Transcript Highlights:

• structural<00:14:45.399> those<00:14:45.880> carry<00:14:46.199> on<00:14:46.759> AB
• <00:14:47.040> some<00:14:47.279> the structural those carry on AB some the structural
• those carry on AB some the stuff<00:14:47.560> you<00:14:47.639> do<00:14:47.720> in

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• committing to take amendments to do the following: remove Section 1 of the bill to resolve the conflict with AB
• committing to take amendments to do the following: remove Section 1 of the bill to resolve the conflict with AB

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and heard one bill, SB 73. The author described the measure as a response to perceived threats to California elections, including restrictions on armed or non-uniformed personnel at polling places, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on law enforcement access to election materials without a court order. The chair reviewed a set of agreed amendments, including removing a section conflicting with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties, clarifying the role of the Attorney General and Secretary of State, and refining language on signature challenges, law enforcement support, and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force, CHIRLA, the League of Women Voters of California, and Common Cause, argued the bill would protect voters from intimidation and preserve election integrity. Opponents from CALA argued the bill was unnecessary, would hinder legitimate investigations, and reflected distrust of law enforcement and federal oversight. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill was responding to real-world threats and on the ballot seizure in Riverside County. Members questioned how the measure would affect signature challenges, chain of custody, and investigations into possible fraud. The author and supporters said ballots should remain in election officials’ custody and that federal or local agents should not be able to interfere with election materials or intimidate voters. The chair and other members also discussed the urgency clause and the need to move the bill quickly despite the proximity of the June election. The committee voted to do pass and re-refer SB 73 to the Committee on Public Safety. The roll call initially showed the bill passing 5-1, then after the absent member arrived, the final vote was 6-2, and the bill was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• committing to take amendments to do the following: remove Section 1 of the bill to resolve the conflict with AB
• Remove Section 1 of the bill to resolve the conflict with AB 1664.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and took up one measure, SB 73 by Senator Svantez. The author described the bill as an urgency measure intended to strengthen protections around California elections, including restrictions on law enforcement or military presence at voting locations, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on access to election materials. The chair also outlined a set of agreed-upon amendments, including removing a section to avoid conflict with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties in one section, clarifying language on vote-by-mail signature challenges, and refining provisions related to law enforcement support and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force and CHIRLA, argued the bill was needed to protect voters from intimidation and to safeguard election administration from interference, citing concerns about immigration enforcement at polling places and the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of ballots. Additional supporters from the League of Women Voters and Common Cause registered their support. Opposition testimony from CALA argued the bill would impede legitimate investigations and federal oversight of elections, and questioned the need for the measure. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill addressed a real threat, the chain of custody for ballots, and the scope of the signature-challenge provisions. After closing remarks from the author and the chair, the committee voted to pass SB 73 and re-refer it to the Committee on Public Safety. The initial roll call was 5-1 with one member absent, and after the absent member’s vote was added, the final vote was 6-2-1. The bill advanced from committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB boards work in the direction that they go and support the health care program.
• AB boards work in the direction that they go and support the health care program.
• AB boards work in the direction that they go and support the health care program.
• AB boards work in the direction that they go and support the health care program.
• AB boards work in the direction that they go and support the health care program.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Human Services Committee received an informational overview from Direct Care and Treatment (DCT) staff on the agency’s role and current operations as it transitions from DHS. DCT described itself as Minnesota’s unique state behavioral health system, serving about 12,000 people annually through treatment facilities, residential group homes, and vocational sites, with about 5,000 staff and five major service lines including forensic services and the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. The presentation also reviewed the new executive board required by statute and the 47 work groups created to support DCT’s move to separate-agency status, with staff saying the board is in place, has met, and the work groups are on track for the July 1 deadline. Committee discussion focused heavily on system capacity, staffing shortages, and discharge bottlenecks. DCT said recruiting and retaining staff remains its top pressure, with many vacancies and overtime contributing to burnout. Members also raised concerns about long waits for admission, lack of step-down and community-based placements, and the effect on county jails and hospitals. DCT said it has expanded some capacity, including increasing beds in Willmar, reopening the Ironwood unit in St. Peter, and repurposing the CARE program site to add 16 forensic beds, but emphasized that the broader problem is the lack of community-based options rather than just DCT beds. Members also discussed priority admissions and a prior task force process for handling jail referrals. DCT said the priority admissions framework began July 1 of the previous year, uses factors such as medical acuity and impact on referring facilities, and is intended to help with backflow, though it does not solve the underlying bed shortage. Staff said the priority admissions review panel’s report is due February 15. In response to questions about a high-cost one-to-one care placement, DCT said it had found a less costly alternative and that each case has unique needs. DCT also reported progress on an electronic health record rollout and said a substance use disorder report requested by the Legislature is nearing completion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like AB 325 that was here before, and it left this committee with direction from the members to work
• Like AB 325, the words 'two or more persons' was removed from that bill.
• In response, the Legislature passed AB 1515 in 2019 with unanimous bipartisan support, which provided
• SB 611 aims to restore the protections of AB 1515, which passed with bipartisan support in 2019, and
• The very first bill I wrote and passed across the desk on our day we got sworn in was AB 20 to protect

Summary: The committee met as a subcommittee without quorum at first, then later established quorum and continued hearing several bills. SB 27, the annual CARE Court cleanup bill, would require courts to consider CARE referral for certain misdemeanor defendants found incompetent to stand trial, combine some hearings, allow limited data sharing among licensed medical professionals, and expand eligibility to include mood disorders with psychotic features. Supporters said it would clarify the meaning of “clinically stabilized,” streamline the process, and help more severely ill people receive treatment; opponents argued it would expand CARE Court too broadly, strain county resources, and divert attention from housing and voluntary services. The bill passed to the Health Committee on a roll call vote and was placed on call. SB 82, dealing with so-called “infinite arbitration clauses,” would limit consumer contract arbitration provisions to disputes arising from the product or service actually purchased. The author and supporters said the bill would stop companies from forcing arbitration in unrelated claims and would not ban arbitration itself. Opponents from business and banking groups argued the language was too restrictive, could create litigation over related transactions, and should be clarified as prospective only. The committee approved the bill and placed it on call after a roll call vote. The committee then heard two reparations-related bills. SB 437 would direct CSU to develop a genealogical methodology and framework for verifying descendants of enslaved people, with oversight, reporting, and guardrails tied to recently allocated state funding. Supporters said the bill would create a fair, evidence-based process; opponents, including professional genealogists and reparations advocates, argued the work is already well understood, the bill is unnecessary, and it could delay action. SB 518 would create a Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery within state government, with divisions for genealogy, property reclamation, outreach, and legal affairs. Supporters framed it as needed infrastructure to implement reparations recommendations; opponents objected to locating it in the Department of Justice, warned about data privacy and law enforcement control, and criticized the inclusion of broader communities. Both bills were moved to Appropriations and placed on call. The committee also heard SB 52, the End AI Rent Hikes Act, which would prohibit the use of algorithms to collude on and artificially inflate rental prices; the author and supporters described it as a response to AI-assisted rent fixing in California’s housing market.

Transcript Highlights:

• , including technical changes to reflect the wildfire and forest resilience funding appropriated in AB
• We ask the legislature to protect AB 617 funding.
• However, we are very concerned that the Governor's May Revise is proposing to cut the AB 617 funding
• However, we are very concerned that the Governor's May Revise is proposing to cut the AB 617 funding
• We request continued prioritization of the AB 617 funding through ongoing continuous appropriation.

Summary: The hearing opened with budget framing from the chair and the LAO, who said the May Revision addresses roughly a $14 billion budget problem and that the environment and transportation subcommittee’s proposals account for about $1.9 billion of the solution. The LAO urged members to focus on solutions that do not worsen out-year deficits, to preserve reserves, and to defer major policy changes that are not necessary to pass the budget, including the newly introduced water-related trailer bills. Members also raised concern about a late-dropped Olympic-related trailer bill, which the LAO likewise suggested should be deferred for fuller review. The first major item was the Delta Conveyance Project and related water quality control plan trailer bills. The administration argued the proposals would streamline permitting, water rights proceedings, judicial review, and land acquisition, and would clarify DWR’s bond authority for the project. DWR said the project is needed to protect water supply reliability against drought, earthquakes, sea level rise, and other climate-related disruptions, and that the tunnel would help move water when conditions are wet and safer for the environment. Committee members from both parties questioned the timing, the use of budget trailer bills for major policy changes, the scope of the CEQA and water-rights changes, the lack of a bond cap, cost growth, and eminent domain protections. The LAO recommended deferring both water trailer bills without prejudice. Public comment was sharply divided, with labor, water agencies, and some business groups supporting the project as climate adaptation and reliability infrastructure, while environmental, tribal, fishing, county, and community groups opposed it as an attempt to bypass public process and weaken protections. The committee then briefly heard the DMV’s Digital Experience Platform fee trailer bill, which would reinstate a $1 system improvement fee to help fund the vehicle-registration phase of the project. DMV said the fee would raise about $7 million annually and offset roughly $59 million to $60 million of project costs, while the LAO noted it would help but would not solve the Motor Vehicle Account’s broader structural gap. The hearing then moved to California High-Speed Rail, where the new CEO presented an updated plan and said the project remains a major climate and infrastructure investment. He reported a revised Merced-to-Bakersfield cost range of $34.9 billion to $38.5 billion, said the agency is trying to reduce risk through direct procurement of materials, and argued that stable annual funding is needed to avoid higher costs from delays.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, AB 2796. The rest are SBs 33, 7, 7...
• Sarado's bill, AB 308, that is due pass as amended, out on an A roll call.
• AB 308 that is due pass as amended out on an A roll call. Oh, sorry—yes, we—sorry, yeah.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on June 24, 2026, but initially lacked a quorum and began by hearing presentations only. SB 308 was presented as a bill to streamline fiscal reporting for California community colleges by combining two overlapping annual audit reports into one. SB 895, the California Science and Health Research Bond, drew extensive testimony from the authors and many supporters, who argued it would help offset federal research cuts, protect California’s science infrastructure, support jobs, and preserve life-saving research in areas such as cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s, ALS, climate resilience, and quantum computing. The bill was described as a bond measure that would require a three-party agreement and was sent to suspense. After quorum was established, the committee took up the consent and suspense calendars. Several bills were approved on consent, including SB 308 and a large group of other measures, while the suspense calendar was deemed approved, including SB 895 and other bills listed by the chair. Public comment on SB 895 continued for a long period, with many researchers, students, labor representatives, university officials, and patient advocates speaking in strong support and urging the bill be moved to the floor. The committee also heard SB 1350, which would expand green hydrogen by allowing renewable portfolio standard credits for certain hydrogen use in power generation; the author and supporters said it would help clean energy development, create jobs, and support projects like ARCHES and Element. Later, SB 1306 was presented to align California law with federal exemptions for certain chemical mixtures containing GBL used in semiconductor manufacturing research. The author and SEMI’s representative said the bill would reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, avoid disrupting semiconductor supply chains, and not change rules for pure GBL. The bill passed out of committee on a roll call vote, with one no vote and one not voting. The hearing then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• year history behind California's environmental progress around climate change, starting in 2006 with AB
• In fact, it was first adopted by CARB in 2009 as an early action measure under AB 32.
• In 2006, when AB 32 became law, the state used almost exclusively fossil fuels.
• So refineries continue to get their allowances based on that leakage risk that is set in AB 398.
• We're coming up on the 20-year anniversary of AB 32 next year. The state set a path.

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendments for AB 2285 provide the state with clear guidelines about how to create staking as a service
• AB 2285 by Assembly Member Valencia. The motion is due pass as amended. Valencia? Yes.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard AB 2285, a bill focused on cryptocurrency staking and related consumer protections. The author said the amendments would give California clearer guidelines for staking-as-a-service, preserve disclosure requirements, and remove a fee cap to allow a workable business model. Supporters, including the Crypto Council for Innovation, said the bill would give Californians access to an important blockchain utility and provide needed clarity. Opposition came from the Consumer Federation of California, bankers, and credit unions, who argued the bill would weaken consumer protections, create an uneven playing field for state-chartered institutions, and move California into an unsettled federal debate over the Clarity Act. They also raised concerns about fraud, money laundering, and the bill’s effect on DFPI oversight, especially given pending litigation involving Coinbase and the state. The author responded that staking is distinct from buying crypto, that blockchain can improve traceability and security, and that the bill was still a work in progress with room for further amendments. Members questioned whether the bill was premature given the evolving federal framework and whether it could be aligned with future federal law. The author said California should act where federal law is unclear and that the state should continue to lead on consumer protection and blockchain policy. The committee then adopted a due pass as amended motion on a 7-2 vote, and the bill was reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendments for AB 2285 provide the state with clear guidelines about how to create staking as a service
• AB 2285 by Assemblymember Valencia. The motion is due pass as amended. Valencia? Yes.

Summary: The committee took up AB 2285, a bill related to cryptocurrency staking and broader crypto regulatory issues. The author said the amendments would give California clearer guidelines for staking-as-a-service, maintain consumer disclosures, and remove a fee cap to make the business model workable. Supporters, including representatives of the Crypto Council for Innovation and the Satoshi Action Fund, said the bill would provide needed clarity and help Californians participate in blockchain-related opportunities. Opposition came from the Consumer Federation of California and credit union representatives, who argued the bill would weaken consumer protections, create an uneven playing field for state-chartered institutions, and move California into the middle of unresolved federal debates over the Clarity Act. They also raised concerns about fraud, money laundering, and the effect of the bill on DFPI’s authority and pending litigation involving Coinbase. The author responded that staking is distinct from buying crypto, that blockchain can improve traceability, and that the bill was still a work in progress with room for further amendments. Members discussed preemption, the pending federal framework, and whether the bill should wait until federal law is settled. The chair emphasized California’s role in setting policy and said other states were allowing consumers to benefit from staking. The committee ultimately adopted a due pass as amended motion and sent AB 2285 out on a 7-2 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• In response, the Legislature passed AB 2967 in 2020, closing this loophole with CalPERS.
• In response, the legislature passed AB 2967 in 2020, closing this loophole with CalPERS.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement heard several retirement and school employment measures. SB 301 by Sen. Grayson would prevent CERL-covered cities and districts from amending retirement contracts to exclude certain employee groups, closing a loophole similar to one previously addressed for CalPERS. The bill was supported by California Professional Firefighters and received no opposition. SB 443 by Sen. Rubio would clarify that employees transferring into a joint powers authority can retain CalPERS classic status even when the JPA expands later; the city of La Verne, a flood management agency, and AFSCME supported the bill, and it also drew no opposition. Both bills were moved out of committee on unanimous votes and sent to Appropriations, with the consent calendar items SB 521, SB 581, and SB 853 also approved. The committee then heard SB 494 by Sen. Cortese, which would give classified school employees the right to have disciplinary appeals heard by an administrative law judge rather than by the school board. Supporters, including CSEA, AFSCME, and CFT, argued the bill would create parity with teachers and community college faculty and provide a fairer appeal process. Opponents, including the California School Boards Association, county superintendents, school business officials, and community college groups, argued it would remove local control, impose a one-size-fits-all process, and shift costs to districts. The bill was passed out of committee and referred to the Committee on Higher Education. The committee also considered SJR 2 by Sen. Cortese, a resolution urging Congress and the President to enact federal protections for classified school employees, including better wages, benefits, safety, and workplace rights. Support came from CFT, CSEA, and other labor groups, with no opposition. The resolution was adopted and moved forward. At the end of the hearing, the committee reopened the roll to add votes, and all listed measures ultimately passed unanimously or near-unanimously before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 56 to allow the local government committee to notice AB
• Pursuant to Assembly Rule 96, I request unanimous consent to re-refer AB 480, Quirk-Silva, from the Revenue

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 238, Harabedian, from the Banking and Finance Committee to the Judiciary Committee, and then back
• to the Banking and Finance Committee, and AB 300, Lackey, from the Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this project did follow AB 52, which identified the Delta as a culturally significant landscape.
• So this project did follow AB 52, which identified the Delta as a culturally significant landscape.
• Even though we increased DPR's resources by raising the mill fee last year through AB 2113, thank you
• 652 on the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and AB 1864, the pesticide schools, and be able
• department in the myriad of bills that they are looking to implement from the last two years including AB

Summary: The committee heard several audit requests and related testimony. The first major item was an audit of Coachella Valley Unified School District’s contract and fiscal management. The author and supporters described long-standing fiscal mismanagement, large budget shortfalls, layoffs, contracting concerns, and questions about the district’s foundation and use of public funds. District representatives and the Riverside County Office of Education said the district is already under fiscal oversight, has a stabilization plan, and is working to reduce deficits and improve student outcomes. After extensive debate and public comment, the motion to approve the audit was put on call because the committee did not have the required votes from both houses at that moment. The committee then approved an audit of East Bay transit agencies in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Senator Wahab argued the region’s many overlapping transit agencies create fragmentation, duplication, and inefficiency, especially amid a fiscal cliff and possible future tax increases. Transit agencies and labor representatives opposed the audit, saying the agencies already undergo multiple audits, serve distinct local needs, and are implementing regional coordination efforts. After testimony from agency leaders and public commenters, the committee voted to approve the audit. The next item was an audit of California Community Colleges’ unrestricted reserves. Senator Archuleta and supporting faculty representatives said reserves have grown substantially and may be diverting resources from student services, instruction, and workforce programs. They argued there is little oversight when reserves become too high. The Chancellor’s Office and Calbright College were invited to respond, and the audit objectives focused on reserve growth, reasons for high balances, oversight by the Chancellor’s Office, and effects on students and staff. The transcript cuts off during the Chancellor’s Office response, so the final committee action on this item is not shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• it's the same statutory scheme in general with just a one minor modification that was put in place in AB
• behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, we ask the legislature to protect AB
• We're opposed to the elimination of funding for the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program.
• However, we are very concerned that the governors may revise this proposal to cut the AB 617 funding
• We request continued prioritization of the AB 617 funding through an ongoing continuous preparation.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll go on to question two, which is about the AB 102 statewide bargaining report.
• statutorily mandated content and discussions, and that the discussions remained within the scope of AB
• Whiten earlier about our ongoing conversations related to AB 283 and appreciate their openness... ...
• our ongoing conversations related to AB 283 and appreciate their openness to listen to county concerns
• AB 283, which I'm happy to report we are making a great deal of progress on with our labor partners.

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• what the damage has done with Prop. 209 is that when I started here in the Assembly, I had a bill, AB
• Item 3, AB 1736, and item 4, AB 2421. Please call absent member. Wiener: Aye. Wiener, aye. 5-0.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments heard several measures, beginning with SCA 5, Senator Cortese’s proposal to create an Equalization Reserve Account to help reduce long-standing per-pupil funding disparities between basic aid and non-basic aid school districts. Supporters, including education leaders and school employees, argued the measure would provide a stable, long-term funding source to improve student services and staffing. Charter school representatives opposed the bill, saying it excluded charter schools from the benefits and could raise equal protection concerns. Senator Cortese responded that the bill only addresses district funding and does not alter charter funding formulas. After quorum was established, SCA 5 was approved and sent to Appropriations. The committee also heard S.J.R. 18, a resolution by Senator McNerney condemning the Citizens United decision and urging limits on corporate influence in elections. The author argued that corporate and dark money have overwhelmed campaign finance and weakened public trust. There was no formal witness testimony in support or opposition, and members discussed the resolution’s symbolic nature and its relationship to free speech and campaign finance rules. The resolution was adopted and referred onward. The committee then took up ACA 7, Assembly Member Jackson’s constitutional amendment to clarify Proposition 209 and allow more race-conscious tools in education to address racial equity gaps. Supporters said current law prevents targeted, evidence-based interventions and that the measure would help close persistent disparities; opponents argued it would weaken Prop. 209, invite discrimination, and likely fail at the ballot or in court. After extensive debate, the measure was approved as amended and sent to Appropriations. The committee next heard ACA 18, which would add a second student voting seat to the University of California Board of Regents, ensuring both undergraduate and graduate student representation. The author and student regent witnesses said the UC board is the only major higher education governing board in California with just one student vote, and that more student representation would improve decision-making and reflect the student body. The measure drew support from student organizations and was approved. Finally, AJR 29 was heard, opposing a federal executive order affecting vote-by-mail administration and defending California’s mail voting system as safe and secure. The author said the order would improperly interfere with state election administration. The resolution was adopted. Items 3 and 4 on consent were also approved, and the committee adjourned after all agenda items were acted upon.

Transcript Highlights:

• There was SB 419, which was passed in 2019, and then there was AB 420, which was passed in 2014.
• So I come to you today, as I've heard from everyone here, AB 805 is probably one that I really, really
• One of them is AB 1647, the Voice Act, which protects young people's ability to speak during their transfer

Summary: The Select Committee on the Status of Boys and Men of Color held its second hearing, focused on cradle-to-college-and-career pipelines and education. Members opened with remarks emphasizing bipartisan support, the need to address opportunity gaps, and the committee’s prior hearing in Los Angeles, which helped generate legislation. The chair framed the day around school safety and discipline, community schools, and college/career pathways, and noted that public comment would be included at the end. In the first panel, witnesses described persistent disparities in school discipline and policing, even as suspension rates have declined statewide. Dr. David Turner cited reductions in suspensions tied to reforms such as bans on willful defiance suspensions, but warned that Black and Native boys remain disproportionately suspended and that “ghost suspensions” and police referrals still push students out of class. Other advocates called for stronger accountability, more restorative and culturally rooted practices, and greater investment in community-based supports. Members asked about the role of state and local policy, rural versus urban differences, and how to measure which interventions work best. The second panel centered on community schools. Advocates from Californians for Justice, Reclaim Our Schools LA, MILE, and the Sierra Health Foundation argued for the governor’s proposed $1 billion ongoing investment in the California Community Schools Partnership Act. They said community schools improve attendance, reduce suspensions, strengthen belonging, and create shared decision-making with families and students. Panelists described the role of community school coordinators, the importance of authentic partnerships, and the need to track informal discipline practices. Committee members pressed for a plain explanation of community schools and heard that the model is intended to be a high-return equity strategy that can save the state money over time. The final panel addressed college and career pathways. Speakers from the California Faculty Association, UC Student Association, Brotherhood Crusade, A Men, and Improve Your Tomorrow highlighted barriers facing Black, Latino, Native, and other boys and men of color in higher education, including financial aid gaps, weak transfer pathways, underinvestment in student support, and low campus belonging. They urged continued funding for community schools, expanded dual enrollment and ELOP access, and support for mentorship and culturally responsive programs. Public commenters echoed support for community schools and youth investment, including calls to redirect prison spending toward education and prevention. The chair closed by thanking the panelists, reflecting on his own school struggles and the role of mentorship, and adjourned the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The morning roll call is 31<00:25:49.120> present,<00:25:49.520> zero<00:25:49.760> abs
• 31 present, zero abs, and four excused. 31 present, zero abs, and four excused.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, approved the February 4, 2026 journal as corrected, and received several committee reports and bill status updates. Committee actions included favorable reports on Senate Bills 12, 13, 14, and 16, with some bills amended before being sent to the Committee of the Whole, and notice that Senate Bill 32 had been correctly engrossed and was ready for final passage. The chamber also laid over the general order second reading calendar until Friday, February 6, 2026. The main floor action was final passage of Senate Bill 32, concerning the promotion of immunization access. Supporters argued the bill would help Colorado maintain a science-based vaccine policy, protect public health, and preserve pharmacists’ ability to provide vaccines amid concerns about federal instability. Several organizations were cited as endorsing the measure. The bill passed on a 20-12 vote. The Senate also adopted Senate Joint Resolution 8, honoring Colorado’s 2026 Winter Olympians and Paralympians. Senators highlighted Colorado’s winter sports culture, training facilities, and the state’s many athletes competing in the Games, and one senator offered a tribute to a former Olympian in the chamber. The resolution passed unanimously, 32-0. In addition, the Senate confirmed governor’s appointments to the Department of Higher Education and the Private Occupational School Board on a 32-0 vote. The meeting ended with announcements, including committee schedules and birthday recognition for Senator Zamora Wilson, followed by adjournment until Friday, February 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• We in the legislature passed **AB 2313** last year, and it provides...
• And then just to echo the remarks from the Chair in regard to **AB 2313**, as it did get all the way
• Wilson's request that trailer bill language is drafted to reflect the program guidelines outlined in AB

Keywords: 988, house, all