GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WELCOME
TO THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. PLEASE NOTE THAT AB
2752 CALDERON HAS BEEN PULLED
FROM THIS MORNING'S HEARING, THE
TYPICAL RULES FOR WITNESS
TESTIMONY APPLIES SO THAT EACH
SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED. TWO MAIN
WITNESSES, AND EACH WITNESS WILL
HAVE APPROXIMATELY TWO MINUTES
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF OR
OPPOSITION TO THEIR BILL.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SHOULD, IN
THE AUDIENCE SHOULD STATE THEIR
NAMES, ORGANIZATION, IF ANY, AND
THEIR POSITION. AS WE PROCEED
WITH THE WITNESS AND PUBLIC
COMMENT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS RULES TO ENSURE WE
MAINTAIN ORDER TO RUN A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT HEARING IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THIS GOAL OF HEARING
AS MUCH FROM THE PUBLIC WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF OUR TIME, WE WILL
NOT PERMIT CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS, DISTURBS, OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS. I'D
LIKE TO CALL ON OUR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS TO PLEASE COME TO THE
HEARING ROOM SO THAT WE CAN
COMMENCE WITH OUR BUSINESS FOR
THE DAY, AND WE WILL START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE IN A MOMENT,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANYBODY
ELSE SHOWS UP
.
OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PROCEED
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. AND I'D LIKE
TO CALL UP SENATOR WEBER. AB
1815, AND YOU MAY PROCEED
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBER, I LIKE TO
FIRST START BY THANKING STAFF.
THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD. I
LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH
FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK WITH THIS
BILL. I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB 18,
AN EXPANSION OF THE ORIGINAL
CROWN ACT OF 2019, WHEN THIS
LEGISLATURE PASSED AND THE
GOVERNOR SIGNED THE ORIGINAL
CROWN ACT, IT WAS TRULY
GROUNDBREAKING AND THE FIRST OF
THIS NATION. MANY STATES HAVE
SINCE FOLLOWED CALIFORNIA'S LEAD
IN PROHIBITING HAIR
DISCRIMINATION. UNFORTUNATELY,
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IS THAT THE
ORIGINAL CROWN ACT DID NOT COVER
ALL AREAS WHERE PEOPLE CAN BE
DISCRIMINATED OR TREATED
DIFFERENTLY BASED ON THEIR HAIR.
STORIES ARE COMING TO LIGHT ALL
OVER THE NATION ABOUT YOUNG
STUDENT ATHLETES BEING ASKED TO
CHANGE THEIR NATURAL HAIR, TO
PARTICIPATE IN SPORTING EVENTS
LIKE ANDREW JOHNSON, A 16 YEAR
OLD WRESTLER BEING FORCED TO CUT
HIS DREADLOCKS OR FORFEIT HIS
MATCH, OR 16 YEAR OLD NICOLE
PYLES, A SOFTBALL PLAYER ALSO
FORCED TO CUT HER HAIR TO
CONTINUE PLAYING HER SOFTBALL
GAME. THESE ARE INCREDIBLY
DEHUMANIZED, HUSING EVENTS. OUR
HAIR IS A SYMBOL OF WHO WE ARE
ARE, AND THESE CASES AROUND THE
COUNTRY ARE EXACTLY WHY THE
CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE MADE THIS EXPANSION ONE OF
THEIR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE LEGISLATURE TO EXTEND TO
REACH THE ORIGINAL CROWN ACT AND
TO EXPLICITLY INCLUDE
COMPETITIVE SPORTS WITHIN
CALIFORNIA. THIS IS ALSO ONE OF
THE REASONS WHY THIS BILL, AB
1819, IS INCLUDED IN THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE BLACK
CAUCUS REPARATION PACKAGE FOR
THIS LEGISLATIVE SEASON. THE AB
1815 WILL EXPAND THIS LAW TO
INCLUDE COMPETITIVE SPORTS FROM
SPORTS CLUBS OR ORGANIZATIONS,
ENSURING THAT NO ATHLETE IN
CALIFORNIA IS SUBJECT TO
DISCRIMINATION AND EXCLUSION
BASED ON THEIR NATURAL HAIR.
SPECIFICALLY AB 1815 WILL
ACCOMPLISH THIS BY AMENDING THE
UNRUH ACT IN THE SAME WAY FIFA
AND THE EDUCATION CODE WERE
AMENDED TO INCLUDE THIS
DEFINITION OF RACE, MAKING SURE
THAT THIS IS APPLIED TO ALL
BUSINESSES, NONPROFITS, OR
NON-BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS THAT
ARE OPEN TO MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC. THIS BILL IS SPONSORED
BY THE WESTERN CENTER OF LAW AND
POVERTY AND SUPPORTED BY THE
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, BLACK EQUITY
COLLECTIVE, NAACP, AND OTHERS.
HERE TO SPEAK WITH ME TODAY IN
SUPPORT IS BRANDON GREEN FROM
THE WESTERN CENTER. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS BRANDON
GREEN. I'M THE POLICY DIRECTOR
FOR THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW
AND POVERTY, WE ARE
ENTHUSIASTICALLY IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL AS YOU ALL CAN SEE, I
HAVE DREADLOCKS PAST MY, PAST MY
SHOULDER, THIS IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE I BEGAN GROWING MY HAIR
OUT WHEN I WAS A PUBLIC DEFENDER
IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, BEING
ONE OF THE ONLY, BLACK FOLKS
APPEARING IN COURT, I ALSO HAVE,
CHILDREN WHO PLAY, SPORTS
OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOLASTIC
CONTEXT. I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO, TO NOTE THAT THAT
THE VAST MAJORITY OF, KIDS,
PARTICULARLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
KIDS, MIDDLE SCHOOL KIDS, ETC,
WHO ARE PLAYING SPORTS WOULD BE
DOING SO OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL, AND
WHILE WE HAVE, THE CROWN ACT,
1.0 THAT WAS PASSED, WE'VE SEEN
IN RECENT, WEEKS, VARIOUS,
THINGS WE SAW THE TEXAS CASE,
THAT WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE
TEXAS SUPREME COURT, AND SAID
THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, LENGTH WASN'T
CONTEMPLATED, AND WE ARE
CURRENTLY IN A SOCIAL, POLITICAL
CLIMATE IN WHICH EVERYTHING
RACIAL JUSTICE, EVERYTHING, DIE
IS UNDER ATTACK. AND SO IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE EXTEND,
THIS PROTECTION NOT ONLY BECAUSE
OF WHAT I SAID IN TERMS OF THE
VAST MAJORITY OF KIDS PLAYING
SPORTS OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL
CONTEXT, BUT ALSO BECAUSE WE
KNOW THAT, DESPITE, THERE BEING
A GREAT DEAL OF PROGRESS, THAT,
BLACK HAIRSTYLES ARE STILL NOT
GENERALLY SEEN AS PROFESSIONAL,
WE STILL, ARE IN A SPACE WHERE,
GENERALLY SPEAKING, EUROCENTRIC,
BEAUTY STANDARDS OR, THE
STANDARDS OF, OF THE DAY, I NOTE
IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE, WHEN I
WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, I WAS TOLD
TO, NOT GROW MY HAIR OUT, FOR
EXAMPLE, BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT
BE, PROFESSIONAL. NOW TEN YEARS
IS, INTO MY TIME AS AN ATTORNEY.
I REALLY DON'T, CARE ABOUT ANY
OF THOSE THINGS, BUT I HAD TO,
ACTUALLY PUSH BACK AT, RISK TO
MYSELF, WE ALSO HAVE, THE RACIAL
EQUITY COMMISSION THAT IS DOING
ITS WORK, CALIFORNIA HAS TAKEN A
GREAT DEAL OF STEPS, TO ADVANCE
RACIAL EQUITY. AND I HOPE THAT
YOU ALL SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 1815? GOOD
MORNING. LIZZIE KUTSUNA HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY
OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT
PSYCHIATRY IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MELANIE MORALES. ON BEHALF OF
THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
PAMELA GIBBS, REPRESENTING THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION. AND WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL AS WE
SUPPORTED THE PREVIOUS VERSION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. RACHEL BHAGWAT, ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. WILL ASK
THE GUY FOR THE GREATER
SACRAMENTO URBAN LEAGUE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. DESIREE NGUYEN AUTH
FROM EBCLC IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 1815? ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? WELL, DOCTOR WEBER, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I RECALL IN 2019
WHEN SENATOR MITCHELL BROUGHT
THIS, THE ORIGINAL CROWN ACT, IT
WAS A CROWNING ACHIEVEMENT OF
SORTS FOR THAT YEAR. IT WAS
REALLY, SET THE TONE FOR WHAT
WOULD WE WOULD SEE AROUND THE
NATION, AND I DO AGREE THAT WE
HAVE MORE WORK YET TO DO. AND
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU
HAVE THIS KIND OF LANDMARK
LEGISLATION. YOU SAY, OKAY,
WHERE IS IT WORKING? WHERE IS IT
NOT? AND SO I THINK IT'S
ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE FOR US TO
REVISIT AND MAY NOT BE THE LAST
TIME WE DO. AND THAT'S OKAY, AND
A LITTLE KNOWN FACT, WHEN I WAS
IN LAW SCHOOL, I ALSO HAD REALLY
LONG HAIR AND WAS TOLD THE SAME
THING. CUT IT IF YOU WANT TO BE
TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND ALL THAT.
RIGHT BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE
COMING FORWARD. I WOULD LOVE TO
BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR. AND
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I WOULD
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO,
ONCE AGAIN CLOSE BY THANKING THE
COMMITTEE FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.
I KNOW THAT YOU WERE VERY
HELPFUL AND INSTRUMENTAL WITH
THE ORIGINAL CROWN ACT, AND
REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONTINUED HELP AND SUPPORT
WITH THIS, UPDATED VERSION. I
WANT TO THANK THE SPONSORS, YOU
KNOW, BRANDON, FOR COMING, AND
JUST REITERATE WHAT, YOU KNOW,
SOMETHING THAT HE SAID MOST KIDS
TODAY DO NOT PLAY, SPORTS WITHIN
THEIR SCHOOL. I HAVE TWO YOUNG
BOYS WHO DO NOT PLAY FOR THEIR
SCHOOL. AND AS MY OLDEST IS
CONSIDERING TWISTING HIS HAIR AS
HIS MOTHER RECENTLY JUST LOCKED
HER HAIR. YOU KNOW, IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT HE WILL NOT BE
DISCRIMINATED IF THAT IS A
CHOICE THAT HE MAKES. AND SO
WHETHER YOUR HAIR IS BRAIDED,
LOCKED, TWIST LONG, ALL FORMS OF
NATURAL HAIR BELONG IN ALL
SPACES WITHOUT ANY, ALTERCATION,
THAT WOULD MEET ANYONE ELSE'S
DISCOMFORT. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, DOCTOR ROBERT. WHEN WE GET
QUORUM, WE'LL TAKE UP THE MATTER
FURTHER. BUT THANK YOU. YEAH,
THERE'S NO. YEAH.
WHICH WHICH ONE IS IT? IT'S.
IT'S THE JUDICIARY. THE
COMMITTEE. BILL 3283. OKAY,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I ITEM 14
AB 3283, PLEASE PROCEED, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE
THIS BILL PROPOSES A MINOR
PROCEDURAL FIX TO A CRITICAL
ISSUE IN DEBT COLLECTION CASES.
UNDER EXISTING LAW, WHEN A
DEBTOR APPEARS IN COURT TO FILE
A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION,
ESSENTIALLY SEEKING PROTECTION
FOR CERTAIN ASSETS FROM BEING
COLLECTED TO PAY A JUDGMENT,
IT'S CONSIDERED A GENERAL
APPEARANCE. THIS SEEMINGLY SMALL
ACT, HOWEVER, HAS SIGNIFICANT
CONSEQUENCES. BY MERELY SHOWING
UP TO PROTECT THEIR EXEMPT
PROPERTY, DEBTORS
UNINTENTIONALLY SURRENDER THEIR
ABILITY TO CHALLENGE THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION IN THE UNDERLYING
DEBT COLLECTION CASE, EVEN IF
THEY WERE IMPROPERLY SERVED OR
ARE NOT THE CORRECT PARTY. THIS
BILL OFFERS A SIMPLE YET CRUCIAL
SOLUTION TO THIS UNFAIR
SITUATION. IT ENSURES THAT
APPEARING FOR A CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION HEARING DOES NOT
EQUATE TO CONSENTING TO THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION FOR THE
ENTIRE CASE. INSTEAD, THIS BILL
WOULD LIMIT THE COURT'S
AUTHORITY SOLELY TO DETERMINE
THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. THIS
MEANS THAT DEBTORS CAN STILL
SEEK EXEMPTION FROM COLLECTION
WITHOUT FORFEITING THEIR RIGHT
TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
UNDERLYING JUDGMENT BASED ON
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. THIS BILL
DOES NOT ELIMINATE LAWFUL DEBTS.
RATHER, IT PROTECTS THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF DUE
PROCESS BY ALLOWING DEBTORS TO
CHALLENGE THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION IF THEY WERE
IMPROPERLY SERVED OR MISTAKENLY
IDENTIFIED. BY SAFEGUARDING THIS
RIGHT, WE AIM TO PREVENT UNJUST
JUDGMENTS AND TO ENSURE FAIRNESS
IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. I HAVE WITH
ME DESIREE DESIREE NGUYEN AUTH,
THE DIRECTOR OF THE EAST BAY
COMMUNITY LAW CENTER'S CONSUMER
JUSTICE CLINIC, TO TESTIFY AND
TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. GOOD MORNING.
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME. I AM DESIREE WENTWORTH,
DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER JUSTICE
PRACTICE AT EAST BAY COMMUNITY
LAW CENTER AND LECTURER AT UC
BERKELEY. LAW AB 3283 IS A
NONPARTISAN CORRECTION TO THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS IT IS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN SECTION
703.580. THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
CONSTITUTE THE PLEADINGS,
SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE
COURT TO PERMIT AMENDMENTS IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS
TRAMPLES THE BASIC DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT
PROPERLY SERVED, AND FIND
THEMSELVES TO BE THE SUBJECT OF
ENFORCEMENT THROUGH A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT. AT THIS JUNCTURE, A
CLAIMANT HAS TWO OPTIONS EITHER
A FOREGO A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
AND BEAR THE BURDEN OF THE
ENFORCEMENT WHILE SEEKING A SET
ASIDE, OR B FORFEIT THEIR RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS IN ORDER TO STOP
THE BLEEDING OF THE ILL GOTTEN
JUDGMENT. BY PROCEEDING WITH THE
NECESSARY CLAIM OF EXEMPTION.
UNDER THE FIRST OPTION, A PERSON
MUST BE ABLE TO LIVE UNDER A
WAGE GARNISHMENT OR BANK LEVY.
ENFORCEMENT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.
THE FILING PROCEDURE IS TO HAVE
A MOTION HEARD. VARIES FROM
COUNTY TO COUNTY, WITH MANY
HAVING OPENINGS NOT EARLIER THAN
THREE MONTHS OUT. THIS IS AN
INCREDIBLY LONG TIME FOR PEOPLE
WHO LIVE PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK.
IN THIS SITUATION, THE PERSON IS
PAYING THE PRICE OF THIS
SECTION'S OVERREACH WHILE THEY
PURSUE THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
UNDER THE SECOND OPTION, A
PERSON SURRENDERS THEIR RIGHT TO
PROPER SERVICE IN THE NAME OF
CAUTERIZING A FINANCIAL WOUND.
IN DOING SO, THE PERSON GIVES UP
THEIR RIGHT TO SET ASIDE USING A
SPECIAL APPEARANCE, AND THE
ISSUE IS MADE MOOT BECAUSE THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE IS EXPLICIT
ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF THE CLAIM
OF EXEMPTION. AS A PLEADING
BEFORE I ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS
TODAY, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME
ANTICIPATED SKEPTICISM. WILL
THIS BILL INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO
IGNORE SERVICE OR DODGE SERVICE?
NO THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE
STATUS OF JURISDICTION ON
PERSONS WHO WERE PROPERLY
SERVED. PROPERLY SERVED INCLUDES
SUBSTITUTE SERVICE, SO THE
COLLOQUIAL DODGING IS NEAR
IMPOSSIBLE. THE CHANGE THAT WE
SEEK ONLY LETS THROUGH THE FISH
THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE NET IN
THE FIRST PLACE. IT DOES NOTHING
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROPERLY
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WILL
BE BAD ACTORS IN NEARLY ALL
AVENUES WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO
EVADE THE LAW. THIS MINORITY IS
NOT A VALID REASON TO CONTINUE
TO DENY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO
THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN OUR
SOCIETY. THE CURRENT LAW
INCENTIVIZES THE RAMPANT SEWER
SERVICES THAT WE RECEIVE TODAY,
AND IT'S A WINDFALL FOR MANY
PLAINTIFFS. WHY DON'T PEOPLE
JUST GET A SET ASIDE? TO JUST
GET A SET ASIDE REQUIRES A LOT
OF LEGAL KNOW HOW. IT IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT I COULD EVER
ADVISE A CLIENT TO DO
THEMSELVES. IT TAKES MONTHS TO
GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, THEN TO
HAVE THE MOTION HEARD IN FRONT
OF A JUDGE. ALL WHILE MONEY IS
DRAINING FROM THE PERSON'S
POCKET. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT
HAVE SIGNED ON TO BRING THIS AS
A COMMITTEE BILL, AS A SERVICE
PROVIDER WHO DEALS WITH ISSUES
LIKE THIS EVERY DAY. YOUR
DEDICATION TO THE PRESERVATION
OF BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IS
HEARTENING. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE
AND I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT? SEEING NONE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. SEEING
NONE. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. SEEING NONE. MR.
CHAIR MAY CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE, MR. CHAIR, WITH
THE APPROPRIATE TIME. GREAT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU
.
MR. CHAIR.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING OVER THERE?
OH, YEAH. I MESSED THIS UP. I
USED TO BE. I USED TO BE. YOU'RE
HANGING BACK, I KNOW, LET ME GO
OVER THERE
.
ARE YOU READY FOR ME? YES ALL
RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL CONTINUE TO
OPERATE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE AND
CALL ITEM SIX, AB 2785. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON, WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU.
LET ME MAKE SURE MY.
JUST. YES JUST HAVE THE ONE.
OKAY SORRY. YEAH, WE'RE RIGHT
HERE. WELL, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER
THE MIC IS CLOSEST, I WAS TOLD
IT. AWESOME. THANK YOU. WELL,
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. SO I'M HERE TODAY TO
PRESENT AB 2785, A BILL THAT
AIMS TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE
CONDITIONS FOR RENTERS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. IN CALIFORNIA,
NEARLY HALF OF THE POPULATION,
ALMOST 17 MILLION PEOPLE, ARE
RENTERS. OVER HALF OF THESE
RENTERS SPEND MORE THAN 30% OF
THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING, WITH
27% DEDICATED MORE THAN HALF OF
THEIR INCOME SOLELY ON RENT.
RENTING IS NOT ONLY INCREASINGLY
COSTLY AND COMPETITIVE, BUT THE
APPLICATION PROCESS ITSELF OFTEN
INVOLVES SIGNIFICANT COSTS FOR A
PROSPECTIVE TENANT. THIS FURTHER
LIMITS ACCESS TO HOUSING FOR LOW
INCOME RENTERS AND IN TURN
WORSENS THE STATE'S HOUSING
CRISIS. AB 2785 TARGETS THIS
CRISIS HEAD ON BY INTRODUCING
CRITICAL REFORMS TO RENTAL
APPLICATION FEES AND SECURITY
DEPOSIT MANAGEMENT, AS
HIGHLIGHTED BY A 2022 SURVEY BY
ZILLOW, BLACK AND LATINO RENTERS
FACED DISPROPORTIONATE
CHALLENGES AND RENTAL
APPLICATION PROCESSES. THEY THEY
ARE NEARLY TWICE AS LIKELY TO
SUBMIT FIVE OR MORE APPLICATIONS
AND REPORT PAYING HIGHER MEDIAN
FEES COMPARED TO WHITE RENTERS.
THESE APPLICATION FEES QUICKLY
ACCUMULATE INTO HUNDREDS OF
DOLLARS, EXACERBATING THE
FINANCIAL CHALLENGES FACED BY
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ALREADY
STRUGGLING TO AFFORD
CALIFORNIA'S HIGH COST OF
LIVING. AB 2785 DIRECTLY
ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE BY CAPPING
RENTAL FEES AT $50 AND ENSURING
THAT THESE FEES ARE FULLY
REFUNDABLE TO ANY APPLICANT NOT
SELECTED. THIS BILL IS A STEP
TOWARDS LEVELING THE PLAYING
FIELD, MAKING THE SEARCH FOR
HOUSING MORE EQUITABLE AND
LESSENING THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
OF SECURING HOUSING. WE'VE ALSO
HEARD FROM FOLKS CONCERNED ABOUT
THE REFUND TO NON-SELECTED
CANDIDATES. WHILE IT IS CURRENT
LAW TO PROVIDE A REFUND FOR ANY
AMOUNT OF THE SCREENING FEE THAT
IS NOT USED TO PERFORM A
PERSONAL REFERENCE CHECK OR DOES
NOT OBTAIN A CONSUMER CREDIT
REPORT, WE DEFINITELY PLAN TO
WORK FURTHER WITH OPPOSITION TO
EXPLORE ALL OPTIONS. AB 2785
ALSO IMPLEMENTS PROTECTIONS FOR
TENANTS SECURITY DEPOSITS. THIS
BILL WOULD REQUIRE LANDLORDS TO
PLACE A TENANT SECURITY DEPOSIT
INTO A DEDICATED ACCOUNT AT THE
STATE OR FEDERALLY REGULATED
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WITHIN 30
DAYS OF RECEIPT, ENSURING THAT
THIS ACCOUNT EXISTS SOLELY TO
MAIN FUNDS. MAINTAIN FUNDS FROM
SECURITY DEPOSITS. FURTHERMORE,
WE'VE MADE CLEAR THAT ANY
INTEREST COLLECTED ON TENANT
SECURITY DEPOSIT BELONGS TO THE
TENANT. THIS PRACTICE RECOGNIZES
SECURITY DEPOSITS FOR WHAT THEY
ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE RENTERS,
NOT AN ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAM
FOR LANDLORDS. I WANT TO TAKE
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS SOME
THINGS STATED ABOUT THE BILL, AS
WELL AS SHARE AMENDMENTS WE'VE
CHOSEN TO INCLUDE. SOME HAVE
EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT THESE
SECURITY DEPOSIT PROTECTIONS
WILL ADD ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN
ONTO LANDLORDS. HOWEVER THIS
PRACTICE IS ALREADY ENACTED IN
MORE THAN A DOZEN STATES. EVEN
SEVERAL CITIES IN CALIFORNIA,
INCLUDING THE CITY OF BERKELEY
AND THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ,
HAVE ALREADY LOCAL LAWS THAT
REQUIRE LANDLORDS TO PROVIDE
TENANTS WITH INTEREST PAYMENTS
ON THEIR SECURITY DEPOSITS. WE
HAVE LISTENED TO CONCERNS OVER
TRUST ACCOUNTS, SO WE'VE CHOSEN
TO MAKE THE INTEREST BEARING
ASPECT OPTIONAL RATHER THAN
REQUIRED. ADDITIONALLY, WE AGREE
WITH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S
ANALYSIS THAT THIS WILL NOT
CREATE ANY TAX IMPLICATIONS ON
SECURITY DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, IN
CASE THOSE TAXES DO APPLY, WE
ADDED A CLARIFYING AMENDMENT. SO
THE LANDLORD MAY DEDUCT TAX
BEFORE RETURNING THE SECURITY
DEPOSIT INTEREST TO THE TENANT.
WE'VE ALSO BEEN IN FREQUENT
CONVERSATION WITH THE
OPPOSITION. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
HAVING CONTINUED DIALOG ON THIS
BILL. MY GOAL ALWAYS IS TO FIND
A PATHWAY FORWARD WHERE EVERYONE
CAN AGREE AND BE ON THE SAME
PAGE. AB 2785 IS A SIGNIFICANT
STEP TOWARDS ENSURING FAIRNESS
AND SECURITY IN THE RENTAL
MARKET. IT SAFEGUARDS TENANTS
RIGHTS AND PROMOTES TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY AMONG
LANDLORDS BY REDUCING THE
FINANCIAL BURDEN OF APPLICATION
FEES AND ENSURING THE FAIR
TREATMENT OF SECURITY DEPOSITS,
AND NOT ONLY PROTECTS TENANTS
FUNDS, BUT ALSO PROMOTES TRUST
AND THE LANDLORD TENANT
RELATIONSHIP. I'D LIKE TO NOW
INTRODUCE MY TWO WITNESSES,
SONIA VIDAL, THEY THEN PRONOUNS
WITH THE WOMEN'S FOUNDATION
CALIFORNIA SALAS POLICY
INSTITUTE, AND THEN SHANTI SINGH
FROM TENANTS TOGETHER. THANK YOU
. I CAN GO FIRST. CHAIR KALRA
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
SONIA VIDAL. I USE THEY THEM
PRONOUNS. I'M THE CAMPAIGN
MANAGER AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA. I'M
ALSO PART OF A COHORT OF SIX
INCREDIBLE BIPOC REPRODUCTIVE
JUSTICE ADVOCATES AND ORGANIZERS
FROM ACROSS THE STATE, SERVING
AS DOCTOR BEATRICE MARIA SALAS
POLICY INSTITUTE FELLOWS UNDER
THE WOMEN'S FOUNDATION, TOGETHER
WE'VE COLLABORATED WITH ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON IN DRAFTING AB
2785. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING
THAT ALL SIX OF US ARE ALSO
AMONG THE NEARLY 17 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE RENTERS.
RECENTLY, OUR TEAMMATES SOCIAL
HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH THE
HOUSING APPLICATION PROCESS WITH
THEIR SPOUSE. IN THE COURSE OF
ONE WEEK, THEY APPLIED FOR EIGHT
DIFFERENT RESIDENCES WHILE AN
UNSTABLE HOUSING, EACH LOCATION
THEY APPLIED FOR HAD A DIFFERENT
APPLICATION FEE. MANY REFUSED TO
UTILIZE THE CREDIT REPORT THAT
SOCHI PROVIDED AS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AB 2559. THEY WERE ALSO
TOLD AT ONE LOCATION THAT THEY'D
BE CHARGED MORE FOR BRINGING
THEIR OWN CREDIT REPORT FOR THEM
TO VERIFY ITS LEGITIMACY. SO
LET'S BREAK THAT DOWN. IN THE
COURSE OF ONE WEEK, THEY APPLIED
FOR EIGHT PLACES, EIGHT PLACES
WITH AN AVERAGE OF $78 PER
APPLICANT. AS NÓ PROCESS WAS
SIMILAR, EIGHT PLACES WITH TWO
OF THEM APPLYING, MAKING IT AN
AVERAGE OF 108 $5,158 PER
APPLICANT. IN TOTAL, THAT IS
OVER $1,250 IN JUST APPLICATION
FEES IN JUST ONE WEEK. ALL SIX
OF US HAD SIMILAR EXPERIENCES,
AS DO THE RENTERS WITH CHILDREN.
RENTERS FLEEING CIRCUMSTANCES,
RENTERS IMPACTED BY THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM, BLACK. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
OF COLOR, QUEER AND TRANSGENDER
RENTERS ALL FACE INTENSIFIED
HOUSING INJUSTICES COMPARED TO
HOMEOWNERS, COMPARED TO
HOMEOWNERS OFTEN FORCED TO MAKE
DECISIONS SIMILAR TO SOCHI.
HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN
APPLICATION FEES OR GROCERIES.
THAT WEEK, AB 2785 STANDS AS A
CREATIVE SOLUTION TO NOT ONLY
ADDRESS THE PRESSING ISSUES OF
TENANT VULNERABILITY, BUT ALSO
CHAMPION FAIRNESS AND
TRANSPARENCY, BRINGING REALLY IN
A NEW ERA OF EQUITABLE HOUSING
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. WITH THAT,
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF 2785.
THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
COLLAR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SORRY AWKWARD POSITIONING, BUT,
MY NAME IS SHANTI SINGH. I AM A
RENTER AS WELL. I ACTUALLY LIVE
IN A CITY WHERE SOME OF THESE
PROTECTIONS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN
EFFECT, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, AND
I'M THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR
TENANTS. TOGETHER, WE'RE A
STATEWIDE COALITION OF OVER 60
TENANT LED COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. TO OUR MEMBERS
ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT AB 2785.
WE'VE ACTUALLY SPONSORED
LEGISLATION LIKE THIS BACK IN
2013, SO WE RUN A FREE STATEWIDE
TENANT HELPLINE WITH TRAINED
VOLUNTEER COUNSELORS. AND ONE OF
THE MOST COMMON TYPES OF CALLS
THAT WE GET CONCERNED THE
UNETHICAL RETENTION OF SECURITY
DEPOSITS AND THE PROLIFERATION
OF UNREASONABLE AND UNREGULATED
FEES ON RENTERS. EVERYTHING FROM
THIS IS A REAL EXAMPLE.
REFRIGERATOR DEPRECIATION TO A
SPOT ON A CARPET CAN LEAD TO THE
LOSS OF A SECURITY DEPOSIT.
WHILE TENANTS CAN BE CHARGED
FEES FOR SEEMINGLY EVERYTHING
WE'VE SEEN, EVEN LEGAL FEES,
QUOTE UNQUOTE, WHERE TENANTS ARE
BEING CHARGED FOR A POTENTIAL
FUTURE LEGAL DISPUTE OR EVEN AN
EVICTION, THAT'S ALL TO SAY. AB
2785 IS A COMMON SENSE BASIC
CONSUMER PROTECTION, SCREENING
FEES AND INTEREST ON SECURITY
DEPOSITS MAY FEEL LIKE SMALL
AMOUNTS HERE AND THERE, BUT FOR
CALIFORNIA WORKING FAMILIES
TRYING TO STRETCH EVERY DOLLAR
TO ACCESS HOUSING, IT MATTERS.
IN SUCH A COMPETITIVE RENTAL
MARKET, WHERE HALF OF TENANTS
ARE PAYING OVER 50% OF THEIR
INCOME TO RENT, TENANT SCREENING
FEES ADD UP, ESPECIALLY FAST FOR
PEOPLE WHO ALREADY ARE
DISADVANTAGED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
LOWER INCOME OR ACCESS TO
CREDIT, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE OF
COLOR. FOR ACTIVE TENANTS WHO
ARE NOT APPROVED FOR TENANCY IN
ONE PLACE ARE PAYING
UNDER-REGULATED SCREENING FEES
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THAT MONEY ADDS UP AND IT MAKES
IT HARDER FOR WORKING CLASS
CALIFORNIANS TO ACCESS THE
HOUSING MARKET, NOT ONLY DO MANY
US STATES ALREADY HAVE LAWS ON
THE BOOKS PROTECTING TENANT
SECURITY DEPOSITS BY REQUIRING
THEIR SAFEKEEPING IN A SEPARATE
ACCOUNT, MANY ALSO GUARANTEE THE
INTEREST, AS DO SEVERAL
CALIFORNIA CITIES THAT ALREADY
HAVE LAWS LIKE THIS ON THE
BOOKS, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT I
LIVE IN. A TENANT WHO HAS DONE
EVERYTHING RIGHT SHOULD BE ABLE
TO CLAIM THE INTEREST THAT'S
EARNED ON THEIR DEPOSIT, AND WE
BELIEVE THAT ONLY BAD ACTOR
LANDLORDS WHO MISUSE TENANTS
DEPOSITS WOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO
LOSE FROM THIS BILL. I URGE YOUR
AYE VOTE AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. AND,
ASSEMBLYMAN WILSON, JUST TO
CLARIFY, YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2785?
HELLO. DESIREE NGUYEN, NORTH
EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, SWEET KIM. ON BEHALF OF
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING KIM ROBINSON ON BEHALF
OF BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS AND
BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS ACTION
PROJECT IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. FAITH IN,
UNITE FOR REPRODUCTIVE AND
GENDER EQUITY AND WE ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, STEPHANIE, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA LATINAS FOR
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. SAVANNAH JORGENSEN
WITH THE LUTHERAN OFFICE OF
PUBLIC POLICY, CALIFORNIA. AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, GABRIELLE
BROWN WITH BLACK WOMEN FOR
WELLNESS AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, LISA
MATSUBARA ON BEHALF OF PLANNED
PARENTHOOD, AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, JOHNNY
THOMPSON WITH THE STOCKTON
HOUSING JUSTICE COALITION IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2785? OKAY GO AHEAD AND
TAKE A SEAT UP HERE IF YOU'D
LIKE. AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
PAUSE FOR A MOMENT AND ESTABLISH
QUORUM. CALL LARA HERE. DIXON
BAUER-KAHAN HERE. BRIAN. HERE.
CONNOLLY HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN
MCKENNA. PACHECO. HERE. REYES.
SANCHEZ WALDRON. ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE QUORUM ESTABLISH. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. AND HE IS PLEASED. UP
TO TWO MINUTES, ACTUALLY UP TO
FOUR MINUTES. WE REALLY WANT
FOUR MINUTES. BUT I'LL TELL YOU
THE OTHER SIDE HAD FOUR MINUTES,
SO I CAN'T TELL YOU TO SAVE IT
TOO. BUT GO AHEAD. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS IMBERT
MADISON FROM THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, AND WE
ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL
FOR THREE REASONS. FIRST, AB
2785 WILL REQUIRE OWNERS TO
RETURN A SCREENING FEE AFTER
THEY'VE ANALYZED AN APPLICATION.
BUT CANNOT RENT TO THAT TENANT.
HERE'S THE PROBLEM AN APPLICANT
MAY FILL OUT AN APPLICATION BUT
FAIL TO MENTION MAYBE THEY OWE
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CREDIT
CARD DEBT. MAYBE THEY HAVE
UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT. MAYBE LIFE
HAS JUST HAPPENED AND THEY DID
NOT PUT THAT ON THE APPLICATION.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, ONCE WE RUN
THAT APPLICATION, THE DOLLARS
THAT LANDLORDS SPEND AND CANNOT
BE TAKEN BACK, AND FOR THAT
REASON, CAA RECOMMENDS THAT FOR
THIS BILL AND A PREVIOUS BILL
THAT HAS COME BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE ON A SIMILAR TOPIC,
THAT THE OWNER BE REQUIRED TO
SELECT THE FIRST QUALIFIED
APPLICANT. IN DOING SO, THAT
WOULD STOP THE PROCESS OR NOT
CAUSE MULTIPLE PEOPLE TO APPLY
FOR THE SAME UNIT. WHEN SOMEBODY
HAS BEEN SELECTED, WE BELIEVE
THIS IS A FAIR SOLUTION TO THE
PROBLEM, IN THIS CASE, THE
SECOND REASON WE HAVE OPPOSITION
IS THAT THE CAP CURRENTLY IS
PEGGED TO CPI FOR GOOD REASON.
AS WE ALL KNOW, COSTS RISE OVER
TIME AND LANDLORDS RIGHT NOW
THEY DO NOT MAKE MONEY ON THE
FEES SCREENING FEES. THERE IS
EXISTING LAW THAT LIMITS THE
AMOUNT OF THE SCREENING FEES. IT
IS NOT A PROFIT CENTER FOR
LANDLORDS. SO AS THE CAP IS
RIGHT NOW PEGGED FOR CPI, IT
COMPENSATES OWNERS FOR THE EXACT
COSTS THAT THEY SPEND ON RUNNING
THESE APPLICATIONS, I KNOW ON
THE ANALYSIS, THAT THE AUTHOR
GRACIOUSLY IS GOING TO ACCEPT
MENTIONS USING A REUSABLE CREDIT
REPORT. CA RECOMMENDS THAT THAT
BE AN OPTION IN ADDITION TO THE
OPTION I MENTIONED BEFORE ABOUT
SELECTING THE FIRST QUALIFIED
APPLICANT. AND FINALLY, AS WE
GET TO THE TOPIC ON INTEREST ON
SECURITY DEPOSITS, WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE, AMENDMENTS
THAT THE AUTHOR IS ACCEPTING.
BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND, THERE ARE
ALSO OTHER FEES. THERE ARE
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, OTHER
STATES HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT IF A
LANDLORD IS GOING TO PAY
INTEREST ON A SECURITY DEPOSIT
IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THERE ARE
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES THAT COME
WITH THAT. USUALLY THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE IS 1. WE
WOULD ASK THAT THAT BE INCLUDED
IN THE BILL BECAUSE THAT WOULD
BE A FAIR COMPROMISE. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY NOT BE
TAX IMPLICATIONS, BUT SOMEBODY
STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH AND
PREPARE THESE DOCUMENTS AND MAKE
SURE THEY'RE ACCURATE. AND THIS
DOES COST MONEY. AND
UNFORTUNATELY, IF THE 1% FEE IS
NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT RENT WILL BE
INCREASED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT
INCREASE BUSINESS EXPENSE. AND
FOR THOSE THREE REASONS, THAT'S
WHY CA OPPOSES THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, RON KINGSTON I
REPRESENT TWO, REGIONAL
APARTMENT ASSOCIATIONS, PART OF
ASSOCIATION ORANGE COUNTY AND,
THE MEMBERS OAN LOCAL
ASSOCIATION, THE EAST BAY RENTAL
HOUSING ASSOCIATION. WE TOO ARE
OPPOSED TO BILL. I JUST WANT TO
FOCUS ON THE BILL AS PROPOSED TO
BE AMENDED ON ONE PARTICULAR
ASPECT. AND THAT'S THAT
REFUNDING SHOULD, THAT ALL THE
APPLICATION FEE SHOULD Ã
APPLICANT NOT BE SELECTED?
THERE'S NOTHING IN LAW THAT
PRECLUDES, THE APPLICANT FROM
ASKING ABOUT THE CREDIT
STANDARDS BEFORE THEY PAY THE
FEES. THIS BILL, UNFORTUNATELY,
DOESN'T DO THAT. THIS BILL,
SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY
TIME ANYBODY WALKS IN TO, APPLY
FOR AN APARTMENT, THEY
AUTOMATICALLY PAY THE FEES.
THAT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE. NOT
TRUE. IT IS GOOD THAT WE HAVE
THAT FORM OF AN INQUIRY TO ASK
ABOUT THE CREDIT STANDARDS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL SHOULD BE
ABOUT. INSTEAD OF THE BILL
SAYING, IF I AM NOT AS AN
APPLICANT, SELECTED BECAUSE OF
MY POOR CREDIT STANDARDS, THAT
THAT IT'S TO BE REFUNDED IN NO
OTHER CASE, THERE IS NOT A
RETAIL INSTALLMENT CREDIT
APPLIED OR ANY HOME MORTGAGE CAR
LOAN THAT IF YOU'RE DENIED THE
ABILITY TO BUY A CAR ON CREDIT,
A HOUSE ON CREDIT, WHATEVER,
THAT ALL THOSE COSTS HAVE TO BE
REFUNDED BACK TO THE APPLICANT.
THAT SHOULD APPLY HERE.
CONSEQUENTLY, WE WOULD STRONGLY
RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHOR AMEND
THE BILL, TO DELETE THIS, EXACT
PORTION. AND, AND, SAY AN
AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT BY THE
APPLICANT. WHAT ARE THE CREDIT
STANDARDS? AND THEN THEY CAN
MAKE THAT EVALUATION. SHOULD
THEY THEN PAY THE FEES? THAT IS
THE REASONABLE LOGICAL CHOICE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2785. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, KAREEM DORSEY, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, IN
STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE BILL IN
PRINT AS WELL AS PROPOSED TO BE
AMENDED RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A
NO VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. KATE BELL, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA RENTAL
HOUSING ASSOCIATION AND
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER
L.A, I'M STILL IN OPPOSITION
WITH THE AMENDMENTS, BUT LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. PAT MORAN
WITH AARON READING ASSOCIATES,
REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION, APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS, BUT WE STILL HAVE
CONCERNS AS OUTLINED BY CAA.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE. SAMARRA B¢O
KHN. SORRY, I THINK YOU RAISED
YOUR HAND FIRST, HI. THANK YOU
ALL FOR BEING HERE. AND I THINK,
YOU KNOW, TENANT PROTECTIONS ARE
OBVIOUSLY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT,
BUT IN ORDER FOR THE RENTAL
MARKET TO WORK, WE ALSO NEED A
HEALTHY RENTAL MARKET. AND I
FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL
NOT TO MAKE IT TOO DIFFICULT AND
ONEROUS TO RENT OUT A UNIT. AND
I KNOW YOU GUYS SPOKE ABOUT MANY
BAD ACTORS. I WAS IN THE PRO
BONO LEGAL FIELD FOR MANY YEARS,
AND I DON'T DOUBT THAT. I KNOW
IT'S TRUE, BUT I ALSO KNOW THERE
ARE A LOT OF MOM AND POPS OUT
THERE THAT DO THIS, AND THEY
RENT THEIR APARTMENTS AND THAT
ARE JUST CHARGING THE COST,
RIGHT? AND ARE NOT THIS IS NOT A
PROFIT CENTER, BUT THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO YOU RUN AN
APPLICATION FOR WHO YOU DON'T
RENT TO BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
QUALIFIED OR WHATEVER THE CASE
MAY BE. AND FOR THAT COST TO BE
SHIFTED BACK TO THE LANDLORD,
WHERE IT REALLY IS JUST COVERING
THE COST THAT THE LANDLORD BORE
FEELS LIKE A COST SHIFT THAT
SHOULD BE DICTATED BY THE MARKET
AND NOT NECESSARILY BY LAW. AND
I GUESS SO. YOU HAVE THREE
REASONS HERE THAT IT WOULD BE
RETURNED, TWO OF WHICH,
OBVIOUSLY, IF EXCEEDS THE
PERMITTED BY LAW, I DON'T THINK
HOPEFULLY NOBODY HAS AN ISSUE
WITH THAT. AND IF THE COST
WASN'T BORN RIGHT, SO IF THEY
DIDN'T PERFORM A CREDIT CHECK
AND BOTH OF THOSE SEEMED
JUSTIFIABLE TO ME AND. FINE. BUT
THE THIRD ONE WHERE YOU JUST THE
TENANT DIDN'T QUALIFY AND
PERHAPS DIDN'T PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION IN ADVANCE, I THINK
THAT ONE I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH,
AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT
PUTTING THE CAP, I REALLY LIKE
THAT RIGHT NOW THE CAP HAS
INFLATION INCREASES BECAUSE THE
COSTS DO INCREASE, AND PUTTING
THAT INTO LAW WITHOUT INFLATION
INCREASES FEELS A LITTLE BIT
CHALLENGING TO ME. SO I GUESS I
JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE SMALL
LANDLORDS, BECAUSE I THINK SMALL
LANDLORDS, IN MY EXPERIENCE AS A
RENTER, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS
IS YOUR EXPERIENCE, THEY'RE
BETTER. THERE TEND TO TREAT
THEIR TENANTS IN A LOT OF CASES.
WELL AND SO MAKING IT SO HARD
FOR THOSE FOLKS TO DO THIS
BECAUSE WE KEEP SHIFTING ALL THE
COSTS AND THE BURDEN TO THEM, I
THINK IS REALLY CONCERNING TO
ME, SO FOR ME, IT IS JUST THAT
COST SHIFT THAT IS AN ISSUE AND
I HOPE THE AUTHOR WILL ADDRESS.
YEAH ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THAT,
YOU KNOW, THE OPPOSITION HAS
BEEN VERY CLEAR FROM THE VERY
FIRST MEETING THAT THAT WAS A
CONCERN OF THEIRS. AND, WE'VE
BEEN WORKING WITH THEM TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT HOW CAN WE THREAD THE
NEEDLE. SO TO SPEAK, AND GET THE
SPIRIT OF WHY THE REFUND, WHY WE
WANTED THE REFUND OPTION IN
THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND
I'M DEFINITELY OPEN TO THAT. AND
I THINK MOST PEOPLE KNOW, THAT I
HAVE A REPUTATION OF FINDING
PATHWAYS FORWARD AND FIGURING
OUT WHAT THE SOLUTIONS ARE AND
WANTING EVERYBODY TO BE IN A WIN
WIN PLACE. SO YOU HAVE MY
ABSOLUTE COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE
THOSE DISCUSSIONS. IF IT GETS
OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE TO ENSURE
THAT BY THE TIME WE GET TO
SOMETHING ON THE FLOOR, IT'S
SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD, PROTECTS
TENANTS, BUT ALSO AT THE SAME
TIME RECOGNIZES WE NEED A
HEALTHY RENTAL MARKET, OR
BECAUSE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, IT
SAYS, YOU KNOW, OVER 50% ARE
RENTERS. RIGHT. AND SO WE NEED A
HEALTHY MARKET, AND TO THE POINT
THAT OPPOSITION MADE IS THAT I
MAY NOT CHARGE YOU IN THE
APPLICATION OR I MAY HAVE ALL
THESE COSTS. WHAT'S GOING TO DO
IS I'M JUST GOING TO RAISE THE
RENT TO COVER IT. AND WE DON'T
WANT THAT. AND SO, THAT'S
COUNTERINTUITIVE TO WHAT OUR
INTENT IS IN THE BILL. AND SO I
WILL BE SURE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND COME UP
WITH SOLUTIONS. WE HAVE A FEW
SOLUTIONS IN MIND, BUT WE'LL
CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS AND SEE IF WE CAN
FIND A PATHWAY FORWARD. SO I
APPRECIATE THAT AND I'LL SUPPORT
IT TODAY SO I CAN KEEP MOVING.
SO I THINK IT DOES DO A LOT OF
REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS, THE
INTEREST PIECE I THINK IS MAKES
PERFECT SENSE. THAT'S MONEY THE
RENTERS SHOULD HAVE. AGAIN THOSE
OTHER PIECES OF RETURNING THE
MONEY MAKE SENSE. BUT, I DO WANT
TO SEE IT, HOPEFULLY WHEN I SEE
IT ON THE FLOOR, IT WILL BE IN A
WAY THAT I CAN SUPPORT IT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR BRIAN. I
WANT TO THANK THE, THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL AND FOR
THIS ROBUST CONVERSATION. ALSO,
ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE A SALAS
POLICY INSTITUTE, WITNESS, I AM
CURIOUS FOR MY FRIENDS AT CA,
WHAT IS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT?
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? BECAUSE
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BASED
ON. I'VE LIVED IN FIVE DIFFERENT
PLACES SINCE I FIRST RAN FOR
OFFICE HERE IN MY DISTRICT,
EVERY YEAR WE TEND TO MOVE WHEN
THE RENT GOES UP, USUALLY
FURTHER SOUTH, AND WE WERE
PASSED UP, I THINK FIVE TIMES.
WE PAID FIVE DIFFERENT FEES THIS
LAST TIME BEFORE WE GOT OUR
PLACE ON, ON CRENSHAW, MY FIANCE
AND I BOTH ALSO PAID APPLICANT
FEES, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S A, A,
TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY
WITH THE 700 CREDIT SCORE. I WAS
WONDERING WHY THEY NEEDED
ANYTHING FROM ME. I THOUGHT I
MADE UP MARRIED. MARRIED. GOOD.
BUT I'M WONDERING WHAT. WHAT?
CHOOSING THE FIRST QUALIFIED
APPLICANT MEANS. IF THERE'S SOME
DISCRETION IN WHAT A QUALIFYING
CREDIT SCORE OR CREDIT HISTORY
MEANS. ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE AN
INCOME OR A PERFECT RENTAL
HISTORY. FOR EXAMPLE, I'M JUST
WONDERING WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
IF WE WERE TO SAY, HEY, CHOOSE
THE FIRST QUALIFIED APPLICANT,
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL, FIRST
I WILL SAY I HAVEN'T MET YOUR
WIFE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE DID
MARRY UP, AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS
GENERALLY LANDLORDS, THE
LANDLORDS THAT WE REPRESENT,
OUTSTANDING LANDLORDS, THEY HAVE
OBJECTIVE CRITERIA. ONE OF THEM
IS, YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN SEE MAKE
THREE TIMES RENT. THEY WOULD
LIST WHAT THEIR CREDIT SCORE
REQUIREMENTS ARE IN THE
ADVERTISEMENT. THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S THAT'S A QUALIFIED
APPLICANT. AND WHAT WE MEAN BY
FIRST IN TIME IS THE FIRST
PERSON TO VIEW THE APARTMENT,
SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AND
THEY'RE QUALIFIED. THEY MEET
THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. THEY
WOULD BE SELECTED. GOTCHA. SO
THE SECOND PERSON THAT COMES
WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
THAT. CORRECT THAT MAKES A LOT
OF SENSE TO ME. I JUST I'VE
NEVER SEEN A CREDIT SCORE LISTED
ON AN APPLICATION. AND I DON'T
KNOW THAT I WANT TO EITHER.
RIGHT. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, I
MEAN, I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO
THROUGH THE THINGS THAT I DID AS
AN UNDERGRAD TO TRY TO MAKE ENDS
MEET AND WHAT THAT DID TO MY
CREDIT, THAT TOOK YEARS TO
REPAIR DESPITE A FLAWLESS RENTAL
HISTORY. AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT
UNCOMMON FOR THE 54% OF LOS
ANGELES OR THE 17 MILLION FOLKS
ACROSS THE STATE. I JUST WANT TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE MAKE THIS
ALL WORK, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO
SEEMS LIKE WE ALL AGREE ON SOME
OF THE PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES
HERE, AND I THINK I'M EXCITED
ABOUT AN AUTHOR THAT I KNOW CAN
CAN LAND THIS PLANE, SO TO
SPEAK. BUT I WAS CURIOUS WHAT
THAT MEANT, AND I APPRECIATE ALL
THAT YOU HAVE SHARED. YES, SIR,
MR. BRYANT, I ALSO WANT TO SHARE
A COUPLE THINGS, WE MAY SELECT
THE VERY FIRST QUALIFIED
APPLICANT, BUT THEY'VE MAYBE
APPLIED IN AN APARTMENT OR A
FOURPLEX RIGHT DOWN THE STREET.
SO SOMETIMES WE MAY SELECT THE
FIRST AND SECOND, AND WE MAY
WANT TO LIKE A BACKUP. IT
HAPPENS IN BUYING HOUSES, BUYING
CARS WHATEVER. AND SO WE WOULD
REQUEST THAT THAT TO BE INCLUDED
INTO THIS REALLY VERY IMPORTANT
EQUATION, THE CAA WITNESS TALKS
ABOUT THREE TIMES RENT THAT IS
WELL KNOWN IN LAW AS A RESULT OF
LONG STANDING APPELLATE COURT
CASE, MEMORIALIZING A THREE TIME
RENT TO BE, REASONABLE, AS WELL
AS THINGS HAPPEN ALL OF A
SUDDEN, I MAKING THIS INCOME.
BUT NOW I'VE LOST MY JOB OR DUE
TO HEALTH REASONS OR WHATEVER.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MANY
THINGS THAT GO INTO THE
EQUATION, SO THE FIRST PERSON
MAY NOT BE THE ACTUAL PERSON WHO
RENTS APARTMENT NUMBER THREE.
RIGHT AND I THINK THAT THAT
MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. I, I THINK
THERE'S A WAY TO LAND THIS, AND
I THINK I TRUST THE AUTHOR TO DO
THAT. AND I THINK THE CONCERN,
AT LEAST WITH THOSE RENTAL FEES,
IS, LIKE I SAID, I'VE LIVED IN
FIVE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS JUST
SINCE BEING IN OFFICE, AND IT'S
AN AVERAGE OF FIVE APPLICATIONS
PER YEAR. RIGHT? THERE'S 250,
$300 THAT WE DON'T GET BACK
EVERY YEAR. IT'S A NEW ANNUAL
EXPENSE, AND THAT, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT THAT
CAN BE MORE CHALLENGING FOR
FOLKS WHO ARE ALREADY SPENDING
HALF OF THEIR DISCRETIONARY
INCOME ON RENT JUST TO SURVIVE
TO BEGIN WITH. AND SO I THINK
THERE'S SOMETHING TO DO HERE.
BUT I'M GLAD EVERYBODY IS AT THE
TABLE. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU
BOTH SHARED, SIR. THANK YOU. AND
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR, FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD AND
FOR HAVING THESE IMPORTANT
CONVERSATIONS, I ALSO HAVE THE
SAME CONCERNS AS THE, APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION, YOU KNOW, I WORRY
ABOUT SMALL MOM AND POP
LANDLORDS AND ALL THEIR CONCERNS
ARE THE SAME EXACT CONCERNS THAT
I HAD, AND I APPRECIATE THAT
THAT YOU'VE TAKEN THE AUTHOR HAS
TAKEN, NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS, AND
I KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH WITH
OPPOSITION THÀNH, AND I'M GLAD
TO HEAR THAT THE OPPOSITION IS
AT THE TABLE AND DIALOG IS
HAPPENING. AND THAT WE'RE
PERFECTING THIS BILL. SO I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL TODAY,
AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
FINAL OUTCOME OF THIS BILL. AND
AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. THANK
YOU. MOVE THE BILL. IS THERE A
SECOND? THERE'S A MOTION IN A
SECOND. I WANT TO ALSO THANK THE
AUTHOR, AND I THINK, AS
INDICATED BY THE AMENDMENTS
ALREADY ACCEPTED, WHICH WERE
QUITE SIGNIFICANT, AND ADDRESS
SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF
OPPOSITION, I THINK THAT'S A
CLEAR SIGN THAT THERE'S NOT ONLY
MORE DIALOG. THAT WILL HAPPEN,
THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTIVE BASED
UPON HOW YOU APPROACH
LEGISLATION AND THE OPPOSITION
BEING AT THE TABLE, I THINK
YOU'VE IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE AND
YOU KNOW HOW TO FIND THAT PATH
FORWARD. THAT'S A SMOOTH PATH
FORWARD IS THE CHALLENGING PART,
BUT YOU'RE ALREADY ON YOUR WAY
THERE. AND I THINK THIS DIALOG
HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL, KIND OF
TO HAVE THIS OPEN DIALOG ON WHAT
THE, THE ISSUE IS. AND, LOOK,
YOU KNOW, SOMEONE, AS I
MENTIONED BEFORE, THAT HAS
EXPERIENCE IS, YOU KNOW, ON BOTH
SIDES OF THIS AS A WITH MY
FAMILY, WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE
WHEN WE EVEN WHEN WE SAY SMALL
MOM AND POP LANDLORDS, THEY'RE
STILL IN A FAR GREATER
LEVERAGING POSITION, LEVERAGE
POSITION THAN A TENANT THAT IS
STRUGGLING TO FIND A PLACE TO
LIVE. AND SO I'M LESS CONCERNED
PERSONALLY ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY
THE SMALL MOM AND POP LENDER MAY
BE OUT AS TO THE PROCEDURAL
ASPECT OF IT, WHICH CAN BE
CHALLENGING, LIKE TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY
MANEUVER, THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND SO I THINK THAT AS THE
CONVERSATIONS GO FORWARD, THAT,
IN MY OPINION AT LEAST, SHOULD
BE KIND OF THE FOCUS, LIKE, HOW
DO WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT BOTH
THE TENANT AND LANDLORD CAN
UNDERSTAND? THAT'S CLEAR AND
THAT'S FAIR. BUT DOESN'T, YOU
KNOW, THAT CONTINUES TO
RECOGNIZE THE CHALLENGES THAT
TENANTS FACE EVERY SINGLE DAY IN
OUR STATE. AND SO FOR THAT, I
JUST WANT TO SHOW MY
APPRECIATION TO YOU. AND WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION. AND, YOU KNOW, YOU
HAVE MY COMMITMENT. I WILL
CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION NOT JUST
FOR THE COMMITMENT TO MY
COLLEAGUES, BUT COMMITMENT TO
OPPOSITION. BOTH, YOU KNOW, AS
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND THOSE WHO
DID THE ME TWO STATEMENTS IN THE
BACK. AND, WE'RE ALL COMMITTED.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT
THIS ISSUE, WHO DO WORK IN THIS
SPACE CONTINUALLY. THIS IS TOP
OF MIND FOR THEM. AND SO I KNOW
WE'LL FIND A WAY WHERE EVERYBODY
CAN, FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A GOOD
PLACE. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
THANK YOU. TAKE A ROLL CALL ON
THE VOTE, PLEASE. MOTIONS DO
PASS, AS AMENDED. CHOLERA I
CHOLERA I. DIXON BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN I BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANY
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA I MCKENNA I
PACHECO I PACHECO I REYES
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NØ. WALDRON.
OKAY. SO THAT BILL WILL BE
PLACED ON CALL. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. CAN I HAVE A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, PLEASE? SO
MOVED. SECOND, A MOTION AND A
SECOND. WE TAKE A ROLL CALL,
VOTE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
PLEASE CONSENT CALENDAR IS AB
1785. PACHECO, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB 1900 WEBER DO
PASS, AS AMENDED AB 2929 ONE
CARILLO DO PASS. HUMAN SERVICES
AB 3072 PETRIE-NORRIS DO PASS AB
3083 LACKEY DO AMENDED TO PUBLIC
SAFETY AND AB 3280 JUDICIARY DO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL FOR
A CALL T I DIXON, BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER KHN I BRIAN. BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONLEY I. HANEY,
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA. PACHECO.
PACHECO I REYES. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ I WALDRON. YEAH SO I'LL
MOVE IT. OKAY. A MOTION AND A
SECOND. 1815 DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. THIS IS AB 1815.
CALL FOR A CALL. AYE. DIXON
BAUER KHN BAUER. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN. BRIAN. AYE. CONNOLLY
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA. PACHECO
AYE. PACHECO. AYE. REYES.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE WALDRON.
WE'LL COME BACK ON. CALL UP NEXT
IS SOME REWARD. NEXT. AND WE'LL
START WITH, ITEM TWO, AB 12,
1979, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YES,
TWO BILLS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE
THIS MORNING, BOTH OF WHICH ARE
CENTRALLY MEANT TO BE ABLE TO
PROTECT VICTIMS. AND SO AB 1979
IS FIRST UP, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR
ALL THE HELPFUL WORK WITH MY
OFFICE. AND I'LL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH
ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE,
PRESENTING AB 1979 THE DOXING
VICTIMS RECOURSE ACT, WHICH IS
JOINT AUTHORED WITH ASSEMBLY
MAJORITY LEADER AGUIAR-CURRY.
THIS BILL PROVIDES RELIEF AND
SUPPORT FOR VICTIMS WHO HAVE
BEEN HARMED AS A RESULT OF BEING
DOXED BY ALLOWING THEM TO PURSUE
CIVIL ACTION TO RECEIVE
RESTITUTION FOR THE HARMS THAT
THEY ENDURED. DOXING, AS SOME OF
YOU KNOW, IS A HARASSMENT TACTIC
THAT OCCURS WHEN A PERSON
RELEASES ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL'S
PRIVATE PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT, WITH THE INTENT TO
CAUSE THAT PERSON HARM. IT'S
ALREADY DEFINED IN LAW UNDER
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 650 3.2
THE CRIME OF DOXING IS A
MISDEMEANOR. HOWEVER, IN ORDER
FOR AN OFFENDER OF DOXING TO BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE, AN ARREST MUST
FIRST BE MADE AND A PROSECUTOR
MUST PURSUE THE CASE THROUGH THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM. BUT IN
THE CIVIL CODE, PROTECTIONS AND
RECOURSE IS ABSENT. A VICTIM OF
DOXING IS LEFT TO WORK THROUGH
EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL, FINANCIAL
AND OTHER DAMAGES WITHOUT BEING
MADE WHOLE FOR THE HARMS THAT
THEY HAVE INCURRED. AS HATE AND
EXTREMISM CONTINUES TO INCREASE
IN OUR NATION, PEOPLE FACE A
HEIGHTENED RISK OF BEING DOXED.
THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE'S
2022 ONLINE HATE AND HARASSMENT
REPORT SHOW THAT OF THOSE WHO
EXPERIENCED SEVERE ONLINE
HARASSMENT, SUCH AS DOXING, 65%
WERE HATE BASED, WHICH ARE
ATTACKS OR ABUSE OF PEOPLE BASED
ON THEIR CIVIL PROTECTED
IDENTITY STATUS, SUCH AS THEIR
RELIGION, NATIONALITY, GENDER,
SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR OTHER
CHARACTERISTIC. WITH HATE BASED
THREATS AND ATTACKS EVOLVING
ALONGSIDE ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY
SUCH AS THROUGH THE EMERGENCE OF
NEW SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, THE
RISK OF MALICIOUS ACTS SUCH AS
DOXING ARE HEIGHTENED. AB 1979
PROVIDES A DOXING VICTIM AN
AVENUE TO BE MADE WHOLE VIA
RESTITUTION FOR THE HARMS THAT
THEY ENDURED DUE TO THE ACTIONS
OF THE OFFENDER, THUS ALLOWING
THE VICTIMS SUPPORT TO GET THEIR
LIVES BACK ON TRACK WITH ME TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL
ARE OUR CO-SPONSORS TERESA
DRENIK, DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR
OF THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE,
AND KATHY MALIG. ON BEHALF OF
TRANS FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES
AND TRANS YOUTH LIBERATION,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS TERESA
DRENIK, AND I'M THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, FOR THE
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE AND THE
CENTRAL PACIFIC REGION, WHICH
WORKS WITH THE NORTHERN TWO
THIRDS OF CALIFORNIA, THE ADL,
FOUNDED IN 1913, IN RESPONSE TO
AN ESCALATING CLIMATE OF
ANTI-SEMITISM AND BIGOTRY. WE'VE
NOW BECOME A LEADING ANTI HATE
ORGANIZATION NATIONALLY AS WE
WORK TO FULFILL OUR FOUNDING
MISSION, WHICH IS TO SECURE
JUSTICE AND FAIR TREATMENT FOR
ALL. OUR FINAL GOAL IS A WORLD
IN WHICH NO INDIVIDUAL AND NO
GROUP SUFFERS FROM BIAS,
DISCRIMINATION OR HATE. AS WE
KNOW, OUR LAWS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH
THE HATE AND HARASSMENT THAT
USERS EXPERIENCE ONLINE. THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR SUCH OFFENSES
MUST BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION, THE SERIOUS AND
LASTING EFFECTS OF ONLINE HATE
AND HARASSMENT. ONE OF THE MOST
COMMON TACTICS THAT WE SEE OF
THIS TYPE OF HARASSMENT IS
DOXING, MEANING THE PUBLIC
SHAMING OF AN INNOCENT SHARING.
EXCUSE ME? THE PUBLIC SHARING OF
AN INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL
INFORMATION WITH THE INTENT THAT
THAT INFORMATION BE USED AGAINST
THE TARGET FOR AN UNLAWFUL
PURPOSE, THE GROWTH OF ONLINE
HATE AND HARASSMENT TARGETING
MARGINALIZED GROUPS IS A GROWING
TREND THAT DESERVES ACTION BY
POLICYMAKERS ACROSS ADDING TO
OUR OWN STUDY. FROM 2023, 52% OF
AMERICANS EXPERIENCED SOME FORM
OF HATE OR HARASSMENT ONLINE. OF
THOSE INDIVIDUALS WE SURVEYED
WHO EXPERIENCED ANY TYPE OF THIS
HARASSMENT, 47% OF THOSE WHO
IDENTIFY AS LGBTQ PLUS
EXPERIENCED HATE AND HARASSMENT
IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS ONLINE,
DUE TO THEIR IDENTITY. THIS IS
VERY CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY MEMBERS
OF ADDITIONAL MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES, WITH OVER 30% OF
THOSE INDIVIDUALS REPORTING HATE
AND HARASSMENT ONLINE,
CALIFORNIA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE A LEADER AND TO TAKE
STRONG, CONCRETE ACTION IN
ADDRESSING THE RISE OF DOXING BY
PASSING AB 1979. DOXING MUST BE
CODIFIED INTO THE CALIFORNIA
STATE LAW SO WE CAN PROTECT
TARGETS AND HOLD PERPETRATORS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR MALICIOUS
AND RECKLESS ACTIONS. THIS BILL
IS AN EXCELLENT FIRST STEP IN
ADDRESSING ONLINE HATE AND
PROTECTING MARGINAL COMMUNITIES,
BRINGING FORWARD LANGUAGE THAT
ENSURES THAT THE BILL WOULD NOT
ONLY ADDRESS THE THREAT OF
DOXING, BUT ALSO IS CAUTIOUS IN
PROTECTING FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND
ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KATHY
MOORLACH. SHE HER MY PRONOUNS
AND I APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY
NOT ONLY AS AN ADVOCATE, BUT
ALSO A SURVIVOR OF A DEEPLY
DISTURBING ACT THAT NOT ONLY
ENDANGERED MY SAFETY, BUT ALSO
THAT OF MY FAMILY. AS THE
FOUNDER OF TRANS FAMILY SUPPORT
SERVICES, I'VE DEDICATED MYSELF
TO CHAMPIONING THE WELL-BEING OF
TRANSGENDER YOUTH AND THEIR
FAMILIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA. I
WAS THRUST INTO THE REALM OF
VICTIMHOOD THROUGH DOXXING, AN
INSIDIOUS PRACTICE THAT EXPOSED
MY PERSONAL INFORMATION TO THE
DARKEST CORNERS OF THE INTERNET.
SUDDENLY, MY FAMILY AND I FOUND
OURSELVES LIVING UNDER THE
SHADOW OF FEAR, UNSURE, UNSURE
OF WHAT DANGERS LURKED AROUND
EACH DIGITAL CORNER. THE VERY
WORK I'VE POURED MY HEART AND
SOUL INTO HAS MADE ME A TARGET
OF HATE. HOWEVER, MY STORY IS
NOT UNIQUE. EVERY DAY, COUNTLESS
INDIVIDUALS, PARTICULARLY THOSE
FROM MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES
LIKE THE TRANS POPULATION, FACE
SIMILAR THREATS TO THEIR SAFETY
AND WELL-BEING. WE, WITH THE
TROUBLING RISE OF EXTREMISM AND
HATE IN OUR NATION, INDIVIDUALS
ARE INCREASINGLY VULNERABLE TO
BECOMING TARGETS OF DOXXING. THE
PROLIFERATION OF ONLINE
HARASSMENT AND THE SPREAD OF
HATEFUL RHETORIC HAS FOSTERED A
CLIMATE OF FEAR THAT ERODES THE
FOUNDATION OF OUR SOCIETY. WHEN
SOMEONE FALLS VICTIM TO DOXING,
THEY NOT ONLY ENDURE THE
IMMEDIATE IMPACTS OF THESE
HARMS, BUT ARE ALSO LEFT FEELING
AS THOUGH THERE ARE LIMITED
RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO HOLD THE
PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE. THIS
IS WHY I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS
MY SUPPORT FOR AB 1979. THIS
LEGISLATION IS NOT MERELY A
SYMBOLIC GESTURE, IT'S A BEACON
OF HOPE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
SILENCED BY FEAR, BY
ESTABLISHING MECHANISMS TO HOLD
DOXING PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE,
AND OFFERING RECOURSE TO
VICTIMS. THIS BILL SENDS A
RESOUNDING MESSAGE THAT HATE AND
INTOLERANCE HAVE NO PLACE IN OUR
DIGITAL LANDSCAPE. HOWEVER LET
US NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE HUMAN
TOLL BEHIND THE STATISTICS AND
THE LEGISLATIVE BATTLES. I HAVE
EXPERIENCED FIRSTHAND THE
CHILLING EFFECTS OF DOXXING,
ENDURING SLEEPLESS NIGHTS,
ANXIETY, AND AN OVERWHELMING
SENSE OF VULNERABILITY. YET I
REFUSE TO BE SILENCED BY FEAR.
TOGETHER, WE MUST STAND IN
SOLIDARITY AGAINST ONLINE
HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION.
WE MUST ENSURE THAT EVERY
INDIVIDUAL, REGARDLESS OF GENDER
IDENTITY OR ANY OTHER PROTECTED
CHARACTERISTIC, CAN LIVE FREE
FROM THE SPECTER OF DOXING AND
TARGETED ATTACKS. I IMPLORE YOU
TO PRIORITIZE THE PASSAGE OF AB
1979, AND TO HEED THE VOICES OF
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SILENCED BY
FEAR. LET US UNITE TO FORGE A
SAFER, MORE INCLUSIVE ONLINE
ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS
IN CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 1979? CRAIG
PULSIPHER ON BEHALF OF EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS ROSS BUCKLEY
ON BEHALF OF SACRAMENTO MAYOR
DARRELL STEINBERG AND SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. SAN DIEGO CITY
ATTORNEY MARA ELLIOTT AS THE
CITY'S PROSECUTOR AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
1979? BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS, MOTIONS? WE HAVE A
MOTION. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. SENATOR WARD,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I KNOW YOU HAVE A
COUPLE OF BILLS THAT ARE
FOCUSING ON ON THE PROTECTION OF
OUR COMMUNITY, AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, I APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THIS. I THINK
AS WE ARE SEEING ACTIVITY
CONTINUE TO EVOLVE OUT THERE AND
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
RESPOND TO OUR COMMITMENT TO
MAKE SURE THAT HATE HAS NO PLACE
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
VICTIMS RIGHTS AND HOPEFULLY
PROVIDE MORE DETERRENCE FROM
THESE ACTIONS HAPPENING IN THE
FIRST PLACE. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. ROLL CALL ON THE
VOTE. MOTIONS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL,
I CALL I DIXON BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN, BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONLEY I HANEY,
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA I MCKINNON I
PACHECO I PACHECO I REYES
SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING. WALDRON
OKAY, WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU. MR. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. AND UP NEXT, A FILE ITEM
SEVEN AB 3024. WHEN THE MOTION.
SECOND AND A SECOND. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS, FOR THE
QUICK MOTION I'LL BE BRIEF,
FIRST, I WANTED TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS
BILL AND ACCEPT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, LAST
YEAR HAD THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF
REPORTED HATE INCIDENCES IN THE
UNITED STATES SINCE 1979. THIS
INCLUDES A STAGGERING 38% RISE
IN HATE MOTIVATED PROPAGANDA
EFFORTS, INCLUDING HATE
LITTERING IN THE FORM OF RACIST,
ANTI-SEMITIC AND ANTI LGBTQ
PLACE FLIERS. FLIERS PLACED
DIRECTLY ON A VICTIM'S PERSONAL
PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO MAKE
THEM FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY. THIS
IS ENCOURAGING NEIGHBORS TO HATE
THEIR NEIGHBORS. THIS IS
ENCOURAGING, TO THE VICTIMS TO
TELL THEM, I KNOW WHERE YOU
LIVE. THIS HAS A CHILLING EFFECT
. THIS IS RAPIDLY BECOME A
PREFERRED TACTIC BY HATE GROUPS
BECAUSE IT IS EFFECTIVE, IT
ALLOWS FOR INCREASED PERSONAL
IMPACT, AND IT EXISTS IN A LEGAL
GRAY AREA, MAKING IT EXTREMELY
HARD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
PROSECUTE. NOW, WE DO HAVE SOME
OF THE STRONGEST HATE CRIME
STATUTES IN THE COUNTRY, BUT
THESE ACTIVITIES OFTEN DO NOT
RISE TO THE LEVEL OF HATE CRIMES
OR TRIGGER CALIFORNIA'S
ANTI-HATE PROHIBITIONS ON
ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CROSS
BURNING. AS A STATE, WE MUST
RECOGNIZE THAT THESE MATERIALS
ARE NOT JUST PIECES OF PAPER OR
MERELY AN EXPRESSION OF SPEECH.
THESE ARE DIRECT THREATS PLACED
ON THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF
TARGETED COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND
THEIR NEIGHBORS. WITH THE
INTENTION TO TERRORIZE, HARASS,
INTIMIDATE, HARM, AND DEHUMANIZE
THEM. AB 3024 BEFORE YOU WILL
MAKE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO
EXISTING LAW BY STRENGTHENING
THE RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1976 TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS ARE
PROVIDED ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS
AGAINST HATE LITTERING AND
CREATE NEW LEGAL TOOLS TO HOLD
OFFENDERS ACCOUNTABLE, THE RALPH
ACT STATES THAT ALL CALIFORNIANS
HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE FREE FROM
VIOLENCE OR THE INTIMIDATION BY
THREAT OF VIOLENCE, AND THIS
BILL SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIES THAT
THE DEFINITION OF INTIMIDATION
BY THREAT OF VIOLENCE INCLUDES
THE DISTRIBUTION OF HATEFUL
MATERIALS WITH THE INTENT TO
TERRORIZE, IS VIOLATIONS OF THE
RALPH ACT OFFER CIVIL PENALTY
FOR RELIEF FOR THOSE THAT ARE
HARMED, AND A STRONG DETERRENCE
FOR OFFENDERS TO CONSIDER IN THE
FIRST PLACE. FOR WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. I AGAIN HAVE, TERESA
DRENIK, THE DEPUTY REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF THE ADL CENTRAL
PACIFIC AND MY CITY ATTORNEY
FROM CITY OF SAN DIEGO, MAURA
ELLIOTT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
MORNING AGAIN, I'M AGAIN TERESA
DRENIK FROM THE ANTI-DEFAMATION
LEAGUE. ADL'S WORK TODAY IS MORE
IMPORTANT THAN EVER IN COMBATING
HATE AND BIGOTRY, AS WE HAVE
SEEN A PRECIPITOUS RISE IN HATE
ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
ACCORDING TO OUR CENTER ON
EXTREMISM, THE ORGANIZATIONAL
TRACKING, OUR ORGANIZATION HAS
TRACKED A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE
IN WHITE SUPREMACIST PROPAGANDA
EFFORTS IN 2023. THESE INCLUDED
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THREATENING
RACIST, ANTI-SEMITIC AND
ANTI-LGBTQ+ MESSAGING. THE STUDY
FOUND THAT ANTI-SEMITIC
PROPAGANDA INCREASED BY 30% IN
2023 ACROSS THE COUNTRY. MUCH OF
THAT OCCURRED HERE IN THE GOLDEN
STATE LAST YEAR. FLIERS WITH
HORRIFIC ANTI-SEMITIC AND
ANTI-LGBTQ+ MESSAGES WERE
DISTRIBUTED IN THE DARK OF
NIGHT, ATTACKING NOT ONLY THE
VALUES THAT WE HOLD AS A
COMMUNITY, BUT THREATENING THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. WE MUST ALL DO WHAT
WE CAN TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS
EXTREMIST ACTIVITY AND CONDUCT
THAT SEEKS TO HAVE OUR
COMMUNITIES LIVE IN FEAR OF HATE
AND IN FEAR OF POTENTIAL
VIOLENCE. AB 3024 WILL MAKE THE
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO
EXISTING LAW BY STRENGTHENING
THE RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1976 TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS ARE
PROVIDED ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS
AGAINST THE TACTICS THAT WE ARE
SEEING WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF
THESE MATERIALS, WHILE CREATING
NEW LEGAL TOOLS TO DETER THE
TERRORIZING ACTIVITY AND HOLDING
ACCOUNTABLE THOSE WHO PERPETRATE
THIS AWFUL AND QUITE FRANKLY,
TERRORIZING ACTIVITY, WE ARE
ONCE AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN GRATEFUL
TO THE WORK OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WARD TO ENSURE THAT OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE WELCOMING AND,
MOST IMPORTANTLY, SAFE PLACES IN
WHICH EVERYBODY CAN LIVE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
I'M SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY MARA
ELLIOTT. I'M ALSO THE ELECTED
CITY PROSECUTOR, AND I AM PROUD
TO CO-SPONSOR THE STOP HATE
LITTERING ACT WITH ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WARD. THIS LEGISLATION
MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR TO
PEDDLERS OF HATE THAT
THREATENING MATERIALS ARE NOT
JUST PIECES OF PAPER
DISTRIBUTING HATE FLIERS WITH
THE INTENT TO INTIMIDATE AND
DEHUMANIZE PEOPLE IS
UNACCEPTABLE, AND UNDER THIS
BILL, UNLAWFUL. THIS BILL MAKES
CLEAR THAT FREE SPEECH ISN'T A
FREE PASS TO TERRORIZE OUR
COMMUNITIES. AS IN SAN DIEGO,
THIS STRUGGLE STARTED WITH THE
COWARDLY DISTRIBUTION OF FLIERS
DESIGNED TO TERRORIZE OUR JEWISH
NEIGHBORS AND DIVIDE OUR CITY.
WE SAW THAT AGAIN WHEN THESE
HATEFUL GROUPS ALSO TARGETED OUR
LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY. THIS
PROBLEM ISN'T LIMITED TO SAN
DIEGO. IT IS A STATEWIDE ISSUE
DESERVING OF A UNIFIED STATEWIDE
RESPONSE. THIS BILL WILL MAKE
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
EXISTING LAW BY STRENGTHENING
THE RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1976 TO ENSURE VICTIMS ARE
PROVIDED ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS
AGAINST HATE LITTERING, AND TO
CREATE NEW TOOLS AND LEGAL TOOLS
TO DETER TERRORIZING ACTIVITY
AND HOLD OFFENDERS ACCOUNTABLE.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR YES
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND,
SENATOR WARD, YOU ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. I DID.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST YOU
PROBABLY SAID IT, BUT JUST TO
CLARIFY CLARITY, YES, IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 3024? GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I'M MOIRA, TOP HERE
ON BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO MAYOR
TODD GLORIA. COUNCIL MEMBER RAUL
CAMPILLO, AND THE FULL CITY OF
SAN DIEGO. WE'RE CO-SPONSORS OF
THE MEASURE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. KATHY MOORLACH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TRANS
YOUTH LIBERATION AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3024? WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE SOME
B¢O KHN. ASSEMBLYMEMBER WARD, I
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS.
A FEW YEARS AGO, I GOT BACK TO
MY CAR WITH MY YOUNG CHILDREN.
MY SON WAS RUNNING AHEAD OF ME
AND SAID, MOM, LOOK, SOMEONE
LEFT SOMETHING ON OUR CAR AND
THERE WERE SWASTIKAS ALL OVER
OUR CAR. AND AS THE
GRANDDAUGHTER OF HOLOCAUST
SURVIVORS, WHO'S RAISED MY
CHILDREN TO UNDERSTAND OUR
HISTORY, RIGHT, I MEAN, IT'S
PERSONALLY PAINFUL. BUT I THINK
MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT YOU'RE
DOING HERE IS SO CRITICAL
BECAUSE WE ARE AT A MOMENT IN
TIME. AND WHAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED
HERE WAS MANY OF THE GROUPS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA NHÀ,
ANTI-ASIAN HATE, ANTI-BLACK
HATE, LGBTQ PLUS HATE,
ANTI-SEMITISM THAT IS ON THE
RISE AND THE PROPAGANDA THAT IS
SPREAD TO TRY TO GET COMMUNITIES
TO HATE THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE
PART OF THESE MINORITY GROUPS.
SOMETIMES IT WORKS. RIGHT. AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT THE HOLOCAUST
TAUGHT US. AND WITH SO MANY
CHAPTERS IN OUR HISTORY HAVE
TAUGHT US. AND SO IT IS SO
INCUMBENT UPON US AS GOVERNMENT
TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO STOP
THE SPREAD OF SUCH PROPAGANDA,
TO INSTEAD TEACH OUR COMMUNITIES
TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER RATHER THAN
TO HATE ONE ANOTHER. AND SO I
JUST REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU,
BECAUSE WE DO NEED EVERY TOOL IN
OUR TOOLBOX TO DO THIS. AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU, K¾T TRÊN
ELLIOTT, FOR YOUR WORK ON THE
GROUND DOING THIS. AND TO ALL
THE OTHER FOLKS IN GOVERNMENT UP
AND DOWN THE STATE ENFORCING
THESE LAWS. THANK YOU, SENATOR
MCKINNEY. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HIS WORK ON
WHAT HE'S DOING, AND I WOULD
LIKE TO BE A COAUTHOR. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MISS MCKENNA.
ANYONE ELSE? WE DO HAVE A
MOTION. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE AUTHOR. AS, AS A
WITNESS INDICATED, THERE IS NOT
LIMITED TO SAN DIEGO, BUT IT'S
GREAT TO SEE SOME REWARD. AND
CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOTT, MAYOR
GLORIA AND THE SAN DIEGO
CONTINGENT TAKING THE LEAD ON
THIS, BECAUSE IT IS A STATEWIDE
ISSUE. BUT YOU DEFINITELY NEED A
COMMUNITY TO REALLY PUSH FORWARD
LEGISLATION LIKE THIS. AND IT'S
GREAT TO SEE ALL OF YOU WORKING
TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN,
AND TO REALLY HAVE ALL OF US AS
A STATE, RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR
THESE KINDS OF PROTECTIONS. BUT
THAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ON THAT
POINT, YES. I THINK LAST YEAR,
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO THAT WE'RE
AWARE OF, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE
REPORTED THIS, NEIGHBORS HAVE
SAID, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF
FLIERS EIGHT TIMES OVER OVER THE
COURSE OF THE YEAR IN ONE
TARGETED NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS A
HIGH DENSITY OF JEWISH
HOUSEHOLDS AND, OF COURSE, OUR
LGBT HISTORIC COMMUNITY AS WELL,
HAS BEEN OFFENDED. BUT NOT JUST
SAN DIEGO INCIDENCES IN THE LOS
ANGELES REGION, BAY AREA,
PARTICULARLY IN THE SAN MATEO
AREA, JUST LAST MONTH, FRESNO,
THE CITY OF FRESNO HAD REPORTS.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING OF
STATEWIDE CONCERN. DEEPLY
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S WORK
ON THIS AND YOUR RESPECTFUL
CONSIDERATION AND WOULD ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE THANK YOU. MADAM
SECRETARY WILL TAKE ROLL CALL ON
THE VOTE FOR AB 3024 MOTIONS DO
PASS AS AMENDED. CALLER I,
CALLER I, DIXON VOTING B¢O KHN
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN I BRIAN I
CONNELLY. CONNELLY I HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKINNON. MCKINNON
I PACHECO. I PACHECO I REYES.
SANCHEZ WALDRON. ALL RIGHT,
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ASSEMBLYMEMBER
GABRIEL. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND HERE. ON THIS ONE. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. OF COURSE. THANK YOU,
I GOT THE MESSAGE, SO. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. VERY
MUCH. APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HERE, FIRST, LET ME JUST
SAY THANK YOU TO YOU AND YOUR
STAFF FOR THE VERY HELPFUL
FEEDBACK AND THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK
ON THE AMENDMENTS THAT I THINK
MAKE THE BILL STRONGER. PLEASE
TODAY TO PRESENT AB 2505, WHICH
REQUIRE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA
TO REPORT WHETHER OR NOT THEY
PROVIDED ANY PRO BONO LEGAL
SERVICES IN THE PRIOR YEAR. I
THINK THOSE OF US THAT HAVE
PRACTICE KNOW THAT PRO BONO IS
AN INCREDIBLY POWERFUL TOOL TO
ADVANCE JUSTICE, PARTICULARLY
FOR LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS. AND
UNFORTUNATELY, ALL OF THE DATA
FROM THE STATE BAR HAS SHOWN US
THAT CALIFORNIA HAS FALLEN
BEHIND OTHER STATES IN EXPANDING
ACCESS TO JUSTICE. WE KNOW THAT
MANY OTHER STATES HAVE ALREADY
ESTABLISHED REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR A PRO BONO
HOURS. FLORIDA WAS ACTUALLY THE
FIRST STATE TO DO IT IN 1993,
AND SINCE THEN ILLINOIS,
INDIANA, MISSISSIPPI, NEVADA,
NEW YORK, AND NUMEROUS OTHER
STATES HAVE JOINED THEM. I WILL
NOTE THOSE ARE RED STATES, BLUE
STATES, PURPLE STATES,
EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION HAS FOUND THAT CAN
ACTUALLY INCREASE THE DELIVERY
OF LEGAL SERVICES TO INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUALS IN NEED AND IMPROVE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE. AND SO, JUST
TO BE CLEAR, THE REPORTING HERE
IS CONFIDENTIAL AND THERE WOULD
BE NO PENALTY FOR FAILING TO
REPORT OR FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE
ANY PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES. BUT
WHAT THIS WILL DO IS PROVIDE US
THE BAR, THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE
COMMISSION AND LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDERS WITH HELPFUL
INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN
DESIGN BETTER POLICY SOLUTIONS
HERE. THIS PROPOSAL WAS
DEVELOPED IN CLOSE COORDINATION
WITH THE STATE BAR AND WITH
ATTORNEYS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.
IT'S SUPPORTED BY THE ACCESS TO
JUSTICE COMMISSION AND NUMEROUS
OF THE INCREDIBLY HIGHLY
REGARDED LEGAL SERVICE
NONPROFITS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. AND IT HAS NO
OPPOSITION. SO WITH ME HERE
TODAY, I HAVE JENNY GÓMEZ
HADDAD, THE PRO BONO MANAGER AT
LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, AND SAU WATTISHAM,
SENIOR POLICY ADVOCATE AT
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA,
WHO CAN SPEAK MORE. THANK YOU
AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN IBO.
THANK YOU UP TO TWO MINUTES
EACH. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
CHAIRMAN CHOLERA AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JENNY
GÓMEZ HADDAD AND I AM THE PRO
BONO MANAGER AT LEGAL SERVICES
OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. OR
LESNICK. I'M ALSO A FORMER BOARD
MEMBER OF THE LEGAL LEGAL AID
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, OR
LACK THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL ON
BEHALF OF LESNIK, LACK AND THE
LEGAL AID COMMUNITY. I SUPPORT
AB 2505 AS A PRACTICING LEGAL
AID ATTORNEY FOR MORE THAN A
DECADE, I KNOW FIRSTHAND THAT
LEGAL AID PROVIDERS ARE
OVERBURDENED. WE ONLY ARE ABLE
TO PROVIDE A FRACTION OF THE
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WHO
NEED HELP DUE TO THE LIMITED
STAFFING RESOURCES, WE RELY
HEAVILY ON PRO BONO ATTORNEYS
AND OTHER VOLUNTEERS IN ORDER TO
BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR
CLIENT COMMUNITIES. I WILL NEVER
FORGET THE CRUCIAL ROLE PRO BONO
ATTORNEYS PLAYED IN THE
AFTERMATH OF THE DEVASTATING
PARADISE CAMP FIRE. LOCATED IN
OUR SERVICE AREA, WHILE STAFF
FROM ALL EIGHT OF OUR OFFICES
WORKED OVERTIME TO ASSIST
SURVIVORS, IT WAS SIMPLY NOT
ENOUGH. THE PRO BONO ATTORNEYS
JUMPED INTO ACTION, PROVIDING
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS PRESENTATIONS,
ATTENDING CLINICS AND TAKING ON
LIMITED AND FULL SCOPE CASES
WHERE LISTENING DID NOT HAVE THE
CAPACITY OR EXPERTISE. WHILE
LEGAL AID ORGANIZATIONS LIKE
MINE OFTEN EXPRESS OUR
APPRECIATION TO PRO BONO
ATTORNEYS, THE PROPOSED PRO BONO
REPORTING REQUIREMENT WILL DO
MORE. IT WILL ENCOURAGE PRO BONO
ATTORNEYS TO MEANINGFULLY ASSIST
LEGAL AID PROVIDERS LIKE LESNIK,
AND THE ATTORNEYS CAN FEEL GOOD
ABOUT THE HOURS THEY'VE DONATED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS WILL PRODUCE DATA
THAT CAN HIGHLIGHT PRO BONO GAPS
AND OPPORTUNITIES, LEADING TO
ENLIGHTENED CONVERSATIONS AROUND
EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR JUSTICE FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS. AS YOU KNOW,
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS ARE
CONCENTRATED IN THE STATE'S
URBAN CENTERS IN RURAL AREAS OF
THE STATE THAT EXPERIENCE HIGH
POVERTY RATES. LEGAL AID
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE MINE HAVE
TRADITIONALLY HAD LESS ACCESS TO
PRO BONO HELP. AS A RURAL
SERVICE PROVIDER, I LOOK FORWARD
TO THE DATA THAT WILL COME FROM
MANDATORY REPORTING AND I'M
HOPEFUL THAT IT CAN INFORM OUR
OUTREACH EFFORTS TO ATTORNEYS
STATEWIDE ABOUT THE EASE OF
REMOTE ACCESS ASSISTANCE AND THE
BENEFITS OF OFFERING PRO BONO
SERVICES TO INDIGENT CLIENTS
ACROSS THE STATE. FINALLY, I
APPRECIATE THAT THIS BILL
PROVIDES A POSITIVE INCENTIVE TO
ENGAGE IN PRO BONO WORK WITHOUT
MANDATING ATTORNEYS TO DO SO.
THE LEGAL AID COMMUNITY
ACKNOWLEDGES THE PRO BONO WORK
IS NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION TO
CALIFORNIA'S JUSTICE GAP, BUT
IT'S DEFINITELY A CENTRAL PART
OF THE SOLUTION. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. SO WHITE
C¢M ON BEHALF OF DISABILITY
RIGHTS CALIFORNIA. AND WE ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL
2505. I WANT TO SHARE THAT DRC
WORKS WITH LAW FIRMS, ATTORNEYS
AND OTHERS WHO PROVIDE PRO BONO
DISABILITY, CIVIL AND SERVICE
RIGHTS MATTERS. OUR WORK WOULD
NOT BE POSSIBLE IF IT WERE NOT
FOR THE GENEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS
OF MANY VOLUNTEERS AND PRO BONO
COUNSEL TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR
CLIENT COMMUNITIES, I WANT TO
ALSO NOTE THAT THE COVID
PANDEMIC REALLY HAD A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PRO BONO
WORK. THOSE WILLING TO PROVIDE
IT, WE BELIEVE THAT ASSEMBLY
BILL 2505 REALLY GOES A LONG WAY
TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO THESE
CRITICAL SERVICES THAT THE MOST
VULNERABLE OF US DEPEND ON, ALSO
WANT TO NOTE THAT MANY DISABLED
PEOPLE, FIND STRUGGLE
FINANCIALLY AND ARE NOT ABLE TO
AFFORD THE COST OF LEGAL
REPRESENTATION. AND SO THIS BILL
IS CRITICAL. PRO BONO LEGAL
SERVICES ENSURE THAT DISABLED
PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO GET THE
SERVICES AND ADVOCACY THAT THEY
NEED WITHOUT TAKING AWAY FROM
THEIR DAILY NEEDS. AND LASTLY, I
JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT
CALIFORNIA REALLY DOES HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE A LEADER, ON
THIS ISSUE, TO PROVIDE TO ENSURE
ACCESS TO CRITICAL LEGAL
SERVICES, AGAIN, THAT ARE MOST
VULNERABLE REALLY SHOULD HAVE
ACCESS TO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2505? I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SENATOR BAUER-KAHAN, I WANT TO
THANK THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. I RAN MY
OFFICE AS PRO BONO PROGRAM IN
SAN FRANCISCO FOR MANY YEARS,
AND IT WAS ONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS
OF MY CAREER WAS PEOPLE'S FACES.
WHEN YOU GOT TO TELL THEM THEY
WERE GOING TO GET MEANINGFUL
ACCESS TO JUSTICE, BECAUSE
WITHOUT COUNSEL, WE KNOW OUR
SYSTEM IS REALLY HARD TO
NAVIGATE, AND IT WAS INTERESTING
TO HEAR YOU TALK ABOUT THE WAY
THE PANDEMIC HURT ACCESS TO PRO
BONO SERVICES. WHEN I THINK WE
HAVE SO MUCH TO LEARN FROM THE
WAY WE PROVIDED ACCESS IN WAYS
THAT MADE IT EASIER. AND I KNOW
BEING A SAN FRANCISCO LAWYER, WE
ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT HOW THE
INMATES AT SAN QUENTIN HAD WAY
BETTER ACCESS TO JUSTICE THAN
INMATES IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY,
BECAUSE THERE WAS JUST MORE
ACCESS TO B¢O MONNING ATTORNEYS
CLOSER TO CITY CENTERS. AND SO I
THINK THAT I GUESS I WOULD URGE
THAT THIS IS GREAT. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT IT. BUT HOW DO WE ALSO
LOOK AT THOSE ACCESS TO ZOOM,
MODIFY THE WAY OUR COURTS WORK
TO ALLOW EASIER ACCESS TO
ATTORNEYS IN OUR URBAN CENTERS
TO PROVIDE RURAL ACCESS, BECAUSE
IT REALLY IS A WEAKNESS IN OUR
SYSTEM. AND I THINK THERE'S MORE
THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO
THERE. THROUGH THE WAY WE USE
REMOTE PARTICIPATION TO, TO MAKE
THIS ACCESS MORE MEANINGFUL. SO
JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR
DIXON. THANK YOU. CHAIR THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD AND HIGHLIGHTING AN
IMPORTANT, VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION OR MANY
ALL PROFESSIONS. THERE'S PRO
BONO OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE IN ALL
PROFESSIONS TO LEND THEIR
PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES TO
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, LEGAL
OR OTHERWISE. HOWEVER, AND I
BELIEVE THAT VOLUNTEER SERVICE,
OF COURSE, IS ADMIRABLE. I'VE
SPENT MY ENTIRE CAREER
VOLUNTEERING AND OFFERING MY
PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE SUCH AS
IT IS TO MANY NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS AND IT'S FOR THE
PUBLIC GOOD THAT EVERYONE, NOT
JUST LAWYERS, SHOULD BE
ENCOURAGED TO USE THEIR TALENTS
AND ABILITIES TO HELP THE NEEDY
IN ANY WAY WE CAN. WE. THAT IS
REALLY A MORAL OBLIGATION.
HOWEVER I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
PERSON SHOULD BE FORCED TO
PROVIDE FREE LABOR THEIR
PROFESSIONAL WISDOM AND NOT FOR
FREE BY GOVERNMENT COERCION.
THAT IS A CONCERN OF MINE. PRO
BONO IS A CONCEPT THAT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT IN THE LEGAL
PROFESSION, AND ABSOLUTELY IT'S
AN UPSTANDING VALUE. I JUST
DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE
COERCED. AND THE ACCOUNTABILITY
AND THE REPORTING AND THE
SHAMING OF PEOPLE, IF THEY DON'T
, PERFORM X NUMBER OF HOURS PER
YEAR, IN FACT, IT'S REALLY,
IRONIC THAT THE ASSEMBLY,
RECENTLY PASSED ACA TO PROVIDE
THE PERSONS CANNOT BE COMPELLED
TO PROVIDE FREE LABOR BY THE USE
OF THREAT OR LEGAL COERCION AND
THIS BILL, IRONICALLY CONFLICTS
WITH THAT POLICY. IF WE'RE GOING
TO COERCE LAWYERS INTO PROVIDING
FREE LABOR, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY
SENSE TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION
FOR LAWYERS WHO HAPPEN TO WORK
FOR GOVERNMENT. FOR THOSE
REASONS, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS
BILL, BUT I WHOLLY SUPPORT PRO
BONO WORK, THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF
IT. I JUST DON'T LIKE IT BEING
COERCED. SO THANK YOU, SUMMER.
GABRIEL, MAY I RESPOND? SURE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH AND THANK YOU
FOR THAT, MADAM VICE CHAIR, LET
ME JUST ADD A FEW THOUGHTS, IF I
MAY, I APPRECIATE THE
PERSPECTIVE. I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW,
PART OF, I THINK THE DNA OF THE
PRACTICE OF LAW IS THE PROVISION
OF PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES. AND
I'D ARGUE, RESPECTFULLY, THAT
IT'S DIFFERENT THAN OTHER
PROFESSIONS BECAUSE THERE ARE
THINGS THAT LAWYERS CAN DO THAT
ALL OF US THAT HAVE BEEN LAWYERS
EXPERIENCE THAT MEMBERS OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC CAN'T DO. AND
WHAT I HAVE BEEN VERY GRATEFUL
FOR IN MY OPPORTUNITIES TO
PROVIDE PRO BONO, IS THAT MOST
OF IT IS NONPARTISAN OR ENTIRELY
BIPARTISAN. IN THE SUPPORT,
THERE'S A STRONG TRADITION IN
THE CONSERVATIVE LEGAL MOVEMENT
OF PROVIDING PRO BONO LEGAL
SERVICES, OF RECOGNIZING THAT
THAT IS PART OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING AN
OFFICER OF THE COURT AND BEING
GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE BAR, AND TO HAVE
THESE TO DO THESE THINGS THAT
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC
CAN'T DO, ON THE CAUTIONARY
PART, LET ME JUST, TO HELP CLEAR
UP SOME CONFUSION. POTENTIALLY
THE REPORTING HERE IS ENTIRELY
CONFIDENTIAL. SO THE DATA WILL
BE RELEASED IN AGGREGATED,
ANONYMIZED FORM, BUT NO ONE WILL
HAVE NO ONE WILL KNOW WHEN I GO
LOG ON TO MY STATE BAR PROFILE
AND REPORT THIS. AND THAT'S HOW
I DO IT. AND I DO THAT EVERY
YEAR. AND I PAY MY FEES AND I,
YOU KNOW, DECIDE IF I WANT TO
CONTRIBUTE TO VARIOUS, YOU KNOW,
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FUNDS OR SIGN
ON TO, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS VARIOUS
WORKING GROUPS. I'LL REPORT
THAT. BUT NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW
PUBLICLY HOW MANY HOURS OF PRO
BONO JESSE GABRIEL DID, IF ANY.
SO IT'S ENTIRELY ANONYMOUS, AND
IT'S ALSO VERY CLEAR IN THE BILL
THAT THERE'S NO THERE'S NO
PENALTY FOR FAILING TO REPORT
THAT OR FOR NOT DOING ANY PRO
BONO. SO THERE THERE ISN'T ANY
COERCION HERE, RIGHT? PEOPLE CAN
DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT
TO REPORT IT. THIS IS, I THINK,
IN MANY WAYS, YOU KNOW, JUST
GIVING PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY
THAT WANT TO, TO REPORT THAT
WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH
ATTORNEYS AND PRIVATE PRACTICE
AND MANY OF THE MAJOR LAW FIRMS
WHO'VE BEEN VERY
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTIVE OF
THIS. AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE
SAME RULE THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED
IN DEEPLY CONSERVATIVE STATES
LIKE MISSISSIPPI AND INDIANA AND
OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY'RE
SENSITIVE TO THIS. SO I WOULD
JUST RESPECTFULLY, YOU KNOW, IF
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MANDATORY
PRO BONO, THAT YOU HAD TO DO A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF PRO BONO HOURS
A YEAR TO HAVE YOUR LAW LICENSE,
THAT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT
CONVERSATION. BUT THIS IS A, I
WOULD ARGUE, A VERY LIGHT TOUCH
REPORT OF APPROACH OF
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTING, AND
AGAIN, MANY OF THE SERVICES THAT
FOLKS ARE GOING TO PROVIDE HERE
ARE HELPING A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
VICTIM, HELPING SOMEBODY WHO IS
THE VICTIM OF A NATURAL
DISASTER, FACILITATING AN
ADOPTION, WORKING WITH A VICTIM
OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, HELPING A
CHURCH OR A LOCAL YMCA TO
NEGOTIATE A LEASE. I MEAN, THESE
ARE SERVICES THAT SO MANY PEOPLE
IN OUR COMMUNITY, IRRESPECTIVE
OF THEIR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY,
RELY ON. AND SO I THINK TO
PROVIDE THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR
PEOPLE TO REPORT THAT, TO
AGGREGATE THAT DATA, TO BE ABLE
TO DEVELOP BETTER POLICIES SO
THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THOSE
SERVICES ACROSS THE STATE, OUR
ARGUE HAS, HAS, HAS PUBLIC
BENEFITS. SO APOLOGIES IF
THERE'S ANY CONFUSION ABOUT THE
COURSE OF PART OF THIS. AGAIN,
THIS IS ENTIRELY CONFIDENTIAL
AND THERE IS NO PENALTY FOR
FAILING TO DO SO. I APPRECIATE
YOUR THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE.
HOWEVER, I THERE'S SUBTLE
COERCION AND SHAMING, THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AS WELL AS THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION. I BELIEVE,
BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF DOCTORS
WHO DO DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS
AND THAT TYPE OF THING. I MEAN,
IT IS ESSENTIAL IN OUR COMMUNITY
FOR THE PRO BONO VOLUNTEERISM.
THAT'S FUNDAMENTAL. WHEN ONE
BECOMES A LAWYER TO KNOW THAT
THEY WILL BE GIVING BACK. SO I
DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS
NECESSARY. I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
AND THERE ARE WONDERFUL
ORGANIZATIONS, LEGAL AID
SOCIETIES THAT POPULATE THE
LEGAL COMMUNITY AND ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. I
JUST DON'T KNOW WHY. AND THIS
GETS TO THE ESSENCE OF ALL THE
LAWS THAT WE PASS. WHY DO WE
NEED ANOTHER LAW WHEN LAWYERS
ARE ALREADY DOING? MAYBE YOU
WANT A THOUSAND MORE LAWYERS TO
DO PRO BONO WORK. WELL, THE
STATE BAR CAN ADMINISTER THAT
AND ENCOURAGE THAT, AND THAT CAN
BE PART OF THE CONTINUING
EDUCATION TO ENCOURAGE, I MEAN,
LAWYERS GO TO CONTINUING
EDUCATION X NUMBER OF HOURS
EVERY YEAR. WHY ISN'T THAT PART
OF THE ENCOURAGEMENT TO USE THE
LAW TO COERCE? I'LL STILL USE
THAT WORD TO ME IS HEAVY HANDED
WHEN THERE ARE OTHER MEANS TO
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GIVE BACK
INTO THE COMMUNITY. MANY, MANY,
MANY THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF
LAWYERS I'VE KNOWN OVER MY
LIFETIME HAVE NEVER BEEN FORCED
TO DO PRO BONO WORK. THEY DO IT
OUT OF THEIR MORAL COMMITMENT TO
JUSTICE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE
NEED A LAW TO DO THAT. THAT'S I
WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY SAY, I
DON'T THINK WE'RE FORCING
ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING HERE. AND
AGAIN, IT'S THE RATIONALE HERE
IS GATHERING THAT DATA. YOU
HEARD ABOUT THE GEOGRAPHIC
DISPARITIES IN THE STATE. THAT
DATA IS GOING TO HELP US DEVELOP
BETTER POLICY SOLUTIONS SO THAT
WE CAN HELP PEOPLE IN RURAL
AREAS OF THE STATE, IN
UNDERSERVED AREAS OF THE STATE,
GET THESE LEGAL SERVICES THAT
THEY DESPERATELY NEED. SO I
THINK THERE'S A VERY STRONG
POLICY RATIONALE HERE. AND
RESPECTFULLY, THERE'S NO
COERCION. I MEAN, YOU'D BE
ARGUING THE SAME THAT THE OPTION
TO BE AN ORGAN DONOR ON YOUR
LICENSE IS COERCION. WE'RE
GIVING PEOPLE THE OPTION TO
REPORT DATA. IF THEY WOULD LIKE
TO DO SO WELL, WHY NOT MAKE A
VOLUNTEER LAW IF SOMEBODY WANTS
TO DO THAT TO HELP? BRING A
GREATER SHINE, A GREATER LIGHT
ON WHERE THERE ARE ILLEGAL
SERVICE NEEDS IN OUR IN OUR
RURAL COMMUNITIES, JUST MAKE IT
VOLUNTARY. I DON'T AGAIN, THIS
IS THIS IS VOLUNTARY. THERE'S NO
CONSEQUENCE FOR FAILING. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. SENATOR PACHECO,
SO I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD UPON I
WASN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO MAKE
ANY COMMENTS, BUT I JUST WANT TO
ADD UPON, WHAT YOU MENTIONED
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, AS
ATTORNEYS, WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO
DO PRO BONO WORK, BUT IT'S KIND
OF SOMETHING THAT WE ALL
NATURALLY DO. I WENT TO A LAW
SCHOOL THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO
DO PRO BONO WORK TO GRADUATE. SO
I WENT TO LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, AND
WE HAD TO DO 25 HOURS OF
MANDATORY PRO BONO WORK. BUT
EVEN AFTER I GRADUATED, AFTER I
BECAME AN ATTORNEY, WE
VOLUNTARILY DO PRO BONO WORK. A
NUMBER OF US ARE A PART OF
DIFFERENT SERVICE GROUPS THAT DO
PRO BONO WORK FROM THE MEXICAN
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TO THE
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT BAR
ASSOCIATION. WE VOLUNTEER HOURS
ON THE WEEKENDS, SO IT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S THE NORM FOR US
AS ATTORNEYS, AND THIS IS ONLY
GATHERING DATA, IT'S VOLUNTARY,
WHETHER IT'S, IT'S WHETHER THE
ATTORNEY SUBMITS IT ONLINE IS
VOLUNTARY, WHETHER THE ATTORNEY
COMPLETES PRO BONO WORK IS
VOLUNTARY, BUT AT LEAST WE'RE
GATHERING THAT DATA, SO NONE OF
THIS. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE
WHAT THE AUTHOR SAID. NONE OF
THIS IS MANDATORY, FOR AN
ATTORNEY. IT'S JUST GATHERING
THAT INFORMATION. SO, I JUST
FELT THE NEED TO, ALSO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF THIS BILL. AND I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
APPRECIATE THAT. THANK, THANK
YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR GABRIEL.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY
THE LEAST COERCIVE MANNER IN
WHICH WE CAN ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO,
AS LAWYERS TO ACTUALLY GIVE
BACK. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT LESS THAN AN HOUR
A WEEK THAT WE'RE ASKING
LAWYERS. AND THE REALITY IS, THE
BAR SUGGESTS THAT THERE'S A VERY
SMALL PERCENTAGE. THEY DON'T
REALLY ACTUALLY KNOW BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT ASKING THE QUESTION.
AND I THINK THE ONE OF THE
REALLY IMPORTANT POINTS IS RURAL
ACCESS. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TEND TO
VOLUNTEER IN THEIR OWN
NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THEIR OWN
COMMUNITY. IT MAKES SENSE THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE
FOLKS VOLUNTEER IN URBAN
COMMUNITIES. BUT WITH THE USE OF
VIDEO CONFERENCING, WHAT HAVE
YOU, IF THE DATA SHOWS YOU KNOW
WHAT, WE REALLY NEED A LOT MORE
PRO BONO SERVICE IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY OR UP NORTH NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, WE CAN HAVE THOSE IN
URBAN COMMUNITIES MAKE THAT
CHOICE. SO YOU KNOW WHAT? I CAN
DO SOME VIDEO CONFERENCING AND
HELP THIS PERSON WITH THEIR
LANDLORD TENANT ISSUE OR HELP
THIS PERSON WITH THEIR
IMMIGRATION, WHATEVER IT MIGHT
BE THAT THEY CHOOSE TO VOLUNTEER
IN. TO SENATE-ROOM PACHECO'S
POINT. AND THE OPPORTUNITIES TO
VOLUNTEER ARE REALLY LIMITLESS.
I THINK THAT FOLKS PART PART OF
WHAT I SEE THIS DOING IS THE BAR
ASSOCIATION BEING ABLE TO MARKET
THOSE OPPORTUNITIES BETTER ONCE
THEY HAVE A MORE CLEAR SENSE OF
THE DATA. AND I WANT TO THANK
YOU, SENATOR GABRIEL, FROM THE
MOMENT YOU'VE JOINED THE
ASSEMBLY, YOU'VE BEEN LASER
FOCUSED ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE,
PARTICULARLY IN THE CIVIL REALM,
FOR THOSE THAT THAT DON'T HAVE
MEANS. AND SO I APPRECIATE YOUR
CONTINUED WORK IN THIS AREA.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YEAH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WANT
TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE
CONVERSATION. APPRECIATE IT. I
WANT TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT,
THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER KHN
ASSEMBLYMEMBER PACHECO SAID, THE
WORK THAT I DID AS AN ATTORNEY,
THE PRO BONO WORK I DID, IT WILL
FOREVER BE AMONG SOME OF THE
PROUDEST THINGS THAT I HAVE DONE
IN MY LIFETIME, EVEN OF THE WORK
I'M PROUD OF IN THE ASSEMBLY,
WHEN I HOPEFULLY WHEN I'M AN OLD
MAN SITTING BACK IN MY ROCKING
CHAIR, THE REFLECTING ON THE PRO
BONO CASES THAT I WERE A PART OF
WILL BE, BE AMONG MY PROUDEST
ACCOMPLISHMENTS. THE REASON TO
DO THIS THROUGH THE BAR IS ABOUT
MEETING PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE.
THIS IS WHERE ATTORNEYS GET
INFORMATION. THIS IS WHERE THEY
DECIDE TO JOIN, DIFFERENT
SECTIONS OR LEARN ABOUT THINGS.
AND, AND LET ME JUST CLOSE BY
OFFERING, FOR OTHER FOR OTHER
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, THE
ADDITIONAL 13 STATES THAT HAVE
VOLUNTARY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
INCLUDE ARIZONA, GEORGIA,
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MONTANA,
NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, TENNESSEE
AND TEXAS. SO I THINK THERE IS A
STRONG BIPARTISAN TRADITION.
THERE'S A STRONG TRADITION IN
RED AND IN BLUE STATES OF
HELPING ATTORNEYS TO, TO, TO BE
TO DO THAT PRO BONO WORK, TO
GATHER THAT DATA. AND WITH THAT,
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. MADAM
SECRETARY WILL TAKE ROLL CALL,
VOTE ON AB 2505 MOTIONS DO PASS
AS AMENDED. CALL FOR A CALL FOR
AYE. DIXON. DIXON. NÓ BAUER.
KHN BAUER. KHN. AYE. BRIAN.
CONNOLLY Ã. CONNOLLY. AYE.
HANEY. HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO.
AYE PACHECO. AYE. REYES. REYES.
AYE. SANCHEZ WALDRON. WALDRON.
AYE AYE. THANK THANK YOU. SUMMER
GABRIEL. AND THAT'S OUR FIRST
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. WE GOT A BILL OUT.
EVERYTHING ELSE ON CALL. BUT YOU
KNOW WHAT WE HAVE, SENATOR REYES
IS HERE, SO WHY DON'T WE GO
AHEAD AND GO TO ITEM EIGHT AND
WE'LL GET TO THE VOTING STUFF
LATER, AB 3136. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I'M
PRESENTING AB 3136, WHICH WILL
CODIFY THE BUREAU OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
REQUIRE THAT THEY BE MAINTAINED
AT THEIR CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS
. THE BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVELY
CREATED ENTITY WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHOSE
MISSION IT IS TO PROTECT PEOPLE
AND COMMUNITIES THAT ENDURE A
DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND
PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS. THE
BUREAU HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
TOOLS AVAILABLE TO REACH THEIR
MISSION, SUCH AS SENDING COMMENT
LETTERS OUTLINING ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE CONCERNS FOR PROJECTS
AROUND THE STATE, DEVELOPING
BEST PRACTICES RELATED TO
WAREHOUSE SIGHTINGS, AND SB 1000
IMPLEMENTATION. FILING LAWSUITS.
WHEN PROJECTS VIOLATE SEQUA OR
OTHER STATE LAWS, INTERVENING ON
BEHALF OF COMMUNITIES AND STATE
ENTITIES, AS WELL AS ENGAGING
FEDERAL RULEMAKING. WHILE THE
PAST TWO ATTORNEY GENERALS HAVE
SUPPORTED AND EXPANDED THE
BUREAU, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE
THAT A FUTURE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WILL CONTINUE THIS WORK.
VULNERABLE, VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SHOULD
NOT BE CONDITIONED ON THE WHIMS
OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT. CODIFYING
THE EJ BUREAU WILL GIVE OUR
CONSTITUENTS A GUARANTEED STATE
ALLY IN THE FIGHT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS MARQUISE
MASON WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MARQUISE
KING MASON, AND I'M HONORED TO
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. IT'S
IMPERATIVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE BURDENS
FACED BY MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS FROM INDUSTRIAL
POLLUTION AND FOSSIL FUEL
EXTRACTION NEAR SCHOOLS AND
HOMES, CONTAMINATED WATER FOR
FAMILIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN,
PESTICIDES AFFECTING
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN NEARBY
COMMUNITIES. THE CHALLENGES ARE
SUBSTANTIAL. IN NUMEROUS AB 3136
IS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT
MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS ON THE
FRONT LINE CONTINUE TO HAVE A
VOICE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE ALONGSIDE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE BUREAU OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, ARMED
WITH VARIOUS TOOLS, HAS BEEN AT
THE FOREFRONT OF COMBATING
ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES SINCE
2018. FROM SENDING COMMENT
LETTERS TO DEVELOPING BEST
PRACTICES AND FILING LAWSUITS,
THE BUREAU ENSURES COMPLIANCE
WITH LAWS LIKE THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND
PENALIZES ILLEGAL POLLUTION
DISCHARGE. IT ALSO CHALLENGES
FEDERAL ACTIONS THAT COMPROMISE
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS. A 2022 STUDY BY
PPIC REVEALED A TROUBLING
SENTIMENT AMONG CALIFORNIA
VOTERS, WITH ROUGHLY SEVEN OUT
OF TEN FEELING THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AREN'T DOING ENOUGH
TO ADDRESS WATER ISSUES. THIS
UNDERSCORES THE URGENT NEED FOR
CONTINUED ACTION, BUILDING ON
THE LEGACY OF SB 1000, WHICH
MANDATED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN THEIR
GENERAL PLANS, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE REACHED AN
AGREEMENT WITH HUNTINGTON PARK
IN 2021, AFTER THE CITY
NEGLECTED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
CONSIDERATIONS IN HIS 2030
GENERAL PLAN. THIS AGREEMENT
PRIORITIZED ROBUST COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT AND ADDRESSED
CRITICAL ISSUES LIKE HOUSING
CITIES LIKE HUNTING PARK,
BURDENED WITH SOME OF THE
HIGHEST POLLUTION LEVELS IN THE
STATE, FACE DIRE HEALTH RISKS
FOR THEIR RESIDENTS, INCLUDING
ASTHMA AND CARDIOVASCULAR
DISEASE. DESPITE PAST SUPPORT
FROM ATTORNEY GENERALS, THE
FUTURE REMAINS UNCERTAIN.
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT FUTURE
ADMINISTRATIONS WILL CONTINUE
PRIORITIZING ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE. THAT'S WHY THIS IS
NEEDED. ESTABLISHING A CODIFIED
STATE ENTITY WILL ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIANS ALWAYS HAVE A
DEDICATED PARTNER IN THIS
CRITICAL FIGHT. LET CALIFORNIA
CONTINUE TO EMBODY MORAL CLARITY
AND LEADERSHIP BY STANDING WITH
IMPACTED COMMUNITIES. WITH THE
FULL AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, LET US PASS AB 316
AND REAFFIRM OUR COMMITMENT TO A
FUTURE WHERE EVERY CALIFORNIAN,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, THEIR
CREED, THEIR CULTURE OR INCOME,
CAN LIVE IN A HEALTHY AND
THRIVING ENVIRONMENT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 3136?
IS ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
AB 3136? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
BAUER-KAHAN. HI, SO I HAVE TO SO
I WAS I DID ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY ACTIONS AS PART OF MY
CAREER. I WENT UP AGAINST THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION, WHICH IS
A LOT MORE THAN 12 LAWYERS AND
ALTHOUGH I THINK THIS OFFICE IS
IMPORTANT, I ACTUALLY THINK THAT
THE ENTIRE ENVIRONMENTAL
DIVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD BE
IMBUED WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE LENS. I THINK WHEN OUR
PROSECUTORS ARE MAKING DECISIONS
ABOUT WHICH ACTIONS TO SEEK, IT
SHOULD BE THE GREATEST GOOD FOR
THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE,
WHICH OFTEN IS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE COMMUNITIES. THAT'S
WHERE WE NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON
CLEAN WATER AND CLEAN AIR. AND
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE DIFFERENT
ATTORNEY GENERALS, BUT I WOULD
SAY THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE WAY
THOSE PROSECUTING DECISIONS ARE
MADE. AND SO I FEEL LIKE I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
BECAUSE IT'S BETTER THAN
NOTHING. BUT I ACTUALLY THINK
THE RIGHT ANSWER IS FOR US TO
HAVE AN ETHOS OF THAT BEING PART
OF THE DECISIONS BEING MADE IN
THE MUCH LARGER ENVIRONMENTAL
DIVISION OF DOJ. AND SO KHÓ, I
WORRY THAT HAVING A SEPARATE
OFFICE, AND THAT'S WHERE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS BEING
TAKEN CARE OF, TAKES THAT OUT OF
THE DECISION BEING MADE BY THE
MANY LINE PROSECUTORS THAT ARE
PROTECTING OUR AIR AND WATER
ACROSS CALIFORNIA EVERY SINGLE
DAY. AND SO I THINK MAYBE IT'S A
BOTH, BUT I THINK THAT'S A
REALLY IMPORTANT THING FOR US TO
BE TALKING ABOUT AND THINKING
ABOUT, BECAUSE SO MANY CASES ARE
BEING DONE BY THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
DIVISION, AND THEY TOO SHOULD BE
HELPING OUR UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, VICE CHAIR DIXON, YES.
THANK YOU. CHAIR I'M GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL BECAUSE MY
DISTRICT AND COMMUNITIES IN MY
DISTRICT HAD A DIRECT EXPERIENCE
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WHEN WE HAD A OIL SPILL. I THINK
IT WAS IN OCTOBER OF 2022. ONE.
ANYWAY IT WAS THE, FAST
REMEDIATION, LEGAL REMEDIATION
OF THE NUMBER OF PARTIES. THERE
WERE VARIOUS OIL FREIGHTERS AND
MAYBE THERE WAS AN ANCHOR OR
MOVING A LINE, IT COULD HAVE
WOUND IT UP IN THE COURTS FOR
YEARS, BUT BECAUSE OF THIS
DEPARTMENT AND THE DEDICATION OF
WHETHER IT'S 12 OR 25 PEOPLE.
BUT IT WAS RESOLVED QUICKLY TO
THE BENEFIT OF OUR COMMUNITY IN
ORANGE COUNTY. SO, SERVING NOT
JUST NOT JUST TO GO AFTER, LOCAL
COMPANIES OR OIL COMPANIES, IT
JUST SAID, WHEN THERE'S A
PROBLEM, LET'S GET IT SOLVED
QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY AND
JUDICIOUSLY. SO I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR O'BRIEN.
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE
FROM THE INLAND EMPIRE FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD, WHEN
THIS OFFICE WAS ESTABLISHED BY
THE, THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL
BECERRA, PEOPLE WERE LOOKING AT
SKEPTICALLY, IT SHOWED
TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL. AND THAT'S
WHY ATTORNEY GENERAL BONTA HAS
EXPANDED IT. IT'S ALL BEEN DONE
ADMINISTRATIVELY, THOUGH. SO WE
KNOW A ROGUE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR
SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T SHARE THOSE
VALUES THAT ARE HELD BY, I
BELIEVE, AN OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIANS THAT WE
REPRESENT COULD DISMANTLE THIS
OFFICE. I THINK CODIFYING IT AND
ITS IMPORTANCE IS A, A GOAL THAT
WE SHOULD HAVE AND ONE THAT I
SHARE. SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR
ANY COAUTHORS, I WOULD HAPPILY
JOIN YOU IN THIS FIGHT. AND IF
THERE'S NOT A MOTION, I'D BE
HAPPY TO MAKE ONE, MR. CHAIR.
SO, SO MOVED IN A SECOND SUMMARY
COLUMN. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT.
I'D LIKE TO, BE LISTED AS A
COAUTHOR AS WELL. SO THE
IMPRESSION IS THERE IS NOW A
TRACK RECORD FOR THIS OFFICE.
IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR ABOUT
FIVE YEARS, I DON'T KNOW. DOES
THE AUTHOR WANT TO COMMENT ON
THAT? WHAT KIND OF ENHANCED
ACTIVITIES OR, EFFORTS HAVE BEEN
DONE AS A RESULT? WELL, IT WAS
THEN ATTORNEY BECERRA
ESTABLISHED IT IN FEBRUARY OF
2018. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE
MENTIONED THERE, THERE WAS AN
EXPANSION UNDER NOW, ATTORNEY
GENERAL BONTA, THE NUMBER OF
ATTORNEYS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT
WE TOOK SPECIFICALLY SO THAT WE
KNEW THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF
ATTORNEYS. THE EXPANSION, I
THINK, IS GOING TO DEPEND ON THE
NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL. BUT THE
SERVICES, AS OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE
MENTIONED, THESE ARE SERVICES TO
THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, WHETHER
IT'S GOING AFTER SOMEONE WHO IS
HARMING THE COMMUNITY OR HELPING
TO FACILITATE THE RESOLUTION OF
AN ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP, LIKE
THE OIL SPILL. I HOPE THAT
ANSWERS THE QUESTION, AT LEAST
FOR TODAY. THANK YOU, AND THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES, I
ALREADY LISTED AS A COAUTHOR AND
GRATEFUL THAT OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, SEE THE VALUE IN
THIS AND WANTING TO JOIN ON, I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SENATOR
O'BRIEN'S POINT AND CODIFYING
THIS AS A VALUE. OF OUR STATE,
TO CONTINUE, THE DOJ'S ACTIONS
AS OUR VICE CHAIR SO ELOQUENTLY
PUT, PUT FORTH, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YES. I THINK THAT THIS
THIS IS VERY TELLING THAT WE
HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT ON
SOMETHING THIS IMPORTANT BECAUSE
IT IS ALL CALIFORNIANS WHO
BENEFIT AND FINDING WAYS TO SEE
EVERY ISSUE THROUGH AN EJ LENS
IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD
ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH. AND ANY
EFFORTS IN THAT REGARD, I WILL
ABSOLUTELY BE SUPPORTIVE OF. I
THANK MEMBERS, CONNOLLY AND
BRIAN FOR, BEING OUR NEWEST
COAUTHORS. OF COURSE, I WELCOME
ANY OTHERS WHO WANT TO BE
COAUTHORS, CLEAN AIR, CLEAN
WATER, THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHT.
CALIFORNIA'S DESERVE IT. AND WE
NEED TO HAVE AN ALLY AT THE
STATE LEVEL THAT'S GOING TO MAKE
SURE TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS. AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE THANK YOU. ROLL
CALL ON AB 3136 MOTIONS DO PASS
TO ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY CALL. I
CALL I DIXON DIXON I BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN, BRIAN I
CONNELLY. CONNELLY I HANEY.
HANEY I MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
MCKENNA I PACHECO. I PACHECO. I
REYES I REYES I SANCHEZ.
WALDRON. WALDRON I THAT BILL IS
OUT AND UP. NEXT ITEM TEN SCR
113. SENATOR SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS
MR. THE RESOLUTION. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. AFTERNOON
AFTERNOON. COLLEAGUES IT IS MY
ABSOLUTE PLEASURE TO BE HERE
WITH YOU, AND TO PRESENT SCR
113, WHICH IS THE STATE'S,
SENATE'S COMPANION RESOLUTION TO
YOUR ACR 135 THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WEBER, INTRODUCED AND
BROUGHT TO THIS COMMITTEE
EARLIER THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST
TIME, CALIFORNIA IS
ACKNOWLEDGING ITS ROLE IN
PERPETUATING THE HARMS AND THE
ONGOING EFFECTS OF SLAVERY ON
BLACK PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE
AND THE NATION. AND THIS
RESOLUTION SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT WHILE WE'D LIKE TO THINK
THAT THE ENSLAVEMENT OF BLACK
AMERICANS IS A RELIC OF THE
PAST, WE ARE STILL COMING TO
TERMS WITH THE LONG TERME
EFFECTS THAT THE DEHUMANIZATION
OF SLAVERY AND ON BLACK PEOPLE
IN THIS COUNTRY CONTINUES TO
HAVE. AND CERTAINLY WE KNOW WE
ARE DEALING WITH IT EVERY DAY,
WHETHER. IT'S IN PUBLIC SAFETY,
WHETHER IT'S IN HOUSING, WHETHER
IT'S IN HEALTH COMMITTEE, WE SEE
THE DISPARITIES. AND THAT'S WHY
IN 2020, THE STATE LEGISLATURE
PASSED AB 3121, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE TO NOT ONLY STUDY THE
HARMFUL EFFECTS THAT THE LEGACY
OF SLAVERY HAS HAD ON BLACK
CALIFORNIANS, BUT TO ALSO BRING
FORWARD REAL POLICIES TO ADDRESS
THESE HARMS. THE TASK FORCE
REPORT HAS AFFIRMED, FROM
EXHAUSTIVE FACT GATHERING AND
CHECKING AND RESEARCH, THAT
BLACK PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY
HAVE ALREADY KNOWN ALL TOO WELL.
THIS TRUTH THAT THE VIOLENCE AND
THE HARMS OF SLAVERY DID NOT END
IN 1865. THESE HARMS AGAINST
BLACK PEOPLE ACTUALLY DATE BACK
TO 1619, WHEN AFRICANS WERE
BRUTALLY BROUGHT TO AMERICA
AGAINST THEIR WILL. AND UNLIKE
NO OTHER HUMAN EXPERIENCE IN
THIS COUNTRY, MILLIONS OF BLACK
PEOPLE WERE RIPPED FROM THEIR
HOMELAND 5000 MILES AWAY,
AUCTIONED OFF LIKE CATTLE KEPT
IN TERRORIZING, BONDAGE AND
FORCED TO ENDURE GENOCIDAL LABOR
UNDER THE MOST INHUMANE
CONDITIONS. IT'S ESTIMATED THAT
$20 TRILLION WAS AMASSED ON THE
BACKS OF ENSLAVED BLACK LABOR,
MAKING THE US THE LARGEST
ECONOMIC POWER IN THE WORLD,
CREATING FOR US THE OLDEST WAGE
THEFT CLAIM THAT IS YET TO BE
PAID. CALIFORNIA FURTHER
PERPETUATES THESE HARMS AGAINST
BLACK AMERICANS BY ENFORCING
RACIST LAWS AND DISCRIMINATORY
POLICIES EMANATING FROM THE
STATE'S ORIGIN, AND CONTINUES
INSTITUTIONALLY IN MANY WAYS
TODAY. AND WHILE CALIFORNIA
ENTERED THE UNION IN 1850 AS A
FREE STATE, IT DID NOT ENACT
LAWS TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM FOR
ALL. CALIFORNIA'S FIRST ELECTED
GOVERNOR IN 1849, PETER HARDEMAN
BURNETT, WAS A WHITE SUPREMACIST
WHO ENCOURAGED LAWS TO EXCLUDE
BLACK PEOPLE FROM LIVING FREE IN
THIS STATE, AND IN FACT, THEY
CALLED HIM A BUR BURNETT THE
WHIP BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY WOULD
WHIP NOT JUST EXCLUDE, BUT WHIP
BLACK FOLKS ACROSS THE BORDERS.
THAT WAS A FORM OF BORDER PATROL
IN THIS STATE, WHIPPING BLACK
FOLKS ACROSS THE BORDERS OF
CALIFORNIA IN 1852, THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
ENFORCED THE FEDERAL FUGITIVE
SLAVE ACT, WHICH ALLOWED FOR THE
CAPTURE AND THE RETURN OF
RUNAWAY ENSLAVED PEOPLE FOR OVER
A DECADE UNTIL THE EMANCIPATION
PROCLAMATION WAS ENACTED, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE
PROHIBITED INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES
BY PASSING ANTI-MISCEGENATION
LAWS. IN THE FIRST LEGISLATIVE
SESSION IN 1850 AND IN 1874, THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULED
SCHOOL SEGREGATION WAS IN FACT
LEGAL. THE HARMS TO BLACK PEOPLE
IN CALIFORNIA CONTINUE TO
REVERBERATE. THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA VÀ CREATED RACIAL
BARRIERS TO VOTING. WE HAD POLL
TAXES, LITERACY TESTS, FURTHER
DISENFRANCHIZE HUSING BLACK
CITIZENS AND CALIFORNIA PROP
CREATED DISCRIMINATION IN
HOUSING POLICIES THROUGH
REDLINING BEGINNING IN THE
1930S, WHEN THE STATE ENABLED
MORTGAGE COMPANIES TO MARK BLACK
NEIGHBORHOODS AS RED ON INTERNAL
MAPS, PREVENTING BLACK PEOPLE
FROM SECURING LOANS, MUCH LESS
OBTAINING HOME OWNERSHIP, A
PRACTICE THAT WE WELL KNOW IN MY
DISTRICT THROUGH COVENANTS,
WHICH MANY FOLKS, WHEN THEY LOOK
AT THEIR MORTGAGE, SOME OF THOSE
CLAUSES ARE STILL, THERE.
CALIFORNIA ENACTED RESTRICTIVE
ZONING ORDINANCES, LICENSING
LAWS, FIRE SAFETY CODES, ANTI
NUISANCE LAWS TO DISRUPT THE
OPERATIONS OF BLACK BUSINESSES,
LARGELY SHUTTING THEM DOWN. THE
CHAINS OF BONDAGE TOOK ON MANY
OTHER FORMS, AND A LONG LIST OF
OTHER RACIST AND AT TIMES DEADLY
PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA. FURTHER
DISENFRANCHIZED BLACK PEOPLE IN
THIS STATE FROM THE LACK OF
ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE
AND EDUCATION, INVOLUNTARY
SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION TO
THE ASSASSINATION OF PROGRESSIVE
LEADERS, TO SYSTEMIC BARRIERS OF
EMPLOYMENT, WHERE RIGHT NOW, IN
THIS COUNTRY, 90% OF THOSE
EMPLOYED ARE BLACK. WHEN
CONFRONTED WITH THE MORAL
OBLIGATION TO DETOUR AWAY FROM
SLAVERY, CALIFORNIA DECISION
MAKERS INSTEAD DID WHAT MANY
OTHER STATES WERE DOING. THEY
CAPITULATED. THE IMMORAL AND
POPULAR ANTI-BLACK RACIST
SENTIMENT THAT HELPED AND
CONTINUE WAS TO BE A DETRIMENTAL
SPIRAL FOR SO MANY BLACK
CALIFORNIANS IN THE COMING
MONTHS, THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE, BLACK CAUCUS, ALONG
WITH ALL OF YOU, WILL BE
REVIEWING AND MOVING FORWARD
POLICIES THAT WILL BEGIN TO
ADDRESS THESE HARMS. AND I WANT
TO SAY THERE IS NOT A DOLLAR
AMOUNT THAT IS HIGH ENOUGH.
THERE IS NOT A POLICY THAT IS
STRONG ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH OVER
500 YEARS OF SLAVERY. AND AND,
DISENFRANCHISEMENT. SO WHAT
WE'RE DOING IS TRYING TO REPAIR
THE HARM, WE RECOGNIZE HOW BLACK
COMMUNITIES Kò IN THIS HISTORY
OF SLAVERY IS OUR FOUNDATION,
AND IT'S BROKEN. AND WHEN A
HOUSE IS FOUNDATION IS BROKEN,
THE REST OF THE HOUSE IS
PRECARIOUS. AND SO WHEN WE THINK
ABOUT ALL OF THE CHALLENGES THAT
WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY, AND
I TALKED ABOUT THE HOMELESSNESS
CRISIS, THE MASS INCARCERATION
CRISIS, THE EDUCATIONAL
ACHIEVEMENT GAP CRISIS, IT LEADS
BACK TO THIS FOUNDATION THÀNH.
AND SO THIS RESOLUTION IS REALLY
JUST A MOMENT TO SAY THAT WE
CAN'T SAY WE DIDN'T KNOW. WE
CAN'T SAY WE DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE
BECAUSE WE HAD OUR TASK FORCE
PRODUCED THIS INCREDIBLE 1100
PAGE REPORT OF SCHOLARSHIP THAT
DETAILS THE HARM. SO THERE WILL
BE OTHER BILLS THAT WILL ASK
FOR, YOU KNOW, FORMAL APOLOGIES.
THERE WILL BE OTHER BILLS THAT
WILL ASK FOR WAYS IN WHICH WE
DEAL WITH SYSTEMIC AND
INDIVIDUAL AL HARMS. BUT TODAY,
THIS RESOLUTION IS SIMPLY AN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WHAT HAS
HAPPENED AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
WHAT THE TASK FORCE HAS DONE.
AND SO WITH THAT, I ENCOURAGE
ALL OF YOU, IF YOU HAVE NOT READ
THIS, THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IS
SHORT, BUT IT DOES GET TO ALL OF
THE DETAILS, AND I ENCOURAGE ALL
OF US TO GO DEEPER. AND I SEE
SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS AND OUR
COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH YOU TO
BUILD THE FOUNDATION OF
KNOWLEDGE NEEDED FOR US TO TAKE
THIS JOURNEY TOGETHER. BUT TODAY
, IT'S ABOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE
POWER OF INFORMATION, AND
BEGINNING THE FIRST STEPS OF
RESTORING CALIFORNIA TO WHERE IT
ABSOLUTELY MUST BE. AND WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SCR 113? IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SCR
113? BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE, SENATOR BRIAN. YEAH I
WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FROM
LOS ANGELES FOR BRINGING THIS
RESOLUTION FORWARD, WE TALKED
ABOUT THIS WITH OUR ASSEMBLY
COUNTERPART NOT THAT LONG AGO,
BUT I FELT COMPELLED TO JUST
REMIND US THAT SLAVERY IN THIS
COUNTRY, WE ENSLAVE FOLKS, AND
THEN WE ENSLAVE THEIR CHILDREN
AND THEN THEIR CHILDREN AND THEN
THEIR CHILDREN, AND THEN THEIR
CHILDREN AND THEN THEIR
CHILDREN. AND I COULD KEEP GOING
FOR ALL 13 GENERATIONS. THAT
SLAVERY LASTED IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND WE OFTEN ASK OURSELVES, IN
CALIFORNIA, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE
TO DO WITH US? WE WERE A FREE
STATE. PEOPLE SAY THAT SO
QUICKLY. ONE HAVING NOT KNOWN
THAT BEFORE THIS PROCESS BEGAN,
AND THEN TWO, TO DISMISS ALL THE
WORK THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO
ARTICULATING WHAT THAT ACTUALLY
MEANS IN CALIFORNIA, AS THE
AUTHOR HAS ARTICULATED, YOU
COULD BRING YOUR SLAVES AND
STILL OWN THEM. IF YOU WERE AN
ENSLAVED PERSON SEEKING FREEDOM,
YOU WERE NOT GUARANTEED THAT
FREEDOM. WE HAD THE MOST
DRACONIAN FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW
ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. WE
PARTICIPATED IN LAND TAKINGS. WE
PARTICIPATED IN RACIALIZED
TERROR AND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND THE COMMUNITIES TASK
FORCE DOCUMENTED THIS IN THAT
REPORT WITH 150 RECOMMENDATIONS,
THIS RESOLUTION, OAN, AS THE
AUTHOR MENTIONED, IS SIMPLY US
ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THAT
HISTORY OF THIS REPORT, OF THAT
DOCUMENTATION. WE CAN'T SAY WE
DIDN'T KNOW. AND THE BIGGER
QUESTION FOR US IS, WHAT ARE WE
GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, BUT TODAY
I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS COMMITTEE
IN FACT, DOES KNOW. NOW, HAVING
RECEIVED THIS RESOLUTION FROM
OUR SENATE COUNTERPART. THANK
YOU, SIR. YES, I'D LIKE TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FROM LOS ANGELES FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD, AND I'D
ALSO LIKE TO THANK MY OTHER
PARTNER OVER THERE FROM THE
BLACK CAUCUS, WHAT? THE BLACK
CAUCUS. WE ARE MAKING A
COMMITMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
EDUCATE, THAT WE EDUCATE EACH
AND EVERY ONE OF OUR MEMBERS
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO, TO THE
DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE TO SLAVERY.
WHAT HAPPENED TO US, WHAT
HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY? THIS
COUNTRY WAS POOR, YOU KNOW, WE
HAD COME IN. WE'D TAKEN IT AWAY
FROM, NATIVE AMERICANS AND WE
SETTLED. BUT IT WAS POOR. AND
THIS COUNTRY BECAME VERY, VERY
RICH OFF THE BLACKS OF SLAVES,
BLACKS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS. AND
SO WE SHOULD AT LEAST
ACKNOWLEDGE I'M GLAD TO STAND
SHOULDER TO SHOULDER HERE WITH
YOU GUYS, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
WE'VE RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT,
THAT WE CAN'T SAY WE DID IT. NO.
AND THAT WE WILL GO FORWARD WITH
FIXING THIS WITH REPARATIONS.
THANK YOU SO, MAYOR BAUER-KAHAN,
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. AS MY COLLEAGUE
FROM LÀ SAID, WE, YOU KNOW, HAD
THIS CONVERSATION WITH OUR
ASSEMBLY COLLEAGUE AND, I THINK
IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE
THE CONVERSATION BOTH ABOUT THE
HISTORICAL WRONGS. BUT ALSO, I
LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT WAS
REDLINED AND THAT TODAY REMAINS
VERY PREDOMINANTLY WHITE AS A
RESULT OF THAT HISTORIC LEGACY.
AND SO IT'S NOT OVER. AND I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR
US TO LOOK THAT IN THE FACE AND
TALK ABOUT IT. AND THAT'S PART
OF THE IMPORTANT CONVERSATION.
BUT SINCE THAT HEARING, I
ACTUALLY HAVE ENGAGED THE
AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT IN
REPARATIONS FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO
MY FAMILY DURING THE HOLOCAUST.
AND THEY SENT ME A LETTER AND
SAID, I WISH MY GRANDMOTHER WAS
ALIVE TO READ IT BECAUSE IT
SAID, THANK YOU FOR TRUSTING US
BY SEEKING REPARATIONS. YOUR
TRUSTING THAT WE'RE IN A
DIFFERENT PLACE THAN WE WERE IN
THE 40S. AND THAT HIT ME RIGHT
HERE BECAUSE IT DOES. IT TAKES
TRUST TO BE WILLING TO COME
FORWARD AND SAY, I TRUST YOU'RE
DIFFERENT. I TRUST YOU'RE
WILLING TO MAKE REPARATIONS. AND
SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS, AND I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR THE TRUST YOU'RE
PLACING IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE
THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES TO BE
WILLING TO MAKE THIS MOVE. AND
IT'S A BIG ONE. SO THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, SENATOR,
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. AS
MENTIONED, WE DID HAVE
CONVERSATION ON THIS WHEN OUR
COLLEAGUE SENATOR WEBER BROUGHT
THIS FORWARD. AND I WANT TO
THANK, I WANT TO THANK YOU. I
WANT TO THANK THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS FOR
THEIR, THE WORK THAT'S BEEN
DONE. THE COMMISSION, THE
COMMISSION REPORT AND THE STEPS
THAT ARE NECESSARY. AND THIS IS
AN INITIAL STEP OF
ACKNOWLEDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT WE ARE AWARE, BUT THERE
WILL BE A RECKONING. AND WE HAVE
TO DECIDE AS A STATE, AS A
LEGISLATURE, ARE WE GOING TO SHY
AWAY FROM THE RECKONING? ARE WE
GOING TO RESIST IT, OR ARE WE
ACTUALLY GOING TO DO SOMETHING
THAT'S RIGHTEOUS AND THAT
FOLLOWS UP THESE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
WITH ACTION, AND I KNOW THAT'S
THE GOAL OF THE OF THE BLACK
CAUCUS. AND I STAND WITH YOU IN
THE CAUCUS IN DOING THAT. AND I
HOPE THAT OUR COLLEAGUES WILL
CONTINUE TO STAND WITH THE BLACK
CAUCUS WHEN, WHEN, WHEN THE
TOUGH DECISIONS HAVE TO GET MADE
AS TO WHAT ACTIONS WE'RE GOING
TO TAKE TO RECTIFY BY THE
HISTORY TO THIS DAY OF WHAT
WE'VE PUT, DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES
AS WELL AS MANY GENERATIONS
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THROUGH SOME
OF THE PRACTICES THAT THIS STATE
ENDORSED AND CODIFIED IN MANY
WAYS. I LOVE TO BE I'D BE
HONORED TO BE ADDED AS A
COAUTHOR, AND OFFER YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE. WELL,
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THANK
YOU FOR, THE THOSE HEARTFELT
WORDS, WE HAVE A JOURNEY TO TAKE
TOGETHER. AND I THINK THIS
JOURNEY THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
IS GOING TO DETERMINE THE
CALIFORNIA WE'RE GOING TO BE,
MOVING FORWARD FOR MY CHILDREN.
I GREW UP WITH MY BIG MAMA,
WHO'S, I WAS IT WAS IN THE
1970S, AND SHE LIVED IN, IN OUR
NORTH CAROLINA HOME. AND HER
GRANDMOTHER WAS A SLAVE. THIS IS
A WOMAN WHO TAUGHT ME HOW TO
BLOW A KISS. AND HER GRANDMOTHER
WAS A SLAVE. AND MY MOTHER DID
NOT GET TO PICK THE HIGH SCHOOL
THAT SHE WANTED TO GO TO, I WAS
REALLY THE FIRST BORN FREE,
FULLY IN MY IN MY FAMILY, SO
WE'RE NOT TALKING ANCIENT
HISTORY. WE'RE TALKING THE
CURRENT HISTORY AND WHERE WE GO
IN THE FUTURE IS US
ACKNOWLEDGING IT, IF WE CAN'T
FACE IT, WE CAN'T CHANGE IT, AND
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE IS BRIGHTER.
AND IT BEGINS WITH KNOWLEDGE.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. AND THAT AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY. ROLL CALL. VOTE
ON SCR 113 MOTIONS BE ADOPTED.
CALL FOR A CALL FOR AYE. DIXON
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN. BRIAN AYE. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY. HANEY AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA. MCKENNA
AYE. PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE.
REYES. SANCHEZ WALDRON. WALDRON.
AYE ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT,
WE HAVE ONE MORE AUTHOR WE'RE
AWAITING, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF
VOTES TO TAKE. AND FIRST OF ALL,
WE NEED A MOTION ON THE
COMMITTEE. BILL AB 3283. THAT'S
FILE NINE, ITEM NINE. WE HAVE A
MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND BILL?
SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND ON THE
COMMITTEE BILL? A SECOND. MADAM
SECRETARY, IF WE COULD TAKE A
ROLL CALL, VOTE ON AB 3283
MOTIONS DO PASS. KALRA. AYE.
KALRA AYE. DIXON. NO. DIXON. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN HI. BAUER-KAHAN.
AYE. BRIAN. BRIAN AYE. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA PACHECO.
HI. PACHECO. AYE. REYES SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. NO. WALDRON WALDRON.
AYE THE BILL IS OUT. AND THEN.
CONSENT CALENDAR. IT'S STILL ON
CALL. SO IF WE CAN ROLL THROUGH,
MEMBERS PRESENT. THIS IS
CONSENT. IT'S CALLED DIXON ON
CONSENT. YES DIXON. AYE. HANEY.
ON CONSENT. HANEY. AYE
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA. REYES.
WALDRON WALDRON. AYE. OKAY. AND
THE BILL IS OUT. AND WE STILL
HAVE A COUPLE FOLKS THAT NEED
TO. ALL RIGHT. AND SO LET'S GO
ON TO ITEM TWO AB 19. OH, NO.
ACTUALLY ITEM ONE IS STILL ON
CALL AB 1815 WEBER. DIXON NØ
DIXON NÓ HANEY. Ã HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA. REYES
WALDRON. WALDRON. AYE. OKAY, SO
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM TWO AB
1979. WARD THE CALL WILL LIFT
THE CALL. DIXON NØ DIXON, NÓ
HANEY. HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
REYES. WALDRON. WALDRON. AYE
OKAY. THAT BILL IS OUT. WE CAN
ADD ON FOR ITEM THREE. WE'LL DO
ADD ONS FOR ITEM THREE. BRIAN
BRYANT AYE. MAIENSCHEIN OKAY.
ITEM SIX IS, WE'LL LIFT THE CALL
ON ITEM SIX. AB 2785. WILSON
DIXON. DIXON. NØ. HANEY. HANEY.
AYE. MAIENSCHEIN REYES. WALDRON.
WALDRON NO. OKAY. THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM SEVEN AB 3024. WARD IS
ON CALL. LIFT THE CALL. HANEY
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN REYES
WALDRON. WALDRON. AYE. THE BILL
IS OUT. ITEM EIGHT IS Þ. YEA.
YOU ARE NOT VOTING? OH, REALLY?
I THOUGHT I'D. OKAY, WE CAN
CHANGE IT. CHANGE IT TO NO ON AB
3024. DIXON. NO. OKAY. ITEM
NINE. THEY'RE. NEITHER OF THEM
ARE HERE, SO I THINK WE'RE ALL
CAUGHT UP. YEAH YEAH, EXCEPT FOR
THOSE THAT AREN'T HERE. ALL
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF
WHEN. FIVE MINUTES. I THINK THE
CODE IS HERE. AREN'T YOU, YEAH.
CAN I DO THAT? YEAH, YEAH. LET
ME JUST DO ONE LAST TEXT. OUR
BILL. EXCEPT THE EXCELLENT
AMENDMENT. YEAH YEAH. THE ABOUT
ANYTHING ELSE? YEP. I CAN DO IT.
NOW, I. I'M SORRY. YEAH I WAS
WONDERING. OKAY. NO. HIS STAFF
RESPONDED. RESPONDED TO MY
STAFF. OH, GOTCHA. OKAY I DON'T
KNOW WHERE HE IS. OKAY SO.
PRESENT FOR THEM.
INTELLIGENCE TO ADD ON. I KNOW
IT JUST SOUNDS GOOD. YEAH HE
SHOULD BE WALKING IN ANY MOMENT.
ACCORDING. TO.
SAID HE'S RUNNING BECAUSE I'M.
I'M SO WHY DON'T YOU GO OVER
THERE AND GET. I'LL GET READY.
YEAH I'M REALLY.
CHAIR. MAYBE THE ELEVATOR IS
CROWDED OR A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE
TODAY. ALL RIGHT. I KNOW THAT'S
WHERE I WAS. THAT'S WHY I WAS
LIKE, YOU KNOW. I HAVE TO GO TO
BMP. I THINK. YEAH I. KNOW
BRIAN, DO YOU WANT TO PLAY
TELEVISION? SORRY. WHAT DO YOU
WANT TO PLAY? EVAN LOHAN?
TELEVISION. SHE'S DONE. SO
CONSENT, CONSENT. CALENDAR, ADD
ON ON CONSENT. MAIN SHINE. MAIN
SHINE I MACKINNON REYES. ITEM
ONE 1815. WEBER MAIN. SHINE.
MAIN. SHINE I MACKINNON REYES.
ITEM THREE. GABRIEL ITEM THREE
AB 25 OH NO. SORRY. AB TWO. ITEM
TWO AB 1979 WARD MAIN SHINE MAIN
SHINE I REYES. ITEM THREE AB
2505 MAIN SHINE MAIN SHINE I
THAT ONE'S DONE. ITEM SIX AB
2785 MAIN SHINE MAIN SHINE I
REYES. HE'S IN THE ELEVATOR.
ITEM SEVEN AB 3024 MAIN SHINE,
MAIN SHINE I REYES AND ITEM
EIGHT AB 3136 MAIN SHINE MAIN
SHINE I. ITEM NINE AB 3283 MAIN
SHINE AB, AB 3283. WE'VE BEEN
DOING A PLAY MAIN SHINE I
MACKINNON, REYES OKAY AND AB
ITEM TEN SCR 113 MAIN SHINE.
MAIN SHINE. ERASE OKAY, WHICH
ONE YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO? CÁC
OKAY. ITEM SEVEN CHANGE VOTE TO
NOT VOTING FOR ITEM SEVEN AB
3224 MAIN SHINE NOT VOTING. SO
HE'S ON. HE'S NOT VOTING AB 3024
CHANGE NOT VOTING. SHE HAS
CALLED IT OUT. CHANGE IT. NOT
VOTING ON AB THREE 3024. NO. TO
NOT VOTING. YEAH. TO NOT VOTING.
OKAY ALL RIGHT. SO HE'S IT'S ON
ITEM SIX 2785. OH SORRY. SORRY.
IT'S NOT ITEM SEVEN. IT'S ITEM
627 OKAY. AB 2077 85 MAIN SHINE.
NOT VOTING OKAY. ITEM. WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO ITEM FIVE AB 2766
LO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
INDULGING ON THIS, HECTIC
SCHEDULE TODAY FOR AND ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT ALONG WITH
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DIXON, ON ASSEMBLY
BILL 2766 ON A CLARITY AND
PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY FOR EARLY
RELEASE CREDITS. AS THE CHAIR
MAY RECALL. ALSO RECALL, THERE
WAS A RECENT SHOOTING IN THE
CITY OF SAN JOSE IN WHICH MY
BROTHER AND HIS PARTNER WERE
INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING. MY
BROTHER'S PARTNER WAS SHOT IN
THE LINE OF DUTY, AND SHE WAS
THE FIRST FEMALE POLICE OFFICER
TO BE SHOT IN THE LINE OF DUTY
IN THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, AND SO
HELP HOPING TO ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY
AND WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
COMMITTEE'S HARD WORK, AND WOULD
ALSO BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AS WELL. TO THANK YOU
FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT, AND
I'LL PASS IT OVER TO MY JOINT
AUTHOR, ASSEMBLYMAN DIANNE
DIXON. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, AND I AM
PROUD TO BE HERE TODAY, PRESENT
ALONGSIDE MY COLLEAGUE, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOW. WE HAVE WORKED
DILIGENTLY WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS
AND COMMITTEE STAFF ON THE
LANGUAGE. THE BILL REFLECTS
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS THAT WERE DISCUSSED
LAST YEAR WHEN AB 15, ITS
PREDECESSOR, WAS HEARD IN
ASSEMBLY PUBLIC SAFETY. THIS
BILL IS CRITICAL TO PROVIDE MORE
TRANSPARENCY AS IT RELATES TO
EARLY RELEASE CREDITS FOR
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS. AS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, LOW RECITED
THAT UNFORTUNATE, TRAGIC
EXPERIENCE. THERE WAS ANOTHER,
INCIDENT HAPPENED TWO YEARS AGO
HERE IN SACRAMENTO, WHERE SIX
PEOPLE WERE MURDERED BLOCKS FROM
THIS BUILDING. THERE WERE THREE
PEOPLE THAT WERE EACH CHARGED
WITH THREE COUNTS OF MURDER, OF
THE GROUP. ONE INDIVIDUAL WAS A
FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM
. CDCR LATER CONFIRMED THAT HE
WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON A
LITTLE OVER A MONTH BEFORE THE
SHOOTING. AFTER SERVING ONLY
FIVE AND A HALF YEARS OF A TEN
YEAR SENTENCE, CBS NEWS
SACRAMENTO SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND
HOW A DEFENDANT IN A GANG
RELATED MULTIPLE HOMICIDE CASE
WAS ABLE TO BE RELEASED SO
EARLY, SUBMITTED A PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT REQUEST THAT CDCR
RESPONDED BY DENYING THE NEWS
STATION'S REQUEST, ARGUING THAT
CREDIT EARNING INFORMATION WAS
CONFIDENTIAL. THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA DESERVE TO KNOW WHY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS ARE
RELEASED EARLIER THAN THEIR
SCHEDULED RELEASE DATE BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, AND BEFORE FULL
REHABILITATION MAY HAVE BEEN
ACHIEVED AND DOCUMENTED, AND THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA DESERVE
TRANSPARENCY. AB 2766 OFFERS A
REMEDY BY AMENDING THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT TO PROVIDE THAT THE
CALCULATION OF A PRISON INMATES
RELEASE DATE, WHICH INCLUDES A
SUMMARY OF HOW THE INMATE EARNED
ANY RELEASE CREDITS, INCLUDING
EDUCATION AND GOOD BEHAVIOR, IS
NOT CONFIDENTIAL AND IS A PUBLIC
RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.
WHEN AN INCARCERATED PERSON
SERVES A FRACTION OF THEIR
SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE JUDGE,
THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW
WHY THAT IS THE CASE. I AM PROUD
TO SIT ALONGSIDE MY COLLEAGUE
WHO HAS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. WHY
THIS POLICY IS SO IMPORTANT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AND JUST
TO CLARIFY, ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. YES. THANK
YOU. SO MERLOT, IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2766?
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M ZACH
CEFALU ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TESTIFYING
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, JARED MOSS,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
POLICE CHIEFS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. DOES ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2766? I KNOW
THAT SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS
RELIEVE SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF
OPPOSITION. SO I APPRECIATE YOU
WORKING WITH OUR WITH OUR STAFF
ON THAT, AND THERE IS A MOTION
ON THE TABLE. NO, WE NEED A
MOTION. SO MOVED. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL
RIGHT. SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
VOTE AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
ALLOWING ASSEMBLYMAN DIXON AND I
TO JOIN PRESENT. GREAT. OF
COURSE. OUR PLEASURE, MADAM
SECRETARY CAN TAKE ROLL CALL ON
AB 2766. MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED. CALL FOR A CALL. AYE
DIXON. AYE. DIXON. AYE. BAUER.
KHN BAUER. KHN. AYE BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY
AYE. HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE
MCKENNA. PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO.
AYE. REYES SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ.
AYE. WALDEN. WALDEN AYE. ALL
RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU. ALL I BELIEVE I BELIEVE,
YEAH, I THINK EVERYONE HERE IS
ALL CAUGHT UP. WE HAVE A COUPLE
OTHER MEMBERS THAT WERE WAITING
ON. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO
ANNOUNCE. WE'RE NOT VOTING ON AB
3024. MAIENSCHEIN IS AN AYE. AND
THEN. SO SHE REALIZED WHAT WE
WERE VOTING ON. I ALREADY TRIED
TO GET THE DIRT. OH, NO. WE HAVE
TO WAIT FOR THE BAD ON HIS MIND.
YEAH. AFTER. YEAH. AFTER THEY'RE
DONE, WE'RE DONE. OKAY. I SENT
THEM A TEXT TELLING THEM THAT
WE'RE ALREADY DOING. AN
AMENDMENT, THE CHAIRS AMENDMENT.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE ANY OF THE
STUFF WE JUST DID. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AROUND. YEAH, YEAH.
PICKLEBALL. OH, MAN. I WAS
COMING. NØ. THAT MAKES ME NOT
WANT TO PLAY IN YOUR EXPERT
LEVEL. BUT YET THE. HI,
EVERYBODY, MAN. HEY.
OKAY. PERFECT. OH GREAT. TURN IT
ON. YEAH. GO AHEAD AND SAY WE'LL
DO ADD ONS NOW. OKAY. WE ARE NOW
READY TO DO ADD ONS. OKAY. CAN
SENT. CALENDAR. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. REYES HI, REYES.
HI, LET'S SEE. ITEM ONE, WHICH
IS AB 1815. MCKENNA MCKENNA. I
REYES REYES. I ITEM TWO, WHICH
IS AB 1979. WARD. REYES I REYES
I, I HAVE EVERYONE ON ITEM
THREE. ITEM FIVE IS AB 2766 LOW
MCKENNA VOTING REYES IS. I'M
SORRY, WHAT ITEM, AB. ITEM FIVE
AB 2766 LOW. MCKENNA IS NOT
VOTING Ó. I REYES I ITEM SIX IS
AB 2785. WILSON REYES I REYES I.
ITEM SEVEN IS AB 3024. WARD
REYES I REYES I. I'VE GOT
EVERYONE ON ITEM EIGHT. ITEM
NINE IS AB 3283 BY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. MCKENNA I MCKENNA I
REYES REYES I AND ITEM TEN IS
SCR 113 REYES I REYES I. ITEM
NUMBER FOUR. OH IT WAS PULLED.
IT WAS PULLED. OKAY, SO CONSENT
IS ALL DONE. OKAY. JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IS NOW ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU