For California laws, the buck does really stop at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
While the Legislature approved hundreds of bills before ending its regular session on Aug. 31, Newsom decides whether they become law.
Already he’s signed a contentious package of bills to address retail theft and he agreed to a deal — not written into legislation — to help fund local newsrooms and AI research.
Now the governor has until midnight Sept. 30 to decide on bills passed in the final days, a total of 991; he sometimes waits until right before the deadline to weigh in on contentious ones. And because he controls the fate of legislators’ bills, that could give him leverage during the special session he called on gas prices.
The governor gives a few typical reasons for vetoing bills: He deems them redundant, or calculates that their potential cost threatens to worsen the state’s budget situation. But he also blocks bills because they’re controversial, or opposed by powerful special interests.
Heading into the final few hours, Newsom is vetoing about 19% of those end-of-session bills and nearly 16% of all 1,100 bills passed by the Legislature this year, slightly higher than the 15% for all of last year when he vetoed 156 bills and signed 890, or the similar ratio in 2022, when he blocked some very significant ones. In 2021, he vetoed less than 8%. While the Legislature can override vetoes, it takes a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate and that rarely happens. Governors can also allow bills to become law without their signature, but that doesn’t occur very often, either.
Here are some noteworthy bills being tracked by CalMatters reporters. Bookmark this page for updates.
Signed into law
Stop legacy admissions at private colleges
By Mikhail Zinshteyn
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1780 by Assemblymember Philip Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco, would bar private nonprofit colleges from making admissions decisions based on whether a student has ties to a donor or an alumnus. About a half dozen colleges currently factor legacy or donor ties in their admissions decisions — including Stanford and University of Southern California. The bill would take effect next September. Schools that report that they violated the law would appear on a list published by the Department of Justice. They’ll also be required to publish aggregate data about their newly admitted class, including who were and were not admitted with legacy or donor ties, but not in a way that identifies individual students. Students with legacy or donor ties could still be admitted, just without preferential treatment.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
A coalition of social justice and education groups and wide support from Democrats. Bill backers say the bill could influence other states to ban legacy and donor ties in admissions decisions, something four states so far have already done. They cite concerns that the very wealthy are much more likely to be admitted to highly selective colleges. Also, they underscore the chilling effect that last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to outlaw race-based affirmative action in the U.S. may have on students of color. If a student’s racial identity cannot be a factor in applying for college, why should proximity to wealth and power, their logic goes. The bill can both be a signal to students that college is for them and free up enrollment slots.
WHO IS OPPOSED
In the Legislature, most Republicans opposed or didn’t vote for the bill. The major opponent, though, is the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, the group that represents the state’s 80-plus private nonprofit colleges and universities. The group has “strong reservations” about legislators scrutinizing the admissions and academic practices of private colleges. That’s the kind of oversight that’s typical for public colleges and universities, which receive billions of dollars in direct state support to fund their education missions. Private colleges generally just receive state financial aid dollars for their low-income students. A previous version of the bill would have required colleges that violate the law to repay the amount equal to what they received in student financial aid from the state. That was cut in amendments.
California’s public universities do not consider legacy or donor ties in admissions.
WHY IT MATTERS
So far four states have approved such bans on either public or private institutions. But because California is the most populous state and enrolls more college students than any other, the bill takes on an outsized role in the national conversation about wealth, race and access to college. Bill backers say it will be a necessary corrective to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ban on race-based affirmative action. If that decision may have caused a chill on student desire to apply for college, this bill would send a welcoming signal in response, backers say.
The bill would again cement California as a trendsetter in state policy that takes on national resonance. The state was the first to ban affirmative action at public institutions through a voter-approved proposition in 1996, setting off a wave of similar efforts across multiple states.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 30 that he signed the bill. “In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work,” he said in a statement. “The California Dream shouldn’t be accessible to just a lucky few, which is why we’re opening the door to higher education wide enough for everyone, fairly.”
Stop local voter ID requirements
By Sameea Kamal
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 1174 by Sen. Dave Min, a Democrat from Irvine, would ban local governments from requiring voters to present identification to vote. The bill attempts to push back against a charter provision passed by voters in Huntington Beach that supporters said would prevent voter fraud. Min said “an overwhelming body of evidence proves our elections are safe, secure, and above board.”
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Groups that advocate for voter access such as the League of Women Voters of California, as well as California Environmental Voters and Disability Rights California. Common Cause California said that voter identification is already required when someone registers to vote, and that there are numerous protections in place to prevent voter fraud. The group — and other supporters — say the city’s law would disproportionately impact Latino, Black, young and low-income voters, and would create confusion since it would only apply to the local elections, which might be held at the same time as state and federal elections.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Min’s bill is in response to the city of Huntington Beach’s move to place a measure on the ballot allowing the city to verify voter eligibility through IDs, which 53% of voters passed in March — one of several local initiatives aimed at pushing back against California’s progressive politics.
An attorney for Huntington Beach said the city’s law, which takes effect in 2026, is intended to increase participation in elections, and that the ballot measure represented “the will of the people.” In addition to the city, the bill is also opposed by the conservative-aligned group Election Integrity Project California, and the Greater Bakersfield Republican Assembly. Republicans from other parts of the state, including Riverside-area Assemblymember Bill Essayli, have also opposed the bill
WHY IT MATTERS
This bill is the latest front in an ongoing battle over allegations of voter fraud, which have been rampant since the 2016 election. In April, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed a lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach, alleging that the voter ID requirement is in conflict with state law. The lawsuit is pending.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 29 he signed the bill.
Ban book bans in public libraries
By Alexei Koseff
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1825, by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat, would require public libraries in California to establish a clear policy for choosing books, including a way for community members to voice their objections, but would prohibit banning material because it deals with race or sexuality. It also clarifies that library material can include sexual content that’s not obscene and leaves to the discretion of librarians where to display those books, though they could not prevent minors from checking them out.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Over the past year, politicians in Huntington Beach and Fresno County created review committees for children’s library books to move material with “sexual references” and “gender-identity content” into restricted sections, where it could only be accessed with a parent’s permission. This has raised fears in the LGBTQ community that they are being targeted and their stories suppressed. The California Library Association, civil liberties advocates at ACLU California Action and LGBTQ rights organization Equality California argue that the state must protect diverse perspectives at public libraries amid growing threats of censorship.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Opponents of AB 1825, including the California Family Council, which lobbies for a conservative Christian perspective in policymaking, complain that the measure would undermine their efforts to keep inappropriate reading material out of children’s hands. They contend that book review panels allow communities to set their own standards for age-appropriate material and parents to introduce their kids to controversial topics on their own terms.
WHY IT MATTERS
Public libraries are the latest front in a burgeoning battle between California’s liberal government and more conservative communities across the state. With Democrats so dominant in Sacramento that they can dismiss the cultural grievances animating political discourse in red states, such as election fraud and abortion restrictions, Republicans are turning to local governance to push back against California’s progressive values. The state has moved quickly to shut down these flashes of rebellion through bills such as AB 1825.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 29 he signed the bill.
Require state prisons to provide menstrual products
By Wendy Fry
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1810 by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat from Culver City, would require state prisons to provide incarcerated people with free and ready access to menstrual products without inmates having to request them. Currently, state prisons, local jails and juvenile facilities are required to provide sanitary pads and tampons products only “upon request.” A 2023 report by the attorney general’s office found half of the facilities surveyed were not complying, including 25 county jails that were not providing free period products.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
A coalition of human and prisoner rights advocates, including the ACLU California Action, the San Francisco Public Defender, the Western Center on Law & Poverty and the Legal Services for Prisoners With Children organizations. Bryan said there were documented cases of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officers withholding sanitary products as retaliation or punishment. Alissa Moore, the re-entry coordinator for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, testified at a hearing on the bill that she was sexually assaulted several times during her 25 years in prison: “I often felt humiliated, and ashamed and embarrassed when I would have to, on occasion, ask the same staff that had victimized me for sanitary supplies.” The bill passed the Senate and Assembly without any “no” votes.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The California Family Council voiced opposition to the bill, arguing that the legislation does not clearly identify a person who menstruates as a woman. Some correctional officers have said male inmates sometimes ask for pads to make cushions for seats or for their sandals. State mandates that cost money for local jurisdictions, like county jails and juvenile detention facilities, are usually reimbursed by the state. According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill does not have significant costs.
WHY IT MATTERS
There are more than 3,700 women in state prisons, plus more than 9,800 in county jails. Formerly incarcerated people have described being humiliated by having to ask for personal hygiene products. Advocates say it can lead to unsafe and unsanitary conditions and lead to an imbalance of power between correctional officers and inmates.
California is reckoning with how it treats its prisoners. Proposition 6 is asking voters whether to change the state constitution to expressly ban involuntary servitude so that inmates in California jails and prisons can no longer be compelled to work and punished with solitary confinement or the loss of privileges for declining jobs, most of which pay less than $1 an hour.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 29 he signed the bill.
Protect maternity wards from closures
By Kristen Hwang
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
Two bills on the governor’s desk aim to improve transparency when a hospital plans to shut down its maternity ward and help state agencies understand the ripple effects of growing labor and delivery “deserts.”
If a hospital plans to close labor and delivery or inpatient psychiatric services, SB 1300 by Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat from Campbell, would require public notification four months in advance. The hospital would also need to hold a public hearing with its county board of supervisors and report why it is eliminating services and how its patients may be affected.
AB 1895 by Assemblymember Akilah Weber, a Democrat from La Mesa, would require hospitals to notify state regulators, including the Department of Public Health, of challenges keeping maternity services open. Regulators would be required to assess how service cuts would affect the community and identify the next closest hospitals with operating labor and delivery wards.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
Cortese’s proposal is co-sponsored by the National Alliance on Mental Illness and supported by a number of behavioral health associations and consumer advocates. Supporters of Weber’s measure include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District IX, the California Nurse-Midwives Association, and Reproductive Freedom for All California, which all co-sponsored the legislation.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The California Hospital Association had opposed Cortese’s measure, arguing that it does not address the underlying financial and staffing challenges many hospitals are struggling with, and may make it more difficult to keep services running. The association dropped its opposition on Aug. 28, after an amendment decreased how much information hospitals would be required to report.
Weber’s bill is unopposed.
WHY IT MATTERS
Maternity wards are closing in California at an unprecedented rate. More than 50 hospitals have closed or reduced labor and delivery services in the past decade with at least eight more closures planned this year, according to an ongoing CalMatters investigation. In addition, birth centers, which can handle low-risk pregnancies, are also shutting down rapidly.
CalMatters reporting has revealed that these losses disproportionately impact low-income and Latino communities.
GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 28 he had signed SB 1300.
Allow more outdoor alcohol and cannabis sales
By Jenna Peterson
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
SB 969 would let local governments create “entertainment zones,” where bars and restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages that people can drink on public streets and sidewalks. Starting Jan. 1, cities could tailor these zones to fit their needs.
AB 1775 would legalize cannabis cafes in California. Cannabis lounges already exist in some places, but they’re limited to selling prepackaged food and drinks.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and author of SB 969, says the bill would help boost local businesses and “make our cities more fun!” Currently, cities can designate open-container zones for events such as festivals and parades, but they’re only applicable to outside vendors. The city of San Jose, the California Nightlife Association, and the city and county of San Francisco are sponsors of the bill.
AB 1775’s author, Assemblymember Matt Haney, also a San Francisco Democrat, says the bill is necessary to support small cannabis businesses. He’s compared California’s cannabis culture to Amsterdam’s, which has well-known cannabis cafes that have been legal for decades. Many cannabis organizations are supporters of the bill.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Recorded opponents — which include the California Alcohol Policy Alliance, Alcohol Justice, California Council on Alcohol Problems and Citizens for a Better Los Angeles — say the bill could harm mixed-use neighborhoods and contribute to rising alcohol mortality rates and drunk driving accidents.
The American Heart and Lung Associations and other health-focused organizations oppose AB 1775 because cannabis contains particulate matter, which can cause cardiovascular disease and lung infections. They also say that secondhand cannabis smoke can be harmful to workers at cannabis cafes.
WHY IT MATTERS
Many California cities have yet to see foot traffic recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year, a University of Toronto study tracked cell phone activity to determine how many downtown visitors cities have recovered. While San Jose was at 96% as of October, Los Angeles was at 83%, San Francisco at 67% and Sacramento at 66%. Wiener pushed through a similar bill last year, but it was limited to San Francisco. Cannabis cafes could also contribute to post-pandemic recovery of foot traffic.
GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 28 he signed SB 969. “Getting people out in the streets to enjoy themselves is critical for communities across our state to bounce back from the pandemic,” Wiener said in a statement. “I’m thrilled to see the program’s massive success in San Francisco expand across the state.”
Declare three more state symbols
By Jenna Peterson
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
AB 2504 would designate the shell of the black abalone — an endangered marine snail — as California’s official state seashell. AB 1797 would name the Dungeness crab the state crustacean. And AB 1850 would recognize the banana slug as the state slug. These would be the latest additions to the state’s 44 official symbols.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
The shell bill was authored by Assemblymember Diane Dixon, a Republican from Newport Beach who notes that the black abalone has an important history to Native American tribes in Southern California, who have used the shell for trading and ceremony regalia and eaten the snail for thousands of years. The crab measure was authored by Assemblymember Jim Wood, a Ukiah Democrat. And the slug bill came from Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat. All three bills won overwhelming support in the Legislature.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no recorded opposition from advocacy groups to any of the three bills. Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale, was the lone vote against the slug bill, but “in good fun.”
WHY IT MATTERS
The National Marine Fisheries Service designated the black abalone as an endangered species in 2009, as it faces environmental threats such as overfishing, disease and natural disasters. Lawmakers hope the designation will help Californians be more aware of those dangers. The Dungeness crab was chosen because of its positive impact on the commercial fishing industry and coastal economies. Pellerin chose the banana slug not only because it’s the mascot of University of California, Santa Cruz, but it also symbolizes California’s biological diversity.
GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅
The governor signed all three bills on Sept. 27. “California has some of the most biodiverse environments in the world — with over 5,500 plants, animals, and other life forms. From the majestic California redwood down to the delicate California quail, every organism matters here — and it’s time we celebrated our less cuddly friends before they get too crabby,” he said in a statement. “The Dungeness crab, the banana slug, and the black abalone each bring much to our state and are well deserving of this recognition.”
Add folic acid to tortillas
By Ana B. Ibarra
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1830 by Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula sets out to help make pregnancies healthier by requiring that manufacturers of corn masa add folic acid to their products starting in 2026. Corn masa is used to make tortillas, corn chips and other foods. The federal government already requires folic acid in enriched grain products, including cereals, breads, pasta and rice because of its known effectiveness in helping prevent birth defects.
Specifically, the bill requires 0.7 milligrams of folic acid in every pound of masa flour. That addition must be reflected in the nutrition label. Through the legislative process, the bill was amended to make exemptions for small businesses and restaurants, which often make their own corn masa and tortillas.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, March of Dimes and a number of organizations that advocate for kids’ health.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no registered opposition on file.
WHY IT MATTERS
Arambula said this bill will help address disparities in who gets the necessary amount of folic acid. State public health data show that Latinas are less likely to take folic acid in the early weeks of pregnancy or before becoming pregnant when compared to other racial or ethnic groups. This puts them at higher risk of having children born with birth defects of the brain and spinal cord, most commonly spina bifida and anencephaly. Research shows that folic acid can help prevent birth defects by as much as 70%.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 28.
Shine a light on teen treatment
By Lynn La
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
The bipartisan SB 1043 seeks to bring greater transparency to the treatment of children and young adults living in state-licensed facilities — specifically short-term residential therapeutic programs. The bill would expand reporting requirements over the facilities’ use of restraints and seclusion rooms.
Following an incident that involves restraining a child (or youth up to 21 years old) or putting a youth in a seclusion room, the facility would be required to provide a report to both the youth and to their parent, guardian or other representative. The report would include a description of the incident and various other information, and a copy would be provided to the California Department of Social Services. The department would be required to review reported incidents for any health, safety and licensing violations and investigate the incident if needed. The department must also make data about these incidents publicly available on its website by Jan. 1, 2026.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Led by Sen. Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican, the measure has several Democratic and Republican co-authors. But the bill’s most recognizable and famous supporter is Paris Hilton, the hotel heiress, socialite and media personality. As a teenager, Hilton experienced physical and emotional abuse at youth treatment centers in California, Utah and Montana. This has led to her personal crusade against institutional abuse in the “troubled teen industry.” Hilton’s nonprofit, 11:11 Media Impact, is a co-sponsor of the bill. Disability Rights California and Children’s Law Center of California also support the proposal.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no formal opposition registered and no lawmakers have voted against the bill, though some legislators did not vote.
WHY IT MATTERS
In 2021, after reports of rampant abuse, California passed a law prohibiting the practice of sending troubled youth, including foster children, to out-of-state, for-profit treatment centers. As an alternative, youths can be sent to short-term therapeutic facilities licensed by the state’s social services department. Two years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law to fund crisis residential treatment facilities for children on Medi-Cal. The bill seeks to bring more transparency and accountability to the 355 facilities operating in California. It would also provide parents or guardians, who may have to make the difficult decision of sending their children to one of these facilities, information about any potential misuse of restraints and seclusion rooms.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 27. “Children and teens — especially those in the care of the foster system — should never be subjected to improper use of restraints, or isolation while they are meant to be receiving treatment,” he said in a statement. “I am proud to sign legislation today to help protect our youth against such harmful tactics, and I’m grateful to Paris Hilton for using her voice to ensure that no child suffers like she did.”
Give doxxing victims the right to sue
By Jenna Peterson
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1979 would allow victims of doxxing — when someone shares identifying information online about someone else with the intent to harm them — to sue their attackers in civil court for damages of as much as $30,000.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat, and Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Davis Democrat, co-authored the bill. AB 1979 has support from many LGBTQ+ rights organizations, as members of the LGBTQ+ community are disproportionately targets of doxxing. A number of Jewish rights organizations announced their support for the bill earlier this month, and the Anti-Defamation League is a co-sponsor.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no recorded opposition to AB 1979. Newport Beach Republican Diane Dixon was the sole “no” vote in the Assembly, and told CalMatters she generally opposes bills that create a private right to action because they clog up the court system. The bill also received five “no” votes in the Senate.
WHY IT MATTERS
It’s difficult to obtain evidence for doxxing, so the crime isn’t prosecuted often. For example, only one doxxing case was filed in Sacramento County in the last five years. According to a 2024 Anti-Defamation League Report, 45% of transgender respondents said they had experienced severe online harassment in the last year, and LGBTQ+ advocates say harassment is worsening as anti-trans legislation rises across the country.
Doxxing has also played a role in recent Gaza war demonstrations, with many protesters wearing face coverings in fear of being identified and facing online harassment.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 25 he had signed the bill.
Exclude medical debt from credit reports
By Ana B. Ibarra
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 1061 by Sen. Monique Limón would remove medical debt from credit reports and prohibit debt collectors from reporting patients’ medical debt information to credit agencies. This pertains specifically to debt owed to a medical provider, such as a hospital or a doctor’s office, and not medical debt charged to credit cards.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill is backed by Attorney General Rob Bonta, the California Nurses Association and a number of consumer advocacy organizations.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The bill was originally opposed by a coalition of bankers and creditors that pushed back on the bill’s definition of “medical debt” because it included medical credit cards, which are often offered at doctors’ and dentists’ offices as a way to pay for a procedure, but also can be used to pay for elective services, fitness programs and even veterinary services. That kind of debt, these groups argued, should not be hidden from lenders. The coalition removed its opposition once the bill redefined medical debt to that owed directly to providers.
WHY IT MATTERS
About 4 in 10 Californians report carrying some type of medical debt, according to the California Health Care Foundation. Medical debt can significantly weigh down credit scores and hurt consumers’ chances at securing a rental, a mortgage or car loan.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 24 he signed the bill, along with other consumer bills. “Nobody wants to get ripped off, whether it’s a small subscription fee that’s seemingly impossible to cancel or massive medical debts which force families into financial ruin.”
Give tenants more time to respond before eviction
By Ben Christopher
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 2347 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat, would give tenants 10 business days to respond to an eviction notice, doubling the current deadline of five business days. If a tenant doesn’t respond within that time frame, they automatically lose their eviction case.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Legal aid organizations that represent low-income tenants are the main backers of the bill. They’re joined by affordable housing advocates, the California Democratic Party and the city of San Jose. Supporters argue that tenants being threatened with eviction may also be struggling financially, not have access to legal representation, not speak English as a first language, or fail to understand the significance of the landlord’s eviction notice. Five court calendar days, they say, is simply not enough time to respond.
Researchers have found that tenants lose 40% or more of their eviction cases in California by default — either because they failed to respond on time or filed the application incorrectly.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Landlords. It often takes months between when an eviction notice is filed and when an owner can reclaim their property from a tenant. Extending that process even further means higher costs for those in the rental industry and, landlord lobbying groups warn, higher rents.
WHY IT MATTERS
California has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the county. California already has laws on the books that restrict how and when landlords can boot tenants from their rental properties, but this bill would give tenants more legal leverage to make use of those protections. Supporters hope that will keep more Californians from becoming unhoused in the first place.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 24 he signed the bill, among other consumer protection proposals.
Ban more plastic bags
By Jenna Peterson
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 1053 would ban all plastic grocery bags in California, so customers would have to use paper or reusable bags, effective Jan. 1, 2026. Voters approved a similar ban in 2016, but a loophole allowed for plastic bags that are thick enough to reuse.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill was authored by state Sens. Ben Allen and Catherine Blakespear, Democrats from El Segundo and Encinitas, respectively. They wrote the bill to raise awareness of the current law’s contribution to plastic pollution. More than 70 environmental organizations — including the Center for Environmental Health, Climate Action California and California Environmental Voters — support the bills because they would prevent plastic waste, which releases toxic chemicals into the air, water and soil.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Opposition includes the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance, which says that according to a survey they conducted, 60% of Californians are reusing plastic bags from the grocery store. They also say that many reusable bags have a more negative impact on the environment than the currently legal plastic bags.
WHY IT MATTERS
Plastic waste contributes to 3.4% of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to a CalRecycle report, plastic grocery bags made up more than 231,000 tons of California waste in 2021. When plastic enters a landfill, it breaks down into microplastics, which can seep into soil and contaminate groundwater.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 22 he signed the bill.
Make key changes in campaign laws
By Sameea Kamal
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
AB 1784 by Democratic Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin and Wendy Carrillo would stop candidates from seeking multiple offices, by clarifying state law to prevent candidates from filing papers for more than one office in a primary election. It also allows people to withdraw their candidacy until the filing deadline, which they currently can’t do. The bill does not apply to candidates for statewide office, and clarifies that withdrawal is final.
AB 2041 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta would make it easier for candidates to use campaign cash for their own security. Under current law, threats have to be verified by law enforcement. This bill would lift that requirement and allow spending on home or office security systems and other expenses (but not firearms) due to threats tied to official duties. The bill would allow politicians to protect their families and staff, and spend as much as $10,000 on security expenses over their careers.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
AB 1784 is supported by Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and California’s League of Women Voters, which said that having someone on the ballot twice can confuse voters and undermine confidence in elections. It could also lead to costly special elections if a candidate wins both contests, the group said.
Supporters of AB 2041 include the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, as well as the League of California Cities. The bill’s supporters in the Legislature tell of increasing threats and harassment over controversial bills. They also point out that female candidates and officials are often the targets of threats. “Stalking and harassment have become all too common in today’s politics, especially for candidates who are female, LGBTQ+, and candidates of color,” Bonta said in a statement after her bill passed on the final night of session.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no registered opposition on file to either bill.
WHY IT MATTERS
AB 1784 seeks to address the very specific debacle that resulted from Assemblymember Vince Fong putting his hat in the ring after Rep. Kevin McCarthy stepped down from Congress. Fong was already on the primary ballot to run for re-election in his Assembly district, so the Secretary of State tried to stop him from running for a second office. Fong sued, and won. Authors of the bill want to clarify for future elections that dual candidacies are prohibited.
Gov. Newsom vetoed a similar bill to AB 2041 last year, saying it lacked clear definitions of security expenses and could lead to unintended uses of political donations. But supporters say the bill language has been tightened up to only allow spending for reasonable costs. If Newsom signs this bill, it would take effect immediately, so candidates could take advantage during the fall campaign.
GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅
Newsom announced Sept. 22 that he signed AB 1784 and AB 2041.
End single-family zoning, redux
By Ben Christopher
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 450 by San Diego Democratic Sen. Toni Atkins is aimed at “fixing” one of the most controversial state housing laws in recent memory.
In 2021, Gov. Newsom signed another Atkins bill that allows California homeowners to divide their properties into as many as four separate units. That law was both lauded and condemned at the time as the “end of single family zoning” as we know it. In practice, it did no such thing. Few homeowners made use of the law. This bill is aimed at making that law more user friendly, by requiring local governments to approve applications quickly and preventing them from saddling duplex-ification proposals with extra requirements.
The bill also includes language promoting it as a statewide solution to California’s “severe shortage of housing.” That’s meant to address a court ruling from earlier this year that exempted charter cities from the 2021 law.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Builders, landlords and “Yes in my Backyard” activists. For years, pro-density and development advocates have argued that zoning restrictions that keep apartment complexes, townhouses and multiplexes out of certain neighborhoods makes it harder for the state to build its way out of the current housing shortage and exacerbates economic and racial exclusion.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County and local governments in San Mateo opposed the bill, arguing that it chips away local authority over land use and puts an added burden on city planners. Though this year’s effort generated less attention, the original bill in 2021 saw enormous opposition from local governments, suburban neighborhood associations, anti-density advocates and some progressive political advocacy groups.
WHY IT MATTERS
“Ending single family zoning” has long been the holy grail of YIMBY advocates and pro-equity groups. The 2021 law was a symbolically important crack at statewide zoning reform, but its impact was limited. This year’s bill is another effort to make that vision of a denser California a reality — and to see whether achieving the goal will also make the state more affordable.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 19.
Speed up ‘tiny homes’ for homeless people
By Marisa Kendall
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 1395 by Sen. Josh Becker, a Democrat from Menlo Park, would make it easier for cities and counties to quickly set up tiny homes for their homeless residents.
How? Traditional homeless shelters already are exempt from some of the red tape that often slows down housing construction, including the California Environmental Quality Act. Becker’s bill would expand that to include shelters that are “non-congregate and relocatable.” In other words: tiny homes. The bill also would extend cities’ ability to streamline the construction of homeless shelters, which now is set to expire in 2027.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill’s co-sponsors include San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan (whose city has embraced tiny homes as solution to homelessness), DignityMoves (a nonprofit that helps build tiny homes villages), the Bay Area Council, and SPUR (a nonprofit public policy organization focused on housing and transportation).
WHO IS OPPOSED
SB 1395 has no registered opposition. But that wasn’t the case last session, when a similar version introduced by Becker died following opposition from prominent groups that included the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Western Center on Law & Poverty and the Corporation for Supportive Housing. They complained the bill characterized tiny homes as permanent housing. In reality, they said, tiny homes’ substandard construction (many lack kitchens and bathrooms) means they should be used as temporary shelters only. The new version of the bill specifies that tiny homes are temporary shelters.
WHY IT MATTERS
As homeless encampments continue to grow, the state and many cities are doubling down on tiny homes as a quick way to get people off the streets. San Jose has more than 500, and there are 2,000 statewide, according to DignityMoves. Newsom last year promised 1,200 tiny homes to four communities in California, though that project ran into some snags.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅
Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 19.
Protect voters from AI
By Khari Johnson
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
Lawmakers passed three bills intended to protect voters from deepfakes — deceptive forms of audio, images and video generated by artificial intelligence.
AB 2839 by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democrat from Santa Cruz, goes after individuals who create or publish deceptive content made with AI. The bill allows a judge to order an injunction requiring them to either take down the content or pay damages. AB 2655 by Assemblymember Marc Berman, a Democrat from Palo Alto, requires large online platforms such as Facebook to remove or label deepfakes within 72 hours of a user reporting it. And AB 2355 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, a Democrat from Los Angeles, requires political campaigns to disclose use of AI in advertising.
To comply with the First Amendment, the deepfake bills only affect content that is intended to deceive. Ones that are considered comedy or parody aren’t covered.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
AB 2839 and AB 2655 were sponsored by California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a branch of the nonpartisan nonprofit Common Cause. Attorney General Rob Bonta also supports AB 2839, which would go into effect immediately if signed into law and would apply 120 days before and 60 days after the Nov. 5 election.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a range of book publishers groups opposed AB 2839 due to concerns the bill may violate free speech rights. Business and internet organizations are also against AB 2655. Only the foundation is listed as an opponent to AB 2355.
WHY IT MATTERS
Deepfakes became a flashpoint earlier this summer when X CEO Elon Musk circulated a fake campaign ad that mimicked the voice of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Gov. Gavin Newsom said the ad made by Musk should be illegal; Musk retorted that it was parody and thus protected speech. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump posted a generated image of his political opponents in prison jumpsuits, although the platform he posted it to, Truth Social, is too small to be regulated by AB 2655.
The AI disclosure bills come amid concern about the accuracy of AI-generated content. According to a study released in February, more than half of answers from AI models such as Google’s Gemini, Mixtral, and Meta’s Llama-2 were labeled inaccurate. Still, the bills would not stop AI-generated disinformation, but just make users be more aware.
GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅
Newsom signed all three bills on Sept. 17. “Safeguarding the integrity of elections is essential to democracy, and it’s critical that we ensure AI is not deployed to undermine the public’s trust through disinformation — especially in today’s fraught political climate,” he said in a statement. “These measures will help to combat the harmful use of deepfakes in political ads and other content, one of several areas in which the state is being proactive to foster transparent and trustworthy AI.”
Mixed decision
Advance reparations proposals
By Wendy Fry
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
Lawmakers shelved two critical pieces of reparations legislation in the final hours of the session, but sent 10 other reparations bills to the governor’s desk. The California Legislative Black Caucus announced 14 priority reparations bills in January based on recommendations made last year by a first-in-the-nation reparations task force. The most significant bill, AB 3089, authored by Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat from Los Angeles and task force member, would require a formal apology from the state for “perpetuating the harms African Americans faced” from racial prejudice and unequal distribution of state and federal funding.
Also approved: SB 1050, by Sen. Steven Bradford, a Democrat from Gardena, aimed at returning property or the financial equivalent to people who had their land taken by racially-motivated eminent domain; AB 1986, to increase oversight on book bans in prisons; and SB 1089 to require grocery stores and pharmacies to notify employees before closing.
Another bill, AB 1815 by Assemblymember Akilah Weber, a Democrat from San Diego, would expand a 2019 law, barring hair discrimination in competitive sports.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
The California Legislative Black Caucus and other members of the California Reparations Task Force who do not serve in the Legislature support most of the bills. Also backing the legislation are a slew of social and racial justice advocates and organizations such as the Black Equity Collective, the California Black Power Network, the ACLU and others.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Organizations generally did not register official opposition. Some Republicans abstained from voting. Many argue that because California was not a “slave state,” it is not responsible for making amends.
WHY IT MATTERS
California is the first state in the nation to grapple with the complexities of reparations — an effort that has sparked controversy among advocates and opponents alike. The most significant ongoing debate is whether reparations should be for all Black residents or just those who can prove they are the descendants of African Americans enslaved in the United States. Most of the bills before Newsom are more broadly tailored for overall racial equity, not aimed at a specific remedy for a specific harm. So far, California lawmakers have not pushed for cash payments.
Black lawmakers say this session is only a first step in building a foundation for future reparations measures. The Legislature also placed a measure on the November ballot asking voters to amend the California constitution to delete language that allows involuntary servitude as a form of punishment for crimes.
What California does could ripple into the presidential elections, with Republicans claiming Democrats made false promises to Black Californians about supporting reparations. Vice President Kamala Harris has only publicly supported studying the issue, but she’s close friends and political allies with Amos Brown, a task force member who was one of the strongest advocates for lineage-based reparations and direct compensation.
GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅
Newsom announced on Sept. 25 his veto of SB 1050, saying it couldn’t be put into effect. “I thank the author for his commitment to redressing past racial injustices,” he said in his veto message. “However, this bill tasks a nonexistent state agency to carry out its various provisions and requirements, making it impossible to implement.”
But on Sept. 26, Newsom signed AB 1815, AB 1986, SB 1089 and, most significantly, SB 3089, the formal apology for slavery. “The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities,” the governor said in a statement. “Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past — and making amends for the harms caused.”
Vetoed
Limit empty beds in state prisons
By Nigel Duara
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 2178 by Assemblymember Phil Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco, would cap the number of empty beds at all California prisons at 11,300 by the summer of 2026. It would require further cuts each year until reaching the state’s minimum capacity requirement of 2,500 empty beds. That likely means closing prisons.
The measure is meant to reduce spending on prisons, which house about 65,000 fewer inmates today than they held in 2011. Despite the falling inmate population, California is expected to spend $18 billion on state prisons over the next year, an annual budget of $3 billion more than at the start of the Newsom administration in 2019.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
A wide variety of public defense and civil rights organizations support Ting’s bill. They include the ACLU of Northern California, the California Public Defenders Association and a prison advocacy group called Californians United for a Responsible Budget. The California Nurses Association also backs the proposal.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The bill is opposed by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the union for prison guards, which said that tightening capacity limits will mean tighter quarters that pose more danger to guards. It’s also opposed by the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, a smaller union that represents mental health workers in state prisons and state hospitals.
WHY IT MATTERS
California prisons have an empty bed problem. The prison system, which was once so crowded that inmates slept in hallways and day rooms, has cut down on its population over the last decade under federal court orders. The result is that the prison system now has too many empty beds, at least 13,000 in January. By 2028, the prison system is anticipated to have 19,000 empty beds, about one-fifth of the system’s total capacity.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has moved to close four prisons, a reduction that his administration says will save about $3.4 billion by 2027. A recent report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office says the system can afford to close five more, which would save an additional $1 billion a year.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌
Newsom announced Sept. 29 that he vetoed the bill, saying that he “fundamentally disagreed” with the approach: “We must leave the practice of warehousing incarcerated people in the past and instead focus on a future that provides humane and dignified housing that facilitates rehabilitation. Codifying this prescriptive approach to ‘empty beds’ will undermine this effort.”
Allow tribes to sue cardrooms
By Ryan Sabalow
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 549 would allow tribal governments to sue their business competitors — private card rooms — over the tribes’ longstanding contention that these private gambling halls are illegally offering table games including blackjack and pai gow poker. Tribes say California voters gave them the exclusive rights to host the disputed table games. But because they’re sovereign governments, the tribes lack legal standing to sue.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Tribes including those operating the state’s 70 tribal casinos support the measure. The bill has several bipartisan coauthors, many of whom have large casinos in their districts. The tribes contend the card rooms’ games have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from historically disenfranchised tribal communities across California. They’ve spent millions of dollars on lobbying and political donations for this bill, as well as a failed sport-betting ballot initiative two years ago that included a similar provision.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Opposing the bill are the state’s 80 or so privately-owned gambling halls, as well as several California cities and the municipalities’ employee unions. Card rooms, which embarked on a massive lobbying blitz this year, say their games are not illegal and that the attorney general’s office has approved each of them. They argue that if the tribes are allowed to sue, the card clubs wouldn’t be allowed to sue tribes back, and they could go out of business from the ensuing legal fees. Card rooms’ annual earnings are barely 10% of what tribal governments make, and the tribes have outspent the card rooms in this fight three to one.
WHY IT MATTERS
Cities, including San Jose, argue that if the card rooms stop offering the disputed table games, it could force the municipalities to cut police, fire and other city services because their budgets are propped up by the taxes and fees that the card rooms pay local governments. Tribes say passing the bill would go a long way toward California making amends for the atrocities the state committed on native peoples.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌
Newsom announced Sept. 28 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said while prescription drug prices are too high and there needs to be more transparency, “I am not convinced that SB 966’s expansive licensing scheme will achieve such results.” Instead, he said he’s directing the California Health and Human Services Agency to “propose a legislative approach to gather much needed data on PBMs next year.”
Restrict private equity in healthcare
By Kristen Hwang
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 3129 by Assemblymember Jim Wood, a Democrat from Ukiah, would authorize the attorney general to approve or reject private equity takeovers of most medical businesses, such as doctors offices, outpatient clinics and surgery centers. The attorney general already regulates nonprofit hospital mergers and is able to stipulate conditions intended to protect patient access and cost, such as preventing facilities from eliminating certain services. This would grant similar review powers over transactions in private industry. It exempts for-profit and government-run hospitals.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The measure has been hotly contested in the Legislature. Supporters include consumer health advocates, the state doctors’ lobby, and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who sponsored the legislation. They warn that private equity buyouts in health care drive increased consolidation and higher prices while diminishing patient access.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The state hospital lobby and a coalition of investor groups and dental practices oppose the bill. The coalition, Californians to Protect Community Health Care, spent more than $500,000 lobbying against the measure in the most recent quarter, according to state financial reporting records. They argue that the measure will stifle much-needed investment in health care, leading to service cuts and hospital closures.
WHY IT MATTERS
Private equity investment in health care has drawn scrutiny nationwide. The investment firms tend to finance the purchase of hospitals, doctors offices and the like with borrowed money, saddling them with debt before exiting and selling the properties.
In California, between 2005 and 2021, private equity deals in health care grew from $1 billion to $20 billion annually, according to a recent policy paper from the California Health Care Foundation.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌
Newsom announced Sept. 28 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Newsom said the existing state Office of Health Care Affordability can review such mergers and acquisitions, and while it “cannot block a proposed transaction, it can coordinate with other state entities, including referring transactions for further review” to the attorney general’s office.
Make it easier for farmworkers to file heat illness claims
By Jeanne Kuang
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Authored by Sen. Dave Cortese, a Campbell Democrat, SB 1299 would make it easier for farmworkers to make a workers’ compensation claim for heat illness. Under the current system a worker can get covered for any workplace injury — whether it’s their employer’s fault or not — if they can prove the injury was connected to the job. Benefits include payments for medical care, lost wages or death benefits for the family. For certain injuries in certain industries, workers claiming benefits get a “presumption” (legalese for a fast-track to approval) that their injury was work-related — firefighters who develop cancer, for example, because of how often they are exposed to carcinogens in burning buildings. The bill gives a similar, though narrower, presumption to farmworkers claiming heat illness by allowing them to more easily link the injury to their job, specifically in cases in which the employer was not following state safety rules for those who work outside in the heat.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill is sponsored by the United Farm Workers and has support from labor groups and attorneys who represent injured workers in workers’ compensation claims. The United Farm Workers say the bill can put financial pressure on employers to comply with the heat rules, in the absence of more robust state enforcement.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Farming groups oppose the bill, as well as workers’ compensation insurance carriers and broader business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce. Business groups say the bill unfairly mixes workplace safety regulations with workers’ compensation insurance rules, and worry it could put employers on the hook for heat cases that are not work-related.
WHY IT MATTERS
Heat waves in California are growing longer and more intense, but workers’ advocates say many employers still do not follow the state’s nearly two-decade-old outdoor work heat rules that require growers, farm labor contractors, construction site supervisors and others to provide shade, breaks and water and to monitor their workers for heat illness. The challenge is compounded by an understaffed state workplace safety agency; CalMatters reported in August that the agency’s enforcement of heat rules has declined significantly since 2019 despite the increasing risks of extreme heat.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌
Newsom announced Sept. 28 he had vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he wrote the enforcement of heat safety rules should be done only by the state’s workplace safety agency, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) and not be determined by the workers’ compensation system.
Expedite gender-affirming care licenses
By Jenna Peterson
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 2442, authored by Los Angeles Democrat Rick Chavez Zbur, would speed up the licensure process for gender-affirming healthcare providers. The bill does not change the requirements to get a license; rather it prioritizes applicants who intend to practice gender-affirming healthcare or gender-affirming mental health care. As part of a package of new laws on abortion access, the legislature passed a similar law in 2022 to expedite licenses for abortion service providers after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. AB 2442 has a sunset clause, so the legislature would reevaluate the need for the bill in four years.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and Equality California are sponsors of the bill, which also has support from organizations that support LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive justice and healthcare access.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The California Family Council, Our Duty Democrat, Protect Kids Initiative and Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids Advocacy are recorded opponents of AB 2442. The latter group says that other providers should also get expedited licensing, and that the bill could hurt other areas of medicine. Instead, they want to add more staff to the Department of Consumer Affairs so that all medical providers can get licensed more efficiently. The other organizations have concerns about the safety of children undergoing gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy before their brains fully develop, saying it could harm mental health and lead to infertility.
WHY IT MATTERS
Twenty-six states have passed laws that ban gender-affirming care. In a 2022 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality, 47% of transgender respondents said they had considered moving to another state because of these laws. In California, patients seeking gender-affirming care at Stanford Medical Center often have to wait six to eight months to get an appointment. Supporters say AB 2442 would allow California to keep up with the demand from out-of-state patients while continuing to support in-state patients. In 2022, California passed a law protecting those receiving or providing such treatment from prosecution by other states.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌
Newsom announced Sept. 27 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said too many accelerated licenses could be unfair to other applicants and “the increase in staff needed to ensure expedited applications may lead to licensing fee increases.”
Test AI for critical harm to society
By Khari Johnson
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 1047 by Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, requires the makers of advanced artificial intelligence models to test their likelihood to cause critical harm to society. The bill also protects the rights of whistleblowers to raise concerns to the attorney general. The bill attempts to codify, oversee, and enforce safety testing similar to what major companies voluntarily agreed to in deals with the White House and governments in the United Kingdom and South Korea. The bill also takes steps toward establishing a public cloud computing cluster known as CalCompute to advance AI development.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
In the weeks leading up to passage, X CEO Elon Musk and prominent researchers Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton voiced support for the bill. Other supporters include AI company Anthropic, youth AI nonprofit organization Encode Justice, the Economic Security Project California, and experts including Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, the first director of the Joint AI Center at the Pentagon; Dan Hendrycks, director of the Center for AI Safety; and Daniel Kokotajlo and William Saunders, former OpenAI employees and whistleblowers.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Major AI developers including Google, Meta, and OpenAI strongly oppose the bill, arguing that it will stifle innovation and the availability of open source software. Eight members of Congress who represent California districts, all Democrats, took the unusual step of urging Gov. Newsom to veto the bill. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco also opposes the bill, saying in a letter that it does more harm than good.
WHY IT MATTERS
California is home to the majority of the top AI companies in the world, so tough regulation of them could set a standard for the entire industry and for Congress. Supporters of the bill say now is the time to act because they don’t trust the makers of AI to self regulate particularly as profit pressures mount. Kokotajlo told CalMatters that if SB 1047 were in effect when he worked at OpenAI, it would have prevented or at least helped expose a violation of internal safety protocols he witnessed there.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌
Newsom announced Sept. 29 that he vetoed the bill, saying that a broader approach is needed and announcing a series of related initiatives. “By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology.”
Allow civilian officers to testify
By Ryan Sabalow
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 804 would allow community service officers — uniformed police department civilian employees who don’t have arrest powers — to testify at preliminary hearings where authorities present evidence to a judge who decides whether to move ahead with a full felony trial. Witnesses or victims are still required to testify in a trial. As it stands, only sworn officers are allowed to testify at “prelims,” despite community service officers often taking witness statements at crime scenes and during investigations.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The Redding Police Department brought the issue to the attention of the region’s senator, Republican Brian Dahle, arguing that as police budgets shrink, community services officers should be allowed to testify to free up sworn officers for other duties. The California State Sheriffs Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and the state’s police union support the legislation. Proponents say that it would keep officers from having to re-interview witnesses. Plus, they argue that having fewer armed officers interacting with witnesses helps address concerns about over-policing in communities of color.
WHO IS OPPOSED
ACLU California Action, criminal defense attorneys, including the California Public Defenders Association, and social justice groups opposed the legislation. They argue that the changes could lead to shoddy testimony being admitted into legal proceedings where a suspect’s freedom is on the line. They argue that preliminary hearings are already tilted in the favor of police and prosecutors. “The bottom line is that preliminary hearings are so problematic right now,” Ignacio Hernández of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, told the Assembly Public Safety Committee this summer.
WHY IT MATTERS
Since 1990, the state’s population has grown by nearly 10 million people, yet the numbers of California’s sworn patrol officers have dropped to below where they were in 1991, according to a recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California. Sworn officer staffing shortages are particularly prevalent in rural areas such as those in Dahle’s sprawling Senate district in northeastern California.
At the same time, in the wake of high-profile cases of unjustified police violence, social justice advocates have been urging California lawmakers and local governments to scale back the numbers of armed police patrolling communities of color. Some communities are deploying unarmed social or mental-health workers trained to defuse confrontations in situations where armed officers used to be the sole respondents.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌
Newsom announced Sept. 20 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said while he appreciates the goal to “conserve law enforcement resources, the bill raises concerns about the reliability of evidence presented at a critical stage of criminal proceedings, in which decisions are made regarding whether probable cause exists to charge defendants with felonies.”
Make undocumented immigrants eligible for homebuyer and jobless aid
By Wendy Fry and Jeanne Kuang
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
AB 1840 and SB 227, written by Assemblymembers Joaquin Arambula and María Elena Durazo, respectively, aim to ensure Californians are not excluded from assistance programs due to their immigration status.
AB 1840, written by Arambula, a Democrat from Fresno, makes clear that undocumented first-time homebuyers can apply for a program that offers 20% downpayment assistance of as much as $150,000. The bill has drawn national media attention, with Republicans claiming it follows “a long litany of taxpayer dollar giveaways…that encourage and reward illegal immigration.” A spokesperson for Arambula said the bill only clarifies that undocumented Californians can participate in “Dream for All” and other home purchase assistance programs if they meet all other eligibility and financial criteria. The program ran out of $300 million in funding 11 days after launching in 2023. Because of the state budget shortfall, no new funds were appropriated this year.
SB 227 requires the Employment Development Department, by next March, to come up with a plan on how to give undocumented workers who lose their jobs access to unemployment benefits. Employers pay into the unemployment fund; an expansion would likely need to be funded by the state. Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 vetoed a similar bill directly requiring the new program because lawmakers hadn’t identified a funding source. This version would make the administration figure out how to create the program, including how much it would cost, and then send the plan back to lawmakers and the Department of Finance for review.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
A large coalition of immigrant rights advocates, including the ACLU, CHIRLA, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation.
WHO IS OPPOSED
California Republicans argue that programs providing aid to undocumented residents act as a magnet for illegal immigration, even as many Californians can’t afford to buy houses. Elon Musk posted on his social media site X that “half of earth should move to California given all the incentives to do so.”
There are no registered opponents for the unemployment bill. Newsom’s finance department last year opposed the bill because the state hadn’t budgeted funds for it, and called its timelines “infeasible,” but the bill has since been amended to require a plan rather than the program itself.
WHY IT MATTERS
Decades of work went into building a social safety net for California’s roughly 2.3 million undocumented immigrants, who still have the highest poverty rates in the state. Some argue that because undocumented immigrants pay taxes, they should also have access to taxpayer-funded programs, like unemployment insurance. According to USC’s California Immigrant Data Portal, undocumented immigrants paid an estimated $3.7 billion in state and local taxes in 2019.
In recent years, natural disasters such as winter storms and extreme heat have shed light on how farmworkers, over half of whom are undocumented, can lose work with little notice. But with a tight state budget, Newsom has cited costs in halting or slowing down the state’s expansions of social services.
GOVERNOR’S CALLS ❌
Newsom announced on Sept. 6 that he vetoed AB 1840 to expand homebuyer aid to undocumented immigrants, citing budget concerns. With “finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively,” he wrote.
Newsom announced Sept. 28 that he vetoed SB 227 on jobless aid. In his veto message, Newsom wrote that it “sets impractical timelines, has operational issues, and requires funding that was not included in the budget.”
Regulate middlemen in pharma industry
By Kristen Hwang
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Pharmacy benefit managers work as middlemen between insurance companies and drug manufacturers. They process claims, negotiate drug prices and help determine the list of drugs that health insurance plans cover.
SB 966 by Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers from restricting where patients can fill prescriptions and mandate that 100% of discounts negotiated with drug manufacturers be passed onto health insurance plans. It would also require the state insurance department to license pharmacy benefit managers and improve price transparency.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The measure is co-sponsored by the California Pharmacists Association, California Chronic Care Coalition, Los Angeles LGBT Center and San Francisco AIDS Foundation. Supporters say exclusionary practices have forced the closure of 300 pharmacies across the state and limited drug access. It is also supported by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents drug companies.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Health plans and trade organizations representing pharmacy benefit managers are the primary opponents to the measure. They say preferred pharmacy networks, formularies and discounts are all strategies that allow pharmacy benefit managers to keep prices reasonable. They blame drug companies for driving up prices and say this legislation would increase premiums by $1.7 billion in the first year.
WHY IT MATTERS
Spending on prescription drugs in California ballooned 39% in just five years, according to the most recent state data. State and federal regulators are increasingly concerned about tactics used by pharmacy benefit managers to generate profits. A report from the Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating the middlemen, suggests that the largest organizations may be engaging in practices specifically to evade regulation, such as moving portions of their operations out of the country. Research also suggests consolidation drives prescription drug prices higher with the three biggest companies — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx — controlling 80% of the market.
GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌
Newsom announced Sept. 28 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said while prescription drug prices are too high and there needs to be more transparency, “I am not convinced that SB 966’s expansive licensing scheme will achieve such results.” Instead, he said he’s directing the California Health and Human Services Agency to “propose a legislative approach to gather much needed data on PBMs next year.”
