Sheila Bates — Said she is with Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, Black Lives Matter California, and Black Lives Matter Grassroots, and urged an aye vote.
Ariana Burton — Said she is with the Central Valley Urban Institute and is in full support of the bill.
Nautica — Nautica, speaking with the Central Valley Urban Institute, stated that she is in support of the bill.
Giovanni Cassius — Said he is representing the Central Valley Institute, is in Assembly District 27, and is in support.
Setna Isidigo — Said she is part of the UCLA African Student Union and supports the bill.
Lillian Bailey — Said she is a public affairs student at UCLA and strongly supports the bill.
Melissa Love — Said she is a student at West L.A. College and with Sanctuary of Hope, and is in favor of AB 7.
Carty Henry — Carty Henry introduced himself as a representative of the Black Student Union body at West Los Angeles Community College and stated that he strongly supports the bill.
Brooke Alexis Wilkerson — Said she is an African-American studies major at UCLA and supports the bill.
Ella Ahmed — Said she is with UCLA's African Student Union and is a future dual master's program student at USC.
Milleke-Fleoy Hooker — Said she is a UCLA graduate speaking on behalf of the National Black Justice Coalition and United by Equity in full support of AB 7.
Keisha DeCohne — Said she is from Los Angeles, a mother of seven, grandmother of five, and wife of a firefighter, and strongly supports the bill.
Andre DeCohan — Said he is a retired firefighter and supports the bill.
Derrish Young — Said he represents the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII) and the Black Housing Coalition (Black Hat), and strongly supports the bill.
Danielle Townsend — Said she is with Black Equity Collective and that they are with the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth in support of the bill.
Candace Mann — Candace Mann, a UC Davis student and member of the UC Student Association, testified in strong support of the bill.
Anna Kew — Said she is a UC Berkeley student with the UC Students Association and supports the bill.
Arianna Gonzalez — Said she is from UC Riverside and strongly supports the bill.
Sarah — Sarah, a UC Davis student, introduced herself and stated that she strongly supports the bill.
Eleona Alvoloz — Said she is a student at UC Davis and strongly supports the bill.
Veronica Hanke — Said she is a citizen and supports the bill.
John Matthews — John Matthews testified in strong support on behalf of the John M. Lankson Bar Association and the county public defender.
Andrew Tino — Andrew Tino, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, testified in opposition to AB 57. He argued that using ancestry or lineage as a criterion effectively serves as a racial proxy and could violate Proposition 209. He further contended that the bill does not directly assist individuals who experienced discrimination in public education because it focuses on lineage rather than individual harm. Tino suggested the bill could be amended to allow universities to consider applicants’ personal experiences with racial discrimination regardless of race, citing Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard to support the idea that schools may consider how race affected an applicant’s life. He concluded that universities should not rely solely on ancestry or lineage, noting that students can already describe their own lived experiences and family history in applications.
Bruce Lowe — Bruce Lowe testified in strong opposition to AB 7, saying it would create preferential treatment and conflict with Proposition 209, while emphasizing equal opportunity and his background as a product of California public schools.
Bruce Lowe — Begins opposition testimony to ACA 7, identifying himself as a California public schools alumnus.
ACA7 — Referenced as a prior measure the speaker says was rejected after public backlash.
ACA7 — Next item on the agenda is introduced by Summer Jackson.
ACA7 — Introduced as a Black Caucus priority bill to clarify Section 31A of the California Constitution.
ACA7 — Opposed as threatening equal treatment under law.
ACA7 — The witness urges the committee to withdraw the measure.
ACA7 — Opposed as effectively repealing equal treatment protections and conflicting with prior voter decisions.
ACA7 — Opposed as conflicting with civil rights laws and voter preferences.
ACA7 — Referenced again as the measure voters rejected.
ACA7 — The speaker argues against ACA 7, saying it failed last year and would lead to de facto preferential treatment.
ACA7 — The speaker continues opposing ACA 7, arguing it would create de facto preferences in public education and violate federal law and the Constitution.
ACA7 — The speaker says federal law and California voters would not approve ACA 7.
ACA7 — The bill is discussed in terms of its definitions of admissions and enrollment.
ACA7 — The author explains that the bill is intended to ensure Prop 209 is consistent with Supreme Court rulings without changing definitions.
ACA7 — The speaker questions the bill's language changes from 'public education' to a narrower formulation.
ACA7 — The speaker presses the author on whether the bill is limited to higher education enrollment rather than admissions.
ACA7 — The author says the formal definition is still being worked on and the bill is not intended to change current law.
ACA7 — The author says the bill is meant to clarify the law, but the formal definition is still being developed.
ACA7 — A committee member says they are reluctant to support the proposal because the definition is still unresolved.
ACA7 — The speaker argues the bill is not ready because it is still a moving target and lacks a clear definition.
ACA7 — The speaker says ACA 7 would create discriminatory, race-based preferences.
ACA7 — The speaker urges a no vote on ACA 7 because it is not clarified and would be discriminatory.
ACA7 — The speaker says they know the author of the bill and believes he has a caring heart.
ACA7 — The speaker acknowledges the author's intent but rejects repeating past discrimination.
ACA7 — The measure is called for roll call and the motion is to adopt it to the Judiciary Committee.
ACA7 — ACA 7, item 18, is moved to the Judiciary Committee, and the subsequent vote tally is announced, after which the measure is reported out.