Elections — 2026-06-09 (partial)

Senator, you may present. Thank you, Chair Weiner and committee staff and committee members. I'm here to present SCA 5, the Education Equalization Act. This bill may be familiar to many of you. Last year, SB 743 vetted the policy that is essentially now embedded in SCA 5. It passed out of the Senate with broad support. For over 40 years, California's public school finance system has allowed per-pupil funding disparities to grow, even as the state has adopted reforms intended to make school funding more equitable. The disparities show up in the student experience, access to academic support, mental health services, special education, safe facilities, and the ability to attract and retain qualified teachers and staff. SCA 5 creates the equalization reserve account to address that disparity in a fiscally responsible, stable method over time. The Equalization Reserve Act, ERA, which is this measure, is based on the same rubric as the public school system stabilization account, sometimes known as the PSSSA. It's only funded in flush budget years. It's only funded with non-Prop 98 general fund dollars. And the deposits function as principal in an endowment-style interest-bearing account. The interest will be paid out to non-basic aid districts for the purpose of achieving parity with basic aid districts and per-people funding. This measure is affixed to a problem that has been growing for over 40 years. It's a constitutional framework designed to build a stable, protected, long-term tool for the benefit of our students, teachers, and administrators, and school districts to begin to reverse this 40-year funding issue. I'd like to introduce our witnesses, Lisa Andrew, the Silicon Valley Education Foundation, and other significant aspects of her resume, and Cheryl Jacobs. I appreciate having you both. Jordan. Jordan, I'm sorry. I know that. I've known that for 25 years. I apologize. Thank you. Thank you both for being here.

Good morning, Senator Weiner and committee members. I'm Cheryl Jordan, superintendent of Milpitas Unified School District, where I've served our community since 1989. And also, I'm here today as the ACSA state chair of our legislative policy committee. And it is a great honor to be able to share with you how the impact of the Educational Endowment Fund can be made with your support and the support of our voters of California. In my school district, we have 10,200 students. In a school district to the west of us in the same county of Santa Clara, they have 10,100 students. That school district employs 1,300 employees. My school district employs 950. That's a ratio of one staff member for every seven students in the other district and one for every 10 students in my district. Another point is that in the other district, they have a cap at the elementary level of 22 students. In my district in primary grades TK through third grade the cap when you look at the average across the three grades is 25 whereas the rest are 32 to 1 I have had the opportunity to teach many of the people who are now employees in our district, one of whom is John. John was a fantastic teacher in our district. He served for five years and then moved on to another district a few miles away. And I asked him, why are you leaving, John? We need you here. And he said, I know, Mrs. Jordan. I love it here. This is my home. But I'll be making $22,000 more in the other district, and I'm going to be raising a family. So I have to think about that. That's an example of how this endowment fund can make an impact for every single child in our country or in our state. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Kat Brackman with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you. Any additional support? Please come forward. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to opposition. Any opposition? Please come forward. You're welcome to sit if you want. Whatever you prefer.

Thank you. Is there any additional opposition to SCA 5? Please come forward.

Sorry, I understand. That's okay. Any additional opposition?

You're closed because Senator Choi.

Senator Choi.

We'll just have to raise those. You know, based on my understanding of the flow of dollars into non-basic aid districts or basic aid districts, once a charter is authorized by the district or by another entity like the State Board of Education, that then establish it, that then triggers funding formulas that have to do with traditional public school districts and charter schools. We're not tinkering with that. We're not touching that. This bill takes no money away from anybody. It's probably the two most important things we've been able to pitch about this bill is it's not a tax. It's not a revenue measure. It doesn't impact Prop 98. It doesn't impact any of the statutory requirements currently in existence for funding schools. It's simply the establishment of a reserve account that can begin the process of equalizing the non-basic aid with the basic aid. How money flows after that, again, it doesn't touch any of that. It doesn't even change the LCFF formula, for example. It doesn't change anything that exists right now in the sense of formulas that this legislature has already adopted or the people in the state of California have adopted, all that's left alone. And I appreciate the question. I know you and I have talked about this a little bit before. We're certainly happy to continue to listen to the opposition. We did that last year with SB 7443, which was written the same way. And we got to the point, frankly, by the time we reached Assembly education in that hearing, you know, the opposition who was present at that time, not necessarily the same individual, I don't remember that, but basically had not identified where the bill distinguishes between charter funding and traditional public school funding. We have to have somebody tell us this is where the bill explicitly costs the charter schools money, and then perhaps we could take a look at that problem. But I think because the bill doesn't deal with that and it's silent on that, it's been very difficult over the last couple of years for charters who would like to get some more money to figure out where the bill actually addresses that one way or the other. It just doesn't. This, as we say in the legislature sometimes, that's a different bill. It's not something we're dealing with here. I hear charter schools position this measure may not directly benefit charter schools. On the other hand, while one measure may not solve all the school district funding inequity problems, but at least this is going to the right direction for LCFF funding school districts. They have so much funding inequities depending upon which district is.

Yes, Senator, that's true. And, of course, part of the problem, and I know you understand it from a financial standpoint, is if you start pulling the principal back out of the reserve fund, then two things can happen. One, you won't have that principal there the next year if you start using it as one-time money. Big problem, right, because you might hire people one year, have to lay them off the next year. And the second problem is, you know, we're trying to create ongoing, steady, reliable, predictable amounts. And I think the best way to do that is to hold the principal, invest it in the state's investment pool, which is a pretty predictable return on investment, and then roll those dollars out, only the interest. It will take time before it starts making a major difference, but it will start making some difference as soon as there's money in the reserve account. So really, this bill is 100% about establishing the reserve account. And a close reading of the bill will show that it actually allows the legislature flexibility in terms of making appropriations decisions so long as the appropriation decision is strictly for equalization purposes. So I don't think any person or district, for example, that were to come along and say, I'm worried about whether or not we'll get our fair share, that ultimately, if it's a debate about what constitutes equalization, will be handled by the legislature, future legislators.

The treasurer will hold the investment. pool money the reserve account money the legislature will appropriate each year in the Budget Act based on specific details that it deems appropriate Okay As long as it goes to non aid districts and so long as it goes to equalization the legislature can work out those details in future years

Grateful for your support.

Thank you. I appreciate the extended discussion to clarify some things. I think the only important fact among many that I want to leave everyone with today is that this, according to the LAO, this overall disparity is now a little bit over $60 billion. Meaning if we tried to deal with it on a one-time basis this year, next year, or any year, that would cost us $60 billion of general fund money. And we know that that's not likely to happen because that would be about 25% of the entire general fund that's at our discretion, and that's growing. So we appreciate the opportunity to keep moving this forward, to reverse that, to stop that growth in its tracks, and to start reversing it over time. Thank you very much, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Here.

Aye.

The chair has to go to another committee meeting, so in the meantime, as the vice chair, I'll

Well, thank you, Chair Weiner and Vice Chair Choi and distinguished members of the committee. I'm here to present SJR 18, a Citizens United Resolution. The Joint Resolution 18 sends a strong message to the federal government that California disagrees with the Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision. Additionally, the resolution encourages states to find ways to limit the power of corporations to contribute to political campaigns. 2026 marks 50 years since the landmark Supreme Court case Buckley v Vallejo which ruled that limits on independent expenditures are unconstitutional So basically it said you can spend as much as you want on campaigns. That case set the precedent that political spending is protected by the First Amendment. The Citizens United decision in 2010 expands on this precedent, establishing that corporations have the same rights as people, including freedom of speech. Together, these two decisions allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns through independent expenditures. Since Citizens United, corporate money has infiltrated all levels of politics. According to Open Secrets, which tracks campaign expenditures, nationwide outside spending in 2008, before the Citizens United decision, was $547 million. By 2024, outside spending had ballooned to over $4.5 billion. So that's a factor of nine increase in spending from corporations due to Citizens United. Studies have shown that all this money has led to corporate interests having a substantial impact on policymaking compared to that of the average citizens or grassroots groups. Additionally, corporate money in politics has eroded public trust in government. Today, 9 in 10 Americans believe there is too much corporate money in politics, and 8 in 10 Americans believe that corporate campaign money is bad for democracy. Getting corporate money out of politics can help rebuild trust in our institutions and help citizens feel that they have more of a stake in our political system. I want to add this. Because of Citizens United, dark money has allowed foreign money from foreign interests and foreign entities to infiltrate our elections. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SJR 18.

No.

Then I have some questions. Of course. As an election committee member, since last year, I've been paying a lot of attention to increase the election integrity issues, several bills. But unfortunately, being only Republican members, a minority, my bills didn't go much further than out of this committee room. But any other bills in this committee that are presented, I have a keen interest. So your resolution is trying to limit the corporate money not to be allowed in campaign, basically. Is that true? Do I understand correctly?

Again, this is simply a resolution. It doesn't have any requirements other than to transmit the feeling that the state legislature of California disapproves of that Supreme Court decision. I know resolution has no implementation power, but showing our position as a Senate. And also this is being SJR. It will be concurred by the Assembly members if he passes. I had really bad experience when I was serving in the City Council locally in the city of Irvine as a City Council member and the mayor. especially the police association, they are the ones negotiating with the council. At the same time, they have a pack and participate in the local election process, endorsing and making phone calls and placing street signs in support of a particular candidate or against it, that they do all kinds of campaign activities. And at the same time, they negotiate with us as council members. I mean, or if I was not a council member and just the first time I ran candidate, And let's suppose they campaigned against me, and then I become the council member or mayor later and try to deal with me. And that is a direct conflict. I was not comfortable at all, but under the equal freedom of speech activities for them to be treated just like individuals, campaign activities. So how is it different from your suggestion here in the resolution? Or you can say that kind of activities are appropriate. Right now, that's appropriate, that's the reason we'll allow and that they continue that kind of a union, more local associations get involved in campaign activities like that.

What I understand is that congressional representatives, they are not allowed to receive any corporate money, no company money, only individual campaign donations, right? That's correct. In the U.S. Congress, our members are not allowed to see direct donations from corporations, but corporations could put money into independent expenditures, which is sometimes called dark money.

So at this time, the federal level representatives' campaign can be donated or campaign can be done by entities through the PAC. So that's what they are doing. That's right. And also in the state of California, same thing is practiced. And you are trying to ban it.

I understand your intent here, the corporate influence on the campaign, especially from foreign entities. Correct. And there are so many issues in there. I don't want to argue with you, and that's more of an attorney general's question. What I understood was that any U.S. corporation incorporated in the United States, but the owner is a foreign origin, are they foreign entity or U.S. entity? That's kind of vague. And I thought the Congress prohibits if the owner is foreign origin, even if it was incorporated in the U.S. it'll be banned. So one time I received campaign money from Kia, even though it was Kia, was incorporated in the U.S., somebody warned me, oh, that would be treated as like a foreign campaign, so I refunded. I didn want to get into any trouble for So that kind of definition is vague and I also noticed last year somebody brought that issue, brought up to me the same company, I believe, donated to Attorney General of California. And why he can accept it, but not me. You know, when was it defined, foreign origin owner incorporated in the U.S. can participate, make a donation to individual candidates? Has been defined newly or not? I have not followed. Do you have any idea on that issue?

Okay, that's the intent is to eliminate the foreign influence especially.

Okay, and Senator Zavantez has joined and she has a question.

Thank you.

Any other questions? No? Okay. No opposition, no with former leader. Witnesses either. Would you like to close?

The motion has been made by Senator Cervantes. Clerk, would you please call the roll? Motion is be adopted to the Committee on Judiciary. Senators Weiner, Choi? Abstain. Allen, Cervantes?

Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Aye.

Okay, we'll leave it open. And once that passes, are we expecting the chairperson to be back? Yeah, okay. Okay, let's leave it open then. Okay, next item is I see Assemblymember number three. Number three is Assemblymember Jackson. No, it's not three. Which one is it? Number five. No other members here. Okay, we'll take up fighter number 5, ACA 7, Assemblymember Jackson, if you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Weiner and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Christopher Nellum. I serve as executive director at EdTrust West. We're a data-driven organization committed to advancing systems-level change to remove the racial and economic barriers that are in California's education system. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on ACA 7 today. I want to do two things with my time. One, I hope to remind us what the bill is asking of the state. ACA invites us to recognize lots of social science research, which indicates clearly that targeted evidence-based supports work. The bill is also asking us to reaffirm our commitment as a state to student success across the board. If the voters approve, the bill would also allow us to do something very specific, something very basic, but I think something very important. And that's to use data to understand where students are being underserved and then to act on that information. And it's my belief that that's not political. That's what effective systems do. We ask businesses in all sorts of industries to improve when things are not going well. We ask them to identify what's not working well and focus their resources there, which leads me to a simple point. I think when we refuse to target resources, particularly precious public resources, at best we're being inefficient. and at worst we're neglecting the very people who our state is intended to serve. And so for us at Ed Trust West, ACA 7 is about following the data. The data will tell us where to focus, the data will tell us where to invest, and the data will tell us as a state where change is most urgently needed. And right now Prop 209 in its current form is preventing us as a state from acting in that evidence data driven way. I'll just close by saying it's my belief that California has a compelling interest to close these gaps, not only because it's the morally right thing to do, but because many would argue that our economic future depends on closing racial equity gaps.

in American Civil Rights Foundation versus Berkeley Unified School District's integration case stated in its ruling for the school district, not all race conscious actions are meant to be eliminated by Prop 209. That is why ACA 7 clarifies what is already legally allowed that educators are too fearful, too unsure to employ. And then ACA 7 amends, sending a clear message, the legislative intent that we want our schools and colleges to use all the tools they know that will work as long as they do so without violating the Equal Protection Clause. Thank you, Assemblymember Jackson for ACA 7. I am available to answer any questions the committee may have. Other members in the audience, and me to a statement, identify your name, organization, or your position. Good morning, Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality in support. Apologies for not submitting the letter in time. The board just approved it last night. Thank you. Good morning, Clara Medina Maya with Californians for Justice in support of ACA 7. Good morning, Dominique Denae with Ed Voice in support. Good morning, Tenisee Herring on behalf of the NAACP California Hawaii State Conference in support. Carl Pinkston from the Black Parallel School Board, I support. Perka Morales on behalf of Ed Trust West in strong support. Also doing a Me Too on behalf of Little Manila Rising, Brismatic Research and Strategy. Californians Together, The Village Method, Black Educator Advocates Network, and Children Now. Okay, I see no other person. Is there any leader opposition witness? Okay, I want to step over to the desk. Go ahead. Each person will have two minutes. Good morning, senators, and thank you. I am Maimon Schwartzchild, professor of law at the University of San Diego, speaking, of course, in my own behalf. I oppose ACI 7. First a word about some misinformation ACA 7 is not a clarification of Proposition 209 Rather excluding public education from its protection it rips the heart out of Prop 209 If the voters adopt it, K-12 schools will no longer be subject to Prop 209 at all. For example, race preferences and admissions to gifted and talented programs and schools will no longer be prohibited by it. As for higher education, the only thing that will still be subject to Prop 209 will be admissions and enrollment, and that's only because even on an absurdly narrow reading, the clear and unequivocal Supreme Court decision in the Harvard case forces them to make that concession. Financial aid will be the issue that matters most, because that's the second most common place to find race discrimination in higher ed, and that's the issue that the Task Force on reparations has put forward. The Black Caucus and other advocates of ACA 7 have repeatedly said that its purpose is to help carry out their reparations recommendations. They've been explicit about their desire that college tuition should be free for African Americans. ACA 7 will seem to authorize tuition grants for some and mere loans and long-term debt for others based not on need but on ancestry and skin color. Make no mistake about it. This will be a referendum on reparations, an exceptionally unjust version of reparations. It will be poisonously divisive. Professor Herriot can explain the evidence that it will probably lose at the polls. Even if it wins, any action taken under it will likely lose in court. Please wrap up. Sorry? Please wrap up. Certainly the courts today and in the near future. While the Harvard case was about college admissions, The Supreme Court made it clear that it will apply broadly. I'm quoting here, eliminating race discrimination means eliminating all of it. I urge you to think again about moving forward with this, especially at this time. I'll be happy to answer any questions, and I thank you for hearing us. Okay, next person. Also, you have two minutes. Thank you. I'm Gail Harriet, law professor emerita at the University of San Diego. So I oppose ACA 7 for oh so many reasons, including these three. One, it will lose. The previous effort to gut Prop 209 went down in flames in 2020 with more than 57% of voters voting no. And here's the kicker, that's despite the fact that the yes side outspent the no side by more than 14 to one. Ask me for details about this issue of whether it will pass. I can give you a lot of information on that. If anything, ACA 7 is even more likely to be defeated since its most important effect will be to authorize financial aid discrimination, which with the exception of reparations activists, hardly anybody supports. Colleges know which students need aid based on their household income. They don't need to add race on top of it such that the African-American son of a millionaire gets a free ride while a less well-off Asian American has to pay. Two, even if it wins, it will lose in court. As Professor Schwarzschild has stated, the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in the Harvard case was very broad, stating eliminating race discrimination means eliminating all of it. Three, when this bill was introduced, the plan was to put it on this year's ballot, but it has since been amended to hold the election in 2028 Thus it is completely unnecessary to make such a momentous decision two years ahead of time The original plan would have been extremely ill right in the middle of the Trump administration The Justice Department would have instantly instituted a compliance investigation and could have cut off the UC's and Cal State University's federal funding, potentially costing billions of dollars. As amended, it's only marginally less terrible. Trump will still be there for two more months, and more importantly, we don't know who the next president of the United States will be. DeSantis, Rubio, Vance, if it is, it could again cost our schools billions. The only thing ACA7 supporters are likely to get out of this divisive campaign is a couple of political and legal precedents not to their sponsors liking, and it's a potential fiscal catastrophe. Please wrap up. I can wrap up, yeah. The last thing that California needs, whether they support ACA 7 in substance or not, is a divisive campaign that will ultimately be futile. I urge you to reject ACA 7. Any audience also in opposition can step forward, express your position? Hi, my name is Eva Dow. I'm from Equal Rights for All Pack and Californian for Equal Rights Foundation. I'm strongly opposed to ACA 7. Thank you. My name is Christine Yin. I am a concerned citizen of California, and I strongly oppose ACA 7. My name is Li Tao Yin. I am a citizen in California. I strongly oppose ACA 7. My name is Caitlin and I am a strong, I'm a citizen of supporting. Okay, you are opposing. I strongly oppose ACA 7. My name is Shelly Mandel. I'm a California voter. I strongly oppose ACA 7. I am Austin. I am a California high school student. I am strong for ACA 7. Frank Xu with Californians for Equal Rights Foundation. Strongly oppose ACA 7. And also represents San Diego Asian Americans for Equality. Thank you. My name is Arthur Mundell. I am a California student. I strongly oppose ACA 7. My name is Caleb Liu and I oppose this bill for all the reasons the professor has mentioned. My name is Xiaomei Zhang. I'm a concerned parent and educator. I strongly oppose ACA 7, keep discrimination illegal. Thank you. My name is Isabelle Li. I'm a California voter. I'm a parent. I am a concerned citizen I strongly oppose ACA 7 It is actually a discriminated act Okay thank you Thank you. My name is Xin. I strongly oppose ACA 7, peacekeeper discrimination illegal. Thank you. Thank you. I see no other person. It's time to bring to the tires. Anyone would like to ask a question? Okay. Seeing none, let me ask also a few questions. I dealt with this same issue in the election committee. and no, no, that was an education committee. And being this is an election committee, I don't know why we are dealing with this one, because this is mostly education-concerned issue, but maybe because of the constitutional amendment, I think this election committee is reviewing this again. And this bill is specifically asking for different educational teaching methodology based upon race at the ethnic group. Why are you? It does much more than that. Yeah, it's much more than that. However, basically, this is concerned about inequity in education based upon racial background. All right? So now this amendment, ACA 7 is asking for constitutional amendment. My basic The question is that treating even teaching methodology differently based upon racial background and ethnic background. Proposition 209 was approved by California voters in 1996. And Proposition 16, which attempted to repeal 209, was rejected by the voters 2020 because All voters thought ACA 7 is to me, none other than similar to Proposition 16. To treat the racial background as a special character and in the classroom, the treatment of a teaching methodology shall be different. And then I stated many times in the education committee that equal rights for any, The social background, the racial background is so important, and this country has been striving to achieve that so hard. And now this amendment is trying to dismantle that, the principle. That bothers me a lot because as a minority member myself, based upon my background, my ethnicity, this will treat me differently. I don't know whether they'll be positively treating me, my children, my grandchildren, or negatively. And I mentioned that the civil rights movement was all about equal treatment, regardless of your racial background and ethnicity background. This country is made up of immigrants from all over the world. And you can claim the special characteristics at the preferences based upon the country of origin, your racial background, you emphasized last time, culture, black culture, Asian culture, depending upon whatever the culture that is, treat me differently. Then we have more than 200, I believe, national origin and ethnicity background. Even Asian population alone, I come from Korea, and all Asians look alike, they may be all same Asians, but we have characters, Koreans do have their identity, and so does the Chinese, and the Japanese, Vietnamese, they have their own culture. So their learning method may be, preference may be different. Why, what does the current equal treatment does the current equal treatment in the classroom would not help learning the lessons in the classroom by the teacher by treating them all equally? Why does not, doesn't it achieve the same outcome? because we are all the same in some God-given talent, some will excel, some will do average, some will lag. Regardless of which background you come from, which culture you may come from, which origin, country of origin you may come from, which ethnic background you may be, there are always bell curve kind of a phenomena happens. That's the nature. And now you are saying, treat me differently because I look different. I think this is fundamentally going against the civil rights movement that we have achieved. And 209 specifically our constitution states that no person shall be treated differently, should be treated equally That what the Constitution says But this amendment says a small segment Education is concerned that we learn differently treat me differently But other than black caucus demand, no other caucus, no other racial caucus is demanding that. How can you justify your ACA 7? Senator, indeed. And there's nothing, I would submit, that Proposition 209 today, as it stands, prevents any school educationally from treating each student as an individual. And whatever appropriate educational needs are not in any way impaired by Prop 209 as it today stands. But ACA 7 goes far beyond that and authorizes exclusion, well, admission to specialized, talented programs and schools, and preferences for some inevitably mean discrimination against others based on ancestry, and likewise for scholarships and tuition aid. So this ACA 7 goes far beyond educational strategies, educational strategies which indeed are untouched by Prop 209 as it now stands. Can I add here, the whole purpose of public education has been to create a common American culture that includes things from African American literature, that includes things from Asian history, it includes all sorts of different things. But Brown versus the Board of Education has already decided the notion that educating people separately based on race because they learn differently, that was argued in Brown. And now we're hearing it argued again today. I think the most important thing to remember about ACI 7, beyond the notion that it creates, it's a bad idea to say that people should be educated separately and differently based on their race. But it also involves things like financial aid. It involves things, and that's what the Task Force on Reparations has asked for. They have asked for Prop 209 to be repealed so that free tuition for African Americans to colleges and universities, subsidized tuition to private schools for African Americans in particular, all of this would be authorized by ACA 7. If the idea here is that there should be, students should be taught something about African American literature, well that's happening now and that should happen now. There's no problem with that. Every student should learn about these things. Mr. Chair, did you want me to answer the question? Yeah, I would like to hear you. I'm gonna ask one of our Black Caucus co-authors, Dr. Sharp Collins and of course Dr. Nellum, to come up to be able to fully answer your question. Would you like to come up? Yeah, why don't you yield your seats for her to, yeah, sit down and. All right, thank you. I'm assembly member Dr. Lachey Sharp-Collins, proud co-author of this bill. There's a point of clarification before I get into expressing a little bit more about how vital ACA 7 is One Brown versus Board of Education was about resources and I want to make sure that that clear It was about curriculum It was about making sure that there were clear pathways that are going to be readily available to people of African descent But ACA 7 is vitally important to make sure that funds can be targeted to black student achievement within the K-12 education. We know that black students are the least resourced students and they are the lowest performing students. And that is by no accident. When you look at the data, African Americans are at the bottom for math. They're at the bottom for reading. And then things continue to go on and on. The question becomes why is that? School resources, when it comes down to equal achievement, has, once again, studies have shown that there is a clear disparity. But more money that is targeted for black students, it means that there will be better facilities within the low-income communities. When you look at the schools that are in low-income communities, they're not fully equipped adequately with proper books, proper materials. But also, when it comes to the instructional materials, they're not even up to date in that we have issues with our teachers being properly credentialed. When it comes to black students as well, when we start talking about the educators, we know for a fact that when you have more professors or even teachers that look like them, our students tend to perform higher. And I'm stating that also as an adjunct professor at San Diego State University. I know that our reps here are from San Diego, but I'm also from San Diego. I teach in the black studies department, the Africana studies department, and in the College of Education. I teach a classroom of diverse students. The majority of them do not look like me. But when it comes down to making sure the information is adequately shared, that is relevant, and that is positive, being able to make sure that we have resources that are available, whether it's for scholarships, whether it's for programming, it's for classroom materials, these things are 100% vital. And in the K-12 system, it is completely lacking. and what else can we do to ensure that we are able to have enough material in the classroom is to come back and look at ACA 7, look at Prop 2 and 9, and try to identify where are the gaps, what is happening, why is it that resources are not reaching. That's because people don't have a clear understanding of how that previous law was implemented. There should be no rhyme or reason of why we cannot break down certain areas and make sure that all students of color, but I'm gonna say black students, as we are speaking of in this case, can be able to have enough of the material that need it so that way they can survive and thrive in this educational system. And this bill is one way to help ensure that resources, opportunity, access, closing the opportunity gap can actually take place. I'll turn it over to you. I think a couple things. One is that the status quo is not neutral. Currently, the school system is producing outcomes that are pretty predictable on racial lines. And I think tremendous bodies of research have shown that actually ability does not differ by race and ethnicity. Rigorous, serious scientists have proven that time and time again. So what that leads me to, and I think should lead all of us to, is the question of, like, why are we looking at data that tells us a system is preferentially contributing to outcomes that are not good for our state? these sorts of gaps are contributing to one, the race neutral approaches we've tried seem to not be working. So I think that should lead us to the question about what other tools are available to us. And I think the other question we have to ask ourselves is why are we ignoring data that telling us that we should be using different tools So for me this isn about individual outcomes and I don think that that the intent This is about shifting out structural institutional outcomes so that we see more kids reading so that we see more kids being successful in math, so that they can graduate from our institutions of higher ed and contribute to our economy. And right now, I would argue that the legislature's investments are being diluted because the state is unable to invest in the precise ways that the data is telling us. that we should be. So are you, let me summarize my understanding. Your ACA 70s California Constitution shall place more resources to specific ethnic group of black students because of resources necessary in education outcome based upon the availability of our resources. That's basically what you are trying to say. What we're trying to say, Mr. Chair, is that the current system as it stands today is not working and it's not working equally for everybody. and there's a difference between your experience and my experience. My ancestors didn't come here by choice. They are not immigrants. They were forced here. What's also different from your experience and my experiences is that my ancestors, as well as our Native American brothers and sisters, were systematically stripped from their culture, from their history, from their religion, and from their language. It was systematically done and enforced by the Supreme Court, enforced by this government, including the state of California. What does that do to a people? and ever since after, institutions have systematically oppressed and marginalized black people. So it's by no mistake that the people in this country and in the state who have the lowest life expectancy, guess what? Are black and Native Americans. Those who have the lowest home ownership rates, guess what? Black and Native Americans. Those who have the lowest educational outcomes, guess what? Black and Native Americans. And I can go on and on and on to demonstrate that our experience and what this country has done to us and what this state has done to us continues generation after generation. which is in direct contradiction to the fact What we have been striving to do since the civil rights movement, that was only one step. And so I would just submit to you that what's also different between our philosophies is that even if one group says we are being hurt, and even if it has nothing to do with me, I'm going to say, tell me what you need because your harm is my harm. And it doesn't matter if I truly understand your experience because I can never truly understand your experience. But what I do know is your pain and the history that this country and state has done for you. And so all we're saying is the Black Caucus is making this a priority not for on mistake, not because this is something we like to do. What we're saying is, is that we're being harmed, our children are being harmed, and you may not fully understand it. But what we are asking you to do is to support it. And our word is, and there's many laws on the book will prevent any other harms that would be done or what these boogeyman scenarios would be done. That is not our intention. And that's what our laws are for. And that's what our courts are for. And so we would just simply say that we know you don't understand. understand, we don't expect you to understand, and we thank God you don't understand. Because we wouldn't want this experience to be put on anyone in this world. Okay, thank you for your position. Can I please do that? Let me respond first. I do know the black history, dark history in America here, but through the ages of effort, the dark age is over, thankfully. And as Asian American... Says who? Yeah. I'm sorry? Says who this age is over? This is a bunch of black folks right here who are telling you, and you're trying to tell us what's over? The Constitution of the United States, California Constitution, specifically states that no person shall be treated differently. And what we're saying is we don't care what the Constitution says. What we're saying is we live it every day and the words have not fully been realized. And we are here to ensure that the words are fully realized. Again, don't try to explain our experience. Don't try to explain what is happening to us. If you want to oppose it for your own ideological purposes, just oppose it. But what you doing right now is immoral It is unjust and I suggest that you just allow us to close I don't understand. One second, let me state my position. as a minority myself in this country, equal treatment is a very, very important asset of this country. And by the law, we have now put such a protection. But what I don't understand is that since I'm different, treat me differently, and trying to make it unequal justice for based upon racial background. For example, then each ethnic group, some particular ethnic groups such as Chinese people, when they came here, Chinese Exclusion Act, and the Japanese people, when they were unequally treated, unfairly treated by the entornment camps. And they got hurt too. And any other Hispanic groups or the Filipinos, they can say their own experiences. This country is melting pot of different racial backgrounds of cultures by the open immigration. So we are trying to find our rights for depending, no matter what kind of background you may have, what racial background you have, I am trying to protect the equal treatment spirit that is inscribed in our law. but here by changing the basic principle, you are trying to go backwards, saying that I'm different, treat me differently. And the school segregation issue was very, very important for black people. And then many ages have struggled to achieve that gap, struggle to achieve that gap, not to treat differently, segregate, we are equal, treat me the same as you are, and allow us, our children, to be in the same segregated, not segregated, mixed classrooms. But now you are trying to change that backwards. So that's what I understand. If I may, Mr. Chair, have a moment. You know, I was trying to solve the issue because the author misunderstands my approach, my question. That's the reason, and then after that, you'll have plenty of time. Senator, do you have something to say about it? I was not planning on coming up here today I going to let Assemblymember Jackson do this but I feel compelled to speak as chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus There are a couple of things that have really disturbed me today I going to let Assemblymember Jackson do this but I feel compelled to speak as chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus There are a couple of things that have really disturbed me today I would like anyone to point out in the language where it specifically highlights black people Show me in the language where it talks about giving preferential treatment to those of African descent. Just because it is being championed by the California Legislative Black Caucus does not mean that we are here fighting for ourselves and only ourselves. We are probably the only group that has constantly fought for this country to uphold its promise to every single person, regardless of race, gender, religion, whatever. So as you all sit up here and you focus on funding for black students, funding and education for black students, because of this bill, please point out to me where it says that. I will wait. I didn't think so. People ask for concrete examples. What we are asking for is for California to be able, as was stated by one of the witnesses, is for California to be able to be the best state and provide the best opportunity for everyone who lives here, regardless of your race. And understanding that status quo, this race neutral, is not working for everyone, This allows California, as was stated, to have more tools in their tool belt, which was snatched away after Prop 209. Now, I'm a little older than maybe some of the people in this room, but I was in school prior to Prop 209. And I remember a time where there was an issue with black male achievement. And so in my area, San Diego Unified School District created a program that specifically focused on black male achievement in some of the schools that had the worst outcomes. They created something called Pupil Advocates for schools. And what they saw over time with those individuals at that school, specifically to work with black males but not exclusively to work with black males, was that the achievement gap closed or narrowed and it improved the outcomes of everyone at that school. The black male pupil advocate at my school became my coach for my Nesb, sorry, my Nobichet team, the National Organization of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers. He became like a second father to me. Last time I checked, I'm not a black male, but I benefited and so many other people benefited from having him at that school. The entire school benefited and our entire scores went up. Brown versus Board of Education was not about let us all get together. It was about resources. It was about the fact that schools that black and poor people went should not get second, third-hand material. It is about the fact that the curriculum should be diverse. Now, what was a consequence of that was integration, but that is not necessarily what Brown versus Board of Education was about because we understand that certain institutions that focus on certain individuals like historically black colleges and universities do exceptionally well, exceptionally well. For all students, I went to Xavier. We weren't 100% black. Xavier had one of the few pharmacy schools in Louisiana and do you know who primarily made up our pharmacy school Asians People of Asian descent But it is a school that is a historically black college and university that does well for black students but all students that are there And I will tell you what the damage has done with Prop 209 is that when I started here in the Assembly, I had a bill, AB 2774. because we know that we have LCFF funding that we give to certain groups, but we still have some disparities. And so it was going to also do a different classification for the lowest performing subgroup based on race, whether it was black, whether it was Asian, whether it was Latino. And we could not get that through because of the concern of Prop 209. That would have allowed for schools and California to say, hey, at this point, African American students are the lowest achieving, so maybe we need to provide more tutors at schools that they attend, which is not exclusively black schools, but it's providing more resources in that area so that this group can start to, the achievement gap can start to close. And when they're no longer at the bottom, we can see which other schools need. So that is the harm of Prop 209, But I want to make it very clear that yes, we are the California Legislative Black Caucus, but as black individuals, we have always shouldered the burden for everyone else to ensure that America lives up to its dream and its promise. This is not just about black people. This is about allowing California to have as many tools in their toolbox as they can so that we as a state can get better and that our children, all of our children, regardless of your race, can be successful in their future. Thank you. Thank you for your additional input. My still point is that I know this amendment is trying to recognize a different race and ethnicity. However, author stated, emphasized, do you understand the black culture, black people, how we got here and what we suffered and that dark age was over? but you objected as a minority person myself, I would like to be concerned for our children will be on the equal basis rather than being treated differently based upon race. Suppose this ACR 7 is passed. What the reality, if this was passed at this moment, the next year, what outcome do you envision as a result of the benefit of this ACR 7? First, Mr. Chair, I really would like to close at this time. One moment. The rules do not permit the chair to monopolize the microphone. I still like to have a moment. Yes, it's my turn. Mr. Chair, you've been speaking for the last 15 minutes respectfully. I'd like to have my time as a committee member. Okay, I will now recognize you. You can ask your question. Well, first off, I'd just like to point out the fact that the two witnesses supporting Prop 209 are not members of communities of color, and underscores why ACA 7 is necessary. The proposed The constitutional amendment before us is an important step to dismantle the historical systems of oppression that have been laid out by members of the Black Caucus and members here who are supporting the constitutional amendment. I was proud to vote in support of ACA 5 Weber and I am proud to stand in strong support of ACA 7 today and stand with the Black Caucus and all those supporting, especially as a former member of the Latino Caucus, as a former chair of the Latino Caucus, and like to just ensure that my voice is added to the reasons why it is so important to move this bill now and how necessary it is. Okay, any other? Senator Allen, do you have any comments? Well, I'll just say when I first saw the bill, I thought, oh gosh, we're going to go back to another big ballot fight that's similar to what was done before. But I, of course, saw that, which I supported the last ACA, but this is much more carefully crafted and I just I think it's not fair to cast it in the same light. It's really focusing on the ability to do certain kinds of programs that can make a difference for disadvantaged kids from communities of color in various educational settings without impacting things like higher ed admissions and other issues that have proven incredibly contentious. So I recognize the you know, the fact that, you know, this is in some of the same space of some of those discussions and how contentious those discussions are. But I think this has been really carefully crafted, and I'm very happy to support it today. Okay. Mr. Jackson, would you like to close? I would like to thank my colleagues of the Black Caucus. I would like to thank my witnesses. I would like to thank senators that are in support of it. I would like to thank my senator, who represents me here in the legislature as well. At the end of the day, we have got to make sure that the U.S. and California's constitution is fully realized for everybody. And ACA 7 will help us to move just one more step forward. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Here is a note. Author, would you clarify that author accepts amendments to add Senator Smallwood Cuevas? Yes, I did that in my opening, but I am grateful that Senator Smallwood Cuevas would like to be added on as a co-author. Okay, with that, is there any motion? Motion. Okay, motion made by Senator Cervantes. Clerk, would you please call the roll? Motion is be adopted as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Weiner, Choi? No. Choi, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Okay, we'll leave it open for the absent members. We move on to next Okay, file number number seven, ACA, another constitutional amendment, 18. Assemblymember Carlos, when you're ready, go ahead. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present ACA 18 this morning. This is a bipartisan measure co-authored by two members of the Senate and 32 members of the Assembly. I also want to extend my gratitude to our sponsor, the UC Students Association, and of course the students themselves for bringing this measure forward and for their endless dedication in advocating for student voices. Today, there are over 300,000 students in the UC system, and yet on the 26-member UC Board of Regents, there's only one student voting seat. That is the one student representing the hundreds of thousands of experiences and everyday challenges faced by students of the UC system. Across the state-funded higher education institutions in California, the UC Board of Regents is the only system that has one voting representative, one singular vote for students, faculty, and staff. The California State University System, or the CSU system, as well as the California Community College System, not only have two student voting representatives each, but the CSUs also have one voting faculty member on their board of trustees while the community colleges have two voting tenured faculty members and one voting classified staff on their board of governors. To ensure students have more representation comparable to that of the CSU and community college system, our constitutional amendment doubles the number of student seats on the UC board of regents and for the first time ever the board would have both a UC undergraduate and graduate student. That's more perspectives, voices, and power for the hundreds of thousands of students that make the UC what it is today. And just weeks ago, my co-joint co-author, Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, and I have been going to college campuses across the state, from UC Berkeley to UCLA, really speaking with students about what their needs are. And I was filled with so much hope in speaking to a lot of these students who showed up and spoke about what ACA 18 means to them. And for them, it's really a greater voice at the table. It's being able to make their student experiences heard at the UC Board of Regents. And so I'm so proud to do this with my co-author. And with that I would like to present our first speaker which is Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens Thank you so much Thank you Mr Chair and committee members I so proud to co ACA 18 with Assemblymember Jessica Colosa And ultimately, ACA 18 is about ensuring that representation and how it only works if it reflects the people that it is being served. ACA 18 is about the students. It's about ensuring that student voices are in the decision-making process. Like so many others who have gone into public service, I was politically awakened in community college. And I was transferred to UCLA during the Great Recession when we experienced the 32% mid-year fee increase. When more student voices are involved in the decision-making process, it ultimately will lead to better outcomes. We know through our Constitution that the Board of Regents is separate. All this is doing is ensuring that we have the same amount of student voices as the rest of our coordinating higher education bodies. This is simply only doing that. It's doing what the community colleges are doing. It's doing what the CSUs are doing. But it's also giving an opportunity to bring more young people involved in our process, to give them something to look to as what government is continually trying to do, which is improve our process of government, improve and expand more voices in the decision-making bodies that the legislature upholds, which is why I'm proud to co-author this under Assemblymember Jessica Coloso's leadership. as a legislator, as a UC grad, but also seeing this as a real opportunity for us to include more young people in our decision-making process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Okay, second witness. Thank you. And next up, I would like to introduce Alexis Zaragoza, our UC Regent Emerita. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. My name is Alexis Etzieliski Zaragoza and I served as the 47th student regent on the University of California Board of Regents. I also served on the California Community College's Board of Governors, making me the only student to have been on two major higher education system boards in California history. I was also the first undergraduate transfer student at UC to be on the board and the second ever Native American regent on the board. In my college career, I've had the honor of representing over 2.6 million students in California. It has been over 50 years since the student regent position was created. In that time, we have driven UC's greatest accomplishments. Basic needs committees, housing investigations, campus policing reform. Without us, these topics could be ignored. Some people think that one vote doesn't make a difference, but I'd say they're wrong. When the regents voted for cohort tuition, I was able to make critical amendments. When students came to us with problems that had been ignored by administration for years, we were able to fix them within days. The UC Board of Regents is distinct from the other higher education boards. There are no staff or faculty votes. There is one voting alumni and one voting student. In the entire history of the board, only four percent of governor appointed regents since 1868 have worked in education. Most of those were partial appointments. The student regent's input and vote does not only serve the student voice. It serves California. ACA 18 not only increases the number of students, it also solves a disparity. ACA 18 guarantees that both an undergraduate and graduate have a voting seat Even though undergraduates make up roughly 79 of the student population only four undergraduates have served as student regents since 2004 That is four undergraduates in 23 years I was the only undergraduate in the last 11. Having a guaranteed seat for both populations is necessary to properly represent the wide spectrum of student needs. At a time when our federal government is actively targeting our democratic institutions, we cannot afford symbolic gestures. So I urge this committee to move ACA 18 forward and to send a clear message to Washington. Thank you very much. Perfect timing. Anyone in the audience me to support? Come to the microphone and state your name and organization and your position only. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of VetTrustWest, proud to support. Thank you. Hi, on behalf of the UCLA Graduate Students Association, we're in support of the bill. Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Atalia Correjo. I'm a board member of UCSA, the UC Student Association. I'm their disability justice officer, and UCSA is a proud sponsor of AC18, and we really respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Clarina Zamft. I currently serve as the UC Berkeley Legislative Director. I'm here on behalf and strong support for the Associated Students of University of California and the UC Student Association, both of which have endorsed this measure. It's time to put students first, thank you. Okay, seeing none other than people have seen now, I would like to ask committee members any questions or statements? Okay, motion has been made by member Savantez. I'm sorry. Opposition witnesses. No, that's a good sign, Ian. Okay, I also had the chance to hear you in the education committee, so I'm familiar with that, and adding student body voice in the governing board. That's very important, I'll be in support of that. And the motion has been made, and Clark, would you like to call on? I'll make a closing statement first. Thank you, Chair. Just respectfully ask for your aye vote and putting students first. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Motion is be adopted to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Weiner, Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Serrantes. Aye. Serrantes, aye. Umberg. Okay, I'll leave it open. For absent members, thank you, congratulations. Next one is... Which one is on the way? This one? Okay, I want to add on any previous bills for people who are late, you can add on. Lifting call. Lifting call on file item one, SCA 5, motion is be adopted to the committee on appropriations. Chair and vice chair voted aye. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye. Thanks so much. I know. I deserve that bill is out. Okay. So is, is the, is the, is the, Five, okay, and the vote result is five-oh, five-oh, and bail is out to Appropriations Committee, okay. Lifting call on File Item 2, SJR 18, motion is to be adopted to the Committee on Judiciary. Wiener, Choi, Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Okay, are they all counted? Still keep it open? It's on call, so we have a motion now for the consent calendar. Motion for the consent. There's a motion on the consent calendar, sir. Okay, consent calendar motion has been made. We call the roll. Senators Weiner, Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg. Okay, consent calendar source, so we'll leave it open. We have to wait. Yeah, okay. We are waiting for item number 8, AJR 29. I understand the author is on his way. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now, 5-9-8, AJR-29, author is here, Assemblywoman Berman, when you are ready, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Just over a month ago, over 23 million active registered Californians began receiving their ballot in the mail for our primary election. We implemented universal vote by mail just a few years ago, which was a big shift in how we conduct our elections. But it's really become what California voters have come to expect. That's because voting by mail is enormously popular with California voters across party lines. with nearly 89% of voters using a vote-by-mail ballot for the special election this past November. California voters have embraced voting by mail because it is safe, it is secure, it is reliable, and it allows Californians, and especially those whom in-person voting presents a hardship, to still participate in their democracy and have their voice heard. But if President Trump has his way, that could all change. Ironically, shortly after voting by mail himself, President Trump issued Executive Order 14399 to rip away the authority of states and counties to operate their elections, instead putting the United States Postal Service in charge of mailing ballots to voters on federally approved voter rolls This represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion into state and county election administration in a further attempt to erect barriers to voting by mail for all voters. Free and fair elections are the foundation of our fragile democracy, and when the federal government oversteps its constitutional authority to undermine our elections, California must push back. In California, we know that when voters of all political persuasions get a ballot in the mail, they vote. And notwithstanding the lies President Trump and his supporters have been spreading for over a decade, and especially in the last couple of days, the rate of mail voting fraud in California and across the country is minuscule and statistically insignificant. About four cases out of every 10 million mail votes per a Brookings Institution report published last year. Nevertheless, President Trump continues his all-out assault on our democracy and on the fundamental right of Californians to participate in it. AJR 29 clearly and unequivocally puts California on the record in opposing the executive order and calls on Congress to protect the right of states to offer this safe, secure, and reliable voting option for their citizens. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay. Do we have any lead witness in support? No. Any members in support of this bill, Major? Any opposition, Major lead witness? Anyone to express your opposition in the audience? No? Okay, I will ask my committee members to weigh in. Motion. May a motion as we made. Okay. I will let you close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. Please call the roll. Motion is be adopted. Senators Weiner. Choi? No. Choi, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Okay. Leave it open for absent members. Thank you. We have to be in recess. Okay, the committee will be in recess until the absent members return to the committee. Okay, there you go. Really? They don God I feel important All right Just making sure you going to in a Senate 113 Thank you sir Ready Okay Senate Elections Committee will come to order All right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Lifting call on file item 5, ACA 5. Motion to be adopted as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Weiner, Umberg?

Lifting call on file item 6, ACA 18. Motion is be adopted to the Committee on Appropriations. Wiener, Umberg?

Lifting call on file item 7, AJR 29. Motion is be adopted. Wiener, Umberg?

Lifting call on the consent calendar. File items include 3 and 4. Wiener, Umberg?

Thank you. We'll be in recess until the call of the chair.

We're back on?

Okay. We're back from recess, and we will...

Okay, we'll lift the calls. Item 1, I voted already, right?

Okay.

Okay, so item 1 is already out, SCA 5. I will go to item number 2, SJR 18. Please call absent members.

Wiener?

Choi? Okay, 4-0. That resolution is out. Now we'll do the consent agenda. Item 3, AB 1736 and item 4, AB 2421. Please call absent member. Wiener? Aye.

5-0. The consent agenda is approved. We'll go to item number 5, ACA 7. Please call absent member. Current votes 3-1. Wiener? Aye.

That measure is out. We'll next go to item number 6, ACA 18. Please call absent member.

Wiener?

5-0. That measure is out. And finally, we'll go to item 7, AJR 29.

Wiener?

4-1. That resolution is out. So we're done.

Okay. We have completed the agenda. My apologies to everyone for having to be in Assembly Judiciary for an extended period of time, and I appreciate my colleagues for moving the hearing forward. And with that, we are adjourned.