Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

So, Chair, welcome. Let me go ahead and get go ahead and take a seat. Let me get this meeting started. Welcome to Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda, allow everyone equal time.

The rule for 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 witnesses state only their names, organization, if any, in their position on the bill. We don't have quorum, but we will proceed as a subcommittee. And, Senator Umberg, whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair and member. I have a very simple bill before you today, s p 46. I appreciate the help of Mister Lidecki in making sure that this bill is up to snuff. Senate bill 46 amends the California Elections Code to ensure that the California Secretary of State has the legal authority to remove, constitutionally ineligible candidates for president and vice president from California's primary and general election ballot.

What it does in sum is make sure that somebody who's already served two terms as president of The United States may not appear on the California ballot if that same person wishes to serve a third term. That's it, Mister Chair. Urge an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 46? Is there anyone here? Oh, alright. You know? A very a very dramatic very, very dramatic approach.

Yeah. Lisa didn't fall. But, Mister chairman, members, Terry Brennan, on behalf of SEIU California representing over 750,000 California voters who support protecting the constitution and democracy. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SP 46? Alright. I'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments?

I'll just again, interested in asking a question. If this is in the constitution, need seventh amendment or 20 why is this necessary?

That's a great question. And most of us who had fifth grade civics understand the import of that question. But there there's at least one person in The United States supported by others who believe that that he can serve a third term. And so when the president says, I may seek a third term and those around him encourage him to do so, I actually believe him. So, thus, the need for the bill.

And I don't believe him. I do. I said it or I respect what you're doing, but I don't think I could support it. But Alright.

Thank you. Well, thank thank you, Senator. Yeah. I I and and whether, you know, we believe him or not is I I think this is another example of a piece of legislation that we wish we wouldn't have to do have to do, but these are unusual times. And I think we're we're doing things that are out of the ordinary for that reason. And so I appreciate you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, Mister Leike, for your assistance and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll take that up when we get a chance, and hopefully we'll get more senators in here. Item six, SB 1078. See what happens when you get here at a relatively early time? Yeah.

That's right. Baking up for last week. So layered, SB 1078, whenever you're ready. Thank you

very much.

Oh, yeah. Hold on. There we go. Yeah.

There we are. Thank you very much, Mister Chair. I'm in three simultaneous Senate hearings, so I couldn't believe I was getting yanked out of one already. Senate bill 1078 requires a copy of a court filing to be sent to the director of civil rights department if the matter involves a violation of civil rights laws that fall under the civil rights department.

This ensures that the director of that department, the institutional centerpiece of California's broad anti discrimination and hate policy is made aware of any alleged violation of any civil rights in the cases that may affect interpretation or enforcement of the state laws. The civil rights department is the state's primary civil rights enforcement agency. However, current law only requires this notice be sent to the attorney general. The bill has no registered opposition. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in support of SB 1078? Anyone here in opposition to SB 1078? We'll bring it back to our committee member. Any questions or comments?

Okay. As you can see, we do not have quorum, so we can't take it up for a vote yet. But thank you for bringing us both forward. Would you like to close?

At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Alright. Sorry. Are you are you ready for your?

Yeah. I need my

notes. Okay. Okay. Alright. So we have item four, s B989, Senator Blakespear. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. I'm happy to be able to jump to the front of the queue. Thank thank you for calling.

That's why, telcos get here. You get here early. You never know.

That's right. Early bird gets the worm. I'm pleased to author SB 989, which is sponsored by the California Professional Firefighters. This bill would expand access to Care Court and help more Californians with schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders receive the care they need. Care Court was created to provide a structured coordinated pathway to treatment for individuals with severe mental illness who are too often cycling through emergency rooms, jail, and repeated law enforcement encounters.

While early implementation shows promise, barriers in the current petition process are preventing the program from reaching many of the individuals it was designed to serve. Through 06/30/2024, there were 557 petitions filed to care court statewide. Of those, 217 were dismissed, and only a 100 individuals, just eighteen percent, ultimately developed treatment and housing plans. It's a very small number, eighteen percent. Today, first responders are often the first point of contact for individuals in crisis.

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

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

This approach reduces administrative barriers, better aligns responsibilities with expertise, and ensures that individuals in crisis are connected to care and not lost in the system. SB 989 builds on the promise of care court by making it more accessible, more accountable, and more effective.

With me today in support to testify, I have Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters Association.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and member Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters and pleased to be the sponsor of SB 989. CPF and our local affiliates have been leading and evolving the local response framework to improve patient care and outcomes for individuals who are experiencing mental health crisis. We've worked with this legislature to expand programs like community paramedicine and mobile mental health units, and our members are committed to this work.

What I hear again and again is that they are too often running 911 calls on individuals who they know may not get the deeper level of treatment that they need, and they will likely have to respond to that individual again soon. We see care as another tool for firefighters and first responders who have had repeated interactions with someone to try to connect them to the services that they need through this process if they are eligible.

I've been fortunate enough to sit on the eight on the, Care Act advisory working group at HHS with one of my local presidents from the city of San Jose. And through that work, we've learned a lot about implementation across the state. We have good examples of cities and counties working with their fire departments in Alameda City, Alameda County, San Diego, integrating them into care act implementation, but we have other examples across the state where there is a little bit of a disconnect.

The process of filing a petition as a first responder can be complicated. There is in-depth medical history information that's required as part of the the petition. So what is proposed under this bill, we think, is an additional tool to give the first responder an option to collect what information they do have about that individual, the repeated interactions that they've had, and give that information to the county so that the county can, follow-up and do the investigation and determine if that, individual is eligible. We know there are concerns from organizations and and individuals about the underlying process of care, and we respect and understand those concerns.

I think, we view this bill as not an expansion of anyone who can already do a petition or an expansion of who would be eligible. But if what was working prior to care was actually working, we wouldn't be in a situation where we're trying to, you know, make sure that care is a a helpful tool. So for those reasons, we ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 989?

Good morning. June Dutis, San Diego family member and representing the California chapter of the National Shattering Silence Coalition. My cousin's no fault brain disease was obvious to everyone who encounters him, but getting him into treatment remained incredibly difficult. He suffered unnecessary neurological damage as he cycled through homelessness and prison. Please give first responders a simpler path to connect people with care court and an earlier path to treatment. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll we'll treat that as our second witness.

Good morning, Chair members. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else is there anyone here in opposition to SB 989?

Chair and member, Samuel Jan with Disability Rights California. We are here in opposition to SB 989. We are sympathetic to first responders about wanting to help people they see on the streets over and over again. We're also sympathetic to family members who have and have lost loved ones struggling with severe mental illness. This bill would create a streamlined referral process for care court.

Care court is already law, but we don't believe that deepening our investment in this program is the solution. We know what services work. We have decades of research showing that people need stable housing and low barrier intensive services in the community. As California's designated protection and advocacy system, our organization litigates against county behavioral health departments across the state. We've had to prove in court what's wrong with the system and negotiate with counties to reprioritize services due to the imbalance between the extreme need and available resources.

What's wrong is people in crisis are being placed on three month wait list because we don't have enough outpatient care. People are being discharged from psychiatric hospitals onto the streets because we don't have enough housing. Last year, this committee found that Care Court costs $713,000 per participant per year, and that just pays for a court process. Care Court doesn't pay for services. How many outpatient visits would that cover?

We could buy participants a new house, probably a condo, eight blocks from the beach every year. People don't need court ordered services with the threat of conservatorship if they don't comply. They just need reasonable access to timely services, which many aren't getting. This bill deepens our investment into a program that's rotten at its core and pulling money from the services that do work. We ask for your opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 989?

Danny Thirakul on behalf of Mental Health America of California in opposition.

Thank you.

Apologies. I'm actually in late support. Leah Barrows on behalf of California office California Hospital Association. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to our committee member.

Yes, please. Well, thank you, Senator, for another for another good good bill that you're trying to to the gentleman's comments. The care court is, what, only two or three years old, and it's still working through its growing pains and figuring out ways to meet the needs of those who just need it. I think this is a good bill. I support it. I'd like to coauthor it with you because it's going to take one step at a time.

I I don't think it conflicts with the witnesses organizations. They're doing their good work on the streets and helping people. I think if we come at this in our communities to help people through the court system, through the services that your organizations provide, it's mainly to help people and get them into protected housing. And if their situation on the street involves activity that needs to enter the court system that needs there needs to be a pathway into the court system. If not, that's where your organizations do good work.

So I don't know. And hearing these other bills we've talked about last week, they're they're not mutually exclusive. Everybody has a role to play. And once this patient individual becomes part of the criminal justice system, let's find the best way to help them. And I think this information from from the fire first responders, I think that's useful. I didn't realize that I wouldn't have thought about it, but that could be an important component to making those decisions in court. So thank you. I support it. I will coauthor it whenever we do that.

Thank you. Thank you, Sean, for bringing this forward as famously or infamous infamously being a care court skeptic. You know, I I I don't want that to be mistaken for wanting it to fail. Yeah. I I I do have, you know, I the general concerns as was raised by opposition.

But that being said, on this particular bill, I do believe that firefighters in particular are are very well situated to make determinations because they are sometimes responding to the same individual five, six, seven, ten, 12 times for medical calls that oftentimes are are mental health related, and and I trust their judgment.

I have a little bit more concern with law enforcement in the category of first responders because of, you know, I guess different incentives as to why you may want someone off the street as well as the trauma that law enforcement might cause with some individuals that are on the street versus firefighters.

That being said, I think helping to facilitate some process for first responders to to better at least get their referral over to the county You know, is is something that I think that we can say well, again, you you mentioned collecting data. We'll see what the fruits of that are once or if they're be given that opportunity to have a more streamlined approach.

Again, the caution is is simply the the burden on the county to have to kind of have folks in in to some extent jump the line or at least have more more care court referrals to process more quickly.

And so I'm I'm sure we'll hear from our counties as to the cost burden so that appropriations could deal with that in in in terms of those issues. But like, you know, as the summary Dixon said, this is still a work in progress, and I think there's still a lot to be learned about how we can better facilitate Care Court in a way that actually get people the help they need. I mean, we don't have a quorum, so we can't take a vote. But would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the comments from both of the Assembly members who are here, and thank you to the Chair for your your deep thought and work on Care Court and and these issues.

You know, I I wanna take a little bit of exception to the suggestion that Care Court is rotten at its core, because I do think that one of the things that the opposition who's here today and in general, the opposition to care court is concerned about the, mental health services being provided through jails. Basically, through a criminal justice approach is really what we're trying to get away from.

And having, taken the time to go and actually witness multiple hours of care court in operation, what I saw was that there's very much, a group therapy aspect to what care court is doing. So there are many people who are helping one person who has a lot of needs. And the reality is that the responsibility for people with severe mental health problems really does devolve to the counties.

And we hear this from so many family members who come and speak, here at committee, but also talk to me directly about the fact that they are begging for more help for their family members and trying to find a system that that allows for an entrance point so that the counties can actually be helping the people who are most severely in need of help. You know, counties have a lot of responsibilities, but I would argue that this is the tip of the spear in terms of the priorities the county should be focusing on.

And what we see is that there are a lot of different programs that are funded, and it it are they the ones that deal with the most severe people who need the most help, who family members are begging for help? And our first responders are seeing the same person dozens and dozens of times. And I think the worst thing is when the fire department comes, to try to help somebody having a mental health crisis. And when that doesn't work out, there's no it's a dead end. There's no future place for that person to go.

Then they end up with a law enforcement violation. And the next thing you know, it's the sheriff. And the next thing you know, they're arrested. And then they are involved in the carceral system, which is the whole thing we were trying to avoid.

So recognizing that having a a mental health related intervention and having the county involved is really the right, path for people and for families and also for our system to be functioning in a healthy way that also respects the opposition's concerns, respects people's, rights, but but provides help that is currently not being provided.

I think it's clear it's very clear that we continue to have a major problem. And when you look at just the care court numbers of having only 18% developing a treatment and housing plan in the state, you see that we're we are really not at all meeting the need.

So, you know, recognizing where are the barriers and why is this such a slow and difficult start to having Care Court operate, This is a bill that will really help streamline and create the opportunity for a path to be a a little bit wider for for people who desperately need that help. So with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. And we'll take that up as soon as we can. Thank you. Thank you. Alright.

Up next, Senator Gonzales. Item file file item five, SB 998. And also file file item eight s B1146 after that.

Yeah. I can take those both up. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Alright. Hi.

Alright. So good morning, Mister Chair and member. I'm here to present member Senate bill 998, which defines the roles and responsibilities of five discrimination prevention coordinators housed in the newly creative created office of civil rights at the government operations agency, GovOps. Last year, the chairs of the API Black and LGBTQ caucuses as well as myself, the Chair of the Latino caucus, authored and the legislature passed SB 48 establishing four discrimination prevention coordinators. SB 998 fulfills our commitment to follow-up legislation.

Specifically, the the bill clarifies coordinator roles, adds a new coordinator focused on disability discrimination prevention, and creates four deputy coordinators on anti black, Anti Asian American, native Harabedian, and Pacific Islander discrimination, anti Latino discrimination, and anti Native American discrimination. And each coordinator will work with the local educational agencies upon request to ensure administrators are equipped to proactively identify and address incidents involving discrimination based on the protected characteristics.

A school's culture and climate shape everything in September strengthens that foundation by equipping educators with restorative justice practices, cultural competency, training, and providing tailored student services. With me, to testify in support is Beth Graves Meyerhoff, senior attorney from the Public Council. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Beth Graves Meyerhoff, and I'm a senior attorney with Public Counsel, a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to advancing civil rights and racial, gender, and economic justice. Our education equity team serves many students of color, students with disability, and gender expansive youth experiencing racial, gender, or disability discrimination in school. Our office has seen an exponential increase in the number of students seeking services after experiencing discrimination, often intersectional leading to a devastating effect on a student's ability to thrive in school. The law prohibits discrimination. Nevertheless, discrimination in school has happens.

The California Department of Education's uniform complaint procedures process on upward trajectory in recent years of complaints based on recent years of complaints based on protective status. In 2025, well over half of the education equity complaints filed with CDE span two or more protected categories. SB 998 recognizes that students often fall into more than one protected class and ensures the coordinators for race, gender, LGBTQ plus, and disability create the intersectional framework our students desperately need. Federal rollback significantly impacted office for civil rights capacity.

In 2025, OCR received a record number of civil rights complaints yet dismissed upwards of 90% of individual discrimination complaints. This bill is filling a vacuum by pro preventing discrimination and ensuring that schools have guidance and staff to provide clear direction on how to identify and address discrimination on the school campus. Every student has the right to feel safe and be seen on the school campus. Senate bill 998 will help schools provide a place for students to learn and grow free from discrimination and harassment.

On behalf of public council and disability rights California, who is also in support, I respectfully ask for your support today.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 998?

Diana Vu on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support. Thank you.

Samuel Jan with disability here. It's California in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 998? Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments?

Okay. Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward and kind of further creating some guidelines as to how some of the legislation in years past will be executed. I know it's it's it's pretty complicated, and I think some of that guidance is gonna be important. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of our diversity caucuses. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Alright. And then up next, item eight, SB 1146.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, Mister Chair, for taking this up and members now. I hear I'm here to present Senate Bill 1146, which will protect Californians from deceptive AI generated health advertisements. As we know, the rapid advancement of AI and generative AI has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and fake content. SB 1146 will address the issue by requiring advertisements for health products or services that include a digital replica or synthetic performer depicted as a health care provider.

To clearly disclose that the content was AI generated, it's a critical step forward in ensuring that there is integrity and a trusted medical, information that is out there for the public. Testifying in support, I have George Sorey from the California Medical Association. I respectfully ask for a nigh vote.

Good morning, Chair members. George Sorey with the California Medical Association. We're the proud sponsor of, SB 1146 by Senator Gonzales. Whether it's a good practice or not, patients increasingly rely on online videos and advertisements for health information. Unfortunately, some artificial intelligence programs now allow bad actors, to create convincing deep fake physicians to promote products and services that are ineffective, misleading, and even harmful.

Thank you.

This bill provides a common sense safeguard by requiring clear disclosure when AI generated or digitally altered physicians are used in advertisement and by establishing meaningful enforcement mechanisms, including giving physicians a tailored pathway to legally defend themselves when their image is used without their consent.

This bill protects patients, preserves trust in physician patient relationship, and helps ensure Californians know when health information is coming from a real clinician and when it's not. We respectfully ask your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1146?

Great job.

Jen Chase on behalf of the University of California in support.

Thank you.

Hello. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support.

Good morning. Lawrence Gaiden with the California Dental Association in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. Allison Ramey on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in support.

Thank you. Alright. Is there anyone here in opposition? Oh, one more.

Chancellor Meli asked me California support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1146? Alright. Bring him back to committee. Any questions or comments? Yeah. Sure.

Hey, Senator. I think it it your bill is a good bill. My question is about the private right of action. Have you thought about that? Why is there any other way to work around that?

Well, at this time, you know, we we do think that individual doctors need to find some reprieve to be able to, you know, ensure that their name and likeness is not replicated. And, you know, that they're also not

Or does it have to go through a private I mean, couldn't it go through a local prosecution?

Right now I mean, you wanna add but right now, we just have the private right of action. We're certainly up for discussion, but, you know, that's what we've been working on

Okay.

Okay.

Only.

Just to make sure that, you know, people are not being faked out. But please, George.

Thank you. I appreciate the question. So in general, you know, the the bill, we included this because we thought that it was the best way to give a physician, a way to legally defend themselves as the Senator said. But we found that in some in California and in other states when, a physician has had their their images without their consent, that that courts don't necessarily always take it serious because the the laws have not necessarily been updated to account for AI generated technology. So it's something that we thought was, you know, very narrow. And it's it's only for the individual physician, so it couldn't become a larger situation to where folks like Kyle or section or something.

Or section or something

Correct. It cannot become that.

Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you for clarification.

I appreciate the question.

Thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an a vote.

Thank you. We'll get to it as soon as we can.

Thank you so much.

Up next, file item 10, SB 1164. Senator Cervantes. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for the opportunity to present SB 1164 today. Before I begin, I want to refer the committee to the Campaign Legal Center support letter and state publicly that I concur with the interpretation of SB 1164. Colleagues, as we know, democracy in America is under attack, by this federal administration and his conservative allies in Congress and in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Under the stewardship of Chief Justice Roberts, conservatives on the court have steadily been chipping away at the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. This has culminated in the court's shameful recent decision in Louisiana versus Kelly, which Governor Newsom rightfully called the implementation of Jim Crow 2.0.

This means that many of the safeguards against vote dilution, voter suppression, and voter discrimination that have been protected for Californians for generations are effectively no longer in place. While we have the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 in law, the CVRA only protects against discriminatory at-large election systems. We cannot stand idly by and watch the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court dismantle our democracy piece by piece.

This is why we have SB 1164, which is part of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026, which comes into play. This bill will codify many of the provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act as it existed before the Callais decision into state law.

This will ensure that no matter what the Supreme Court does, California voters will continue to have safeguards against vote dilution, voter suppression, and other forms of voter discrimination. The bill also provides the California Attorney General and individual voters with more tools to enforce voting rights laws. We cannot allow California to continue to be imperiled by the chaos emanating from D.C.

Here in the Golden State, we will continue to protect democracy, even in the face of a federal government that sabotages voting rights and continues its descent into authoritarianism. I do want to note that it is not our intent of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 to conflict with federal law, including Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Our mission is to protect voting rights in California and the space between the actions that the Fourteenth Amendment permits of the states and what the Fifteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to do. To that end, we will continue working to ensure that the provisions of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 are in a strong position to survive future judicial scrutiny.

I also want to say that my team and I have been in discussion with a wide variety of stakeholders, many of whom reached out really at the last minute before the bill reached the Assembly. And so I am committed to working with the sponsors and those stakeholders to address concerns, should this bill continue to move forward.

And I did share that with some members of this committee, that I had a similar issue in my own city of Norco, and so I certainly understand the city's perspective and what we needed to do and what I will continue to do in future committees.

I do have with me today to testify in support the California Democracy Partnership, Hector Villagra, Vice President of Policy Advocacy, MALDEF. Just say MALDEF for short here. And Kristin Nimmers, the Policy and Campaign Manager with the California Black Power Network.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready, whoever wants to start, feel free.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. I'm Kristin Nimmers, Policy and Campaigns Manager with the California Black Power Network. We are one of the sponsors of SB 1164, and we represent a statewide coalition of over 49 Black-led and Black-empowering grassroots organizations. Formerly known as the Black Census and Redistricting Hub, our coalition actually began with an intentional focus on democracy.

We led work to engage hard-to-reach Black residents during the 2020 Census, and we led a statewide campaign to engage Black communities in the state redistricting process and support our network in engaging in local redistricting to uplift communities of interest.

For over a decade, our member organizations have been engaging voters year-round to provide public education on voting. Through this work, we've seen firsthand the challenges that Black voters face to achieve true political power and representation. We have also been called to support and advocate on behalf of communities facing disenfranchisement and voter suppression. These things are not confined to the past. There are a few examples of recent intentional acts to suppress Black votes and political power.

In 2022, leaked records captured LA City Council members making racist remarks in a discussion about how to redraw district lines to maintain power at the expense of historically Black communities. In 2018, a court found that Latino voters face similar dilution attempts under Kern County's supervisorial map. We've also seen increased efforts to restrict access to the ballot as election deniers take hold of some local governments.

Last year, we joined an amicus brief challenging the attempt in Huntington Beach to enact a new voter ID law based on unfounded claims of fraud. We highlighted the burdens voter ID requirements placed on Black voters and other communities.

And although successful, the outcome of that case turned on a narrow legal theory that is not always available in cases like these. These examples confirm that we still face threats of discriminatory redistricting and efforts to pass laws that suppress voter participation. SB 1164 provides important safeguards against current threats to voters of color by strengthening California's Voting Rights Act to cover district-based systems, adding a preapproval program to prevent repeat violations. And I'll stop there.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Hector Villagra. I'm Vice President for Policy Advocacy at MALDEF, and I'm here in proud support of SB 1164, a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 2026 package. California has long recognized that the right to vote is not simply the formal right to cast a ballot. It's the right to participate equally and meaningfully in the political process.

Nearly 25 years ago, California led the country by passing the nation's first state Voting Rights Act. MALDEF was proud to be the principal sponsor of that law, which has been enormously important in addressing at-large election systems that prevent Latino and other protected-class voters from electing candidates of their choice. California can and must lead again by enacting SB 1164. Federal voting rights law is no longer a reliable protector of equal political opportunity.

For decades, section two of the Federal Voting Rights Act recognized that minority voters can be denied equal participation when district maps or election systems dilute their voting strength.

But recent Supreme Court decisions, including Louisiana versus Callais, have made those claims far more difficult to prove and remedy under federal law. That leaves voters of color vulnerable to discriminatory barriers to equal participation, especially at the local level where there's less scrutiny. SB 1164 addresses that problem by one, expanding the CVRA's protection against vote dilution beyond at-large elections to district elections. Two, prohibiting voter suppression and discriminatory barriers to the ballot.

Three, requiring preapproval of certain voting changes by local governments with the recent history of discrimination.

And four, directing courts to protect voting access and equal political opportunity. The public understands the need for states to step up and protect the promise of democracy. Two-thirds of California voters support expanding the CVRA. For all these reasons, MALDEF proudly and respectfully urges an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1164?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, sponsor and in support. Also, I have the proxies of some other sponsors: Asian Law Caucus, UCLA Voting Rights Project, PANA, the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Power California Action. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair members. Symphoni Barbee on behalf of the ACLU California Action, proud cosponsor.

Thank you.

Good morning. Daniel Conway on behalf of Common Cause, another proud cosponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sydney Fong on behalf of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment (AAPI Force, proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Scott Rafferty. I've represented LULAC and the Dawsworth Foundation and others in 10 lawsuits. I support, with legislative findings, to protect the law and to avoid protracted litigation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Ruth Sosa on behalf of PowerCA Action in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Panorea Avdis, on behalf of the California Community Foundation, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California, co-sponsors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Brennan with The Weideman Group, on behalf of the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, PANA, and NextGen California, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Janet Sadik Petin on behalf of the Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Thank you.

Thank you

Hector Pereyra, on behalf of the IHector Pereyra, on behalf of the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1164?

If we can clear a Chair for a gentleman. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Johnnie Pina, on behalf of the League of California Cities, here today and respectfully opposed, unless amended, to the bill. And apologies for getting our position in late on here. And I just want to start by saying we do appreciate the already productive discussions that we've had on this bill. So thank you to the author and to the sponsors of the bill.

And I'll start by saying that we recognize and appreciate the intent of this bill. I think our cities share the goal of protecting voting rights and ensuring equitable access to the democratic process. However, SB 1164 makes a significant policy shift, and I think our concern is kind of how that expansion is done.

The bill, in its current form, could, in our opinion, clearly does not define voter dilution or suppression or certain triggers in the bill, like material disparity, and without certain clarifications, I think it'll make it harder for our cities to come into compliance with the law.

At the same time, the bill has not provided meaningful opportunity to cure alleged violations, that notice provisions can be bypassed, timeline conflicts with required public processes, and our cities may even need a court approval to, as talked about, go forward with that remedy.

Other important point of this, our concerns are: Cities that are already in compliance with the CVRA by adopting district-based elections do lose those meaningful safe harbor protections and can be pulled back into repeat litigation even before that next Census cycle starts?

Our concern, I think, is for our our, you know, our cities that have gone at large to districts could be sued again and again, kind of kinda kind of having to change from district to district and, again, having to redistrict once the census is updated. And with that, just we're we're we're respectfully opposed unless amended at the time, but, again, look forward to productive discussions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1164? Alright. Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments?

Assembly member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you to the author. I enjoyed our conversation. Obviously, a very important bill, and I appreciate the witnesses on both sides. I I think that I agree with the staff analysis and both sides.

I mean, frankly, I think most of this is really good. And I think that this bill is trying to do great things. I have concerns and questions on a few different things that we discussed, including the remedy, how we're defining the harm, and I just appreciate that you're going to continue to work on these issues. I completely trust you to get this right.

And with that understanding, I will be supporting this out of committee, and I look forward to the amended bill before it comes to the floor. So thank you for responding to what's going on in this country. It's really sad to see what the Supreme Court and what our federal government has done to the Voting Rights Act at the federal level. And I think California does need to step up to make sure that everyone is protected, and hopefully this bill does everything we can.

Obviously, as the staff, report noted, this bill isn't going to solve what federal law has become and what the Supreme Court has done on the federal level, unfortunately.

But I think that, hopefully, on the state level and on the margins, it will be protecting a lot of communities that otherwise wouldn't have protection. So thank you again, and happy to support the bill with the ongoing amendments.

Thank you. Yeah. I I also wanna thank you for bringing this forward. I think the Supreme Court decision demands a response from California. And I think this is a good one.

And I know you'll continue to work the recommendations to pass this to Elections. Anyway, I think that they all have certain expertise that can help to further guide the author and all the stakeholders. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the comments from my colleague. Yes. My commitment is to continue to work with the sponsors and the stakeholders to address the issues that have been raised and to work to manifest those into a solution that's workable for future amendments will be taken.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll take it up when we can.

How many have we done?

Alright.

We have an author. Senator Jones, come on up. Thank you, sir. Item number 16, SB1256. Senator Jones, when you're ready, please proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

I, Vice, Vice Chair. Third Vice Chair to the fourth. That's right. This is you. Thank you for accommodating our presentation.

Members, I'm gonna be presenting SB1256. It's a measure to prevent lawsuit abuse, nimbyism, and needless delays in the building of a much needed new homes for the residents of San Diego County. I wanna thank the Chair and the committee staff for their work on the bill, and we will be accepting the committee's amendments to address the concerns of the Chair and the opposition. Harmony Grove Village South is a planned development of about 500 new homes in San Diego County.

San Diego County has identified a need for an additional 100,000 new homes by 2029.

So this is a small dip into that need. Litigation abuse, like seen with Harmony Grove Village South, is one of the main reasons that that goal will almost certainly not be reached, and as you know, around the state as well. This development has been twice approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. It has a project to labor agreement with the local laborers union local, eighty nine, and the plans for the subdivision are fire safe and certified by local fire authorities.

This project has been tied up in litigation since 02/2018 and has been updated to address secret concerns and is completely shovel ready.

However, the opponents of the project have continued to put the county of San Diego and the developers of the project through a litigation spin cycle over the same claims on issues that were already litigated in the previous filings. Litigation that never ends on issues that have already been addressed by the court is nothing more than a tool to stop construction at any cost.

That is why this measure is needed because without it, the litigation will keep coming, and these much needed homes will remain a dream and not a reality. And we wanna bring these homes to fruition. Today with me, I have Matt Henderson, counsel for the developer of the project, to speak in support and answer.

If you have any technical questions, we'd be happy to do that as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Jones. Thank you, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Matthew Henderson, and I do represent RCS Harmony Partners and Harmony Grove Village South. I'm here this morning to advocate for my client's much needed housing project in San Diego County and to be candid to, you know, hopefully talk myself out of a job in this particular case. That project is exactly the kind of, housing development that California needs and should be encouraging.

The project has 453 units, including affordable housing with an renewable energy component, and it is cited close to jobs and services. It also has a support of local union that Senator Jones mentioned. The project was first submitted to the county in 2015, more than a decade ago. And as is often the case for these kinds of projects, it was subject to extensive environmental review, including traffic, fire safety, etcetera. The county approved the project in 2018.

As is often the case, it was subject to, litigation, in which my client almost completely prevailed, but they only have to win once. We have to win. We have to bat a thousand in those cases. And so after it was sent back to the county, there was yet more analysis, and the county approved the project again in 2025. So you had two completely different boards of supervisors reviewing the same project and deciding this is what the county of San Diego needs.

Despite that 2025 reapproval, the project today continues to face further litigation and delay. It has been more than a decade, and we're still not even close to breaking ground. And this these kinds of delays and all the uncertainty they they entail, the problems that you have with financing, with tariffs, with construction costs, these are the kinds of delays that kill projects. And at some point, we need to ask when is enough government review enough, and when do we allow housing to actually be built?

It is litigation like this, precisely like this, that helps explain California's housing crisis.

This bill is not about eliminating environmental protection. It's not about eliminating or limiting public participation. It's about providing certitude and finality to the process for a project that has been thoroughly reviewed and lawfully approved. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any any other individuals or organizations in support of the bill come forward now, state your name, organization, and your position.

Good morning, Chair and members. James Thorektor with the California State Council of Laborers, also here on behalf of Local Laborers Local 89 based out of San Diego in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any main witnesses in opposition on the bill? Please come forward.

Thank you, Chair, Members of the, of the, of the, of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak in opposition to SB1256 on behalf of our community and our town council. I moved to Harmony Grove area, one of the most fire prone communities in San Diego County about fourteen years ago. Quickly learned what it means to live in a fire prone community.

I served on volunteer fire department board, our fire safe council, our town council, and became really real to me a few years later when the Cocos Fire burned thousands of acres and thrashed our community, destroying 40 plus homes on the same dead end road this project is being proposed.

I've seen firsthand how limited our our evacuation infrastructure is. Our community is actually a very pro housing community. In fact, we worked with the county and two other housing developers to improve project strength and fire safety measures and add evacuation routes. Ultimately, earning broad support, both projects, Harmony Grove Village and Valleano, are being built today with our backing and our testimony in favor of those projects at the border of supervisors. So we're not housing anti housing people.

Excuse me. My thing just canceled. Sorry about that.

And while you're finding your place, could your name and affiliation? I'm sorry.

My name is JP Theberge, and I'm on the Alpha Force Harmony Grove Town Council.

Thank you.

This project is different. It is proposed on a dead end road in a bull canyon surrounded by thousands of acres of open space where that same Cocos Fire destroyed homes a decade ago. In good faith, we asked for additional evacuation improvements and safety measures. We were ignored.

When the county approved the project anyway, our community did what all citizens are supposed to do. We held fun runs, fundraisers, attended hearings, and pursued legal process. More than a dozen independent fire scientists, PhDs, fire professionals, and evacuation modeling experts identified serious concerns, including a very likely evacuation entrapment scenario due to the limited narrow country roads. This is not a case about opposing housing.

It's about whether the court or the county properly followed its own local and fire state fire safety requirements when approving a newly submitted newly submitted recently, this for the second time, in a very high fire hazard area.

We we believe the county got it wrong. We may ultimately win or lose, but we deserve the opportunity to present our evidence in court. We don't believe that an out of state billionaire should be given a chance to override our fire safety concerns. We strongly, ask you to to reconsider this, because this is not just a Harmony Grove issue. It's a unincorporated, community issue that we're all facing, and we really appreciate your your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Opposition now.

Any other parties in opposition to the bill? Please come forward now. State your name, organization, and position.

Good morning. Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Natalie Brown on behalf of Resource Renewal Institute, the California Coastal Protection Network, Endangered Habitats League, and the Center for Biological Diversity also voicing opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll bring it back to committee. Any questions, comments from committee members? Seeing none, Senator Jones, would would you like to respond and or close?

Sure. Yeah. I'll just, be brief, and, and, to, I wanna point out, you know, one thing that's very important in this issue, that Matthew pointed to is that two different boards of supervisors in the county of San Diego have approved this project. One that was a Republican, majority and one that most recently, the Democrat majority. So this is obviously a nonpartisan issue in San Diego County, so I appreciate that perspective.

And, and I wanna speak personally to the comments regarding the fire prone and, and fire issues there. I've represented this area since 2010 when I got elected to the City Council or to the State Assembly. But before that, 2002, since I was on the Santee City Council, I've been elected through both the '03, fires and the o seven fires that impacted my neighbor my district in my area. So I'm very sensitive to that.

This project has been approved by Cal Fire and the local Rancho Bernardo Rancho Bernardo fire officials.

KB Homes just most recently opened a new housing development in my district in Escondido that is recognized as one of the most fire safe new communities in the country with a bunch of fanfare and press. The California commissioner of insurance, Ricardo Lara, came and visited at the at the grand opening. So the new construction policies are gonna lead to this being one of the most fire safe communities as well. And with that, I ask for your right vote.

Thank you. And we will take that up as soon as we have a quorum.

Oh, thank you. Alright. I appreciate that.

And I do see that we have another Senator here to present, Senator Reyes, which would be item number two, SB 873. Senator, welcome. Good to see you. Whenever you're ready, you can begin.

Thank you, Mister Chair, committee members for the opportunity to present SB 873, an important step forward to ensure all Californians can access can have access to our justice system without fear. One of the core responsibilities of government is to protect people, not in not to inflict terror on them. SB 873 will protect the legal process for all in California by preventing the the indiscriminate arrests by ICE agents in and around the grounds of a courthouse.

Recently, there have been numerous reports of immigration related arrests happening in and around courthouses in California. Earlier this year, witnesses at the Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse located in my district witnessed several arrests of individuals coming out of the courthouse.

This was done without explanation with and with very little detail after the fact, significantly impacting our community. Despite this limited information, one thing is clear. This has a chilling effect on on the willingness of individuals to participate in our legal process. Discouraging people from coming to court makes our community less safe. Several states have taken similar action as we are proposing here, including New York, Illinois, and Washington, who have all enacted legislation to protect the sanctity of courthouses from ICE arrests.

California fully intends to protect the rights of our residents to participate in judicial proceedings. The when we talk about the indiscriminate arrest, we do not intend to stop a judicial warrant to be executed by an ICE agent or anyone else. Here to testify on behalf of this bill are Andrea Garcia, public defender with the San Bernardino County public defender's office, and Jacqueline Ruby, legal observer with the Inland Coalition for Justice's Rapid Response Network.

Good morning. My name is Andrea Garcia, and I'm a deputy public defender speaking on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I am asking you to vote I on SB 873 because it protects the fair administration of justice in our state courts. This is a justice system issue. Every case, civil, family, probate, juvenile traffic is affected when the public believes the courthouse is a trap.

These civil arrests are unbridled and widespread across California. We have collected reports from deputy public defenders, community members, and families of persons subject to civil courthouse arrests. These civil arrests occur on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. Immigration agents are civil administrative officers who do not carry judicial warrants, unlike our deputized criminal law enforcement officers. They surround persons in the parking lot, in the streets, on the sidewalks, and in and around the courthouses.

These civil arrests are not surgical. One man was detained in a parking lot while simply searching for a son. I personally witnessed a monolingual Spanish speaking woman surrounded in a desolate alley only a block from the San Bernardino Courthouse, my courthouse. The Department of Homeland Security's internal memo shows that fewer than fourteen percent of people arrested by ICE nationwide were charged or convicted of a crime. These civil arrests chill due process.

When people fear arrest at the courthouse, they stop coming. Witnesses don't show victims of domestic violence and wage theft refuse to seek relief. Children who need court services don't have rides because of the fear instilled in their caregivers. Defendants miss mandatory appearances and face new charges. The courthouse stops functioning as a courthouse.

California law already prohibits civil immigration arrests inside courthouse buildings. SB 873 closes the loophole. It extends the protection to parking lots, sidewalks, and a thousand foot perimeter where ICE is currently operating freely. SB 873 gives courthouse staff authority and a legal framework. The bill requires that agents present a valid judicial warrant signed by a judge and clearly identify themselves to court personnel before any arrest.

This means our clerks, security staff, and public defenders own are no longer guessing who these masked agents are or whether their paperwork is legitimate. This is not obstruction. This is due process in action. This is a public safety issue. All the bill asks is this.

If you wanna make an arrest near a courthouse, get a judicial warrant. This is a reasonable constitutional standard. The courthouse must be a place where everyone, regardless of their legal status or their family member's legal status, can safely exercise their rights. Please vote aye on SB 873. Thank you.

I'm looking to meet you.

Please proceed.

Ma'am?

Hi. Good morning, Chair Kalra, and committee members. My name is Jacqueline Anton. I am a professor at a Cal State University here, and I am also a trained legal observer from Rancho Cucamonga. As Senator Ela Reese Reyes Reyes said, Rancho Cucamonga courthouse has been hit hard by immigration agents In exactly two hundred and ninety days between June 2025 and and, 04/20/2660 people were abducted by federal law enforcement agencies at the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Courthouse alone.

That does not include the surrounding streets. It does not include unwitnessed abductions. It does not include abductions at other locations in the city. That is solely the numbers for the abductions that had taken place at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse in a little under nine months. Since the beginning of this current administration, I have personally witnessed 40 of the 60 abductions at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse and countless others on the streets of San Bernardino, Pomona, Fontana, Rialto, and you name it.

I've personally witnessed how disruptive and violent these operations are and how negatively they impact the system. I will take you through an average day at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse in the last nine months.

Beginning as early as 7AM, you could expect to see a plainclothes ice scout agent standing outside of the outside of the public defender's office or the district attorney's office waiting as attorneys were calling their clients' names so that they could alert agents who are outside in anywhere from 10 to 15 vehicles, which means you have 15 plus agents who are waiting to take people from inside and outside the courthouse, including outside parking lots that are already over 2,000 feet away.

It gives them a great bird eye view, into our courthouse parking lots. During this, they drive recklessly through our courthouse parking lot, refuse to identify themselves, and demand compliance from people who don't know why they're being stopped or who they're being stopped by.

They use excessive force to arrest people and racially profile people while also threatening the safety of bystanders and court attendees in their vehicles and by person. One day stands out in particular for its heedlessness and, devastation. On 02/19/2026, there were six abductions in one day at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse alone. There were 15 unmarked vehicles in the parking lots of the courthouse and surrounding parking lots. I witnessed masked agents violently tear a mother from her car as her children were screaming for her.

I watched two men completely unrelated to the incident run-in fear because masked men, unidentified, were chasing them. They were then profiled based on their fear, their skin color, and the language they were speaking, and they were detained. In person, ICE agents referred to them as collateral. Both of those men are still in detention at Adelanto. One is going through medical, crises at which he is not receiving any attention for.

And this has become a regular practice at court houses all throughout the Inland Empire in San Bernardino, Fontana, Pomona, Rancho especially, and elsewhere. Law enforcement and the state courthouse or use the state courthouses to stalk them, eavesdrop in court proceedings, and make shows of force that only serve to deter people and scare them away. Allowing indiscriminate civil arrests at our state courthouses prohibits everyone's ability to engage in due process, not just immigrant communities, but all communities.

This is not only affecting our ability to engage in due process. It is also tearing families apart, causing unnecessary trauma, and sometimes ending in death.

Following abductions, families are hit with inaccessible legal systems, egregious legal fees, and for profit detention centers that don't care about their loved ones. SB 873 is an important first step in, protecting our judicial system for everyone and especially for Californians. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye votes, and thank you for your time.

Is there anyone else here in support of SB 873?

Hector Pereira on behalf of the Inland Coalition for American Justice, proud cosponsor of the bill in support.

Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, one of the co sponsors, also the National Housing Law Project, the Public Interest Law Project, and housing and economic rights advocates in support.

Samuel Jain with Disability Rights. California has strong support.

Thank you. Becca Cramer. I've been asked to register support for Oakland Privacy.

Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California, proud cosponsor in support.

Tracy Kenny on behalf of the Judicial Council in support of Senate bill 873, ask your aye vote.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the California Public Defender's Association, proud cosponsor in support.

Thank you.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.

Marcus Idro with the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property who is also a cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Patine, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, also in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 873? They will bring it back. Oh, yes. Go ahead.

On behalf of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in opposition.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments?

I think thank you, Senator, for, bringing this forward. And I think it's an incredibly important piece of legislation. I would, like to be added as a coauthor. Would you like to close?

We'd be honored to have you as a coauthor.

Thank you.

So in closing, I just our our our chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Patricia Guerrero Guerrero, in the state of the judiciary stated, making court houses a focus of immigration enforcement hinders rather than helps the administration of justice. I cannot agree more with our chief justice. And with that, I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. And we will take that up as soon as we can.

K. Thank you.

That's okay. I don't mind that on the record.

Alright. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, members.

We have item 14, SB 1267, whenever you're ready.

So, thank you. Residents, belong to homeowner associations, and condominium complexes find it, often, particularly difficult making the switch to electric vehicles because unlike with single family homeowners or- or HOA owners that have a dedicated personally owned garage, folks in this set of circumstances, you have to use common area spaces to to park. And then, you know, most people charge at home. They then have to install the needed infrastructure to charge their vehicles in these common area spaces.

So we know that the biggest barrier to large scale market proliferation of EVs is accessibility charging stations.

As someone who has couple, like, you know, like some electric vehicles in my family, I- I know this well. So we know we have to do more to ensure that prospective EV drivers living in HOAs that have these common area spaces for parking are accommodated. So last year, I authored a bill, SB 770, which removed a requirement for HOA residents to name an association as an additional insured, on their homeowners policy.

Many consumers were struggling to find insurers that would allow them to add endorsement for the HOA, and then you remember this discussion last year. Now our friends who represent the HOAs raised concerns at the time, as you may recall as a member, about liability for damage or injury that might be caused by a charger.

I made a commitment at the time that if this move were to move through, we would figure out a path that would provide some some protection for the association. So this bill is me fulfilling that promise. And it and it seeks to require the installer of an EV charging station to indemnify the association during the installation of the charger and make the homeowner liable for any cost arising from the use of a privately owned charger.

You know, listen, there's not been any shown, as we discussed last year, risk of- of significant risk or injury. But I understand the lack of certainty in the law then and now, that is worrying to HOAs and it may you know, it can make it more difficult for HOAs to obtain adequate insurance in an increasingly unaffordable broad based insurance market, especially for HOAs.

And so it's with that spirit we come today, and and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1267.

Thank you.

Mister chairman, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. The Senator is a man of his word, and we have, addressed some of the issues that we were discussing at the end of session last year, and we support the bill and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1267? Is there anyone in opposition to SB 1267? Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna briefly thank both of you. I- I do think that it's rare when, an author actually follows through on addressing we hear a lot about how if a bill gets done, I promise to follow-up with additional work and additional bills, and oftentimes that's, you know, that falls by the wayside. And it's great because we- we had a lot of discussions, the three of us and members here and and insurance about going forward, trying to make sure that everyone was comfortable.

So it's just great that- that both of you follow through and appreciate the Senator for doing that.

So happy to support at the right time.

Thank you.

Thank you. I also wanna thank you, Senator. Actually, about a month ago, I have a charger in my home as a single family residence. It started smoking.

I know. It was- It was- It was a-

Was it medical or- or--

I- I- I- I- I don't know. I- I although I do think there might have been some user error involved, but the bottom line was, like, you know, we had to shut the power off, get an electrician to come and fix it. If I did live in a condo complex townhouse or under the office of an HOA, it would be, I think, unreasonable for me to expect the HOA to be liable for that.

And- And so I think that this is one more step, not only a follow-up to legislation, but- but one more step in- in helping to facilitate the growth of the infrastructure of EVs, which is really the next phase of our kind of EV involvement in this state. So I thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Would you like to close?

Yeah. No. This is a good issue that reminds you that insurance undergirds so much of- of our economy and- and so- so many aspects of- of life, including our transition to a- a- a- a less carbon intensive future. And- But appreciate the work of everyone. Appreciate Mister Brown and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. When we get quorum, we'll get right on top of that. Thank you.

Thank you.

While we're waiting for senators and the senators, if they do show up, we can pretty much get everything but one item done by noon. Last week, we had to go into the afternoon because senators didn't show up, and we had over a half hour. We were waiting for authors. It seems to be happening again today. So I really urge our our Senate authors to get here so we can take care of their business as quickly as possible.

And we will be returning in the afternoon regardless for one item on for special order of business at 01:30PM. That's SB 623, Umberg, and we'll be in Room 447 this afternoon. But I just urge our Senate colleagues to get here as soon as possible, and we can get you on your way. Alright. Senator Cortese, s it's item 16, SB 1425, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, and Members. I'm pleased to present SB1425. And before I begin, I wanna thank, the chief counsel and Chair for their work on this, and I'll be accepting the amendments as outlined on page six. Thank you.

California is building the nation's first two twenty mile per hour fully electrified high speed rail system as I think we all know. There's going to be massive development potential along that corridor measured at approximately 400 miles. While the state is charged with managing the land, it lacks legal authority to regulate encroachments that may delay the building operation and maintenance of the project.

SB1425 simply enables the authority to do what most local governments and agencies are equipped to do, to adopt regulations to establish an encroachment permit program within the project's right of way. A codified permit process will bridge the gap between local property owners, businesses, and public entities to bolster the surrounding communities and support expansion along the corridor.

With us today, we have Keith Dunn with State Building and Construction Trades Council. I mean, at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your item.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair, Members. Keith Dunn, State Building Construction Trades Council. I'd like to thank the Senator for bringing forward this measure. As he's mentioned, this provides the authority for the high speed rail authority to manage encroachment permits. We've spent a lot of time talking about some of the concerns and issues that surround this project.

I've spent better part of the last decade and a half trying to improve them. I would tell you that this bill goes a long way to make sure that we're avoiding some of the delays that drive cost. So, again, this is a measure that's been born out of experience in the ground with the valley and some of the utilities that interact in that space.

So I hope that you can support this measure that's gonna provide the opportunity to to do things better, to learn from some of the past issues that we've encountered, and improve upon the delivery of this very important construction project. So with that, I'd like to ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB1425?

Mister Chair, Members, Sarah Flock, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you.

Chair and members, James Thorektor here with the California State Council of Laborers in strong support. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB1425?

Good morning, Mister Chair, Members. Brian White here on behalf of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, largest public utility in the nation. We have our own rights of ways and enforcement issues that that we deal with at a local level. We have a lot of interactions with various agencies, Department of Water Resources, Caltrans. We're just worried about outstanding enforcement provisions.

We're worried about the ability to go in and do emergency work and, and maintenance and repairs along our rights away. So we just need to have a better process of dealing with that without having to get encroachment permit simply to go in and protect our our public rights away. So we're working with the author trying to fix that and hopefully, we can get that done in the next committee. So thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kiera Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank and Burbank Water and Power. We would echo the comments of LADWP. We've had conversations with the author, and we'll continue. Thank you much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Rod Brewer for Southern California Edison also in the opposed.

Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Zbur.

Thank you for bringing the bill. I'll be supporting you today. I actually do think though that some of the comments from the utilities related to rights away and doing those in a more systematic way, similar to what's been done in other kinds of bills that are similar is are are are valid points, and I'm hoping that you'll continue working with them to try to refine that as the bill moves forward.

So Yes. Absolutely. May I respond?

Yes, please.

Thank you, Assemblymember. We've been working, among other things, I think we've solved the issue of making sure existing or preexisting agreements, which was some of the larger utilities have with directly with high speed rail. It's basically dealing with what we normally deal with a code section just by contractual agreement that give them presumably what they want. There is the rights they want.

It, it doesn't, that doesn't foreclose still, you know, having an an encroachment permit program is sort of a fundamental building block beneath all of that.

But, you know, issues of where they have preexisting easements, underground underground work, underground pipelines, etcetera. We assume that they have easements, you know, some of them probably go back decades and decades, which allow them just like Pacific Gas and Electric or I, I know we have Southern California utility here, but they don't ask permission. They just go into their easement and do their work because that's what the easement says they can do.

But we're gonna keep working to make sure we don't, you know, inadvertently create an encroachment permit program that that forces them where they already have a right to come in, you know, to take another step. We that there's no intention of doing that.

Thank you.

Yeah. I, I think the thing that makes the, the electric utilities and other utilities, it's a little bit different is because they're so extensive. So, I mean, it's not like one property owner that you actually have to deal with. It's you know, they've got easements all over the place. They haven't been in my backyard.

So it just, I just think it needs more attention to really deal with the details of some of the, the concerns that they have to allow them to continue to doing what they need to do to serve the public. So but thank you for agreeing to work with them. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Yeah. And, and this, this past, this committee is going to the utilities committee, and if that's appropriate to me to deal with some of these more technical issues that it doesn't sound like opposition is principally opposed, but they obviously have their concerns of the work that they need to do, especially when it's urgent work.

And but on a on a larger scale, we already know that the delays have really hinder hinder the Hyattsville project and whatever we can do to help speed it along.

And I think this is definitely a bill that can help us do that. It's critically important. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for this again, this committee's hard look at it and the amendments that we're taking. And we'll certainly you know, we've through through each committee, we've, you know, taken the process very seriously. And I, I think, you know, probably everybody says this, at least in my committee when they come through, but we're very, very close in in reality to just, you know, buttoning up these issues. And it's everyone's intention to do it, including mine.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your ayee vote.

Thank you. We'll get we'll get to a vote when we get a quorum, which is we're very close. Thank you. Can we establish madam secretary, if we can establish quorum, please?

[Roll Call]

That motion on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Aye. It's on. Consent calendar's on call. Alright. Let's keep it moving. Item can we get a motion on file item one?

[Roll Call]

That that's on call. The motion on item two.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Place that on call. Do we have a motion item four? SB 99, Blakespear?

[Roll Call]

Place that on call. Do we have a motion on item five, SB 998 Gonzales?

Second. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Maseta Berghagen, Brian Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian? Aye. Hair beating, Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pappen. Aye. Pappen. Aye. Sanchez. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, Izavert.

We'll place it on call. Aye. Is there a motion on item six? SB 1078 Laoird.

[Roll Call]

Is there a motion on item eight? SB 1146 Gonzales?

[Roll Call]

Is it on call? Is there a motion on item 10 SB 1164 Cervantes?

[Roll Call]

We'll place it on call. Is there a motion on item 13 SB 201256 Jones?

[Roll Call]

Okay. Place that on call. Item 14SB1267, Allen.

[Roll Call]

That's our we have a bill out of it. Alright. Okay. We have a motion on item 16 SB 1425 Cortesi.

[Roll Call]

K. That goes out. If we can do add ons for the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Yeah. Consent calendar is out. If we could do, add ons for item one, SB46, Umberg.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Two add ons for item two. SB 873 Reyes.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Add ons for item four, SB989, Blakespear.

[Roll Call]

Goes out. Add ons for item five, SB998, Gonzales.

[Roll Call]

Goes out. Add on item six, SB1078, Laird.

[Roll Call]

Add those out. Add ons, item 8, SB1146 Gonzales.

[Roll Call]

Those out. Add ons item 10 with SB1164, Cervantes.

[Roll Call]

That goes out. Move the move the call on item 13. SB1256Jones.

[Roll Call]

It's That bill is out. Okay. Alright. We have with us Senator Durazo. Item nine. Item nine, SB 1116.

Good morning. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. During my time at the legislature, I've been really focused on protecting tenants. In my district alone, there are over 70% renters. The cost of housing rises and more Californians are rent burdened on the verge of eviction or actually getting evicted and becoming homeless.

This bill seeks to increase transparency and better understand the housing instability and homelessness across our state by gathering eviction court data at the ZIP code level. Specifically, this bill requires that Judicial Council of California assess which counties have the feasibility to report eviction data by ZIP code. It also allows counties with a 100 or fewer ZIP codes for their data to be kept at the county wide level, which is where they currently report.

Other counties that are not in that carve out would report as at a ZIP code level. Lastly, the judicial council will then have the aggregated data and we'll post it on their website.

Year after year in the legislature, we continue to hear of the growing crisis. Just last year, data showed 13% of low income households, 800,000 renters report facing evictions. With the data this bill collects, policymakers, legal service providers, and local governments can identify patterns in eviction filings and outcomes like default between ZIP codes, track local, statewide, and statewide progress preventing. Why ZIP codes? I'll give you an example.

The specific, state housed LA is an innovative homelessness prevention initiative. It functions as a right to counsel program. During implementation, advocates encountered two major challenges, a high volume of eviction cases relative to the limited number of attorneys handling eviction defense and low public awareness of tenants' rights and services. So to address these issues, the program partnered with community based organizations, conducted outreach, education, workshops, and canvassing. The advocates soon identified more barriers given that, which were concentrated near Downtown Los Angeles.

Given these capacity constraints, advocates adopted a phased implementation strategy using priority ZIP codes. Because eviction filing data were unavailable, they relied on proxy indicators such as homelessness counts and census status. ZIP codes were prioritized bay based on severity of housing instability and the estimated demand and for community services. This approach helped inform residents about eviction process, available assistance, and how to respond to eviction notices.

I know that, judicial council continues to have some concerns, but I remain committed to continuing the discussion to find a solution on the concerns.

Today, we have the opportunity to hear from our two cosponsors, Kyle Nelson, director of policy and advocacy with Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, and Benjamin Henderson, housing policy advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Kyle Nelson, and I'm director of policy and advocacy at Strategic Actions for a Just Economy. We're a cosponsor of SB 1160 because we strongly believe that having ZIP code level data on eviction filings and outcomes is worth the investment. Not only is it worth the investment, it will positively impact how we make policy decisions to end homelessness in California.

75 organizations from across the state agree with this assessment. And in their support for the bill, they've shared how essential eviction data can be to the day to day work of preventing homelessness in an increasingly unstable economy. Currently, eviction data is available at the county level. And since 2016, I've collected this data by submitting public records request to the Judicial Council.

In Los Angeles, this data helped elected officials craft emergency tenant protections during the COVID 19 pandemic, and it's been vital to implementing StayHoused LA, the city and county's right to council program.

But this data can only tell us part of the story. For our homelessness prevention policies to work, we also need to know where eviction outcomes are happening. For example, we know that over half of tenants in Kern County default where they lose their cases before their first court date. With ZIP code level data, however, tenant advocates could focus outreach efforts on areas with the highest default rates, increasing the likelihood that tenant- increasing the likelihood that tenants respond to landlords' lawsuits in time.

This is especially important in a county that is larger than the state of New Jersey with a lot of evictions and few tenant advocates.

Implementing SB 1160 will not come without costs, but if California hopes to curb homelessness, then we must enact data driven policies that allow advocates to focus their efforts on the places where tenants need support the most. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Benjamin Henderson. I am a policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. For tenants, an eviction filing can mean losing affordable housing, disrupting a child's education, and even experiencing homelessness. Yet despite the life changing consequences of eviction, California still lacks consistent statewide data to understand how many unlawful detainers are filed, how these cases are resolved, and which communities are most impacted by evictions.

Today, legal advocates and local governments need eviction data to identify communities experiencing the highest rate of displacement and to target resources where they are needed most. They look at eviction cases- look at where eviction cases are being filed, how many cases end in default judgment because tenants are unable to respond, and other factors. The Western Center on Law and Property holds monthly eviction defense calls where we discuss this information with our legal service partners.

The problem is that this data is not collected or reported consistently across California. Some counties make this information available, but most do not. Making it difficult to understand

statewide trends or evaluate whether our policies are effectively keeping people housed. SB 1160 addresses this gap by creating a standardized statewide reporting system for unlawful detainer cases by collecting information on filings, defaults, the stipulated judgments, dismissals, and other case outcomes by ZIP code. This bill would give California the transparency and information needed to improve eviction prevention efforts and better serve people at the risk of losing their homes. We respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1160?

Good morning, chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Coalition for Rural Housing, the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, and Housing California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Isidro with the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1160?

Good morning, chair and members. Morgan Lardizabal, legislative advocate with the Judicial Council. Today, here in respectful opposition to 1160, we appreciate the work Senator Durazo and her office have put into the latest amendments, especially the needed delayed implementation timeline. However, we remain in opposition based on the significant workload and fiscal impact the bill will have on the courts and the council. The main crux of the impact remains with the corp- requirement to provide the data by ZIP code.

This is not a field that exists in nearly all court case management systems today. As these systems are designed to ensure cases are tracked through the judicial system, it is not an easy fix to add a new field to each of the individual systems and create a statewide extraction system for the information to regularly flow up to the council for the aggregation and information that needs to be reported by the bill.

This new requirement will require significant resources and divert court staff from helping court users to focus on data collection for use outside of the court system. We look forward to continuing the conversation with Senator Durazo and her office. Thank you.

Happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1116? Bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you. I had just had a question for, judicial counsel. Is there a way to get this bill to a better place so that, this bill can forward? I know there were some amendments that were were already taken, but I do also have a concern about, you know, our course in, you know, the different judicial council forms. Is there a way to- to go to neutral?

There's not a cheap way to go to neutral. I'll put it that way. It's really gonna take an update to all these different systems. LA is currently doing this with the help of Stanford researchers, so they have a lot of people helping them do this currently. And one of our first suggestions was maybe we do a pilot program specifically to LA where they do have this data.

We have all the other data elements that do get reported annually. It's really the ZIP code factor that they're hinging the bill on every year that we just simply don't have an ability to easily implement into all of our systems. There are 58 different systems. Every system's different. We'd have to work with multiple vendors at the council and the court level.

The bill amendments do reference our GIPSA system, which is an outdated system that we're slowly starting to move away from. So it's a separate system that needs to be created at our level and then at every individual court level. So short answer is no.

And- And I'm just curious to the author, and I commend you for always advocating on behalf of tenants. I'm curious if there's a way and and I'm not saying to make a commitment right now, but is there a way to maybe go down the right- route of maybe doing this as a pilot program, maybe only for LA County so that way this wouldn't be an impact for judicial council?

Well, LA County pretty much does that does it now. So a pilot- pilot project isn't gonna help in that case. The- What we were looking at is the time that it would take. One is that the the judicial council would- would decide which of the counties have the feasibility to do it. So it's not just saying everybody right now.

Right? So judicial council decides which counties have the feasibility to do that. We gave them extra time to- to do it. We have we can talk about more, but we- we and then that there are counties with a 100 or fewer ZIP codes. So capacity feasibility, we're trying to address that.

We're not just saying you're off on your own. We've also suggested that as techno- as they upgrade the technology, each county has some more, some less, but they all rely on some level of technology that has that technology make they make changes in the technology that they would include this. We did this with the paid family leave information that we asked for and we got passed through a law is that as the technology was upgraded, they asked they added these data points.

So those are the- Those are the ways in which we've suggested to move forward. We'll continue to take any suggestions along those lines.

Thank you.

And I'm- I'm curious. Does this what the Senator just mentioned, do those amendments help to alleviate some of the concerns? It seems like it does.

It- It doesn't just because that's not the way our systems are set up to be updated. Uh-huh. So all the different vendors have current projects ongoing that this can't just easily be added into. And we need project managers at our level to be able to make sure everything gets implemented across the board. The two years really LA is the only county that would be able to court and county that would be able to do this.

So it really is an update that needs to go out to all 57 other courts. And currently, with these latest amendments, there is an exception for courts with a 100 or fewer annual filings over the last five years. However, the bill still requires all 58 courts to report to the council. It's just when the council then posts the results, we would exclude those. So there's still it's just it needs a lot of updates to be able to make this work.

Well, I'm hoping that- that there will be further conversations held. I will be voting for your bill today so that you can continue having those conversations. But I'll reserve my vote, for when it gets on the floor, but hopefully hoping that it gets to a better place. But again, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Assemblymember Zbur.

Thank you, author, for bringing the bill. You know, data collection is something that's really important. And when I was at Equality California, we actually had a series of bills that were trying to collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity, and we were doing it in pieces because you always sort of and they're valid concerns, but you always have the concerns about how much it's costing to update your systems, how much it's costing to update your forms.

And the way you deal with it is the way you're dealing with it now, which is that you try to look at, okay, when are the systems gonna be updated on its own anyway? So you're already bearing those costs.

When are you gonna print the forms anyway? So when you print the forms the next time, you add it at that point. And so those are the ways that you typically deal with issues of data collection when you're trying to collect more data. It sounds like you're very focused on those kinds of things to reduce the cost, of our court- for our for the judicial council and our courts. And so with that, I'd be supporting the bill.

I think these are the kinds of things that always happen on data collection bills. And so, you know, I- I just wanna thank the author for continuing to work on these issues, and I'll be supporting this today.

Thank you.

Alright. Any questions or comments? Okay. I- I also wanna thank the author. Look, you know, this is- we're talking about adding one more field of information to information that already exists.

The courts already have it. These are unlawful to tenors. They have the ZIP code of these residents. The- You know, we talk a lot about the housing crisis, and I think so much focuses on new construction and how being able to have homeownership. The number one crisis, not just now, but has been for many, many years, is rents too high.

Evictions, you know, families are struggling to survive. And it's not just LA County. It's in all 58 counties now. Having the data to be able to be nimble enough to respond is critically important. Although I- I understand the concerns the judicial council, I think, you know, having from today's date at least two and a half years to add one more field.

You know, every year court forms are updated every single year. Adding one more field and adding one more field, particularly electronically, just to enter into a computer, I get it's gonna take some work, but I- I think the again, in- in balance, having that information is critically important for us to deal with the number one crisis that our residents face, which is the cost of housing. So with that, would you like to close?

I ask for your vote. Thank you all very much for your comments.

I'll move it.

Is there a second? I'll sec- I'll second it.

Motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call].

'Kay. We'll place that on call. Thank you.

Thank you, members.

So so we we still have five bills left. Unfortunately, we've had very, very long delays without having senators here to present. So we're definitely gonna go to the afternoon on some of those bills. Unfortunately, for the second week in a row, for lack of having Senate authors, we're going to the afternoon on bills that we really shouldn't have to. So I implore senators, not just today, but next week, please show up and present.

We are all ready for for your presentations. And it's unfortunate that we're gonna be further delayed today when I know folks have very busy agendas in the afternoon as well. It's it's unacceptable. We'll go ahead and do some add ons right now, and we'll start with the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Item one of SB 46 Umberg.

[Roll Call]

Add on for item two, SB 873 Reyes.

[Roll Call]

Add ons for item four, SB 989, Blakespear.

[Roll Call]

Item add ons for item five, SB998 Gonzales.

[Roll Call]

Add ons for item six, SB 1078 Laird.

[Roll Call]

Item eight 1146 Gonzales add ons.

[Roll Call]

Move to call on item nine, SB 1160 Durazo.

[Roll Call]

I'll place that back on call. Add ons for item 10, SB 1164 Cervantes.

[Roll Call]

Add ons for item 13. SB 1256 Jones.

[Roll Call]

Item 14. SB 1267. Allen add ons.

[Roll Call]

Add ons to item 16, SB 1425, Cortesi.

[Roll Call]

If we don't have a Senator here in five minutes, we're gonna recess to the afternoon. Yeah. We have people have work to do.

Women.

Alright. Here we go. Good. Did you save the rest of the senators?

Item 11.

Item 11. SB 1194, Senator Caballero. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1194. This bill will codify the immigration legal fellowship project, which has proven to be a successful model to expand access immigration legal services in some of the most underserved regions of the state. The fellowship began as a pilot project in 2019 in response to the federal administration as it pursued repressive immigration enforcement, creating fear and confusion for many immigrant families and children across California.

While access to immigration counsel and legal services has been limited, the environment created under the federal administration magnified the severity of the issue and demonstrated the clear need for trusted legal services and community based support to assist individuals navigating the complex immigration processes.

The fellowship was designed to increase the number of qualified immigration attorneys who could defend California residents. The first, fellowship cohort was deployed in 2021, and the program has not only created a sustainable immigration attorney pipeline to areas hardest hit by the Federal Federal Administration's rates, but has also strengthened trust in public institution and ensured individuals receive accurate legal representation during some of the most critical moments of their lives. The fellowship has provided legal representation services to nearly 2,500 individuals across 39 counties.

Local organizations who have hosted fellows have gained the requisite experience required in order to be eligible to apply for state legal services funding and are in a better position to leverage philanthropic support. The one California funds that we put into operation went to communities that already had established legal services legal immigration services.

So the the value of this fellowship was that it created a pipeline to be able to send resources so people could see an attorney. In in my region of the state, both when I was in the Assembly and now in the Senate, we had no no operating entities. And so what would happen is people would come in and do a know your legal rights series. But knowing your legal rights series doesn't mean you know how to defend yourself in court.

And so these attorneys have been critically important.

So with that, SB 1194 bills on its success successful model. And with me to testify today is Jackie Gonzales, co executive director of immigrant defense advocacy. Thank you.