Senate Judiciary Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Judiciary Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
If you wish to provide us further information, you can go to our website, and you'll note on our website that there's a portal for you to submit a letter to the committee, using one of the methods described on the judiciary committee's website. So, with that, we are awaiting authors. The what, I'm sorry?
Speaker 1
start as a subcommittee once we have an author. So senator Hurtado's bill is not on consent anymore. Yes. Senator Kabalin, if we could ask
Speaker 1
Alright, Senator Cabalden. File item number two, SB eleven fifty nine, we're going to proceed as a
Speaker 1
a motion at the appropriate time, once the committee establishes a quorum. Senator Cabalden, at your pleasure, SB eleven fifty nine.
Speaker 7
Alright, thank you very much mister chairman members. SB eleven fifty nine is an effort to try to protect both public agencies, more importantly, the citizens of California and their right to engage and petition their government. What we've seen as with the results of the advent of artificial intelligence and other similar technologies is the capability for these systems to flood the zone, to drown local governments and potentially state agencies as well in inauthentic nonhuman engagement. You imagine a city like I represent, several that are less than 10,000 people receiving 20 or 30 or 50,000 public comments on an item maybe two days before the meeting and action has to be taken that week, they can't possibly process that level of of automated feedback. And if they're real human beings, three or four in a town like Yountville or Dixon or in my district, how do you find the three or four real human beings in the forty eight hours you're processing 30,000 automated bot generated comments.
So SB1159 is an attempt to begin to try to tackle that challenge by making it clear that government agencies are not required to treat engagement by AI or a bot as though it were a human being. We've seen this already happen now in Los Angeles at the Regional Air Board. There's an entire platform that exists in The UK called Objector AI for this specific purpose, And there are signs of more of this to come. It's particularly challenging with autonomous AI agents that can then act without even the direct control of their, quote unquote, user in this process. And so SB eleven fifty nine merely declares that for these various public participation and engagement and accountability rules that a bot or AI itself is not the human being.
We have we will continue to have work to do on implementing and scoping the methodologies for detection, and there are both technological and procedural solutions that we are examining and hope to consider in the coming weeks as the bill proceeds out of committee. But that's the essence of the legislation, and it's an important protection for both local governments, but even more importantly for the citizens that are trying to get transparency and get accountability in their government. Right. With that, I'd ask for an aye vote, I'll introduce my witnesses after. It seems like you need to do a quorum, or may may I introduce my witnesses?
Okay.
Speaker 7
Then great. To to testify in support of the bill is Gabriela Facio, the senior policy strategist at the Sierra Club, to be joined by vice mayor Michael Silva from the City Of Vacaville.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Umburg and members of the committee. My name is Gabriela Fascio. I'm a senior policy strategist with Sierra Club California. Sierra Club and our environmental justice partners spent years advocating for clean air standards at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, standards that would reduce smog forming pollution from gas powered furnaces and water heaters, preventing thousands of premature deaths and asthma cases.
We organized the communities, submitted comments, and engaged the process exactly as California's transparency and public participation laws intended. Then that work was wiped out by a consulting firm that used an AI platform to generate over 20,000 comments opposing those standards. The voices of our communities and the years of work behind them were buried under a flood of artificial noise. Similarly, at the Bay Area Air District, a consulting firm used AI to generate false public comments opposing clean air rules, many of which were submitted under real residents' names without their knowledge or consent. These campaigns were coordinated and deliberate.
Someone hired a firm and signed a contract and directed the effort. That is deeply troubling, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Today, autonomous AI agents can be created and deployed by anyone without a consulting firm, without a contract, and without an immediately responsible party. No coordination required, no paper trail, a single bad actor, or no identifiable actor at all can flood a state agency or local government with thousands of AI generated comments, petitions, or public records requests in minutes. If California does not act now while the problem is still identifiable and the perpetrator is still traceable, we risk losing the ability to respond at all.
The integrity of every public participation process in the state, every environmental review, every rule making, every local planning decision is at stake. SB eleven fifty nine draws a clear necessary line. California's public participation laws were written for people. This bill ensures they stay that way. We urge your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Perfect. By the way, in terms of timing, one second. Let us establish a quorum, just that very ephemeral moment when we have a quorum, we don't want to miss that. So, Committee Assistant Porter, could you call the roll, please?
Speaker 4
Nilo here. Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Duraso? Here. Duraso here. Laird?
Here. Laird here. Reyes, Stern, Valadares? Here. Valadares here.
Wahhab. Here. Wahhab here. Weber Pearson.
Speaker 10
Good afternoon, chair Ehrenberg and distinguished committee members. My name is doctor Michael Silva. I'm the vice mayor of the city of Vacaville and a professor of biotechnology at Solano Community College. Let's talk about what this bill means in practice on the ground in cities like mine. When AI generated public records records request arrives at City Hall, our city clerk Michelle has 10 to respond.
Ten days to locate records, involve the city attorney, coordinate across different departments, and deliver a response. That response is essential to maintain public trust and transparency. In the meantime, a small business owner, Sofia, is waiting on a permit and doesn't get a timely callback. Nick, a journalist from the back
Speaker 10
reporter, is asking his own public records act request, and his request is pushed off and delayed. Meanwhile, a mother, Kim, is asking for enhanced crosswalk safety to help make sure that her kids get to school safe. That family did everything right. They believed in the process. They showed up.
Yet the system will fail them if our leaders and I are reviewing over 10,000 AI generated public comments. I don't want our constituents' voices buried by bots. I hear this from local electeds across California. Many of us fear being overwhelmed by AI generated content. How will we make sense of public feedback on city projects if there's no way for us to distinguish between real people's comments from AI generated noise and astroturf campaigns?
We've already seen this with the South Coast and Bay Area districts. That small business owner, that journalist, that mother, each of them deserve to be heard. Each of our constituents deserve to be heard. SB eleven fifty nine makes sure that they are. I respectfully urge this committee to advance SB 59 and help us ensure that we rep that we represent the hardworking people of California and not bots.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Others who wish to testify in support to four eleven excuse me, SB eleven fifty nine, please approach the microphone. Your name, your affiliation, your position.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon. Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon.
Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Nick Romo on behalf of the City Of San Jose and County Of Sacramento in support.
Speaker 7
Eric Lerner on behalf of the California State Association and Counties in support.
Speaker 6
Nico Molina on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Douglas Andreessen on behalf of the California Municipal Clerks Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Karen Lang on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Travis Legault with the rural county representatives of California in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Dave Shukla with the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy in support. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support, please approach the microphone, seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB eleven fifty nine, the time is now for you to come and testify.
If you should so choose an opposition, seeing no one approaching in opposition, let's bring it back to the committee. Committee members, questions, comments? Okay. Senator Wahhab has moved the bill. Questions or comments?
Seeing many. We'll start with Senator D'Araso.
Speaker 2
Hi. I I just wanna get some clarification on hold on. Hold on. Does am I on the right? Yeah.
I'm not sure I'm on the right one since you had the only okay. I did it. It's the second one. Yeah. It's this one.
It's this one. Wait. Wait. Wait. On.
Can somebody Sure.
Speaker 9
Thank you, mister chair. Let me state, first of all, I fully understand the problem and I agree completely with what you're trying to do. I'm trying to get a grasp on how this is gonna make a difference. And I guess it has to do with enforcement, And I'm not seeing anything here with regard to enforcement. Perhaps you can straighten that out.
But the first witness said someone hired a firm. Do they know who the someone is, and do they know who the the firm is? And that kinda gets to the enforcement. And the second witness said there's no way to tell. And if there's no way to tell, then how do you know that that's coming from artificial intelligence.
And if somebody's try just trying to make mischief, which is clearly what's happening, a person could hire a Chinese firm to raid the jurisdiction with artificially intelligence generated garbage, how do we prevent that? If this bill had passed when all of the when those instances happened, how would this bill have cured that?
Speaker 7
Thank you for the question. This is and you're and you're getting at the at the challenge I was describing earlier with respect to detection. But I do wanna first emphasize that there's nothing to enforce in the bill because what the bill says is that it's not the obligation of the agencies to treat that artificial intelligence agent or bot as a human being in the first place. It doesn't impose a burden on the robot or on the AI system or on the Chinese government. Instead, it's just now the so I'll I'll give a couple of examples of what is possible today and then other and another and maybe one about what what know, kind of what's in the work on the on the technical side.
So for example, the the Brown actors in this is in in this list. And and and so if you are, as we've experienced in California already, and if if there are synthetic human beings that is not real people that AI generates a very believable video of and that video keeps that it keeps reappearing but with a different name, or a deep fake of another person that the the that the city clerk is no longer or the county board of supervisors clerk is no longer under the bill required to say, we have we're we're gonna we're we're gonna take the next 7,200 comments, and then we'll move on to the next item. That that that they will be the if the if the agency is if if it's clear that these are not real people, that it doesn't they don't have they don't they have no obligation to those bots under the Brown Act. The Brown Act is for people, not for not for these for these agents. That's more challenging on text than it is on images and video at the moment because we don't have the technology is emerging on deepfakes and synthetic humans.
It's not perfect, but it's emerging. Text is more challenging. Some governments have said, well, can we use AI to take the AI spots that we're getting and try to distinguish or summarize those? That is a potential approach, but you would have to it's still the burden's on the local government. If it is a human being, you must hear them.
So we're trying to work through both the detection protocols, the the standards and the duties of care are with respect to making to assuring that the human beings are the ones that are being heard. There are also technological approaches that are out there. I I wouldn't endorse them at this point, but I know there is one in California that's that's that's launched that's focused on determining humanness detached from identity. So a biometric technology essentially that can say you are a human being without knowing or seeking to know anything about your actual who you are. That could potentially be a long term approach on this as well.
But you are hitting on the work that we still have to do in the legislation which is how will local governments defensively be determined that these 20,000 messages are bot generated and these other 2,000 are part of an organizing effort that's being that's been under by undertaken by the local labor union or the Clean Air Alliance. Right? That that this bill does not in any way diminish mass engagement. In fact, we wanna make sure that that gets heard, but it simply cannot it has to be done by human beings at some point in that chain of command, and we'll be working over the if if the bill proceeds, we'll be working on on the mechanism for that detection protocols for local governments as we along the way.
Speaker 9
I I am gonna support the bill, but basically what you're saying is that the bill authorizes local government not to consider input that comes from a nonhuman, and that's what you're getting at. You know, it's interesting to me. If I'd have read this bill back when I was on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, I would have wondered what you were smoking. But my point is that's how things
Speaker 9
the the development of technology will always outpace the development of defenses against the undesirable effects of technology, and that's what's challenging for here. It it is a horrible, frustrating thing, I know, to see something like this. I get what you're trying to do, and I and I support that. I think it's gonna be difficult.
Speaker 2
Yes. This is more of a very technical question, but since this last session, I spent so much time trying to understand the Brown Act and make changes to the Brown Act. And so forgive me if how I how I ask the question may not make a lot of sense to a lot of people, but I think we've we've raised the issue of doing a separate doing an amendment that is specific and separate for each for each act. In other words, Let's see. Amending the definitions of certain terms used in the Brown Act without amending the Brown Act directly is the technical problem that we identified.
So you're you're amend making one amendment which captures all of all six of the acts, and rather than go through each one individually is the clarity that we think may be missing by doing it as a group versus doing it individually.
Speaker 7
I agree, senator. And I know the committee analysis also points us out. And so we but as you know, from from last year's work, just on that one act of all these many, that it is a nontrivial exercise that we will prove that human beings are capable of. But, yes, we need to make the specific references in each of the acts and not simply rely on the on the single statement that we currently have in the bill.
Speaker 1
And you've accepted the amendments. Okay. And I've heard you with that. Yes. Alright.
Senator Valderas.
Speaker 4
Yes. Thank you. I'm gonna echo the comments of senator Niello as I'm now pronouncing it. And I understand the intent and wholeheartedly support it. I think it's gonna be very challenging and difficult.
And is is there any fear that we're actually creating a liability for local governments and that if their detection fails and they omit an opportunity for a human on text or email to have their comment heard that they they could potentially be violating their first amendment rights?
Speaker 7
go that far, but yes. I mean, to the general point, yes. And so, you know, we need to work as we proceed if we succeed out of this committee on exactly that question of how of, you know, what is the is there a standard, a safe a safe harbor and some other way in which local governments can act can affect because not they don't always arrive as, hello, this is Claude or this is Gruk writing to you on behalf of, you know, Senator Valladares. So and so yes, we do need to that is one of the central questions. One is the detective side, the complementary question is, if you get it right 99% of the time, what happens to the 1%?
What is there any recourse for the human being who was overlooked? We've been talking a lot about the testimony part, but I think the as the Vice Mayor of Vacaville noted, you know, some of these some of these require specific action by the local government. So there's one. It's just, okay, you know, many of you have been, but even if here, if we had 20,000 letters that we had to post on the senate site, like what is that really how do and we lose the real public comment in that mix. But for some of these acts, public records acting a great example, city clerks, was noted, have to respond in a certain time period.
And if you are a bot, it's not difficult to generate a new one every day. And public records act requests are fairly can be very broad, like send me any records that deal with this thing. And then tomorrow the bot sends you another one, another one, another one. So those over time you may determine after the twenty seventh one, this a human being because you've tried to follow-up or that sort of thing. So we think there are cases where it will be useful from the outset, but you're exactly right as a senator, Danilo, that we have some work to do.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Wahhab has moved the bill. Would you like to close, Senator Kabal?
Simply ask for
Speaker 4
This is file item number two, SB1159. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. Umberg?
Speaker 4
Nilo aye. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Duraso?
Duraso aye. Laird? Aye. Laird aye. Reyes?
Reyes, I. Stern? Valadares? I. Valadares, I.
Wahhab? Weber Pearson?
Speaker 1
Seven to zero. All right. We're gonna put that bill on call. Have just one more bill. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon.
Senator Totato. And this is the final bill that we'll hear. Senator Totto, the floor is yours.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister, chair. I'm here to present s b nine three two, a simple but important bill that addresses fairness and accountability in our judicial system. As policymakers, we know that bad actors aren't always, looking to break the system. They're looking for ways around it as well. And, unfortunately, that's exactly what's happening here.
Right now, there's a gap in how civil proceeding filings are structured. The current structure allows individuals to hide behind layers of paperwork and entities, making it difficult to see who is actually benefiting from a financial recovery. Civil proceeding claims are being done through shell companies, sometimes set up in states that don't require ownership transparency. On paper, everything looks clean, but but in reality, it allows people to collect money while avoiding the obligations they legally owe, essentially hiding assets from our judicial system. And that's the part that concerns me the most, Whether it's a victim waiting on restitution, a small business trying to recover losses, or even government agencies enforcing the law, those obligations are being sidestepped.
SB nine thirty two is about closing that loophole. It's straightforward and a practical solution. The bill simply requires transparency, making sure that the original real party interest, the person or entity actually benefiting, is clearly identified in the process. At the end of the day, SB nine thirty two is about protecting the integrity of our institutions and making sure accountability isn't optional. With me today is Narese Kaletian, a California attorney and member of the Conference of California Bar Association's co sponsors of the bill.
Thank
Speaker 5
Good afternoon. My name is Narees Kalatian. I'm a delegate to the Conference of California Bar Associations, the CCBA, which is sponsoring this bill. I'm an attorney with thirty six years of experience on the ground and an adjunct associate professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. I'm here not only as the spokesperson for the CCBA, but as an attorney who has seen firsthand how the assignment process can be misused in our courts.
As you know, plaintiffs can sue based on their own rights or rights that have been transferred to them or assigned to them. A plaintiff who doesn't want to be named as a plaintiff in the complaint can transfer that right to a friend or to a shell company. I have seen personally a bankruptcy debtor assign and transfer his rights to his Delaware corporation, make a recovery through that corporation anonymously without his debtors ever finding that out. These arrangements were never intended by law, and they have the effect of, undermining the rights of those the system was designed to protect. Millions of dollars pass through assignments every year, and some of them by individuals who are evading their financial responsibilities towards their victims and their creditors, which as the senator stated, could be public agencies, individuals, and small businesses.
SB nine thirty two is a narrowly drawn bill designed specifically to address one problem involving assignments. It imposes very minor requirements but with colossal benefits. It maintains the definition of a real party in interest, a term of art, which has been defined by the courts over the past decades. A yes vote is a vote for accountability and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Thank you. Perfect timing. Alright. Others in support of SB nine thirty two, please approach the microphone.
Seeing no one approaching, if you wish to provide me too testimony, now is the time. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments, questions? Opposition. Yes. Right.
Opposition. Sorry about that. If you're opposed to SB nine thirty two.
Speaker 1
to see the staffs. Universally, they all yield opposition at the same time. Right.
Speaker 12
Thank you. Will Abrams with the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition. We certainly respect the the effort here, and we certainly know that this is well intended and and really is aimed at a a real need. However, we are very concerned that this, while trying to provide a simple fix to a really complicated issue, may miss the mark. I think when you're talking about simple litigation, when you have one plaintiff and one defendant and maybe a couple real parties in interest, this may be effective at providing a little more transparency.
However, when you look at complex litigation where many wildfire survivors are, really reliant upon, as victims trying to recover, losses, what you find is you have multiple parties with really overlapping interests. So you may have an attorney that's representing one group of plaintiffs that, are going to mean, you know, millions of dollars in in restitution, while representing other parties that may represent, less itution. And they're so they are oftentimes in negotiated settlements sort of having to negotiate on either side. So this isn't providing sort of equitable transparency, and that's really what we would like to see in the bill. We've provided input into that about how we can drive that.
I would also say that part of what also occurs is that we have financial conflicts that occur that aren't disclosed. Many of you are familiar that around wildfire litigation, there's often litigation financing coming from institutional investors into all sorts of different places where it doesn't belong. We feel that when there are parties who are representing multiple interests in a case, it should be required that they provide, those types of disclosures. Certainly, there are Alrighty.
Speaker 12
Yes. Thank you very much. Certainly, are our bar association rules of professional conduct that are on the books. And all we're really saying is that we should take those rules and make sure they're incorporated into Alright. Legislation.
You very much.
Speaker 1
All right. Bringing back committee. Questions by committee members? Comments? Anyone else in opposition?
I'm forgetting my job here. Alright. It's been a while. It has been a while. I'm rusty.
Alright. Senator D'Arrasso has moved the bill. Seeing no questions or comments, Senator D'Arrasso would you like to close?
Speaker 11
Senator Yes, I appreciate the comments from the opposition today. It's music to my ears, really. It really is. It's something that those that know me, I've been working on ensuring that there's improved transparency, that there's improved accountability. There's a lot of problems going on in our state, in our country that are trying to influence and impact and undermine our democratic institutions.
We must do more as a whole to address all these challenges. But it also has been in my experience that even something simple is a challenge in itself to try to pass and get it signed. I think we're living in a time where there is urgency to address all the issues that have been mentioned here today. I think that's going to take a larger conversation to address all of them because it's a lot. So with that, I just respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. It has been moved by Senator D'Araso, committee assistant reporter. Would you please call the roll?
Speaker 4
This is file item number three, SB nine thirty two. The motion is to pass. Umberg?
Speaker 4
Umberg, aye. Nilo? Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby?
Caballero? Gurrasso? Aye. Gurrasso aye. Laird?
Speaker 4
Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern?
Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Wahhab? Aye.
Wahhab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner?
Eight to 0.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Laird has moved the consent calendar. Committee, Mrs. Porter, would you call the roll on the consent calendar?
Speaker 4
Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadares? Aye.
Valadares, aye. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab aye. Weber Pearson aye.
Weber Pearson aye. Weiner? To zero on the consent.
Speaker 1
Eight to zero. We're gonna put that on call as well. We'll wait just a few moments here. I'll announce in just a minute how long we'll wait. Otherwise, thank you very much staff and committee members.
Okay, I'm sorry. Why don't we go ahead and open the roll on is it file item number two? Alright, let's open the roll on file item number two.
Speaker 4
File item number two, SB1159, chair voting aye. Allen, Ashby, Kapayero, Stern, Wahhab, Wahhab, aye, Weiner. 8 to zero.
Speaker 1
80. Okay. We're gonna put that back on call. Thank you. All right, we're back on the record.
At 02:35, for you military folks, that's fourteen thirty five, Committee will reconvene. At that time, we'll open the roll for one last time and then adjourn. Thank you. All right. Committee supporter, if you would open the roll on all three items.
Speaker 4
On the consent calendar, chair voting aye. Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Stern, Weiner.
Speaker 4
File item number two, SB1159, chair voting aye. Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Stern, Weiner?
Speaker 4
File item number three, SB nine thirty two, chair voting aye. Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Stern, Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. 90.
Speaker 1
90. Put that back on call. Thank you very much. Senator Weiner, thank you very much. Alright.
Committee assistant Porter, let's open the roll and call the roll on all three matters, and I'm gonna turn over the gavel to senator Stern.
Speaker 4
On the consent calendar, chair voting aye, Alan Ashby Caballero Sterns. Aye. Stern aye, 10 to zero.
Speaker 4
File item number two SB1159, chair voting aye, Alan Ashby Caballero Stern. Aye. Stern aye, 10 to zero.
Speaker 4
File item number three SB 9 32. Chair voting aye. Alan Ashby Caballero, Stern. Aye. Stern, aye.
10 to zero.
Speaker 1
10 to zero. Put that back on call. Okay. Just for avoidance of doubt, senator Stern, thank you for assuming the chair.
Speaker 4
On the consent calendar, chair voting aye, Alan Ashby Caballero. Caballero aye, 11 to zero. File item number two SB1159, Chair voting I, Allen Ashby Caballero. Caballero I, 11 to zero. File item number 3, SB932.
Chair voting I, Allen Ashby Caballero. Caballero aye. 11 to zero.
Speaker 6
Okay. We'll leave that on call. All right. Our final member? Yes?
Okay. We're gonna open the roll for the, for the bill still on call.
Speaker 4
On the consent calendar, chair voting aye, Allen. Allen I. Ashby? Twelve-zero, all members having voted. Consent calendar
Speaker 4
Consent adopted. Calendar File item number two, SB1159, chair voting aye, Allen. Allen I, Ashby, 12 to zero.
Speaker 4
File item number three, SB93. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen I.
Ashby. 12 to zero. Bills out.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.