Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

That's it. Oh, never mind. That's it. She's here. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses each.

Witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of our opposition to the bill. Additional individuals to state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the bill at the appropriate time. As you proceed with witness and public comment, I wanna make sure everyone understands committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing. I'm not gonna go all over all those rules because I think everyone's gonna behave themselves respectfully today. And we can go ahead.

We don't have forms, so we'll go ahead and proceed as a subcommittee and start with item one, SB 99, Senator Blake Spear.

Morning, chair. Morning. Good morning, members. Hello?

Morning. Good morning, members. Hello?

Ready for me to begin, chair? Yes.

Yep. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. I'm pleased to author SB 99, which is sponsored by the US Department of Defense. SB 99 would strengthen protections for military families by requiring courts and law enforcement to recognize and improve coordinated responses to military protective orders in cases of domestic violence. Military protective orders, also called MPOs, are similar to civil restraining orders and provide protection on and off base. But presently, there are gaps in coverage and understanding between civil and military authorities.

Civilian courts may not understand the complexities of military legal issues, and they don't have clarity that an MPO is admissible in a petition for a domestic violence restraining order. This bill makes it clear judges are allowed to use their discretion to consider the full context of the alleged abuse by considering an MPO involving the same parties and the same behavior. SB 99 also bridges the gap between military and civilian systems outside the courtroom. MPOs apply off base, but civilian law enforcement officers can't enforce them.

To illustrate the problem, after a military spouse with a with with an MPO moved off base, they were stalked by their abuser.

They repeatedly called 911, but local police declined to act, believing that they could do nothing about this. Under s p 99, the local police would have been required to notify the military that the MPO was likely violated. The military would then be able to take appropriate action to stop the continued abuse. Finally, s p 99 allows law enforcement agencies to enter an MOU with the military, outlining roles and responsibilities regarding communicating and responding to potential violations of civil restraining orders on base and NPOs off base.

S B 99 ensures domestic violence survivors are not left unprotected simply because their abuse crosses jurisdictional lines.

With me today in support, I have Kelly Douglas, and she's on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair Kalra, vice chair Macedo, and members of the committee. My name is Kelly Mae Douglas, and Aye, represent the Defense State Liaison Office within the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy. My office works with state lawmakers to facilitate policy changes improving the quality of life and readiness for military families. Within our same directorate is the military community advocacy office, which develops department wide policy on the DOD coordinated community response and family advocacy programs.

I'm here today as a proud cosponsor of SB 99, providing some context on why this bill is so critical to the safety of our military community in California, which includes more than 238,000 military members and nearly 89,000 military spouses.

While the military has robust programs to, address domestic, abuse, critical protection gaps exist between military installations and civilian law enforcement and the courts. This is particularly relevant because approximately 75% of military families live off base, within, civilian communities where military authority is appropriately limited, leaving victims of domestic violence vulnerable to jurisdictional gaps.

Military protective orders are essential for ensuring victims, say the safety of victims on base and providing military commanders with the ability to limit contact and access to firearms, but they are not a substitute for a legally recognized civilian order, and they cannot be enforced by civilian authorities, which is why we recommend that victims that are protected under an MPO also seek civilian relief.

Victims, especially those new to the state, face hurdles in getting access and navigating the civilian systems in order to get the civilian protection they need off base. SB 99 closes these gaps with three key common sense provisions.

First, it authorizes judges to consider an existing NPO when reviewing a request for a civilian restraining order. This doesn't mandate admittance of a current or prior, NPO or the issuance of an order based on an NPO, but provides the court with valuable evidence of a potential pattern of abuse. In short, SB 99 creates a comprehensive framework for the state and military to work together ensuring patterns of abuse are of abuse are recognized by courts and that communication lines between law enforcement are clear.

This bill will will empower victims, deter offenders, and increase the safety and readiness of our military families. Thank you very much, and I stand by for any questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 99?

Hi. Good morning. Veronica Badillo representing Navy Region Southwest on behalf of the military and services in California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, PRAD cosponsor.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 99? Alright. We'll bring it back to committee for any questions or comments. Assembly member Dixon, we don't have a quorum yet, but we'll we'll we'll we'll set that aside for the moment and Can I make a comment?

Absolutely.

Thank you, mister chair. I went out. It's loud. I'd like to coauthor with you. I have a similar bill not related to the military, but related to family, members who are victims of domestic violence in terms of restraining orders.

So I agree with what you're doing, support what you're doing, and good luck.

Assembly member Stephanie.

Thank you, chair. And I wanna thank the author and the witness for bringing this forward. I am so supportive. I would love to be added as a co author. I think cleaning up our, restraining order system, both at the state level and within the military, is absolutely vital to the, so that we can protect all victims of domestic violence.

And, again, I thank you

for your work. Thank you.

Alright. Well, thank you, Senator. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We'll get to that as soon as we can, and I believe you have another bill up today, Item Six: SB 1237.

ready, you can go

May I invite my witnesses to come up if they're in the room?

ahead and whenever your witness

Yeah. Whenever you're ready, you can go ahead, and whenever your witnesses are ready.

Okay. Thank you, Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to author SB 1237, a priority measure for the Legislative Women's Caucus that is sponsored by Power California Action and HOPE. This bill will strengthen enforcement of California's pay equity reporting laws to ensure the Civil Rights Department can effectively combat wage discrimination. California has led the nation on equal pay, but our laws are only as strong as their enforcement.

Okay. Thank you, chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to author SB 1237, a priority measure for the Legislative Women's Caucus that is sponsored by Power California Action and Hope. This bill will strengthen enforcement of California's pay equity reporting laws to ensure the civil rights department can effectively combat wage discrimination. California has led the nation on equal pay, but our laws are only as strong as their enforcement.

Wage disparities persist. For every dollar that a man earns, women earn only $0.81, with larger gaps for women of color. For every $1 that a white man makes, Black women earn $0.58 and Latina women earns $0.44. To better identify and address these inequities, California requires companies with 100 or more employees to report annual pay data to the CRD, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, and job category. However, the department is missing pay data for at least 400,000 workers in California.

SB 1237 will strengthen enforcement by increasing the penalty for repeat noncompliance from $200 to $1,000 per employee. Increased penalties will serve as a meaningful deterrent against noncompliance and generate additional resources for more proactive enforcement. This bill ensures employers can't treat pay data reporting as optional and gives CRD the tools it needs to effectively combat wage discrimination.

It's a critical step toward ending persistent wage disparities and delivering real pay equity for women. With me today in support, I have Ruth Sosa Martinez, on behalf of Power California Action, and Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Hispanics Organized for Political Equality, or HOPE.

With me today in support, I have Ruth Souza Martinez on behalf of California Power California Action, and Carol Gonzales on behalf of Hispanics Organized for Political Equality or Hope.

Thank you.

Okay. Good morning, Chair Kalra and members of the committee. My name is Lomeli Sid. I am a power advocate with Power California, a third-year student at UCLA, and I have been part of the workforce since 2023. As a young worker, I've learned that it can be difficult to advocate for yourself when you don't fully understand your rights or have access to information about your pay.

At 19, I was hired on the spot and started working without ever being told what my pay would be. There is little transparency around how and when employees were being compensated, which made it difficult to plan financially. When concerns were raised about working conditions or pay, speaking up came with consequences. This included reduced hours and hostility from management. That experience taught me how difficult it can be for young workers to advocate for ourselves when information and accountability are lacking.

For young workers, especially women and people of color, the pay disparities can have lasting consequences. As a college student, I'm constantly thinking about how to pay for school, transportation, and everyday expenses while planning for my future. Fair pay from the start doesn't just affect our paycheck today. It affects our ability to stay in school, build savings, support our families, and create the long-term financial stability that leads to generational wealth.

That's why SB 1237 matters, especially now when 50% of young people, 19 to 24, have entered the workforce to support their families in this economy. Workers deserve transparency. Workers should be able to understand whether they are being paid fairly. Strong reporting requirements help the state identify pay disparities and ensure employers are held accountable.

Young workers deserve transparency, accountability, and a fair opportunity to build financial stability for ourselves and our families. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1237.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, proud co-sponsors in support of SB 1237. HOPE's mission is to ensure Latinas achieve economic parity, political empowerment, and equal representation. Through HOPE's economic status of Latinas' research, the organization has documented both the tremendous economic contribution of Latinas and the persistent barriers that prevent too many women from achieving financial security and building generational wealth.

While California has led the nation in advancing equal pay protections, too many Latinas continue to face barriers to achieving economic parity. For HOPE, SB 1237 is ultimately about ensuring that workers are visible and that California's equal pay laws are more than just promises on paper. By strengthening accountability and transparency, the bill helps ensure that persistent disparities are identified and addressed. Closing wage gap is not a matter of fairness.

It's essential to ensuring that Latinas can fully participate in and contribute to California's economic future. Closing wage gaps is not just a matter of-- oh. I just said that. When Latinas achieve economic parity, California is stronger, and for those reasons, HOPE respectfully urges for your aye vote today. Thank you, sir.

Closing wage gaps is not just a matter of, hope. I just said laugh. When Latinas achieve economic parity, California is stronger. And for those reasons, hope respectfully urges for your aye vote today. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1237?

Katherine Squire, on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1237? All right. We'll bring it back to committee. We still do not have a quorum, but if there are any questions or comments from committee members?

Senator, thank you for bringing this forward. It's a space that I've had the opportunity to introduce legislation in many years ago, and it's definitely like pulling teeth to try to get some of these companies to actually, you know, do what they're required to do now.

They resisted it for a long time until we made it a requirement, and obviously, without the data, it's hard to know what kind of policy steps we need to take in order to ensure that we can move in the right direction of pay equity, which we're so far away from now. I would love to be added as a co-author, and would you like to close?

And, obviously, without the data, it's hard to know what kind of policy steps we need to take, in order to ensure, that we can move in the right direction of, of pay equity, which we're so far away from now. I would love to be added as coauthor.

And would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We'll take that up when we get one more person here. And we'll be taking up item nine, SB 1387. Assemblymember Zbur will be presenting on behalf of Senator Stern.

And you may begin whenever whenever you're ready. Great.

Thank you, mister chair, members of the committee. On behalf of Senator Stern, I am proud to present SB 1387, which will improve the accuracy of California's democratic debt, demographic data collection by recognizing that Jewish identity may be reported as an ethnic group identification in addition to a religious affiliation. Jewish identity is unique. For many Jews, being Jewish is not just a matter of religious belief or observance. It is also rooted in shared ancestry, ethnicity, culture, family heritage, language, history, and peoplehood.

In fact, research from the Pew Research Center found that a majority of American Jews identify ancestry, culture, or family heritage as essential components of their Jewish identity, and many do not view religion as the primary defining characteristic of being Jewish. Unfortunately, California's demographic data systems generally do not provide an opportunity for individuals to identify as ethnically Jewish. As a result, many Jewish Californians may not be accurately reflected in state demographic data. That matters because good policy depends on good data.

If we do not collect accurate information, it becomes more difficult to understand demographic trends, identify disparities, evaluate the impacts of discrimination, and ensure that government programs are effectively serving all Californians.

Consistent with California's broader efforts to improve demographic data collection, SB 1387 will allow individuals who understand their identity through ethnic, ancestral, or cultural lens to identify to self identify accordingly if they choose. This bill does not create a new protected class. It does not alter existing religious classifications, and it does not require anyone to identify as Jewish. Rather, it recognizes that Jewish identity may include an ethnic component for those who choose to identify that way.

SB 1387 will help California collect more accurate information, better understand the experiences of Jewish Californians, and make more informed poll decisions moving forward.

I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time and would like to be added as a coauthor to this bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1387?

Thank you, mister chairman. Cliff Berg, here for Jewish California, formerly JPAAC, the largest coalition of Jewish organizations in the nation.

And I was pleased to be the sponsor and support of this legislation also here for the following organizations, Jewish Long Beach, Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay, Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento, Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles, Jewish Family Services of the Desert, Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Coalition of Berkeley, Jewish Family Services of the Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of the Bay Area, Jewish Democratic Club, Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, Jewish Community Relations Council of Orange County, Jewish Federation of the Desert, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, Jewish Silicon Valley, Northern California Jewish Labor Committee, Oakland Jewish Alliance,

to be the sponsor and support of this legislation also here for the following organizations, Jewish Long Beach, Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay, Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento, Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles, Jewish Family Services of the Desert, Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Coalition of Berkeley, Jewish Family Services of the Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of the Bay Area, Jewish Democratic Club, Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, Jewish Community Relations Council of Orange County, Jewish Federation of the Desert, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, Jewish Silicon Valley, Northern California Jewish Labor

Committee, Oakland Jewish Alliance, Palo

Palo Alto Jewish Alliance, Oakland Jewish Alliance, Palo Alto Jewish Alliance, San Francisco Jews in School, Northern California stand with us, and Valley Beth Shalom as well as a much longer list, which I will not take up the committee's time with, urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1387?

Morning.

Morning.

My name is Clyde Leland. I'm here on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Jewish Voice for

Want to move the microphone just a little bit closer. I was hoping that it'll pick up. Yeah. Thank you.

hoping that it'll pick up. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay.

Alright. Alright. I I am here on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area to oppose this bill. Let me begin by saying that I very strongly identify as a Jewish person, but it is not my ethnicity. It's only part of who I am.

I'm also I also identify as a baseball fan and a graduate of UC Berkeley, but an identity is not an ethnicity. Jews throughout the world, like UC alumni, are ethnically diverse. I also identify as a lawyer and law professor, and it is while wearing that hat that I see SB 1387 as unworkable and ineffectual.

It is unworkable because the cultural markers, the ones you heard listed before that apply to Jews and supposedly identify us as an ethnic group, apply equally to almost every religion. All of those things that were listed about heritage and and cultural identities apply to almost every religion.

Indeed, I would say they also apply to baseball fans. But there are other character characteristics that do apply to all the ethnic groups that are already listed under California law, characteristics that do not apply to us as Jews. A geographic providence is one that doesn't apply to Jews who live throughout the world and are of many races.

We hear the prime minister of Israel and some of the sponsors of this bill that I've spoken to say that Israel is the Jewish homeland as if that were our geographic place of origin. Not only is that inaccurate, it ignores the reality that most American Jews now, especially young ones, want nothing to do with the discrimination and genocide that Israel is practicing.

More important in terms of this designation as an ethnicity is what courts refer to as the immutability of an ethnic designation. That is your ethnicity is something you're born with and can't change. You can change your religious identity just as I guess I could wake up one day and find myself rooting for Stanford. As a lawyer, I also look at the goals and the effectiveness of this proposed law.

If the goal is to ensure rights and protections for Jews, those are already guaranteed to us as a religion.

This bill adds nothing to those protections, but does add millions to our state budget. And if the goal is to fight against antisemitism, treating laws differently, treating Jews differently under the law actually breeds jealousy, which fosters antisemitism. Jewish Voice for Peace recognizes the growing threat of antisemitism, but we understand that the way to fight antisemitism is not to separate ourselves from the oppressed minorities and demand special treatment. Rather, it is to join with others to fight racism in all its forms. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Is this can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Rabbi Kat Davis, and I'm a rabbi at Beyt Tikkun, which has members throughout the state, and I'm here in opposition to bill thirteen eighty seven. As a rabbi, I am deeply concerned by legislation that claims to protect Jews while misunderstanding who Jews actually are and what Jews want and need. This bill erases the extraordinary diversity of the Jewish people. Jews are not a single ethnicity. Judaism is a religion.

It is not an ethnicity. Our community includes people whose families come from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Morocco, Syria, Palestine, and across North Africa and South Asia, along which alongside Jews whose families come from Europe and elsewhere. Many Middle Eastern and North African Jews have spent years working to have their distinct histories recognized. Their stories are not the same as those of Ashkenazi Jews. They have different experiences of displacement, discrimination, privilege, and identity.

By collapsing all Jews into a single ethnic category, this bill makes those communities invisible. I am also troubled by the way this legislation exceptionalizes Jews at a moment when we desperately need solidarity and dialogue. Creating special protections that elevate Jews above other groups does not make us safer. It reinforces the very narratives of Jewish exceptionalism and undue power and influence that fuel antisemitism and division and make the pursuit of peace more difficult. Real safety comes from justice, mutual recognition, and shared dignity.

Most disturbing of all is the legislative priority this bill represents. This bill is being pushed while Palestinians are being killed, displaced, starved, and tortured daily. Yet there is no comparable urgency to address that suffering or the role of US support in sustaining it. The millions that would be spent on this initiative would be better spent addressing the real needs of all Californians, Jewish and Non Jewish alike. This is a waste of money and time.

In an age of increased government out overreach into database and with the Trump administration moving further towards fascism every single day, This is not the time to be making lists of Jews. As a rabbi, I believe our moral obligation is to stand with the vulnerable, confront actual harms, and build a future grounded in equality rather than exceptionalism. I urge you to reject this bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1387? Name organization, if any, and your position on the bill, please?

Seth Morrison, Jewish Voice for Peace, and I oppose.

Thank you.

Larry Handel, Jewish Voice for Peace, also in opposition.

Thank you.

Morning. David Mandel, Jewish Voice for Peace Sacramento chapter. I consider myself a Jew ethnically, but there are many different ethnicities. This ill considered bill, with very expensive bill, would not have any useful information for the state and would end up costing millions.

any useful information for the state and would end up costing millions.

Thank you. Alright. Any questions or comments from committee members? Assembly member Stefani.

Thank you, chair. I identify as an Italian Catholic, and I support this bill. I wanna thank the author for bringing it. And, unfortunately, that those that engaged in the most horrific acts of antisemitism that we have seen of late and the horrific increase in those acts of antisemitism do not care one bit about what ethnicity, whether or not you're any type of Orthodox or what type of Judaism you practice. They just care if you're Jewish.

And I think this bill is absolutely necessary given the horrific rise in antisemitism. And I think this bill can help state agencies identify disparities, monitor trends, and develop targeted responses to antisemitism. What is happening on the other side of the world should not ever be an excuse to harm Jewish people anywhere in the world. And what I have seen in the last two, two and a half, three years has been horrific, And I absolutely want to do everything in my power to protect all.

And I think this bill works to do that, and I support it wholeheartedly, and I look forward to voting for it.

Any other questions or comments? Thank you for presenting on behalf of Senator Stern. Would you like to close?

Yes. So, you know, I look at this bill, and one of the reasons why I was so honored to be asked to present the bill is that I remember back and continue to think about the efforts that we've made in the in the LGBTQ plus community to expand data collection for the community.

Because data collection is something that is incredibly important to make sure that our government programs are serving a community, especially a community that's subject to, discrimination, lack of hate, and actually, lack of focus in terms of our programs. You know, all of the issues that were raised about that are being raised about this bill, about this being special treatment, exceptionalism. All of those are the same things that people who opposed adding SOGI data to our LGBT, LGBTQ data.

They oppose the the those bills for the very, very same reasons. And the reality is what this is about is making sure that we're creating you know, this is not about what's happening on the other side of the world.

This is basically about understanding that the Jewish community is subject to extreme discrimination and hate, and it allows our government to basically collect data so that we can understand and better understand whether programs in the state of California are serving the community, and that and and whether or not the Jewish community is, being targeted, not targeted in terms of their, in terms of government programs, and those and those, and that kind of thing.

Creation data collection is an incredibly important tool that we need to protect all, underserved communities. That's why we collect democratic demographic data for LGBTQ people and in many other areas.

And, of course, in this time, when the Jewish community is subject to so much discrimination and hate and targeting, it's why this is so important at this time. And the other thing I'll sort of point out is that this is supported by the broad mainstream organizations that represent the Jewish community. With every community, there's diversity in points of view. There were there were LGBTQ groups that were, not part of the mainstream that opposed data collection for the same reason. Oh, we're creating lists.

We're creating lists of LGBTQ people. Well, that's not what happens with these groups. These are all as this aggregated data that's presented that is, that is that is that is that is preserved in an aggregated way, and so there's not gonna be any risk of basically individuals being targeted because of these programs. So with that, I wanna thank Senator Stern for bringing this bill. I ask you all to support this.

It's a very important priority for the Jewish caucus. And and with that, respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. No, sir. Sorry. We're done with presentation.

I apologize. If you wanna go ahead and take your seat, and we'll take quorum as you're walking back up. And then yeah. We can establish quorum, madam secretary. Caller?

Here.

Masito, Bowerkehan, Brian Connolly?

Here.

Dixon?

Harabedian Pacheco? Here. Pappan? Here. Sanchez.

Here.

Stephanie? Here. Zibur. Here.

Okay. I'm sorry. Pappan, are you ready to present? Okay. Well, before we do that, why don't we get a motion on the consent calendar?

I'll move it.

Alright. We're gonna get a vote on that.

Consent includes SB 927 Choi two appropriations, SB 994 Kibala two local government, to SB 1100 small-wood Cuevas two public safety, SB 1189 Valodares, SB 1204, Ochoa Bogh to, appropriations. SB 1264, Valadares two, appropriations. SB 1374, Nilu as amended to higher ed, and SB 1433. Cara? Aye.

Cara, Aye. Masito, Barakahan, Brian Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian Pacheco.

Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Aye. Papan, aye.

Sanchez. Stephanie.

Aye.

Stephanie, aye. Zuber. Aye. Zuber, aye.

K. Send calendars out. We had a motion on item one SB 99.

Move move on. I'll move item one.

Okay. Alright.

Motions do passed to public safety committee. Cholera. Aye. Cholera, Aye, Macedo, Barquehan, Brian Connolly.

Aye.

Connolly, Aye, Dixon. Aye. Dixon, Harabedian. Pacheco? Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye.

Pacheco, aye.

Pacheco, aye.

Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye.

Pacheco, aye.

Pappan? Aye. Pappan, aye.

Second.

Motions do passed to appropriations. Calra?

Calra, Aye. Masito, Bauer Kehan, Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, Aye. Dixon?

Aye.

Dixon, no. Harabedian Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan?

Aye. Papan, aye. Sanchez, Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye.

Ziburr. Aye. Ziburr, aye.

Place that on call. Item 9 SB1387stern.

Second.

Motions do pass to privacy committee. Kalra.

Aye.

Kalra, Aye. Masito, Bauer Kehan, Brian Connolly. Aye. Connolly, Aye. Dixon.

Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian Pacheco?

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Pappan? Pappan. Pappan. Pappan, aye.

Sanchez, Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zibur. Aye.

K. That bill is out. And then we have now item three, SB 932, Senator Hurtado, presented by Samuel Pappen.

Ziburon.

Thank you. Good morning, chair. And members, I'm here on behalf of Senator Hurtado to present SB 932. This bill requires that an ASNE, when they actually file an action, to identify the original party, at least in the caption on the first document filed in the civil proceeding. When the under existing law, a person may assign certain legal claims to another person who then pursues them.

When that occurs, the original party's name isn't always reflected in the case caption, which can make it difficult for interested parties reviewing, court records to identify who originally held the claim. So this is really just a simple transparency bill. It doesn't affect the ability of somebody to assign whatever claim they might have. It just helps ensure that court records more accurately reflect the underlying parties connected to a case.

A greater transparency benefits all parties, who rely on public records to understand who's was involved in the litigation.

By making making that information easier to locate, SB 932 promotes accountability while preserving long standing assign assignment laws. So with us here to testify is Nariz Kalatian and Kalatian, who is a California attorney and a member of the conference of California Bar Associations, who is the sponsor of the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Narice Kalatian.

That's right.

Not bad. I hope I'm bad.

You know, I'm Greek. We're not that far apart. I figured my pronunciation. There you go.

I am armenian. Good morning. I am a delegate to the conference of California Bar Associations, the sponsor of this bill. I am an attorney with thirty six years of experience on the ground, and I'm also an adjunct associate professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. I'm here not only as the spokesperson for the CCBA, but as a witness who has seen firsthand how the assignment process can be misused in our court system.

As you know, a plaintiff can sue based on their own rights or rights that have been transferred or assigned to them. A person who doesn't want to be named as a plaintiff in the complaint can assign that right to a friend or to a shell company and have them pursue that right. I have personally seen a bankruptcy debtor assign his rights to a Delaware Shell entity, have that entity make a recovery anonymously without his creditors ever finding that out. These arrangements were never intended by law.

Every year, millions of dollars change hands through the assignment process and some of them by persons who are evading their financial responsibility towards their creditors, their victims, and these creditors can be small businesses or public agencies for that matter.

Under this bill, the case caption becomes a portal of information for members of the public to see what cases our court system is hosting, for judges to see if there's a conflict of interest readily to recuse themselves, and for journalists who are the purveyors of our First Amendment rights. This is an accountability bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 932? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 932? Alright. Bring it back to committee.

Questions, comments, motions? Assemblymember Zabir.

So I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill. I noted that there was some opposition from the utility wildfire survivor coalition in the record, and I'm gonna be sweating the bill today and, you know, and I look at some of those issues. And I think some of the issues that the utility survivors raised are real issues. But, you know, they are they it doesn't take away from the important parts of this bill. Sure.

This bill is addressing some some important deficiencies that we currently have. That doesn't mean that there aren't other deficiencies that need to be addressed in another bill. That's right. That and I think the utility wildfire survivor coalition raises some other issues that deserve some examination and some merit. They are complicated.

They're very complicated, I think, what they've raised. And so I understand why, the author, may not have wanted to sort of expand this bill at this point because I think at this point in the, legislative cycle, it would be difficult to address those broad range of issues. So I just wanted to sort of acknowledge that there are some other issues out there, that moving forward on this bill doesn't mean that we're rejecting those. I think, I think they do merit some some examination.

I I recognize that they're complicated, but it doesn't take away from the fact that this bill, I think, is important and good and in a narrow way achieves an important goal.

So with that, I'll be supporting the bill today.

No motion.

And I move the bill. Okay.

So a second? Second. And a second. Any other questions or comments? Well, thank you, Assemblymember, for presenting on behalf of Senator Turtado.

Would you like to close?

Just respectfully request an aye vote on a a reasonably tailored transparency bill.

Thank you.

Motions do pass. Aye. Caller, aye. Besedo, Barakahann, Brian Connolly? Aye.

Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon. Aye.

Harabedian. Pacheco. Pappan. Aye. Pappan.

Aye. Sanchez. Stephanie. Zibur. Aye.

Zibur. Aye.

Great. We'll place that bill on call. We have item five, SB 988. Senator Grayson.

Good morning, Chair.

Good morning.

Waiting for my witness.

Good morning.

morning.

Okay.

Esteemed Chair and members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 988, which will provide a series of reforms to the auto glass industry, governing insurance assignments, repair disclosures, billing practices, and claims solicitation. Auto glass claims are among the most common comprehensive auto insurance claims with California, accounting for more than 2 million claims between 2015 and 2019.

Modern vehicle glass now has advanced technologies and components that require specialized installation of precise calibration, making repairs even more complex and more costly. As the industry has grown, some repair shops have used marketing tactics and assignment of benefits, which we refer to as AOB, arrangements that allow shops to bill insurers directly with limited consumer oversight.

As the industry has grown, some repair shops have used marketing tactics and assignment of benefits, which we refer to as AOB, arrangements that allow shops to bill insurers directly with limited consumer oversight. This can lead to inflated claims over billing and proper calibrations, reduced consumer choice, and increased safety risk. Disputed or excessive claims can also increase litigation and contribute to higher insurance premiums.

This can lead to inflated claims, overbilling, and proper calibrations, reduced consumer choice, and increased safety risk. Disputed or excessive claims can also increase litigation and contribute to higher insurance premiums. So SB 988 addresses these concerns by restricting the assignment of policy benefits to repair shops and requiring upfront estimates and itemized invoices that reflect reasonable charges, improving transparency, accountability, and consumer safety.

So SB 988 addresses these concerns by restricting the assignment of policy benefits to repair shops and requiring upfront estimates and itemized invoices that reflect reasonable charges, improving transparency, accountability, and consumer safety. With that, I would like to introduce through the chair, my witness today, Marion Smith, director of office of strategy, policy, and government affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

With that, I would like to introduce, through the Chair, my witness today, Marian Smith, Director of Office of Strategy, Policy, and Government Affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Kalra and members of the committee. As stated, my name is Marian Smith. I'm the Director of Strategy, Policy, and Government Affairs at the National Insurance Crime Bureau, known as NICB. For over a century, NICB has served as the nation's leading not-for-profit organization dedicated exclusively to fighting insurance fraud and related crime. NICB expresses our strong support for Senate Bill 988.

This legislation is a significant step forward in consumer protection in fighting fraud. Between 2023 and 2025, over a two-year span, the number of questionable claims NICB received in California relating to auto glass increased by nearly 60%. NICB supports 988 for three main reasons, the first being that it establishes clear conditions that must be met before a repair shop may contract for insurance paid work.

This protects the consumers and insurance alike from inflated claims, unauthorized work, and billing for services that were not performed to manufacturer specifications. For example, NICB has seen charges for the recalibration of advanced driver assistance systems, but without performing the work.

For example, NICB has seen charges for the recalibration of advanced driver assistance systems, but without performing the work. Number two, this bill prohibits the assignment or transfer of an insurer's policy rights and benefits to a third party. NICB has seen unscrupulous repair shops abuse this process. This tactic removes the policyholder from the claims process, puts the repair shop in the driver's seat, and leads to misaligned incentives to inflated billing.

Number two, this bill prohibits the assignment or transfer of an insurer's policy rights and benefits to a third party. NICB has seen unscrupulous repair shops abuse this process. This tactic removes the policyholder from the claims process, puts the repair shop in the driver's seat, and leads to misaligned incentives to inflated billing.

And third, it prohibits repair shops from offering rebates, gifts, gift cards, cash coupons, or other inducements to consumers. Glass shops should be confident in their ability to earn consumer trust through quality of service, not through coercive or misleading practices. NICB is proud to support this pro-consumer, anti-fraud legislation, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Glass shops should be confident in their ability to earn consumer trust through quality of service, not through coercive or misleading practices. NICB is proud to support this pro consumer, anti FOD legislation, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 988?

Hi. I'm Jacques Navant, president of the Auto Glass Safety Council. Just for clarity, I'm in support, but I recommend two amendments.

All right. Go ahead.

Okay. So--

Let's hear this out.

So the Auto Glass Safety Council supports consumer protection, ADAS calibration, documentation, and any fraud provisions in SB 988, as well as the NCOIL model legislation. However, certain provisions create anti-competitive barriers that disadvantage independent glass businesses without improving safety.

AGSC seeks targeted amendments that preserves safety protections while protecting consumer choice and fair competition. Consumers should have the right to choose their auto glass repair provider. Current language allows insurers and third-party administrators to recommend specific shops while simultaneously controlling the claim process.

In practice, these recommendations can function as steering, undermining true consumer choice. The more sticky we make this process, the longer these vehicles are gonna be out on the road, unsafe, waiting for a repair shop for claim numbers and such. This bill prohibits a shop from contracting with the customer before obtaining a claim number or referral number.

Independent shops report claim numbers are not always provided promptly. Delays can prevent local businesses from serving customers quickly while largely--sorry--while larger vertically integrated competitors gain an advantage.

This requirement does not improve safety, calibration, quality, or consumer protection. AGSC strongly supports any fraud and disclosure requirements. However, transparency should apply equally to all participants. Insurers, TPA's affiliated glass companies, should disclose business relationships and financial arrangements that may influence referrals or recommendations. And I brought copies of our preferred-- of our requested amendments if--

Well, just so-- in the analysis, it also lists out the requested amendments as well, so your opposition is well documented in the analysis and in the record. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Louis Brown, here today on behalf of Safelite AutoGlass in support of the bill.

the committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of Safelite Auto Glass in support of the bill.

Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to committee for any questions, comments, or emotions. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. I think that the other gentleman was supporting, but listed all these things to do, so, yeah. I got tripped up. Yeah. Go ahead.

I I think that the the other gentleman was supporting, but listed all these things to do. So, yeah, I got I got I got tripped up. Yeah. Go ahead.

Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to be here today. My name is Gary Hart. I'm the independent director of the Independent Glass Association, and we're here to oppose and ask for amendments. I know we're fully on record since the beginning of this. Independent auto glass shops support consumer protection.

We support transparency. We support safe windshield installation and proper ADAS calibration. That's not the issue here with this bill. The issue is that SB 988 as drafted does not fully account for how auto glass claims actually work in the real world. If SB 988 is not amended, it can be used to limit consumer choice, restrict post-loss payment authorization, create claim number gatekeeping, and give more levers to insurers, TPAs, networks, and affiliated repair interest.

The committee is simply not deciding on whether the bill sounds like consumer protection. It's deciding whether the Civil Code language is clear, balanced, and enforceable and fair. As drafted, SB 988 does not meet that standard. We respectfully ask the committee as we've had to hold the bill as it advances or make the amendments. And then we just have some other opposition will state their name. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Ladan Sobhani. I'm owner of Auto Glass Express in Berkeley. I'm here to respectfully oppose SB 988 unless significantly amended. As an independent auto glass shop, we support consumer protection, transparency, safety, and proper ADAS calibration, and stopping real fraud whenever it exists, but SB 988 is not balanced.

It places new restrictions on independent glass shops while failing to address the conduct of insurers, third-party administrators, and insurer-aligned networks that already control much of the glass claims process. This concern is especially important when a company, such as Safelite, can be involved in the glass administration while also competing directly for the same repair work. That conflict should make this committee cautious about passing legislation that gives the claim control side even more power.

There are four major problems that must be amended. First, the claim number bottleneck, requiring a claim or a referral number before a shop can fully contract with a customer, pushes the consumer into the insurer or TPA-controlled claim system before the independent glass shop can fully assist them. Second, the bill restricts post-loss at assignment of benefits, which is one of the few tools consumers and shops have to resolve short pays, denied supplements, delayed payments, and claim disputes.

Third, while the bill says consumers have a right to choose, it does not create strong enough protections against steering at this first notice of loss, which is when consumers are most often redirected to preferred networks. Fourth, the bill includes broad language on inducements and marketing that could punish ordinary small businesses, such as ours, with practices like discounts, rebates, promotions, and competitive advertising.

The ADAS and recalibration disclosure portion may serve a legitimate safety purpose, but that narrow issue should not be used to pass a much broader bill that gives insurers, TPAs, networks, and insurer-aligned companies more control over independent glass shops and California consumers.

And I would just ask, if any of you have ever had experience having to replace your windshield through insurance, you know that the claims process is handled by Safelite. You think you're calling your insurance, but you're actually speaking to Safelite. They will read you a line that says that you have a right to choose your shop, but you don't actually, and we sign up for--

Thank you. All right. So those are two opposition witnesses. Everybody else, just name and your position, please. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kyle Stiller. I'm representing Apex Auto Glass and Tinting in Santa Maria. I oppose this bill. We oppose this bill unless amended further. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tim Kludt from New View Auto Glass, Riverside, California, in opposition.

Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the committee for any questions, comments, or motions. We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay. And a second. Assembly Member Zbur.

Second. Okay. And a second. Assemblymember Zabbert.

wanna thank the author for for bringing the bill and obviously understand that the goals are laudable. I was wondering if you could just respond to the to the request for the amendments and sort of what the status of that is and what the issues might be related to addressing the amendments that they've they've requested.

So I wanna thank the author for bringing the bill and obviously understand that the goals are laudable. I was wondering if you could just respond to the request for the amendments and sort of what the status of that is and what the issues might be related to addressing the amendments that they've requested.

Absolutely. I believe all sides have expressed the desire for consumer protection, and the issue-- some of the issues that are being brought up are already constituted in law, such as anti-steering. Steering is not lawful, and this bill does not undo that whatsoever. I think there needs to also be a delineation between Safelite Solutions versus Safelite AutoGlass.

Those are two separate companies. Your insurance companies-- multiple insurance companies work with Safelite Solutions because they're a management and information claims management company, and so in this particular case, this is not a bill to pick winners and losers within the repair industry.

This bill is 100% solely focused on consumer protections, transparency, accountability, and making sure that the customer has knowledge of what's being charged and what is being repaired on the card-- on the automobile. I think it's also important to note that the consumer doesn't find him or herself in a situation where the auto repair shop is suing their insurance company and then have no knowledge of it.

I think it's also important to note that, the consumer doesn't find him or herself in a situation where the auto repair shop is suing their insurance company and then have no knowledge of it.

And so that has a lot to do with consumer protection and why this is in here to simply put another barrier up against any potential fraud. There's a lot of great actors out there, a lot of great repair shops, but there-- as we know, in any industry, there are those that don't play well in the sandbox, and this is what this bill does is provide transparency and accountability. And by the way, we are always open.

Our door is always open to conversations about amendments. We've read them, as far as in conversational form, but would definitely look forward to any kind of an RN or language that would be a bit more suitable.

I haven't dug deep on this bill, but I-- obviously, you know, I think we all have an interest in making sure that, you know, that the independent and the smaller businesses have an ability to continue to compete effectively, and so I would just ask that you continue working with the opposition on some of the concerns that they're raising and seeing if there's-- we can sort of narrow that gap.

And Assembly Member, being a small-business owner, I wholeheartedly agree.

Yeah. And with that, I'll be supporting the bill today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Dixon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am supporting the bill, and I appreciate your comments, and in terms of addressing those needs. I've mainly a question of curiosity. Are there-- I'm not familiar. I'm not a lawyer.

I'm not familiar with the consumer code on auto repair. Are there different provisions for insurance coverage for every part of the automobile? I mean, if the steering wheel goes out or the lights go out or the automatic computer system goes out, is this-- do we need to address every part of the automobile and the repair process and ensure that the consumers are being protected?

I don't think it needs to go to that extent, and the reason why is because there are different types of insurance; as you've seen on television, the different types of insurance that you can buy for bumper-to-bumper, extended insurance warranties. And there's a big difference between that versus a rock hitting a windshield and the windshield alone needs to be replaced. As a matter of fact, if you go to your auto policy, you'll see that there are special provisions just for window replacement and window damage.

As a matter of fact, if you go to your auto policy, you'll see that there are special provisions just for window replacement and window damage.

And it's-- why now? I mean, what's happened in the industry or in the small company industry? Why is this coming to us today?

So a great question, and I think this is a great place for my witness to be able to speak in as well, but for the past fifteen and a half months, NCOIL has--the National Council of Legislators, state legislators--NCOIL has been working very hard nationally on this very issue, and they came up with model legislation that now eight states have already adopted, three this year alone. Through the Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Assemblywoman Dixon. Yes. It has taken some time with any legislation, as you all are aware. It has taken a few years for, again, this model legislation. Our last stats-- NICB is great at keeping stats.

Back in 20-- roughly 2023 before the NCOIL bill came out, California was ranked third in the nation for claims, questionable claims regarding auto glass. Florida was first, and Florida was one of the first to pass these bills. So, unfortunately, I believe your state of California probably ranks second as far as questionable claims when it comes to auto glass. And so it's a growing concern. It increases-- fraud increases premiums.

We all pay for it. It's not a victimless crime. And anything that we can do to ensure that our rates can stay as low as possible, let's go after the bad actors, and this bill does that.

I appreciate this, and little did we know that here you're here to protect everyone with a broken windshield. Well, I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

you. Assemblymember Pappen.

Assembly Member Papan.

Just very quickly. You know, I think when it comes to auto glass, it's one of the few areas in insurance where liability is not really an issue, right? So the carrier must reimburse. And I appreciate the idea that, okay, liability is established, and how do we make it that we're paying just what needs to be done to rectify the situation?

And everybody has different deductibles. I recognize that. So we're all in this together. So I appreciate the bill, and I will be supporting it today, and if we haven't moved, I will make a motion for it.

And if we haven't moved, I will make a motion for it.

Oh, we do have a motion. Any other questions or comments? Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward, and it's indicated-- as you indicated in response to one of the questions that anti-steering is already in law, I don't know if there's language that can further reiterate that in the legislation just to make it extra clarify so to speak, because we wanna make sure that these consumer protections don't in any way eviscerate that foundational aspect of the law, which it does not.

I I don't know if there's language that can further reiterate that in the legislation to just to make it extra clarify so so to speak because we wanna make sure that these consumer protections don't in any way eviscerate that foundational aspect of the law, which which it does not.

And I think that to whatever extent that could be made clear to folks, you know, driving back and forth to Sacramento on 80, I've had to replace a couple of windshields over the last several years. And I do go to a small shops and especially because of the ADAS now. You know, I think that the calibration, it's a whole other aspect of the work as opposed to simply just replacing a windshield.

And the technicians are incredibly competent, and I don't see with these protections why I would stop going to my local glass shop that I've now become too friendly with over the years, but I appreciate you, you know, continuing to look at and-- some of the opposition concerns, and I do think that there needs to be some, you know, legislation in terms of rating some of the AOB abuse as well.

But I appreciate you, you know, continuing to look at and and of the some of the opposition concerns. And I I do think that there needs to be some, you know, legislation in terms of rating some of the AOB abuse as well.

And ultimately, I think as you referenced, this is kind of a national movement in terms of the new environment we're in as it comes to the technology that's involved with our vehicles in terms of modernizing our laws and making them consistent with other states. And hopefully enough states do it and get a federal standard that will be consistent with that as well, but, you know, we don't wait for federal consumer protection in California. We move forward where we see fit. So would you like to close?

We we move forward where we see fit. So would you like to close?

I hear your comments, and they are noted, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion's do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

Aye.

Kalra, Aye. Macedo? Aye. Besito, Aye. Bauer Kehan?

Aye. Bauer Kehan, Aye. Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye.

Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian Pacheco? Aye.

Capan, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie? Ziburr. Aye.

Ziburr, aye.

All right. That bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have two bills of Senator Wiener, one bill of Senator Durazo. You ready?

It's up to you too. Alright. So I I I defer I I defer to next in line if, out of graciousness, long time to roster to go. We can go ahead and go with item seven, SB 1296.

Chivalry lives.

Yes. And patience pays off. See?

Thank you, mister chair and members. I I wanna dedicate this presentation to Vanessa, who is a renter in Santa Cruz County, and Desmond and Penny, her pet cats. SB 1296 ensures prospective tenants with pets can access clear pet policy information early in their housing search process. Specifically, this bill requires the disclosure of existing pet policies on application materials and rental listings.

If failure to disclose a pet policy materially affected the prospective tenant's decision to apply for a unit that does not accept their pet, a refund shall be made within five business days after written notice is provided from the applicant about the failure.

The bill does not dictate whether a landlord must allow pets, restrict the types of pet policies a landlord may adopt, or limit pet related fees. It simply requires housing providers to share their existing pet policy or no pet policy with prospective applicants before collecting an application fee. Pet owners need upfront pet policy disclosures. Too often, tenants search through unclear listings and contact rental properties multiple times with questions related to pet policies.

Many don't find out the details of pet policies until after they have toured the units, filled out rental applications, and paid application fees.

Even if tenants ask, some landlords withhold that information until the very end of that process. Renters have to choose between securing a stable home without their pets or continuing a costly time consuming search for housing that accepts their entire family. 77% of my constituents are renters. In the state with 17,000,000 renters and with such a large share of these renters open owning pets, pet policies are a highly relevant part of the housing search process.

To ensure people with pets find stable housing during our housing crisis, supporting pet owners during their rental search process is an urgent priority.

With us today, we have Jennifer Naitake and from the Michelson Center for Public Policy and Vanessa Sempervira, a pet owner and California resident.

Thank you.

Wonderful. Chair and members, thank you. My name is Jennifer Naitake, excellent pronunciation, and I'm here on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy in support of SB 1296. I wanna begin with the facts. SB 1296 does not require landlords to allow pets.

It does not prohibit pet restrictions, cat pet fees, or change a landlord's existing pet policy. It does one narrow thing. It requires the policy to be disclosed before an applicant pays an application fee. Landlords are accustomed to disclosing lease terms, fees, screening criteria, and other property rules. SB 1296 simply applies that same common sense transparency to pet policies.

As a small landlord myself, I understand the need for flexibility and workable processes. SB 1296 preserves both. Landlords keep full authority to allow, restrict, or prohibit pets, and applicants simply get the rules upfront, which is important because our California survey found that 51% of renters paid an application fee before fully understanding the pet policy. Seventy two percent experienced negative outcomes because the information was unclear or incomplete, and ninety six percent support upfront disclosure before someone chooses to apply.

This is an affordability issue, a transparency issue, and a preventable source of conflict.

Clear written policies protect both sides, especially small landlords. We have worked closely with the housing associations and accepted several good faith amendments, including protections for landlords, limits related to third party platforms, and language preserving a landlord's authority to adopt, amend, interpret, and enforce their pet policies consistent with the law. SB 1296 is a practical transparency bill that supports renters, respects landlords, and reduces avoid avoidable disputes. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Chair and members of the committee, good morning, and thank you. My name is Vanessa Semprevirans, and I live in Santa Cruz County. I'm here today as a constituent as someone who has been a renter for seventeen years in San Francisco and five years in Santa Cruz County and as a pet owner with two cats.

For the last fifteen years, I've balanced a demanding career as a nurse with Kaiser, responsibilities within my community, and the pressure of finding safe and stable housing when, when searching for housing.

Time matters. Money matters and clarity matters. I understand that landlords need clear rules, and I understand that tenants need to follow them. But I also understand how difficult it can be for responsible pet owners to make good decisions when most important information is not available upfront. The rental market in each of these counties is extremely competitive.

And in many cases, I would submit applications, pay multiple application fees before even seeing an apartment, let alone confirming whether the property had a workable pet policy. This creates a costly and stressful process for renters with pets who may spend significantly more money upfront without knowing whether their animal will ultimately be accepted. I was fortunate to find a place that I stayed in for eleven years until my job took me to another county. But the process was much harder than it needed to be.

That transparency would have helped me.

SB 1296 would not require landlords to change their pet policies. It would simply ensure that applicants know the policy before they pay to apply. It would help runners make better decisions, and it would help landlords receive applications from people who already understand the rules. It's transparency like this that allows for mutually beneficial relationships to flourish. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1296?

Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of CAL Animals and Humane World for Animals in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, California YIMBY, and Power California Action, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1296?

How can he oppose this?

First of all, Pat Moran with Erin Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. Wanna thank the Senator and the proponents. They've been amazing. They've taken all the amendments, that we asked when we sent it down to the lawyer lawyers. They take a look at it, and they said, we like the bill except for clause Aye, which says a tenant's failure to sign a pet addendum shall not form the basis of any unlawful detainer action against the tenant.

all, Pat Moran with Erin Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. Wanna thank the Senator and the proponents. They've been amazing. They've taken all the amendments, that we asked when we sent it down to the lawyer lawyers. They take a look at it, and they said, we like the bill except for clause Aye, which says a tenant's failure to sign a pet addendum shall not form the basis of any unlawful detainer action against the tenant.

So we're gonna jump through all these hoops. We agree to jump through all these hoops. She's taking these amendments, and then all of a sudden, we're gonna let the tenant off the hook by not requiring them to set to sign the pet addendum. So if we have a current tenant who doesn't have a pet and they bring an unauthorized pet onto the property, they don't have to sign the pet addendum. There's no there are no consequences for not signing.

So the only we we can issue them a performer quit. So for not signing it. So the performer quit, we will send them is to either get rid of the pet or vacate the premises. And they'll do that because the pet addendum lays out the rules that they have to follow to have a pet on the property, vaccination requirements, off leash, clean up after your pet, etcetera. So that's our concern.

I'm not sure if they're willing to take that out or not. Understand probably this bill is going to to pass, but I just wanna, you know, put you on notice that that's the likely consequence if somebody brings an authorized an unauthorized pet onto the property and refuses to sign the addendum. And why we would encourage that, I don't know. I'm sure someone's gonna at some point, it's going to refuse to sign it, and they're gonna say, well, you can't evict me.

Then they're gonna get a three day performer quit to either get rid of the pet or vacate.

So those are that's our concern. We're okay with the rest of the bill. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Yeah. Anyone else here in opposition to SB 1296? Alright. Assemblymember Bauer Khan.

She's actually she's, like, really excited to ask a question. That's fine.

Makes me hate lawyers since I am one. But I think that argument falls slightly flat because to your point which you made, they could evict under breach of contract For bringing an unauthorized pet. So then you would go to your tenant and say, if you don't say this addendum, you're in breach of contract. You're gonna have to be evicted, and they would then sign the addendum. So all they're saying is you can't evict solely on the grounds that they didn't sign the addendum.

You would evict based on the breach of contract. And so I think that that's reasonable. And so I don't know that the change is necessary. I think your lawyers want it because lawyers are neurotic and risk averse, but which I consider myself to be all of those things. But, I mean, I think the bill is great.

Right.

I think, you know, I think it's fair to say before you spend money on a fee, you need to know the rules. And if you don't, give the money back. And I know you agree that have a problem with that.

know you agree that have a problem with that.

No. I understand that. So I think this nuance that's here feels minor and not even meaningful in the real world. So happy to support it today.

Obviously, if you wanna work on this, you can, but I don't know that it really, in reality, will make a distinction for how this is handled between a tenant and a landlord, which in 90% of cases have a good relationship or able to navigate these things, and in the other cases would be protected from that being the sole reason for their, unlawful detainer.

So, with that, happy to move the bill.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Assemblymember Dixon?

Well, I am a dog owner, but I'm not a renter, and I so I'd love to have my dog wear a dog's furrow wherever I go. Actually, to follow-up on these comments, when I hear the word eviction that and I'm not at I have no rental property. I'm not this is not mine. I don't have a dog in this fight. Oh, boo.

No. For the devil.

However,

just to hear the words three day eviction, legal process, lawyers, delays. Can

how do we avoid all that? I I agree with the landlords who feel that this just, if someone does not disclose their pet, or they acquire a pet after they've signed the lease just to disclose it, I just would like to avoid some kind of litigation, eviction procedure that takes months and months and months and nobody likes that. How can we work together to solve that little problem?

Thank you, assembly member. And we wanted to make this as simple as possible. As you know, sometimes things come up that you you can't foresee, but we are more than willing and we have some we've had some conversation about the issue raised by the opposition. So we're prepared to pursue that because we don't want this to become Yeah. More than just disclosure.

Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Well, Sandra, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Would you like to close?

With respect to ask for your aye vote and make Desmond and Penny happy.

Thank you. Motion is do pass. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, Aye.

Macedo? Aye. Macedo, Aye. Bauer Kehan? Bauer Kehan, Aye.

Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, Aye. Dixon? That's all.

Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, Aye. Pacheco? Not both.

Pappen? Aye. Pappan, Aye. Sanchez. Aye.

Sanchez, Aye. Stephanie Ziburr. Aye. Ziburr, Aye.

Alright. That bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, members and mister chair.

Item two. We have SB 747, Senator Wiener.

Alright. We have item two, SB 747. Senator Wiener, whenever you're ready.

Senator Wiener, whenever you're ready.

Alright. Great. Thank you very much, mister, chair and colleagues. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 747, the No Kings Act, a very straightforward bill to ensure that when a public an agent or officer at any level of government, federal, state, or local, violates your constitutional rights, you should be able to hold them accountable. It's called the rule of law, and it should apply at all levels of government, not just state and local.

It should apply to all of our public officials. If you are a public official, police officer, agent, whatever kind of official, you take an oath to uphold the constitution and you violate someone's constitutional rights, you should be accountable. Unfortunately, right now, that is not the case because federal civil rights laws hold state and local officers accountable, but not federal.

And while the US Supreme Court for about 50 years implied a cause of action to sue a federal agent for violating your constitutional rights, the so called Bivens doctrine, four years ago, the Supreme Court gutted that doctrine.

So when we looked at what's happening in the country today, when we have ICE agents, border patrol agents, basically running around, brutalizing people, grabbing people without any legal basis, holding them, straight up violating their rights, shooting a mother in the face, executing an ICU nurse on the streets, grabbing in my district in San Francisco just a couple weeks ago, a man by the name of Marvin Godoy Calderon, who has a a work permit, is a dishwasher in the in the city, and a janitor, one of the people who makes San Francisco operate and run, was grabbed right in front of his home by ICE, and given a head injury and a knee injury and and held, and ultimately, a federal judge ordered him released under a writ of habeas corpus because his arrest was completely illegal and in violation of the law.

And he and others like him should have the ability to hold those agents accountable just like you would be able to hold a local police officer accountable if an officer did that. That's normal law. A police officer brutalizes you, illegally arrests you, holds you, you can sue them. It's been that way since the 19th century in this country, and yet federal agents somehow get a loophole exemption from that.

So if we're serious about the rule of law as we should be, then we should hold all officers, agents, officials accountable for violating people's constitutional rights.

And so Senate Bill 747 will do that by importing the existing, federal standards, for liability. It's actually narrower because it only applies to a violation of the US constitution, not federal statutes. That if you violate someone's, US federal constitutional rights, you will be able to sue them the same that you can right now under Section 1983 under the federal civil rights statutes for state and local officers. It imports all the same standards, all the same defenses, immunities. It's all there.

And so this is a law that we as time has come, we should have done this a long time ago. Other states are doing this as well. If Congress won't, impose accountability on its employees, then California should, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

With me to testify is Javier Ramirez, a citizen of The United States and resident of California, father of three, who was unlawfully detained by ICE for five days, and Cameron Kistler, Counsel of Protect Democracy United, which is a sponsor of the bill.

Thank you.

Sorry. Good morning, members. Thank you for having me here and listening to me. My name is Javier Ramirez. I was born in San Bernardino, California. I'm a proud US citizen and a father of three wonderful children. I'm here to today to share my experience that changed my life. Almost a year ago, in 06/12/2025, about 04:32 pm, border patrols came into my property in Montebello, California. They were armed.

They were masked and carrying heavy rifles. I have never experienced anything like that before in my life. I was really scared. They spoke to me in Spanish, and they were asking me where was I going, which I answered in Spanish, [Speaking Spanish] meaning that I'm going outside. I didn't want any problems.

I didn't wanna I just wanted to continue on my way. I heard someone just yelled, one of the agents, get him. He's Mexican. That's when they forced me down to the ground. They held me and put their knee onto my head.

I was confused. I was just afraid for my life. I kept wondering what I did wrong. I told them I was a US citizen. I was born here but they ignored me.

When I asked why was I being arrested, the only answer that I received was we don't know. We're trying to figure it out. I'm diabetic, and I will I am and I began to feel sick. I asked for medical help, but my request was ignored. Even while handcuffed, I was thrown to the ground again and felt helpless and humiliated.

Later, I was transferred to HSI, around 8PM, and that's when they ran me my rights, and I spent five days in prison. As an American citizen, I thought I never thought I would be treated this way. No one should have to be feared to being target based on their appearance, ethnicity, or the language they speak. Since this happened, I have lived in anxiety and fear that it could happen again, not only to me, but to my children or my loved ones.

The place where I once felt safe is no longer the same. I'm sharing my story because I believe no one should be treated unjustly and that no one is above the law, and every action will be held accountable. I respectfully ask for your support for SB 747. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your story, Mister Ramirez.

Thank you, Senator Wiener, chair, and members. My name is Cameron Kistler. I'm from Protect Democracy United. We're a proud cosponsor of SB 747. I'm here to urge you to support the bill and join New York, Connecticut, and Vermont in passing a bill like this.

This bill stands for a simple proposition. If any governmental officer violates your clearly established constitutional rights, you should have a remedy. That is already the law for California state and local officials. If they violate clearly established constitutional rights, they can be sued under federal section 1983, but there's no similar law for federal officials.

This bill solves that problem by allowing Californians to sue every governmental officer, federal, state, or local, that violates their constitutional rights.

It directly borrows its operative language and immunities from section 1983. So any constitutional violations that a state or local officer can be sued for under the bill should already be actionable under existing federal law. This isn't a stunt.

For most of American history, from the founding to the 1970s, common law tort suits were the primary way federal officers were held accountable for abuses of power. The Supreme Court blessed that process in cases like United States against Lee and Teal against Felton.

That historical practice is why former US Solicitor General Seth Waxman has observed their notable historical precedents for statutes like the bill.

I don't think you need to look farther than the killings of Renee Goode and Alex Preddy in Minnesota to realize why this bill is necessary. I know there's still a dispute about what exactly happened, but one thing should already be absolutely clear.

Whether Miss Goode and Mister Preddy's families should have a remedy for their killings should turn on whether or not their constitutional rights were violated, not what badge the officers were carrying when they shot them. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 747?

Good morning, chair members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos U.S. in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, committee. Hector Pereira on behalf of Inland Coalition for American Justice, proud cosponsor of SB 747 in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. Puneet Kaur on behalf of the Sikh Coalition, the nation's largest Sikh civil rights organization, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Carol Gonzales on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City in support and on behalf of our partners at the Central American Resource Center gotta sent in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Varvay on behalf of Kaiser Advocacy or on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support.

Thank you.

Jack Werson on behalf of the County Of Monterey in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Buenos Dias. My name is Vanessa Valdez. I'm here on behalf of Libre 805 and the Latinx Bar Association from Ventura County in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Maria Garcia on behalf of the Carrillo Law Firm in support.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition to SB 747.

Alright. Morning, chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in opposition to the bill. I wanna start by saying CPCA supports accountability for constitutional violations we always have. We do not defend bad officers, and we're not here defending the actions of federal officers to the witness yet my empathy for what you went through.

Our concern is not with accountability. Our concern is with creating a brand new California cause of action that introduces significant legal uncertainty. Proponents have repeatedly stated that SB 747 is intended to mirror existing federal section nineteen eighty three liability and preserve qualified immunity as it exists today. If that truly is the intent, the bill should expressly say so, and that is the nature of our opposition and the amendments that we put forward.

The central question we have is who's gonna define quality immunity moving forward today?

Decades of federal precedent provide very well established framework. SB 747, however, creates a new California cause of action that places the term qualified immunity into state law for the first time ever. It is not in statute. It is case law derived. Putting it into California state law for the first time opens the door to move away from decades of precedent.

I think we all have realized that we're in a new era where judicial precedents doesn't mean what it exactly meant maybe years ago, And we have very limited faith that the statute is going to remain the same and not lead to significant changes in a legal term that has such resounding impact. Even a small tweak to the definition of qualified immunity has significant impacts to all of our public employees, not just law enforcement.

Towards this issue, we have offered amendments that would stipulate that nothing in this section shall be construed to, quote, alter, limit, expand, or abrogate the doctrine of qualified immunity as recognized under federal law today. Again, if this is truly the intent of this bill, preserving existing federal standards should not be, objectionable. Unfortunately, those amendments have not been accepted and our concerns have not been addressed.

The bill also creates significant litigation exposure combining a new cause of action with attorney's fees and additional costs, which are exacerbated by the bill's retroactive application, which allows a second bite at the apple in cases that have already been adjudicated, raising fundamental fairness concerns for public employees and local governments. Again, we have proposed narrow targeted amendments that will provide certainty. We're willing to continue to work with the author and the sponsors and towards addressing our concerns.

We also feel that the retroactivity piece should be expressly excluded in cases that have already been adjudicated. We appreciate the meetings that we've had thus far and the amendments that have been taken to address other concerns.

However, our main concerns remain. We are adamantly opposed to the bill in print today as for your NO vote.

Thank you.

David Mistagni on behalf of Porak. And just to briefly follow-up on my colleague's concerns, with respect to qualified immunity, the concerns that both our clients have is that we don't have a watered down dual definition of qualified immunity. If you look at the wording of the statute, we view it as fully drafted and we have offered amendments. It says that a defendant may assert qualified immunity.

It doesn't have language that clearly indicates that qualified immunity will be tethered to federal standards and subject to the federal law.

That's the amendments that we've put forward and that we ask for so that, again, everybody knows what the law is and that there's not a California standard of qualified immunity as well as a federal standard. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 747?

Mister chair and members, Matthew Siverling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association, both opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, mister chair and member Shane Levine on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister chair, Julian Devores on behalf of the League of California City is in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister chair, Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association and the Riverside Sheriff's Association and the other law enforcement associations listed in the analysis, all in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to the author for being the bringing this bill forward, and also thank you for your witness for testifying. Thank you for being here in Sac Sacramento. I know it's a long ways from Montebello.

I'm in Downey, so I'm not too far from Montebello. So I wanna thank you for being here and for sharing your story, because it's horrible to see what's happening in our communities by, immigration law enforcement. Federal agencies are coming into our neighborhoods, and they're terrorizing our neighborhoods. We've seen that in Downey, in Montebello, in Pico Rivera. We've seen it throughout Los Angeles County, and these officers need to be held accountable.

And that's why this bill is important. But I also understand the concerns of the opposition. So I am supporting the bill today, of course, but I would like to see further conversations because I think we can perfect this, bill even further. There's there's a and I'll let you, also, make a comment. But I believe that we can perfect this bill.

There's amendments that were offered, and I know maybe not all amendments can be taken, but I think maybe some of them to perfect it would be better, especially since our our local state officers do not support what's happening in our communities because what's happening is our residents now feel a distrust towards law enforcement because of what federal officers are doing, and that's not right.

People should feel safe when going to their local police departments, and they should feel safe when talking to their officers, and they should not be terrorized. My dad, speaks broken English, and it's hard for him to go outside, and I just always worry about him. But it's not our local law enforcement that are doing this. It's these federal officers.

So we need to go after them. I agree. But if there's a way to perfect this bill, that would be amazing. And I think there is a pathway. And so, again, I am supporting the bill today, and I reserve my vote for when we get on the floor, but I know we can get to a good place.

So if you wanna make comments, I'll let you go ahead.

Yeah. No. I I appreciate that. Assemblymember and I you really, I think, very nicely articulated the the problem that we're facing that this is and I I've talked to a lot of local law enforcement, including ones who don't like this bill or didn't like the masking law that we passed because it what Ayesha Border Patrol is doing is harming local law enforcement.

It's sweeping, everyone in, and when you have these folks who are wearing these masks not identifying themselves or they just have police on there, so they're almost like impersonating local police officers.

It it creates a horrible situation for local law enforcement, and as you noted, destroys community trust in actual local law enforcement. And, it's it's it's just, horrific. We've been in ongoing conversations. I appreciate mister Feldman noting that we have taken amendments. I think some of the issues they've raised, I'm I'm hopeful that there is a path.

Some of them are are more challenging, but we we're gonna continue those conversations, and we're committed to to those conversations.

Assemblymember Zabir.

I just wanna align my comments with those of Assemblymember Pacheco and will be supporting the bill today and appreciate the commitment to continue working with the opposition.

Assemblymember Barracki Hahn.

Thank you. And I wanna reiterate what my colleague from Downey said to you, mister Ramirez. Thank you for being here. It is painful, frankly, as Americans to watch what is happening in our state, in our country, and I'm sorry that we can't do more. And we're trying, and I wanna thank the Senator for trying because you're right.

Nobody should be above the law. And I I appreciate the opposition for, I think acknowledging that. I think I just

think I just

so, yeah, just thank you for being here. It's really powerful. So I wanted to get a little bit of the amendment mister Feldman read, which was about, the qualifying immunity question.

My guess, but I'm curious if this is the case, is that the problem with completely enshrining federal qualified immunity law is that currently, as I understand it, the federal courts have said that federal officers have immunity entirely, which would then try that into this bill, which would get us back to where we are prior to this bill. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

What is so what is the problem with that?

Well, the the the the immunity entirely piece is that that you simply can't. The Christopher Bivens doctrine has been destroyed. So there really is no federal law for the most part that would allow you to to sue a federal officer. So our goal here is there's an existing well established body of law defining qualified immunity under Section nineteen eighty three and we are looking to import that into this cause of action. They're we're we're having ongoing conversations about the exact language.

We wanna make sure we we had some concerns about what they proposed for qualified immunity and what would define it, and they also appear to wanna freeze frame it to what it is today. If the Supreme Court changes it tomorrow, we want we want, qualified immunity to track whatever the the state of the law is for section nineteen eighty three claims as defined by the federal courts because our goal here is just for everyone to be the same.

Federal, state, local to have the same liability standards, the same defenses, the same immunities, all the same, and we don't wanna freeze frame that. So we're gonna continue those conversations, and but that that's I just wanna let you know, like, where we're what our goal is.

Got it. And I imagine that would actually be beneficial to the opposition because the courts are fairly friendly right now, but I don't know if it's okay with mister chair if the opposition's okay.

Yeah. We can continue to work on the language where it's not our intent to freeze it as it's

Yeah.

Exist today exactly. Right? But just make sure that we're following presidential standards that were in place that officers are trained to and they understand. And it's it's, you know, a lot of what officers do on a daily basis, you know, is is informed by those standards. And we have to make sure if we're gonna make significant changes or any changes at all, we've gotta be really careful about that.

No. I think that's fair. And I think we've had many qualified immunity conversations over my eight years in this building. And to your point, you know, this is delicate, but it's important that there is where actions are as egregious as they are in this case, you know, that there is a cause of action. Right?

And that includes all the qualified immunity that I think you guys are seeking. So I agree with my colleague from Downey that I think we can get there and appreciate the work that both the opposition and the author are putting into finding that common ground. And then the second question was on the, retroactivity piece. I thought what the opposition said about cases that have had their day in court, was a valid one.

Again, I think you're most focused on those folks that can't get into court today.

And so I understand the retroactive pieces that relates to something that occurred in the past, but not for which there has been a claim filed. To will you touch on that?

I I would say that would be a point to continue the conversations. I think where you'd wanna be careful about just saying you can't have already filed a lawsuit is is that some of the folks who've ended up in these awful situations have tried to file Bivens suits. And realistically, I think we all probably know how those are gonna end. They're not squarely foreclosed by existing law, but to the extent they find success in the lower courts, they'll probably lose at the Supreme Court.

be a point to continue the conversations. I think where you'd wanna be careful about just saying you can't have already filed a lawsuit is is that some of the folks who've ended up in these awful situations have tried to file Bivens suits. And realistically, I think we all probably know how those are gonna end. They're not squarely foreclosed by existing law, but to the extent they find success in the lower courts, they'll probably lose at the Supreme Court.

And so I think you'd wanna make sure that it was keyed in to make sure that if someone had filed a lawsuit under one of the more hopeless claims right now, you wouldn't be in a situation, be out of court where you'd actually have a good claim later.

That would be distinguished from, like, if someone had already filed a 1983 suit and lost. And, like, they'd already established a constitutional violation that occurred. My guess is is that there's various doctrines of, preclusion that would prevent you from re raising a constitutional claim that already been adjudicated, but it's tough to speak in, specifics.

One of the complexities is that we have to treat everyone the same. And so that that's an issue we're certainly happy to continue to to look at.

Yeah. And I imagine that there's a way to thread that needle and deal with cases that have been decided on the merits. Right? Which the cases that are thrown out based on immunity that you're discussing would not have been decided on the merits of a cost neutral claim. So I think there is a way to get to what you are both saying successfully and that ensures that people who didn't get their day in court because they're being thrown out at a current law will.

Although it is an interesting question whether you would be able to bring state because this would be a separate cause of action that is now retroactive that didn't exist at the time. That seems like a very narrow legal question, and I'd be curious if there was precedent on that.

So but I think both of the points raised by the opposition seem like ones that, you know, I'm hopeful you guys will continue, as you both said, to work on and that we can get to a good place such that our law enforcement officers who are so critical to our communities and are doing, you know, important work to keep us safe every day and are, you know, various current law. Supreme court hasn't found they can't be able to to suit under these laws.

You know, don't see a patchwork, but we also are able to allow for individuals like mister Ramirez to get their day in court.

So happy to support it today. And if it hasn't been moved, happy to move it.

And and before the the motion, just I believe we've have an amendment for urgency, Senator. An amendment adding urgency?

Yes.