Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Look at that. Thank you, Matt. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Good afternoon.

We're holding this committee hearing in Room 2100 of the 0 Street Building. I ask that all members present themselves in Room 2100, so we can establish a quorum. We don't have a quorum, and we're gonna proceed as a subcommittee here, absent a quorum. But I'm gonna announce the bills that are on on a consent calendar today. There are 30 measures on our agenda.

The following items are on consent. File number three, AB 1961 by Assembly member Ahrens with amendments. File number 16, AB 13 Yeah. That one too. Excuse me.

Strike that. File number six, AB 1382 by Assemblymember Castillo. File number seven, AB 1828 by Assemblymember Chen with amendments. File number eight, AB 2577 by Assemblymember Connolly. File number nine, AB 1651 by Assemblymember Dixon with amendments.

File number 10, AB 1918 by Assemblymember Dixon. File number 11, AB 1951 by Assemblymember Dixon. File number 12, AB 739 by Assemblymember Jackson. File number 13, AB 2781 by Assemblymember by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. File number 17, AB 2090 by Assemblymember Macedo.

File number 19, AB 2331 by Assemblymember Wynne. File number 21, ACR 168 by Assemblymember Pacheco. File number 22, AB 1652 by Assembly member Patterson. File number 25, AB 1628 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. File number 26, AB 2262 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez.

File number 28, AB 1640 by Assemblymember Stefani with amendments. File number 29, AB 1954 by Assemblymember Ward. Alright. So in terms of our ground rules, the same today as they have been, we're gonna proceed as follows. There'll be two primary witnesses who will testify in support, followed by two primary witnesses who may testify in opposition.

Each of the witnesses who are testifying will be afforded two minutes. In other words, two minutes each for support for a total of four minutes, two minutes each for opposition for a total of four minutes. After the support witnesses testify, the primary witnesses will have Me Too testimony where, individuals may approach the microphone, give us their name, their affiliation, and their position on the bill. The exact same method for those in opposition. Name, position, on the bill in their affiliation.

You should note that, if you go to our website, you'll see that there are, there are portals for you to submit written information, which will be presented to the committee members. Having said that, I see that we have at least one member of the assembly who is two members of the assembly who are here, but Assemblymember Addis is right on number one. So congratulations on having your last name begin with a, and the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1744 which is, my favorite bill that I get to do this year. It's the clear Labels Clear Seas Act. And I'll say that California's rocky reefs and marine ecosystems, as you know, are critical to maintaining our state's biodiversity, fisheries, and coastal tourism. Just five years ago, coastal tourism and recreation made up 67% of California's $51,000,000,000 coastal economy.

Unfortunately, manmade factors are directly contributing to their decline in recent years, and this has had a drastic effect on our natural environment and our climate. There are certain chemicals that are commonly found in sunscreen that are of particular concern because they wash off people's bodies when they enter the water. These chemicals have harmed corals and other marine life by disrupting photosynthesis, damaging DNA, causing coral bleaching, and other things.

Despite growing awareness and state actions such as Hawaii's 2018 ban on two harmful chemicals, some sunscreen manufacturers continue to market their products as reef safe or reef friendly. So we have a solution for this, which is our bill AB 1744 that will solve the situation by clarifying that products marketed as reef safe, reef friendly, or any other term implying the product does not harm marine ecosystems cannot contain chemical ultraviolet filters.

The bill does not ban any chemicals. It is simply about transparency and labeling. And with me today is Mikaela Spencer, a high school junior who is here on behalf of the McClatchy High School Eco Club.

Miss Spencer, the floor is yours.

Thank you, mister chair. Mikaela Spencer, on behalf of the Eco Club at CK McClatchy Senior High School in Sacramento, our club is proud to sponsor AB 1744. As high school students who care deeply about the environment, we learn how everyday consumer products can have a significant impact on our ecosystems. While researching ocean conservation last summer, I was surprised to learn just how damaging chemicals commonly used in sunscreen are on marine life and fragile reef ecosystems.

Scientific studies include including research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other peer reviewed sources show that these chemicals can disrupt photosynthesis, damage DNA, and damage DNA which contributes to coral bleaching.

When swimmers and beach goers enter the water, these chemicals wash off and accumulate in coastal habitats. Even small amounts can affect coral larvae, algae, fish populations, and marine vegetation such as kelp and seagrass, all plants that provide essential habitat for many species. California's rocky reef ecosystems from the Channel Islands to our northern kelp forests support hundreds of marine species, protect our coastline, and generate billions in tourism and fisheries rev revenue. They're also one of the most sensitive at habitats on the West Coast.

Despite the science and the harms these chemicals have on marine life, some sunscreen products that contain chemical UV filters are still marketed as reef safe, reef friendly, or ocean safe.

Learning this was troubling. These claims can mislead consumers who, like us, are trying to make environmentally responsible choices. They create an unfair marketing advantage and perpetuate greenwashing. That is why our club chose to sponsor AB 1744. This bill takes a simple truth in advertising approach.

It ensures sunscreen products sold in California cannot be labeled or advertised as reef safe, reef friendly, or similar claim if they contain any chemical UV filters. For us, this bill is about honesty, protecting our oceans, and creating real change. Consumers deserve accurate information, and our marine ecosystems deserve stronger protection. On behalf of the Eco Club at CK McClatchy Senior High School, I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Seeing no one else approaching the environment. First of all, miss Spencer, you're well on your way to becoming president of The United States. You you stayed within the time limit, and you were a credit to McClatchy High School.

Anyone else in support of AB 1744?

Ryan Spencer on behalf of Consumer Reports in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead.

Hi. My name is Isabelle Neff. I'm the Co President at CK Macatchi CECO Club and speaking on behalf of the club, I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Gabriela McClory. I also am co president at Eco Club, and I also support this bill.

Thank you. Alright. Anyone else who's testify and support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1744, please approach the microphone.

Going once, going twice. Alright. I see no opposition. Bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members?

Yes.

No questions. I just wanted to thank the students for your interest in, this really important area. Thank the author, and, I'd like to be, listed as a co author at the appropriate time. And I appreciate what you're you're trying to do here because you you there are labels on products and you wanna believe what they say and if they they it's not true, then we're doing damage to the environment. So I appreciate it.

Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you, Senator. Senator D'Arssell.

Sure. Just quickly, it's miss Spencer. Is that? I also wanna thank you for being here. You're a model citizen.

Not just for youth, but for anyone of of all ages. I congratulate you and thank you for being here and thank the author. It's a great subject and you're gonna do it.

Thank you. Alright. Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close?

You can see why this is my favorite bill and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. We do not have a quorum. At such time as we have a quorum, I expect to be a motion and there'll be a vote. So alright.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I see Selena Russalache here. Very smart of you. You sneaked ahead of about 15 of your colleagues.

Oh, yeah. You crossed the bar. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Yeah. Sorry. Thank you very much. Once you've crossed the bar, then you've you've established possession. So

Remember that when I'm

That's

yeah.

Woah. So I didn't hear any right. Yeah. File number 27AB713. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair and committee members. I am proud to present AB 713, the Opportunity for All Act. This bill will allow students at the University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges equal access to cap its jobs regardless of immigration status. While California has a long standing commitment to expanding access, affordability, and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers.

Thousands of students in California are unjustly excluded from obtaining paying on job campus, including experiential jobs and jobs, needed to complete their degrees solely due to their immigration status.

A previous bill, AB 2586, authored by Assemblymember Alvarez, passed the legislature in 2024. Last year, a stark court ruling affirmed that UC's prohibition on hiring undocumented students is discriminatory. That ruling paves the way for AB 713 to remedy this inequity. I commend the chair and the committee staff for their work and thoughtful analysis on this bill. We understand the gravity of the moment we are in and remain committed to continue engaging with the stakeholders.

Without this opportunity, students face a risk of exploitation throughout unofficial or under the table unemployment. Our students are just asking for the opportunity to work and contribute to the campus as they call home. I believe this is an issue that we could all stand by and work together. I wanna recognize the brave students, allies, and partners who have dedicated their build their life their years building the Opportunity for All Coalition.

Before I introduce, our witness, I just wanna say this is a a very personal goal of my admission because I was a student leader, student by president, where I actually met Senator Caballero when she was a mayor of Salinas.

I was a student in Monterey. We did an institution in Panera. And one of the students in my early career student vice president were undocumented students that came to me and said, can we start a club on campus? Just wanna have a voice. They became the second college student campus besides at UCLA Y Veas to be an organized student group.

They just wanted the opportunity to simply work. I think this is not a Republican, Democrat. This is an issue of humanity. And if we could be the leaders in California to give these students opportunity to work on campus, what better place to work than on campus, a place where we could call home, and give them the opportunity to succeed and work. And if California could lead that effort, I think we would be the leader in this in this conversation.

So with that, I will ask I have a a witness that will come. I have Vincent Rossell, director of government relations of the UC Student Association and professor Hiroshi Motomura, distinguished professor at UCLA School.

Thank thank you very much. If you're in support of AB 713, please approach the microphone.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Sherylenburg, members. My name is Hiroshi Motomura. I'm a professor at the UCLA School of Law where I'm also the faculty director of the Mignana Center for Immigration Law and Policy. I've been teaching immigration law and writing about immigration law for forty years.

I'm also a former California State Assembly Fellow. So I'm here to explain my support for AB 713, but I'm I'm partly speaking as a long time teacher and educator who's been part of the UC system since 2007. And I've seen in this role firsthand, how undocumented students have a special contribution to make to our colleges and universities and to then to our state and local, state and national economy.

This will only happen if we give undocumented students a fair chance to work hard, to support themselves and to gain the education experience that will benefit all of us. I'm also speaking as someone conversant with the legal analysis, that explains why state governments may hire people without regard to, federal law.

I especially wanna comment on the timeline of this legislation that Assemblymember Solache raised. A precursor bill, AB 2586, passed the California legislation with overwhelming majorities in 2004. The governor vetoed, but he raised two concerns that the bill's proponents have taken seriously, and this is the reason why the situation is different now. What is the concern the court should clarify what existing law says about, say, governments hiring undocumented undocumented students?

The bill's proponents have sought and received, as the governor suggested, a a court of appeals decision, and it was upheld by the California Supreme Court.

The court held that it's discriminatory, as assembly member you said, discriminatory in violation of state of California state law to exclude undocumented students from the hiring pool. The court made it clear that fear of federal retaliation is not a valid reason to discriminate in violation of state law. So AB 713 would end this unlawful discrimination, importantly, by enacting a law that would cover UC, CSU, and community colleges by adopting a statewide policy.

Governor Newsom also addressed concern expressed concern that about the personal liability of any individual involved involved in the hiring process. AB 713 would provide insulation for liability by making it state policy, not an individual decision, to have a hiring pool that does discriminate.

Professor? Yeah. Yeah. As someone who spent three years in fear of law professors, I'm reluctant to cut you off, but I'm done. Could you you're done.

I'm done. My last sentence

was I'm happy to take questions.

Alright. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Alright.

Next witness. Okay. Thanks.

I am not Vincent Russo of the UCSC student association, but I am Tiffany Mok on behalf of him at the moment. I stand for CFTA, a union of educators and classified professionals who is a proud cosponsor. And I am gonna read Vincent's, testimony since he is en route and didn't realize how efficient the legislature could possibly be.

The legislature is, Vincent notes that the legislature has paved the way for opportunity through landmark policy like AB540 and the California Dream Act, granting access to in state tuition and financial aid resources to lower the cost of a degree for our undocumented students.

But these supports are not nearly enough to cover basic needs like rent or food, especially while the cost of living increases and recent financial aid data reports that undocumented students enrollment has declined by nearly 50% since 2016, a statistic that only continues to deepen without decisive action from policy makers. The current ban on hiring undocumented students for campus employment, research, and paid internship opportunities directly conflicts with advice from legal experts you just heard from and the Supreme Court's ruling that UC's prohibition is discriminatory.

AB 713 ensures our students have equal opportunity to paid opportunities regardless of their background while strengthening their affordability, retention, and career per preparation. An undocumented grad student in a STEM program at UC Davis shared with us that having access to on campus employment would cover their living expenses and offer them invaluable skills that can be applied to a long term career.

Or in their words, I deserve the same opportunities as my classmates, and I deserve the opportunity to work with them. Another Cal State LA student who's undocumented pursuing a bachelor's social wear welfare shared that they need to work in order to continue their education and meet their basic needs. But without access to secure on campus employment, they're forced to set an underpaid, exploitative, and even dangerous jobs.

These reality realities are amplified by tens of thousands who share their struggle and hinder our students from their studies and from receiving the same educational experience as their peers. For the benefit of the students who were once the core of UCSA's mission to advance educational equity in college

Thank you, miss Muck. I assume you're urgent, I vote also.

I absolutely urge your aye vote. Alright.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Alright. Others in support of AB 713, please approach microphone.

I am now speaking on behalf of UAW who would like to voice their support of the organization.

Alright. Thank you.

Monica Madrid on behalf of the California Dream Network and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, in support.

Thank you.

Mister chair and senators, Adam Keghorn on behalf of California LULAC and Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Hello. Ana Maria Santiago. I'm a fellow with the Mesa Verde Group, and we are in support on behalf of the Inclusive Action for the City Central American Resource Center, Carecen, and Cal State Student Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danila Rodriguez with Immigrants Rising. Also here to express support on behalf of the UC Student Association and the Education Trust West. Thank you.

Thank you.

Iyanna Perez, executive director of Immigrants Rising, proud cosponsor of the bill and in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jesse Hernandez Reyes on behalf of the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Allison DeLuca with the Southern California College Attainment Network also in support.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, as well as UnidosUS, both in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. McKenna Mastaza with NextGen California in support.

Thank you.

Hello. Corellia Maya Rios, co founder of Immigrant Justice and Action Coalition. We strongly support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Vanessa Young Vinaigra with the UCLA Mignana Center for Immigration Law and policy in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ashley De La Rosa with Building Skills Partnership in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, there we go. Miss Mok, go ahead. Three's a charm.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFA this time in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Anyone else in support of AB 713, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 713, now is a good time to come to the microphone.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else, please queue up if you're opposed to AB 713.

Thank you. David Bullock, SFA Alliance. If if I was mistaken, I heard it sound like that you're gonna this bill allows people that are undocumented to work and to be paid. If that's the case, that's a violation of federal law. And if I'm correct with what I heard, I oppose this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michelle Connor, strong opposition.

Thank you.

Lisa Disbrow, former, public school teacher, bilingual, in strong opposition. I rep Aye, protest the violation of the US Constitution.

Alright. Thank you. Anyone else opposed to AB 713? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee.

Questions by committee members. Yes. Okay. Senator Durazo and Senator Reyes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much assembly member and everyone who came in in support. I remember when this initiative first came to us in 2024 as you recollected. In fact, my staff, Cynthia, worked on that on that bill. She wasn't working for me then, but working for assembly member Alvaris. But he's working on it now in in in support.

So the movement created a lot of people, very smart, intelligent, strategic people. The Lotus work that was in the room alongside the students, Kent Wong, my dear friend for many years, UCLA Labor Center, was in the room lifting up the students. It was his his dream to see this, come through. So on his behalf, thank you. Thank you very much.

And this goes in along with along the lines of other things that we've done in the state of California. We're so proud that the dream act, the dream resource centers, we could go on and on all the all the ways in which California has lived up to lifted up our our youth no matter what their immigration status is. So I'm very proud and very glad to see you bringing this forward.

Alright. Thank you. Senator Gomez Reyes.

I too am very happy to know that you have brought this bill forward. It's good to see organizations like CSEA and CFA, come not only that they support it, but they come forward to show their support for the students being able to work on campus and gain that experience and and be paid. So important to provide these opportunities. And also the California Student Association of Community College Students. I'm glad they were here and that they are lending their support to this at the appropriate time.

You're gonna beat Senator D'Arasso to make the motion.

Yes.

Alright. K. Other questions or comments? Alright. Seeing none, Senator Assembly Member Solace, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair. If I may add to the committee members, someone used the word bilingual. And one of my first jobs probably was I was six years old, being interpreted for my mother who sold Avon in my local city of Lynwood to now being the state assembly member. And between that having so many jobs, but one of my jobs was to work for student outreach at Dominguez Hills.

Use my privilege to be able to work and and be able to get paid and and do hard work.

One of the things that resonates for me in this bill and this legislation, what California can do and lead is one thing, is for us to lead and and and just, just acknowledge one thing. Students simply wanna work and get paid for. And we could unite on that basis of giving someone the opportunity to work hard. They're not asking for a giveaway. They're not asking for a handout.

They're saying put me to work. Put me put me in coach. Put me to work. I wanna work. I wanna earn my living.

And I wanna contribute to society, to California. And so for me, this bill is so personal that if I can share that same privilege that I had as a student worker in college, give every opportunity to a student that wants to work and simply give them the opportunity to earn a good living's worth. So with that, I ask for

an eye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you to the students and student leaders and student representatives who've traveled so far to see your government at work and testify in support. So with that, at the appropriate time, I expect that senators are also and Senator Reyes will simultaneously make a motion.

We'll have to choose between the two, and then we'll bring it to a vote. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.

Alright. Senator Ahrens.

Well, thank you so much. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1359, which provides support to senior citizens across our state, enabling individuals 80 years or older to opt out of jury service without a doctor's note. Under current law, an individual may get an exemption from jury service for undue hardship as defined by the Judicial Council. Unfortunately, this requires the presentation of a doctor's note.

Scheduling a doctor's appointment, acquiring a note with the necessary information, and presenting it to the court is a burdensome and costly process. This is especially true for older individuals who may have chronic health conditions, physical limitations, or lack of technological expertise. AB 1359 will address this issue by simplifying the jury excusal process for our aging population. Individuals, 80 years and older, will with undue hardship are already routine are already routinely excused by courts.

This bill just streamline streamlines that process and reduces the burden of acquiring documentation.

By doing this, we can make the lives of older adults in California easier while maintaining a responsible and just jury selection process. With me today is Andrew Mendoza from the Alzheimer's Association.

Alright. Mister Mendoza.

Thank you, Mister Chair, members of the committee, and staff. Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association. We're pleased to support Assemblyman Ahrens' AB 1359. We appreciate the Assemblymember for enhancing care and support in the community for older adults by creating a community for older adults by creating a streamlined process to relieve themselves of the civic duty when appropriate. Jury duties among the discussion items covered when someone living with Alzheimer's disease or other dementia create a plan for managing their responsibilities as the disease progresses. In the later stages, individuals may seek permanent medical exemption. However, it is not always easy to attain permanent excusal from jury service.

There are caregiver reports where they have submitted a record of diagnoses of Alzheimer's to the court and have nevertheless received a denied exemption.

Meanwhile, a significant number of people living with Alzheimer's disease are without a diagnosis, and not everyone is fortunate enough to have a caregiver to assist with navigating through the system. AB 1359 will simplify the jury service exemption process for individuals living with Alzheimer's disease, allowing those over 80 to permanently opt out of jury service, no questions asked.

This bill can assist vulnerable populations avoid with what would otherwise be a stressful process to obtain documents and explain their condition as a disability during a time of great circumstantial change. AB 1359 enhances, community support for older adults generally, which can have a specific benefit for people living with Alzheimer's, as age is the number one risk for risk factor for dementia. For these reasons, I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote and at the appropriate time and appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1359?

Thank you. Amber King with LeadingAge California, also here in support.

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approaching; let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1359, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. Alright.

Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by - yes, Senator Reyes.

I just have a question that the - your witness spoke primarily about Alzheimer's. You don't have to have Alzheimer's: just be over 80, right?

No. They're speaking in support as once of many stakeholders. But this is an author sponsored bill. This was part of my ought to be a law program, where I had individuals submit bill ideas from the district.

And so this was a community member who came in and is married to an individual who's over 80 and just how difficult it was to try and get it because our healthcare system works so well that you can get a doctor's note very quickly. So, as you can see, you know, the process is just not working. So, and all this does is opt out for whatever reason. You can have you can be perfectly healthy, but it's also opt out.

If you wanna continue to serve this country and serve the state of California, we want you to do that.

We wanna encourage that participation. But as so many of our older adults are experiencing difficulties with access to technology that so often our courts and so many aspects of our lives are moving online. If you don't have that access to broadband, a computer, the acumen, if you have chronic health conditions, if you've felt like you've already served your country and your - and service to the courts. This is just simply saying you don't have to continue doing that.

Well, I shared it with my mother. She thought it was a very good idea. She's 90 years old.

Well, I hope that she can support this as well. Alright. Tell you to vote. Yes.

Other questions or comments? Is the community member here who recommended the bill?

She's not. She's the caregiver for her husband who's over 80 years old.

Okay.

She needs to be in the district. So, I'm doing this on her behalf.

Good for her. Congratulate her for her initiative from us.

Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, Assemblymember. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have no other authors here from the assembly. So, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for assembly members who have been in bills before this committee. Thank you Assemblymember Ahrens.

I know that Senator Wahab will be voting on all of my bills.

Alright. Thank you very much. Alright.

Thank you.

If you can hear my voice and you're in the California State Assembly and you have a bill pending today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, irrespective of where you file in file order, if you appear, you will walk right up to the podium.

Assemblymember Pacheco. Hello. The floor is yours. Perfect

timing from one dish to the other.

File item number number 20AB2563. Floor is yours.

Thank you. And and thank you all for patiently waiting. I know it's been a crazy busy day, so I appreciate you all. Patient. Good afternoon, mister chair and senators.

I am here to present AB 2563, which clarifies the definition of sex discrimination across California codes. In 1972, the California legislature ratified the federal equal rights amendment declaring equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by The United States or by any state on account of sex. However, the amendment was not formally added to the US constitution after disagreements over ratification deadlines. California has long been a leader on women's issues.

Rather than rely on federal action, the legislature directed California Law Revision Commission to study whether the state statutes comply with the equal rights amendment.

The study found that inconsistent language can create confusion, weaken enforcement, and leave gaps in how protections are applied. The commission recommended that the legislature clarify the definition of sex discrimination across California law. AB 2563 aligns the definition of sex discrimination across all of California's many codes, ensuring that protections apply equally in every area of state law.

At a time when federal protections have been rolled back, including the overturning of Roe versus Wade, California must ensure that its laws are clear, consistent, and enforceable in protecting people from discrimination based on sex. This bill embodies that commitment.

And with me today to provide background on the bill is Sarah Hutchell, deputy director of the California Law Revision Commission.

Thank you very much. I'm sorry.

I'll

just hand it over to her.

Alright. Thank you. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Sarah Huckel, and I'm the chief deputy director of the California Law Revision Commission. As noted, Assembly Bill 2,563 would implement a California Law Revision Commission recommendation to clarify the existing definitions of sex discrimination in California statutes. This recommendation was developed as a result of SCR 92, which tasked the Commission with studying California law to identify and propose revisions to comply with the proposed Federal Equal Rights Amendment.

As the Assemblymember noted, the Commission did not find any barriers to ERA compliance with California laws. To emphasize California's commitment to equality, however, the Commission proposed draft legislation, proposing a sex equality provision for each California code clarifying the existing definitions of sex discrimination. AB 2563 implements this recommendation along with clarifying and technical amendments. I'm available to answer any questions.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2563, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Elizabeth Kristen. I'm the legal director of California Women's Law Center, CWLC. We're a five zero one c three nonprofit seeking to advance justice for women and girls throughout California. And I'm speaking today also on behalf of the Feminist Majority, a national organization founded in 1987 working for women's empowerment and equality.

We are cosponsors and in support of AB 2563, which clarifies and strengthens California law by requiring that all statutory prohibitions on sex or gender discrimination are interpreted broadly. And we thank assembly member Pacheco for her authorship. Californians have advocated tirelessly for women's equal rights under the law, have led in this regard for decades with strong constitutional and statutory protections, ratifying the nineteenth amendment in 1919 and the federal equal rights amendment in 1972.

In 2022, CWLC and the feminist majority cosponsored Senate concurrent Resolution 92, which empowered the California Law Revision Commission to undertake a reason and comprehensive audit of California law to ensure that our law reflects its commitment to gender equity and equal rights regardless of sex. Inconsistencies in how sex and sex discrimination are defined and interpreted across different areas of law can create gaps in protection, limit enforcement, and leave individuals vulnerable to sex discrimination.

On 09/29/2025, the commission issued its final detailed report and recommendation AB 2563 would implement those recommendations into California law. At a moment when the principles of gender equality have been increasingly contested in the national debate, This legislation clearly enunciates that the California legislature upholds the legal rights and equal dignity of Californians regardless of sex. And for these reasons, we are proud to sponsor this important bill and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thanks. Other than support of AB 2563.

Good afternoon. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Thank you.

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach microphone. Alright. Now, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2563, now is a good time.

Come forward.

Good afternoon. Meg Madden for cause. How long is the California legislature going to play this game where you claim to be protecting women's rights, while in fact removing women from our legal code by replacing the fact of sex with the mirage of gender identity. The California legislature has been at this project for twenty seven years. Law after law crafted to obscure rational understanding of sex, also men can be legally recognized as women.

Civil rights codes, education codes, twenty seven years, scores of bills, and yet men are still not women. The this bill puts the falsehood into 29 states codes. And after it passes, men will still not be women. At San Jose State, a man played on the women's volleyball team for three years. The coach lied to his players about him.

Some women only found out later they had been sharing housing and intimate spaces with men. Did the law convince them that sexual harassment was just fine and dandy because the man said he was a woman? Definitely not. They were horrified. One said, we were lied to.

Another said, we're being silenced. And that is exactly what happened. When they tried to object, they were warned to stay quiet, warned about losing scholarships. Are you listening? Do you understand?

Young women in California could not report sexual harassment due to laws passed by this legislature by you. AB 2,563 puts every school, business, and institution in this trap, Unable to protect a woman's rights because they must honor a man's claim he is a woman. Discrimination of sexual harassment of women and girls is the inevitable result. Stop this mad game. Vote no on AB 2563.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other witnesses in opposition?

Aaron Friday, attorney Ardudi. You cannot protect sex and gender identity simultaneously under the same definition. They are in direct conflict. Every time a female asserts a sex based right, a male who identifies as female can assert an identical claim under the same statute. One must lose and sex must win.

Sex is a certainty, immutable, biological, and it is unchangeable by belief. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in US v Virginia that the two sexes are not fungible. Gender identity by contrast is self declared, fluid by California's own law, and can be asserted by anyone at any time with no objective criteria whatsoever. It is not only women who will be re be erased, but with sex losing all meaning, being gay has no meaning. Same sex attracted means nothing.

Lesbian spaces are no longer for females who are attracted to females, but men and their penises must be included. None of you believe that Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who who gets perms and tans is actually black. Not one of you actually believes that there is no difference between a female and a male who believes that he is a woman, even though you say so.

If I stood naked before you and a trans identified male stood beside me, 90% of them keep their penises, not one of you could honestly say that we are the same. Reality is not bigotry or hatred, but subjecting females to males in intimate spaces to protect a male's feeling is hatred.

Hatred of females, hatred of little girls whose safety and dignity you just don't give a damn about. Thank you. Vote no.

Alrighty. Others wish to provide me to testimony on AB 2563.

Hi. Leslie, as a mother of daughters who thinks that broadening terms makes us go backward, I'm in opposition.

Thank you. Greg Burr

with the California Family Council in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Good afternoon. David Bullock on behalf of the SFE Alliance, the LA County chapter of Moms for Liberty, and TOPS parent, taxpayer, parents and students. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rochelle Connor, abolitionist, Frederick Douglass Foundation of California in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Lisa Disbrow, a biological female, a mother in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Jennifer Kennedy, attorney in strong opposition.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please approach. Seeing no one, let's bring it back to committee for questions. Questions by committee members? Seeing none, would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you very much. Alright. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion, and we'll have a vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. And now I see we are blessed by having a number of members of the assembly here just so that there's no, misunderstanding. Typically, we go in file order unless we've run out of authors, then it's the first member of the assembly to appear. So it would appear that assembly member Bauer Kean is next in file order. So The floor is yours.

Thank you, mister chair and members of the committee, and thank you to the committee staff as always for their work on this bill and all of my bills, many of which come to this committee. I'm proud to present AB 175, the Reclaim Act, a bipartisan effort with my colleague and joint author, Assemblymember Dixon, who carried this work in the legislature last year.

AB 175 establishes a meaningful accountability for platforms by requiring operators of websites to verify that sexually explicit content does not include people depicted without their consent. Honestly, we have used a system to date where if you have nonconsensual pornography online, you have to detect it, request it to be taken down, and then hopefully, the platform takes it down. There are legal obligations to do so.

But by the time that happens, it has proliferated online. And so this takes the next step and says, before you upload pornography, you just need to get consent of the person depicted. It is incredibly simple, and it will hopefully change the dynamic of nonconsensual pornography proliferating online. We know this harm is real, and we need to continue to work to end this practice. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Witnesses in support of AB 175, please approach your microphone. Mister Howard? Mister

chairman, good morning good afternoon. Ed Howard, on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law and strong support.

Thank you.

Greg Burr with the California Family Council in support.

Thank you. Charles Contrebecky, Internet Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support.

Thank you. Others in support, AB 1705.

David Bullock, SFI Alliance, and the LA County Chopper for Vermont for Liberty. We're in support. Great bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rochelle Connor, abolitionist, Frederick Douglass Foundation of California in support.

Thank you.

Aaron Friday, attorney president of our duty in support.

Thank you.

Leslie Sawyer, Moms for Liberty state legislative chair in support.

Thank you.

Meg Madden of Californian of cause Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law in support. Thank you.

Lisa Disbrow, Contra Costa, Moms for Liberty, Contra Costa Informed Parents in strong support.

Thank you. Others in support, Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 175, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, mister chair and members. My name is Jason Schmelzer. I'm here today on behalf TechNet in respectful opposition, but with sincere hopes of removing our opposition. I wanna be very clear, we support the legislature's focus on CSAM and NCII. We've worked constructively with the legislature on several several bills in this area, and we will continue to do so.

Ace A B if AB 175 were targeted only at websites that allow or seek out user generated sexually explicit content, we would not be opposed. No TechNet members allow for sexually explicit material. I wanna make that absolutely clear. We initially reached out to the author to seek clarification on the bill's applicability. Eighty seventeen o five is targeted at pornographic Internet websites.

This is defined as a website that permits a user to upload sexually explicit content, which we thought frankly could use a tiny bit of clarification. We requested an amendment that would exclude websites whose terms and conditions prohibit sexually explicit content and actively moderate that content. But we were told that the author intends for the bill to apply to, to our websites as well. So why is that a problem from our perspective? We're frankly unclear about how we're supposed to comply with the bill's provisions.

For the bill's, for this bill's provisions to apply to websites who prohibit sexually explicit content, it would have to apply only in situations where we failed to proactively prevent something from being uploaded even though it was against our terms and conditions. One part of the bill requires a website operator to create a mechanism by which a user can upload, uploading sexually explicit content can submit required information to the website operator.

But if a website doesn't allow that type of content, we obviously can't provide that type of mechanism, for a user. So this bill doesn't make sense as if it's applied to websites that prohibit sexually explicit content. We certainly can understand, however, how these requirements would be successful in combating CSAM and NCII on websites that do allow that content and seek it out.

We don't think the bill is designed for our members websites. We don't think additional state level regulation of our sites, is needed considering the recent full implementation of the federal take it down act. We'd urge the author and the committee to refocus the bill on sites that, actually allow this company.

Alright. Thank you very much. Others opposed to AB 175. Now is a good time to come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's bring it back committee.

Thank you

so much.

Questions by committee members. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, mister chairman. I appreciate the author is trying to tackle a very serious issue which is, explicit images and videos of people being put up without their consent, particularly around children. It's a very, very important issue and I appreciate it.

And I'm gonna support the bill today, but as the author and I have discussed, there are some definition in my view issues in the bill that it could sweep in sites where people are simply are meeting each other and maybe are not being super public about it and might be discretion for them is important for a variety of societal stigma kind of reasons.

And so wanting to make sure that when we have situations with consenting adults not wanting to be super identified in public that we're not gonna effectively take away people's ability to to do that.

And so I appreciate, you know, the discussions that we've had. I know this is presuming it gets out of committee, which I assume it will today, won't be in privacy and those conversations can continue. So I appreciate it. But with that, I will vote to advance the bill today. But I do just wanna express that I do have those concerns that I would like to see addressed.

Alrighty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. And I I have as you know, Senator Weiner also, Senator Barracken will continue to work as this moves to privacy as my as as my expectation.

Alright. Would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair. And I just wanna, I know I thanked the committee for their excellent work on this bill, but as always the analysis, l 23 pages of it I thought were incredible. I don't know how your staff does it with the number of bills coming through this committee. But page 16 addresses much of what the opposition said and I think deals with why I have said that I don't think social media sites should be exempt.

Just this last week, The United Kingdom decided that, they are going to ban devices from transmitting naked images of children, and the device companies have told the UK government that they can do that.

They can actually stop the transmission of those images through artificial intelligence that detects those images and actually refuses to send them. So we know that technology exists for these companies to put AI in place when you're uploading an image to know whether or not it is pornographic in nature. They can block all uploading of pornographic images or they can allow the uploading of consensual pornography by getting consent to the depicted individual. Frankly, in the day of artificial intelligence, I don't think that's too much to ask.

I think it is what people deserve.

If naked images of them are being put online, their consent should be deemed to be there. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Appropriate time, I expect there'll be a a motion. Next, we have Assemblymember Calderon.

Good afternoon.

And, Nicole Narone.

Mister chair.

File item number five, AB 1940.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Menopause can bring a wide variety of symptoms including physical, emotional, and cognitive changes. Women make up roughly half of the population and about fifty seven percent of women are participating in the workforce, meaning menopause will impact a significant portion of employees during their careers. Unfortunately, workplace standards have historically been designed with these realities in mind. AB 1940 does not create a new protected class.

It simply clarifies existing law. Menopause is already understood to be protected under the definition of sex in the Fair Employment and Housing Act, but without explicit language, many women are unaware of their rights. By naming menopause directly in this statute, we are making it easier for women to understand their rights and request reasonable accommodations without fear or discrimination. Rhode Island recently passed similar legislation and Washington's Governor just recently signed an executive order to support women in the workplace experiencing perimenopause and menopause.

It's time for California to also lead and do the same.

Supporting workers during this transition promotes economic equity, strengthens workforce retention, and ensures we retain experienced employees who are vital to our economy. AB 1940 raises awareness and provides clear protection so employees can continue to contribute contribute fully and fairly to their roles. With me in support of AB 1940 are Alex Zucco with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and Ryan Spencer with the American College of OB GYNs.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OB GYNs, District 9 in support of AB 1940. From a clinical standpoint, menopause is not a single event. It is transition that can last years, often coinciding with the women's peak professional responsibilities. Many women experience significant symptoms, including hot flashes, sleep disruption, cognitive changes, anxiety, depression, and musculoskeletal pain.

These are not trivial inconveniences. They can materially impact a person's ability to perform at work without support. However, too often these experiences are stigmatized or dismissed. As a result, women may suffer in silence, reduce their hours, or even leave the workforce entirely. This loss is not only to individuals, but to the employers and to California's economy.

This is what makes AB 1940 so important. First, it helps workers experiencing perimenopause, menopause, or postmenopause to understand their existing workplace rights, including protections related to reasonable accommodations and retaliation. Second, it promotes education and awareness so employers understand how existing workplace laws apply while ensuring outreach is accurate, multilingual, culturally competent, and distributed through trusted community partners. Supporting menopausal women in the workplace is not burdensome. It's smart workforce policy.

It improves retention, productivity, and equity for a substantial portion of California's workforce. For all these reasons, ACOG is pleased to support AB 1940 and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support, AB 1940.

Hello. Good afternoon. I'm, Alex Zucco with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. When our Fair Employment and Housing Act was first written, women were not as prevalent in the workforce as they are today. Women were regularly kept out of the workforce, but today's changing economy does require women to work longer and to walk well past the age of retirement.

Our systems were not written with women in mind. No two women will experience the events the same, but every single woman lucky enough to reach that age will experience it. Menopause doesn't care about your education or zip code. What it does require is our attention. Adding perimenopause, menopause, and postmenopause is list to events.

Also, expands the definition of what a woman's value is in the workforce beyond childbirth, which is recognized as a condition to be protected. Explicitly placing this information in the workplace and having it be a service that the commission highlights in its awareness campaigns will make women aware of their rights and have this be as regularly talked about as childbirth. Research shows that up to $1.8 billion in loss annually to work productivity occurs because of menopause and the perimenopause and postmenopause.

Each time I was pregnant, women and health care and other people and books could not wait to give me advice. When you start to see the other side of 45, it is crickets.

There is a long line of equity based adjustments we need to make to our systems, and this is just one. For over sixty years, the commission has worked to provide gender equity in the workplace. We urge you to vote yes as a proud cosponsor of 1940. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, AB 1940.

Good afternoon, mister chairman and members. What I go through to support you, I'm on here on behalf of the American Nurses Association of California, Roxanne Gould, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Michelle Corpuz, Chief of Staff at the Menopause Education Center. I strongly support.

Thank you. Others in support.

Thank you for your service. I'm Rachel Anne, the founder of the Menopause Education Center, and I fully support this bill. And an aye vote is an aye vote for every mother, every sister, every cousin, every woman colleague sitting next to you, and any single woman working in California or on planet Earth.

Thank you very much. Alright.

Yeah. Well, just Earth. Okay. So others in support of AB 1940. Seeing no one else approaching, now let's turn to the opposition.

If you're opposed, AB 1940.

Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and regrettable opposition. We appreciate that AB 1940 now requires education to employees on their rights related to reasonable accommodations for menopause related symptoms. It is meaningful, and it reflects exactly what we've been asking for, to stay within the reasonable accommodation framework. Protections for women experiencing menopause already exist.

In CIPL, the federal court confirmed that menopause related symptoms are already covered under the existing reasonable accommodation framework. No new protected characteristic required. Support witnesses also confirmed these protections. And to that end, we have provided the author with proposed amendments that would strengthen and codify menopause protections within the existing reasonable accommodation framework. But it is critical to understand protected characteristic status and reasonable accommodation under FEHA are categorically different legal frameworks, and they operate very differently for employers.

Here is an example. An employer sets the office thermostat at 70 degrees. Under the reasonable accommodation framework, an employee experiencing hot flashes ask for a fan or workspace near a window. The employer engages, and they work it out together. Everyone is involved.

The system works. Under protected characteristic status, that same thermostat setting, a policy no one would ever think of as discriminatory, could be challenged as a workplace condition that disproportionately burdens employees experiencing menopause. No one complained. The employer did everything right, and yet the policy itself becomes lawsuit. That is the difference.

The accommodation framework asks, how do we help this employee? Protected characteristics status ask, is a policy or practice itself discriminatory, which is a fundamentally broader and unpredictable exposure for small businesses in a state where employers already face a 56% employment lawsuit rate compared to 10% nationally and over a $160,000 to defend a single claim. The accommodation framework works. CIPL confirms it. The bill builds on it.

Our amendments strengthen it, and we urge this committee to preserve the reasonable accommodation framework rather than bypass it. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition, AB 1940. Please approach. Seeing no one approaching, questions, comments by committee members? Seeing no questions or comments by committee members, Senator Calderon, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chairman. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. We are still, a subcommittee. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. Thank you.

Alright. Assemblymember Ramos, you got two bills.

Good work getting ahead of lots of your colleagues. So we aim to please hear Assemblymember Ramos. Go ahead.

Thank you

so much, mister chair and and senators. I wanna thank you. AB 1824 is a continuation of our efforts to update the California Indian Child Welfare Act or Cal ICWA. When ICWA was under attack a few years ago, advocates and tribal communities went to work. From that, we passed AB 81, which codified into state law provisions relating to ICWA.

ICWA continues to stand as a rare, a reverse of assimilation policies that the United States government and the state of California has put forth to California's first people and this nation's first people. Today, we are back to continuing our efforts to ensure state statutes protect Indian children, families and the rights of tribes to child welfare cases. AB 1824 adds and clarifies ICWA and Cal IKWA language directly into the probate code.

Establishing requirements that result in increased compliance and protections for Indian families in probate proceedings. This would address a gap in law by ensuring that these standards apply across all proceedings involving an Indian child.

We continue to work with our state departments to ensure ICWA is being in compliance. With me testifying in support of the bill today is chairman Charles Martin of the Morongo tribal government. Also, Dorothy Alter of California Indian Legal Service. Alrighty. Mister chair.

Good morning, chairman, Umber again, vice chair, Niallio. The members of the committee, thank you for hearing comments on AB 1824 today. I speak to you on behalf of the Morangobana Mission Indians, a cosponsor in support of AB 1824 and ask that you support the bill. My name is Charles Martin, and I am a member of the Morangobana Mission Indians where I serve as tribal council chairman.

As assembly member Ramos said, the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed over forty five years ago and is most important civil rights law of the twentieth century for native people.

The Morongo tribe has always fought for ICWA from being front and center at Supreme Court on the Bracken case, working on legislation here and federally. The Morongo tribe has worked to uphold ICWA and protect our, tribal families and children, and protecting ICWA is personal for me. As the tribal chairman and a native father, son, and relative, I know the history. For example, we have the remains of an Indian boarding school right at Morongo. I have relatives that were there as children.

So we see inconsistency on ICWA in everyday practice and the negative impacts it has on our families. We as a tribe must act. That is why I'm here today. We have seen a growing practice by counties to undermine ICWA, child welfare agencies encourage individuals to seek guardianships of our children through pray probate law. This practice has even, named hidden foster care.

Through the ICWA protections, applied to probate cases, there is a lack of knowledge of ICWA on in probate courts. This has become a method of ICWA avoidance. Agencies avoid ICWA and deny parents and tribe tribes ICWA protections required by federal law by pushing families to probate courts where the there are gaps in ICWA practice. Preserving our families by enforcing ICWA, whether in the child welfare system or the probate court, must continue to be our collective goal.

The California legislature has worked hard over many years towards this goal, and AB 1824 will build upon the work by providing clarity on how ICWA applies outside child welfare systems.

A B 1824 provides this clarity by including the ICWA provisions directly within the probate code where petitioners, lawyers, and judges can understand a specific application in probate courts Alright.

By fairness. By fairness. You urge an aye vote, I'll bet.

I urge an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Other witnesses in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dorothy Alter and I am with California Indian Legal Services. C I L S represents tribes and Native Americans throughout the state of California. We are also a cosponsor of 1824 and are here in support of the bill.

C I l s and tribes in California have worked very hard for decades to ensure that the Indian Child Welfare Act with its important protections for tribes and their families is implemented. C ILS attorneys representing tribes in courtrooms every day see cases involving native children removing from their parents and quickly placed in probate guardianships that are nearly impossible to undo.

In many instant instances, tribes and parents are not informed of their of these placements until the proceedings are at an advanced stage and the ICWA protections have already been avoided or unenforced. The purpose of the ICWA was to ensure that native children, parents, and tribes have heightened due process protections that preserve native families and keep children in their tribal communities.

These protections involve early notice of a petition of a guardianship, the rights of the parents to receive active efforts to prevent removal, as well as proof that removing is necessary to prevent the serious emotional and physical harm to the child.

With these protections. When these protections are not afforded. We are seeing children. Placed quickly, parents not having an opportunity to, receive services to preserve the family, and most concerning parents having no viable way of having their children returned to their custody. With California's legislative support, we have seen improvement in how children in the juvenile courts and welfare agencies implement ICWA protection.

Thank you very much. And you're, I bet, gonna urge and I vote as well.

Yes, please. Thank you.

Okay. Others in support?

Mister chairman, members of the committee, Jerome and Sinus on the behalf of the Rincon Band of Blue and Senua Indians in strong support.

Thank you.

Mister chairman, members, James Jack here on behalf of the Saint Denis Band of Chumash Indians in support.

Thank you.

Hey. How are you?

Afternoon, mister chair members. Alex Alaniz on behalf of the Habomatolpomo of Upper Lake, which is a cosponsor of the bill in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Phan on behalf of California Court of Appeals Special Advocate Association or CALPASA in support. Thank

you. Chairman, members of the committee, Frank Molina on behalf of Yahaveta, San Manuel Nation and the Shinkles Fringe Band of Meet Walk Indians in support.

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1824, please come forward going once, going twice, seeing no one else no one coming forward. I'm gonna bring it back committee for questions by committee members.

Seeing no yes. Senator Caballero.

I don't have a question. I just wanna thank you for doing this because, the ability to skirt a really important protection for Native Americans is, it it the fact that probate court doesn't have the same rules and that you could, miss the opportunity for either keeping the child in the family or for reunification in a way that that's, culturally sensitive is really important. So thank you for doing the bill. I appreciate it and, make the motion when it's appropriate. Alright.

Thank

you, sir.

Senator Caballero will make the motion. Senator Ramos, would you like to close?

Well, thank you so much, and and and thank you for for the comments. It is very important, this bill, to continue to make sure that ICWA and CALECWA is moving forward here in the state of California. I ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you. And you have another matter. It is AB 2115, file number 24.

Well, thank you. And I I do have testimony also if they could get ready at the podium Alright. For this bill. AB 2115 represents an official apology from the state of California to California's first people. Acknowledging the state legislature's role in historic injustices and atrocities committed against the state's native communities, and affirming its commitment to healing and reconciliation.

The bill also serves as an apology from the state courts and their participation and failure to prevent the systematic discrimination and violence experienced by California's first people. California joined the union in 1850 and the state legislature has yet to officially apologize for its own role in the early wars, massacres waged against California Native American people. In 1851, governor Burnett addressed the legislature where he openly declared a war of extermination against California's first people.

That war was paid for by taxpayers dollars used to eliminate the Native American people of this land. Legislation was enacted to destroy tribal nations all throughout the state, wiping out entire communities and condemning generations to a future marked by profound pain and suffering that still exist today.

In 1852, the legislature deliberately voted to oppose the ratification of 18 treaties negotiated between the United States government and California tribes. Agreements that would have secured tribal homelands and guaranteed basic rights and protection to many Native American people. In 1860, members of a select committee investigating the Mendocino wars called for the outright takeover of tribal affairs by the state government and called for the enslavement of the remaining natives of the state by the so called responsible citizens.

This history of violence against California's first people created deep and lasting trauma that continues to affect native American communities across our state today. Although the governor issued an apology on behalf of the state in 2019, this body, the legislature, this institution, which enacted laws that facilitated the removal and destruction of native communities has never issued its own apology.

While we can never undo the wrongs of the past, the state has a responsibility to confront true history with honesty and pave the way for a true account of history to highlight the resiliency of California's first people. Mister chair and members, I recognize that this legislature has made meaningful progress in addressing historic inequities, But without an official acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a formal apology from this body, we risk becoming complacent in the silence that has persisted for more than a hundred and seventy five years.

It is also a commitment to building a better and a more just future for all native people who call the state home. The bill further requests that a plaque commemorate this apology by creating and installed at the state capitol to serve as a formal apology and as a permanent reminder of this historic acknowledgment of this apology. Joining me today is vice chairman Mike Lopez of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians to provide testimony.

Alrighty. Thank you very much, mister vice chairman. Go ahead.

Thank you. Mister chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Mike Lopez. I'm the tribal vice chairman for San Jose Chumash Indians and vice chairman of CNIGA California Indian Association. The street master is proud to be a sponsor of AB 2115, and we are grateful to Assemblymember James Ramos for his leadership and his important measure.

AB 2115 represents a necessary and overdue acknowledgment by the California legislator legislature of its role in historical mistreatment of California Native Americans. Since California's admission to the union in 1850, the state enacted and enforced laws that enabled violence against tribal communities, stripped native people of basic civil protections, and made survival extraordinarily difficult for tribes like Chumash, whose ancestral homeland span the Central Coast. These policies were not abstract or distant.

They resulted in disposition from tribal traditional lands, the erosion of cultural practices, and generational trauma that continues to affect our people today. These harms were were the direct result of state sanctioned policies adopted and maintained during California's early history.

To into the in 2019, governor Newsom took an important step by issuing an apology on behalf of the executive branch and establishing the Truth and Healing Council. But AB 2015 correctly recognizes the violence and discrimination inflicted upon native communities were not confined to executive action alone. The legislature itself promoted and permitted policies that caused profound and lasting harm. AB 2,115 acknowledges the truth by issuing a formal legislative apology, memorizing it in in a plaque in the state capital.

This bill affirms responsibility, promotes healing, and lays a foundation for stronger government to government partnerships today in areas like economic development, environmental stewardship, and culture preservation.

We respectfully urge that I vote on AB 2015.

very much. Others in support of AB 2115, please come forward.

Thank you. Thank you

Afternoon, mister chair members. Alex Alaniz on behalf of the Habomatopomo of Upper Lake in support. Thank you.

Chairman, members of the committee, Frank Molina on behalf of the Sam Manoa, you have a time with Sam Manoa nation and the Shigils and Greenspan and me.

What kind of this is in support?

Thank

you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

Thank you. Rocky Rushing representing the Society for California Archaeology and its members, including those from federally recognized and non recognized tribes in strong support and in gratitude for the author for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Heather Hossler with California Indian Legal Services in strong support.

Thank you. Alright. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2115, now is the time to come forward.

Going once, going twice. Alright. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions, comments by committee members? No.

Well well noted. Senator Weiner noted. Alright. Thank you very much. Let me make a couple comments.

One, a comment as to the bill and how important this bill is. There's a tension right now in The United States. The effort by the federal administration, by the president of The United States to whitewash history, to depict history as, in some respects, completely inaccurate in terms of what's happened to the Native American communities throughout the country. And your effort to make sure that this is not whitewashed is highly commendable. It's important not just for the native American community.

It's important for all of us in California to understand and to know our history as accurate as it is. It's a blemish and it's an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment that this body, the body in which we sit right now, was not just complicit but was an active participant in atrocities as to the native American community. And by doing this, by highlighting it, it is critically important that all Californians understand the history of our relationship and that we atone for that history today. So thank you.

Now, as to you, Assemblymember Ramos, thank you. I've been around here since 1990 off and on, maybe more off than on. But but in my time in the legislature, I have never seen anyone who has been a champion for Native Americans, a champion for all Californians in terms of educating folks and making sure that that again, that history is depicted accurately. So thank you for bringing this forward and thank you for your leadership and your championship on behalf of both Native Americans and all Californians.

And with that, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, mister chair. And that truly did sound like a request to be a co author on on the bill. Put me down. Thank you so much for agreeing to be a co author. And I wanna thank you for for recognizing that.

Certainly, in the year 2026, having to move a piece of legislation to enact the state legislature, both houses, and the Supreme Court to offer an apology, which probably should have came early on by their own will. Certainly shows representation matters and good allies and support. So thank you for your comments. And I ask for an aye vote when the time's appropriate.

Alright. Thank you very much. I'm sure Senator Wiener will move the bill, and we'll have a vote at that time. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you so much. I see Assemblymember Lowenthal was also good work for you too, Senator excuse me, Assemblymember Lowenthal. Jumping in. Alright. Floor is yours.

File number 16, AB 2076.

Thank you, mister chair. Before I begin, I just want to say that those very thoughtful comments resonated with me as well. I really appreciate those.

Thank you

for the opportunity to present AB 2076. This bill strengthens California's existing Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act in three different ways. First, it adds nitrous oxide to the list of highly dangerous products requiring age verification. It prohibits using gift cards or store credit to purchase these products online, cutting off a common workaround. And it increases civil penalties for large companies that violate the law.

Now, nitrous oxide, which is commonly known as laughing gas or whip its increasingly ending up in the hands of children. What was once primarily a medical and culinary product can now be ordered online by a child with a few clicks and a prepaid gift card. It is cheap, it is easy to find, is being delivered straight to doorsteps with little to no barrier, and the health consequences are severe. Regular recreational use can cause nerve damage, vitamin b twelve deficiency, and severe cases, paralysis or death.

Nitrous oxide is so evidently dangerous that even the high is commonly described as killing brain cells.

California already has a framework in place to keep dangerous products out of the hands of of children. But we know it just isn't working. This past fall, the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law investigated whether major online retailers are complying with the Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act, and the findings were alarming. Researchers, for example, were able to purchase restricted products using prepaid gift cards with minimal age verification.

In one test, a researcher submitted a false driver's license and a birthday to buy a BB gun, and the order went through anyway.

That BB gun was then left unattended in a shared apartment courtyard. No adult signature, no ID check, just dropped off and left. And that is the system that exists today. And nitrous oxide, easily searchable, cheaply purchased, and deliverable to any doorstep, fits squarely into that gap. Adding nitrous oxide to the list of products requiring age verification is an important first step, but it's not enough.

We must go further to ensure these products do not reach our children. The current penalty of $7,500 per violation is not a meaningful deterrent for large scale sellers. And frankly, it is not an enticing number for prosecutors to pursue either. When the cost of litigation can easily exceed the potential recovery, enforcement becomes impractical. AB 2076 addresses this in a targeted and proportionate way.

To protect small businesses, the enhanced penalties, only apply to sellers with more than $25,000,000 in annual gross revenues. For those large sellers, courts will have the discretion to impose penalties of up to $250,000 per violation when necessary to deter to defer excuse me, to deter future violations. The punishment should not the punishment should fit the scale of the violator and AB 2076 gives courts the tools to make that happen.

No parent should have to worry about their child that their child can order nitrous oxide cartridges as easy as ordering a book. AB 2076 closes that gap and gives the Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act the enforcement power.

It is always needed. Very pleased today to be joined by Kristin Heidelbach, who we all know here as an advocate for so many wonderful causes, but today, speaking in a role as a parent, and parent. And Jorge Del Portillo, Assistant Chief of Narcotics with San Diego District Attorney's Office, both here to testify and support. And in addition, we have Ed Howard with the Children's Advocacy Institute here to answer any technical questions.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Miss Heidelbach, floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Hamburg, members. Kristin Heidelbach here is a proud parent and supporter of AB 2076. Sadly, I'm intimately aware of children buying certain products online and and using gift cards. My 16 year old daughter was able to easily procure a box of hemp cigarettes from an Amazon account she had opened, which could be done with no effort to verify her age.

Thankfully, she realized what she had purchased after she saw the THC and CBD percentages on the side of the box and gave them to me and apologized.

They were ordered and delivered without so much as a question of her age or query for an ID. Interestingly, they were marketed on Amazon as an herbal alternative to cigarettes. She also has friends who've purchased, tattoo guns as well. I guess this is a thing in bedrooms. 14 year olds want to tattoo their friends.

Charlotte obtained this product by buying an Amazon gift card from a grocery store. That was my first question is how did you actually purchase this? And she told me that she went to the grocery store and obtained a gift card and was able able to easily order.

As my own experience affirms, Amazon has done the math and has concluded that it's simply more profitable to offer these products without age gates and roll the dice on whether or not an under resourced government enforcer would put aside other priorities and entangle themselves for years in litigation against one of the largest companies in the world. When it comes to these large companies, if we're going to be serious about ensuring compliance with our laws, protecting children, and ensuring fair competition, we must simply make the profits

not worth the risk. Thank you.

Thank you. We should all be so fortunate to have a responsible 16 year old that turns in those kinds of products. So yeah. Alright. Next witness.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Jorge Del Portillo. I am the assistant chief of the major narcotics division of the San Diego District Attorney's Office, and I've been a prosecutor for twenty years. Our district attorney, Summer Stephan, is a proud cosponsor of the bill. And I wanna spend my time talking about nitrous oxide, what's happening in our county, and undoubtedly the rest of the state.

Some of the harms include hypoxic brain injury, degeneration of the spine, nerve damage, and in rare cases, paralysis, and even death. Information that we received from our public health partners in San Diego showed that just in the last two years alone, the emergency department has seen a 400% increase in nitrous oxide misuse. Some of those harms are not solely to the direct user.

We did an examination in our office to go back ten years from 2015 to 2025 where every nitrous oxide case was meaningfully involved or charged. And we had a hundred and eighteen cases in those ten years.

But seventy four of those cases, sixty three percent happened in 2025 alone. And vehicles were involved in over seventy percent of the cases that we prosecuted.

The cases range from a father losing consciousness, crashing into a fence, grabbing his two children and running to a young man losing control of his car after refusing repeated request to stop inhaling nitrous oxide and then tragically ending the life of his 17 year old passenger to a crash on a freeway that took the life of a 19 year old with canisters in his car and taking the life of the 25 year old police officer who responded to assist in that crash.

So real events, significant, sometimes resulting in fatal consequences, and this bill seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes by adding nitrous oxide to the list of those products, which reasonable age verification procedures must exist and civil fines will be imposed.

Thank you very much. And you're gonna urge an aye vote for AB 2076.

We strongly.

Alright. Strongly. Got it. Okay. Others who wish to testify in support.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Afternoon. Ed Howard on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute of the University of San Diego School of Law, pleased to cosponsor this with the San Diego District Attorney's Office for questions.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon, mister channel members. Christopher Sanchez with the on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California as a proud sponsor.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in strong support.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, chair and members. Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Thank you.

Charles Contrebecki, interns and advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and the California Children's Hospital Association in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors in support, and thank you for the bill overall.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and also on behalf of my colleague at TechNet. We'd like to thank the author, and we had a previous position of oppose, and now we're neutral. Thanks.

Thank you. Alright. You brought them all together. Those who are opposed, please approach the microphone. AB 2076.

If you're opposed, seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring back committee. Questions by committee members seeing no questions. Thank you Assemblymember Lowenthal for your advocacy on behalf of children. This is not your last appearance in this committee, so more to follow. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright.

At the appropriate time, there'll be a motion. Alright. I see Chair Kalra's here.

Chair Kalra, you have file number 14. AB 2783.

Thank you, Mister Chair. AB 2783 makes two changes to the law governing court reporters. First, existing law establishes the Court Reporters Board of California for the purpose of licensing court reporters and requires a person applying for a license to pass a three part certification exam.

Presently, an applicant must pass either the certified verbatim reporter or the certified verbatim stenotype certification exam administered by the National Verbatim Reporters Association to satisfy the dictation transcription part of the exam.

AB 2783 adds completion of the registered professional reporter certification administered by the National Court Reporter Association to the list of certifications that satisfy the dictation transcription component.

Increased reciprocity with the national court reporter exams will increase the pool of qualified court reporters at a time when we face a shortage of court reporters. Second, existing law also established a pilot project in authorizing the superior courts in 13 counties to study the potential use for remote court reporting, which is set to sunset 07/01/2026. This bill extends that pilot project till 07/08/2028.

Together, these changes strengthen the pipeline of future court reporters and allow the necessary time for the remote court reporting study to be fully completed. With me to provide testimony is Stacy Gaskell, Vice President of the California Court Reporter Association, and Yvonne Fenner with the Court Reporters Board.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Thank you so much for having us here. Thank you, Senator, Assemblyman Kalra for authoring the bill for us. My name is Yvonne Fenner. I'm with the Court Reporters Board, and we are co sponsoring this bill. It's very important for consumer protection.

The portion that allows holders of the Registered Professional Reporters certification or the RPR for short, which is issued by the National Court Reporters Association, will lower barriers to licensure here in California.

Existing license, existing law allows for holders of the RPR to already take our test, our license test. The passage successful passage of this bill will allow those holders of the RPR to take just the written portions of our exam.

So the parts that are unique to California, but they will not have to repeat the skills portion. So, we, respectfully urge you to vote aye on this bill. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Stacy Gaskill. I'm a Court Reporter for the San Mateo County Superior Court, and I'm also an SEIU Local 521 member, and I'm Vice President of the California Court Reporters Association. CCRA is a proud cosponsor of AB2783.

We are excited about the prospect of this bill continuing to fill the pipeline of certified shorthand reporters in California. This bill would add recognition of the registered professional reporter certification administered by the National Court Reporters Association.

AB 2783 also extends a pilot program authorizing remote court reporting in specified counties. The pilot has proved successful. However, more testing is needed before it can be implemented statewide.

Changes to licensure have exponentially increased the number of California's licensed court reporters, and remote reporting will allow a single court reporter to cover proceedings at multiple locations. We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Others in support, AB 2783?

Good afternoon, chair members. Maurielari Zabo with the Judicial Council in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair members. Sandra Barrera on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Michelle Caldwell. I'm the President of the California Court Reporters Association. I'm a licensed court reporter in California for thirty six years. I'm a business owner in California, and I'm a constituent of Senator Laird.

I support this bill and, urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others who support AB 2783?

Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2783, now is a good time to come forward.

Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee.

Seeing no questions or comments. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Caballero.

So let me just say that I think this is a really important bill. And I say that because I spent twenty five years as a trial attorney. And, there is nothing better than a court reporter that does a great job. So thank you to all the court reporters that appeared here. You know, there's been this trend to it is an, it is a job that is female dominated.

It pays well, and the job is very high quality. And it really is critically important for people. And so the ability to actually encourage this as your bill does is really, really important. And I wanted to say that because I think that the move to recording devices just I'm sorry, but you it just doesn't suffice. It doesn't capture what was going on, what was said, and many times people's lives depend on a good recording.

So thank you for bringing this forward. And at the appropriate time, I'll make the motion, Mister chair.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Kalra.

As also a user of court reporters, I'm most grateful for most court reporters not recording the ahs and the umms and the other little ticks. I appreciate that. And I guess I also appreciate the accurate recording, not with same effect that I always hated to read my transcripts because in my head, I sounded better than I actually read. So with that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you, Senator Caballero. As someone that worked in the criminal space eleven years as a public defender, I definitely can attest to the fact as many of you can that a lot of attention gets put paid to the attorneys and judges, but there's so many unsung heroes in our court system and there's no doubt the court reporters are amongst them and are incredibly talented.

On many occasions early in my career, they would tell me to slow down because I was talking too much. I probably lost that now, and I'm starting to talk fast again.

But I really appreciate, would appreciate the support and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. We're still a subcommittee. Eventually, we're gonna be a committee.

Right. Right. Alright. Thank you. Assemblymember Kalra.

And I see Assemblymember Lee here followed by another Assemblymember whose name I won't mention so that somebody doesn't run down and beat them to the punch. Alright. Assemblymember Lee.

Thank you, Mister chair and senators. AB 1916 will allow American Sign Language Interpreters to participate in the same collective bargaining process as other certified interpreters. In 2001, the legislature enacted the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act to establish court interpreters as employees and allow them to collectively bargain over wages, benefits, and working conditions.

However, when the law was enacted in 2001, ASL interpreters were excluded from the statutory definition of certified interpreter. Nationwide, there are roughly 10,000 certified ASL interpreters serving up to a million deaf or hard of hearing ASL users creating significant access gaps.

AB 1916 simply updates the definition of certified interpreter in the law to include American Sign Language Interpreters allowing them to participate in the existing collective bargaining framework. I've taken amendments to clarify that ASL is included in definition of spoken language to ensure consistency with the statute.

This bill is sponsored by the California Federation of Interpreters. And with me today in support, I have Carmen Ramos, President of the California Federation of Interpreters, and Ignacio Hernandez representing California Interpreters.

Miss Ramos, floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and members. I am Carmen Ramos, President of the California Federation of Interpreters, CWA local 390. CFI is a statewide labor union for court interpreters, and we are the sponsors of this legislation.

I am also a certified Spanish language interpreter currently working in the San Joaquin County courts. I have worked in Santa Clara County during my thirty seven years as a court interpreter.

I am very proud to be an interpreter because our profession enables court users who speak many languages to participate in a meaningful way in protecting their legal and constitutional rights. One of the most significant challenges we have are, are court users who are deaf or and hard of hearing who rely on American sign language interpreters.

ASL is the fourth most requested language assistance in California courts, yet there are only 10 ASL interpreter employees in the entire state and only 40 independent contractors.

One of the reasons this number is so low is that ASL interpreters are specifically excluded from the California Interpreter Act. As a result, these workers cannot bargain as part of the union.

I personally had to receive special permission to assist the only four ASL employees in all of LA County to negotiate with the courts. The Interpreter Act protects the working conditions of court interpreters and promotes employment. Twenty four years of excluding ASL interpreters from the law needs to end now. We ask you to support this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Mister Hernandez.

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters and also authorized to register support from the Northern California Services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing and also on behalf of Disability Rights California in support.

Let me just add briefly as was stated earlier, ASL is the fourth most common requested language assistance in California. And you heard that right. There are only 10, ASL employee court interpreters, for the entire State of California.

This is one component of a larger problem, as you know, the challenge of the lack of court interpreter employees. I think LA has a vacancy of about 100 spoken language interpreters. And so it's part of a broader problem. However, ASL, as was stated earlier, was excluded from the 2001 legislation.

And so this would reverse that. In fact, there's specific language in the statute that says ASL interpreters are not included. So this would reverse that and begin the process of trying to get ASL employees into the courts throughout the state. For those two reasons, we are on support and ask for your aye vote today.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1916? Others in support. Alright.

Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1916, please come forward. Alrighty. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Morgan Lara Zalba with the Judicial Council of California. The counts I'm sorry. Here's, unfortunately, an opposition today. The council has historically been in support of the interpreter act as it balances flexibility for the courts to utilize both employee interpreters and supplement with independent contractors when and where needed.

This system in the act, however, was designed to apply to spoken language interpretation, which is made clear with the multiple use of spoken language for specified provisions throughout the act. The latest amendment, which adds a new definition to the act that spoken language includes ASL, does not help address our real concern of ensuring all the provisions in the act can appropriately apply to ASL interpreters.

For example, under the act, courts are prohibited from utilizing an independent contractor after 100 days of interpretation work in a calendar year. With ASL, we often have team interpretation occurring, meaning we could lose the ability to contract two ASL interpreters after a couple lengthy trials for the remainder sorry, remainder of the calendar year.

It is important to note that partial days count as a whole day towards this limit, as well as others included in the act. The act and these limits have been applied to spoken language for more than twenty years and not appreciably increase the number of interpreter employees.

Another example is one provision specifically references certified and registered interpreters, which is only applicable to spoken language interpretation and is not applicable at all to ASL interpreters as we do not have registered ASL interpreters. There are also provisions

I'm sorry to interrupt. Senator Stern, if you could just stay for ten seconds.

Sure. I shall

Alright. Thank you very much. I'm I apologize. Go ahead.

Okay. There are provisions that contradict with existing ASL provisions also in evidence code 754 that we would like to be looked at. As there are currently only 53 ASL certified interpreters statewide and only 9 of those are employees currently with the courts.

The courts have serious concerns about limiting our ability to access this needed service and negatively impacting accessibility to the courts for those who rely on ASL interpretation. Lastly, the courts do have concerns about the impact.

Thank you. Could you go ahead and wrap it up, please?

Okay. We have concerns about bargaining negotiations and this impact it could have on it, and there are certain courts that do currently have kind of side negotiations and we would appreciate further conversations and discussions.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Let me pause here. We have a incredibly important moment because we have a quorum, or at least I believe we do. So committee assistant Porter, could you please call the roll for purposes of establishing a quorum?

[quorom]

We have a quorom.

We have, God in just under two hours. All right. All right. Others who are opposed to AB 1916, please come forward.

Alright. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back committee for questions by committee members. Senator Caballero has question.

The quest, the issues that were raised in in terms of the opposition, it there may be some capacity issues. I was trying to pay attention, then we got she got interrupted a couple times. But I'm wondering if you're willing to have a conversation with them about it just to figure out if there's a every court system is entirely different. And there's some issues in rural California that you don't see in the big cities and vice versa.

So I just wanna make sure we're being fair.

Yes. Yes. We're gonna continue to engage with Judicial Council. I'm sure they brought up, I think with my office some early concerns in the assembly, so we're gonna continue having dialogue with them.

Thank you. That sounds great. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Senator Wahab has moved the bill. Thank you.

Let me apologize for interrupting. Establishing a quorum is a challenge sometimes, and I didn't wanna miss the opportunity. As you see, we've we had just a moment to do that. So thank you. Alright.

Assemblymember Lee, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to present bill. I just wanna note again, you know ASL is the fourth most requested language that exists in our court system. While there may be capacity or other logistical concerns, I think it is so vital that those court interpreters are still included in the same labor rights that all the other interpreters include.

I tried to go back in the history and say, see why they were explicitly excluded in 2001 we don't really have a concurrent a conclusive evidence of why they were explicitly excluded.

But I will remind folks that ASL interpretation is a spoken language interpretation still. It's just in the other half of the conversation. It is still verbal. It is still spoken. I don't think it's fair to characterize ASL's interpretation as not spoken language, even though it is still very much so a very popular, very used language.

I think we should be inclusive of all languages. And in the court system where so much of it is verbal. The interpretation is, of course, verbal as well as sign language itself. And I respectfully ask for aye vote when the time comes.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. The time has come. So, committee assistant porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number 15 AB 1916. The motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations.

[roll call]

5-1

5-1. We'll put that on call. Thank you very much.