March 24, 2026 · Judiciary · 5,821 words · 10 speakers · 146 segments
Sa. Another 10. Okay. All right. The Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding this Judiciary Committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street building. I ask that all committee members present themselves in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. We are going to begin as a subcommittee. The Democrats, many of them are still in caucus. Thank you very much, Senator Weber Pearson, for being here and to you, Senator Niallo, for being. 50% of the Republicans that constitute this.
The other one is coming short.
All right, then we'll have 100% of the Republicans and just a small percentage of the Democrats. All right, there are seven measures on our agenda today, five of which are on the consent calendar. That's a very good start of the year. Let me read to you those items that are on the consent calendar. File item number one, SB994 by Senator Cabaldon. File item number four, SB9, 1100 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. File item number five, SP 1374 by our very own Senator Niello. File item number six, SB 1189 by also our very own Senator Vallare Valadez. And finally, filemn number seven, SCR124 by Senator Weiner. Preliminarily, I'll go over the rules that will we will follow here during the course of the year unless there's some deviation that has been approved by the chair and the vice chair. Each preliminary witness on each bill will have two minutes to speak. So in other words, the proponents of the bill will have two minutes for two witnesses, for a total of four minutes. And the opponents will have the same. They will have four. Four minutes split between two witnesses. After we have the support witnesses testify, I invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation and their position. We refer to this testimony commonly as Me Too testimony. I'll do the same for the opposition. In other words, two witnesses each two minutes. And then we'll hear from the opposition in MeToo form. Name, affiliation and position at the. At the microphone. After that, we're going to turn to comments and questions from committee members. If you wish to provide us further information, you can go to our website. And you'll note on our website that there's a portal for you to submit a letter to the committee using one of the methods described on the Judiciary Committee's website. So with that, we are awaiting authors. What? I'm sorry. Yes, we will start as a subcommittee once we have an author. So Senator Hurtado's bill is not on consent anymore, so. Yes, and Senator Cabaldon, if we could ask. Oh, you did? Okay, thank you. All right, Senator Cabaldon, File item number two, SB 1159. We're going to proceed as a subcommittee without being presumptive. My expectation is there'll be a motion at the appropriate time once the committee establishes a quorum. So, Senator Cabaldon, at your pleasure. SB 1159.
All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Members, SB 1159 is an effort to try to protect both public agencies, but more importantly the citizens of California and the right to engage and petition their government. What we've seen with the results of the advent of artificial intelligence and other similar technologies, is the capability for these systems to flood the zone, to drown local governments and potentially state agencies as well, in inauthentic non human engagement. You imagine a city like I represent several that are less than 10,000 people receiving 20 or 30 or 50,000 public comments on an item maybe two days before the meeting, and action has to be taken that week. They can't possibly process that level of automated feedback. And if they're real human beings, three or four in a town like Yountville or Dixon or in my district, how do you find the three or four real human beings in the 48 hours you're processing 30,000 automated bot generated comments. And so SB 1159 is an attempt to begin to try to tackle that challenge by making it clear that government agencies are not required to treat engagement by AI or a bot as though it were a human being. We've seen this already happen now in Los Angeles at the Regional Air Board. There's an entire platform that exists in the UK called Objector AI for this specific purpose. And there are signs of more of this to come. It's particularly challenging with autonomous AI agents that can then act without even the direct control of their quote, unquote user in this process. And so SB 1159 merely declares that for these various public participation and engagement and accountability rules, that a BOT or AI itself is not the human being. We will continue to have work to do on implementing and scoping the methodologies for detection. And there are. There are both technological and procedural solutions that we are examining and hope to consider in the coming weeks if the bill proceeds out of committee. But that's the essence of the legislation, and it's an important protection for both local governments, but even more importantly for the citizens that are trying to get transparency and get accountability in their government. And I thought I'd ask for an I vote and I'll introduce my witnesses After. It seems like you need a do a quorum or may I introduce my witnesses?
Okay.
Not quite there yet then. Great. To testify in support of the bill is Gabriela Facio, the senior policy strategist at the Sierra Club, to be joined by Vice Mayor Michael Silva from the city of Vacavo.
Senator Cabaldon, I assume you accept the committee's amendments.
Of course.
Okay. Thank you. All right. Floor is yours.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Umberg and members of the committee. My name is Gabriela Facio. I'm a senior policy strategist with Sierra Club, California. Sierra Club and our environmental justice partners spent years advocating for clean air standards at the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Standards that would reduce smog forming pollution from gas powered furnaces and water heaters, preventing thousands of premature deaths and asthma cases. We organized the communities, submitted comments and engaged the process exactly as California's transparency and public participation participation laws intended. Then that work was wiped out by a consulting firm that used an AI platform to generate over 20,000 comments opposing those standards. The voices of our communities and the years of work behind them were buried under a flood of artificial noise. Similarly, at the Bay Area Air District, a consulting firm used AI to generate false public comments opposing clean air rules, many of which were submitted under real residents names without their knowledge or consent. These campaigns were coordinated and deliberate. Someone hired, affirmed and signed a contract and directed the effort. That is deeply troubling. But it is only the tip of the iceberg. Today, autonomous AI agents can be created and deployed by anyone without a consulting firm, without a contract, and without an immediately responsible party. No coordination required, no paper trail, a single bad actor or nor identifiable or no identifiable identifiable actor at all can flood a state agency or local government with thousands of AI generated generated comments, petitions or public records requests. Minutes. If California does not act now while the problem is still identifiable and the perpetrator still traceable, we risk losing the ability to respond at all. The integrity of every public participation process in the state, every environmental review, every rulemaking, every local planning decision is at stake. SB 1159 draws a clear and necessary line. California's public participation laws were written for people. This bill ensures they stay that way. We urge your.
I vote.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Perfect, by the way, in terms of timing. One second. Let us establish a quorum. Just that very ephemeral moment when we have a quorum. We don't want to miss that. So committee assistant Porter, could you call the roll please? Umberg Here.
Umberg. Here. Nilo.
Here.
Nilo. Here. Allen, Ashby. Caballero. Durazo.
Here.
Durazo. Here. Laird.
Here.
Laird.
Here.
Reyes, Stern. Valaderes. Here. Valaderas. Here. Wahab. Wahab. Here. Weber, Pearson.
Here.
Weber, Pearson.
Here.
Wiener, you have a quorum.
All righty. Thank you very much. Floor is yours.
Good afternoon, Chair Umberg and distinguished committee members. My name is Dr. Michael Silva. I'm the Vice Mayor of the city of Vacaville and a professor of biotechnology at Solano Community College. Let's talk about what this bill means in practice on the ground in cities like mine. When AI generated public records request arrives at City hall, our City clerk Michelle has 10 days to respond. 10 days to locate records, involve the city attorney, coordinate across different departments and deliver a response. That response is essential to maintain public trust and transparency. In the meantime, a small business owner, Sophia, is waiting on a permit and doesn't get a timely call back. Nick. A journalist from the back of a reporter is asking his own Public Records act request and his request is pushed off and delayed. Meanwhile, a mother, Kim, is asking for enhanced crosswalk safety to help make sure that her kids get to school safe. That family did everything right. They believed in the process they showed up. Yet the system will fail them if our leaders and other. I are reviewing over 10,000 AI generated public comments. I don't want our constituents voices buried by bots. I hear this from local electeds across California. Many of us fear being overwhelmed by AI generated content. How will we make sense of public feedback on city projects if there is no way for us to distinguish between real people's comments from AI generated noise and astroturf campaigns? We've already seen this with the south coast and Bay Area districts. That small business owner, that journalist, that mother. Each of them deserved to be heard. Each of our constituents deserve to be heard. SB 1159 makes sure that they are. I respectfully urge this committee to advance SB59 and help us ensure that we that we represent the hard working people of California and not bots. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Others who wish to testify in support to 411. Excuse me. SB 1159, please approach the microphone. Your name, Your affiliation, your position.
Good afternoon. Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts association in support.
Thank you.
Nick Romo on behalf of the City
of San Jose and County of Sacramento in support.
Thank you.
Eric Larry on behalf of the California State Association.
Counties in support.
Thank you. Nico Molina on behalf of the building decarbonization Coalition Action Fund and support. Thank you. Thank you.
Michelle, representing the county of yolo in support.
Douglas Andreasen on behalf of the California Municipal Clerks association in support. Thank you.
Karen Lang on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors in support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt alliance and support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Travis Legault with the rural county representatives
of California in support. Thank you. Dave Shuklo with the Long beach alliance for Clean Energy and your support. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1159, the time is now for you to come and testify. If you should so choose an opposition. Seeing no one approaching in opposition, let's bring it back to the committee. All right, committee members, questions, Comments? Okay. Senator Wahab has moved the bill. Questions or comments? Seeing many. We'll start with Senator Durazo.
Hi, I just want to get some clarification on. Hold on, hold on. This does. Am I on the right. Yeah, make sure I'm on the right one since you had the only. Okay. Yeah, it's this one. It's this one.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on. Can somebody.
Sure. Sen. Yellow. Thank you.
Mr.
Chair, let me state, first of all, I fully understand the problem and I agree completely with what you're trying to do. I'm trying to get a grasp on how this is going to make a difference. And I guess it has to do with enforcement. And I'm not seeing anything here with regard to enforcement. Perhaps you can straighten that out. But the first witness said someone hired a firm. Do they know who the someone is? And do they know who the firm is? And that kind of gets to the enforcement. And the second witness said there's no way to tell. And if there's no way to tell, then how do you know that that's coming from artificial intelligence? And if somebody's just trying to make mischief, which is clearly what's happening, a person could hire a Chinese firm to raid the jurisdiction with artificially intelligence generated garbage.
How do we prevent that?
If this bill had passed when all of the, when those instances happened, how would this bill have cured that?
Thank you for the question. This is and you're getting at the, at the challenge I was describing earlier with respect to detection. But I do want to first emphasize that there's nothing to enforce in the bill because what the bill says is that it's not the obligation of the agencies to treat that artificial intelligence agent or bot as a human being in the first place. It doesn't impose a burden on the robot or on the AI system or on the Chinese government. Instead it says no. The. So I'll give a couple of examples of what is possible today and maybe one about kind of what's in the work on the technical side. So for example, the Brown act is in this and Bagley Keen act are in this list. And so if you are, as we've experienced in California already, if there are synthetic human beings that is not real people, that AI generates a very believable video of and that video keeps, it keeps reappearing but with a different name or a deepfake of another person that the city clerk is no longer, or the county Board of Supervisors clerk is no longer under the bill required to say we have. We're going to take the next 7200 comment and then we'll move on to the next item that they will be. If the, if the government agency is, if it's clear that these are not real people that it doesn't. They don't have, they don't. They have no obligation to those bots under the Brown Act. The Brown act is for people, not for, not for these, for these agents. That's more challenging on text than it is on images and video at the moment because we don't have. The technology is emerging on deepfakes and synthetic humans. It's not perfect, but it's emerging. Texas more is more challenging. Some governments have said, well, can we use AI to, to take the bots that we're getting and try to distinguish or summarize those. That is a potential approach, but you would have to. It's still the burdens on the local government. If it is a human being, you must hear them. So we're trying to work through both the detection protocols, what the, what the standards and the duties of care are with respect to, to make it. To assuring that the human beings are the ones that are being heard. There are also technological approaches that are out there. I wouldn't endorse them at this point. But you know, there is one in California that's, that's, that's, that's, that's launched that's focused on determining humanness detached from identity. So, so a biometric technology essentially that can say you are a human being without knowing or seeking to know anything about your actual who you are. That could potentially be a long term approach on this as well. But you are hitting on the work that we still have to do in the legislation, which is how will local governments defensibly determine that these 20,000 messages are bot generated and these other 2,000 are part of an organizing effort that's been undertaken by the local labor union or the Clean Air Alliance. This bill does not in any way diminish mass engagement. In fact, we want to make sure that that gets heard, but it simply cannot. It has to be done by human beings at some point in that chain of command. And we'll be working over if the bill proceeds, we'll be working on the mechanisms for that detection protocols for local governments as we along the way.
I am going to support the bill. But basically what you're saying is that the bill authorizes local government not to consider input that comes from a non human. And that's what you're getting at. You know, it's interesting to me, if I'd have read this bill back when I was on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, I would have wondered what you were smoking. But that's, but my point is that's how things progress. And the development of technology will always outpace the development of defenses against the undesirable effects of technology. And that's what's challenging for here. It is a horrible, frustrating thing, I know, to see something like this. I get what you're trying to do and I, and I support that. I think it's going to be difficult.
Yes. Okay, Senator Durazo, then Senator Valaderas.
Yes, this is more of a very technical question, but since this last session I spent so much time trying to understand the Brown act and make changes to the Brown Act. And so forgive me if how I asked the question may not make a lot of sense to a lot of people. But I think we've raised the issue of doing a separate, doing an amendment that is specific and separate for each act. In other words, Let's see, amending the definitions of certain terms used in the Brown act without amending the Brown act directly is the technical problem that we identified. So you're making one amendment which captures all of all six of the acts and rather than go through each one individually is the clarity that we think may be missing by doing it as a group versus doing it individually.
I agree, Senator, and I know the committee analysis also points this out. And so we, as you know from last year's work just on that one act of all these many, that it is a non trivial exercise that we will prove that human beings are capable of. But yes, we need to make the specific references in each of the acts and not simply rely on the single statement that we currently have in the bill.
And you've accepted the amendments that in part do with that? Yes. All right. Senator Valaderis.
Yes, thank you. I'm going to echo the comments of
Senator Niello, as I'm now pronouncing it,
and I understand the intent, and wholeheartedly support it.
I think it's going to be very challenging and difficult. And is there any fear that we're actually creating a liability for local governments and that if their detection fails and they omit an opportunity for a human on text or email to have their comment heard, that they could potentially be
violating their First Amendment rights?
I don't know if I'd go that far, but yes, I mean, to the general point, yes. And so we need to work as we, as we proceed, if we succeed out of this committee on exactly that question of, you know, what is the, Is there a standard, a safe harbor in some other way in which local governments can act, can affect. Because they don't always arrive as, hello, this is Claude, or this is Grok writing to you on behalf of, you know, Senator Valladara. So. And so, yes, we do need to. That is one of the central questions. One is the detective side, but the complementary question is, if you get it right 99% of the time, what happens to the 1%? What is there any recourse for the human being who was, who was overlooked? We've been talking a lot about the testimony part, but I think, as the vice mayor of Vacaville noted, you know, some of these, some of these require specific action by the local government. So there's one, it's just okay, you know, many of you have been. But even if here, if we had 20,000 letters that we had to post on the Senate site, like, what does that really, how do. And we lose real public comment in that mix. But for some of these acts, Public Records act being a great example, city clerks, as was noted, have to respond in a certain time period. And if you are a bot, it's not difficult to generate a new one every day. And Public Records act requests are fairly, can be very broad, like, send me any records that deal with this thing and then tomorrow the bot sends you another one, another one, another one. And so those, over time, you may determine after the 27th one, Ah, this isn't a human being because you've tried to follow up or something or that sort of thing. So we think there are cases where it will be useful from the outset. But you're exactly right as a senator Nilo. That we have some work to do.
Thank you.
All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none or Senator Wahab has moved the bill. Would you like to close, Senator Cabal?
Simply ask for an I vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. All right, committees of supporter, please call the roll.
This is File item number two, SB 1159. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee.
Umberg.
Aye.
Umberg, I. Nilo, I. Nilo, I. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Durazo. Durazo, I. Laird. Laird. I. Reyes. Reyes. I. Stern. Valaderes. Valaderas, I. Wahab. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson. I. Weiner. 7 to 0.
7 to 0. All right, we're going to put that bill on call. We have just one more bill. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon, Senator Tado. And this is the final bill that we'll hear. Senator, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I'm here to present SB932, a simple but important bill that addresses fairness and accountability in our judicial system. As policymakers, we know that bad actors aren't always looking to break the system. They're looking for ways around it as well. And unfortunately, that's exactly what's happening here right now. There's a gap in how civil proceeding filings are structured. The current structure allows individuals to hide behind layers of paperwork and entities, making it difficult to see who is actually benefiting from a financial recovery. Civil proceeding claims are being done through shell companies, sometimes set up in states that don't require ownership. Transparency. On paper, everything looks clean, but in reality, it allows people to collect money while avoiding the obligations they legally owe. Essentially hiding assets from our judicial system. And that's. That's the part that concerns me the most. Whether it's a victim waiting on restitution, a small business trying to recover losses, or even government agencies enforcing the law, those obligations are being sidestepped. SB932 is about closing that loophole. It's straightforward and a practical solution. The bill simply requires transparency. Making sure that the original real party interests, the person or entity actually benefiting, is clearly identified in the process. At the end of the day, SB932 is about protecting the integrity of our institutions and making sure accountability is an optional. With me today is Naris Kalitian. I'm sorry, I probably mispronounced it. A California attorney, a member of the Conference of California Bar Association's who are sponsors of the bill.
Thank you. Floor is yours.
Good afternoon. My Name is Naris Khalatian. I'm a delegate to the Conference of California bar associations, the CCBA, which is sponsoring this bill. I'm an attorney with 36 years of experience on the ground and an adjunct associate professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. I'm here not only as the spokesperson for the ccba, but as an attorney who has seen firsthand how the assignment process can be misused in our courts. As you know, plaintiffs can sue based on their own rights or rights that have been transferred to them or assigned to them. A plaintiff who doesn't want to be named as a plaintiff in the complaint can transfer that right to a friend or to a shell company. I have seen personally a bankruptcy debtor assign and transfer his rights to his Delaware corporation, make a recovery through that corporation anonymously, without his debtors ever finding that out. These arrangements were never intended by law, and they have the effect of undermining the rights of those the system was designed to protect. Millions of dollars pass through assignments every year, and some of them by individuals who are evading their financial responsibilities towards their victims and their creditors, which, as the Senator stated, could be public agencies, individuals and small businesses. SB932 is a narrowly drawn bill designed specifically to address one problem involving assignments. It imposes very minor requirements, but with colossal benefits. It maintains the definition of a real party in interest, a term of art which has been defined by the courts over the past decades. A yes vote is a vote for accountability, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Thank you very much. Perfect timing. All right, others in support of SB932, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching. If you wish to provide me too testimony, now is the time. Seeing no one approaching. Let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments, questions. Oh, yes, right. Opposition. I'm sorry about that. If you're opposed to SB932, thanks very much, Rob. It's good to see the staff universally. They all yell opposition at the same time, so thank you.
Will Abrams with the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition. We certainly respect the effort here, and we certainly know that this is well intended and really is aimed at a real need. However, we are very concerned that this, while trying to provide a simple fix to a really complicated issue, may miss the mark. I think when you're talking about simple litigation, when you have one plaintiff and one defendant and maybe a couple real parties in interest, this may be effective at providing a little more transparency. However, when you look at complex litigation where many Wildfire survivors are really reliant upon as victims trying to recover losses. What you find is you have multiple parties with really overlapping interests. So you may have an attorney that's representing one group of plaintiffs that are going to mean, you know, millions of dollars in restitution while representing other parties that may represent less restitution. And there. So they are oftentimes in negotiated settlements, sort of having to negotiate on either side. So this isn't providing sort of equitable transparency. And that's really what we would like
to see in the bill.
We've provided input into that about how we can drive that. I would also say that part of what also occurs is that we have financial conflicts that occur that aren't disclosed. Many of you are familiar that around wildfire litigation, there's often litigation financing coming from institutional investors into all sorts of different places where it doesn't belong. We feel that when there are parties who are representing multiple interests in a case, it should be required that they provide those types of disclosures. Certainly there are.
Thank you. If you'd wrap it up.
Yes, thank you very much. Certainly there are bar association rules of professional conduct that are on the books. And all we're really saying is that we should take those rules and make sure they're incorporated into legislation. Thank you very much.
All right. You urge a no vote?
Yes. Opposed unless amended.
Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. Bringing back committee questions by committee members, comments. Anyone else in opposition? I'm forgetting my job here. All right. It's been a while. It has been a while. I'm rusty. All right. Senator Durazo has moved the bill, seeing no questions or comments. Senator Tado, would you like to close?
Yes. I appreciate the comments from the opposition today. And it's music to my ears, really. It really is. It's something that those that know me, I've been working on ensuring that there's improved transparency, that there's improved accountability. There's a lot of problems going on in our. In our state, in our country that are trying to influence and impact and undermine our democratic institutions. And we must do more as a whole to address all these challenges. But it also has been in my experience that even something simple is a challenge in itself to try to pass and get. Get it signed. I think we're living in a time where there is urgency to address all the issues that have been mentioned here today, and I think that's going to take a larger conversation to address all of them, because it's a lot. So with that, I just respectfully asked for an I vote.
All right. Thank you very much. It has been moved by Senator Durazo. Committee Assistant Porter, would you please call the roll?
This is File item number three. SB932. The motion is due.
Pass.
Umberg.
Aye.
Umberg I. Nilo. Nilo. I, Allen Ashby. Caballero. Durazo. Guraso I. Laird.
Aye.
Laird, I. Reyes. Reyes I. Stern. Valaderas. Valaderas, I. Wahab. Wahab I. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson I. Weiner. 8 to 080.
We're gonna put that on call awaiting other members arrival.
And Mr. Chair, I would move the consent item.
Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Laird has moved the consent calendar. Committee assistance. And Porter, would you call the roll on the consent calendar?
On the consent calendar. Umberg.
Aye.
Umberg I. Nilo.
Aye.
Nilo. Aye. Allen Ashby, Caballero. Durazo.
On consent calendar. Senator Durazo.
Durazo. Aye.
It only counts as one vote.
Laird. Laird I. Reyes. Reyes I. Stern. Valaderas. Valaderas I. Wahhab. Wahab I. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson I. Weiner. Eight to zero on the consent.
Going to put that on call as well. We'll wait just a few moments here. I'll announce in just a minute how long we'll wait otherwise. Thank you very much, staff and committee members. Okay, I'm sorry. Why don't we go ahead and open the roll on. Is it file item number two. All right, let's open the roll on. File item number two.
File item number two. SB 1159, chair voting aye. Allen Ashby, Caballero Stern.
Wahab. Wahab.
Aye. Wiener staff, 8 to 080.
Okay, we're going to put that back on call. Thank you, Sa. All right, we're back on the record. So at 2:35 for you military folks, that's 14:35. Committee will reconvene at that time. We'll open the roll for one last time and then adjourn. Thank. You, sa. All right, committee supporter, if you would open the roll on all three items
on the consent calendar. Chair voting aye. Alan Ashby. Caballero Stern. Weiner. Wiener. Aye. 9 to 090.
Put that back on call.
File item number two. SB 1159. Chair voting aye. Allen Ashby. Caballero. Stern. Wiener. Wiener. Aye. 9 to 0
at 9 0. We'll put that on call. Uno mas. Right.
File item number three. SB932. Chair voting I, Allen Ashby. Caballero. Stern. Weiner. Wiener. Aye. 9 to 090.
Put that back on call. Thank you very much. Senator Weiner. Thank you very much. All right, Committee Assistant Porter let's open the roll and call the roll on all three matters. And I'm going to turn over the gavel to Senator Stern on the consent calendar.
Chair voting aye. Alan Ashby, Caballero Stern.
Aye.
Stern. Aye. 10 to 0.
10. 0. Put that on call.
File item number two. SB 1159. Chair voting aye. Alan Ashby, Caballero Stern.
Aye.
Stern. Aye. 10 to 0.
10. 0. Put that on call.
File item number three. SB 932. Chair voting Aye. Alan Ashby, Caballero Stern.
Aye.
Stern eye 10 to 0.
10. 0. Put that back on call. Henry, I don't think you're going to be here. Okay. Just for avoidance of doubt, Senator Stern, thank you for assuming the chair sa. All right, we're going to. We're going to open the roll in just a moment here. Let me know.
You good?
Okay.
Committee assistant, please call the roll on the consent calendar. Chair voting aye. Alan Ashby, caballero. Caballero I. 11 to 0. File item number two. SB 1159. Chair voting aye. Alan Ashby, caballero. CaballaRO I 11. 0. File item number three. SB 932. Chair voting aye. Allen Ashby, caballero. CABALLERO I. 11 to 0.
Okay, we'll leave that on call. All right. Our final member. Yes. Okay, we're going to open the roll for the.
For the bill still on call on the consent calendar. Chair voting aye. Alan Allen I. Ashby, 12 to 0. All members having voted. Consent calendar bills out. Adopted.
Consent calendars adopted.
File item number two. SB 1159. Chair voting aye. Alan Allen I. Ashby, 12 to 0.
Bills out.
File item number three. SB 932. Chair voting aye. Alan allen. Aye. Ashby, 12 to 0.
Bills out. All right. With that, we are hereby adjourned. Sorry.