GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. WELCOME
TO THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND IN
THE INTEREST OF TIME, START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE, AND I'LL WELCOME
OUR NEW MEMBER WHEN HE'S HERE,
THE RULES FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY
ARE THE EAST SIDE WILL BE
ALLOWED TO TWO MAIN WITNESSES
EACH WITNESSES WILL HAVE
APPROXIMATELY TWO MINUTES TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF OR
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SHOULD
STATE THEIR NAMES, ORGANIZATION
OF ANY AND THEIR POSITION, AS WE
PROCEED WITH WITNESS AND PUBLIC
COMMENT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
UNDERSTAND THE COMMITTEE HAS
RULES TO ENSURE WE MAINTAIN
ORDER TO RUN A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT HEARING. AND WE WILL
BEGIN WITH ANY SENATORS THAT ARE
FROM SAN JOSE. HEY, THAT'S THE
HOMETOWN ADVANTAGE OVER HERE
ALSO HAS TO BE NUMBER ONE IN THE
PILOT ORDER.
GOOD. GOOD TO HAVE A LITTLE
LEVITY. FIRST THING. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR, AND GOOD TO SEE
YOU AND MEMBERS. I'M PLEASED TO
PRESENT SB 554, THE SURVIVORS
PROTECTION ACT SPONSORED BY
RESTRAINING ORDERS WITHOUT
BORDERS. SB 554 WOULD ALLOW
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR HARASSMENT TO PETITION FOR AN
ORDER IN A CALIFORNIA COURT
REGARDLESS OF RESIDENCY STATUS.
25 STATES CURRENTLY ALLOW A
PETITIONER TO BE A NON RESIDENT
IN 33 STATES, EXPLICITLY ALLOW
SURVIVOR TO FILE A PETITION IN A
PERPETRATOR'S COUNTY. CURRENT
LAWS IN CALIFORNIA FAIL TO
OUTLINE JURISDICTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESTRAINING
ORDER PETITIONS. THIS GAP OFTEN
CAUSES COURTS TO DISMISS OR DENY
RESTRAINING ORDERS WHEN PARTIES
ARE IN DIFFERENT STATES. EVEN IF
THE SURVIVOR FLED FOR SAFETY,
THE NATURE OF ABUSE HAS
TRANSFORMED AND SO MUST OUR
LAWS. MODERN TECHNOLOGY, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, PROVIDES
PERPETRATORS A VARIETY OF NEW
TOOLS TO COMMIT INTERSTATE
VIOLENCE. FLEEING TO ANOTHER
STATE IS NO LONGER SUFFICIENT
PROTECTION. IF IT EVER WAS. SB
554 CODIFIES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL
NEED NOT BE A RESIDENT TO FILE A
PETITION FOR A RESTRAINING
ORDER. IF THE DEFENDANT IS A
RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA OR THE
CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN THE
STATE. THE NEED FOR THIS BILL IS
TREMENDOUS. INTERSTATE VIOLENCE
IS NOW THE NORM, NOT THE
EXCEPTION. PERPETRATORS HAVE NO
BORDERS AND NEITHER SHOULD A
SURVIVORS PROTECTION. WITH US
TODAY IS KHAN WITH RESTRAINING
ORDERS WITHOUT BORDERS. THANK
YOU AGAIN AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS NASIHA KHAN. I'M A
SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVOR AND I'M
THE FOUNDER OF RESTRAINING
ORDERS WITHOUT BORDERS, WHO
PASSED VERSIONS OF THIS BILL IN
HAWAII LAST YEAR AND IN OREGON,
THREE MONTHS AGO IN 2022, I WAS
SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WHILE
VISITING MY HOMETOWN IN HAWAII
IN THE MONTHS AFTER, I WAS
DENIED A RESTRAINING ORDER BY
BOTH CALIFORNIA AND HAWAII DUE
TO THE JURISDICTIONAL CHAOS.
WHEN BOTH PARTIES ARE FROM
DIFFERENT STATES, HAWAII DID NOT
PERMIT NONRESIDENT SURVIVORS TO
PETITION A LAW. THAT WE'VE SINCE
CHANGED, AND I REALIZED
CALIFORNIA STATUTE DOES NOT DOES
NOT DETAIL A NONRESIDENT
SURVIVOR'S JURISDICTION OR
INCLUDE THEM AS EXPLICIT
PETITIONERS FOR ORDERS THE WAY
THAT OTHER STATES DO. SURVIVORS
OFTEN REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN
COURT, RELYING ON STATUTE TO
UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHTS AND
SUPPORT THEM WHEN THEY NAVIGATE
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. OFTEN FOR
THE FIRST TIME, AND THE STATUTE
AS WRITTEN CURRENTLY FAILS THEM.
THIS BILL CLARIFIES A
NONRESIDENT SURVIVOR'S ABILITY
TO REQUEST A PROTECTION OR
RESTRAINING ORDER. IT CREATES A
PATHWAY TO PROTECTION FOR
CALIFORNIA'S 9 MILLION SURVIVORS
AND 250 MILLION ANNUAL VISITORS.
IT GIVES CALIFORNIA THE
OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN 15 STATES
WITH THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE
RESTRAINING ORDER ACCESS LAWS
AND THE 25 STATES WHICH
IMPLEMENT VARIATIONS OF THIS
BILL. BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED
FEELS LIKE THE END OF THE WORLD,
AND IN SO MANY WAYS, IT IS.
TURNING TO COURTS MEANT FIGHTING
THE CONDITIONING TO STAY QUIET
AND ENDURE INJUSTICE, TO NOT
MAKE A FUSS, TO SWALLOW THE
TRAUMA, TO NOT DRAW ATTENTION TO
WHAT FELT LIKE A RAVAGED LIFE
AND OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM LOOKED AT
MY COURAGE. THEY LOOKED AT MY
HOPE, MY VULNERABILITY AND THEY
FAILED ME. I WAS PUNTED BETWEEN
THE HAWAII AND CALIFORNIA
JUSTICE SYSTEMS, EACH TELLING ME
TO GO TO THE OTHER AND NEITHER
STOMACHING MY URGENCY. SURVIVORS
ARE ASKING FOR PROTECTION NOW
BECAUSE THEY NEEDED THE
PROTECTION. THEN CALIFORNIA IS
BEING ASKED TO RECKON WITH
NAVIGATING JUSTICE AND AN
INCREASINGLY INTERCONNECTED
WORLD. THE UNCOMPLICATED ANSWER
TO THAT MUST BE THAT A VICTIM'S
RESIDENCY STATUS SHOULD NOT
DICTATE IF THEIR LIFE IS WORTHY
OF PROTECTION. I URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. THANK
YOU, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 554? THANK YOU.
JESSICA STENDER, ON BEHALF OF
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
554? ALL RIGHT. QUESTION COMES.
WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM
YET, BUT WHEN WE DO, WE'LL
CERTAINLY TAKE UP THE MATTER.
AND I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. IT
SEEMS LIKE IT'S A CALIFORNIA IS
PLAYING CATCH UP HERE, BUT IT'S
ALWAYS GOOD WHEN WE CAN ACTUALLY
ENSURE WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE
CAN TO PROTECT SURVIVORS. AND I
WANT TO THANK RESTRAINING ORDERS
WITHOUT BORDERS. LOOKS LIKE
YOU'VE BEEN HAVING SOME PRETTY
GOOD SUCCESS AROUND THE COUNTRY,
AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT YOU'LL
HAVE SUCCESS HERE. GIVEN YOUR
AUTHOR AS WELL AS YOU AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION. THÀNH, FIGHTING SO
HARD FOR SURVIVORS TO REALLY
CLOSE THIS IMPORTANT LOOPHOLE,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR YOUR, YOUR
SUPPORT, YOUR HELP, THE SUPPORT
OF THE COMMITTEE STAFF TO GET
HERE TODAY AND HOPEFULLY THE
SUPPORT OF MAJORITY OF THE
COMMITTEE, WHEN YOU HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. AND
AGAIN, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ITEM THREE,
SB 1386, SENATOR CABALLERO. THE
SENATOR WHO USED TO REPRESENT
SAN JOSE. WELL, YOU'RE THE NEXT
CLOSEST. WE ONLY HAVE THREE,
ITEMS. SO SENATOR BRADFORD, EVEN
IF SENATOR BRADFORD WAS HERE,
YOU'D HAVE TO WAIT FOR YOU. THAT
SOUNDS HORRIBLE. YEAH, WELL,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1386, WHICH WILL
CLARIFY THE CIVIL RAPE LAW, A
LAW THAT PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF
SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT,
RAPE AND SEXUAL BATTERY BY
PROHIBITING AT TRIAL INQUIRIES
REGARDING THEIR SEXUAL HISTORIES
. THIS BILL IS BASED ON THE
EXPERIENCE OF A JANE DOE, A
FOURTH GRADE EIGHT YEAR OLD GIRL
WHO WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED OVER A
ONE YEAR PERIOD FROM 2009 TO
2010 BY HER TEACHER.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAME VICTIM
WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A FAMILY
FRIEND IN 2013, WHILE STILL A
MINOR THEREAFTER, SHE RECEIVED
COUNSELING FOR HER TRAUMA, AND
SHE REPORTED HER PRIOR SEXUAL
ABUSE. THE TRIAL COURT RULED
THAT EVIDENCE OF THE SUBSEQUENT
SEXUAL ASSAULT SUFFERED BY JANE
DOE COULD BE ADMITTED AS
EVIDENCE TO UNDERMINE HER
CREDIBILITY. SO THE SECOND ABUSE
IN REVIEWING THE TRIAL COURT'S
DECISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
RULED THAT THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL
DISTRICT MAY SEEK TO ADMIT
EVIDENCE OF A SURVIVOR'S OTHER
SEXUAL CONDUCT TO IMPEACH THE
SURVIVOR'S CREDIBILITY. SB 11.
SB 1386 WOULD PROTECT SURVIVORS
OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, RAPE, AND
SEXUAL BATTERY FROM FURTHER
VICTIMIZATION BY EXPLICITLY
STATING THAT THE CIVIL RAPE
SHIELD LAW, A LAW THAT THAT
SEEKS TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF
THE SURVIVORS, PROHIBITS
INQUIRIES INTO THEIR SEXUAL
HISTORIES TO IMPEACH THEIR
TESTIMONY AS TO CONSENT OR TO
DAMAGES. RAPE SHIELD LAWS ARE
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT
SURVIVORS FROM UNNECESSARY AND
INTRUSIVE INQUIRIES INTO THEIR
PERSONAL LIVES AND SEXUAL
HISTORIES, AND I THINK WE ALL
AGREE THAT CHILDREN WHO CAN'T
GIVE CONSENT IN PARTICULAR, BUT
FORCING SURVIVORS TO DISCLOSE
DETAILS ABOUT THEIR INTIMATE
LIFE OR TO RELIVE TRAUMATIC
INCIDENTS UNRELATED TO THE CASE
IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THEIR
CREDIBILITY, CAN BE AS
TRAUMATIZING AS THE ASSAULT
ITSELF. SB 1386 WOULD CLARIFY
THAT EVIDENCE OF A VICTIM SEXUAL
CONDUCT UNRELATED TO THE CASE IS
NOT ADMISSIBLE TO IMPEACH THEIR
TESTIMONY AS TO CONSENT OR
DAMAGES. THIS BILL WILL PRESERVE
THE INTEGRITY OF THE CIVIL CIVIL
RAPE SHIELD LAW AND FOSTER A
SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR
SURVIVORS TO COME FORWARD AND
SEEK THE JUSTICE THEY THEY
DESERVE. WITH ME TO TESTIFY
TODAY IS CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY
MICHAEL CARRILLO, WHO DID THE
TRIAL, AND JESSICA STENDER WITH
THE EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. JESSICA
STENDER, ON BEHALF OF EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES, PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF SB 1386. THANK
YOU, SENATOR CABALLERO, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP AND TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
SINCE 1974, EQUAL RIGHTS
ADVOCATES HAS ADVOCATED FOR THE
RIGHTS OF WOMEN, GIRLS AND
PEOPLE ACROSS GENDERS WHO HAVE
EXPERIENCED SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND ASSAULT AT SCHOOL AND AT
WORK. WE ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF
THE WAYS IN WHICH SURVIVORS OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT
ARE OFTEN RETRAUMATIZED IN THE
PROCESS OF SEEKING JUSTICE FOR
MANY SURVIVORS, HAVING DETAILS
ABOUT THEIR INTIMATE LIFE
UNNECESSARILY THRUST IN THE
SPOTLIGHT, OR BEING FORCED TO
RELIVE OTHER HARM THEY ENDURED
SEPARATE FROM THE SEXUAL ASSAULT
AT ISSUE CAN BE AS TRAUMATIZING
AS THE ASSAULT ITSELF. THIS
DETERS REPORTING AND OPENS THE
DOOR TO HARASSING CONDUCT. WHEN
SURVIVORS DO COME FORWARD FOR
THIS REASON, THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED THE RAPE SHIELD LAWS,
PUTTING A CATEGORICAL BAN ON THE
USE OF EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL
HISTORY TO PROVE CONSENT OR LACK
OF HARM. AS A LEGISLATURE NOTED
AT THAT TIME. WITHOUT THIS
PROTECTION, SURVIVORS FACE A
CATCH 22 OF COMING FORWARD, BUT
ONLY AT THE RISK OF ENDURING
INVASIVE INTRUSIONS INTO DETAILS
OF THEIR PERSONAL LIVES AND
DISCOVERY. TO ALLOW EVIDENCE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CATEGORICALLY BARRED IN
SUBSECTION A OF THE STATUTE
UNDER THE GUISE OF IMPEACHING
CREDIBILITY, CIRCUMVENTS THE
PROHIBITION AT THE HEART OF THE
RAPE SHIELD. PROTECTIONS AND
UNDERMINES THE INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATURE. JUST RECENTLY, IN
THE CONTEXT OF A TITLE NINE
MATTER WHERE MY ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTED THE SURVIVOR, THE
RESPONDENT TRIED TO INTRODUCE A
RELEVANT AND HARASSING PAST
SEXUAL HISTORY OF THE SURVIVOR
RELATED TO PAST ROMANTIC
PARTNERS, AND ASKED HER IF SHE
HAD ACCUSED MEN IN THE PAST OF
ABUSE. WE WERE ABLE TO PUT A
STOP TO THE ATTEMPTED INTRUSIVE
LINE OF QUESTIONING. HOWEVER,
THIS EXAMPLE IS INSTRUCTIVE AS
THE IMPORTANCE OF ROBUST
APPLICATION OF CIVIL RAPE SHIELD
PROTECTIONS FOR MORE GENERALLY
TO ENSURE SURVIVORS ARE NOT
CHILLED FROM COMING FORWARD.
THIS BILL PROVIDES AN IMPORTANT
CLARIFICATION TO OUR LONG
STANDING CIVIL RAPE SHIELD LAW
AND TO ENSURE THAT THE LAW IS
APPLIED AS THE LEGISLATURE
INTENDED. FOR THIS REASON, WE
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MICHAEL
CARRILLO. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE BILL. CO-SPONSORS CAC, AND
I'M A PARTNER AT THE LAW FIRM IN
SOUTH PASADENA, I'VE SPENT MY
ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL CAREER
REPRESENTING INDIVIDUALS IN
CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS, AS WELL AS
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE. THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF
LIMITING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A
SURVIVOR'S SEXUAL HISTORY OR
PAST CONDUCT IN CIVIL COURT
PROCEEDINGS IN SEXUAL ASSAULT,
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, AND SEXUAL
BATTERY CASES. AND THAT'S WHY
THEY PASSED THE CIVIL RAPE
SHIELD STATUTES IN 1985.
HOWEVER, CLARITY OF THE STATUTE
IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROTECT
SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE
FROM BEING FURTHER VICTIMIZED
WHILE SEEKING JUSTICE. LITTLE
SUSIE WAS IN FOURTH GRADE WHEN
SHE SUFFERED HORRIFIC SEXUAL
ABUSE BY HER TEACHER. AMONG THE
ABUSES, HER TEACHER FORCED HER
TO PERFORM ORAL SEX MULTIPLE
TIMES, AND SHE WAS EIGHT YEARS
OLD. SADLY, SUSIE WAS NOT HIS
ONLY VICTIM AND SHE BROUGHT AN
ACTION ALONG WITH OTHERS,
AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
THE PERPETRATOR FOR NEGLIGENT
HIRING, RETENTION, SUPERVISION
AND FAILING TO WARN, TRAIN OR
EDUCATE HER AS TO THIS POTENTIAL
ABUSE AND FOR NOT REPORTING THIS
ABUSE UNDER NEGLIGENCE PER SE.
IN HER CASE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE UNRELATED
EVIDENCE OF THE SUBSEQUENT
SEXUAL ASSAULT SHE SUFFERED TO
IN ORDER TO, QUOTE, IMPEACH HER
CREDIBILITY AS TO THE SOURCE OF
HER CLAIMED HARM. THE TRIAL
COURT PERMITTED THIS EVIDENCE
WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT THIS MIGHT
DO TO SOMEONE TRYING TO SPEAK
OUT AND FIND THEIR VOICE.
ULTIMATELY, THE SUPREME COURT
THAT HELD THAT SECTION 1106 Â
MAY PERMIT ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE BE EXCLUDED
UNDER SECTION 1106, A, AND
REMANDED THE MATTER FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS. THE SUPREME COURT'S
HOLDING IN MOUNTAIN IN THE
MOUNTAIN VIEW CASE IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL
LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND IMPACT OF
ALLOWING SUCH EVIDENCE WILL
CAUSE A CHILLING EFFECT ON
SURVIVORS WHO WISH TO COME
FORWARD TO SEEK ACCOUNTABILITY,
BUT MAY NOT DO SO FOR FEAR OF
HAVING THEIR SEXUAL HISTORY
BROUGHT FORTH AND PARADED IN
FRONT OF A JURY. THAT IS WHY SB
1386 IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. THIS
BILL AMENDS SECTION 1106 TO
CLARIFY THAT EVIDENCE OF A
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE SEXUAL
HISTORY MAY NOT BE USED TO
IMPEACH A SURVIVOR'S TESTIMONY
AS TO CONSENT OR LACK OF HARM.
THIS MEANS THAT VICTIMS OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT LIKE SUSIE, WILL
NOT HAVE TO FEAR THAT THEIR
ENTIRE SEXUAL HISTORY CAN BE
BROUGHT UP TO COURT IF THEY TRY
TO BRING FORWARD, TRY TO GO
FORWARD AND GET JUSTICE FOR
HORRENDOUS SEXUAL ASSAULT THAT
THEY HAVE SUFFERED. I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND URGE
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1386?
GOOD MORNING. GENESIS GONZALES,
ON BEHALF OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
LENNY KOUNALAKIS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MOLLY ROSEN WITH
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT. THANKS.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1386? WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. YOU
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET WHEN WE
DO. YES. SO WE'RE EXCITED TO BE
ABLE TO MOVE THIS BILL FORWARD
BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. THE SPONSORS AND THEIR
TESTIMONY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU
HEAR, STORIES OF WHAT HAPPENS,
AS YOU MENTIONED, TALKING ABOUT
SUSIE. I MEAN, THIS IS PRECISELY
WHY THE RAPE SHIELD LAW IS
THERE. AND WE NEED, IF WE NEED
TO CLOSE OR MAKE IT EVEN MORE
CLEAR FOR OUR JURISTS AND OUR
LAWYERS, THAT WE SHOULDN'T EVEN
VENTURE INTO ALLOWING THIS KIND
OF EVIDENCE IN TO ATTACK THE
CREDIBILITY OR IMPEACH THESE
WITNESSES. YOU KNOW, THAT WILL
MAKE IT EVEN MORE CLEAR. AND I
WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD TO DO
THAT, I THINK I'M HOPEFUL THIS
WILL FINALLY ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF
REALLY CREATING THAT STRONG
SHIELD THAT I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE AND ALL OF US HAVE
INTENDED OVER THE YEARS, AND WE
HAD A QUORUM. WE'LL WE'LL
CERTAINLY TAKE IT UP, SENATOR
CABALLERO. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR,
AND I'LL ADOPT YOUR SUMMATION AS
MY CLOSING AND RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
FOR THAT, TWO.
MINORS FOR THE OTHER SIDE. OKAY
SO I DO THAT ACTUALLY.
TECHNOLOGY? YEAH SO, YEAH. YOU
KNOW, LIKE, WHEN I. WHEN I
STARTED. ÓRDENES. THE BOARD OF.
I WAS LIKE. YEAH THAT'S THE
PROBLEM. YEAH, YEAH, EXACTLY.
OH, MAN. BUT I WENT ON A WALK
TODAY BY THE RIVER. IT'S ALSO
RIGHT BY DISCOVERY PARK, WHICH
IS. I CAN SWIM IN THE RIVER A
LOT. AND THE AMERICAN, I DON'T
KNOW NOW. YEAH, I'LL LET YOU
KNOW. I DIDN'T GO IN. I STARTED
WALKING, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN,
IT'S LIKE, I, LIKE, ALMOST WALK
RIGHT INTO THIS BIG OLD TURKEY.
NICE TURKEY'S OVER HERE. LIKE
AGGRESSIVE TURKEY. LIKE, I LIKE
THE TURKEY. CHASE ME, YOU KNOW,
LIKE LIKE WHEN I. YEAH, BUT IT'S
LIKE, THERE IS, LIKE, ON THE
SIDEWALK, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FREE
WALK. YEAH. WE HAVE A LOT OF
WOMEN JUST WANDERING. I HAVE NO
IDEA. COURTYARD AND IT'S ALMOST
LIKE. A SIX, SEVEN MONTH DRIVE.
IT'S JUST RIGHT ON THE OTHER
SIDE. YEAH. SO I JUST. I CAN'T
CANCEL STATE GOVERNORS AND. LIKE
THAT? OH, YEAH. I JUST STAYED
THERE. I NEVER STAYED THERE
ONCE. EVERYTHING ELSE IS BOOKED
UP, HE LIKE, THAT'S WHERE HE
STAYS. LIKE HIS STUFF THERE
BECAUSE HE GETS SUPER $50 OR
SOMETHING. OH, BECAUSE HE WAS
LIKE A LONG TERM STAY. LIKE
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY HAPPENS. LIKE I
MEAN, HE'S PRETTY SHADY. IT'S A
LITTLE SHADY. YEAH. YEAH MORE SO
NOW. IS IT LIKE YEAH DAY IT
WASN'T. YEAH. YEAH I'M SURE IT'S
WORSE NOW. YEAH THANK YOU. RIGHT
WHEN YOU SAID THE GOVERNOR I
THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE SOMEWHAT
FANCY. THAT WAS KIND OF FANCY
RIGHT NEXT TO THE MCDONALD'S.
THAT'S HOW THAT'S WHAT THEY, YOU
KNOW, THEY WENT TO MCDONALD'S.
THAT'S WHAT THEY GET YOU WITH
THAT NAME? YEAH. SOME OF THEM I.
EXCELLENT. ALL RIGHT. MATT.
MATT. MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE
TAKE A ROLL CALL FOR QUORUM,
PLEASE? CALL. ROLL HERE. DIXON.
LEE. BRIAN. HERE CONNOLLY.
HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN HERE.
MCKENNA. HERE. PACHECO. PRESENT
PATTERSON. REYES. SANCHEZ ALL
RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO FILE ITEM TWO.
SB 924. SENATOR BRADFORD,
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS COMMON
SENSE MEASURE JUST SIMPLY
REMOVES THE SUNSET THAT WAS
STATED FOR JULY 20TH, JULY 1ST,
2025, FROM A MEASURE I PASSED IN
2020, SB 1157, WHICH MADE IT
VOLUNTARY FOR INDIVIDUALS TO
REPORT THEIR ON TIME PAYMENTS TO
A CREDIT AGENCY TO ESTABLISH
CREDIT. IN THE FIVE YEARS THAT
THIS FOUR YEARS, I SHOULD SAY
THAT THIS BILL HAS BEEN IN
PLACE. THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS
HAVE CONTACTED MY OFFICE SAYING
THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH
CREDIT AND PURCHASE HOMES, THIS
BILL BUILDS ON THE SUCCESS AGAIN
OF 1157 AND CONTINUES TO PROVIDE
A TOOL FOR LOW INCOME RENTERS IN
CALIFORNIA TO IMPROVE THEIR
CREDIT SCORE, THESE RENTERS ARE
STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING
THEIR PORTION OF RENT IN A
TIMELY MANNER AND PAY THE
ASSOCIATED FEES WITH THOSE
SERVICES, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 924? MARK STIVERS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP AND SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
924? ALL RIGHT. WE GO BACK TO
COMMITTEE. SECOND, WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR CONTINUING THIS
IMPORTANT PROGRAM. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. TAKE A ROLL CALL.
VOTE ON SB 924. MOTIONS DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALL. AYE. DIXON. LEE. BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE CONNELLY. CONNELLY.
AYE. HANEY. HANEY AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. AYE MCKENNA. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
PATTERSON REYES. SANCHEZ. ALL
RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
SECOND MOTION AND SECOND ROLL
CALL? VOTE ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, PLEASE. THOSE BILLS
INCLUDE SB 575 WAHAB TO
APPROPRIATIONS, SB 949
BLAKESLEE, BLAKE, SPEER, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATION, SB
1034 SEYARTO, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SB 1096 TO SB
1127 NIELLO, SB 1366. HURTADO SB
1427 ALLEN TO APPROPRIATIONS, SB
1458 ALLEN, SB 1525 SENATE
JUDICIARY ACR 202 MCCARTY, AS
AMENDED. CALL FOR A CALL. AYE.
DIXON, LEE. BRIAN. BRIAN. AYE.
CONNELLY CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY.
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON. REYES.
SANCHEZ ALL RIGHT. CONSENT
CALENDAR IS OUT, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON ITEM ONE? SB 554. SO
MOVED. SECOND. MOTION AND A
SECOND. ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE.
MOTION'S DO PASS. KALRA. AYE.
KALRA. AYE. DIXON. LEE BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY CONNELLY.
AYE. HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO
AYE. PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON.
REYES. SANCHEZ ALL RIGHT. THAT
BILL IS OUT. AND DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON ITEM THREE, SB 1386?
SO MOVED SECOND MOTION, A SECOND
MOTIONS DO PASS CALL FOR A
CALLER. AYE DIXON. LEE. BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE CONNELLY. CONNELLY.
AYE. HANEY AYE. HANEY. AYE
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE PACHECO.
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON. REYES
SANCHEZ. OKAY. THE BILL IS OUT.
SO SO, WE'RE WE'RE ALL DONE.
I'LL JUST. WE'LL STICK AROUND
HERE FOR SOME ADD ONS, BUT THANK
YOU ALL SO MUCH.
OKAY. I KNOW. YOU ARE AMAZING,
SENATOR. THAT'S NOT.
NHÀ. THANK YOU, SENATOR LEE, FOR
SUBBING IN THIS MORNING, SUMMER
LEE, WE HAVE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND JUST THREE ITEMS
THAT WERE HEARD OTHERWISE. SO IF
WE CAN GO AHEAD AND JUST START
WITH CONSENT AND THEN GO THROUGH
THE THREE ITEMS. OKAY. SORRY.
CONSENT LI I LI I. ITEM ONE SB
50 554 COURTESY LEE I LI I. ITEM
TWO SB 924 BRADFORD LEE. LEE I
SB 1386 CABALLERO LEE LEE I. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE ARE
ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.