WELL, GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE WOLVES
WERE WITNESS TESTIMONY. OR THAT
EACH SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TWO
MINUTES TO TWO MAIN WITNESSES
EACH. WITNESSES 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
YOU PROCEED WITH WITNESS AND
PUBLIC COMMENT, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE
COMMITTEE HAS RULES TO ENSURE WE
MAINTAIN ORDER TO RUN A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT HEARING. I'LL GO OVER
THOSE RULES IN MORE DETAIL IF
NECESSARY, BUT I HOPE THAT WON'T
BE NECESSARY. AND WE HAVE A NICE
ORDERLY MEETING THIS MORNING, WE
HAVE OUR VICE CHAIR, MYSELF,
HERE TODAY, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD
AND BEGIN IN THE OUT OF RESPECT
FOR OUR SENATOR WHO'S HERE ON A
TIMELY FASHION, WE'LL START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE AND CHAIR. UMBERG.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, SB 940. SHOULD WE START
WITH THAT? YES. ALL RIGHT, WELL,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO MR.
NICHOLAS. LIKE THANK YOU FOR
YOUR HELP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ASSISTANCE ON THIS BILL, IT'S A
BILL THAT CONCERNS ARBITRATION
AND HAS SEVERAL DIFFERENT
ASPECTS TO IT. ONE OF THE
FOCUSES IS ON CONSUMER
ARBITRATION. IF YOU'VE EVER
BOUGHT A CELL PHONE OR YOU'VE
ENGAGED ANY SORT OF CONSUMER
CONTACT, YOU'LL NOTE THAT YOU
BASICALLY DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICES
. AND IF YOU HAVE A DISPUTE, YOU
MAY NOTE THAT THAT DISPUTE NEEDS
TO BE RESOLVED BY ARBITRATION.
YOU MAY ALSO NOTE THAT THAT
ARBITRATION MAY BE REQUIRED IN
PERSON IN ANOTHER STATE, WHICH
IN MY MIND MEANS YOU HAVE NO
RECOURSE. AND SO THIS BILL,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAYS, LOOK,
IT, CONSUMER ARBITRATION CLAUSES
THAT PROVIDE FOR ARBITRATION IN
ANOTHER STATE THAT THOSE THOSE
ARE VOID. IT ALSO PROVIDES THAT
IF YOUR DISPUTE IS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT OF SMALL
CLAIMS COURT, $12,500, THEN YOU
CAN ADJUDICATE THAT IN SMALL
CLAIMS COURT OR BY ARBITRATION.
IT'S YOUR CHOICE, IT ALSO
PROVIDES FOR, SOME, IT PROVIDES
FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION
FIRMS OR ADR FIRMS, ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION FIRMS THAT,
FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE ON OTHER
DISPUTES WHILE A ARBITRATION IS
BASICALLY PROCEEDING, THAT THAT
PROVISION IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU'VE GOT
AN ARBITRATION IN NEW YORK OR
ARBITRATION LOS ANGELES, IT MAY
NOT BE A CONFLICT, BUT THERE
CERTAINLY WOULD BE A CONFLICT IF
ONE ARBITRATOR IS TAKING ON
MULTIPLE MATTERS FROM THE SAME
PARTY. AND SO WE'RE WORKING ON
THAT. WE'RE WORKING ON THAT TO
RESOLVE THAT, THAT ISSUE, WE
ALSO, AS PART OF THIS BILL, ARE
AUTHORIZING THE STATE BAR TO BE
ABLE TO CREATE A MECHANISM, TO
CERTIFY FIRMS NOT NOT TO CERTIFY
THEM IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE
ABLE TO ENGAGE IN ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION, BUT TO
BASICALLY HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE
THEY CAN GET A CERTIFICATION,
MUCH LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, A FAMILY
LAW PRACTITIONER OR A CRIMINAL
LAW SPECIALIST, THAT KIND OF
THING. AND THE BAR, OF COURSE,
CAN CHARGE WHATEVER FEE IS
NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO,
ADJUDICATE, RUN THAT PROCESS. SO
WITH ME HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY IS
JULIEN BURNS KING WITH THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JULIEN BURNS KING, AND I AM
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF SB
940. I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS MY
COMMENTS ON SECTION FOUR AND
FIVE OF THE BILL, WHICH WOULD
ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT
OCCUR WHEN ARBITRATORS TAKE
REPEAT BUSINESS FROM THE SAME
PARTY. ANOTHER CBA MEMBERS
RECENT ARBITRATION EXPERIENCE
ILLUSTRATES HOW THE REPEAT
PLAYER PHENOMENON STACKS THE
DECK AGAINST EMPLOYEES IN
MANDATORY ARBITRATION. IN THAT
CASE, THE WORKER SUED HIS
EMPLOYER TO RECOVER UNPAID SALES
COMMISSIONS THAT WERE OWED TO
HIM, AND HE WAS COMPELLED TO
ARBITRATION THÀNH. DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THAT ARBITRATION,
THE ARBITRATOR DECIDING HIS
CLAIMS DISCLOSED THAT HE HAD
ACCEPTED 44 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
FROM THE SAME DEFENSE FIRM
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT IN
THAT CASE. OUR FIRM CURRENTLY
HAS ABOUT A DOZEN ARBITRATIONS,
AND WE RECEIVED THESE
DISCLOSURES ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
THIS CLEARLY CREATES A CONFLICT,
OR AT LEAST THE APPEARANCE OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ARBITRATOR
AND THE DEFENSE. THIS IS
AMPLIFIED BECAUSE MANY OF THE
ARBITRATORS ARE THEMSELVES
SHAREHOLDERS IN THE ARBITRATION
BODIES THAT ADMINISTER THESE
CLAIMS. IMPORTANTLY, THIS BILL
DOES NOT CREATE A CATEGORICAL
PROHIBITION ON ARBITRATORS
ACCEPTING NEW BUSINESS WITH THE
SAME PARTY. IT SIMPLY REQUIRES
MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES
BEFORE ANY SOLICITATIONS ARE
MADE. ANOTHER ETHICAL ISSUE THAT
SB 940 ADDRESSES IS THE MARKET
REALITY THAT CREATES SERIOUS
FINANCIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN
PROVIDERS AND EMPLOYERS. A
PROVIDER LIKE JAMS STANDS TO
MAKE THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS IF THEY ARE NAMED AS
THE SOLE PROVIDER IN A COMPANY'S
STANDARD EMPLOYMENT OR CONSUMER
AGREEMENTS. RIGHT NOW, THESE
PROVIDERS ARE PUTTING ON
SEMINARS CALLED HOW TO WIN IN
ARBITRATION AND HOLDING SECRET
MEETINGS WITH COMPANIES TO TRY
TO LURE THEIR BUSINESS. THOSE
KINDS OF PRACTICES, WHETHER DONE
BY THE ARBITRATORS OR THEIR
AGENTS, SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
AND PROVIDERS AND REPEAT PLAYERS
IN ARBITRATION SHOULD BE
REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE MARKETING
AND SOLICITATION OF CASES. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 940?
HERE MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
ALSO REGISTERING SUPPORT ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
OF CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS JESSICA
STENDER, ON BEHALF OF EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 940? THAT'S
SERIOUS. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING
SENATOR. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS, JAMIE HUFF, ON BEHALF
OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSING ONE OF THE FIVE
SECTIONS. JUST ONE, KJAQ. DOES
NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH MOST OF THE
SENATOR'S GOALS HERE. OUR
CONCERN IS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON
THE UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS
PLACED ON ARBITRATORS THAT WOULD
STIFLE THE OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCIES OF ARBITRATION,
PARTICULARLY WITHOUT SEEING ANY
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT
SYSTEMATIC BIAS IS ACTUALLY
OCCURRING. OUR SPECIFIC CONCERN
IS WITH THE WRITTEN CONSENT FOR
FUTURE EMPLOYMENT PIECE OF THE
BILL REQUIRING WRITTEN CONSENT
OF ALL PARTIES WITHOUT ANY
PARAMETERS OR RESTRICTIONS WILL
ONLY SERVE TO SLOW THE PROCESS
AND WILL BE USED AS A TOOL OF
MANIPULATION. THERE IS ALREADY
SO MUCH GAMESMANSHIP BUILT INTO
THIS PROCESS. THE FEAR FROM
ARBITRATORS THAT I'VE SPOKEN
WITH IS THAT WRITTEN CONSENT
WOULD BE USED AS A TACTICAL MOVE
THAT WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE CONCERN OVER ARBITRATOR
IMPARTIALITY, AND EVERYTHING TO
DO WITH DRAGGING OUT THE
PROCESS. THE PROBLEMATIC
LANGUAGE IS ALMOST VERBATIM OF A
BILL THAT WAS VETOED BY GOVERNOR
BROWN IN 2016, WHO STATED IN HIS
MESSAGE, THE ARBITRATORS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE ALREADY SUBJECT
TO STRINGENT DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS UNDER EXISTING
STATE LAW AND JUDICIAL COUNCIL
STANDARDS. I'M RELUCTANT TO ADD
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE RULES AND
FURTHER PROHIBITIONS WITHOUT
EVIDENCE OF A PROBLEM. FURTHER,
THE EXISTING JUDICIAL COUNCIL
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING
ARBITRATION ETHICS STANDARDS IS
A DELIBERATE AND PUBLIC PROCESS
THAT CAN MORE APPROPRIATELY
CONSIDER ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS. GOVERNOR BROWN'S
MESSAGE IS STILL ON POINT TODAY.
IN FACT, UNDER JUDICIAL COUNCIL
STANDARDS, AN ARBITRATION AWARD
CAN BE VACATED IF THERE IS
ACTUALLY EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION
OR MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF AN
ARBITRATOR. WE ALSO BELIEVE THIS
PORTION OF THE BILL FACES
PREEMPTION ISSUES UNDER THE
FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, WHICH
WAS POINTED OUT IN THE VERY WELL
WRITTEN AND FAIR ANALYSIS. AND
WE ABSOLUTELY AGREE. WE SUPPORT
THE FAIR AND ACCOUNTABLE
ADMINISTRATION OF ARBITRATION
AND HAVE HAD CONTINUOUS
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SENATOR,
WHICH WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE,
AND HIS STAFF ON HOW TO GET
THERE WITH THE BILL. WHILE WE'VE
NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT YET, WE
HOPE TO REMAIN IN NEGOTIATIONS
AND HOPE FOR THE FUTURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. CHRIS
MCCAULEY, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. AND, HOPEFULLY I GET A
MOMENT BEFORE THE TIME STARTS TO
ALSO COMPLIMENT YOUR COUNCIL,
THOROUGH AND FAIR ANALYSIS OF
THIS MEASURE AS WELL AS SOME OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE, OUR CONCERN, OF
COURSE, IS ALSO ON SECTION FOUR.
WE APPRECIATE THE SENATOR'S TIME
AS WELL AS THE TIME OF HIS
PERSONAL AND COMMITTEE STAFF,
BOTH COMMITTEES, IN FACT, ON
THEIR EFFORTS TO COME TO SOME
SORT OF AN AGREEMENT, WE THINK
THAT THE CURRENT PROTECTIONS IN
LAW ARE MORE THAN ADEQUATE, WE
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE SOME
CERTAINLY SOME INSTANCES IN
WHICH, PERCEPTION IS OF CONCERN
WITH THE SO-CALLED REPEAT
PLAYER. BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT
THE REPEAT PLAYER CONCERNS ARE
WELL OVERSTATED HERE. WE THINK
THAT THE CURRENT STANDARDS ARE
WORKING. THE PROVISIONS IN THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE
CALIFORNIA ARBITRATION ACT, YOU
KNOW, HAVE A HALF A DOZEN
DISCLOSURES SIMILAR TO THOSE
THAT ARE UTILIZED BY JUDGES,
JUDICIAL COUNCIL STANDARDS. AND
PHILOSOPHICALLY, I KNOW THAT
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME DEBATE
THAT WAS WELL OUTLINED IN YOUR
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, BUT I THINK
THAT THESE SORT OF PROCEDURAL
HURDLES, WITH THE BROAD
PROHIBITIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
CONTAINED IN SECTION FOUR, DO
GIVE LEGITIMATE RISE TO A
FEDERAL PREEMPTION ARGUMENT. I
THINK, AS YOUR COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS ALSO POINTS OUT, THERE
ARE SIGNIFICANT FIRST AMENDMENT
CONCERNS AS WELL, DEALING WITH
FREE SPEECH AND THE ABILITY TO
ADVERTISE AS THE ARBITRATOR
SERVICES. SO FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED, THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 940?
YES. MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS, ROBERT MURRAY, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION FOR THE REASONS
STATED ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, SILVIO
FERRARA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. LIKE ALIGNING
OURSELVES WITH THE COMMENTS.
CHRIS MICHELI, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. YES,
MADAM VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
CHAIR JUST A CLARIFICATION FOR
ME. DOES THIS WOULD. WHAT IS
THIS BILL NUMBER 94949 4040.
DOES THIS EXCEED THE FEDERAL
ARBITRATION LAW? DOES THIS GO
FURTHER I GUESS? WELL, WE ARE
HOPING IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE
FEDERAL, BOTH THE STATUTES AS
WELL AS THE CASE LAW, THIS IS AN
AREA THAT IS QUICKLY EVOLVING,
THAT THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO
THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS, SMALL
CLAIMS COURT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT
I DON'T BELIEVE IS GOING TO BE
AN ISSUE. I WOULD AND ALSO THE
ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO OUT OF
STATE ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS, IT
WOULD BE INTERESTING IF A
FEDERAL COURT FOUND THAT YOU
SOMEHOW HAD SOME RIGHT TO
RECOURSE IF YOU'RE REQUIRED TO
ARBITRATE A CLAIM FACE TO FACE,
OUT OF STATE FOR A CLAIM THAT'S
LESS THAN $12,500. BUT I NO
DOUBT THAT THIS WILL BE TESTED.
AND THEN THANK YOU, SENATOR. ONE
OTHER QUESTION. AS I UNDERSTAND,
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL HAS WEIGHED
IN ON THIS. ARE THEY IN ARE YOU
IN CONCERT WITH THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS OR WHAT IS THEIR
POSITION? SO I DON'T RECALL WHAT
JUDICIAL COUNCIL HAS TO SAY. DO
YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT JUDICIAL
COUNCIL HAD TO SAY? SO, I, I
DON'T RECALL WHAT THEY HAD TO
SAY. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'VE,
ACCORDING TO OUR WONDERFUL STAFF
MEMBER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
THEY'VE WEIGHED IN, I SEE. OKAY,
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY, WELL,
WE DON'T HAVE QUORUM YET, AND SO
WE'LL TAKE UP THIS MATTER AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU, CHAIR UMBERG,
FOR THE PRESENTATION AND FOR
YOUR WORK IN THIS REALLY
DIFFICULT ISSUE. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. OH, LAST MY LAST
QUESTION. DO YOU ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS? OH, WE DID IF WE IF
I DIDN'T SAY THAT THE OUTSET, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT.
UPSTAIRS. NOW OKAY. OKAY THANK
YOU VERY. YEAH. THANK. WHY NOT
GO? YEAH YEAH. AND I WANTED TO
ASK YOU. I JUST DIDN'T HAVE A
PRINTOUT FROM THE. YEAH. THE. I
THINK THAT WAS.
PROBABLY THEY'RE ALL IN THERE.
THE CHAIR AND.
GOOD MORNING. YES. GOOD MORNING,
SENATOR SKINNER, SENATOR, YOU
HAVE TWO BILLS, YES, SB 1022 AND
SB 1144. YOU'LL BE STARTING WITH
1022. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, IF I DO THIS WITHOUT
MY GLASSES. RIGHT. ANYBODY WANT
TO PULL THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE
CLOSER? OKAY. GOOD IDEA. THANK
YOU, AND ALLOW ME TO GET MY
GLASSES OUT. TAKE YOUR TIME. HI
PLEASED TO PRESENT, SB 1022.
WHAT THE BILL DOES IS IT
PROVIDES OUR CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT THE TIME NEEDED TO
EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE AND
RESPOND TO SYSTEMIC, COMPLAINTS
OF SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION IN
THE WORKPLACE OR HOUSING. NOW,
WHEN I SAY THAT A SINGLE
COMPLAINT ISN'T NECESSARILY ONE
THAT SHOWS A SYSTEMIC PATTERN,
WHAT THIS MEANS, WHAT THIS DOES
IS THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT
HAS SOMETHING WHICH IS KNOWN AS
DIRECTORS COMPLAINTS AND THOSE.
SO LET'S SAY I WORK SOMEWHERE, I
MAKE A COMPLAINT. THAT'S JUST A
SINGLE COMPLAINT. BUT THE NEXT
YEAR, THREE PEOPLE IN THAT
WORKPLACE MAKE A COMPLAINT, AND
THE FOLLOWING YEAR 4 OR 5, THEN
ALL OF A SUDDEN THE DEPARTMENT
IS SEEING A PATTERN. SO THAT'S
WHEN A, COMPLAINT WOULD RISE TO
THE LEVEL OF DIRECTOR'S
COMPLAINT. AND WHAT THIS DOES IS
CLARIFY THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND
IT MAKES IT MORE COMPARABLE TO
THE TIME PERIOD THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS FOR ITS,
INVESTIGATION OF SUCH TYPES OF
COMPLAINTS. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, BUT
HOPEFULLY BY ALLOWING THIS TIME,
IT WOULD LESSEN THE NUMBER OF
LAWSUITS BECAUSE THEN IT GIVES
THE ABILITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT
TO INTERACT WITH. AND I'M USING
NOW AN EMPLOYER THERE COULD IT
COULD BE HOUSING COMPLAINTS, IT
COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE. BUT TO
INTERACT WITH THE EMPLOYER, TO
BRING ATTENTION TO THESE PATTERN
OF COMPLAINTS, TO COME UP WITH
SOLUTIONS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY
INVOLVE GOING TO COURT AROUND
THEM. SO THAT'S PART OF THE
OBJECTIVE, IS TO TRY TO AVOID
THAT AND TO INSTEAD GET,
AGREEMENTS AND REMEDIES WITHOUT,
COURT ACTION. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. THEY ARE
STELLA STEIGER FROM THE LEGAL
AID AT WORK AND KELLY O'HARA,
WHO IS THE SENIOR ATTORNEY AT
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES. THANK
YOU, UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS STELLA STEIGER. I'M A
STAFF ATTORNEY AT LEGAL AID. AT
WORK. WE ARE A LEGAL NONPROFIT
SUPPORTING LOW WAGE WORKERS IN
ASSERTING THEIR WORKPLACE
RIGHTS, AND WE HAVE DONE SO FOR
OVER 100 YEARS. THROUGH OUR
WORK, WE HAVE WORKED EXTENSIVELY
WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT, BOTH IN REFERRING
INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANTS TO, THE
AGENCY AS WELL AS REPRESENTING
CLAIMANTS AND SETTLING NUMEROUS
CASES, INCLUDING GROUP AND CLASS
COMPLAINTS, THROUGH THIS WORK,
WE KNOW THAT REALISTICALLY, THE
CRD PROVIDES THE ONLY PROCESS
AND REMEDY FOR MANY LOW WAGE
WORKERS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE
ABILITY TO SEEK INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL OR TO LITIGATE THEIR
CLAIMS. THIS IS PARTICULARLY
TRUE FOR WORKERS FACING SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION, WHERE REPORTS OF
UNLAWFUL PRACTICES OFTEN GO
IGNORED. EMPLOYERS ARE EMPLOYEES
ARE SINGLED OUT, HARASSED,
THEY'RE UNLAWFULLY TERMINATED,
AND THEY'RE MADE TO FEEL THAT
COMPLAINING WOULD BE, FUTILE, IT
MAY EVEN TAKE YEARS FOR PEOPLE
TO REALIZE THAT THERE ARE LAWS
THAT PROTECT THEM, PARTICULARLY
IN SEX HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL
ASSAULT CASES WHERE THEY REALIZE
THAT THERE ARE LAWS PROTECTING
THEM FROM DISCRIMINATION AND
ABUSE AT WORK, THESE CLAIMANTS
ARE OFTEN FACING SEVERE ECONOMIC
HARDSHIP AS A RESULT OF THIS
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES, MAKING
INDIVIDUAL LITIGATION UNFEASIBLE
, AND ALSO MAKING SETTLEMENT
THROUGH THE CRD THAT MUCH MORE
MEANINGFUL. SB 1022 EMPOWERS THE
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT TO EFFECTIVELY AND
PROACTIVELY INVESTIGATE SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION, WHICH IS THE
PURPOSE OF THE AGENCY'S POWERS
IN THIS AREA. INDEED THAT POWER
WAS RECENTLY REAFFIRMED BY THIS
LEGISLATURE IN 2022 BY
UNANIMOUSLY PASSING AB 2662 TO
AFFIRM THE CRDS ROLE AS A PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR TO REPRESENT THE
INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND TO
EFFECTUATE CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC
POLICY, WE APPLAUD THAT EFFORT,
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. KELLY
O'HARA, ON BEHALF OF EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES, A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF SB 1022, OUR
ORGANIZATION HAS REPRESENTED
WORKERS FOR OVER 50 YEARS. WE
SEE FIRSTHAND JUST HOW CRITICAL
IT IS FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT TO HAVE THE PROPER
TOOLS TO ADEQUATELY ENFORCE OUR
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS. YOU'VE
ALREADY HEARD HOW EFFECTIVELY
ADDRESSING SYSTEMIC LEGAL
VIOLATIONS REQUIRES CLARIFYING
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
APPLICABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT.
ACCORDINGLY, I'LL BRIEFLY
HIGHLIGHT TWO OTHER PROVISIONS
OF THE BILL THAT WOULD BENEFIT
ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. FIRST, SB
1022 WOULD ALLOW CRD TO PAUSE
INVESTIGATIONS OF COMPLAINTS
THAT ARE ALREADY THE SUBJECT OF
ONGOING GROUP OR CLASS
INVESTIGATIONS OR CIVIL ACTIONS.
THIS WILL ALLOW CRD TO MORE
EFFICIENTLY USE ITS LIMITED
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS BROAD
SYSTEMIC LEGAL VIOLATIONS, AND
TO RESOLVE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
CLAIMS PERTAINING TO THE SAME
UNDERLYING DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES AS ALLOWING A PAUSE
WILL ALSO BENEFIT RESPONDENTS
WHO ARE ALREADY ENGAGED IN GROUP
INVESTIGATIONS OR LITIGATION.
BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO
SIMULTANEOUSLY AND SEPARATELY
RESPOND TO RELATED INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINTS. SECOND, SB 1022
WOULD CLARIFY THAT THE DEADLINE
FOR CRD TO COMPLETE AN
INVESTIGATION AND POTENTIALLY
FILE IN COURT MAY BE TOLD, BY
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WITH A
RESPONDENT, SUCH MUTUALLY AGREED
UPON HOLDS ARE WELL RECOGNIZED
TOOLS TO FACILITATE SETTLEMENT
AND AVOID LITIGATION. THIS WILL
BOTH BENEFIT RESPONDENTS AND
REDUCE THE WORKLOAD OF COURTS
FOR MANY CALIFORNIANS, CRD
PROVIDES THE ONLY MEANINGFUL
AVENUE TO ADDRESS DISCRIMINATORY
HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES. SB 1022 WILL ENSURE
THAT THE DEPARTMENT CAN
ADEQUATELY REPRESENT THE
INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND
ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS, AND
WILL RESULT IN GREATER
EFFICIENCIES FOR THE AGENCY, THE
PARTIES AND THE COURTS. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE URGE YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1022?
MARIKO YOSHIHARA, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. JESSICA STENDER HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA WORK
AND FAMILY COALITION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, GREG PULSIFER, ON
BEHALF OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA,
PROUD CO-SPONSOR AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, ELMER
LAZARD, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU, IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE? IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1022?
AND WHILE YOU'RE COMING UP HERE,
MADAM SECRETARY, IF WE CAN A
ROLL CALL FOR QUORUM CALL TO
HEAR DIXON BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN
CONLEY, HANY MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA
HERE. PACHECO. PATTERSON REYES
SANCHEZ HERE. AND I'D LIKE TO
WELCOME SUMMER PATTERSON TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. BUT, YOU
KNOW, YOU CAN KEEP SOME THOUGHTS
TO YOURSELF ANYWAY. JUST
KIDDING. JUST KIDDING. ALL
RIGHT. YEAH. PLEASE, GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
ROBERT MURRAY FOR THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. I'M FILLING
IN FOR MY COLLEAGUE ASHLEY, AND
WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO
SB 1022. I WANT TO BE CLEAR,
WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO ENFORCEMENT
OF THE RELEVANT STATUTES, AND
WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO, MANY OF
THE PORTIONS OF THE BILL. OUR
OPPOSITION IS FOCUSED ON WHAT WE
SEE AS A CHANGE TO THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS TO EXTEND IT TO
SEVEN YEARS, I WANT TO NOTE A
COUPLE OF DIFFERENCES, BROADLY
ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ISSUE. FIRST, YOU KNOW, THE
MAJORITY OF STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IN CALIFORNIA, AS
NOTED BY OUR LETTER AND
CORRECTLY REFLECTED ANALYSIS,
RANGE FROM 2 TO 5 YEARS FOR
SUITS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES.
IT CAN BE AS LITTLE AS SIX
MONTHS. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
SEVEN YEARS AND THIS IDEA OF
COMPLICATED CASES NEED THIS, WE
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
THE CONTEXT OF WHAT MOST CASES
DEAL WITH. AND WHAT MOST
LITIGANTS, NO MATTER HOW
COMPLICATED THE CASE, ARE ABLE
TO DEAL WITH ON A PRIVATE OR
PUBLIC MATTER. AND THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE IS
IMPORTANT. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU
DEAL WITH A CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
OR CLASS ACTIONS, WE DON'T SEE
THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN
THOSE CASES, DESPITE THEIR
COMPLEXITY AND DIFFICULTY. SO
THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE CASES
ARE UNIQUE AND MUST HAVE MORE
TIME PRE FILING, WE JUST DON'T
SEE AS BORNE OUT IN FACTS OR
JUSTIFIED. NOTABLY, THIS IS THE
TIMELINE BEFORE FILING Tê SO
THAT COMPLEXITY AND DELAYS CAN
BE ADDRESSED IN DISCOVERY POST
FILING. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE IS THE BEGINNING OF WHEN
THAT CASE MUST BE BROUGHT TO
COURT, RIGHT? SO WE THINK THOSE
ISSUES ARE DISTINCT AND NOT A
JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE HERE. I
WANT TO BRIEFLY GIVE AN EXAMPLE,
BECAUSE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
OFTEN IS ABSTRACT AND NOT VERY
INTERESTING, SO I'LL DO MY BEST
TO MAKE IT INTERESTING, IF A
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE HEARD
AN INAPPROPRIATE REMARK TODAY,
NOT THIS WOULD HAPPEN, BUT LET'S
SAY OUR FRIEND MR. MICHELI SAID
SOMETHING TERRIBLE WHICH HE
COULD BE SUED ON. AGAIN, THIS
WOULD NOT HAPPEN, OBVIOUSLY, HE
IS NEVER FAULTLESSLY POLITE, BUT
IF SUCH A THING WERE TO HAPPEN,
WE WOULD WANT TO INCENTIVIZE
THAT SUIT TO BE BROUGHT AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE WHILE WE REMEMBER.
OH, WHO IS HE SITTING NEXT TO?
WHERE WAS HE? WHERE WAS I?
RIGHT. SO WE TALK ABOUT. OH, I'M
SORRY, I'LL WRAP UP. WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT SEVEN YEARS, WE THINK
OF WHAT WE'LL REMEMBER. THAT'S
WHY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ARE
SHORTER AND WHY THEY PUSH FOR
EVIDENCE SOONER. AND WE THINK
THAT'S GOOD POLICY, I APPRECIATE
THE EXTRA TIME. AND WITH THAT,
I'LL CLOSE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1022,
JAMIE HOFF, ON BEHALF OF THE
CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY COLLEAGUE
BRIAN LITTLE OF THE CALIFORNIA
FARM BUREAU FEDERATION ASKED
THAT I EXPRESS THEIR RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, ALL RIGHT, BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. MADAM VICE
CHAIR. THANK YOU. CHAIR JUST TO
CLARIFY, WHAT IS THE CURRENT
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT
APPLIES TO THESE CASES?
APPRECIATE YOU'RE ASKING THE
QUESTION OF, THROUGH THE CHAIR,
SO I STATED AND IS NOT INCORRECT
, THAT THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. NOTICE
THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE
OPPOSITION DESCRIBED IN THE
INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT, AND HE
USED FOR MR. MICHELI AS AN
EXAMPLE. IF MR. MICHELI WAS THE
ONLY COMPLAINANT, THAT'S AN
INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT. THE
EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
WOULD STILL APPLY. THE, NEITHER
HE OR THE OFFICE WOULD BE ABLE
TO TAKE AN ACTION ON THE
INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT. HOWEVER,
WHAT THIS DOES DO IS CLARIFY
THAT ON THESE, DIRECTOR'S
COMPLAINTS, THESE SYSTEMIC
INVESTIGATIONS WHICH INVOLVE
MORE THAN A SINGLE COMPLAINT,
THEN THEY WOULD HAVE A SEVEN
YEAR PERIOD FOR BEING ABLE TO
LOOK BACK AND BEING ABLE TO
THEN, IF NECESSARY, BUT
HOPEFULLY WOULD NOT, CAUSE
LITIGATION, WHICH IS WHY OUR,
ONE OF OUR PROPONENTS FROM EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES DESCRIBED THAT
IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR A PAUSE,
WHICH ALLOWS THE, THE CIVIL
RIGHTS DEPARTMENT TO NEGOTIATE
THEN WITH THE ENTITY AND TRY TO
COME WITH A SOLUTION RATHER THAN
A LAWSUIT, RATHER THAN GOING TO
COURT, WHICH I THINK I'M SURE
THE CHAMBER AGREES. WE WOULD
PREFER NOT TO HAVE TO GO TO
COURT. SO WE WOULD RATHER DEAL
WITH SUCH COMPLAINTS AND CHANGE
PRACTICES WITHOUT HAVING TO GO
TO COURT. OKAY, BUT WHAT IS THE
CURRENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?
WELL, THE AROUND THESE DIRECTORS
COMPLAINTS OR INVESTIGATIONS.
IT'S THERE'S LACK OF CLARITY IN
THE LAW. Ó. THERE IS A CLEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AROUND AN
INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT. Ó. BUT
THERE'S A LACK OF CLARITY ON
AGGREGATE IN THE I SEE. YES,
SIR. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT
ABOUT THAT, IF I MAY, IT'S OUR
UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR LEGAL
RESEARCH THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT
THERE IS NOT A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON THESE PRESENTLY
HAS BEEN REJECTED WHERE ASSERTED
AND IS NOT PRESENT LAW. SO WE
VIEW THIS AS A CHANGE. I THINK
IT'S A DIFFERENT READING OF THE
LAW THAT WE HAVE, BUT WE VIEW
THIS AS, THE CREATION OF A
LONGER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
AND APPROPRIATE AND DON'T VIEW
IT AS A MERE CLARIFICATION.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE
HAVE A SECOND SECOND. WE HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND. THANK YOU,
SENATOR SKINNER, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO REALLY
GET A SENSE OF ESPECIALLY IF
THERE'S A PATTERN OF PRACTICE OF
VIOLATIONS. I THINK THIS WOULD
ALLOW FOR THAT. AND TO YOUR
POINT, ALLOW FOR CORRECTIVE
MEASURES, WHICH ULTIMATELY, I
THINK BENEFITS ALL PARTIES.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? GREAT,
THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE
IT AS A CLOSE, I APPRECIATE I
ALSO APPRECIATE THE
CLARIFICATION THAT, OF COURSE,
AS THE CHAMBER INDICATED, THEY
INTERPRET THE LAW DIFFERENTLY.
HOWEVER, I THINK IN YOUR
ANALYSIS, IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS
BILL IS, IN FACT, A
CLARIFICATION ON THE LAW RATHER
THAN A CHANGE TO THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. AND WITH THAT, I
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
MADAM SECRETARY. ROLL CALL VOTE
SB 1022 MOTIONS. DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALLER. AYE. DIXON DIXON NØ
BAUER. KHN BRIAN CONNOLLY.
HANEY. HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO.
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON
PATTERSON. NÓ. REYES. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ NO. WE'LL PLACE THAT ON
CALL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. AND THEN UP NEXT.
ITEM FIVE SB 1144. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. I'LL TAKE THAT AS A
BEGINNING. SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR BEING ABLE TO PRESENT
SB 1144, YEAH, YEAH. GOT IT.
WHICH WILL INCREASE THE
REGULATION FINES INCREASE. OKAY.
LET'S STEP BACK, SB 301 WAS A
BILL I DID IN 2022 AND IT
ESTABLISHED REGULATE FINES FOR
ONLINE MARKETPLACES TO VERIFY
THE LEGALITY OF THEIR SELLERS.
IT ONLY APPLIED TO HIGH VOLUME
SELLERS. SO THAT'S IN PLACE. AND
WE'VE ALREADY HAD, FOR EXAMPLE,
OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS A
RETAIL THEFT TASK FORCE. THEY'VE
ALREADY USED SB 301 TO, TO
IDENTIFY AND GO AFTER, IN
EFFECT, THESE ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT RINGS, SO IT'S BEEN VERY
EFFECTIVE. HOWEVER, WE ALSO HAVE
MARKETPLACES WHERE THE ACTUAL
MONEY DOESN'T CHANGE HANDS ON
THE SITE AND INSTEAD THE SELLER
SAYS, OKAY, I GOT ALL THIS
STUFF. AND, AND THEN THE BUYER
CONTACTS THEM AND THEN THEY DO
IT THROUGH PAYPAL AND SO SOME OF
OUR ONLINE MARKETPLACES ARE
SAYING, HEY, WE DON'T NEED TO
COLLECT INFORMATION ON THOSE
SELLERS. THE DIFFICULTY OF THAT
IS THAT THEN WE THEY ARE NOT
LONGER VERIFYING THAT THAT
SELLER IS LEGAL, THAT THAT
SELLER HAS A TAX ID AND HAS
FILED, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS
LICENSE AND SUCH. AND WHAT THAT
ALLOWS IS FOR SOME OF THESE
ORGANIZED THEFT RINGS TO GET
AROUND SB 301, WHICH IS NOT
GOOD. NOW, SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE
SEEN THE ARTICLES AROUND THE
VERY WEALTHY COUPLE IN SAN DIEGO
WHO WERE RUNNING ONE OF THESE
LARGE OPERATIONS AND, WHAT THEY
WERE DOING IS PAYING PEOPLE. SO
YOU KNOW, WHEN WE THINK
SOMETIMES ABOUT PETTY THEFT, YOU
KNOW, SOMEBODY JUST GOES IN AND
SHOPLIFT IN A STORE. THIS WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ORGANIZED
RETAIL THEFT, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE. THEY
SAY, OKAY. AND THE PAPER SHOWED
ALL THE TEXTS, THE TEXTS, YOU
KNOW, SIX PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE
UNDER THEIR EMPLOY. AND I SAY
EMPLOY. I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT
PAYING, EMPLOYMENT TAXES.
THEY'RE JUST BUT THEY'RE SAYING,
OKAY, HIT A SEPHORA. WE NEED A
WHOLE LOT MORE OF X TYPE OF
MAKEUP OR THIS TYPE OF PERFUME
IS REALLY POPULAR. WE NEED A LOT
MORE OF THAT. AND THEN THEY THEN
HAVE A THEY USE A PARTICULAR,
ONLINE MARKETPLACE AND SELL THIS
STUFF. RIGHT. SO THE PERSON
STEALING IT ISN'T SELLING IT. IT
IS THESE THEY'RE GETTING PAID.
RIGHT. SO THIS IS THE WAY TO GET
AT THESE ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT
RINGS, WHICH ARE THE REAL SORT
OF THE LARGE VOLUMES OF STOLEN
GOODS, WHILE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
ALWAYS HAD AND I SAY ALWAYS I
DON'T NOT ANY CONDONING, BUT,
YOU KNOW, SHOPLIFTING HAS BEEN A
REALITY FOR FOREVER. BUT WE'RE
SEEING THIS INCREASE NOW BECAUSE
YOU'VE GOT THIS ABILITY WHERE
THESE ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT
RINGS WILL PAY YOU TO GO AND
STEAL SOMETHING AND THEN THEY
SELL IN BIG, BIG VOLUMES. SO
WHAT MY BILL DOES IS GET AT
THOSE SELLERS. IT GETS THOSE
OTHER MARKETPLACES TO VERIFY
THAT A SELLER IS LEGAL. AND, AND
I CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT THERE,
SOME OF OUR, SOME OF THE ONLINE
MARKETPLACES WHO OPPOSE, THEY
SAY, BECAUSE OF PRIVACY ISSUES
OR OTHER ISSUES, WHICH I CAN
ADDRESS LATER RATHER THAN GOING
INTO A LOT OF DETAIL NOW. BUT
LET ME INTRODUCE OUR WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT. WE HAVE CHRISTINE
SOTO DEBERRY FROM THE
PROSECUTOR'S ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA AND MARGARET
GLADSTEIN FROM THE RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU, UP TO
TWO MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. HAPPY TO BE HERE
TODAY. PROSECUTOR'S ALLIANCE
ACTION BRINGS TOGETHER VOICES OF
PROSECUTORS, VICTIM ADVOCATES
AND CRIME SURVIVORS TO ADVOCATE
FOR SOLUTIONS TO CREATE SAFE,
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES. WE'RE PROUD
TO CO-SPONSOR OUR SB 1144, A
BILL THAT DOES JUST THAT. SB
1144, AS YOU HEARD THE AUTHOR
INDICATE, IS A SMART SOLUTION.
IT WILL HELP PREVENT RETAIL
THEFT BEFORE IT HAPPENS. WE'RE
ALL BETTER WITH A CRIME
PREVENTED THAN A CRIME PUNISHED.
THIS BILL BUILDS ON SB 301 AND
THE INFORM ACT, CREATING
ADDITIONAL SMART REGULATIONS
THAT WILL HELP US DETER THE SALE
OF STOLEN GOODS IN OUR ONLINE
MARKETPLACES. IF RETAILERS IF
ONLINE MARKETPLACES FAIL TO
COLLECT THIS INFORMATION, THEY'D
BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTIES.
THIS WILL GIVE US AN ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM TO ENSURE, AS THE
SENATOR INDICATED, THAT ALL OF
OUR ONLINE MARKETPLACES, ONE OF
THE MAJOR SOURCES OF COMMERCE IN
THIS CENTURY, HAS THE SAME KINDS
OF SAFEGUARDS AND REGULATIONS
THAT CONSUMERS EXPECT WHEN THEY
WALK INTO A STORE ANYWHERE IN
THE UNITED STATES. THIS BILL
WOULD JUST REQUIRE COMPANIES TO
COLLECT INFORMATION FROM THOSE
SELLERS THAT ARE SELLING MORE,
MAKING MORE THAN 200
TRANSACTIONS. THIS IS NOT
TARGETED AT SMALL SELLERS OF
ONLINE GOODS. LARGE RESELLERS OF
ONLINE GOODS, 200 TRANSACTIONS
WITHIN 12 MONTH PERIOD, TOTALING
MORE THAN $5,000. THIS BILL WILL
IN NO WAY ELIMINATE THE ABILITY
TO BUY AND SELL GOODS THROUGH
ONLINE CLASSIFIED ADS, OR ANY OF
THE OTHER ONLINE MARKETPLACES
THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. IT WILL
SIMPLY REQUIRE THOSE SELLERS TO
PROVIDE SMALL, ADDITIONAL
AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION. AS I
INDICATED, THIS IS A PROACTIVE
EFFORT TO HELP US WITH THE
RETAIL THEFT ISSUE HAPPENING
BOTH IN CALIFORNIA AND AROUND
THE COUNTRY. IT IS A SMART,
PROACTIVE RATHER THAN REACTIVE
RESPONSE AS WE USUALLY HAVE IN
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WHEN IT
COMES TO THEFT, WHERE IN
CALIFORNIA, JUST OVER 6% OF
THEFTS WERE SOLVED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN 2022. WE SIMPLY
CANNOT GET AT THE SCALE OF THE
PROBLEM WITH A REACTIVE SOLUTION
ALONE. THIS IS A SMART SOLUTION
FOR THIS CENTURY. JUST AS WE
REGULATE PAWNSHOPS, WE'RE ASKING
FOR SIMILAR REGULATIONS OF THE
ONLINE MARKETPLACES THAT HAVE
MOSTLY TAKEN THEIR PLACE. THESE
ARE SIMPLE REGULATIONS. SENATOR
SKINNER HAS DONE A SMART JOB OF
REACHING OUT TO ALL OF THE MAJOR
STAKEHOLDERS, RETAILERS, ONLINE
MARKETPLACES, LAW ENFORCEMENT,
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
ADVOCATES. ALL SUPPORTING THIS
WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WE ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MARGARET
GLADSTEIN COUPLE ADVOCACY HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION. WE'RE
VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
WE'RE IN STRONG SUPPORT. WE DID
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK
WITH THE SENATOR AS WELL AS YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF. WHEN SB 301
CAME FORWARD. THAT WAS A VERY
HOPEFUL BILL. THIS ONE JUST GOES
A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO HELP
RETAILERS. IT EXPANDS
ENFORCEMENT. IT WILL HELP CLOSE
THE LOOPHOLE. AS SENATOR SKINNER
SAID. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
SEEING THIS IMPLEMENTED. SO
AGAIN, WE CAN HELP STOP SOME OF
THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE SEEING
ON THE BACK END AFTER GOODS ARE
STOLEN. AND FOR THOSE REASONS,
THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION IS IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1144? GOOD MORNING TAMARA
SCOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. GOOD
MORNING. HOPEFULLY WE WILL NOT
GET TO EVENING. SORRY ABOUT THAT
, NICOLO DELUCA IN PROUD
SUPPORT. AND YOU HAVE THE CITIES
OF BUENA PARK, FULLERTON, OAKLEY
, OAKLAND, EMERYVILLE AND
BERKELEY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
DAVID JONES, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF STOCKTON IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS,
CHRIS MICHELI, ON BEHALF OF THE
LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS. JASON RYAN LEE,
CALIFORNIA CITIES, WE'RE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. GLENN BACCHUS, FOR THE
YELLOW BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, DEVON ANDERSON.
POLITICAL SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF
TARGET AND THE HOME DEPOT. AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
RYAN ROMINE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, ERIC HENDERSON ON
BEHALF OF THE SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M A
TWEENER. AARON IMOLA
REPRESENTING EBAY. WE'RE WORKING
TOWARD A NEUTRAL POSITION AND
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND STAFF AND EVERYONE INVOLVED
FOR THEIR HELP. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, PATRICK
ESPINOSA, ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
AND THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S ASSOCIATION, WE'RE IN
SUPPORT OF THE PRINT VERSION OF
THE BILL. HOWEVER, WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE ANY
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD INCLUDE
SOME INOPERABILITY LANGUAGE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1144?
RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, JOSE TORRES CASILLAS,
ON BEHALF OF TECHNET. SO WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO SB 1144.
WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS, THEY DO NOT IMPACT
OUR MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS BILL,
WHICH IS THAT THERE IS
SIGNIFICANT AMBIGUITY IN HOW TO
IMPLEMENT THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE BILL AS IT PROVIDES NO
PROCESS, DIRECTION OR
CLARIFICATION ON HOW CERTAIN
PLATFORMS CAN OR SHOULD TRACK
IN-PERSON TRANSACTIONS, COUNTS
AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR
COMPLIANCE PURPOSES. AND IT
CREATES SEPARATE AND BURDENSOME
REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESSES AND
INDIVIDUALS HOPING TO SELL IN
CALIFORNIA. TAKING OUT OF TAKING
IT OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH THE
REST OF THE COUNTRY. TECHNET AND
OUR ONLINE MARKETPLACE MEMBERS
TAKE THE ISSUE OF ORGANIZED
RETAIL CRIME INCREDIBLY
SERIOUSLY. WE PARTICIPATED IN A
THOROUGH STAKEHOLDER PROCESS
ORGANIZED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND HAVE TESTIFIED AT
INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION ON OUR WORK
IN THIS AREA. WE ALSO WERE PART
OF THE NATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS IN
2002 ON THE INFORM ACT,
PARTICIPATED IN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS HERE IN CALIFORNIA
ON SB 301, AND DID NOT OPPOSE
THAT BILL. BOTH LAWS WENT INTO
EFFECT DURING THE SUMMER OF LAST
YEAR. THE DEFINITION SINCE THEN,
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY DATA OR
EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE CHANGES
IN THIS BILL TO THE DEFINITION
OF HIGH VOLUME SELLER. THAT
DEFINITION WAS A SUBJECT OF
CAREFUL NEGOTIATIONS HERE AND IN
CONGRESS. IT WAS A DELIBERATE
POLICY CHOICE, NOT A LOOPHOLE TO
EXCLUDE OFF PLATFORM SALES. THIS
IS BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR
CERTAIN ONLINE MARKETPLACES TO
KNOW IF AN ITEM WAS ACTUALLY
SOLD THROUGH THE PLATFORM, IF IT
DID NOT FACILITATE THE PAYMENT
OR SHIPMENT. WITHOUT THIS
EXCLUSION, MARKETPLACES WILL
HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL SELLERS AS
HIGH VOLUME SELLERS IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THIS LAW,
CONSEQUENTLY REQUIRING THOSE
MARKETPLACES TO COLLECT, HOLD,
AND SOMETIMES DISCLOSE SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBERS, BANK ACCOUNT
NUMBERS, AND OTHER HIGHLY
SENSITIVE INFORMATION FROM MANY
CALIFORNIANS WHO USE THESE
PLATFORMS. THE BALANCE WAS
STRUCK TO PROTECT SMALL SELLERS
AND THEIR PRIVATE INFORMATION,
AS THE PLATFORMS LACK THE
EXPERTISE AND TECHNOLOGY TO
COLLECT SUCH HIGHLY PERSONAL
INFORMATION. FOR THESE REASONS,
WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE SB 1144.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1144? THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS JONATHAN ARAMBULA, ON
BEHALF OF OFFER UP. ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
NAOMI PADRON, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? SENATOR
MAHANEY, I'LL MOVE THE BILL. I
ALSO JUST WANT TO THANK THE, THE
SENATOR, AND THE SPONSORS FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS. WE KNOW
THAT, THIS IS A YEAR WHEN WE ARE
ALL WORKING IN EVERY WAY TO TRY
TO CONFRONT THIS RETAIL THEFT
CHALLENGE THAT IS CAUSING SUCH
HAVOC ACROSS OUR STATE. AND,
WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THE FACT
THAT, THERE ARE THESE AVENUES
FOR FOLKS TO SELL THESE GOODS AT
SUCH LARGE QUANTITIES AND THE,
YOU KNOW, THE STORES KNOW THAT
THESE ARE STOLEN GOODS. THEY
SEEM CLEARLY TO BE STOLEN GOODS,
AND YET THEY'RE STILL ALLOWED TO
BE SOLD SO OPENLY AND WIDELY. IF
WE ARE GOING TO CONFRONT THE
RETAIL THEFT CHALLENGE THAT WE
HAVE, WE HAVE TO, UNDERCUT THEIR
ABILITY TO MAKE THIS SO
PROFITABLE, WE HAVE TO STOP THEM
FROM MAKING SO MUCH MONEY OFF OF
STEALING. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS
THAT. AND SO THIS, I THINK, IS
SUCH A SMART AND THOUGHTFUL
SOLUTION. I KNOW THAT SOME OF
THE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW TO
ENFORCE IT AND YOU, YOU HAVE HAD
A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN TERMS OF
HOW HOW TO DO THIS. AND I'M SURE
THE CONVERSATION WILL WILL
CONTINUE THERE. BUT I'M REALLY
GRATEFUL. I THINK THIS IS THE
KIND OF THING THAT WE OBVIOUSLY
NEED TO BE DOING TO MAKE SURE
THAT STEALING ISN'T SO, SO EASY
TO, TO, TO, TO, TO MAKE MONEY
OFF OF THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY
STOLEN, IN OPENLY AND BRAZENLY,
SO WE ARE FOCUSED ON WHAT
HAPPENS ON THE STREET FOR SURE.
BUT A LOT OF THIS IS BEING SOLD
ONLINE. WE KNOW THAT. AND WHEN
IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT IN FRONT OF
OUR EYES, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE
TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO STOP IT. AND
WE HAVE TO DO IT IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH THE FOLKS WHO RUN THESE
IMPORTANT MARKETPLACES. THESE
MARKETPLACES ARE IMPORTANT. WE
THEY SHOULD CONTINUE. AND THERE
ARE A LOT OF THEM ARE BASED IN
CALIFORNIA, BUT WE NEED TO WORK
TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
ADDRESSING THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
THAT'S HAPPENING ON THERE. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A
COAUTHOR ON THIS BILL AS WELL.
MADAM VICE CHAIR, THANK YOU,
CHAIR. I, TOO, APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU'RE DOING WITH THIS, BUT I
JUST HAVE A QUESTION I THINK
HAVE YOU HEARD FROM AMAZON ON
THIS? I HAVE NOT, I'M JUST
CURIOUS. I MEAN, BECAUSE AMAZON,
YOU READ AND ANY WALL STREET
JOURNAL ANYWHERE OF HOW SMALL
BUSINESSES HAVE BECOME
SUCCESSFUL AS SMALL SELLERS OF
ITEMS ON AMAZON. AND I THINK IF
YOU LOOK AT AMAZON'S DATA AGAIN,
I'M JUST GOING ON MY OWN
RECOLLECTION IS THAT A LARGE
PART OF THEIR SALES COME FROM
THESE SMALL SELLERS. SO NØ HOW
ARE THESE SELLERS ASSUMING THERE
ARE LEGITIMATE I, I SUPPORT WHAT
YOU'RE DOING AND I APPLAUD WHAT
YOU'RE DOING, BUT HOW WILL YOU
PROTECT THE LEGITIMATE SMALL
SELLERS? I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION. FIRST, I JUST WANTED A
CLARIFICATION OF, FROM OUR
RETAILERS. AMAZON IS NOW NEUTRAL
OR SUPPORT. GO AHEAD, I BELIEVE
THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE
OVERALL, ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT
PACKAGE, BUT THEY'RE NOT THEY'VE
NOT NECESSARILY WEIGHED IN ON
EACH BILL, SO BUT BACK TO YOUR
Kò POINT, SO RIGHT NOW, THE WAY
THE BILL IS CONSTRUCTED IS THAT
YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OF 200
TRANSACTIONS ON THE MARKETPLACE
BEFORE THE REGULATIONS IN THE
BILL WOULD BE TRIGGERED. NOW,
YOUR POINT THERE MAY BE A QUOTE
UNQUOTE, SMALL SELLER WHO DOES
MORE THAN 200 INTERACTIONS. BUT
IN A WAY, THIS SHOULD NOT BE A
DIFFICULT THING FOR THAT SMALL
SELLER, BECAUSE WHAT THEY WOULD
BE HAVING TO PROVIDE IS THEIR
TAX ID, AND THEY'RE JUST SHOWING
THAT, YEAH, THEY'RE A LEGITIMATE
SELLER, AND THE REASON NOW YOU
COULD SAY, HEY, A ILLEGITIMATE
SELLER, MEANING SOMEBODY SELLING
STOLEN GOODS, Þ THEY COULD HAVE
A TAX ID, THEY COULD HAVE AND SO
COULDN'T ANYBODY JUST FOOL THIS?
YES, THEY COULD, HOWEVER, BY
HAVING THAT INFO, WE ARE ABLE TO
TRACK IT AND WE'RE ABLE TO THEN,
THE AG'S OFFICE AND THEIR RETAIL
ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT ARE ABLE
TO IT ALLOWS FOR ENFORCEMENT. WE
HAVE NO ENFORCEMENT IF WE DON'T
HAVE THAT DATA NOW,
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, TO THE
POINT OF THIS REQUIRES CERTAIN,
ONLINE PLATFORMS TO, TO COLLECT
DATA. THEY DON'T COLLECT. NOW,
IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF
THESE, IF YOU YOURSELF WANT TO
BE A SELLER ON SOME OF THEM AND
YOU NOTICE TO BE A SELLER, YOU
HAVE TO AGREE TO THEIR TERMS.
MANY OF THEM, MOST OF THEM. AND
I HAD MY STAFF LOOK UP. THE
TERMS INCLUDE YOU'RE GIVING THEM
YOUR NAME, YOUR EMAIL, A TAX ID
OR A BANK ACCOUNT. INFO VARIETY
OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE ASKING
FOR. SO WHEN THEY DESCRIBE THIS
AS BEING A HARDSHIP, WHILE THEY
MAY NOT CURRENTLY COLLECT THAT
INFO, YOU THEY HAVE ALREADY YOU,
THE SELLER TO USE IT, HAVE
ALREADY AGREED TO THEIR TERMS,
WHICH ALLOWED THEM TO COLLECT.
SO, SO THAT'S ALREADY YOU KNOW,
IN PLACE AND ONE CAN VERIFY
THAT, BUT AGAIN, THIS WOULD ONLY
AFFECT SELLERS OF OVER 200
TRANSACTIONS AND OVER A CERTAIN
DOLLAR AMOUNT IN TOTAL. OKAY. SO
JUST JUST BASIC QUESTION IN MY
MIND AGAIN, I'M SUPPORTIVE AND I
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
I'M JUST THINKING OF THE
MECHANICS. SO WHERE ARE THESE
ONLINE SALES OCCURRING IF AMAZON
IS DOING ITS CHECKING IF SOME OF
THESE OTHER ONLINE PLATFORM
STORES ARE, ARE AGGREGATING
MERCHANDISE TO RESELL. WHO ARE
THEY? WHERE DO WE SEE THEM? HOW
AS CONSUMERS, HOW CAN WE PROTECT
OURSELVES? WELL THAT'S ANOTHER
I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION
BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER FEATURE
OF THE BILL. IT ALLOWS FOR THE
CONSUMER TO BE ABLE TO REPORT,
TO ASK THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE,
DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT
THE SELLER? CAN I VERIFY THAT
THIS IS A LEGITIMATE SELLER AND
IT ALLOWS THE CONSUMER TO BE
ABLE TO REPORT WHEN THEY BELIEVE
THAT IT IS STOLEN GOODS. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
YOU'RE WELCOME. SENATOR MCKENNA.
YES, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
SENATOR FOR THIS SMART SOLUTION,
TO PETTY THEFT. I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO BE A COAUTHOR ON THIS
BILL. AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO
ASK MY FELLOW FROM TECH NECK,
WHEN YOU ASK WHEN YOU SAID ABOUT
THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHEN YOU SPOKE
ABOUT BANK ACCOUNTS AND TAX IDS,
WHEN WE, WHEN WE BUY SOMETHING
ONLINE, WE USUALLY HAVE TO GIVE
OUR ACCOUNTS OR SELL SOMETHING
ONLINE. DON'T WE HAVE TO ALREADY
PUT IN SOME TYPE OF CREDIT CARD
OR BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER IN ORDER
TO EVEN PURCHASE SOMETHING?
ANYWAY, SO YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE
THAT INFORMATION, IS THAT
CORRECT, IN THAT INSTANCE, THAT
IS CORRECT, WHAT WE OUR CONCERN
IS JUST THE, THE FOR THE
COLLECTION OF THAT AND MUCH MORE
SENSITIVE INFORMATION. SENSITIVE
SENSITIVE INFORMATION, IS THERE
ANY PROOF OF, IF THEIR RESELLERS
IS THERE ANY PROOF THAT THEY
HAVE TO SHOW OF BUYING THE
MERCHANDISE THAT THEY'RE
RESELLING? WELL, THAT'S WHAT OUR
ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES WOULD DO,
ONCE IT WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR
ATTENTION THAT A SELLER MAY BE
ENGAGED IN SELLING STOLEN GOODS,
BUT OF COURSE, THE PURPOSE OF
THE BILL IS TO ENABLE OUR
ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES TO GET THE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE SELLER SO
THEY CAN PURSUE ENFORCEMENT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
MAHANEY, I WAS JUST FLAGGED
SOMETHING IN THE ANALYSIS WHICH
YOU MAY BE AWARE OF THAT, THAT,
AFTER PRAISING THE BILL, WHICH I
STILL PRAISE, THAT SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY,
ENTIRELY EXEMPTED MY CITY AND
COUNTY, THAT THE ANALYSIS HAS A
PIECE AROUND THE ENFORCEMENT
BECAUSE WE'RE A CITY AND COUNTY
JUST JUST CLARIFYING THE WAY
THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY OPERATES.
WE DON'T HAVE A COUNTY ATTORNEY,
AND THERE'S PROBABLY JUST A
SMALL TECHNICAL AMENDMENT THAT
THAT IS NEEDED. WELL, WE CAN WE
CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT AT
CHAPTERING. BUT THIS DOES ENABLE
, CITY ATTORNEYS TO, ENFORCE
THIS. SO, WE DEFINITELY YEAH,
I'LL JUST I'LL JUST FLAG IT IN
THE ANALYSIS THAT THEY THOUGHT
THAT THAT MIGHT BE AN ISSUE AND
WE'D HATE TO HAVE THAT. OKAY.
DEFINITELY WILL. HAPPY SHE WAS
INADVERTENT TO CONTINUE THAT
CONVERSATION TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT IN CONFLICT. THANK
YOU. YEAH. AND OUR JUDICIARY
STAFF WILL WORK WITH YOU ON ANY
CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE
THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE RESOLVED.
GREAT. ASSEMBLYMAN CONNOLLY.
YEAH. ALSO LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A
COAUTHOR AND APPRECIATE THE
WORK. THANKS. GREAT WELL, THANK
YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR. I'D ALSO
LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR WORK IN
THIS. YOUR CONTINUED WORK IN
THIS SPACE. IT IS COMPLICATED,
BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY AS TO THE
AS TO MY COLLEAGUES POINTS, YOU
KNOW, AT SOME POINT, THE, THE,
THE FLOW, ESPECIALLY IN THE ON
ONLINE, WHICH IS THE TOUGHEST
AREA TO REGULATE NEEDS TO STOP
BECAUSE IT'S A SUPPLY AND DEMAND
ISSUE. AND IF IT'D BEEN SO EASY
TO GET INTO THE ONLINE MARKET,
IT'S REALLY GOING TO HARD BE
HARD ON THE, ON THE GROUND TO
STOP THAT, THE PRESSURE, TO FOR
FOLKS LIKE, AS YOU MENTIONED,
THE COUPLE IN SAN DIEGO, THAT
WAS REALLY HELPING OTHER FOLKS,
YOU KNOW, PAYING OTHER FOLKS AND
THEY'RE NOT THE ONES THAT END UP
GETTING CAUGHT. RIGHT? AND THEY
USUALLY ARE NOT THE ONES THAT
END UP BEING SUBJECT TO NEW LAWS
OR ENFORCEMENT AT THE LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT LEVEL. BUT THEY'RE
THE ONES THAT ARE HELPING TO
FACILITATE THIS HUGE INDUSTRY
ONLINE. AND SO, I APPRECIATE
YOUR THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO
THIS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANKS. SO MUCH. I THINK I THINK
WE'RE ALL AWARE THAT THE DAYS OF
, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY YOU ARE
JUST A SHOPLIFTER SELLING ON THE
CORNER OR SELLING OUT OF THE
TRUNK OF YOUR CAR. THAT'S OVER.
AND PLUS, YOU NEVER MADE THAT
MUCH MONEY DOING THAT ANYWAY. SO
NOW YOU CAN HAVE THIS VERY
WEALTHY COUPLE. I MEAN, THEY,
ACCORDING TO THE REPORTS, THEY
LIVED IN, IN OVER $2.5 MILLION
HOUSE IN SAN DIEGO PAY YOU AND
HIRE YOU TO STEAL THINGS, RIGHT,
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
GET AT. I APPRECIATE ALL THE
CONVERSATION, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, MADAM SECRETARY. ROLL CALL.
VOTE ON SB 1144. MOTIONS DO PASS
TO PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE. CALL FOR A
CALL FOR AYE. DIXON AYE. AS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN. THANK YOU.
DIXON AYE. BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY.
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO PACHECO.
AYE. PATTERSON. REYES. SANCHEZ.
OKAY. WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL.
AND HE'S ONE MORE VOTE. MCKENNA.
ONE. SENATOR BRADFORD. SO,
SENATOR BRADFORD, IF YOU WANT TO
MAKE YOUR WAY UP HERE IN THE
MEANTIME, AS SENATOR BRADFORD
MAKES HIS WAY UP. MADAM
SECRETARY, IF YOU TAKE A ROLL
CALL, VOTE ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. CONSENT INCLUDES SB
382 BECKER SB 782 LIMÓN TO
APPROPRIATION SB 1051 EGGMAN SB
1150 LAIRD AS AMENDED. RIGHT
MOTION A MOTION ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. THE MOTION A SECOND.
CORRE, CORRE! AYE DIXON. DIXON.
AYE. BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA
MACKINNON. AYE. PACHECO. MIKE.
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON REYES.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE OKAY. SO
THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT, AND
WE'LL BRING IT BACK NOW TO
SENATOR BRADFORD, WHO HAS THREE
BILLS. AND IS THERE A PARTICULAR
ORDER YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE THE
BILLS IN? I'LL START WITH 1403.
SOUNDS GREAT. SO THAT'S, ITEM
LINE, ITEM EIGHT, SB 1403. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I'M
HERE TO PRESENT SB 1403, WHICH
WILL ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK,
THE FOUNDATION FOR REPARATIONS
HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE OF THE
LEADERSHIP OF OUR FORMER
COLLEAGUE IN THE ASSEMBLY, NOW
SECRETARY OF STATE, SHIRLEY
WEBER, WHO AUTHORED AS AB 3121,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE TASK
FORCE, WHICH CONCLUDED ITS WORK
A YEAR AGO THIS MONTH. I WAS
HONORED TO SERVE ON THAT TASK
FORCE FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS.
AND IN CONCLUSION, WE CAME UP
WITH 115 RECOMMENDATIONS AS THE
FOUNDATION FOR ANY REPARATIONS
WAS THE TASK FORCE. SO THE
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN FREEDMAN'S
AGENCY WILL BE THAT AGENCY THAT
WILL STAND UP AND DETERMINE
COMMUNITIES OF ELIGIBILITY, WHAT
REPARATIONS LOOKS LIKE, WHO
ENTITLE TO IT, AND HOW DO WE
DISPENSE IT AND MONITOR THOSE
RESOURCES. IT'S THIS IS A
PRIORITY. AND LET ME BE CLEAR,
THIS IS A PRIORITY OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS AND ONE
OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL
RECOMMENDATIONS. AGAIN FROM THE
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE FINAL
REPORT, THE WORK OF THE TASK
FORCE WAS WELL DOCUMENTED IN
GREAT DETAIL. ALL OF THE HISTORY
OF SLAVERY IN CALIFORNIA AND THE
PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC RACIAL
INJUSTICE THAT CONTINUED FOR A
LONG AFTER SLAVERY. AND WE ALL
HAVE TO AGREE IT STILL EXISTS
TODAY. AND MANY MIGHT SAY WHY
CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA WASN'T A
SLAVE STATE, ONLY THE NAME, ONLY
CALIFORNIA PRACTICE EVERYTHING
THAT ALABAMA, MISSISSIPPI,
GEORGIA DID. IF YOU CAME HERE AS
A SLAVE, YOU WERE TREATED AS A
SLAVE. IF YOU GAVE BIRTH HERE AS
A SLAVE, YOUR CHILD WAS BORN A
SLAVE. WE HAD A FUGITIVE SLAVE
LAW. SO IF YOU RAN AWAY AND CAME
TO CALIFORNIA, THEY RETURN YOU
BACK TO THE, PLANTATION IN WHICH
YOU RAN AWAY FROM. SO WE WERE A
SLAVE STATE AND ALL PRACTICAL
CALL, CAUSES. AND THE FIRST
GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA OWNED
SLAVES. THE AGENCY WILL BE
NECESSARY FOUNDATION FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND SUCCESS OF
REPARATIONS. THE MOST IMPORTANT
RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS AGENCY,
AGAIN, WILL BE DETERMINE WHICH
INDIVIDUALS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
REPARATIONS BASED ON THE
DEFINITION OF DESCENDANTS.
RECOMMENDED BY THE, DESCENDANTS
OF SLAVERY RECOMMENDED BY THE
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE, 1403
WILL CREATE AN OFFICE TO HELP
RESEARCH AND CONFIRM AN
INDIVIDUAL'S LINEAGE, WHILE IN
NO WAY DOES THIS EXCUSE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM, TAKING THEIR
OWN ACTIONS, CALIFORNIA STILL
BEARS A GREAT RESPONSIBILITY AT
A STATE GOVERNMENT PERMITTED AND
COMMITTED GRAVE INJUSTICE
AGAINST AFRICAN AMERICANS. THESE
INJUSTICES INCLUDE ENSLAVEMENT,
LYNCHING, LEGAL, PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE SEGREGATION,
DISCRIMINATION IN THE STATE,
FUNDING AND PROGRAMING, AND
STIGMATIZATION. THE MAJORITY OF
CALIFORNIANS AGREE THAT THE
HARMS OF SLAVERY ARE STILL FELT
TODAY. THIS AGENCY IS THE FIRST
STEP FOR CALIFORNIA TO TAKE THE
RIGHT STEPS AND CORRECTING THESE
WRONGS WITH ME TODAY, TO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY IS BRANDON GREEN AT
THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY AND STEPHANIE ROBERSON,
WITH THE BAY AREA REGIONAL
HEALTH AND, INEQUITIES
INITIATIVE. AND I THANK YOU IN
ADVANCE FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. AND JUST FOR THE
RECORD, I WANT TO NOTE THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MIKE GIBSON AND
SENATOR KELLY WEBBER ARE ALSO
HERE, MEMBERS OF THE BLACK
CAUCUS HERE IN SUPPORT, OF YOUR
EFFORTS. THANK YOU. BRANDON
GREEN, POLICY DIRECTOR, WESTERN
CENTER, THE ORIGINAL FREEDMEN'S
BUREAU, ESTABLISHED IN 1865,
ONLY LASTED FOR SEVEN YEARS AS
RACIST SENTIMENT FORCED ITS
CLOSURE. THOUGH IT WAS HELPFUL
WHILE OPENING THE PROMISES FOR A
BETTER FUTURE WITH THE FULL
ESTABLISHMENT OF AND RESTORATION
OF DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES WENT
LARGELY UNFULFILLED. AT PRESENT,
OUR COUNTRY HAS SEEN AN EXTREME
RESURGENCE OF RACIST ATTITUDES
AND UNPRECEDENTED ATTACKS ON
RACIAL EQUITY, INCLUSION, THE
VERY INSTITUTIONS, COURTS,
POLICY MECHANISMS, OTHER
PROTECTIONS HAVE QUICKLY FALLEN.
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS PASSED TO STOP
ANTI-BLACK DISCRIMINATION ARE
NOW BEING, TO ATTACK PROGRESS.
THE RACIAL RECKONING THAT WAS
PROMISED HAS NOT COME TO
FRUITION. CALIFORNIA, THROUGH
THE REPARATIONS TASK FORCE,
WHICH I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO
TESTIFY BEFORE TWICE STEPPED
INTO THE VOID TO SHOW LEADERSHIP
FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.
IT'S NOW TIME TO CONTINUE THIS
WORK BY ESTABLISHING THE
FREEDMEN AFFAIRS AGENCY, TO BE
HOUSED IN GOVERNMENT SO THAT THE
WORK OF REPARATIONS CAN CONTINUE
UNTIL ITS COMPLETION. THIS IS
IMPORTANT BOTH FOR CONTINUITY
AND FIDELITY OF PURPOSE. WE ASK
FOR OUR VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
OKAY. STEPHANIE ROBERSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA REGIONAL
HEALTH INEQUITIES INITIATIVE AND
THE CALIFORNIA ORGANIZATIONS FOR
REPARATIONS COALITION, AND I'VE
BEEN AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND.
WHO'S GOING TO COME ON AND
SUPPORT YOUR BILL? SENATOR, WE
ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF SB 1403
BY SENATOR BRADFORD, AS SENATOR
BRADFORD LAID OUT THE
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT TO
THE LEGISLATURE, DETAILS THE
SYSTEMIC HARMS AND DISPARITIES
EXPERIENCED BY BLACK FAMILIES
ACROSS KEY INDICATORS OF QUALITY
OF LIFE, INCLUDING EDUCATION,
HOUSING, ENVIRONMENT AND
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH. THE
TASK FORCE SPECIFICALLY CALLS
FOR THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN
FREEDMEN AFFAIRS AGENCY AS A
FIRST STEP IN IMPLEMENTING THEIR
FULL LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
THIS HISTORIC AGENCY IS
ESSENTIAL IN ESTABLISHING THE
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR REPARATIONS
IN CALIFORNIA AS A PRIORITY. AS
A SENATOR SAID OF THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS AND
MEMBERS REPRESENTED HERE TODAY,
CALIFORNIA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CONTINUE TO LEAD THE NATION
BY OPERATIONALIZING REPARATIVE
JUSTICE AND EMBEDDING THIS WORK
IN THE FABRIC OF OUR STATE.
GOVERNMENT FOCUSED INVESTMENTS
IN BLACK FAMILIES CAN TRANSFORM
OUR COMMUNITIES AND
INSTITUTIONS, CREATE HEALTHY AND
EQUITABLE LIVING CONDITIONS, AND
FINALLY, END THE LONGEST AND
MOST PERSISTENT LIFE EXPECTANCY
DIFFERENCE IN THE COUNTRY.
NOTABLY THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
HAS ESTABLISHED AN OFFICE OF
AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS, AFRICAN
AMERICAN AFFAIRS. EXCUSE ME AND
OUR GREAT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HAS ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF
TRIBAL AFFAIRS, CREATING THIS
PRECEDENT FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK.
SO WHILE OUR GOVERNMENT HAS MADE
STRIDES TOWARD ADVANCING RACIAL
EQUITY, NOW IS THE TIME TO
PRIORITIZE FOCUS, INVESTMENTS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN BLACK
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING AND START
REPAIRING THE HARMS OF
DISCRIMINATION AND
DISINVESTMENT. THE CALIFORNIA
ORGANIZATION FOR REPARATIONS
COALITION, OR CORE, IS A
STATEWIDE ADVOCACY GROUP
COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENTING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE THROUGH ADVOCACY, POLICY,
AND SYSTEMIC CHANGE, WE BRIDGE A
DIVERSITY OF PERSPECTIVES AND
IDEOLOGIES TO STAND UNITED IN
ADDRESSING THE UNIQUE HARMS
EXPERIENCED BY DESCENDANTS OF
ENSLAVED PEOPLE AND ACKNOWLEDGE
THE COLLECTIVE HARMS OF
ANTI-BLACK RACISM. CORE ENVISION
A CALIFORNIA WITH REPARATIVE
JUSTICE FOR A THRIVING, HEALTHY
AND RESILIENT BLACK COMMUNITY.
MEMBERS OF THE CORE COALITION
CITY OF OAKLAND AND BAR HAI
STRONGLY SUPPORTS 1403 AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I VOTE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1403? SIDNEY
HERRING, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HAWAII NAACP IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. A
LITTLE OKAY, THERE YOU GO. YOU
CAN SEE NOW. YES. GO AHEAD.
HELLO, MY NAME IS REGARDING OUR
RIGHTS. I WRITE SONGS AND, I
WROTE THAT SONG. TIME KEEPS ON
SLIPPING THROUGH THE FUTURE.
COME ON, LET'S GO INTO THE
FUTURE WITH THIS. THANK YOU.
JESSICA STENDER, ON BEHALF OF
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU, CHRIS
LAWSON. COALITION FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF
OF THE AMERICAN REDRESS
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA,
SACRAMENTO AMERICAN REDRESS
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA, BAY
AREA LINEAGE, EQUITY AND
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, AND THE
CALIFORNIA BLACK LINEAGE
SOCIETY. ALSO AUTHORIZED TO
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF RISING
COMMUNITIES. ALL IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AISHA KAREEM, STOCKTON,
CALIFORNIA. AND I'M IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, ANNETTE JACKSON,
DISCOVERY BAY, CALIFORNIA. AND I
AM IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YES,
DARLING. COMMITTEE A MEMBER OF
THE COALITION FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS
THE AMERICAN REDRESS COALITION
OF THE AREA. I AM IN TOTAL FULL
SUPPORT OF SB 1403. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. KIM
MIMS WITH COALITION FOR
ADJUSTMENT, EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN REDRESS COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO BRANCH
AND AMEND THE MASS MEDIA IN FULL
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HI. GOOD MORNING,
RANDY SAKAGUCHI. ON BEHALF OF
KING MAKERS OF OAKLAND, IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. RICHARD
ERLICH, CONSTITUENT OF KEVIN
MCCARTY SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
VANESSA CHÁVEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
ADAM KAGAN ON BEHALF OF CITY
YEAR IN SUPPORT, THANK YOU. GOOD
DAY. THANK YOU. I AM OMOLARA
ODOFIN IN SUPPORT WITH ON BEHALF
OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COALITION
GO GREEN FOUNDATION AND BUCA,
WHICH IS THE BLACK UNITED
COMMUNITY ADVOCACY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I'M MARVELLE WILSON.
I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE BLACK
COMMUNITY ADVOCACY, CO-FOUNDER
OF CAGE CREATIVITY ARTS AND
EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. I'M
ALSO A MEMBER WITH THE HOOKED ON
FISHING, NOT ON VIOLENCE, AND I
ADVOCATE FOR THIS BILL
VEHEMENTLY. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS CHARLTON CURRY, CO-CHAIR OF
NATIONAL BLACK WALL STREET
PROJECT. I AM SUPPORT OF SENATOR
BRADFORD. ALSO SPEAKING FOR
REVEREND TONY PIERCE, THE CEO,
AND ALEEM SHABAZZ CO-CHAIR. AND
I THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
14? OH THREE? OKAY. WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
SENATOR MCKENNA. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SORRY,
SENATOR BRADFORD, I AM SO PROUD
OF YOU AND PROUD OF THIS BILL.
THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A LONG
JOURNEY THAT WE WILL TAKE OVER
THE NEXT TEN. I FEEL LIKE ABOUT
TEN YEARS, BUT THIS THIS IS THE
GROUND. THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO
GET STARTED. AND I THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR VISION AND YOUR
HARD WORK ON REPARATIONS. THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'D
LIKE TO MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND, I ALSO WANT TO
THANK YOU, SENATOR BRADFORD, FOR
YOUR TIRELESS WORK, FOR YOUR
TIRELESS WORK ON THIS, AS WELL
AS MEMBERS OF THE OUR COLLEAGUES
IN THE LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS.
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY,
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, I THINK THAT ANYONE
THAT KNOWS ANY HISTORY, NOT JUST
OF OUR STATE, BUT OF OUR COUNTRY
KNOWS THAT BLACK AMERICANS,
BLACK CALIFORNIANS, HAVE BEEN
ASKED TO WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT
FOR FAR TOO LONG. AND OF COURSE,
THE LONGER YOU WAIT, THEN YOU
HAVE FOLKS SAYING, WELL, THAT
WAS SO LONG AGO, THE REALITY IS
THE IMPACTS ARE FELT DEEPLY
TODAY IN TERMS OF HOW WE AS A
STATE AND OBVIOUSLY, AS A
NATION, TREATED OUR BLACK
BROTHERS AND SISTERS FOR SO MANY
GENERATIONS, SO I DO WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. IT'S VERY WE KNOW THAT
AFTER THE COMMISSION REPORT, WAS
RELEASED, NOW IS WHEN THE REAL
WORK BEGINS. AND SO, HAVING THE
COMMISSION REPORT IS IMPORTANT,
BUT BUT IT REALLY IS RENDERED
MEANINGLESS IF WE JUST LEAVE IT
AT THAT. AND SO WITH THIS, I
REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE, YOUR
WORK ON THIS, I IF IT'S OKAY
WITH YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO BE
ADDED AS A COAUTHOR. LOVE YOU.
LOVE TO HAVE YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, SENATOR BRIAN, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS? I
WOULD ACTUALLY, THANK YOU,
SENATOR BRADFORD, FOR BRINGING
THIS MEASURE FORWARD. I THINK,
YOU KNOW, AS HAS BEEN STATED,
YOU AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER JONES
SAWYER AND BLACK FOLKS ALL
ACROSS CALIFORNIA ENGAGED IN A
MULTI YEAR LISTENING AND
BUILDING PROCESS THAT RESULTED
IN ONE OF THE MOST PROFOUND
DOCUMENTS THAT'S EVER BEEN
PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE IN THE STATE, AND IN
THAT CAME A NUMBER OF
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE A
FIERCE IMPLEMENTATION HURDLE IN
THAT IMPLEMENTATION CAN'T HAPPEN
WITHOUT SOME SORT OF OVERSEEING
AGENCY THAT HELPS FACILITATE IT.
AND SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR, FORCING US TO
CONTEMPLATE THE CREATION OF THIS
AGENCY AS EARLY AS LAST YEAR. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
URGENCY, NOT JUST IN THIS YEAR,
BUT THROUGHOUT YOUR TENURE IN
THE LEGISLATURE. A PROUD MEMBER
OF THE BLACK CAUCUS TODAY. AND,
I IMAGINE THERE'S A MOTION ON
THE TABLE, I'D LIKE TO SECOND,
THIRD OR FOURTH, WHATEVER IT IS.
WELL, AGAIN, THANK YOU. SENATOR,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES. I
WANT TO THANK ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES, HERE THAT ARE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, BUT ALSO
JUST STRESS THE IMPORTANCE AND
THE URGENCY OF NOW, DOCTOR KING
OFTEN SPOKE OF THE URGENCY OF
NOW. AND THAT'S WHERE WE FIND
OURSELVES TODAY. AND MANY
PEOPLE, AGAIN, WILL SAY, WELL,
CALIFORNIA WASN'T A SLAVE STATE.
YES, WE WERE. AND IT'S ABOUT
TIME THAT WE OPEN OUR EYES AND
UNDERSTAND THE HARMS THAT ARE
STILL IN EXISTENCE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND ACROSS THIS
NATION. BECAUSE OF SLAVERY. AND
I JUST ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES
WHO HAVEN'T READ THE REPORT,
IT'S 1100 PAGES. IT'S NOT AN
EASY READ, BUT IT'S A TRUTHFUL
READ. AND IF YOU'RE NOT UP FOR
THE 1100 PAGES, I ENCOURAGE YOU
TO READ THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
AND IT SPEAKS TO WHY THIS AGENCY
IS SO IMPORTANT AND WHY THE 115
RECOMMENDATIONS AS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCKENNA STATED, WILL BE A
LONG AND ARDUOUS PROCESS OF
IMPLEMENTATION. BUT THEY NEED WE
NEED IT. I MEAN, THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS NEED TO BE ACTED
UPON. OAN. AND THIS IS JUST A
FOUNDATION. AS WE STATED, WE
HAVE A TRIBAL AFFAIRS, FOR OUR
NATIVE AMERICANS. WE'VE DONE ALL
THOSE THINGS. WE CREATED
REPARATIONS AND HELPED OUR,
JAPANESE BROTHERS AND SISTERS
WHO WERE INTERNED IN WORLD WAR
TWO. AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE
OF, AGAIN, THE LEADERSHIP THAT
WE CAN PROVIDE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND FOR THE REST OF
THE NATION. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
SENATOR. MADAM SECRETARY WILL
TAKE ROLL CALL, VOTE MOTIONS, DO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL. I
CALL I DIXON. DIXON. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN. BRYAN I BRYAN I
CONNOLLY. HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN
MCKENNA. MCKINNON. I PACHECO.
PACHECO I. PATTERSON. REYES.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NO. ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL PLACE THAT BILL ON CALL,
AND THEN UP NEXT, IS IT SB 1331?
YES. OKAY AGAIN, I'M HERE TO
PRESENT 1331, WHICH WILL
ESTABLISH THE FUND FOR
REPARATIONS AND REPARATIVE
JUSTICE AND AUTHORIZES IT TO
RECEIVE GRANTS FROM THE FEDERAL,
STATE AND LOCAL AND PRIVATE
INSTITUTIONS. THE COST OF
REPARATIONS WILL BE HIGH. LET'S
MAKE NO JOKE ABOUT THAT. BUT THE
COST OF THE HARMS MAKE THIS
MINUSCULE BASED ON THE DEBT AND
HARM THAT WAS CREATED THROUGH
SLAVERY. BUT AGAIN, THE HARMS
THAT WERE DONE TO AFRICAN
AMERICANS ARE STILL FELT TODAY.
THE HARMS AND THE DISPARITIES IT
CREATED CONTINUES IN EVERY
ASPECT OF LIFE, NOT ONLY HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, BUT ACROSS THIS
NATION. I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE
AGAIN TO SERVE IN THE
LEGISLATURE FOR THE LAST 14
YEARS, AND WE HAVE VOTED ON
DOZENS OF BILLS DEALING WITH
WAGE THEFT, SLAVERY WAS OVER 250
YEARS OF WAGE THEFT AND WE NEED
TO ACCEPT THAT AND REALIZE THAT
THE HARM OF THIS WAGE STAFF,
AGAIN, STILL EXISTS TODAY. AND
THE QUESTION IS, HOW WILL
CALIFORNIA PAY FOR REPARATIONS?
THE REPARATIONS TASK FORCE IS
PAINSTAKINGLY AGAIN DOCUMENTED.
CALIFORNIA'S ROLE IN SLAVERY AND
DECADES OF SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION THAT FOLLOWED.
PEOPLE WILL ALSO SAY, WELL, I
DIDN'T OWN SLAVES. WHY SHOULD I
HAVE TO PAY? WELL IF YOU CAN
INHERIT GENERATIONAL WEALTH, YOU
CAN INHERIT GENERATIONAL DEBT.
AND THIS IS A DEBT THAT IS OWED
TO THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THIS
COUNTRY. IT'S TIME FOR US TO OWN
UP AND FACE UP TO CALIFORNIA AND
AMERICA'S ROLE. AND THE HARM
THAT IS DONE, AND THAT IT STILL
EXISTS IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY.
BECAUSE OF SLAVERY. THE RIGHT,
AND IT'S TIME TO RIGHT THESE
HISTORIC WRONGS AND RESTORE AND
REPAIR THE DAMAGES THAT HAVE
BEEN DONE. WE OFTEN SAY THAT A
STATE BUDGET IS A REFLECTION OF
OUR VALUES AND PRIORITIES. WELL,
THIS SHOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF
THAT BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT SHOULD
BE A PRIORITY. THIS BILL DOES
NOT REDISTRIBUTE $800 BILLION AS
REPARATIONS OR A CALL FOR A TAX
HIKE. JUST ANOTHER LIE BY THE
DESCENDANTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO
JUST WANT TO FIND A WAY Ã
DISSENTERS, I SHOULD SAY, WHO
FIND A WAY NOT TO SUPPORT THIS,
COMMENTS SUCH AS THESE ARE VERY
MISLEADING, DISINGENUOUS, AND
UNDERMINING THE TWO YEAR WORK
THAT THE REPARATIONS TASK FORCE
DID TO PROVIDE THE CLEAR DATA OF
HOW WE COULD PAY FOR THIS. SB
1331 IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD
MEASURE THAT SHOWS CALIFORNIA
SERIOUS ABOUT REPARATIONS AND
OWNING UP TO THIS DEBT, WITH ME
TODAY, TO TESTIFY IS RACHEL
BOLT, ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION AND
CHRIS LOXTON. LOXTON. I'M SORRY,
CHRIS, WITH THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF JUSTICE AND
EQUALITY, CALIFORNIA, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. UP TO TWO MINUTES
EACH. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS RACHEL
BHAGWAT, AND I'M A LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE AT ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION. AS A PROUD MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA ORGANIZATIONS FOR
REPARATIONS COALITION, THE ACLU
SUPPORTS SB 1331. THIS BILL
WOULD BE A CRITICAL STEP FORWARD
IN CALIFORNIA'S JOURNEY TO
ADDRESS AND BEGIN TO REPAIR THE
HARMS IT HAS CAUSED IN ITS PAST.
CALIFORNIA HAS AN UGLY HISTORY
OF RACE BASED SLAVERY RACIALLY
DISCRIMINATORY LAWS AND
POLICIES, AND ENTRENCHED
ANTI-BLACK BIASES. THIS LEGACY
HAS CONTINUED TO IMPACT THE
CONDITIONS OF DESCENDANTS OF
AFRICAN AMERICANS SUBJECT TO
CHATTEL SLAVERY IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND DESCENDANTS OF FREE
BLACK PERSONS LIVING IN THE
UNITED STATES PRIOR TO THE END
OF THE 19TH CENTURY. BY CREATING
A DESIGNATED PLACE IN THE STATE
TREASURY FOR REPARATIONS FUNDS,
SB 1331 WOULD GIVE CALIFORNIA A
FOUNDATION TO PAY THE DEBTS THAT
ARE OWED TO DESCENDANTS OF THOSE
MOST DIRECTLY HARMED BY THE
UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA'S
RACIST PAST, AND TO SECURE THE
PATH FORWARD FOR FAMILIES TO
RECOVER FROM GENERATIONS OF
HARMFUL POLICIES AND THRIVE IN A
MORE EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA, FREE
FROM THE DEPRIVATION OF
OPPORTUNITIES FOR STABLE HOUSING
AND WEALTH BUILDING VIA RACE
BASED RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION.
THÀNH TO PERSISTENT INEQUITIES
IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND
EDUCATION SYSTEM. CALIFORNIA HAS
DENIED THESE DESCENDANTS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECONOMIC
ADVANCEMENT AT NEARLY EVERY TURN
. WHILE REPARATIONS CANNOT CURE
ONGOING SYSTEMIC RACISM OR ALL
HARM STEMMING FROM IT,
REPARATIONS ARE AN INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT STEP IN ADDRESSING THE
ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS COMPOUNDED UPON
DESCENDANTS OF THOSE FORMERLY
ENSLAVED. BUT THE UNITED STATES,
WE SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO LEAD
THE NATION BY ENACTING SB 1331.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I JUST
WANT TO FIRST GIVE AN HONOR TO
MY ANCESTORS. I'M A DESCENDANT
OF SOMEONE AND THOSE WHO WERE
ENSLAVED IN THIS COUNTRY, WHERE
IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE
THERE WAS A UNITED STATES. GOOD
MORNING, ESTEEMED COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CHRIS LAWSON
WITH THE COALITION FOR A JUST
AND EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA, WHICH
IS CALIFORNIA'S FIRST AND ONLY
STATEWIDE GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION BORN TO ACHIEVE
REPARATIONS AND REPARATIVE
JUSTICE. SPECIFICALLY FOR
RESIDENTS WHOSE ANCESTORS WERE
ENSLAVED AND EMANCIPATED. IN
THESE UNITED STATES. I'M HERE
TODAY TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR SB 1331, WHICH WOULD
ESTABLISH THE CALIFORNIA
REPARATIONS AND REPARATIVE
JUSTICE FUND, AND TO
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
. THE CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS AND
REPARATIVE JUSTICE FUND WILL BE
USED TO FACILITATE FUNDING TO
ADDRESS HISTORICAL AND ONGOING
HARMS EXPERIENCED BY RESIDENTS
WHO ARE DESCENDANTS OF PERSONS
ENSLAVED IN THE UNITED STATES,
OR DESCENDANTS OF FREE BLACK
PERSONS WHO ARE LIVING IN THE
UNITED STATES. BEFORE THE YEAR
1900. THE FUND MAY RECEIVE MONEY
FROM ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR
LOCAL GRANT, OR FOR, FROM OR
FROM PRIVATE DONATION OR GRANTS
AS WELL. BUT THE FUND IS NOT
ONLY A CRUCIAL STEP TOWARD
ADDRESSING STATE SANCTIONED HARM
TO THESE DESCENDANTS. THE
CREATION OF THIS FUND ALSO
REPRESENTS A COMMITMENT TO
TRANSFORMING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF CALIFORNIA'S FIRST IN THE
NATION, REPARATIONS TASK FORCE,
INTO ACTIONABLE POLICIES.
FURTHERMORE, THE CREATION OF
THIS FUND IS ALSO A PRACTICAL
NECESSITY TO FACILITATE
MEANINGFUL REPARATIONS POLICIES
AND PROGRAMS. HERE'S WHY. THE
PROPOSED FUND WILL SERVE AS A
KEY EARLY PART OF THE FISCAL
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SUPPORT
REPARATIONS INITIATIVES APPROVED
BY BOTH THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
GOVERNOR. BY TAKING THIS STEP
FORWARD TO CREATE A FISCAL
FOUNDATION AND BACKBONE, WE
ENSURE THAT REPARATIVE EFFORTS
ARE NOT SYMBOLIC, BUT
SUCCESSFUL, IMPACTFUL AND
ENDURING. CREATING THIS FUND
ALSO HELPS TO ENSURE THAT
FUNDING FOR STATE REPARATIONS
EFFORTS WHEN ULTIMATELY APPROVED
BY THE STATE, ARE ORGANIZED AND
COORDINATED. NOW ORGANIZING AND
COORDINATING FUNDING FOR STATE
REPARATIONS EFFORTS WILL HELP
SUPPORT THE SUCCESS OF THESE
EFFORTS. THE MORE ORGANIZED AND
COORDINATED WE ARE, THE BETTER.
IN ADDITION, THE CREATION OF
THIS FUND WILL FOSTER FISCAL
TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIBILITY
IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING BY
ALLOWING FOR THE FUNDS SET ASIDE
FOR REPARATIONS TO BE TRACKED
AND ACCOUNTED FOR EFFECTIVELY.
IN CLOSING, I URGE MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
REPARATIONS AND REPARATIVE
JUSTICE FUND. AND FOR THESE
REASONS AND MORE, AND WITH
RESPECT TO MY ANCESTORS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1331?
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND YOUR
POSITION ON THE BILL, PLEASE?
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. RIGHT
THERE. RIGHT THERE. CHAIRMAN
LAGUARDIA HERE. FIRST GIVING.
THANK YOU, SENATORS AND
CONGRESSMEN, IF YOU ARE OKAY,
THIS BILL, I PLAN ON PUTTING
SOMETHING IN THIS BILL. PLEASE
REMEMBER ME. I'M THE PERSON THAT
IN OUR PAST, WHEN GOVERNOR
SCHWARZENEGGER CROSSED THE STAGE
WITH A LARGE CHECK, I'M THAT
PERSON THAT PUT THAT CASH IN
THAT CHECK. PLEASE HONOR THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
DAY. OMOLARA Þ ODOFIN AGAIN. AND
I FORGOT TO MENTION THE BLACK,
NATIONAL WALL STREET PROJECT. I
REPRESENT. I ALSO REPRESENT THE
GO GREEN FOUNDATION IN THE
COMMUNITY SERVICES COALITION AND
THE BLACK UNITED ADVOCACY
COMMUNITY ADVOCACY FOUNDATION,
AND WE ALL ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. AND THANK YOU, SENATOR
BRADFORD AND BROTHER CHRIS. AND
YOU TOO. THANK YOU. HOW DO YOU
FOLLOW THAT? I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT,
ALL YOUR EFFORTS, AND THANK YOU
FOR INCLUDING ME. OKAY. THANK
YOU FOR INCLUDING MY ANSWERS.
THANK YOU FOR GIVING MY CHILDREN
THIS OPPORTUNITY. WILL WILL BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE A LEGACY FOR MY
CHILDREN, FOR MY FOR MY NIECES
AND NEPHEWS WHO DON'T EVEN DON'T
EVEN HAVE THIS HISTORY. THANK
YOU. I'M IN SUPPORT. YES. AISHA.
KAREEM FROM STOCKTON AND I'M IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SINCE THE HEARING ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA, HAWAII AND NAACP
IN STRONG SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
FOR THE GREATER SACRAMENTO URBAN
LEAGUE, STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS CHARLTON CURRY
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BLACK
WALL STREET PROJECT I SUPPORT
THE WORK OF SENATOR BRADFORD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN. MY
NAME IS MARVELL WILSON. I AM A
MEMBER OF OR AN EXECUTIVE BOARD
MEMBER OF THE BLACK UNITED
COMMUNITY ADVOCACY. I AM ALSO A
MEMBER OF KGEC. YES, SIR, I AM
OF WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS, URGE
THIS COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THE
APOLOGY THAT WAS MADE IN 2006
AND PROCEED WITH THE AMENDS THAT
ACCOMPANIES SUCH AN APOLOGY.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS DOCTOR TRUTH BEY, THE
MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR THE
BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND THE
HAITIAN AMERICAN YOUTH COUNCIL,
AS WELL AS AN ADJUNCT OF CSAC
OFFICIAL. WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE.
I VOTE FOR ALL. THANK YOU.
BRYANT THANK YOU, NONI MORALES
WITH THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, MR. CHAIR MEMBER STEPHANIE
ROBERSON, ON BEHALF OF THE BAY
AREA REGIONAL HEALTH INEQUITIES
INITIATIVE AND ALSO AUTHORIZED
TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF CITY OF
OAKLAND IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU,
BRANDON GREEN, WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
DARLING. COMMITTEE, A MEMBER OF
KGEC, AS WELL AS OUR BAY AREA.
FULL SUPPORT FOR SB 1331. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. KIM MIMS WITH
KGEC ARC SACRAMENTO AND Â TÌM
MEDIA GROUP ARE IN FULL SUPPORT
OF 1331 SB 1331 AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
. RICHARD ERLICH, CONSTITUENT TO
KEVIN MCCARTY SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. CAL O'HARA, REPRESENTING EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ADAM KAGAN, ON BEHALF
OF ALLIANCE COLLEGE-READY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
RANDY SAKAGUCHI ON BEHALF OF
KING, MAKERS OF OAKLAND. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, SENATOR BRIAN
NØ, I'LL BE BRIEF, I JUST WANT
TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. IT DIDN'T
OCCUR TO ME AT THE START OF THIS
YEAR THAT THAT EVERY MEANINGFUL
REPARATIONS PROPOSAL, INTRODUCED
WAS GOING TO COME THROUGH
JUDICIARY, IT'S ALSO INTERESTING
THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAD NO BLACK
MEMBERS LAST YEAR AND NOW HAS
TWO, AND SO I THINK THAT'S A
REFLECTION OF THE LEADERSHIP OF
THE SPEAKER AND THE DIRECTION OF
THE CHAIR AND OF THE SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I WANT TO
THANK ALL THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WHO MADE IT UP TO SACRAMENTO TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS, OF
THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. AND, MR. CHAIR, I'D
LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE
THE BILL, A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AND ACTUALLY, I AND WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND REGISTERED.
I DID NOT ASK IF THERE WAS
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1331
HERE. SO I APOLOGIZE. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION THAT'S
NOT ON THE DAIS? OKAY. SENATOR
SANCHEZ, THANK YOU. TO BE
HONEST, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL TO HELP FACILITATE THE
DISTRIBUTION OF REPARATIONS.
ECONOMISTS, CONSULTANTS FROM THE
TASK FORCE REPORTED THE TOTAL
AMOUNT COULD BE AS MUCH AS 800
BILLION. 800 BILLION. THAT'S TWO
AND A HALF TIMES THE SIZE OF OUR
ENTIRE STATE BUDGET. TO PAY FOR
THAT, YOU'D NEED A MAJOR TAX
HIKE. UNLIKE ANYTHING THIS STATE
HAS EVER SEEN BEFORE. I
RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE
PAINFUL PART OF OUR HISTORY. THE
PAINS OF OUR PAST SHOULD NOT BE
PAID BY THE PEOPLE OF TODAY. THE
MAJORITY OF OUR STATE IS LATINO
AND ASIAN, MAKING UP 55% OF OUR
POPULATION. MOST OF THEM, LIKE
ME, ARE SECOND, FIRST, SECOND OR
THIRD GENERATION IMMIGRANTS WHO
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY,
DISCRIMINATION, JIM CROW LAWS,
NOTHING. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY
UNFAIR TO FORCE THESE PEOPLE TO
PAY FOR THIS. AND BECAUSE OF
THAT, I WILL BE OPPOSING TODAY.
SENATOR O'BRIEN. YEAH, JUST WANT
TO THANK OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES FOR COMING TO
COMMITTEE TODAY. AFTER
BOYCOTTING THE PREVIOUS
COMMITTEE, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
TO GO ON THE RECORD AND FORMALLY
OPPOSE REPARATIONS. SO I WANT TO
THANK THEM FOR DOING SO. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
YEAH. I WANT TO THANK SENATOR
FOR BRADFORD ONCE AGAIN FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD, AGAIN, AS
I SAID EARLIER, IT'S ONE THING
IF YOU HAVE A COMMISSION REPORT,
WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT THE REALITY
IS THAT, ACTIONS ARE NECESSARY
AND THAT INCLUDES, REPARATIONS.
IT INCLUDES, IN SOME CASES,
MONETARY REPARATIONS. THERE'S
MANY DIFFERENT WAYS AND
DIFFERENT FORMS THAT CAN TAKE
PLACE. AS THE COMMISSION REPORT
RECOMMENDS, IT'S NOT GOING TO
COME OUT OF A $800, $800 BILLION
BALLOON PAYMENT FROM THE STATE
BUDGET. BUT THERE ARE. BUT AT
THE END OF THE DAY, COMPENSATION
IS NECESSARY, YOU KNOW, I
UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S HARD TO ASK
THOSE OF US CURRENTLY SITTING IN
THE LEGISLATURE HERE TO MAKE
THOSE COMMITMENTS, BUT NO ONE
ASKED, BLACK FAMILIES OVER
GENERATIONS IF IT WAS OKAY TO
TAKE THEIR WEALTH, IF IT WAS
OKAY TO ENSLAVE THEM, IT WAS
OKAY, TO. YES IF IT WAS OKAY TO
PUT THEIR CHILDREN IN
GENERATIONS OF POVERTY, THIS
COUNTRY BECAME A SUPERPOWER
BASED UPON FREE LABOR OF AFRICAN
DESCENDANTS. OVER HUNDREDS OF
YEARS, WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE IT.
I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE
EASY. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE
EASY TO ACTUALLY ADMIT WHEN
YOU'VE CAUSED PAIN. IT'S NOT
SUPPOSED TO BE EASY WHEN YOU
ACTUALLY TRY TO REPAIR AND HEAL
THAT PAIN. AND YES, WE DO
BENEFIT. WE STILL BENEFIT TO
THIS DAY FROM WHAT HAPPENED TO
OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE
BLACK COMMUNITY OVER SO MANY
GENERATIONS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, YOU WANT TO COMMENT? GO
AHEAD, GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO
MAKE A QUICK COMMENT, THE,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER SANCHEZ, I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS,
I JUST WANT TO CORRECT YOU, SO,
OUR ORGANIZATION, WE WENT TO
EVERY SINGLE TASK FORCE HEARING,
WE TRAVELED, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWED
THE TASK FORCE, WE WERE AT EVERY
SINGLE MOMENT OF EVERY SINGLE
HEARING. TASK FORCE DID NOT. AND
THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE TASK
FORCE DID NOT SAY THAT THE THAT
THE STATE SHOULD PAY $800
BILLION, THAT THE TASK FORCE
ECONOMIST SAID THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA STOLE $800 BILLION IN
WEALTH FROM THE DESCENDANTS.
THAT IS WHAT THE STATE STOLE
FROM US. NOW IT'S UP TO THIS
LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE WHAT THE
BILL IS. BUT YOUR COMMENTS ARE
INCORRECT. THE TASK FORCE SAID
THAT WHAT WAS TAKEN FROM US WAS
$800 BILLION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. AND AGAIN, WE
COULD BE HERE UNTIL THE COWS
COME HOME BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T
ASSESS A REAL VALUE OF THE HARM
THAT WAS DONE TO FAMILIES HERE
IN CALIFORNIA AND ACROSS THIS
NATION WHO TOILED IN THE FIELDS,
LOST THEIR LIVES, WERE TORTURED,
WERE MUTILATED, WERE MAIMED, TO
BUILD THIS NATION'S WEALTH, OUR
LARGEST INSURANCE COMPANIES WAS
BUILT ON THE BACK OF SLAVE
BECAUSE OF THE SLAVE INDUSTRY,
OUR BANK, INSTITUTION, FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS WERE BUILT ON THE
SLAVE ECONOMY. AND PEOPLE SAY,
WELL, WHY SHOULD WE PAY THE
DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES? WELL, LET
ME SHARE SOMETHING WITH YOU.
EVERY SLAVE OWNER WHO OWNED A
SLAVE WAS PAID WHEN THOSE,
SLAVES WERE EMANCIPATED BECAUSE
THEY WERE INSURED. AND THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT STAND
HERE TODAY ARE JUST AS GUILTY.
SO, AGAIN, AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
STATED, THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEEING
CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO PAY 800
BILLION. THEY'RE SEEING WHAT WAS
STOLEN. AND YOU CAN'T ASSESS A
VALUE ON REALLY WHAT WAS STOLEN
AND WHAT IS STILL BEING TAKEN
AND DENIED TO AFRICAN AMERICANS.
FROM HOMEOWNERSHIP TO EDUCATION,
YOU NAME IT. OUR REPARATIONS
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED THAT
REPARATIONS COULD BE IN THE FORM
OF FREE COLLEGE AT OUR UCS AND
CSUS. IT WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF
FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS
ASSISTANCE, BECAUSE THERE ARE
GENERATIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS
WHO HAVE LIVED HERE FOR OVER 200
YEARS, WHO HAVE NEVER OWNED
PROPERTY, BECAUSE OF REDLINING,
BECAUSE OF JIM CROW, BECAUSE OF
RACISM, THAT, AGAIN, MANY OF
THOSE RESTRICTIONS STILL EXIST
TODAY. SO IT COULD BE ONGOING
HEALTH CARE. SO REPARATIONS CAN
TAKE A FORM OF MANY DIFFERENT
FORMS. BUT AGAIN, THE THROW OUT
800 BILLION, THAT'S A DROP IN A
BUCKET ON WHAT WAS REALLY STOLEN
FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED BUILD
THIS NATION. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY. ROLL CALL. VOTE
ON 1330 SB 1331. PLEASE MOTIONS
DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL I
CALL I DIXON. DIXON. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN. BRYAN I RYAN I
CONNOLLY. HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN
MCKENNA. PACHECO. PACHECO I.
PATTERSON PATTERSON. NØ. REYES.
SANCHEZ. NÓ SANCHEZ. NO. ALL
RIGHT. WE WILL PLACE THAT BILL
ON CALL, AND, SENATOR BRADFORD,
YOUR LAST ITEM FOR TODAY, SB
1050, ITEM THREE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. YEAH, THIS IS MY FINAL
BILL, THIS BILL WILL CREATE A
PATHWAY TO RETURN LAND OR
PROVIDE RESTITUTION TO
CALIFORNIANS WHO HAVE HAD THEIR
LAND OR THEIR PROPERTY TAKEN BY
THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
BY RACIALLY MOTIVATED REASONS.
MANY CALIFORNIANS ARE NOW
FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGISLATION
THAT I AUTHORED THREE YEARS AGO
DEALING WITH BRUCE'S BEACH. IT
WAS A PARCEL OF BEACHFRONT LAND
IN MANHATTAN BEACH THAT WAS ONCE
A THRIVING RESORT OWNED BY
CHARLES AND WILLA BRUCE, AN
AFRICAN AMERICAN COUPLE WHO
INVESTED AND CREATED A
SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS. BUT THE
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH RESENTED
THE BRUCE'S SUCCESS AND WANTED
TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. THE
CITY USED THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN TO TAKE THE BRUCE'S LAND,
AND TO DO SO FOR FAR LESS THAN
WHAT THE FAIR VALUE WAS IN 2022.
AS STATED, I AUTHORED
LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWED THE
CURRENT OWNER, THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, TO RETURN THE LAND TO
THE DESCENDANTS OF CHARLES AND
WILLA BRUCE. AND JUST LIKE WITH
BRUCE'S BEACH, SB 1050 WILL
CREATE A PATHWAY TO JUSTICE FOR
OTHERS HARMED BY SIMILAR RACIST
POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE
DISTANT AND RECENT PAST. WE KNOW
BRUCE'S BEACH IS NOT A SINGLE
STORY OF UNJUST AND RACIST
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN HAS BEEN ABUSED
TO MOVE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE
OFF THEIR LAND AND TO DESTROY
HOMES, TO DEVASTATE, DEVASTATE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILIES, TO
BUILD GENERATIONAL WEALTH
THROUGH THE OWNING OF LAND. THIS
TYPE OF INJUSTICE ALSO OCCURRED
IN SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND, LOS
ANGELES, SAN DIEGO, PALM SPRINGS
, AND RUSSELL CITY, JUST TO NAME
A FEW. WE'RE EVEN BEING MADE
AWARE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN PALM
SPRINGS, AS I MEAN, AND, AND
SANTA MONICA RIGHT NOW, A PIECE
OF PROPERTY THAT WAS OWNED BY
SILAS WHITE, A SUCCESSFUL BLACK
BUSINESS OWNER, HAD THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA TOOK HIS PROPERTY
IN 1960 BECAUSE THE CITY SAID,
WE NEED A PARKING LOT. WELL,
TODAY, A FOUR STAR HOTEL SITS ON
THE LAND THAT IS STILL OWNED BY
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, AND
THEY REAP BENEFITS FROM THAT
PROPERTY ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
THAT MONEY SHOULD BE GOING TO
THE WHITE FAMILY. AND LET'S TALK
ABOUT RUSSELL CITY. THIS WAS A
BLACK AND LATINO COMMUNITY THAT
IS NOW PART OF THE CITY OF
HAYWARD IN THE EAST BAY. IN THE
1920S THROUGH THE 1950S, RUSSELL
CITY WAS A THRIVING COMMUNITY OF
HOMES AND BUSINESSES, BUT THE
TOWN WAS ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF
HAYWARD AND THEN EMINENT DOMAIN
WAS USED TO EVICT THE RESIDENTS
IN ORDER TO BUILD AN INDUSTRIAL
PARK, AS AMENDED, SB 1050 WILL
EMPOWER THE STATE TO REVIEW
CLAIMS AND MAKE DETERMINATIONS
OF WHETHER COMPENSATION IS
WARRANTED. THE AMENDMENTS ALSO
SPECIFY THAT THE BILL WOULD NOT
IMPACT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS,
MEANING THAT LAND THAT IS
CURRENTLY IN PRIVATE HANDS WITH
A GOOD FAITH OWNER COULD NOT BE
RECLAIMED. ONLY PUBLICLY HELD
LAND COULD BE RECONSIDERED FOR
BEING RETURNED, AND ONLY IF IT
IS FEASIBLE. IF A FREEWAY IS NOW
OCCUPIES THE LAND THAT WAS
TAKEN, THE CLAIMANT WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE TO. SIMILARLY HELD FOR
SIMILARLY HELD LAND. IF ANY
EXIST, OR MORE LIKELY, MONETARY
COMPENSATION WITH THAT FINDING,
THE FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN
HAND FROM THE FREEDOM AFFAIRS
AGENCY, THE CLAIMANT WOULD BE
ABLE TO SEEK RESTITUTION FROM
THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY, WHETHER
IT'S THE CITY, COUNTY OR SPECIAL
DISTRICT THAT ACTUALLY CAUSED
THE HARM. THE AMENDMENTS WOULD,
CHANGE THE SOURCE OF RESTITUTION
FROM THE FUND OF REPARATIONS AND
REPARATIVE JUSTICE TO AN ACTUAL
GOVERNMENT ENTITY THAT SHOULD BE
HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING
THE RACIALLY MOTIVATED ACT, THE
LAST SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENT DEALS
WITH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
SINCE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
FOR MOST CLAIMS AND CHALLENGING
EMINENT DOMAIN IS FIVE YEARS, WE
KNOW MANY OF THESE RACIALLY
MOTIVATED ABUSES OF LAW OCCURRED
DECADES AGO. SB 1050 WILL REMOVE
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
SPECIFICALLY FOR CLAIMS OF
RACIALLY MOTIVATED ABUSES OF
EMINENT DOMAIN. THESE CHANGES
STAY TRUE TODAY TO THE ORIGINAL
INTENT OF THE BILL, WHILE ADDING
MORE DETAILS TO WHAT THE PATH OF
JUSTICE WOULD LOOK LIKE, FOR
VICTIMS OF RACIALLY MOTIVATED
TAKING. AND HERE TODAY TO
TESTIFY IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CAN
ATTEST FIRSTHAND TO PROPERTY
THAT WAS STOLEN. I'M HONORED TO
HAVE MISS JESSIE JOHNSON, MISS
JOHNSON LIVES IN RUSSELL CITY.
BEFORE SHE WAS FORCEFULLY
REMOVED FROM HER HOME. SHE IS
HERE TO DAY WITH HER SON,
VINCENT AND MISS JOHNSON. THE
FLOOR IS YOURS. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS JESSIE JOHNSON AND I WAS
A NURSING STUDENT LIVING WITH MY
GRANDPA. TENANTS WHO WERE FORCED
OUT IN 1960. THE BEGINNING OF
1964. THEY OWNED THEIR OWN LAND.
THEY PAID THEIR TAXES ON THAT
LAND AS WELL AS MY MOTHER IN
LAW, WHO WAS NAMED JESSIE
JOHNSON HENRY. SHE HAD HALF A
BLOCK, ONE WAY, HALF A BLOCK
ANOTHER WAY. SO IT WAS QUITE A
BIT OF LAND THAT WE'RE IN. THEY
WERE FORCED OUT AND SO AS A
RESULT OF THAT, MY WAITING ON MY
HUSBAND TO COME HOME SERVING IN
THE NAVY, WE THOUGHT WE WOULD BE
ABLE TO BUILD ON MY
GRANDFATHER'S LAND, WHO WAS,
BERNIE PATTERSON AND HIS FATHER
WAS JOE PATTERSON. SO AT THAT
TIME, WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WE
WOULD HAVE THE LIBERTY TO BUILD
ON MY GRANDFATHER'S LAND. SO
UNFORTUNATELY, ATTLEE, EMINENT
DOMAIN TOOK OVER, TOOK AND MADE
MY. IT MADE MY GRANDFATHER VERY
SAD. HIS NAME WAS BERNIE
PATTERSON, AND IT WAS VERY SAD
FOR ME TO DRIVE. I HAD TO MOVE
TO OAKLAND, BOUGHT MY HUSBAND
AND I EVENTUALLY BOUGHT OUR HOME
IN OAKLAND. BUT AT THAT TIME WE
HAD TO GO BACK AND WATCH MY
GRANDPARENTS LEAVE IN THE EARLY
1964. SO AT THAT TIME, WE DID
WHAT WE HAD TO DO. WE PUT OUR
KIDS, MY HUSBAND AND I PUT OUR
CHILDREN THROUGH COLLEGE WITH
LAW DEGREES, WITH DOCTOR'S
DEGREES, YOU KNOW, AND WE
CONTINUED ON TO WORK VERY HARD.
BUT THE PAIN IS SOMETHING THAT
YOU CANNOT SEE IF I SLAP YOUR
FACE, YOU SAY, OH, AND YOU ASK
ME TO SHOW YOU WHERE THE PAIN
IS. I CAN'T, BUT THE PAIN WE
JUST PUT IT UNDER AND KEPT
MOVING. SO I'M ASKING FOR
REPARATIONS TO BE GRANTED. I'M
EXPECTANT THAT THOSE WHO ARE FOR
US WILL HELP TO MEND THE
PROBLEMS FOR MY DESCENDANTS.
BECAUSE I'M STANDING ON THEIR
SHOULDERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, MISS JOHNSON. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1050? THANK YOU.
I'LL GO FIRST AGAIN SO I CAN
RECORD OMOLARA ODOFIN IN SUPPORT
AND REPRESENTING THE GO GREEN
FOUNDATION, THE BLACK UNITED
COUNCIL COMMUNITY ADVOCACY
FOUNDATION, ALSO REPRESENTING
THE NATIONAL BLACK WALL STREET
PROJECT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
COALITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, ANDY LEBENSBAUM,
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES AND PROUD SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SO I'M SUPPORTING, ALTHOUGH
THANK YOU, SENATOR BRADFORD, FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. MASTER
CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL AGAIN. IT'S
SO IMPORTANT. I LIVED ON THE
STREETS OF ARDEN AND WHITE
AVENUE FOR YEARS BECAUSE SOMEONE
TOOK MY HOUSE AFTER I HAD BOUGHT
THE LAND, BUILT THE HOUSE, AND
SO HERE I AM ASKING FOR THIS
BILL TO THANK, THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. AND I'M AISHA. KAREEM
STOCKTON AND I'M IN SUPPORT
STRONGLY. THANK YOU. JACKSON
MODESTO, CALIFORNIA. STRONGLY
STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SYDNEY SHARON FROM THE
CALIFORNIA HAWAII NAACP IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. LOST
THE GREATER SACRAMENTO COMMITTEE
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU RACHEL
BHAGWAT ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MARVELL
WILSON, VERY, VERY STRONGLY IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU
DOCTOR. CRITICAL TRUTH TODAY,
MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR BLACK
PANTHER PARTY STRONGLY SUPPORT
SB 1050. THANK YOU. BOB NAYLOR
REPRESENTING FIELDSTEAD AND
COMPANY. THAT'S HOWARD AHMANSON
JR, AN ORANGE COUNTY
PHILANTHROPIST, IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
BRANDON GREEN, WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND PROPERTY IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
MEMBER STEPHANIE ROBERSON ON
BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA REGIONAL
HEALTH INEQUITIES INITIATIVE,
AND ALSO AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF CITY OF OAKLAND IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. AND I WAS
IN MANHATTAN BEACH WHEN THAT
PROPERTY WAS RETURNED TO THE
FAMILY. SAU WAS A DEFINITE PRIDE
AND PRIVILEGE. THANK YOU FOR ALL
THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE IN
THIS BODY, FOR THIS STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
AGAIN. DARLENE CROMARTIE, A
MEMBER OF KGEC, AS WELL AS ARK
BAY AREA FULL SUPPORT FOR SB
1050. AND THANK YOU, SENATOR
BRADFORD, FOR EVERYTHING. THANK
YOU. KIM MIMS, COALITION FOR
ADJUSTED, EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA
ARC SACRAMENTO AND AMENDMENT
MASS MEDIA GROUP IN FULL AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR BRADFORD, FOR YOUR WORK.
THANK YOU, RICHARD ERLICH,
INSTITUTE OF KEVIN MCCARTHY
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, VANESSA
CHÁVEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS CHARLTON CURRY,
CO-CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL BLACK
WALL STREET PROJECT IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND ALSO A SPORTS
PODCAST. I STRONGLY SUPPORT YOUR
WORK AND I SO MUCH APPRECIATE
YOU, SENATOR BRADFORD. THANK YOU
. RANDY SAKAGUCHI, ON BEHALF OF
KING, MAKERS OF OAKLAND, IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
JORDAN HEATHCOTE, ON BEHALF OF
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND SENATOR
BRADFORD, WILL YOU BE ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS? YES. THANK YOU,
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE,
ACTUALLY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1050? THERE
WAS A REGISTERED OPPOSITION, SO
I TEND TO SKIP IT SOMETIMES. SO
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. SO MEMBER
PATTERSON, JOE PATTERSON JOE.
YEAH. JOE PATTERSON YES I WAS
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE
TESTIMONY. IT REALLY TURNED ME
ON THIS BILL, PARTICULARLY THE
RELATIVES NAMED JOE PATTERSON.
SO, BUT I HAPPEN TO SERVE AS THE
VICE CHAIR OF THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE
TALK A LOT ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN
ISSUES OR REALLY JUST, YOU KNOW,
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN GENERAL. AND
THAT'S ALWAYS KIND OF BEEN A
FOUNDATION OF MINE, WHEN I TALK
ABOUT HOUSING ISSUES, WHICH
SOMETIMES GETS ME IN SOME
CONFLICT, WITH SOME PEOPLE WHO
ARE REGISTERED THE SAME PARTY AS
ME, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU LEARN
FROM A VERY YOUNG AGE THAT
PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE, YOU
KNOW, GENERALLY FOR PEOPLE,
SHOULD BE PART OF THE AMERICAN
DREAM. AND THAT'S HOW YOU BUILD
WEALTH AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO,
I THINK EMINENT DOMAIN IN
GENERAL NEEDS TO BE EXTREMELY
LIMITED IN, IN THE I'VE READ
ABOUT THE CASE IN MANHATTAN
BEACH AND I THINK CIRCUMSTANCES
IN WHICH OBVIOUSLY IT'S RACIALLY
MOTIVATED, IS EVEN WORSE THAN
JUST TAKING SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE
PROPERTY. AND NOT COMPENSATING
THEM FAIR MARKET VALUE. BUT I AM
100% SOMETHING WHERE YOU SAY YOU
HAVE TO BE COMPENSATED, FAIR
MARKET VALUE. IF THE
GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR
PROPERTY, AND SO BECAUSE OF
THAT, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS
MEASURE. I THINK THERE'S SOME
THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK,
THAT NONE OF US. RIGHT. PERFECT
BILLS OR YOURS ARE CLOSE TO
PERFECT, SENATOR BRADFORD, BUT,
BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME
THINGS THAT DO CAUSE ME SOME
PAUSE. BUT I THINK THE GENERAL
POLICY OF MAKING SURE PEOPLE ARE
COMPENSATED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
COMES IN AND TAKES THEIR LAND
AND IMPEDES THEIR ABILITY TO
BUILD THEIR WEALTH, IS A
PROBLEM. SO I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO
SUPPORTING IT. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING IT. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BRIAN. YEAH, HAVEN'T EVER
SPOKEN THIS MUCH IN A ROW, BUT
HAVING HAD A THIS MANY IMPORTANT
BILLS COMING THROUGH, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THESE
RACIALIZED TAKINGS WERE ALSO
OFTEN ACCOMPANIED BY RACIALIZED
TERROR. RIGHT. THESE WERE NOT
NICE USES OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
THEY WERE OFTEN VERY VIOLENT.
I'M THINKING ABOUT SECTION 14 IN
PALM SPRINGS, WHERE THEY, FOR
BLACK FOLKS OUT BY FIRE,
LITERALLY, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT
TO REMEMBER THAT THE DESCENDANTS
OF THESE RACIALIZED TAKINGS ARE
STILL WITH US TODAY. THEY HAVE
LOST OUT ON THAT GENERATIONAL
WEALTH THAT SHOULD BE THEIRS.
IT'S ALSO STARKLY APPARENT TO ME
THAT WE HAVE SUCH A LEGACY OF
RACIALIZED, MOTIVATED TAKINGS
AND THE HIGHEST DISPROPORTIONATE
AMOUNT OF BLACK PEOPLE WHO LIVE
ON OUR STREETS. THESE THINGS ARE
INTERLINKED. AND THAT'S THE TRUE
LEGACY OF SLAVERY IN CALIFORNIA.
THAT IS WHY THE SENATOR
RIGHTFULLY CORRECTS THE RECORD
THAT CALIFORNIA HAS PARTICIPATED
IN SLAVERY. THAT'S WHY A PIECE
OF LEGISLATION LIKE THIS ARE SO
IMPORTANT. THANK YOU, SENATOR,
FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. I'D
LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE
THE BILL, A MOTION AND A SECOND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. BAUER-KAHAN
THANK YOU, I'M SORRY I MISSED
THE OTHER TWO PRESENTATIONS. I
WAS IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE, BUT, I
JUST WANT TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM LOS
ANGELES. I THINK THIS BILL SEEMS
SO OBVIOUS BECAUSE IT'S A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. I MEAN,
YOU CANNOT TAKE SOMEONE'S LAND
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. IT IS
GUARANTEED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
AND YET WE KNOW THAT SO MANY
RIGHTS IN OUR CONSTITUTION THÀNH
AS FUNDAMENTAL AS THE RIGHT TO
VOTE AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN DENIED
TO PEOPLE OF COLOR THROUGHOUT
HISTORY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT IS
SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
TAKE THE STEPS WE CAN TO RIGHT
THOSE WRONGS. AND I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT, YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATED THE ANALYSIS
AND THE FOCUS ON MAKING SURE
THESE PROCESSES WORK. THE LAST
THING WE WANT IS FOR FOLKS TO GO
THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THEN
HAVE A COURT, NOT HONOR IT. SO I
HOPE THAT THAT WORK CONTINUES TO
MAKE SURE THESE PROCESSES ARE AS
EFFECTIVE AS I KNOW YOU INTEND
THEM TO BE. SENATOR, BUT I
THINK, THERE'S JUST NO QUESTION
THAT WHERE ONE HAS BEEN VIOLATED
IN SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL WAY THAT
OUR CONSTITUTION OFTEN DICTATES
THAT IT IS OUR JOB TO FIX THAT
IF WE CAN. AND SO I WANT TO
THANK EVERYONE WHO CAME HERE
TODAY FOR SPEAKING UP, FOR
TELLING YOUR STORY, YOU KNOW, I
OFTEN SIT HERE AND THINK ABOUT
THE WAYS IN WHICH OUR HISTORIES
ARE INTERTWINED. MY FAMILY'S
LAND WAS TAKEN DURING THE
HOLOCAUST, AND, YOU KNOW, WE
MADE OUR WAY BACK AND NEVER SAW
THOSE RIGHTS WRONGED IN A LOT OF
WAYS, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
HAS HAPPENED TO PEOPLE
THROUGHOUT HISTORY. AND ALL OF
THOSE RIGHTS SHOULD BE WRONGED.
AND SO IT'S SUCH AN HONOR TO SIT
HERE AND TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT
FOR ANOTHER PEOPLE. SO I WANT TO
THANK YOU WITH THAT. I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES. THANK
YOU. SENATOR. I COMMENT WAS MADE
THAT YOU YOU WRITE VERY GOOD
BILLS AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT
I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU THAT, ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS OF
BILL PRESENTATIONS ARE THE
WITNESSES THAT WE BRING FORWARD.
AND TO HAVE MISS JOHNSON HERE
COME TO TESTIFY, TO TALK ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT'S VERY PERSONAL.
I THINK THAT IT REMINDS US WHY
WE INTRODUCE THESE BILLS IS,
ALSO TO HAVE THE WITNESS FROM
THE YOUNG. AND I DIDN'T GET THE
FULL ACRONYM, BUT TO HAVE OUR
YOUTH HERE COME IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL TO KNOW THE HISTORY
AND TO KNOW THAT ALTHOUGH THEY
MAY NOT KNOW ALL THE HISTORY,
THEY MAY HAVE READ IT IN THE
HISTORY BOOKS HERE. THEY'RE
SEEING HISTORY BEING MADE AND
TRUE HISTORY BEING SHARED, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THAT
HISTORY BE CORRECTED IN A
PARTICULAR WAY. THAT CAN ONLY BE
DONE HERE IN THIS CAPITOL. AND
EVENTUALLY WHEN SIGNED BY THE
GOVERNOR. SO I WANT TO THANK
YOU, MISS JOHNSON, FOR COMING TO
PROVIDE YOUR TESTIMONY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, THANKS TO MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THE COMMENTS. I
DO WANT TO THANK EVERYONE THAT
CAME HERE FROM AROUND THE STATE
ON ALL THREE OF THESE RELATED
BILLS FROM SENATOR FOR BRADFORD,
ALL VERY IMPORTANT PIECES OF
LEGISLATION. I WANT TO THANK
MISS JOHNSON FOR SHARING YOUR
STORY, FOR YOUR PERSEVERANCE,
PERSEVERANCE AND YOUR
RESILIENCE. AND I WANT TO MAKE
NOTE THAT IN YOUR PARTICULAR
INSTANCE, THIS LAND QUOTE
ACQUISITION OCCURRED IN 1964. I
THINK A LOT OF TIMES WE THINK
ABOUT THESE THINGS HAPPENING IN
THE 1800S OR EARLY 1900S, BUT A
LOT OF THEM HAPPENED IN THE 50S
AND 60S AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS
MOVEMENT WAS GROWING, BECAUSE IT
WAS SEEN AS A LAST OPPORTUNITY
TO TAKE THIS LAND AWAY FROM
BLACK FAMILIES. AND SO IT'S
CERTAINLY VERY RECENT IN THAT
REGARD, AND SO I THANK YOU FOR
STANDING UP, NOT JUST FOR YOUR
OWN FAMILY, FOR SO MANY OTHER
FAMILIES. AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO
THANK SENATOR BRADFORD FOR HIS
WORK IN THIS SPACE. AS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, BARRETT CAN INDICATED,
THIS STORY IS REPEATED IN
DIFFERENT WAYS GLOBALLY. MY
FAMILY, DURING THE PARTITION IN
INDIA, LOST THEIR LAND, AND WERE
REFUGEES IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY
FOR MANY YEARS. BUT MANY YEARS
LATER THEY WERE GIVEN JUST
COMPENSATION BY GETTING THE BEST
OF THEIR ABILITY. SOME LAND
BACK, BACK WHERE THEY RESETTLED
IN INDIA. AND THAT GAVE THEM
SOME KIND OF FOUNDATION THAT SO
MANY BLACK FAMILIES HAVE NEVER
BEEN GIVEN. AND SO I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECOGNIZE,
WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO HELP BRING
SOME SEMBLANCE OF JUSTICE, WE
NEED TO DO THAT. AND SO I WOULD
LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR
TO THIS BILL, IF IT'S OKAY WITH
YOU, SENATOR, I'D LOVE TO HAVE
YOU. AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU, AS IT'S BEEN
SO WELL ARTICULATED BY MRS.
JOHNSON AND ALL OUR WITNESSES
HERE TODAY, THE RACIALLY
MOTIVATED TAKING OF LAND THROUGH
EMINENT DOMAIN. IT'S NOT JUST A
ONE OFF. IT'S HAPPENED ALL
ACROSS THE STATE, ALL ACROSS
THIS COUNTRY. AND I CHALLENGE
YOU TO ASK THE QUESTION OF WHERE
YOU SEE A FREEWAY IN A URBAN
AREA. BELIEVE ME, THAT PROPERTY
BELONGED TO BLACK AND BROWN
PEOPLE, RIGHT? IN MY OWN
DISTRICT, THE 105 FREEWAY THAT
EXISTS TODAY THAT CONNECTS YOU
FROM THE 605 FREEWAY ALL THE WAY
TO THE AIRPORT. I TOOK MUSIC AS
A SMALL CHILD AND SOUTH L.A.
THAT FREEWAY TOOK MY MUSIC
TEACHERS HOME, AND THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE, 3500 FAMILIES LOST THEIR
HOME. THE MAJORITY OF THEM WERE
BLACK AND BROWN. THE TEN FREEWAY
FROM STARTING FROM WESTERN, ALL
THE WAY UNTIL YOU GET TO SANTA
MONICA. MUCH OF THAT PROPERTY
BELONGED TO AFRICAN AMERICANS.
THERE WAS A PLACE CALLED SUGAR
HILL WHERE MARVIN GAYE'S FAMILY
LIVED. THAT FREEWAY WENT
STRAIGHT THROUGH THERE. BUT YOU
WANT TO KNOW WHERE THAT FREE,
WHERE A FREEWAY DOESN'T GO
THROUGH A COMMUNITY WHERE WE'VE
BEEN FIGHTING FOR 60 YEARS FOR
BILLS SINCE I'VE BEEN IN
LEGISLATURE TO FINISH A FREEWAY,
AND THAT'S THE 710 FREEWAY THAT
STOPS AS SOON AS YOU GET TO
PASADENA. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO
CONNECT TO THE 210 FREEWAY. IT
HAS NEVER BEEN COMPLETED. THAT
WAS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN BECAUSE
IT GOES TO A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT TULSA,
OKLAHOMA, THERE IS A FREEWAY
THERE TODAY, AND YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE VIOLENT TAKING. THEY
BOMBED A CITY FROM THE AIR. THEY
BOMBED A CITY THAT HAD HOTELS,
RESTAURANTS, YOU NAME IT, A
SELF-SUSTAINING CITY. AND THEY
WERE JEALOUS OF IT. AND THEY
DESTROYED IT. AND WE CAN LOOK
HERE AGAIN IN CALIFORNIA AND
ALLENSWORTH, A THRIVING
COMMUNITY. AND TULARE COUNTY
WITH COLONEL ALLENSWORTH, A
WORLD WAR ONE VETERAN WHO HAD
EVERY INTENTION ON ESTABLISHING
THE TUSKEGEE OF THE WEST. AND
THOSE INDIVIDUALS AT THAT TIME
CUT OFF THE TRAIN STOP AND CUT
OFF THE WELL WATER WELL SO THEY
COULDN'T GROW THEIR CROPS AGAIN,
THE RACIALLY MOTIVATED TAKING OF
PROPERTY, AND IT HAS EXISTED IN
THIS COUNTRY AND IT'S IN MANY
WAYS STILL EXISTS TODAY. AND FOR
ANYONE WHO HAS EVER TAKEN A
TRAIN IN DOWNTOWN L.A. AT UNION
STATION, DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT
PROPERTY BELONGED TO? A AFRICAN
AMERICAN WOMAN BY THE NAME OF
BIDDY MASON. AND YES, THEY SAY
SHE SOLD IT, BUT THEY STOLE IT.
SO THIS BILL ALLOWS US TO DO
THAT SMALL OPPORTUNITY OF
LOOKING AT WHERE RACIALLY
MOTIVATED, TAKING A PROPERTY
WHERE WE USED A LAW TO COMMIT A
CRIME AND TAKE PEOPLE'S HOMES
AND HOPEFULLY JUSTLY COMPENSATE
THOSE INDIVIDUALS, WE'LL NEVER
MAKE THEM WHOLE. BECAUSE, AS WE
ALL KNOW, GENERAL WEALTH IS
THROUGH LAND OWNERSHIP AND THE
MOST WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THE
WORLD IS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY.
THEY HAVE IN THE BANK. IT'S
ABOUT THE PROPERTY THAT THEY
OWN. THIS ALLOWS US TO AT LEAST
CREATE SOME TYPE OF
GENERATIONAL, WEALTH FOR THOSE
INDIVIDUALS. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY. IF YOU TAKE
ROLL CALL, VOTE ON SB 1050.
MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL BY CALLER
I, DIXON, BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN. BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANY
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA PACHECO.
PACHECO I PATTERSON. PATTERSON I
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ. THAT BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU SO
MUCH, SENATOR, FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE AND
YOUR LEADERSHIP. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MISS JOHNSON. ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE ITEM SEVEN SB
1356. SENATOR WAHAB, WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. COLLEAGUES AND
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SB 1356
REQUIRES JUDICIAL COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER THE ROLE OF GENDER IN
COURT PROCEEDINGS AND MEETING
THE NEEDS OF LITIGANTS IN UNIQUE
SITUATIONS OF VULNERABILITY.
WHEN DEVELOPING TRAININGS. WHILE
TRAINING REGARDS DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE REGARDING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IS COVERED UNDER
EXISTING LAW AND TRAINING ON
GENDER BIAS EXISTS, THERE ARE
STILL GENDER DISCREPANCIES IN
JUDICIAL DECISIONS. WOMEN ARE
STILL FIGHTING IN COURT FOR PAY
EQUITY. INCARCERATED,
INCARCERATED WOMEN CAN PLAINLY
POINT TO HOW INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE PLAYED A ROLE IN THEIR
INCARCERATION. IT IS CLEAR WE
MUST DO MORE TO INCORPORATE A
GENDER PERSPECTIVE IN OUR
SYSTEMS TO ACCOMPLISH EQUALITY
AND NONDISCRIMINATION IN THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM. THIS BILL WOULD
EXPAND UPON EXISTING TRAINING TO
ENSURE A GENDER PERSPECTIVE IS
INCORPORATED ACROSS THE COURT
SYSTEM. FINALLY, WE WORKED
COLLABORATIVELY, COLLABORATIVELY
WITH JUDICIAL COUNCIL ON THE
LANGUAGE IN PRINT. MY WITNESS,
ANN RAVEL, WAS UNABLE TO JOIN US
TODAY. SHE PREPARED A STATEMENT
THAT MY STAFF THAT ACTUALLY WILL
READ, WITH PERMISSION. THANK YOU
, ANN RAVAL'S TESTIMONY IS
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY. MANY WOMEN AND
MINORITIES IN CALIFORNIA FIND
THEMSELVES UNABLE TO EVADE
PERVASIVE BIAS IN OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM WHEN THEY ARE BEFORE THE
COURT ON MANY DIFFERENT LEGAL
ISSUES, INCLUDING DISPARITY IN
PAY, MALTREATMENT IN WORKING
CONDITIONS, SPOUSAL ABUSE AND
VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN. A 2023
UCLA REPORT FOUND THAT LENGTHY
SENTENCES FOR WOMEN FUNCTION IN
PART AS PUNISHMENT IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, RATHER
THAN MUCH NEEDED REHABILITATION.
THE REPORT ALSO FOUND THAT WOMEN
IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM HAD
OFTEN SURVIVED MULTIPLE FORMS OF
RACIALIZED GENDERED, AND
SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE DIRECTLY AND
INDIRECTLY TIED TO THE CHARGES
THAT THEY FACED. SB 1356 WILL
EXPAND JUDICIAL TRAINING
PROGRAMS TO INCLUDE
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW POWER AND
GENDER DYNAMICS HAVE IMPACTED
WOMEN AND MINORITIES, TRAINING
OF JUDGES IN THE PROPOSED LAW
WILL ADDRESS IMPLICIT AND
EXPLICIT BIAS, DISCRIMINATION,
AND STEREOTYPING OF WOMEN IN
COURT DECISIONS. ADDITIONALLY,
IT WILL EXPLAIN TO JUDGES HOW TO
RECOGNIZE AND BE SENSITIVE TO
ISSUES FACING WOMEN AND
MINORITIES AND VULNERABLE
SITUATIONS. JUDGES ARE THE BEST
AND FINAL DEFENSE OF A SYSTEM
THAT IS INHERENTLY SKEWED.
JUDGES HAVE IMMENSE POWER AND
ABILITY TO SHAPE THE OUTCOME OF
A CASE TO ASSURE THAT JUSTICE
PREVAILS OVER PREJUDICE, AND TO
RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE
VULNERABILITIES FACED BY
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES AND
WOMEN. TO ASSURE IMPARTIALITY IN
JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING, JUDGES
SHOULD RECEIVE TRAINING TO
UNDERSTAND GENDER SENSITIVITIES
AND DIFFERENCES IN COURT
PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE
ELIMINATION OF STEREOTYPES ABOUT
WOMEN, ASSESSING INEQUITIES IN
POWER, AND UNDERSTANDING THE
NEEDS AND REMEDIES FOR THE
GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN UNIQUE
SITUATIONS OF VULNERABILITY. IN
ORDER TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE
CALIFORNIA JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT IS
CRUCIAL THAT JUDGES MAKE
DECISIONS THAT ARE IMPARTIAL,
FAIR, AND NONDISCRIMINATORY
AGAINST WOMEN OR MINORITIES. IT
IS ESSENTIAL THAT OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM MUST ALWAYS RESULT IN
EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1356? JESSICA STENDER ON
BEHALF OF EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
AND CALIFORNIA WOMEN LAWYERS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MARIKO
YOSHIHARA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1356? OKAY
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. IS THERE A MOTION OR
COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND AND A THIRD, ANY FURTHER
COMMENT? ASSEMBLYMEMBER BAUER,
CAN, SENATOR, I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR THIS. THE FIRST TIME I
EVER MADE AN APPEARANCE AS AN
ATTORNEY IN A COURTROOM, I WAS
TOLD I WASN'T ALLOWED TO SPEAK
BECAUSE I WAS WEARING PANTS.
THAT WAS IN 2005. I THINK PEOPLE
DON'T REALIZE HOW FAR WE HAVE TO
GO AS IT RELATES TO WOMEN IN THE
LEGAL PROFESSION AND IN THE
COURTROOM, AND I WANT TO GIVE A
HUGE SHOUT OUT TO OUR GOVERNOR,
WHO HAS DONE INCREDIBLE WORK IN
DIVERSIFYING OUR BENCH WITH HIS
APPOINTMENTS OF WOMEN AND PEOPLE
OF COLOR. BUT THERE IS SO MUCH
FURTHER TO GO. AND EVERY SINGLE
WOMAN THAT APPEARS IN A
COURTROOM, WHETHER AS AN
ATTORNEY OR AS PLAINTIFF OR
DEFENDANT, DESERVES JUSTICE. AND
PART OF THAT IS DEALING WITH
WHAT YOU HAVE HERE TODAY. AND I
REMEMBER IN THAT MOMENT I WAS
WORRIED ABOUT ME. I WAS WORRIED
ABOUT MY CLIENT BECAUSE WHEN AN
ATTORNEY IS TOLD THAT THEIR
CLIENT DOESN'T GET THE
REPRESENTATION HE OR SHE
DESERVES. AND SO THE WORK HERE,
I THINK IS REALLY CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT, AND I THINK IT WILL
MOVE THE BALL FORWARD. AND I
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR, ALSO
FOR BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT BILL
FORWARD. I EXPERIENCED THE SAME
THING WHEN I WOULD GO TO COURT.
EVEN IN LAW SCHOOL. WE WERE TOLD
HOW TO DRESS. WE HAD TO WEAR
SKIRTS CERTAIN LENGTH. WE HAD TO
WEAR CERTAIN COLORS, SO I THINK
THIS BILL IS AN IMPORTANT BILL,
AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED AS
A COAUTHOR. THANK YOU. AND ANY
OTHER MEANS TO PLEASE. BARBIE.
OKAY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON.
GREAT. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW,
I'VE, I WAS THINKING MORE FROM
THE DEFENDANT'S PERSPECTIVE. I'M
NOT A LAWYER, SO PROBABLY NOT A
GREAT MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.
BY THE WAY, I WAS GOING TO JOKE
IN ANOTHER BILL. CAN YOU EXPLAIN
WHAT A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS
, BUT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, FROM
THE DEFENDANT'S PERSPECTIVE,
WHEN WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TALK IN
THIS BUILDING ON, HUMAN
TRAFFICKING AND A LOT OF THAT
THE CONCERNS AROUND THE PROPOSED
LAWS HAS BEEN THE WOMEN WHO ARE
ACTUALLY THERE VICTIMS, BUT THEY
BECOME A PART OF THE SYSTEM. AND
THAT REALLY IS A POWER STRUGGLE,
RIGHT? BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE
THAT ARE EXPLOITING, OR THAT
ARE, YOU KNOW, REALLY ABUSING
WOMEN AND MAKING THEM BECOME,
UNFORTUNATELY, OR COERCING THEM
TO BECOME A PART OF THIS SYSTEM,
OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING. AND SO I
WAS THINKING ABOUT IT FROM THAT
ANGLE. AND THAT WOULD BE AN
IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, COMPONENT
FOR JUDGES AND PEOPLE WITHIN THE
LEGAL COMMUNITY TO BE MORE INEPT
TO SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE
PROPER JUSTICE IS GIVEN, THAT IF
YOU'RE A PART OF THE HUMAN
TRAFFICKING SYSTEM, FOR EXAMPLE,
YOU KNOW, YOU BECOME A PART OF
IT, THAT THERE'S A POWER
STRUGGLE THERE, YOU KNOW, AND
THAT IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT
CAN'T BE DISMISSED. AND SO I
THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN
THE FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
THAT PROBABLY Kò, YOU KNOW, IF
THAT WAS PART OF THE STATUTE, IT
MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF
CONCERNS WITH. BUT THE OVERALL
OBJECTIVE OF THE BILL, I THINK,
IS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD REALLY CONSIDER FOR
SUPPORT. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S,
A BAD THING TO CONSIDER POWER
STRUCTURES AND HOW IT HAS TO DO
WITH GENDER AND HAVING THAT KIND
OF TRAINING. OTHERWISE YOU'RE
JUST GETTING IMPLICIT BIAS
TRAINING OR SOMETHING, WHICH IS
NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING WE
GIVE SO MANY. WE REQUIRE SO MANY
TRAININGS FOR ALL SORTS OF
THINGS, AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO
CHECK A BOX. RIGHT. BUT I FEEL
LIKE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE
INTERACTIVE. SO, SO I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THIS. I DON'T LIKE
SUPPORT EVERY WORD IN THE BILL,
BUT LIKE I SAID TO THE SENATOR
BRADFORD, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE VERY
CLOSE TO HAVING PERFECT BILLS AS
WELL, BUT, BUT MOST OF US DON'T
HAVE PERFECT BILLS. BUT I'LL
SUPPORT THIS TODAY, SO THANK
YOU. I DO APPRECIATE THAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES I THINK
THE IDEA OF IMPLICIT BIAS MEANS
WE'RE NOT REALLY THINKING THAT
WE'RE BIASED. WHAT WE REALLY
ARE. AND I THINK TO HAVE THIS
TRAINING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
THERE IS GOOD TRAINING AND THEN
THERE IS BAD TRAINING. AND AS
LONG AS WE GET THE GOOD
TRAINING, YOU AND YOU, YOU, YOU,
YOU, YOU SELF TEST YOURSELF, YOU
REALIZE THAT THERE IS A BIAS
EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN SAY I AM THE
MOST UNBIASED PERSON IN THE
WORLD AND I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE BILL AND THE FACT THAT NOW
IT'S RELATING TO GENDER BASED
BIASES, I'VE HAD THE TRAINING AS
A, JUDGE PRO TEM, AND YOU
REALIZE THAT IS UNBIASED AS YOU
THINK YOU ARE. YOU'RE NOT AND
YOU'VE GOT TO REALLY CHECK
YOURSELF, SO WITH THAT, I WOULD
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT IT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH ALL
THE COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES,
AND I THINK THE GOOD NEWS IS NOW
WE HAVE MORE EFFECTIVE TRAINING,
THAN WE PROBABLY EVER HAD, AND
SO THERE'S MORE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR COURTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
IT. I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT TO AGAIN, AS OTHERS
HAVE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, ON
PAPER, WE'VE DONE A LOT ON
EXPLICIT BIAS. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S, LAWS AGAINST EXPLICIT
BIAS THAT ARE VERY CLEAR, BUT I
THINK IMPLICIT BIAS IS REALLY,
WHAT WE NEED TO TARGET BECAUSE
AS OTHERS HAVE STATED, YOU DON'T
NECESSARILY KNOW THAT YOU'RE
DOING IT. AND I THINK THAT GIVEN
THE CONSEQUENCES AND THE COURT
SYSTEM, IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE VERY
CONSCIOUS AND DIRECT AND
EXPLICIT IN OUR ACTIONS TO
ACTUALLY TRY TO ROOT OUT THAT
IMPLICIT BIAS. SO I, SURE. SO I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON
THIS. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ADDED
AS A COAUTHOR AS WELL. THANK
YOU. AND I'LL ALLOW OUR VICE
CHAIR TO HAVE THE LAST WORD. I'M
SORRY I MISSED THE FIRST END OF
IT BEING OVER IN ANOTHER
COMMITTEE HEARING. CERTAINLY
SUPPORT ANY EFFORTS TO ROOT OUT
ANY FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION, AND
ESPECIALLY IN, IN THE JUDICIAL,
ANY AREA, BUT ESPECIALLY IN
JUDICIAL AREA. HAVE YOU WORKED
WITH THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AS FAR
AS I MEAN, THEY DO THE TRAINING.
ARE THEY EMBRACING THIS CONCEPT
TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER? YES.
AND IN MY TALKING POINTS, THAT
WAS VERY MUCH A PART OF THAT. SO
THEY'VE OFFERED SUGGESTED
LANGUAGE AS WELL, SO WE'VE BEEN
IN CLOSE COLLABORATION WITH AS
MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. OKAY.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO. OF
COURSE. YEAH OH, SO SOME MEMBER
REYES AND CONNELLY WOULD LIKE TO
BOTH ALSO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR
AS WELL. AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BRIAN. YEAH. THANK YOU, AND SO,
SENATOR WAHAB, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES, NUMBER ONE, I JUST
WANT TO APPRECIATE ALL THE
COMMENTS HERE, THIS BILL WAS
BROUGHT UP BECAUSE IN MEXICO,
THEY ACTUALLY PASSED A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO
PRIORITIZE WOMEN AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE. AND OFTENTIMES, YOU
KNOW, I'M NOT ONE FOR A SPECIFIC
TYPE OF LANGUAGE OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT. BUT WE OFTEN TALK
ABOUT EQUITY AND WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT WOMEN IN
PARTICULAR, WE DON'T PRIORITIZE
EQUITY ENOUGH. AND I DO THINK
THAT BY PRIORITIZING WOMEN,
ESPECIALLY WITH GENDER
PERSPECTIVE TRAINING AND MUCH
MORE, WE ARE MAKING IT MORE
EQUITABLE. WOMEN HAVE BEEN
SECOND CLASS CITIZENS FOR
LITERALLY CENTURIES, REGARDLESS
OF CULTURE. YOU CAN BE BLACK,
WHITE, LATINO, YOU CAN BE ASIAN.
YOU COULD BE IN A DIFFERENT PART
OF THE WORLD. AND YET WE
CONSTANTLY WOMEN BEING TREATED
POORLY, RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT
THIS IS ONE STEP FORWARD. I DO
APPRECIATE ANN RAVEL FOR WORKING
WITH ME ON THIS AS WELL. AND
APPRECIATE ALL YOUR COMMENTS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN WE TAKE A ROLL
CALL? VOTE MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL. I CALL I
DIXON BAUER-KAHAN I BAUER-KAHAN
I BRIAN BRIAN I CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I HANEY MAIENSCHEIN.
MCKENNA. PACHECO. PACHECO I
PATTERSON I PATTERSON I REYES.
REYES I SANCHEZ. OKAY. AND THAT
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO
LET'S GO AHEAD. AND WHILE WE
HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE WAITING FOR
TWO MORE AUTHORS, IF WE CAN DO,
IF WE CAN GET A MOTION ON SB
940, THAT'S FILED ITEM ONE
UMBERG. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND AND
THERE'S A SECOND. IF WE CAN TAKE
A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON SB 940,
PLEASE. MOTIONS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED. KALRA. KALRA AYE.
DIXON. DIXON. NÓ. BAUER. KHN.
BAUER KHN. AYE. BRIAN. BRIAN.
AYE. CONNELLY CONNOLLY. AYE.
HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA.
PACHECO PATTERSON. NO.
PATTERSON. NO REYES. REYES. AYE.
SANCHEZ NO. SANCHEZ. NO. IT'S ON
CALL. OKAY. SO THAT BILL WILL BE
PLACED ON CALL, IF WE CAN GO TO.
ACTUALLY, LET'S DO LET'S DO
CONSENT CALENDAR FOR THOSE THAT
WEREN'T HERE, THIS ADD ON ON
CONSENT, JUST TO GET EVERYBODY
CAUGHT UP FOR CONSENT.
BAUER-KAHAN. FARAKHAN. AYE.
BRIAN BRIAN. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN.
PATTERSON PATTERSON. AYE. REYES.
REYES. AYE THANK YOU. ITEM FIVE,
ITEM TWO SB 1022. SKINNER IS ON
CALL. MOVE THE CALL. B¢O KHN
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE, BRIAN. BRIAN
AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. REYES REYES. AYE.
ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM. LET'S SEE WHAT'S ON
CALL HERE. FIVE SKINNER SB 1144.
MOVE THE CALL BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN AYE. BRIAN. BRIAN.
AYE. MAIENSCHEIN PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. REYES REYES.
AYE. OKAY. THAT BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM SIX, SB 1331. BRADFORD
MOVE THE CALL. BAUER KHN BAUER.
KHN AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY.
AYE. HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN MCKINNEY
. REYES REYES. AYE. WE'LL PLACE
THAT BACK ON CALL. STILL NEEDS
ONE MORE VOTE. ITEM EIGHT, SB
1403. BRADFORD WILL MOVE THE
CALL. BAUER KHN BAUER. KHN.
AYE. CONNELLY CONNELLY. AYE.
HANEY MAIENSCHEIN. PATTERSON
PATTERSON. NÓ. REYES. REYES.
AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT. AND I
BELIEVE WE'RE ALL CAUGHT UP.
JUST LOOK AT THE TIMING AS WE
CATCH UP HERE. SENATOR ALLEN,
FILE ITEM NINE, SB 1441. I JUST
WAS ANXIOUS TO MAKE SURE
EVERYONE GOT TO ADD ON, THANK
YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I
APPRECIATE IT, THIS BILL IS,
ULTIMATELY VÆ, THIS BILL WOULD
WOULD PROVIDE CLEAR TIMELINES IN
THE ELECTION PETITION REVIEW
PROCESS AND HELP LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HANDLE COSTS FROM
ADDED WORKLOAD WHEN A PETITION
FAILS TO QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT
DUE TO INSUFFICIENT SIGNATURES,
PROPONENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
EXAMINE THE PETITION AND REASONS
FOR SIGNATURE REJECTIONS. STATE
LAW ESTABLISHES A TIMELINE FOR
THE INITIATION OF THE REVIEW
PROCESS, BUT IT'S SILENT ON THE
TIMELINE FOR CONCLUDING THE
EXAMINATION. AND WHILE MOST
PETITION REVIEWS TAKE JUST A FEW
DAYS TO A COUPLE WEEKS TO
COMPLETE, THERE WAS ONE RECENT
CASE THAT LASTED 14 MONTHS AND
IT COST, THE COUNTY. JUST THIS
ONE REVIEW ALONE COST THE COUNTY
$1.5 MILLION. SO THE LACK OF A
CLEAR DEADLINE IN LAW ALLOWED
FOR THE REVIEW TO BE DRAGGED ON.
AND CREATED SIGNIFICANT
FINANCIAL IMPACTS FOR THE
COUNTY, AND WHILE THIS WAS A
CLEAR OUTLIER, IT HIGHLIGHTED
THE POTENTIAL FOR EXPLOITATION
OF THE PROCESS AND THE REALLY
CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE ASSOCIATED.
UNTIL THERE ARE MORE GUARDRAILS
INSTITUTED. SO THIS BILL
ADDRESSES THIS CHALLENGE BY
ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE 60 DAY
LIMIT FOR PROPONENTS TO EXAMINE
A FAILED PETITION, THIS WILL
HELP COUNTY ELECTION OFFICIALS
BETTER ALLOCATE RESOURCES FOR
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. AND
ASSURE PROPONENTS DON'T ABUSE
THE REVIEW PROCESS WHILE STILL
PROTECT, THIS CRITICAL
TRANSPARENCY OPPORTUNITY. AND
WITH ME TODAY TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
IS ADELIA LOZADO, WHO IS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE LA COUNTY
REGISTRAR RECORDERS OFFICE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
KALRA AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ADELIA
LOZADA AND I AM THE DIVISION
MANAGER FOR THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY REGISTRAR RECORDER COUNTY
CLERK'S OFFICE. THANK YOU TO
SENATOR ALLEN FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS
PROUD TO SPONSOR SB 1441. AS
SENATOR ALLEN STATED, THIS BILL
DOES TWO THINGS. FIRST, IT
ESTABLISHES A 60 DAY PERIOD FOR
THE PROPONENTS OF FAILED
PETITIONS TO EXAMINE
DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES. AND
SECOND, IT. THIS BILL ALLOWS
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS TO RECOVER
THE COSTS OF INSPECTING THOSE
DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES. THE
COST RECOVERY PROVISIONS OF SB
1441 HELP TO ENSURE THAT
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT
USED. WHEN PROPONENTS OF A
FAILED PETITION REQUEST,
EXTRAORDINARILY, BURDENSOME
REVIEW PERIODS CURRENTLY,
EXISTING LAW DOES NOT ADDRESS
HOW PROPONENTS, HOW LONG
PROPONENTS MAY EXAMINE
DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES, NOR
DOES IT ADDRESS WHO PAYS THE
COSTS TO SECURELY PRESENT THESE
DOCUMENTS FOR INSPECTION. BY
ADDRESSING THIS GAP IN LAW, SB
1441 SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES THE
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS ABILITY TO
MANAGE EXAMINE THE EXAMINATION
OF FAILED PETITIONS EFFICIENTLY
AND RESPONSIBLY. RESPONSIBLY. I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE
COMMITTEE'S AYE VOTE ON SB 1441,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1441?
IN CASE IT WASN'T CLEAR, ANDY
LEBENSBAUM, ON BEHALF OF LA
COUNTY SUPPORTING THE BILL,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. I'M
ERIC LARA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. LARA
MERCADO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS
AND LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS.
EXCUSE ME, PROUD CO SPONSOR AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1441? ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. ARE THERE ANY
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES, I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT WHEN MY STAFF
PRESENTED THIS BILL, I SAID, SO
WHAT IS THE TIME LIMITATION NOW?
THERE ISN'T ONE. I SAID, OKAY,
I'M SURE THAT YOU WERE WRONG. SO
WOULD YOU PLEASE CONFIRM? AND
SHE SURE DID. WHERE IS SHE? SURE
DID CHECK. AND SHE SAYS, NO,
THERE REALLY ISN'T A TIME
LIMITATION. SO I AM SO GLAD
YOU'RE PRESENTING THIS. I MEAN
THIS WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY AND
TIME WHEN SOMETHING CAN BE. WE
WANT TO PROTECT EVERYBODY'S
RIGHTS, BUT THERE SHOULD BE A
LIMITATION AND THERE SHOULD BE
REIMBURSEMENT. SO THANK YOU. HAS
THE BILL BEEN MOVED? I WILL MOVE
THE BILL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY
OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTIONS. BUT
I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? NO. JUST APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS AND RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY VOTE. GREAT. MADAM
SECRETARY, TAKE A ROLL CALL ON
SB 1441, PLEASE. MOTIONS DO PASS
TO ELECTIONS COMMITTEE, CALL FOR
A CALL. AYE. DIXON DIXON. NÓ
BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN HI. BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. AYE HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA. PACHECO.
PACHECO AYE. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. NO. REYES REYES. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO THANK YOU.
MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY WE'LL PLACE THAT BILL ON
CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE CAN DO ITEM THREE ADD ONS FOR
SB 1050. BRADFORD. JUST TO CATCH
EVERYBODY UP. THIS IS SB 1050.
DIXON I'M NOT VOTING. HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA. SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ. AYE. OKAY AND THEN.
SHE'S.
IT'S INTERESTING. I WOULD JUST
SAY SIX TIMES. OKAY. THAT'S TRUE
. YEAH. YES, YES. IT'S TRUE,
IT'S TRUE. OKAY. SO, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCKENNA WILL BE
PRESENTING FOR A SENATOR
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS, ITEM FOR SB
1137, WHICH WILL BE THE LAST
BILL WE ARE HEARING THIS MORNING
.
I'VE BEEN RUNNING, SO LET ME
JUST LIKE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND AND ACTUALLY. AND NOW
WE WILL HEAR THE PRESENTATION.
YES. OKAY. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, I AM PRESENTING SB
1137 ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS I AM PLEASED
TO PRESENT SB 1137 ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS, WHICH
WOULD MAKE CALIFORNIA THE
PIONEERING STATE TO RECOGNIZE
INTERSECTIONALITY IN OUR CIVIL
RIGHTS LAWS BY CLARIFYING THAT
DISCRIMINATION IS PROHIBITED,
NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF ONE
PROTECTED TRAIT, BUT ANY
COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE
PROTECTED TRAITS. UNDER CURRENT
LAW, ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE
PROTECTED FROM DISCRIMINATION,
BUT THESE CASES ARE MADE MORE
CHALLENGING WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL
HAS EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION
BASED ON A COMBINATION OF
INTERSECTION OF PROTECTED
CLASSES. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A
BLACK WOMAN BRINGS FORWARD A
DISCRIMINATION CASE, SHE MAY BE
FORCED TO ADDRESS HER RACE AND
GENDER CLAIMS SEPARATELY. IN
CASES WHERE INTERSECTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION OCCURS, THE
DEFENSE MAY ATTEMPT TO USE THE
SEPARATION OF CHARACTERISTICS TO
DEFEAT THE CLAIM ENTIRELY. IT IS
TIME THAT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
REFLECTS THE COMPLEXITY OF
DISCRIMINATION FACED EACH DAY BY
THOSE FOR FROM OUR MOST
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES BLACK
AND BROWN WORKERS, SENIORS AND
WOMEN RECOGNIZE THE
INTERSECTIONALITY MAKES IT CLEAR
THAT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON A
SINGLE PROTECTED CLASS OR ANY
COMBINATION OF PROTECTED CLASS
IS UNLAWFUL AND UNACCEPTABLE.
WITH US TODAY ARE PROFESSORS
SHIUE CROWDER FROM LOYOLA
MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY. DID I HOPE
I DIDN'T MESS UP YOUR NAME TOO
BAD. WHO CAN DISCUSS THE UNIQUE
NATURE OF INTERSECTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION? AND JESSICA
STENDER FROM EQUAL RIGHTS
ADVOCATES? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH, PLEASE.
OKAY. AWESOME. CHAIRPERSON,
MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS
DOCTOR SHAYA CROWDER. I'M A
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AT
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY,
SPECIALIZING IN RESEARCH THAT
EXAMINES THE INTERSECTION OF
RACE, GENDER, AND POLITICAL
BEHAVIOR. MY BOOK PROJECT
EXAMINES HOW AWARENESS OF
INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
INFLUENCES POLICY PREFERENCES.
THE TERM INTERSECTIONALITY
REFERS TO THE UNIQUE FORM OF
DISCRIMINATION THAT PEOPLE LIKE
BLACK WOMEN, EXPERIENCE BECAUSE
OF THEIR EXISTENCE AT THE
INTERSECTION OF MULTIPLE
MARGINALIZED IDENTITIES. IT WAS
COINED BY LEGAL SCHOLAR KIMBERLÉ
CRENSHAW, WHO USES AN ANALOGY OF
AN INTERSECTION AT A TRAFFIC
SIGNAL TO VISUALIZE THE WAY THAT
BLACK WOMEN EXPERIENCE BOTH
RACIAL AND GENDERED FORMS OF
DISCRIMINATION THAT PLACE THEM
AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE THEY
EXPERIENCE THE SIMULTANEOUS
IMPACT OF GENDERED AND RACIAL
OPPRESSION. THE THEORY WAS
DEVELOPED DUE TO EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED BY
BLACK WOMEN. CRENSHAW EXPLAINS
THAT IN THE CASE OF
DEGRAFFENREID VÆ GENERAL MOTORS,
FIVE BLACK WOMEN FROM MISSOURI
BROUGHT A SUIT AGAINST GENERAL
MOTORS, ALLEGING THAT THE
COMPANY'S SYSTEM OF SENIORITY
PERPETUATED DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST BLACK WOMEN DURING A
RECESSION. GM IMPLEMENTED A LAST
HIRED, FIRST FIRED POLICY IN
WHICH THE LAST PEOPLE HIRED
WOULD BE LAID OFF. THIS POLICY
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED
BLACK WOMEN BECAUSE NO BLACK
WOMEN HAD BEEN HIRED PRIOR TO
1964, THE YEAR THAT THE LANDMARK
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW WAS PASSED. AND
THOUGH BLACK WOMEN ARE THE SORT
OF PROTOTYPICAL INTERSECTIONAL
SUBJECTS PEOPLE EXPERIENCE
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON THE
INTERSECTION OF THEIR
IMMIGRATION STATUS, ETHNICITY,
GENDER IDENTITY, DISABILITY, AND
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS BASED
UPON THE IMPACT OF
DISCRIMINATION ON INDIVIDUALS
WHO POSSESS TWO OR MORE
PROTECTED CLASSIFICATIONS. I
URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT
SB 1137 BY SENATOR SMALLWOOD
CUEVAS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MORNING, MISTER CHAIR
AND MEMBERS JESSICA STENDER. ON
BEHALF OF EQUAL RIGHTS
ADVOCATES, WE'RE A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL. WE
PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE AND
REPRESENTATION TO WORKERS AND
STUDENTS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED
HARASSMENT AND OTHER FORMS OF
DISCRIMINATION. MANY OF THEM
EXPERIENCED THIS TYPE OF
DISCRIMINATION AT THE
INTERSECTION OF TWO OR MORE
PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS, SUCH
AS GENDER AND RACE, NATIONAL
ORIGIN AND GENDER, AGE AND
GENDER, RACE, AND ALL OF THE
ABOVE. SOME COURTS HAVE
CORRECTLY RECOGNIZED THAT
PROTECTED BASES OFTEN OVERLAP
AND NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES,
BIASES, AND ADVERSE CONDUCT MAY
BE DIRECTED AT A PERSON BASED ON
THOSE MULTIPLE OR COMBINATION OF
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTING IN
A UNIQUE FORM OF HARM. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN LAMB VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN THE
NINTH CIRCUIT, AN ASIAN AMERICAN
FEMALE PROFESSOR SUED FOR
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE,
SEX, AND NATIONAL ORIGIN. THE
LOWER COURT RULED FOR THE
DEFENDANT BECAUSE THEY SHOWED
THAT THEY HAD HIRED THE HIRING
COMMITTEE, HAD SUPPORTED ASIAN,
EXCUSE ME, WHITE WOMEN AND ASIAN
MEN. THE NINTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY
REVERSED, RECOGNIZING THAT ASIAN
WOMEN ARE SUBJECTED TO A SET OF
STEREOTYPES AND ASSUMPTIONS
SHARED NEITHER BY ASIAN MEN NOR
BY WHITE WOMEN. IN CONSEQUENCE,
THEY MAY BE TARGETED FOR
DISCRIMINATION EVEN IN THE
ABSENCE OF DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST ASIAN MEN OR WHITE
WOMEN. AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD
APPLY TO ANY OTHER COMBINATION
OF CHARACTERISTICS FOR A WORKER.
THE EEOC HAS ALSO EXPLICITLY
RECOGNIZED INTERSECTIONAL K¾T,
NOTING THAT TITLE SEVEN
PROHIBITS EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON ANY OF
THE NAME CHARACTERISTICS,
WHETHER INDIVIDUALLY OR IN
COMBINATION. HOWEVER, THESE
TYPES OF CLAIMS ARE OFTEN
TREATED INCONSISTENTLY,
HIGHLIGHTING THE NEED FOR
CLARITY, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL DOES BY CODIFYING THE
FRAMEWORK OF INTERSECTIONALITY
UNDER OUR ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
LAWS AND CLARIFYING THAT
INTERSECTIONALITY APPLIES, SB
1137 WILL PROVIDE IMPORTANT
GUIDANCE TO THE COURTS AND OTHER
DECISION MAKERS THAT
INDIVIDUAL'S FULL EXPERIENCE AND
HARM SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE URGE YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1137?
ON BEHALF OF LEGAL AID AT WORK,
PROUD CO-SPONSOR AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MARIKO
YOSHIHARA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION, ALSO A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, TANISHA HERRING FROM
THE CALIFORNIA HAWAII NAACP IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU, AARON
TAYLOR WITH POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF
WOMEN AND GIRLS IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MORNING,
CHAIR MEMBERS. THIS IS A VERY
CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS THE
ALLIANCE FOR REPARATIONS,
RECONCILIATION AND TRUTH AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. JORDAN HEATHCOTE,
AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA WORK AND FAMILY
COALITION AND CALIFORNIA WOMEN
LAWYERS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
KELLI O'HARA. WITH EQUAL RIGHTS
ADVOCATES AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF TECH EQUITY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CRAIG
POLSTER, ON BEHALF OF EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. AND I JUST WANTED TO
ASK ON BEHALF OF SMALL CUEVAS,
DO YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS?
YES SOMEBODY. I'M SORRY. THANK
YOU. SO WE HAVE WE HAVE, ON THE
TABLE. IS THERE ANY FURTHER
COMMENT OR QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? Ó. I APOLOGIZE.
OPPOSITION TO SB 1137. OKAY, SO
VICE CHAIR, WELL, I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST CLARIFIED
ON THE AMENDMENT. SO THAT
AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED. IT'S
BEEN ACCEPTED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
OKAY OKAY, WELL THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THANK YOU.
MEMBER. AND THE SENATOR, OF
COURSE, THIS IS I MEAN, TO YOUR
POINT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
THE COURTS DO IN SORT OF A
ROUNDABOUT WAY WHERE YOU HAVE TO
SEPARATELY TALK ABOUT EACH OF
THE CHARACTERISTICS. AND I THINK
THAT THIS IDEA THAT EACH IS
INDEPENDENT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE
TO ME BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE
WAY WE'RE TREATED WHEN WE HAVE
INTERSECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS.
AND SO I THINK THIS CHANGE IS
REALLY CRITICAL AND WILL
HOPEFULLY HELP THE COURTS BETTER
UNDERSTAND THE WAY, YOU KNOW,
WOMEN OF COLOR, OTHER PEOPLE WHO
HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS
ARE TREATED IN THE COURT SUCH
THAT THEY WILL GET JUSTICE. SO I
APPRECIATE THIS EFFORT. THANK
YOU. AND, PLEASE EXTEND OUR
THANKS TO THE SENATOR. THANK YOU
FOR PRESENTING. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. ROLL CALL. VOTE ON SB
1137. MOTIONS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS.
KALRA A, KALRA. AYE. DIXON.
DIXON NO. BARRETT. KHN
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. BRIAN HI.
BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY.
AYE HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. AYE. MCKENNA. AYE
PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON
PATTERSON. NO. REYES. REYES.
AYE. SANCHEZ SANCHEZ. NO. ALL
RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT, I'M
GOING TO FIRST START WITH THE
BILLS THAT ARE ON CALL. ITEM
ONE, SB 940 UMBERG IS ON CALL.
MOVE THE CALL. SB 940 HANEY.
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA ON SB 940. UMBERG
MCKENNA. AYE. THAT GOES OUT. AND
THEN THE OTHER ONE THAT WILL
MOVE THE CALL ON SB 1331.
BRADFORD HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE OKAY. THAT
BILL IS OUT NOW. ADD ONS. WE'LL
START WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
DO WE HAVE OH I, I APOLOGIZE THE
ALLEN BILL. RIGHT. MOVE THE CALL
ON THE ALLEN BILL SB 1441 FILE
ITEM NINE. HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. OKAY THAT
BILL IS OUT. ADD ONS. CONSENT
CALENDAR. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE, FILE ITEM TWO,
SKINNER. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE ITEM THREE SB
1050. BRADFORD. HANEY. HANEY.
AYE MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. SORRY. MCKENNA. AYE.
OKAY. THAT BILL IS ALREADY OUT,
ITEM FIVE SB 1144 SKINNER MAIN
SHINE. MAIN SHINE. AYE. FILE
ITEM SEVEN SB 1356 WAHAB HANEY.
HANEY. AYE. MAIN SHINE. MAIN
SHINE. AYE. MCKENNA MCKENNA I
FILE ITEM EIGHT SB 1403
BRADFORD. HANEY. HANEY I. MAIN
SHINE. MAIN SHINE. AYE JUST
DOUBLE CHECK. YEP. OH YEAH.
WE'RE ALL CAUGHT UP. THANK YOU.
EVERYBODY.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.