Judiciary — 2026-06-09 (partial)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses each. Witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the bill. Additional individuals should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the bill at the appropriate time. As you perceive a witness in public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands the committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing. I'm not going to go over all those rules because I think everyone's going to behave themselves respectfully today.

Good morning.

Ready for me to begin, Chair?

Thank you. I'm pleased to author SB 99, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. SB 99 would strengthen protections for military families by requiring courts and law enforcement to recognize and improve coordinated responses to military protective orders in cases of domestic violence. Military protective orders, also called MPOs, are similar to civil restraining orders and provide protection on and off base. But presently, there are gaps in coverage and understanding between civil and military authorities. Civilian courts may not understand the complexities of military legal issues and they don have clarity that an MPO is admissible in a petition for a domestic violence restraining order This bill makes it clear judges are allowed to use their discretion to consider the full context of the alleged abuse by considering an MPO involving the same parties and the same behavior SB 99 also bridges the gap between military and civilian systems outside the courtroom. MPOs apply off-base, but civilian law enforcement officers can't enforce them. To illustrate the problem, after a military spouse with an MPO moved off base, they were stalked by their abuser. They repeatedly called 911, but local police declined to act, believing that they could do nothing about this. Under SB99, the local police would have been required to notify the military that the MPO was likely violated. The military would then be able to take appropriate action to stop the continued abuse. Finally, SB 99 allows law enforcement agencies to enter an MOU with the military, outlining roles and responsibilities regarding communicating and responding to potential violations of civil restraining orders on base and NPO's off base. SB 99 ensures domestic violence survivors are not left unprotected simply because their abuse crosses jurisdictional lines. With me today in support, I have Kelly Douglas, and she's on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Good morning, Chair Kalra, Vice Chair Macedo, and members of the committee. My name is Kelly May Douglas, and I represent the Defense State Liaison Office within the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military, Community, and Family Policy. My office works with state lawmakers to facilitate policy changes, improving the quality of life and readiness for military families. Within our same directorate is the Military Community Advocacy Office, which develops department-wide policy on the DOD coordinated community response and family advocacy programs. I'm here today as a proud co-sponsor of SB 99, providing some context on why this bill is so critical to the safety of our military community in California, which includes more than 238,000 military members and nearly 89,000 military spouses. While the military has robust programs to address domestic abuse, critical protection gaps exist between military installations and civilian law enforcement and the courts. This is particularly relevant because approximately 75 percent of military families live off base within civilian communities where military authority is appropriately limited, leaving victims of domestic violence vulnerable to jurisdictional gaps. Military protective orders are essential for ensuring victims, say the safety of victims on base and providing military commanders with the ability to limit contact and access to firearms. But they are not a substitute for a legally recognized civilian order, and they cannot be enforced by civilian authorities, which is why we recommend that victims that are protected under an MPO also seek civilian relief. Victims, especially those new to the state, face hurdles in getting access and navigating the civilian systems in order to get the civilian protection they need off base. SB 99 closes these gaps with three key common sense provisions. First, it authorizes judges to consider an existing MPO when reviewing a request for a civilian restraining order. This doesn't mandate admittance of a current or prior MPO or the issues of an order based on an MPO. but provides the court with valuable evidence of a potential pattern of abuse. In short, SB 99 creates a comprehensive framework for the state and military to work together, ensuring patterns of abuse are recognized by courts and that communication lines between law enforcement are clear. This bill will empower victims deter offenders and increase the safety and readiness of our military families Thank you very much and I stand by for any questions Thank you Is there anyone else here in support of SB99

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 99? All right, we'll bring it back to committee for any questions or comments. Assembly member Dixon, we don't have a quorum yet, but we'll set that aside for the moment. And absolutely.

Assembly member Stephanie.

Thank you. All right. Well, thank you. Um, Senator, uh,

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

Whenever you're ready, go ahead. Whenever your witnesses are ready.

Welcome. Okay.

of the committee. My name is Domari Sid. I am a power advocate with Power California, a third year student at UCLA, and I have been part of the workforce since 2023. As a young worker, I've learned that it can be difficult to advocate for yourself when you don't fully understand your rights or have access to information about your pay. At 19, I was hired on the spot and started working without ever being told what my pay would be. There was little transparency around how and when employees were being compensated, which made it difficult to plan financially. When concerns were raised about working conditions or pay, speaking up came with consequences. This included reduced hours and hostility for management. That experience taught me how difficult it can be for young workers to advocate for ourselves when information and accountability are lacking. For young workers, especially women and people of color, pay disparities can have lasting consequences. As a college student, I'm constantly thinking about how to pay for school, transportation, and everyday expenses while planning for my future. Fair pay from the start doesn't just affect our paycheck today. It affects our ability to stay in school, build savings, support our families and create the long-term financial stability that leads to generational wealth. That's why SB 1237 matters, especially now when 50% of young people, 19 to 24, have entered the workforce to support their families in this economy. Workers deserve transparency. Workers should be able to understand whether they are being paid fairly. Strong reporting requirements help the state identify pay disparities and ensure employers are held accountable. Young workers deserve transparency, accountability, and a fair opportunity to build financial stability for ourselves and our families. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1237. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, proud co-sponsors in support of SB 1237. Hope's mission is to ensure Latinas achieve economic parity, political empowerment, and equal representation. Through Hope's economic status of Latinas research, the organization has documented both the tremendous economic contribution of Latinas and the persistent barriers that prevent too many women from achieving financial security and building generational wealth. While California has led the nation in advancing equal pay protections, too many Latinas continue to face barriers to achieving economic parity. For Hope, SB 1237 is ultimately about ensuring that workers are visible and that California's equal pay laws are more than just promises on paper. By strengthening accountability and transparency, the bill helps ensure that persistent disparities are identified and addressed. Closing wage gap is not a matter of fairness. It's essential to ensuring that Latinas can fully participate in and contribute to California's economic future. Closing wage gaps is not just a matter of—oh, I just said that. When Latinas achieve economic parity, California is stronger. And for those reasons, hope respectfully or just for your aye vote today. Thank you, sir.

Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in Support.

Senator, thank you for bringing this forward. It's a space that I've had the opportunity to introduce legislation in many years ago. And it's definitely like pulling teeth to try to get some of these companies to actually do what they're required to do now. They resisted it for a long time until we made it a requirement. And obviously, without the data, it's hard to know what kind of policy steps we need to take in order to ensure that we can move in the right direction of pay equity, which we're so far away from now. I would love to be added as a co-author.

I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. On behalf of Senator Stern, I'm proud to present SB 1387, which will improve the accuracy of California's demographic data collection by recognizing that Jewish identity may be reported as an ethnic group identification in addition to a religious affiliation. Jewish identity is unique. For many Jews, being Jewish is not just a matter of religious belief or observance. It is also rooted in shared ancestry, ethnicity, culture, family heritage, language, history, and peoplehood. In fact, research from the Pew Research Center found that a majority of American Jews identify ancestry, culture, or family heritage as essential components of their Jewish identity, and many do not view religion as the primary defining characteristic of being Jewish. Unfortunately, California's demographic data systems generally do not provide an opportunity for individuals to identify as ethically Jewish. As a result, many Jewish Californians may not be accurately reflected in state demographic data. That matters because good policy depends on good data. If we do not collect accurate information, it becomes more difficult to understand demographic trends, identify disparities, evaluate the impacts of discrimination, and ensure that government programs are effectively serving all Californians. Consistent with California's broader efforts to improve demographic data collection, SB 1387 will allow individuals who understand their identity through ethnic ancestral or cultural lens to self accordingly if they choose This bill does not create a new protected class It does not alter existing religious classifications and it does not require anyone to identify as Jewish. Rather, it recognizes that Jewish identity may include an ethnic component for those who choose to identify that way. SB 1387 will help California collect more accurate information, better understand the experiences of Jewish Californians and make more informed policy decisions moving forward. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time and would like to be added as a co-author to this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cliff Berg here for Jewish California, formerly J-PAC, the largest coalition of Jewish organizations in the nation. I'm pleased to be the sponsor and in support of this legislation. Also here for the following organizations, Jewish Long Beach, Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay, Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento, Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles, Jewish Family Services of the Desert, Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Coalition of Berkeley, Jewish Family Services of the Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of the Bay Area, Jewish Democratic Club Coalition of the Bay Area, Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma counties, Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, Jewish Community Relations Council of Orange County, Jewish Federation of the Desert, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, Jewish Silicon Valley, Northern California Jewish Labor Committee, Oakland Jewish Alliance, Palo Alto Jewish Alliance, San Francisco Jews in School, Northern California, stand with us, and Valley Beth Shalom, as well as a much longer list, which I will not take up the committee's time with. Urge your support. Thank you.

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

Yeah. Thank you.

I am here on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area to oppose this bill. Let me begin by saying that I very strongly identify as a Jewish person, but it is not my ethnicity. It's only part of who I am. I also identify as a baseball fan and a graduate of UC Berkeley, but an identity is not an ethnicity. Jews throughout the world, like UC alumni, are ethnically diverse. I also identify as a lawyer and law professor, and it is while wearing that hat that I see SB 1387 as unworkable and ineffectual. It is unworkable because the cultural markers, the ones you heard listed before that apply to Jews and supposedly identify us as an ethnic group, apply equally to almost every religion. all of those things that were listed about heritage and cultural identities apply to almost every religion indeed I would say they also apply to baseball fans But there are other characteristics that do apply to all the ethnic groups that are already listed under California law, characteristics that do not apply to us as Jews. A geographic providence is one. That doesn't apply to Jews who live throughout the world and are of many races. We hear the Prime Minister of Israel and some of the sponsors of this bill that I've spoken to say that Israel is the Jewish homeland, as if that were our geographic place of origin. Not only is that inaccurate, it ignores the reality that most American Jews now, especially young ones, want nothing to do with the discrimination and genocide that Israel is practicing. More important in terms of this designation as an ethnicity is what courts refer to as the immutability of an ethnic designation. That is, your ethnicity is something you're born with and can't change. You can change your religious identity, just as I guess I could wake up one day and find myself rooting for Stanford. As a lawyer, I also look at the goals and the effectiveness of this proposed law. If the goal is to ensure rights and protections for Jews, those are already guaranteed to us as a religion. This bill adds nothing to those protections, but does add millions to our state budget. And if the goal is to fight against anti-Semitism, treating laws differently, treating Jews differently under the law, actually breeds jealousy, which fosters anti-Semitism. Jewish Voice for Peace recognizes the growing threat of anti-Semitism, but we understand that the way to fight anti-Semitism is not to separate ourselves from the oppressed minorities and demand special treatment. Rather, it is to join with others to fight racism in all its forms. Thank you.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

My name is Rabbi Kat Zavis, and I'm a rabbi of Beit Tukum, which has members throughout the state, and I'm here in opposition to Bill 1387. As a rabbi, I'm deeply concerned by legislation that claims to protect Jews while misunderstanding who Jews actually are and what Jews want and need. This bill erases the extraordinary diversity of the Jewish people. Jews are not a single ethnicity. Judaism is a religion. It is not an ethnicity. Our community includes people whose families come from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Morocco, Syria, Palestine, and across North Africa and South Asia, alongside Jews whose families come from Europe and elsewhere. Many Middle Eastern and North African Jews have spent years working to have their distinct histories recognized. Their stories are not the same as those of Ashkenazi Jews. They have different experiences of displacement, discrimination, privilege, and identity. By collapsing all Jews into a single ethnic category, this bill makes those communities invisible. I am also troubled by the way this legislation exceptionalizes Jews at a moment when we desperately need solidarity and dialogue. Creating special protections that elevate Jews above other groups does not make us safer. It reinforces the very narratives of Jewish exceptionalism and undue power and influence that fuel anti and division and make the pursuit of peace more difficult Real safety comes from justice mutual recognition and shared dignity. Most disturbing of all is the legislative priority this bill represents. This bill is being pushed while Palestinians are being killed, displaced, starved, and tortured daily, yet there is no comparable urgency to address that suffering or the role of U.S. support in sustaining it. The millions that would be spent on this initiative would be better spent addressing the real needs of all Californians, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. This is a waste of money and time. In an age of increased government overreach into databases and with the Trump administration moving further towards fascism every single day, this is not the time to be making lists of Jews. As a rabbi, I believe our moral obligation is to stand with the vulnerable, confront actual harms, and build a future grounded in equality rather than exceptionalism. I urge you to reject this bill. Thank you.

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair. I identify as an Italian Catholic, and I support this bill, and I want to thank the author for bringing it. and unfortunately that those that engaged in the most horrific acts of anti-Semitism that we have seen of late and the horrific increase in those acts of anti-Semitism do not care one bit about what ethnicity, whether or not you're any type of Orthodox or what type of Judaism you practice. They just care if you're Jewish. And I think this bill is absolutely necessary, given the horrific rise in anti-Semitism. And I think this bill can help state agencies identify disparities, monitor trends, and develop targeted responses to anti-Semitism. What is happening on the other side of the world should not ever be an excuse to harm Jewish people anywhere in the world. And what I've seen in the last two, two and a half, three years has been horrific. And I absolutely want to do everything in my power to protect all. And I think this bill works to do that. And I support it wholeheartedly and I look forward to voting for it.

Yes. So, you know, I look at this bill and one of the reasons why I was so honored to be asked to present the bill is that I remember back and continue to think about the efforts that we've made in the LGBTQ plus community to expand data collection for the community. because data collection is something that is incredibly important to make sure that our government programs are serving a community, especially a community that's subject to discrimination, lack of hate, and actually lack of focus in terms of our programs. You know, all of the issues that were raised about that are being raised about this bill, about this being special treatment, exceptionalism, Those are the same things that people who opposed adding SOGI data to our LGBTQ data, they opposed those bills for the very, very same reasons. And the reality is what this is about is making sure that we're creating, you know, this is not about what's happening on the other side of the world. This is basically about understanding that the Jewish community is subject to extreme discrimination and hate, and it allows our government to basically collect data so that we can understand and better understand whether programs in the state of California are serving the community and whether or not the Jewish community is being targeted, not targeted in terms of government programs, programs and that kind of thing. Data collection is an incredibly important tool that we need to protect all underserved communities. That's why we collect demographic data for LGBTQ people and in many other areas. And of course, in this time, when the Jewish community is subject to so much discrimination and hate and targeting, it's why this is so important at this time. And the other thing I'll sort of point out is that this is supported by the broad mainstream organizations that represent the Jewish community. With every community, there's diversity and points of view. There were LGBTQ groups that were not part of the mainstream that opposed data collection for the same reason. Oh, we're creating lists. We're creating lists of LGBTQ people. Well, that's not what happens with these groups. These are all aggregated data that's presented that is preserved in an aggregated way. And so there's not going to be any risk of basically individuals being targeted because of these programs. So with that, I want to thank Senator Stern for bringing this bill. I ask you all to support this. It's a very important priority for the Jewish caucus. And with that, respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Can we respond to that?

Caller.

Macedo, Barakahan, Brian, Connolly. Here.

Here.

Pacheco.

Papin.

Sanchez.

Here.

Here.

I'll move it.

Aye.

I'll move it. Second.

Second.

I'm here on behalf of Senator Hurtado to present SB 932. This bill requires that an assignee, when they actually file an action, to identify the original party, at least in the caption on the first document filed in the civil proceeding. Under existing law, a person may assign certain legal claims to another person who then pursues them. When that occurs, the original party's name isn't always reflected in the case caption, which can make it difficult for interested parties reviewing court records to identify who originally held the claim. So this is really just a simple transparency bill. It doesn't affect the ability of somebody to assign whatever claim they might have. It just helps ensure that court records more accurately reflect the underlying parties connected to a case. Greater transparency benefits all parties who rely on public records to understand who was involved in the litigation. By making that information easier to locate, SB 932 promotes accountability while preserving longstanding assignment laws. So with us here to testify is Nariz Kalatian, who is a California attorney and a member of the Conference of California Bar Associations, who is the sponsor of the bill.

Good morning. My name is Nariz Kalatian. Not bad. You know, I'm Greek. We're not that far apart. I figured my pronunciation. There you go. Got the I in for the Armenian. Good morning. I am a delegate to the Conference of California Bar Associations, the sponsor of this bill. I am an attorney with 36 years of experience on the ground, and I'm also an adjunct associate professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. I'm here not only as the spokesperson for the CCBA but as a witness who has seen firsthand how the assignment process can be misused in our court system As you know a plaintiff can sue based on their own rights or rights that have been transferred or assigned to them A person who doesn want to be named as a plaintiff in the complaint can assign that right to a friend or to a shell company and have them pursue that right. I have personally seen a bankruptcy debtor assign his rights to a Delaware shell entity, have that entity make a recovery anonymously without his creditors ever finding that out. These arrangements were never intended by law. Every year, millions of dollars change hands through the assignment process, and some of them by persons who are evading their financial responsibility towards their creditors, their victims. And these creditors can be small businesses or public agencies for that matter. Under this bill, the case caption becomes a portal of information for members of the public to see what cases our court system is hosting, for judges to see if there's a conflict of interest readily to recuse themselves, and for journalists who are the purveyors of our First Amendment rights. This is an accountability bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Assembly members of Burr. So I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I noted that there was some opposition from the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition in the record. And I'm going to be sorting the bill today. And, you know, and I look at some of those issues and I think some of the issues that the utility survivors raise are real issues. But, you know, they are it doesn't take away from the important parts of this bill. This bill is addressing some some important deficiencies that we currently have. That doesn't mean that there aren't other deficiencies that need to be addressed in another bill. That and I think the utility wildfire survivor coalition raises some other issues that deserve some examination and some merit. They are complicated. They're very complicated. I think what they've raised and so I understand why The author may not have wanted to sort of expand this bill at this point because I think at this point in the Legislative cycle it would be difficult to address those broad range of issues So I just wanted to sort of acknowledge that there are some other issues out there That moving forward on this bill doesn't mean that we're rejecting those I think I think they do merit some some examination. I recognize that they're complicated, but it doesn't take away from the fact that this bill I think is important and good and in a narrow way achieves an important goal. So with that I'll be supporting the bill today. No motion? Okay. So a second? And a second. Any other questions or comments?

Would you like to close? Just for a second question, I vote on a reasonably

Good morning. Good morning. Esteemed Chair and members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 988, which will provide a series of reforms to the auto glass industry governing insurance assignments, repair disclosures, billing practices and claims solicitation. Auto glass claims are among the most common comprehensive auto insurance claims, with California accounting for more than two million claims between 2015 and 2019. Modern vehicle glass now has advanced technologies and components that require specialized installation and precise calibration, making repairs even more complex and more costly. As the industry has grown, some repair shops have used marketing tactics and assignment of benefits, which we refer to as AOB, arrangements that allow shops to bill insurance directly with limited consumer oversight. This can lead to inflated claims, overbilling, improper calibrations, reduced consumer choice, and increased safety risk. Disputed or excessive claims can also increase litigation and contribute to higher insurance premiums. So SB 988 addresses these concerns by restricting the assignment of policy benefits to repair shops and requiring upfront estimates and itemized invoices that reflect reasonable charges, improving transparency, accountability and consumer safety. With that, I would like to introduce through the chair, my witness today, Marion Smith, Director of Office of Strategy, Policy and Government Affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau. Thank you.

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

Go ahead. Let's hear this out.

Current language allows insurers and third party administrators to recommend specific shops while simultaneously controlling the claim process. In practice, these recommendations can function as steering undermining true consumer choice. The more sticky we make this process, the longer these vehicles are going to be out on the road, unsafe, waiting for a repair shop for claim numbers and such. This bill prohibits a shop from contracting with the customer before obtaining a claim number or referral number. Independent shops report claim numbers are not always provided promptly. Finally, delays can prevent local businesses from serving customers quickly while larger vertically integrated competitors gain an advantage. This requirement does not improve safety, calibration quality, or consumer protection. AGSC strongly supports any fraud and disclosure requirements. However, transparency should apply equally to all participants. ensures TPAs, affiliated glass companies should disclose business relationships and financial arrangements that may influence referrals or recommendations. And I brought copies of our requested amendments. In the analysis, it also lists out the requested amendments as well. So your opposition is well documented in the analysis and in the record. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of Safe Light Auto Glass in support of the bill. Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to committee for any questions, comments, or emotions. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. I think that the other gentleman was supporting, but listed all these things to do. So I got tripped up. Yeah, go ahead. Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to be here today. My name is Gary Hart. I'm the Director of the Independent Glass Association, and we're here to oppose and ask for amendments. I know we're fully on record since the beginning of this. Independent auto glass shops support consumer protection. We support transparency. We support safe windshield installation and proper ADAS calibration. That's not the issue here with this bill. The issue is that SB 988, as drafted does not fully account for how auto glass claims actually work in the real world. If SB 988 is not amended, it can be used to limit consumer choice, restrict post-loss payment authorization, create claim number gatekeeping, and give more leverage to insurers, TPAs, networks, and affiliated repair interest The committee is simply not deciding on whether the bill sounds like consumer protection It deciding whether the civil code language is clear balanced and enforceable and fair As drafted SB 988 does not meet that standard. We respectfully ask the committee, as we've had, to hold the bill as it advances or make the amendments. And then we just have some other opposition will state their name. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is I'm owner of Autoglass Express in Berkeley. I'm here to respectfully oppose SB 988 unless significantly amended. As an independent Autoglass shop, we support consumer protection, transparency, safety, and proper ADAS calibration, and stopping real fraud whenever it exists. But SB 988 is not balanced. It places new restrictions on independent glass shops while failing to address the conduct of insurers, third-party administrators, and insurer-aligned networks that already control much of the glass claims process. This concern is especially important when a company such as SafeLight can be involved in the glass administration while also competing directly for the same repair work. That conflict should make this committee cautious about passing legislation that gives the claim control side even more power. There are four major problems that must be amended. First, the claim number bottleneck. Requiring a claim or referral number before a shop can fully contract with a customer pushes the consumer into the insurer or TPA-controlled claim system before the independent glass shop can fully assist them. Second, the bill restricts post-loss assignment of benefits, which is one of the few tools consumers and shops have to resolve short pays, denied supplements, denied payments, and claim disputes. Third, while the bill says consumers have a right to choose, it does not create strong enough protections against steering at this first notice of loss, which is when consumers are most often redirected to preferred networks. Fourth, the bill includes broad language on inducements and marketing that could punish ordinary small businesses such as ours with practices like discounts, rebates, promotions, and competitive advertising. The ADAS and recalibration disclosure portion may serve a legitimate safety purpose, but that narrow issue should not be used to pass a much broader bill that gives insurers, TPAs, networks, and insurer-aligned companies more control over independent glass drops and California consumers. And I would just ask if any of you have ever had experience having to replace your windshield through insurance, you know that the claims process is handled by SafeLite. You think you're calling your insurance, but you're actually speaking to SafeLite. They will read you a line that says that you have a right to choose your shop, but you don't actually. And we sign up for it. Thank you. All right. So those are two opposition witnesses. everybody else's name and your position please thank you good morning my name is Kyle Stiller I'm representing apex auto glass intending in Santa Maria I oppose this bill we oppose this bill unless amended further thank you thank you Tim Clute from New View Auto Glass Riverside California in opposition thank you all right we'll bring it back to the committee for any questions comments or motions? We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay. And a second. Assembly members of Burt. I want to thank the author for bringing the bill and obviously understand that the goals are laudable. I was wondering if you could just respond to the request for the amendments and sort of what the status of that is and what the issues might be related to addressing the amendments that they've requested. Absolutely. I believe all sides have expressed the desire for consumer protection And some of the issues that are being brought up are already constituted in law such as anti Steering is not lawful and this bill does not undo that whatsoever I think there needs to also be a delineation between SafeLite Solutions versus SafeLite Autoglass Those are two separate companies. Your insurance companies, multiple insurance companies work with SafeLite Solutions because they're a management, an information claims management company. And so in this particular case, this is not a bill to pick winners or losers within the repair industry. This bill is 100% solely focused on consumer protections, transparency, accountability, and making sure that the customer has knowledge of what's being charged and what is being repaired on the automobile. I think it's also important to note that the consumer doesn't find him or herself in a situation where the auto repair shop is suing their insurance company and them have no knowledge of it. And so that has a lot to do with consumer protection and why this is in here to simply put another barrier up against any potential fraud. There's a lot of great actors out there, a lot of great repair shops. But there, as we know, in any industry, there are those that don't play well in the sandbox. And this is what this bill does is provide transparency and accountability. And by the way, we are always open. Our door is always open to conversations about amendments. We've read them as far as in conversational form, but would definitely look forward to any kind of an RN or language that would be a bit more suitable. I haven't dug deep on this bill, but obviously, you know, I think we all have an interest in making sure that, you know, that the independent and the smaller businesses have an ability to continue to compete effectively. And so I would just ask that you continue working with the opposition on some of the concerns that they're raising and seeing if we can sort of narrow that gap. And Assemblymember, being a small business owner, I wholeheartedly agree. And with that, I'll be supporting the bill today. Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am supporting the bill, and I appreciate your comments in terms of addressing those needs. Mainly a question of curiosity. I'm not familiar. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not familiar with the consumer code on auto repair. Are there different provisions for insurance coverage for every part of the automobile? I mean, if the steering wheel goes out or the lights go out or the automatic computer system goes out, Do we need to address every part of the automobile and the repair process and ensure that the consumers are being protected? I don't think it needs to go to that extent. And the reason why is because there are different types of insurance. As you've seen on television, the different types of insurance that you can buy for bumper to bumper, extended insurance warranties. There's a big difference between that versus a rock hitting a windshield, and the windshield alone needs to be replaced. As a matter of fact, if you go to your auto policy, you'll see that there are special provisions just for window replacement and window damage. And it's why now? I mean, what's happened in the industry or in the small company industry? Why is this coming to to us today? So a great question. I think this is a great place for my witness to be able to speak in as well. But for the past 15 and a half months, NCOIL has the National Council of State Legislators. NCOIL has been working very hard nationally on this very issue. And they came up with model legislation that now eight states have already adopted three this year alone Through the chair Thank you Mr Chairman Assemblywoman Dixon Yes, it has taken some time with any legislation, as you all are aware. It has taken a few years for, again, this model legislation. Our last stats, NICB's great at keeping stats. Back in roughly 2023, before the NCOIL bill came out, California was ranked third in the nation for claims, questionable claims regarding auto glass. Florida was first, and Florida was one of the first to pass these bills. So unfortunately, I believe your state of California probably ranks second as far as questionable claims when it comes to auto glass. And so it's a growing concern. It increases, fraud increases premiums. We all pay for it. It's not a victimless crime. And anything that we can do to ensure that our rates can stay as low as possible, let's go after the bad actors. And this bill does that. I appreciate this. And little did we know that you're here to protect everyone with a broken windshield. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Sumeru Pappin. Just very quickly. You know, I think when it comes to auto glass, it's one of the few areas in insurance where liability is not really an issue. Right. So the carrier must reimburse. And I appreciate the idea that, OK, liability is established. And how do we make it that we're paying just what needs to be done to rectify the situation? And everybody has different deductibles. I recognize that. So we're all in this together. So I appreciate the bill and I will be supporting it today. and if we haven't moved, I will make a motion for you. We do have a motion. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And as you indicated in response to one of the questions that anti-steering is already in law, I don't know if there's language that can further reiterate that in the legislation just to make it extra clarify, so to speak, because we want to make sure that these consumer protections don't in any way eviscerate that foundational aspect of the law, which it does not. And I think that to whatever extent that could be made clear to folks, you know, driving back and forth to Sacramento on 80. I've had to replace a couple of windshields over the last several years. And I do go to small shops, especially because of the ADAS now. I think that the calibration, it's a whole other aspect of the work as opposed to simply just replacing a windshield. And the technicians are incredibly competent. And I don't see with these protections why I would stop going to my local glass shop that I've now become too friendly with over the years. But I appreciate you, you know, continuing to look at some of the opposition concerns. And I do think that there needs to be some legislation in terms of reining some of the AOB abuse as well. And ultimately, I think, as you referenced, this is kind of a national movement in terms of the new environment we're in as it comes to the technology that's involved with our vehicles in terms of modernizing our laws and making them consistent with other states. And hopefully enough states do it and get a federal government. standard that will be consistent with that as well. But, you know, we don't, we don't wait for federal consumer protection in California. We move forward where we see fit. So, would you like to close? I hear your comments and they are noted and respectfully ask for an vote. Thank you. Motions do pass to appropriations. Calra. Aye. Calra. Aye. Macedo. Aye. Macedo. Aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Pacheco? Papin? Aye. Papin, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie? Zuber? Aye. Zuber, aye. All right. That bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. We have two bills of Senator Wiener, one bill of Senator De Rosso. It's up to you two. All right. I defer to next in line. Out of graciousness, allowing Senator DeRosa to go. You can go ahead and go with item 7, SB 1296. Chivalry lives. Yes. And patience pays off. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I want to dedicate this presentation to Vanessa, who is a renter in Santa Cruz County, and Desmond and Penny, her pet cats. SB 1296 ensures prospective tenants with pets can access clear pet policy information early in their housing search process. Specifically, this bill requires the disclosure of existing pet policies on application materials and rental listings. If failure to disclose a pet policy materially affected the prospective tenant's decision to apply for a unit that does not accept their pet, a refund shall be made within five business days after written notice is provided from the applicant about the failure. The bill does not dictate whether a landlord must allow pets, restrict the types of pet policies a landlord may adopt, or limit pet-related fees. It simply requires housing providers to share their existing pet policy or no pet policy with prospective applicants before collecting an application fee. Pet owners need upfront pet policy disclosures. Too often, tenants search through unclear listings and contact rental properties multiple times with questions related to pet policies. Many don't find out the details of pet policies until after they have toured the units, filled out rental applications, and paid application fees. Even if tenants ask, some landlords withhold that information until the very end of that process. Renters have to choose between securing a stable home without their pets or continuing a costly, time-consuming search for housing that accepts their entire family. 77% of my constituents are renters. In a state with 17 million renters and with such a large share of these renters owning pets, pet policies are a highly relevant part of the housing search process. To ensure people with pets find stable housing during our housing crisis supporting pet owners during their rental search process is an urgent priority With us today we have Jennifer Naitake from the Michelson Center for Public Policy and Vanessa Sempervira a pet owner and California resident Thank you Wonderful Chair and members, thank you. My name is Jennifer Naitake, excellent pronunciation, and I'm here on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy in support of SB 1296. I want to begin with the facts. SB 1296 does not require landlords to allow pets. It does not prohibit pet restrictions, cap pet fees, or change a landlord's existing pet policy. It does one narrow thing. It requires the policy to be disclosed before an applicant pays an application fee. Landlords are accustomed to disclosing lease terms, fees, screening criteria, and other property rules. SB 1296 simply applies that same common sense transparency to pet policies. As a small landlord myself, I understand the need for flexibility and workable processes. SB 1296 preserves both. Landlords keep full authority to allow, restrict, or prohibit pets. And applicants simply get the rules up front, which is important because our California survey found that 51% of renters paid an application fee before fully understanding the PEP policy. 72% experienced negative outcomes because the information was unclear or incomplete, and 96% support upfront disclosure before someone chooses to apply. This is an affordability issue, a transparency issue, and a preventable source of conflict. Clear written policies protect both sides, especially small landlords. We have worked closely with the housing associations and accepted several good faith amendments, including protections for landlords, limits related to third-party platforms, and language, preserving a landlord's authority to adopt, amend, interpret, and enforce their pet policies consistent with the law. SB 1296 is a practical transparency bill that supports renters, respects landlords, and reduces avoidable disputes. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Chair and members of the committee. Good morning and thank you. My name is Vanessa Sempervirens, and I live in Santa Cruz County. I'm here today as a constituent, as someone who has been a renter for 17 years in San Francisco and five years in Santa Cruz County, and as a pet owner with two cats. For the last 15 years, I've balanced a demanding career as a nurse with Kaiser, responsibilities within my community, and the pressure of finding safe and stable housing when searching for housing. Time matters. Money matters, and clarity matters. I understand that landlords need clear rules, and I understand that tenants need to follow them. But I also understand how difficult it can be for responsible pet owners to make good decisions when most important information is not available up front. The rental market in each of these counties is extremely competitive. And in many cases, I would submit applications, pay multiple application fees before even seeing an apartment, let alone confirming whether the property had a workable pet policy. This creates a costly and stressful process for renters with pets who may spend significantly more money up front without knowing whether their animal will ultimately be accepted. I was fortunate to find a place that I stayed in for 11 years until my job took me to another county. But the process was much harder than it needed to be. That transparency would have helped me. SB 1296 would not require landlords to change their pet policies. It would simply ensure the applicants know the policy before they pay to apply. It would help runners make better decisions, and it would help landlords receive applications from people who already understand the rules. It's transparency like this that allows for mutually beneficial relationships to flourish. I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you Thank you Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1296 Good morning Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of Cal Animals and Humane World for Animals in support Thank you Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, California IMB, and Para-California Action, all in support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1296? Thank you. Lawyers, they take a look at it, and they said, we like the bill, except for clause I, which says a tenant's failure to sign a pet addendum shall not form the basis of any unlawful detainer action against the tenant. So we're going to jump through all these hoops. We agree to jump through all these hoops. She's taking these amendments, and then all of a sudden we're going to let the tenant off the hook by not requiring them to sign the pet addendum. So if we have a current tenant who doesn't have a pet and they bring an unauthorized pet onto the property, they don't have to sign the pet addendum. There are no consequences for not signing. So we can't issue them a performer quit for not signing it. So the performer quit we will send them is to either get rid of the pet or vacate the premises. Um, and they'll do that because the pet addendum lays out the rules that they have to follow to have a pet on the property. Vaccination requirements, off leash, clean up after your pet, um, et cetera. So that's our concern. Um, I'm not sure if they're willing to take that out or not. Um, understand probably this bill is going to, to pass, but I just want to, you know, uh, put you on notice that that's the likely consequence. if somebody brings an unauthorized pet onto the property and refuses to sign the addendum. And why we would encourage that, I don't know. I'm sure someone's going to, at some point, is going to refuse to sign it, and they're going to say, well, you can't evict me. And then they're going to get a three-day performer quit to either get rid of the pet or vacate. So that's our concern. We're okay with the rest of the bill. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to SB 1296? All right. I suddenly remember Bauer can. She's like really excited to ask a question. That makes me hate lawyers since I am one. But I think that argument falls slightly flat because to your point, which you made, they could evict under breach of contract for bringing an unauthorized pet. So then you would go to your tenant and say, if you don't say this addendum, you're in breach of contract. You're going to have to be evicted. And they would then sign the addendum. So all they're saying is you can't evict solely on the grounds that they didn't sign the addendum. You would evict based on the breach of contract. And so I think that that's reasonable. And so I don't know that a change is necessary. I think your lawyers want it because lawyers are neurotic and risk averse but which I consider myself to be all of those things Um but I mean I think the bill is great I think um you know I think it fair to say before you spend money on a fee you need to know the rules And if you don give the money back And I know you agree with that We don't have a problem with that. No, I understand that. So I think this nuance that's here feels minor and not even meaningful in the real world. So happy to support it today. Obviously, if you want to work on this, you can, but I don't know that it really, in reality, will make a distinction for how this is handled between a tenant and a landlord, which in 90% of cases have a good relationship, are able to navigate these things, and in the other cases would be protected from that being the sole reason for their unlawful detainer. So with that, happy to move the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Assemblymember Dixon? Well, I am a dog owner, but I'm not a renter, and so I'd love to have my dog, wear a dog's pearl, wherever I go. Actually, to follow up on these comments, when I hear the word eviction, and I have no rental property, I don't have a dog in this fight. Oh, boo. No, for the damn thing. However, just to hear the words three-day eviction, legal process, lawyers, delays, how do we avoid all that? I agree with the landlords who feel that if someone does not disclose their pet or they acquire a pet after they've signed the lease just to disclose it, I just would like to avoid some kind of litigation, eviction procedure that takes months and months and months and nobody likes that. How can we work together to solve that little problem? Thank you, Assemblymember. And we wanted to make this as simple as possible. As you know, sometimes things come up that you can't foresee. But we are more than willing, and we've had some conversation about the issue raised by the opposition. So we're prepared to pursue that because we don't want this to become more than just disclosure. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Well, Senator, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Would you like to close? With respect, Blas, we aye vote and make Desmond and Penny happy. Thank you. Motion is due pass. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Bauer-Cahan, aye. Bryan? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Pacheco? Not voting. Pappin. Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie. Zabir. Aye. Zabir, aye. All right. That bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, members and Mr. Chair. Item two. We have SB 747. Senator Weiner. No. She took a minute. All right, we have item 2, SB 747. Senator Wiener, whenever you're ready. All right, great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 747, the No Kings Act, a very straightforward bill to ensure that when a public agent or officer at any level of government, federal, state, or local, violates your constitutional rights, you should be able to hold them accountable. It's called the rule of law, and it should apply at all levels of government, not just state and local. It should apply to all of our public officials. If you are a public official, police officer, agent, whatever kind of official, you take an oath to uphold the Constitution and you violate someone's constitutional rights, you should be accountable. Unfortunately, right now, that is not the case because federal civil rights laws hold state and local officers accountable, but not federal. And while the U.S. Supreme Court for about 50 years implied a clause of action to sue a federal agent for violating your constitutional rights, the so-called Bivens Doctrine, four years ago, the Supreme Court gutted that doctrine. So when we look at what's happening in the country today, when we have ICE agents, Border Patrol agents basically running around, brutalizing people, grabbing people without any legal basis, holding them, straight up violating their rights, shooting a mother in the face, executing an ICU nurse on the streets, grabbing in my district in San Francisco just a couple weeks ago, a man by the name of Marvin Godoy Calderon, who has a work permit, is a dishwasher in the city, and a janitor, one of the people who makes San Francisco operate and run, was grabbed right in front of his home by ICE and given a head injury and a knee injury and held, and ultimately a federal judge ordered him released under a writ of habeas corpus because his arrest was completely illegal and in violation of the law. And he and others like him should have the ability to hold those agents accountable, just like you would be able to hold a local police officer accountable if an officer did that. That's normal law. If a police officer brutalizes you, illegally arrests you, holds you, you can sue them. It's been that way since the 19th century in this country. And yet federal agents somehow get a loophole exemption from that. So if we're serious about the rule of law, as we should be, then we should hold all officers, agents, officials accountable for violating people's constitutional rights. And so the Senate Bill 747 will do that by importing the existing federal standards for liability. It's actually narrower because it only applies to a violation of the U.S. Constitution, not federal statutes, that if you violate someone's federal constitutional rights, you will be able to sue them the same that you can right now under Section 1983, under the federal civil rights statutes for state and local officers. It imports all the same standards, all the same defenses, immunities. It's all there. And so this is a law that we as time has come we should have done this a long time ago Other states are doing this as well If Congress won impose accountability on its employees then California should. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me to testify is Javier Ramirez, citizen of the United States and resident of California, father of three, who was unlawfully detained by ICE for five days. and Cameron Kistler, Counselor to Protect Democracy United, which is a sponsor of the bill. Thank you. Good morning, members. Thank you for having me here and listening to me. My name is Javier Ramirez. I was born in San Bernardino, California. I'm a proud U.S. citizen and a father of three wonderful children. I'm here today to share my experience that changed my life. Almost a year ago, in June 12, 2025, about 4.32 p.m., Border Patrols came into my property in Montobello, California. They were armed, they were masked, and carrying heavy rifles. I have never experienced anything like that before in my life. I was really scared. They spoke to me in Spanish, and they were asking me, where was I going? Which I answered in Spanish, voy para fuera, meaning that I'm going outside. I didn't want any problems. I didn't want to, I just wanted to continue on my way. I heard someone just yelled, one of the agents, get him. He's Mexican. That's when they forced me down to the ground. They held me and put their knee onto my head. I was confused. I was just afraid for my life. I kept wondering what I did wrong. I told them I was a U.S. citizen. I was born here, but they ignored me. When I asked why was I being arrested, the only answer that I received was, we don't know. We're trying to figure it out. I'm diabetic, and I began to feel sick. I asked for medical help, but my request was ignored. Even while handcuffed, I was thrown to the ground again and felt helpless and humiliated. Later, I was transferred to HSI around 8 p.m., and that's when they ran me my rights, and I spent five days in prison. As an American citizen, I never thought I would be treated this way. No one should have to be feared being targeted based on their appearance, ethnicity, or their language they speak. Since this happened, I have lived in anxiety and fear that it could happen again not only to me, but to my children or my loved ones. The place where I once felt safe is no longer the same. I am sharing my story because I believe no one should be treated unjustly and that no one is above the law and every action will be held accountable. I respectfully ask for your support for SB 747. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition to SB 747? All right.

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

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

And I'll let you also make a comment.

I agree.

No, I appreciate that. Assemblymember Nye, you really, I think, very nicely articulated the problem that we're facing, that this is, and I've talked to a lot of local law enforcement, including ones who don't like this bill or didn't like the masking law that we passed, because what AIS and Border Patrol is doing is harming local law enforcement. It's sweeping everyone in. And when you have these folks who are wearing these masks, not identifying themselves, or they just have police on there, so they're almost like impersonating local police officers. It creates a horrible situation for local law enforcement, and as you noted, destroys community trust in actual local law enforcement. And it's just horrific. We've been in ongoing conversations. I appreciate Mr. Feldman noting that we have taken amendments. I think some of the issues they've raised, I'm hopeful that there is a path. Some of them are more challenging, but we're going to continue those conversations, and we're committed to those conversations.

I just want to align my comments with those of Assemblymember Pacheco, and we'll be supporting the bill today and appreciate the commitment to continue working with the opposition.

Thank you. And I want to reiterate what my colleague from Downey said to you, Mr. Ramirez. Thank you for being here. it is painful, frankly, as Americans to watch what is happening in our state, in our country. And I'm sorry that we can't do more and we're trying. And I want to thank the Senator for trying because you're right. Nobody should be above the law. And I appreciate the opposition for I think acknowledging that So yeah just thank you for being here It really powerful So I wanted to get a little bit at the amendment Mr Feldman read which was about the qualifying immunity question My guess, but I'm curious if this is the case, is that the problem with completely enshrining federal qualified immunity law is that currently, as I understand it, the federal courts have said that federal officers have immunity entirely, which would then enshrine that into this bill, which would get us back to where we are prior to this bill. But maybe I'm wrong about that. So what is the problem with that? The immunity entirely piece is that you simply can't, because the Bivens Doctrine has been destroyed. So there really is no federal law, for the most part, that would allow you to sue a federal officer. So our goal here is there's an existing well-established body of law defining qualified immunity under Section 1983, and we are looking to import that into this cause of action. We're having ongoing conversations about the exact language. We want to make sure we had some concerns about what they proposed for qualified immunity, what would define it, and they also appear to want to freeze frame it to what it is today. if the Supreme Court changes it tomorrow, we want qualified immunity to track whatever the state of the law is for Section 1983 claims as defined by the federal courts. Because our goal here is just for everyone to be the same, federal, state, local, to have the same liability standards, the same defenses, the same immunities, all the same. And we don't want to reframe that. So we're going to continue those conversations. But that's – I just want to let you know what our goal is. Got it. And I imagine that would actually be beneficial to the opposition because the courts are fairly friendly right now. But I don't know if it's okay with Mr. Chair if the opposition is okay.

It's not our intent to freeze it as it exists today exactly, right? But just make sure that we're following precedential standards that were in place that officers are trained to and they understand. And it's, you know, a lot of what officers do on a daily basis, you know, is informed by those standards. And we have to make sure that if we're going to make significant changes or any changes at all, we've got to be really careful about that.

I would say that would be a point to continue the conversations. I think where you'd want to be careful about just saying you can't have already filed a lawsuit is that some of the folks who've ended up in these awful situations have tried to file Biven suits. And realistically, I think we all probably know how those are going to end. They're not squarely foreclosed by existing law, but to the extent they find success in the lower courts, they'll probably lose at the Supreme Court. And so I think you want to make sure that it was keyed in to make sure that if someone had filed a lawsuit under one of the more hopeless claims right now you wouldn be in a situation to be out of court where you actually have a good claim later That would be distinguished from like if someone had already filed a 1983 suit and lost and like they'd already established a constitutional violation and not occurred. My guess is that there's various doctrines of preclusion that would prevent you from re-raising a constitutional claim that had already been adjudicated, but it's tough to speak in specifics. And one of the complexities is that we have to treat everyone the same. And so that's an issue we're certainly happy to continue to look at.

Senator. Amendment adding urgency. Yes. Okay. So with that, with that amendment motion, We have motion in a second. Assemblymember Papin.

Madam Chair? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, during your opening, you talked about that

They're just new laws. I'm not aware of any case being brought under the New York, Connecticut, or Vermont statutes as of this day. So they were signed last year, went into effect this year, or they're not even in effect yet?

Okay. I'd be interested to see in the states that maybe are a little bit ahead of us. It sounds like there's urgency now what the success of those types of cases were, but thank you for that information.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

we've committed we've been talking to law We're going to continue to do that. We want everything to be drafted correctly and to be very tight, of course. I do have to just say, big picture, they're not going to have to retrain tens of thousands of officers. Officers are intensively trained on following the U.S. Constitution, and that's what's at issue here at the U.S. Constitution. They received significant training in the academy, and I know that there's ongoing training. If there are changes in the law, they get automatically retrained. There's a big change in the Fourth Amendment by the Supreme Court, for example. They'll be told about that. And so this is not a situation where it's like we're creating a brand-new standard. No, it's the U.S. Constitution, and they are all—I can't state it enough. Right today, state and local officers can be sued under Section 1983 for the exact conduct that we're talking about here. If you shoot someone in the face, if you arrest someone for no reason, hold them for five days, and you're a local officer, you can be sued right now today. And that won't change under this law. Instead, it's going to apply to everyone. And so, again, we'll work on the technicalities and to make sure everything is tightly drafted, of course. But I do think that some of the opposition, in my humble opinion, with all respect, has been overstated. And this bill is even more important now because we saw what just happened in the United States Senate a few days ago, where they got around the filibuster with reconciliation to shove another, I think, $70 billion into the ICE slush fund. And so ICE is now going to continue to get bigger with more untrained officers and more untrained Border Patrol officers who are going to come in the communities and brutalize people. And so we need to get ahead of this. And that's why this bill is so important.

I think we've said it. We respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much. And thank you, colleagues, for the conversation today. You know, it wasn't that long ago that some of the arguments we hear today about trans kids were being made about gay and lesbian kids. It still happens today, but it was way more back in the past. it's just a phase. Just, you know, we'll send you someone to talk to about it to make sure that you're not gay. It's not real. It's made up. You're being influenced. It's a social contagion. That's the word they use today. You're being influenced by other people. Someone must be you know making you gay or lesbian And so we gonna make you not gay or lesbian That like the way it was And again it still is in some places today in some families or some communities. But that was very, very, very prevalent not that long ago. And the carnage that was done to gay and lesbian kids in particular from that approach and that attitude, which was being operationalized through the mental health profession, it's astounding the level of harm that was inflicted. And we correctly banned that. And we said, you're not going to do this. And now we need to make sure that we can continue to stand strong for these kids. But unfortunately, now we're seeing the same thing being said about trans kids. And we know, again, that the huge majority of kids who are trans do not detransition. And of the ones who do, a portion of them detransition because they are being harassed and demonized. And so they do it because they're not being accepted by their community. And so the idea that people would come in here and say, it doesn't exist. It's not real. Even though we know the vast majority are not seeking the detransition. Again, it is to me, no different than what was being said not very long ago about people like me and people like the people sitting around this table, gay and lesbian people, that we weren't real, that it was all fake and made up. And if you just go and get converted, it'll all be good. So we should support all LGBTQ people. That's what this bill does. This bill does not change what malpractice is. Malpractice exists today. Any of the issues about ambiguity for a therapist in this context or any other therapy malpractice context is the same yesterday and today and after this bill hopefully goes into effect. What this does is ensure that people who are deeply harmed by this completely repudiated practice can get justice. That's what this bill is about, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Motion is due pass to

Hi, sir. Whatever whatever you and your witnesses are ready to go. Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair members. I'm here to present SB 1344. This bill builds on legislation that every member of both caucuses and both houses voted for two years ago SB 393 when it presented by assembly Assemblymember Bauer on the Assembly floor was intending to address some of the challenges with vexatious and frivolous litigation against affordable housing projects in California That's especially important in those projects because they often, thanks to us, are delivered through 35, 37, 38 different funding sources and grants that expire within a couple of months. And so the cost to projects of frivolous and vexatious delays is substantial and can often cause them to fall apart altogether. And so this legislature overwhelmingly adopted SB 393 for that purpose. But if you think that affordable housing projects can sometimes generate NIMBY, vexatious, frivolous litigation, well, think about interim housing, permanent supportive housing, and home key projects. And so this bill is intended to expand that SB 393 framework for the motion to strike and for bonding requirements to assure that those same protections, that the attorney general can pursue those same protections when it comes to the projects that the people of California through Prop 1 bonding and other programs have laid out, that we want to build permanent supportive housing, interim housing, and other related housing projects. We recognize that there's going to be opposition and folks will seek to abuse the legal system in order to block them. And delay does result in blockage because those depend on grant programs that have deadlines. The bill does not prevent the litigation by any means. It simply says that a motion to strike can be considered by the court at the prosecutor's initiation and that the bonding requirement can match the potential loss that is involved to the project developer in order to move these projects forward. So this simply tries to achieve the voters' will, delivering the projects that have been financed through Proposition 1 and related programs and builds off the model that has had widespread broad support to bring affordable housing to reality. I would ask for an aye vote. With me today in support and as the sponsor is Janice Stanaford, the Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs for Attorney General Rob Bonta. She's joined by David Pye, supervising Deputy Attorney General, who's here simply to provide technical assistance. Thank you.

Mr. Lanoff, he's here for technical assistance only. Gotcha. All right, anyone else here in support of SB 1344?

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1344? All right, bring it back

Thank you for a second. Senator Zabert, I think he whispered a second.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? We have a motion. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this vote forward. Would you like to close?

Members. Motion is due pass. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Bryan? Bryan, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? No, voting. Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Pappin? Papin, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. All right, that bell's out. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we'll go through the roll. We'll start with consent calendar. For consent, Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Herbedian? Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Okay. Item 1, add-ons for SB 99, Blake Spear. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Harabedian? Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. We'll move the call on Item 2, SB 747, Wiener. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Harabedian? Sanchez? Oh, sorry. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. All right, that bill is out. We'll move the call on item 3, SB 932, Hurtado. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Herabedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. All right, the bill's out. We'll add-ons for item 4, SB 934. Herabedian? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Add-ons for item 5, SB 988, Grayson. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye. We'll move the call on item 6, SB 1237, Blake Spear. Macedo. No. Macedo, no. Barak-Cahan. Aye. Barak-Cahan, aye. Brian. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Sanchez. No. Sanchez, no. Bill is out. We'll add-ons item 7, SB 1296 to Rosso. Brian? Brian, aye. Stephanie Aye Stephanie aye We do item nine add SB 1387 Stern Macedo. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Sanchez. I'm sorry. Okay. Aye. Aye. Sanchez, aye on SB 1387. Okay. So we'll just hold the roll open for a few more minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Item 1, SB-99, Blakespear. Herbeating. Aye. Herbeating, aye. Item 2, SB-747, Wiener. Herbeating. Aye. Herbeating, aye. Item 3, SB-932, Hurtado. Herbeating. Aye. Herbeating, aye. Item 4, SB-934, Wiener. Herbeating. Aye. Herbeating, aye. Item 5, SB-985, Grayson. Herbeating. Aye. Herbeating, aye. Item 6, SB-1237, Blakespear. Herbeating. Aye. Herbeating, aye. Item 8, SB-1344, Cabaldon. Herbeating. Aye. Herbeating, aye. 37 Stern. Hair Beating. Hair Beating, aye. Rejourn. Man, this is the best we've ever had to meet here. No? No? It's new. It's new. I don't remember the last time we were done. Thank you. Thank you.