Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1011 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1011 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1124 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1124 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1299 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1299 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1128 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1128 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1387 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1359 is a suspense file candidate.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met to consider a large suspense-file agenda, noting that 122 measures met suspense criteria and that several bills listed in the daily file were rescheduled for the following week. The Department of Finance did not attend because it had no comments on the bills before the committee. After establishing a quorum, the committee repeatedly took public testimony on each item, with most authors waiving presentation and most bills drawing no questions or comments from members. A few measures drew substantive testimony. SB 951 and SB 947 received opposition from the Society for Human Resource Management, the California Restaurant Association, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, with opponents citing policy concerns, ongoing department and General Fund costs, and submitted amendments. SB 1067 was supported by EdVoice, which argued that early math remediation would save state costs and noted an implementation budget request. SB 1291 drew strong opposition from mutual water company representatives, who said the bill would create significant ongoing costs, duplicate existing state efforts, and impose internet and teleconferencing mandates on small systems in areas with limited broadband access. SB 1368 received support from hearing health care providers, who asked for technical amendments to align state law with federal hearing-aid definitions and education-provider recognition. Senator Richardson presented SB 1089, explaining that it would help reduce CalPERS and broader health costs by expanding access to GLP-1 weight-loss drugs for eligible state employees and directing CalRx partnerships to produce or acquire at least one GLP-1 medication. The committee took no action other than moving each suspense-file candidate, including SB 1089, to the suspense file without objection. The hearing then adjourned after the agenda was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1016 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1016 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1259 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1259 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 877 is a suspense file candidate. SB 877 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 878 is a suspense file candidate. SB 878 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 957 is a suspense file candidate. SB 957 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1016 is a suspense-file candidate. SB 1016 is a suspense-file candidate.
• SB 1259 is a suspense-file candidate. SB 1259 is a suspense-file candidate.
• SB 877 is a suspense-file candidate. SB 877 is a suspense-file candidate.
• SB 878 is a suspense-file candidate. SB 878 is a suspense-file candidate.
• SB 957 is a suspense-file candidate. SB 957 is a suspense-file candidate.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations heard a very large suspense-file agenda and repeatedly moved measures to suspense without objection after authors waived presentation and no questions or opposition were raised. SB 994 was removed from the agenda because it had been approved as a late 28.8 and was sent directly to the Senate floor. The Department of Finance did not attend because it had no comments on the bills before the committee. Several bills drew limited testimony focused on fiscal impacts. On SB 1092 and SB 1093, Chris Weisak of WMA opposed the bills, citing potential litigation costs, reduced state and local tax revenue, higher HCD monitoring and review costs, and additional inspection or review burdens. SB 1041 drew opposition from the California Bankers Association and the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors over concerns about PACE liens, refinancing costs, and possible abusive liens affecting seniors. SB 1147 drew support from the California Agricultural Teachers Association, but opposition from NextGen Financial and Junior Achievement, who argued it would undermine the recently enacted statewide financial literacy course and could weaken equity and consistency in instruction. One measure, SB 1238 by Senator Wahab, was taken up as a due-pass item rather than suspense. The bill would add HOA-related disclosures and duties, clarify reserve spending limits, and improve transparency of inspection ratings. The California Association of Realtors supported it, and the committee approved SB 1238 on a 5-1 vote, with Senators Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, and Wahab voting aye and Seyarto voting no. A few other bills received brief support testimony, including SB 1153 on wildfire response planning for urban retail water suppliers, SB 1061 and SB 1062 with support from WMA, and SB 1302 and SB 1303 with support from professional associations, but most measures were simply held and sent to suspense.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 1838 is a suspense file candidate, Assembly Member Burma AB 1838 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 1567 is a suspense file candidate, Assembly AB 1567 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 1980 is a suspense file candidate. AB 1980 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 2440 is a suspense file candidate. AB 2440 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection.
• This bill is a suspense-file candidate without objection.
• Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 1980 is a suspense file candidate. AB 1980 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 2440 is a suspense file candidate. AB 2440 is a suspense file candidate.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met with a quorum present and heard a large suspense-file agenda, noting that most authors waived presentation and the Department of Finance had no comments on the bills. The committee reminded witnesses to focus on fiscal issues. AB 1999 by Assembly Member Kalra, presented by Senator Grayson, drew support from the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Veterinary Medical Board, and Social Compassion in Legislation; it was described as a measure to ease veterinary staffing shortages and improve access to care. The committee voted 6-0 to send AB 1999 to the Senate floor and placed it on call for additional members to add on. The remaining measures were largely taken up without presentation, testimony, or committee questions and were moved to the suspense file without objection. Bills sent to suspense included SB 1096 and numerous Assembly Bills such as AB 308, AB 441, AB 2640, AB 805, AB 1871, AB 2176, AB 2206, AB 2436, AB 907, AB 2002, AB 1048, AB 1049, AB 2251, AB 1116, AB 1836, AB 1149, AB 1552, AB 1153, AB 1969, AB 1996, AB 1301, AB 1359, AB 1961, AB 2756, AB 2765, AB 2769, AB 1382, AB 1567, AB 1574, AB 1576, AB 1598, AB 1602, AB 1983, AB 1628, AB 1630, AB 1980, AB 1645, AB 1662, AB 1694, AB 1703, AB 1715, AB 2720, AB 1721, AB 2060, AB 2440, AB 1734, AB 2081, AB 1741, AB 2592, AB 1743, AB 1755, AB 1759, AB 1932, AB 1763, AB 1916, AB 1789, AB 2241, AB 1813, AB 1906, AB 1981, AB 1907, AB 1925, AB 2122, AB 2038, AB 2157, AB 2270, AB 2339, AB 2524, AB 2633, AB 2660, and AB 2664. A few measures drew brief public testimony on fiscal impacts or policy-related cost concerns. AB 1116 prompted opposition testimony from the Secretary of State’s office, which said the bill would create significant cybersecurity and operational challenges and could cost up to $10 million in one-time implementation costs, plus ongoing expenses. AB 1382 received support from Social Compassion in Legislation, which argued it would help address shelter costs and pet overpopulation. AB 2081 was supported by a sponsor representative who said the Medi-Cal waiver proposal was cost-effective and that budget funding had been included for administrative costs. AB 1703 drew opposition testimony from a group of internationally trained practitioners who said the bill would unfairly target their work and shift costs to counties. The committee took no further action beyond moving the suspense-file candidates to suspense and adjourning after the agenda was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 888 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1186 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1401 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1401 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1414 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1414 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1322 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1322 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations heard a large suspense-file agenda and established a quorum at the start. SB 1167 was announced as not being heard and will be rescheduled. The Department of Finance did not attend because it had no comments on the bills before the committee. Most measures on the agenda were taken up briefly with public testimony, then moved to suspense without objection. Two bills received fuller presentations. SB 872 by Senator McNerney would create a fund to support repairs to Delta levees and State Water Project canals, with testimony from Restore the Delta, State Water Contractors, and numerous water agencies and coalitions emphasizing flood protection, water reliability for 27 million Californians, protection of state assets, and long-term infrastructure costs. Committee members noted the importance of the investment and the likelihood it would be considered in the final suspense decision; SB 872 was moved to suspense. SB 962 by Senator Archuleta would authorize CDCR to use blue emergency lights on parole vehicles, with supporters from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association citing the line-of-duty death of a parole agent and the need for a low-cost, discretionary safety tool. The bill was also moved to suspense. SB 950, dealing with coverage for FDA-approved medically necessary treatments for early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, was discussed as having a minimal near-term fiscal impact, though members noted costs could rise if new treatments emerge. The committee asked the author to consider a sunset amendment, but the bill received a do pass motion and was approved on a 7-0 vote, then placed on call for additional members. The remaining bills taken up, including SB 870, SB 1120, SB 888, SB 904, SB 986, SB 1029, SB 1186, SB 895, SB 1004, SB 1123, SB 909, SB 945, SB 1037, SB 953, SB 1001, SB 1188, SB 1407, SB 967, SB 1135, SB 1136, SB 988, SB 1069, SB 1000, SB 1024, SB 1179, SB 1025, SB 1040, SB 1081, SB 1091, SB 1131, SB 1138, SB 1146, SB 1279, SB 1158, SB 1401, SB 1162, SB 1293, SB 1334, SB 1382, SB 1397, SB 1178, SB 1414, SB 1214, SB 1218, SB 1257, SB 1265, SB 1286, SB 1322, SB 1337, SB 1340, SB 1276, SB 1358, and SB 1412, were moved to the suspense file without objection, with a few witnesses registering support or opposition on selected measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1262 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 955 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 978 is a suspense file candidate. SB 978 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 991 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1149 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1149 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1186 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1081 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1414 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1414 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1257 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1340 is a suspense file candidate.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations heard a large suspense-file agenda and established a quorum at the start of the meeting. SB 1167 was announced as not being heard and rescheduled for the following week. The Department of Finance did not attend because it had no comments on the bills before the committee. Most measures were taken up with waived presentations, brief public testimony, and then moved to suspense without objection. Several bills received author presentations and discussion. SB 872 by Senator McNerney proposed a long-term funding mechanism for Delta levee and State Water Project canal repairs, with strong support from water agencies, environmental groups, and regional coalitions emphasizing flood risk, water reliability, and protection of state assets; the bill was moved to suspense. SB 962 by Senator Archuleta would authorize, but not require, blue emergency lights on parole vehicles; supporters from the parole officers’ union cited officer safety and the death of parole agent Joshua Bird, and it too was moved to suspense. SB 950 by Senator Richardson would require coverage of FDA-approved medically necessary treatments for early-onset Alzheimer’s disease; the committee noted the estimated premium impact was minimal and voted 7-0 for due pass to the Senate floor, while asking the author to consider a sunset amendment. The committee also heard testimony on SB 1123, where the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association opposed the measure on policy grounds, but it was still sent to suspense. SB 1069 and SB 1138 drew support from the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and Silicon Valley Clean Energy, respectively. The remaining suspense-file bills on the agenda were largely taken up in sequence with no opposition or committee questions and were moved to suspense without objection, and the meeting adjourned after the agenda was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1186 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1081 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1401 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1401 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1414 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1414 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1322 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1322 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1262 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 955 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 978 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 991 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1149 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1149 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met in quorum and heard a large suspense-file agenda, with authors on most bills waiving presentation and the Department of Finance declining comment. The committee repeatedly took brief public testimony limited to fiscal impacts, then moved most measures to suspense without objection. Bills sent to suspense included SB 867, 868, 869 (with opposition from the California Restaurant Association), 934, 1202, 907, 1262, 923, 1057, 955, 1046, 1237, 970, 972, 978, 1105, 991, 1015, 1021, 1222, 1023, 1261, 1030, 1039, 1042, 1052, 1077, 1114, 1149, 1160, 1342, 1399, 1422, 1161, 1166, 1330, 1191, 1378, 1197, 1220, 1255, 1394, and 1420. The committee also heard SB 1106 by Senator Cabaldon, which would shorten the deadline for data brokers to comply with deletion requests from 45 days to 30 days. Senator Cabaldon said the change would not create new costs beyond routine regulatory updates, and no opposition was presented. The committee approved SB 1106 on a 5-0 vote and placed it on call before the final vote was completed. Several suspense-file bills drew limited support testimony from advocacy groups, including SB 1052 from The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration and LARC, SB 1422 from the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition, and SB 1255 from the Campaign for College Opportunity. After completing the agenda, the committee finalized SB 1106 with a 5-0 do pass vote to the Senate floor and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1262 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 955 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 978 is a suspense file candidate. SB 978 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 991 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 1149 is a suspense file candidate. SB 1149 is a suspense file candidate.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met with a quorum and heard a large suspense-file agenda, with the Department of Finance declining to comment on any of the measures. The chair reminded witnesses to focus on fiscal impacts. Most bills were taken up quickly because authors had waived presentation and there was no public testimony or committee discussion; those measures were moved to the suspense file without objection, including SB 867, SB 868, SB 934, SB 869, SB 1202, SB 907, SB 1262, SB 923, SB 1057, SB 955, SB 1046, SB 1237, SB 970, SB 972, SB 978, SB 1105, SB 991, SB 1015, SB 1021, SB 1222, SB 1023, SB 1261, SB 1030, SB 1039, SB 1042, SB 1052, SB 1077, SB 1114, SB 1149, SB 1160, SB 1342, SB 1399, SB 1422, SB 1161, SB 1166, SB 1330, SB 1191, SB 1378, SB 1197, SB 1220, SB 1255, SB 1394, and SB 1420. The committee briefly heard testimony on a few measures. SB 869 drew opposition from the California Restaurant Association, while SB 1052 and SB 1255 received support from advocates including The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration, The Arc California, and the Campaign for College Opportunity. SB 1422 also received support from the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition. No opposition was recorded on those supportive measures, and no substantive committee debate was noted. Senator Cabaldon presented SB 1106, which would shorten the deadline for data brokers to comply with a user’s request to delete personal data from 45 days to 30 days. He stated the bill would have no fiscal impact beyond routine regulatory system updates. The committee adopted a due-pass motion on SB 1106, voting 5-0 to send it to the Senate floor, and then placed the item on call for additional members to add on before later closing the roll with a final 5-0 vote. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 946 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 1171 is a suspense file candidate. AB 1171 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 1581 is a suspense file candidate. AB 1581 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 1668 is a suspense file candidate. AB 1668 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 2519 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member, 19 is a suspense file candidate.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met to hear 30 measures, all listed as suspense file candidates. The chair noted that AB 1844 and AB 442 were removed from the agenda and would be heard later, and that the Department of Finance had no comments on any of the bills. Members established a quorum, and witnesses were reminded to keep testimony focused on fiscal impacts. Most bills were heard with authors waiving presentation and no opposition testimony or member questions. The committee moved a long list of bills to suspense without objection, including AB 375, AB 431, AB 647, AB 672, AB 767, AB 946, AB 1165, AB 1171, AB 1198, AB 1439, AB 1541, AB 1581, AB 1590, AB 1668, AB 1785, AB 1829, AB 2466, AB 1890, AB 1987, AB 1949, AB 2011, AB 2178, AB 2191, AB 2249, AB 2518, AB 2519, and AB 2706. A few bills drew brief support testimony: AB 685 from the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, AB 1581 from Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, AB 2466 from the Association of Regional Center Agencies, and AB 2706 from Niagara Bottling. No bills were voted out of suspense or otherwise acted on beyond being placed on the suspense file, and the meeting adjourned after the agenda was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 685 is a suspense file candidate without objection.
• AB 946 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 1668 is a suspense file candidate. AB 1668 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 2178 is a suspense file candidate. AB 2178 is a suspense file candidate.
• AB 2519 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member, 19 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 886 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 920 is a suspense file candidate. SB 920 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 943 is a suspense file candidate. SB 943 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 944 is a suspense file candidate. SB 944 is a suspense file candidate.
• file candidate.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met for its first hearing under the new chair and opened with remarks about California’s ongoing fiscal challenges and the need to balance policy goals with budget constraints. The Department of Finance gave general comments on the state’s financial condition, noting risks such as market volatility, revenue uncertainty, and projected out-year shortfalls driven by spending growth outpacing revenues. The chair also reminded witnesses to focus on fiscal impacts rather than policy arguments. The committee then considered 26 Senate bills on the suspense file agenda, with authors waiving presentation on each measure. Public testimony was limited but included support for SB 1240 from California Association of Nonprofits and several related organizations, and support for SB 943 from the State Water Contractors, SB 1056 from a representative of Valerre, and SB 881, SB 886, SB 891, SB 920, SB 937, SB 944, SB 946, SB 948, SB 959, SB 964, SB 987, SB 1006, SB 1009, SB 1044, SB 1047, SB 1049, SB 1053, SB 1054, SB 1108, SB 1132, SB 1140, SB 1198, and others received no testimony or no opposition. The Department of Finance had no file or specific comments on the measures before the committee. With no questions or objections from members on any item, each bill was moved to the suspense file. After a brief recess and the arrival of Senator Wahab, the committee recorded her presence and then concluded the agenda and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• of that candidate.
• Top candidates generally, the top candidate for each party.
• or no candidate at all.
• or no candidate at all.
• candidates, costs rise.

Bills: H5001

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Keywords: election day registration, voter registration, proof of residency, provisional ballot, party affiliation

Transcript Highlights:

• , not to nominate candidates.
• If no candidate reaches a majority, then the top candidates will move on to a runoff election.
• or no candidate at all.
• or no candidate at all.
• candidates, costs rise.

Bills: H5001

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Keywords: election day registration, voter registration, proof of residency, provisional ballot, party affiliation

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, an act to implement all-party state primaries. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 process and said the hearing was part of the Legislature’s review before any measure could advance toward the 2026 ballot. The hearing format included subject-matter experts, proponents, opponents, and public testimony, though this excerpt mainly covers the expert and proponent panels. The first expert, Northeastern University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos, described top-two primaries used in states such as California, Washington, Alaska, Louisiana, and Nebraska, and said the research shows only modest or mixed effects. He argued that top-two systems do not reliably reduce polarization, can weaken party gatekeeping, may increase campaign spending and incumbent advantages, and can lead to undervoting when voters do not see a preferred candidate on the ballot. In response to questions, he said turnout effects are mixed and not substantially higher overall. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures then outlined different primary systems, including closed, open, top-two/top-four, nonpartisan, all-comers, and blanket primaries, and reviewed Supreme Court cases holding blanket primaries unconstitutional while upholding Washington’s top-two system. She also noted that changing primary systems would require significant voter education and administrative preparation. The proponent panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has too many uncontested elections, low primary participation, and too little accountability, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in a higher-turnout general election. Supporters said the proposal is tailored to Massachusetts, would keep party endorsements visible on the ballot, and could broaden competition, improve representation, and help independent and minor-party candidates. Jim Henderson, coalition counsel, said the bill is narrowly focused on state-level primaries and was drafted to fit Article 48 requirements. Other proponents, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, echoed that the current system overrepresents a small partisan electorate and that the reform would shift power to voters. Committee members pressed the proponents on turnout evidence, party endorsements, ballot access, the role of fusion-style cross-endorsements, the effect on polarization, and whether the change would actually improve representation or simply move party influence to an earlier stage. No votes or final committee action were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 886 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 920 is a suspense file candidate. SB 920 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 943 is a suspense file candidate. SB 943 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 944 is a suspense file candidate. SB 944 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 946 is a suspense file candidate. SB 946 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• not to nominate candidates.
• of that candidate.
• or no candidate at all.
• or no candidate at all.
• candidates.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 886 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 891 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 891 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 943 is a suspense file candidate. SB 943 is a suspense file candidate.
• SB 944 is a suspense file candidate. SB 944 is a suspense file candidate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met for its first hearing under the new chair and heard opening remarks emphasizing California’s ongoing fiscal challenges, budget uncertainty, and the need to balance policy goals with stewardship of public funds. The Department of Finance said it had no specific positions on the agenda bills, but noted broader risks to state revenues, including stock market volatility, high-income earnings declines, geopolitical instability, and projected out-year shortfalls where spending growth exceeds revenue growth. The committee then took up 26 suspense-file candidates, with authors waiving presentation on each measure and public testimony limited to fiscal issues. Most bills received no support or opposition testimony and no questions from members. A few witnesses testified in support of SB 1240, SB 943, SB 1056, and others; one witness on SB 948 raised concerns that the bill could increase court costs and pressure the General Fund because out-of-state firearm owners might unknowingly miss a new certification requirement. With no objections on any item, each bill was moved to the suspense file, including SB 881, SB 1240, SB 886, SB 1006, SB 891, SB 920, SB 937, SB 943, SB 1009, SB 944, SB 946, SB 948, SB 959, SB 1056, SB 964, SB 1132, SB 1241, SB 987, SB 1049, SB 1044, SB 1047, SB 1053, SB 1054, SB 1108, SB 1140, and SB 1198. The committee recessed briefly to establish attendance and then adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:24.640><c> spending</c> six times the candidate spending six times the candidate spending
• </c> people can get um their their candidate people can get um their their candidate of<00:10:36.240>
• To write a check, give it to the candidate. The candidate gives a receipt.
• I will say it allows candidates um more I will say it allows candidates um more time<00:40:48.400><c>
• </c> we would require self-funded candidates we would require self-funded candidates candidates<00:57

Committee: Senate Elections