by Senator Wahab.

The motion is to pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo?

That's 1977?

Yes. Yes.

No.

Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Aye.

Caballero? Aye. Durasso, aye. Laird? Aye.

Laird, aye. Reyes? Two. Stern? Valadares?

No. Valadares, no. Wahab? Aye. Webb Pearson?

Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye. Weiner. Weiner, Aye. 8-2.

8-2. Put that on call. Let's okay. Yeah. Let's do go to file number one next. I'm sorry. So file number one, SJR 18.

82. 82. Put that on call.

Let's okay. Yeah. Let's do go to file number one next. I'm sorry. So file number one, SJR 18.

Okay. Senator Reyes moves moves the, resolution.

The resolution. Right.

File item number one, SJR 18. The motion is that the resolution be adopted. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.

Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby?

Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye.

Weber Pearson, Aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, Aye. Ashby, Aye.

Alan, Aye. 10 to two.

10 to one second. Alright. That bill is out. 10 to two. Alright.

Next item. Next item in order. So, yeah, keep going with in other words, take it up where you left off a few moments ago.

File item number. 8 AB 2305. This needs a motion.

Senator Wahab moves the bill.

The motion is do pass. Umberg?

Aye.

Umberg, aye. Milo?

Aye.

Milo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby?

Aye. Ashby, Aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, Aye.

Durazo? Aye. Turazo, Aye. Laird? Aye.

Laird, Aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, Aye. Stern.

Valadares? Valaderas, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye.

Weber Pearson?

Aye.

Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? Weiner, aye. 120.

120, bills out.

File item number 10 AB 18O1. This needs a motion.

All senators are also got it in there ahead of Senator Wahab. Senator Rosso moves the bill. Right.

The motion is to pass to the Senate Local Government Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo?

No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye.

Ashby? Aye. Ashby, Aye. Caballero? Aye.

Caballero, Aye. Durazo? Durazo, Aye. Laird? Aye.

Laird, Aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, Aye. Stern?

Valadares? No. Valadares, no. Wahab? Aye.

Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner.

Weiner, aye. 10 to two.

10 to two. Bill's out.

File item number 14, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye.

Ashby, aye. Stern? Valadares? Valadares. Valadares.

Valadares. Valadares. Valadares. Valadares.

Valadares. Valadares. Valadares. Valadares. Valadares.

Valadares. Valadares. Valadares. Valadares. Valadares.

Valadares. Valadares. Valadares. Valadares. Valadares.

Valadares. Aye. Weiner, aye. 12 to zero.

12-0. Bill is out.

File item number 14 AB 1657. This needs a motion.

Senator Mohamovic.

Did you say item 14?

15. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll file item number fifteen AB 1657.

Okay. Oh, Senator Reyes moves the bell.

The motion is do pass. Umberg?

Aye.

Umberg, aye. Nilo?

Aye.

Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Alvarado-Gil?

I'm sorry. Nope. I didn't fix that one. Okay. Ashby.

Aye. Ashby, Aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, Aye.

Durazo, Aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, Aye. Reyes.

Aye. Reyes, Aye, Stern. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, Aye.

Wahab, Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye. Weiner.

Weiner, aye. 12 to 0.

12-0. Bill is out. Alright. Committee assistance supporters that then we're gonna go through one more time. Right?

Yes.

Okay. Alright. I think many of you have already completed your votes. So we'll go through the role one final time.

On the Alright. Consent calendar Let's

start at the top.

Allen.

Aye.

Allen, Aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. 12 to zero?

12 zero. Consent calendar is adopted.

File item number six, AB 1875, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, Aye. Ashby? Ashby, Aye.

Stern. 12 to zero.

Twelve zero. Bill is out.

File item number 7 AB 1977, chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby?

Ashby, aye. Stern. Ten to two.

Ten to 2. Bill is out. That's it. Alright. So we are adjourned until next Tuesday, June 16 at thirteen thirty hours.

Alright. Thank you all.