Senate Judiciary Committee

Thank you, Senator Umberg, Vice Chair Nilo, distinguished members of the committee, who all might not be here at this moment. I am here to present Senate Joint Resolution 18, which sends a strong message that the California legislature strongly disagrees with the infamous Citizens United decision. That's a Supreme Court decision. Additionally, the resolution encourages states to find ways to limit corporations' spending on elections. Since 1926, 50 years ago, the landmark Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Vallejo, ruled that limits on independent expenditures are unconstitutional. So basically this opened up a lot of what we call PACs and dark money. That case set a precedent, which is unfortunately being extended now by Citizens United decision, which took place in 2010, that basically said corporations have the same rights as individuals to free speech, meaning they can spend whatever they want on elections. Together, these two decisions have allowed corporations to spend unlimited quantities of money on campaigns through independent expenditures. This money has infiltrated all levels of politics. According to Open Secrets, which traces campaign expenditures nationwide, outside spending in 2008 amounted to $574 million. But by 2024, that amount ballooned to $4.6 billion. So that's a factor of nine more money being spent on elections due to the Citizens United decision. Studies have shown that this money has led corporate interests to having an outstanding impact on policymaking compared to what average citizens and private grassroots groups are able to muster. Today, 9 in 10 Americans believe that there is too much corporate money in politics, and 8 in 10 Americans believe that corporate campaign money is bad for democracy. I happen to agree with that. Getting corporate money out of politics will help rebuild our trust in our institutions and help citizens feel they have more of a stake in our political system. But I just want to add, the Citizens United decision has opened up the door for foreign money to come in and influence our elections. This is preposterous. It's completely unacceptable. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SJ18.

All right let bring it back to the committee member Senator Gomez Lucky for me I arrived on time Thank you so much for bringing this I part of that 9 of 10 and 8 of 10 I think that there's something that has to be done so that it's the people who get to decide. Corporation, without a doubt, is not a person. and your bill is extremely important. And at the appropriate time, soon I hope, I will move the bill.

Yes. Again, I thank the comments of my colleague Senator Reyes. I've personally seen that people react very positively in a strong, outward way when campaign finance reform is mentioned in rallies. That's the strongest reception I can receive, stronger even than bashing PG&E. So I think this is something that people back home really care about. And passing this is just a message to the Congress that Citizens United is a bad decision, and we get enough of these messages, I think that will take hold. So again, with that, I'll ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 2305 directly prohibits corporate lenders from controlling or interfering with litigation decisions. The principle is simple. When you hire a lawyer, the person making decisions about your case should be your lawyer, not a private equity entity looking for profit. Until recently, the legal industry was one of the last industries not to take private equity investment because of longstanding ethics rules prohibiting non-lawyer ownership. To mitigate a growing risk of corporate influence, the legislature passed my bill, AB 931, last year to reinforce California's prohibition on fee sharing with ABSs. However, models like management service organizations and alternative business structures have created loopholes by creatively restructuring their involvement with law firms such as classifying their investment as a loan. Consequently, this risks litigation decisions, including whether to file a case, how to resolve the case, or to pursue a particular strategy, being influenced by return expectations rather than putting the interests of injured individuals or consumers first. For example, aggressive loan repayment timelines could lead to firms needing to encourage clients to settle cases prematurely and for lower settlement amounts. In response, AB 2305 takes a broad approach and blanket prohibits private equity firms, hedge funds, and other corporate lenders from directing or influencing key legal decisions constituting such behaviors as an unauthorized practice of law. This bill is modeled after Senator Kabaldon's bill, SB 351, from last year, which was enacted to similarly rein in private equity in the medical profession. In doing so, AB 2305 ensures the decisions about litigation, including case strategy, resolution, and representation, remain solely in the hands of licensed attorneys and their clients regardless of how a lender entity is structured Access to justice means more than having the right to file a lawsuit It means having an attorney whose only obligation is what is in the best interest of the client. With me to testify in support is Paul Matiasik, Vice President of the Consumer Attorneys of California. Mr. Matiasik. Thank you. Good afternoon,

to exert indirect influence over legal decision-making. This creates a real risk that decisions about whether to file a case, how to litigate, or when to settle are driven by financial return rather than the client's best interests. AB 2305 is a necessary step to prior bills CAOC has worked on, like AB 931 with Chair Caldwell last year. AB 2305 closes any remaining loopholes by clearly stating that corporate lender influence over legal decisions constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The bill then voids contracts that violate the bill and provides for a private right of action against both the attorney and corporate lender. This builds on the legislature's prior work and reflects the same principle we've applied in medicine with Senate Bill 351 last year. Professional judgment must remain independent when people's rights and well-being are at stake. Other states like Colorado and Illinois are following our work in California from last year and going even further. Our recent amendments add a prohibition from using any corporate lending for advertising or solicitation, mirroring Colorado's bill. CAOC has continued to work with stakeholders like the State Bar on adding more clarity to the bill, the Civil Justice Association of California regarding discovery confidentiality provisions and exploring additional enforcement, and lastly with the International Legal Finance Association to finalize definitions. AB 2305 ensures that our justice system remains client-centered, ethical, and free from outside financial control. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Perfect timing. All right. Others in support of AB 2305? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, pleased to support and thank Thank you to the author and sponsor for their work on this and looking forward to future amendments as well. All right. Others? Others in support? Okay. Here we are, CJAC and CAOC once again aligned. Others who wish to provide MeToo testimony? Well, Chair and members, Baltazar Cornejo here with Brownstein on behalf of the International Legal Finance Association. I want to express gratitude for the author. The amendments taken so far have addressed our concerns and we're happy to continue discussions but we're neutral. Thank you. All right. Others who wish to testify in support. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2305, now is your opportunity to come forward, going once, going twice, seeing no one coming forward. All right. Let's bring it to the committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing no – oh, I'm sorry, Senator Rez. Senator Gomez Rez. I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. I think sometimes we forget the influence of this money in so many areas And it is, as was mentioned, it's an encroachment. it's an encroachment by these hedge funds into the legal system, and we should have legal decisions made by attorneys rather than by financial decisions of a hedge fund. So thank you for bringing this forward. All righty. Thank you. Seeing no other comments, thank you, Chair Kalra. First of all, thank you. I suppose I can't speak on behalf of the profession, but I will. On behalf of the profession, for your body of work in this space, It's the profession, policing, the profession itself. We've had some challenges as a profession the last few years, and I'm most grateful for your work in this space. With that, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Likewise, I know that we've both worked on these issues. They're important. I think there's a lot of conversations that are on liability and indebtedness, what have you. But I think that what everyone agrees on is that we need to have a system that is of the highest ethics, where we can root out fraud and root out inordinate influence from the practice of law. And so I think this bill goes a long way in doing that, in addition to the legislation that you and I have done in recent years, as well as other colleagues. I want to thank your staff for their continued work in this space as well. And as indicated, CAOC and CJAC together, I think that all of us are in agreement that this is an important step in ensuring that we have a system that can be trusted and where ultimately it's the client's interests that are being well looked after. With that respect, we ask for an eye look. Arnie, thank you very much. It's an appropriate time. I expect there will be a motion. Thank you. All right. Assembly Member Irwin is up next, and then I won't say the name. I won't have others rush down in front of you. So I'll leave them in suspense as to where they fall on the file. All right, Assembly Member Irwin. Hello. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 1977. This bill is sponsored by the Secretary of State and clarifies and corrects ambiguities and inconsistencies in the Online Notarization Act to ensure implementation by 2030. This bill strengthens consumer protections and provides clarity for notaries, platforms, and users by aligning statutory requirements with how online notarization will operate in practice. With me today in support is the sponsor of the bill, the Secretary of State's Office, Tim Cromartie, Deputy Secretary of State for Legislation. Thank you. Mr. Cromartie, floor is yours. Mr. Chair and members, thank you. Tim Cromartie, on behalf of Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley Ann Weber. This measure is a necessary follow-up to SB 696 by Senator Portantino from 2023, which established for the first time a framework for licensed California notaries to conduct online notarizations. In implementing that groundbreaking legislation, the Secretary of State's office has identified a number of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and omissions in definitions, procedures, and security features that are significantly slowing our work by making that implementation more difficult. AB 1977 will address these deficiencies by resolving inconsistencies in those definitions and procedures, updating existing licensing and training requirements, and providing clear guidance on how to authenticate digital seals. In short, this legislation will expedite our implementation of online notarization in California. It was recently amended to clarify the circumstances under which notaries may charge fees. We thank Assemblymember Erwin for her leadership in bringing this measure forward. With me in the audience to answer any technical questions is Katherine Kelly an attorney from our Legal Affairs Office I thank you Thank you very much All right Other witnesses in support of AB 1977 Please approach the microphone Mr. Chair and members, Cliff Costa today on the National Notary Association would like to thank the author and thank the Secretary of State's office for working with us in a collaborative effort to address some technical issues. We have addressed those and we are proud to be in support of the bill. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right. Others in support. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Matt Miller, President of the California League of Independent Notaries. We also want to thank the author, the stakeholders, and the Secretary's office on their work with recent amendments. We think that this bill will position California as a leader in remote online notarization, and we kindly ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? AB 1977, going once, going twice, going three times. Now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1977, seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions by committee members. Seeing no questions by committee members. Assembly member, soon to be Congress member Irwin, would you like to close? Just respectfully ask for aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. It's appropriate time. There will be a motion. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Assembly member Rogers. We'd like to reward folks that show up early. So thank you. Why we show up early. There you go. The floor is yours. I appreciate it, Mr. Chair. I'm here to present AB 1657. What the data shows and what we know is that when a domestic violence victim tries to change the circumstances that they find themselves in, they face an increased risk in potential violence from their alleged abuser. And yet in California law, it still can be the case where temporary restraining orders are denied simply because the domestic violence survivor has not given notice to the individual that they are filing the paperwork against before they can even start the paperwork process. And in fact, just on Friday in Sonoma County, where we've been working very closely with the Family Justice Center and our district attorney, we had an individual filed the paperwork to seek a temporary restraining order while the courts had a chance to intervene. Their partner, they didn't know where the whereabouts are. They know that their partner has weapons, and yet a judge denied the temporary restraining order even as a stopgap measure because they had not supplied notice to that individual that they were seeking the restraining order. It's a simple, common-sense measure where the law should be protecting people, not creating additional hoops for them to jump through, and have been very proud to work with our Family Justice Center and with the statewide coalition on this bill. Thank you very much. 1657. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1657, please approach the microphone. If you're opposed to AB 1657, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's bring you back to committee. Questions, comments by committee members? Senator Gomez-Rez, did you have a comment or question? Thanks for bringing it. I think that for the next party, temporary restraining order, I think this is appropriate. is there something that going to show what will be for a permanent restraining order or do the rules remain the same Yeah so the rules around a permanent restraining order are still the same So the way that the process works right now is you have the TRO that's granted with a date that is then given for a formal hearing on the permanent restraining order. What we are saying is in that upfront moment, before you actually get that date and before you actually get that permanent restraining order, We should take steps to protect victims in the meantime while the courts and the judge can figure things out. What we saw just even this Friday was a judge that didn't even give a court date for that discussion about a permanent restraining order because notice had not previously been given on the TRO. Very good. Thank you. All righty. Senator Ross, did you want to know? OK. When the appropriate. Well, would you like to close? No, just I respectfully ask for the aye vote. Thank you for your consideration. All right. Thank you very much. I assume there will be a motion. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's see. Assemblymember Lee. So, Assemblymember Lee, you have AB 1804. 1801. That one, too. 1801. Got it. Okay. Assemblymember Lee. Thank you, Chair and Senators. I'm here today to present AB 1801. which will strengthen the public engagement process for contracts with private immigration facilities. In 2017, the legislature passed SB 29, which required a 180-day review period and at least two public hearings before local government could contract with an immigration detention center. However, recent actions in cities like McFarland and Atalanto have exposed gaps in the law. Local officials schedule hearings early in the review period, rush approvals, and even backdated decisions, effectively undermining meaningful public participation. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center challenged this approval in court, arguing that each decision-making body should be independently meeting the law's notice and hearing requirements. A federal district court agreed and temporarily blocked the project, but Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision, finding that the city had technically complied with the law, even though the process limited public input. In other words, the court confirmed that the statute, as currently written, allows these loopholes to exist. AB 1801 removes any ambiguity by requiring that public notice be provided a full 180 days before any approval, ensuring hearings are held at least 30 days apart, and that adequate notice is given, and clarifies that all contracts and agreements related to detention facilities are subject to these transparency requirements. The courts have made it clear. If we want meaningful transparency, the law must be explicit. Private prisons do not make good neighbors. AB 1801 closes loopholes to ensure communities have a real voice in decisions that affect them for decades. With me today, I have Griselle Ruiz, Senior Managing Attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center today as my lead witness. Thank you. Thank you very much. The floor is yours. My name is Griselle Ruiz, and I'm a Senior Managing Attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Our organization is a proud sponsor of AB 1801. AB 1801 is really about meaningful community engagement, transparency, and accountability. In 2018, we passed the original statute that we're aiming to amend today, Civil Code Section 1670.9. We passed this law because too often, detention centers would be approved quickly, without real notice or public engagement. When I represented clients, I remember attorneys learning that a new detention center had opened only because their clients were suddenly transferred to a new facility and they couldn't find them anymore. This was long past of course the opportunity for communities to have a voice on the matter After Civil Code Section 1670 became law we thought these problems had been solved but as Assemblymember Lee detailed they had not and our organization actually had to sue on these matters and unfortunately made it very clear that there was need to amend the code so that it could be effective as we intended. In 2020, we saw three new detention centers enter California, and before they could be approved, This statute was tested live and unfortunately we saw constant efforts to circumvent the law Loopholes that we intend to close today. I was involved personally in these fights and can attest that communities received short notice the hearings were held soon after Notice was issued a process that was meant to be a six-month process was reduced to mere weeks Despite having only weeks folks still came out and drove displaying how deeply people care about these issues AB 1801 will pick up where California Civil Code 1670.9 left off. It will require that no permit or other local approval be executed before two public hearings, ensuring that notice and hearings don't occur within weeks of each other. It will require that notice be posted in public areas and made available in multiple language, and require public access to any related documents being voted on. Ultimately, this bill is about giving communities a voice on very important issues that will impact communities for decades. I know that I'm at time, so we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else who wishes to testify in support of AB 1801, please approach the microphone. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair. My name is Abraham Adoy, California Policy and Government Affairs Manager with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Just echoing the words of my colleague, Griselle, I want to thank Assemblymember Lee for his leadership on this bill. I could say a lot, but I think something that we're really leaning into is good governance, that AB 1801 really reflects an idea that regardless of where your politics stand on immigration issues, that we think transparency and accountability and just civic engagement is something that we can all unite behind. And we hope to get your all support. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Others in support? AB 1801. Krista Ramos with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support. Thank you. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property in support. Thank you. Apologies. I forgot to read off a list of folks who couldn't be here today, but South Bay People Power and Child Poverty, Southeast Asian Resource Action Center, CBDIO, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Empowering Marginalized Asian Communities, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Freedom for Immigrants, South Bay People Power, New Light Wellness, Orange County Rapid Response Network, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, and Detention Watch Network, also in support of AB 1801. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 1801? We'll turn to opposition in just a second. Ed Little on behalf of Californians for safety and justice in support. Thank you. All right. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone in support of AB 1801, we'll now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1801, now would be an excellent time to come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing no questions by – oh, I'm sorry. Senator Gomez-Rez. I just want to note that from the Inland Empire, we have the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective all in support. I think giving notice, good governance, as was noted earlier, it's giving notice, proper notice, and really an opportunity for the community to weigh in. So thank you for that. Thank you. Assemblymember Lee, would you like to close? Well, I couldn't put it better than the senator. This is about transparency and good governance and making sure you have good neighbors in your backyard. I ask your aye vote when the time is appropriate. All right. Thank you very much. I'm sure there will be a motion at the appropriate time. All right. Thank you. All right. Now we need Assembly Members Hart or Patel to present themselves. If you're within earshot of my voice, now would be an excellent time for either Assembly Member Hart or Patel to make their appearance here in room 2100. The first of the two will be immediately afforded the podium. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Patel, you're up. Sounds great. Right. We're a service-oriented committee. When you show up, you walk right up to the podium. Wow, I feel so valued as an Assembly member in Senate Chambers. This is a great way to start. Look for the same courtesy in the Assembly. Of course, of course. Mutual aid, right? Right. We believe in mutual aid. We do. We're a subcommittee, and you have AB 2179, filing number 14. So you may proceed when you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. I am here to present AB 2179, which expands e-filings of restraining orders to include workplace violence restraining orders, also known as WVROs. We have seen with e-filings and remote appearances that, as detailed in your analysis, submitting paperwork in person for an application can be inconvenient when the individual is facing pressing needs related to their restraining order. Bills such as AB 2960 in 2022 with gun violence and domestic violence restraining orders and AB 561 in 2025 with elder-dependent adult protective orders have both increased access and provided certainty to individuals that are facing some of the most difficult and stressful times in their entire lives. AB 2179 seeks to allow for that certainty for individuals facing workplace violence. With me is Sharon Gonsalves, who is testifying on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, one of the co-sponsors of this message. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gonsalves. Floor is yours. Great. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Sharon Gonsalves with the California Public Policy Group here today on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. We're pleased to co-sponsor this measure with the San Diego County District Attorney and thank Assemblymember Patel for carrying this bill. AB 2179 would make workplace violence restraining order procedures match other civil restraining order types by one allowing parties and witnesses to appear remotely at a hearing and two to require courts to accept electronic filings of petitions and related filings. Beginning next year, most restraining order types, including domestic violence, elder dependent, adult abuse, and general civil harassment, civil restraining orders will allow for electronic filings and for remote appearances. Workplace violence was not included in that authorizing legislation and AB 121-79 simply closes that gap. In-person filings and appearances can create avoidable burdens and safety risks for employees and for witnesses, especially if there's a fear of retaliation, if there's transportation issues or concern about just proximity to that of the person being restrained. AB 21-79, it's a common sense, narrowly tailored fix that ensures workplace violence restraining orders are accessible, efficient, and safe as other protective orders in California. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2179, please approach the microphone. Go ahead. Good afternoon. Annabelle Urbina with the CSU Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy. On behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you. Hello, Julissa Caja-Cardenas on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Connor Gustin on behalf of Teamsters California, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Engineers and Scientists of California Unite Here, the Inutility Workers Union of America, and the California Conference Board of Machinists in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Kendra Begley on behalf of the City of San Marcos in support. Thank you. Thank you very much. We've reached a very important moment here. If I could ask committee assistant Porter to please call the roll for purposes of establishing a quorum. Umberg? Here. Umberg here. Nilo? Here. Nilo here. Allen? Alvarado? Oh. That's wrong. Give me one. Okay. Okay. Ashby. Caballero. Caballero here. Durazo. Durazo here. Laird. Laird here. Reyes. Reyes here. Valaderas. Wahab? Aye. Here. Wahab here. Weber Pearson? Here. Weber Pearson here. Wiener? You have a quorum. Thank you. I think we have to clear up the presence of one member. All right. Let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2179, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice, seeing no one opposed. All right, let's bring it back to committee for questions or comments by committee members. Questions or comments by committee members? Seeing none, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there a motion? Jose Gomez-Rez moves the bill. All right. So for the first time today, we're going to vote. All right, there's been a motion. Committee assistant Porter please call the roll This is file item number 14 AB 2179 The motion is do pass the Senate appropriations Umberg. I. Umberg. I. Nilo. I. Nilo. I. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Caballero. I. Turasso. Turasso. I. Laird. Laird. I. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Stern, Valadez, Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener, 8-0. 8-0, we're going to put that on call. Thank you very much. All right. So we now have what I believe to be our last bill. I see Assemblymember Hart is here, So I'm asking that committee members present themselves so that when Assemblymember Hart concludes that we can wrap up business. All right, Assemblymember Hart, file M. 6, AB 1875.

Thank you very much. Sir, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support of AB 1875. Going once. All right. Oh, here we go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1875, now's a good time to come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee for questions. Senator Wahab.

All right. It's been moved by Senator Wahab. Other questions or comments? Now that we have the Baptists and Planned Parenthood coming together, there we go. CJAC and COC, this is quite the hearing. All right. Okay. Assemblymember Hart, would you like to close?

Okay. Excellent close. All right. All right. Committee Assistant Porter, it's been moved by Senator Wahab. Please call the roll. This is file item number 6, AB 1875. The motion is due pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg I Milo Milo I Allen Ashby Caballero Caballero I to Russell to Russell I layered layered I Reyes Reyes I Stern Valaderas Valaderas I will hop Wahab I Weber Pearson Weber Pearson I you have nine to zero nine to zero. I'm sorry Oh, I'm sorry. Wiener? Wiener, aye. 10-0. 10-0. All right. We're going to put that on call. That concludes all the bills today. This, I hope, is a precursor to the rest of June that we'll finish within an hour of starting time. Yeah I pretty sure that going to happen So let do this Let go through I going to urge all members here who the Capitol to present themselves but we going to go through the calendar the full calendar Right now we need motions on most of the bills So let start with the consent calendar which has been moved by Senator Wahab All right So Ms Porter please call the roll On the consent calendar. Pearson aye. Wiener. Wiener aye. 10-0. 10-0. Put the consent calendar on call. All right. Let's go down the list here, Committee of Assisted Porter. File item number 7, AB 1977. This needs a motion. All right. Moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? That's 1977? Yes. No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? No. Valadez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 8-2? 8-2. We'll put that on call. Okay, yeah, let's do go to file item number one next. I'm sorry. So file item number one, SJR 18. Okay, Senator Reyes moves the resolution. File item number one SJR 18 the motion is that the resolution be adopted. Umberg. Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo. No. Nilo no. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Caballero aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo aye. Laird. Aye. Laird aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes aye. Stern. Stern, Valadeiras? No. Valadeiras, no. Wahab? Aye Wahab aye Weber Pearson Aye Weber Pearson aye Wiener Aye Wiener aye Ashby aye Ashby aye Allen aye 10 to 2. 10 to 2, one second. All right. That bill is out. 10 to 2. All right. Next item in order. So keep going. In other words, take it up where you left off a few moments ago. File item number 8, AB 2305. This needs a motion. Senator Wahab moves the bill. The motion is due pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadeiras? Aye. Valadar is aye. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Wiener, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bill's out. File item number 10, AB-1801. This needs a motion. All Senators Rosso got it in there ahead of Senator Wahab. Senators Rosso moves the bill. The motion is do pass to the Senate Local Government Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? No. Valadez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Bill's out. File item number 14. Chair voting, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Aye. Stern? Valadez? Valadez, aye. Valadez, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 12 12 Bill is out File item number 14 AB 1657 This needs a motion Senator Wahab moves it Did you say item 14 It's 15. 15. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll file item number 15, AB 1657. Okay. Senator Reyes moves the bill. The motion is due pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Alvarado Gill? I'm sorry. Nope. I didn't fix that one. Okay. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadeiras? Aye. Valadar is aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bill is out. All right. Committee of Assistant Porter, is that we're going to go through one more time, right? Yes. Okay. All right. I think many of you have already completed your votes, so we'll go through the roll one final time. On the consent calendar. Let's start at the top. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Consent calendar is adopted. File item number 6, AB 1875. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Stern? 12-0. 12-0. Bill is out. File item number 7, AB 1977. Chair voting aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Stern. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Bill is out. That's it. All right. So we are adjourned until next Tuesday, the 16th of June at 1330 hours. All right. Thank you all. Thank you.