It’s California’s most diverse Legislature ever, and one-fourth of lawmakers are new. But some things never change: Legislators wait until the last days of the session to pass a lot of bills.

In the final push, they sent Gov. Gavin Newsom some significant legislation — to tax guns and ammunition, ban caste discrimination and decriminalize some psychedelic drugs. And before they finished nearly seven months of lawmaking late Sept. 14, legislators approved many more bills. Of the more than 2,600 introduced, the most in a decade, about 900 are on Newsom’s desk.

He finished on Oct. 13, a day before his deadline to sign or veto the final batch. By the time he cleared his desk, he vetoed 156 bills and signed 890. Last year, he vetoed 169, or about 14%, while signing 997, including some very significant ones. The Legislature can override vetoes, if the bill’s backers can win two-thirds majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. But that doesn’t happen often, and in recent decades almost never.

Some significant measures ought to be to Newsom’s liking: He has become more assertive in pushing his priorities in the Legislature — climate change last year, infrastructure and mental health this year.

Here are some of the noteworthy bills tracked by CalMatters reporters. Bookmark this page for updates.

Increase pay for health care workers

By Ana B. Ibarra

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 525 by Sen. María Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat, would raise the minimum wage for California’s lowest paid health workers to $25 an hour. This raise would apply to employees such as nursing assistants, medical techs and janitorial workers. The pay boost would be phased in over the next several years. How soon employees would see the $25 hourly rate depends on the type of health facility they work in. Workers at dialysis clinics and large health systems, for example, would reach $25 by 2026, while employees at rural hospitals would have to wait 10 years for the same rate.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is sponsored by SEIU California. After much negotiation and amendments, the union reached an agreement with health care employers, which initially opposed the bill. Now hospitals and clinics are also in support. In exchange, the union agreed to a 10-year moratorium on local measures that aim to increase compensation for medical workers. Also, for four years, the union will not take any dialysis-related measures to the ballot.

WHO IS OPPOSED

The Valley Industry & Commerce Association, a business advocacy group in Los Angeles County, remained in opposition even after amendments. The group argues that it is “unfair” to push for raises based on type of employment. The bill “does not uplift or promote greater economic security for our state,” the group wrote.

WHY IT MATTERS

The wage hike is expected to benefit an estimated 469,000 employees, including people who make slightly more than $25 but who would likely get a corresponding pay increase, according to an analysis by UC Berkeley’s Labor Center. A boost in pay could help these workers get closer to liveable wages, but it’s also considered a key piece in improving retention and attracting new hires for the industry as health facilities across the state face critical staffing shortages. The statewide minimum wage for all workers increases to $16 an hour on Jan. 1.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom signed the bill on Oct. 13.

Clear the way for more housing

By Ben Christopher

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

SB 423 and SB 4 — both authored by San Francisco Democrat and human housing bill factory Sen. Scott Wiener — take aim at California’s dire housing shortage by making it easier to build.

SB 423, the most closely watched housing bill of the year, renews Wiener’s 2017 law that forces local governments to automatically greenlight apartments and other dense urban housing projects, so long as developers set a certain share of the units aside for lower income residents and abide by more stringent and costly labor standards. That means no lengthy environmental reviews or noisy city council meetings. This year’s version tweaks the formula slightly by relaxing some of the labor standards and nixing a prior exemption for many coastal neighborhoods.

SB 4, dubbed the “Yes in God’s Backyard” bill, would clear the way for churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship, along with nonprofit colleges, to build designated affordable housing on their properties without having to conduct environmental reviews, receive approval from local governments or request changes to zoning.

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

Though the coalitions supporting both bills aren’t identical, housing developers, “Yes in My Backyard” activists, affordable housing advocates and some of the state’s biggest labor unions have lined up behind both. Arguably the most politically significant backer has been the state’s unionized carpenters, who have emerged over the last two years as one of the most well-organized interest groups in support of more housing construction and whose support has given many labor-friendly Democrats tacit permission to break with less enthusiastic organized labor groups.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Many local governments, building trade unions and environmental activists have lined up against bills, but for different reasons. Local governments and other champions of local control over land use are rarely fans of state laws that usurp their decision-making authority. Many construction union groups are still angry that Wiener — arguing that the prior rules made it prohibitively expensive to actually build anything — watered down some of the hiring standards in SB 423. And some conservation groups are opposed to that bill for its failure to exempt the state’s entire coastline. Environmental activists for lower income communities removed their opposition from SB 4 after it was amended to exempt areas around oil and gas wells and other heavy industry facilities.

WHY THEY MATTERS

The law that SB 423 would re-up was used to fast-track the approval of more than 18,000 units in its first four years, according to a UC Berkeley Terner Center analysis. The Terner Center also calculated that SB 4 would open up tens of thousands of acres of land for ready-to-go affordable housing construction. These are both meaningful increases in housing supply, though a far cry from the state’s goal of 315,000 per year.

More dramatic is the political upheaval that these two bills represent. When Wiener was elected to the Legislature in 2016, the argument that the state should play an aggressive role in removing obstacles to more housing construction, even over the objections of local governments, was a political lightning rod. Now it’s almost taken for granted. SB 423 passed with overwhelming support in both houses. The margins on SB 4, two versions of which failed in prior years, were even higher. Particularly with the rise of the carpenters’ union as a pro-housing force, the lobbying bloc in support of building more housing has become as formidable as any in the Capitol.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 11 he signed both bills. “It’s simple math – California needs to build more housing and ensure the housing we have is affordable,” he said in a statement. “In partnership with the Legislature, we have advanced billions of dollars to that end. These 56 bills build on that work, supporting tenants and ensuring cities are held accountable to plan for and permit their fair share of housing.”

Make involuntary treatment easier

By Jocelyn Wiener

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 43 expands the legal definition of “gravely disabled” to make it easier to place someone into involuntary treatment. The existing law was enshrined in the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967 and is intended to preserve the rights and freedoms of those with mental illness. It defines grave disability as meaning a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for their own food, clothing and shelter or is mentally incompetent.

Under SB 43, the expanded definition of grave disability would also consider whether a person faces a substantial risk of serious harm, by failing to provide for their own medical care or personal safety. It would include not just mental illness, but also severe substance use disorder and chronic alcoholism.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is supported by the Big City Mayors coalition, which includes mayors from the state’s 13 biggest cities; the California chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, which represents family members of people with serious mental illnesses; and psychiatric associations. It was authored by Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Stockton Democrat.

WHO IS OPPOSED

The bill is opposed by civil rights groups, including Disability Rights California, Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, among others. It is also opposed by the California Behavioral Health Planning Council, a state advisory body.

WHY IT MATTERS

The debate about expanding access to involuntary treatment by redefining “grave disability” has been raging in California for years. This is one of a series of bills that have attempted to modify the law in recent years. All of the previous attempts failed in the face of serious opposition from civil rights groups, among others. A 2020 state audit of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act determined that the law itself wasn’t broken; rather, the system to provide housing and services is.

CARE Court, the governor’s signature mental health legislation from last year, is an attempt to sidestep that debate. The initial cohort of counties will be rolling out their CARE Courts in October.

The governor has focused his efforts this year on revising the 20-year-old Mental Health Services Act, seeking to funnel more money into treatment and housing for people with serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 10 he signed the bill. “California is undertaking a major overhaul of our mental health system,” he said in a statement. “The mental health crisis affects us all, and people who need the most help have been too often overlooked. We are working to ensure no one falls through the cracks, and that people get the help they need and the respect they deserve.”

Ease college transfers, for some

By Mikhail Zinshteyn

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Much less than what students wanted. AB 1291 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, a Democrat from Sacramento, would move California closer to a higher-education holy grail: Guaranteeing community college students admission into the University of California or the California State University system by earning the same type of associate degree.

This measure doesn’t go that far. It instead focuses on the UC’s most selective campus — UCLA — to identify several majors that are aligned with the Associate Degree for Transfer that already leads to guaranteed admission to the Cal State system (but not necessarily to a student’s campus of choice). The pilot program won’t result in guaranteed admission for transferring students, but would give them priority admissions by 2026-27 if they attend yet-to-be determined community colleges. Eventually five more UC campuses will identify similar degrees that are aligned with the associate degree for transfer by 2028-29.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Other than lawmakers, no one. McCarty calls the bill a “game changer for higher education access and for expanding enrollment through the community college transfer process.” In an interview, however, he acknowledged the bill isn’t perfect and contains necessary compromises.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Officially, the systemwide student organizations representing the UC and community colleges. They’re incensed that McCarty didn’t confer with them about the bill — even after they supported a more robust version of this bill that did guarantee admissions to the UC. A Senate committee killed it Sept. 1. The two student groups are asking Gov. Newsom to veto this bill, in large part because it doesn’t achieve the goal of having one guaranteed admissions pathway for both the UC and Cal State. Whether he’ll listen is unclear: His office helped negotiate the bill’s passage in the Legislature and end UC’s opposition.

The California Community College system’s chancellor’s office isn’t taking a position on the bill, but its head of government relations told CalMatters the system is “concerned” that McCarty didn’t include the chancellor’s office or students in the bill-writing process.

WHY IT MATTERS

Transferring into a UC or CSU is complicated, in large part because the two systems have varying admissions requirements for community college students, including different minimum GPAs and courses. The associate degree for transfer solved one half of that so-called transfer maze by guaranteeing students admission to Cal State as juniors, which would mean the students could earn a bachelor’s in two years after completing their community college studies.

So far, there’s no system-wide guaranteed admissions pathway into the UC for transfer students. While this bill still won’t create that sought-after guarantee, it at least tells the UC to begin viewing the associate degree for transfer as a preferred admissions roadmap for community college students.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 10 he signed the bill.

Increase stipend to diversify juries

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 881 would expand a test of higher jury service payments — started in San Francisco in 2022 under another bill by Assemblymember Phil Ting, a San Francisco Democrat — to four more counties. By increasing the daily stipend from $15 to $100, the goal is to diversify juries in criminal trials. To qualify, a juror’s household income must be less than 80% of their area’s median income and they cannot be compensated by their employer, or must be self-employed or unemployed.

Under current law in the 57 other counties, employers are required to let workers serve on juries but are not required to pay them. Low-wage employees are excused from juries due to financial hardship, and many of them are people of color. The bill initially specified Alameda, Kern, Los Angeles and Monterey as the new test counties. The final version lets the state Judicial Council select the four counties to try the program until Jan. 1, 2027.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and the San Francisco public defender’s office, which says that criminal trials are less fair without diverse juries and that some defendants accept plea bargains rather than risk a jury trial. “This is not justice,” the office says in an argument submitted to the Legislature. “On the contrary, these plea deals often lead to incarceration, devastating families and historically criminalized communities.”

WHO IS OPPOSED

While the bill didn’t have official opposition, it does come with a cost of $4 million to $9 million a year, though the Judicial Council will be allowed to accept private or other money.

WHY IT MATTERS

This bill is another part of criminal justice reform: The U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to be judged by a jury of their peers. But that doesn’t always happen in practice, particularly for the poor and people of color. The Be The Jury program helped San Francisco courts get closer to that ideal. In its first year, 495 people participated, in 9% of criminal trials: 84% said they could not have served without the higher stipend, 60% identified as a person of color and they reported a median household income of $38,000 a year, far below the citywide average of nearly $122,000.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 8 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he expressed concern about the potential cost. “While I appreciate the author’s work to create a more equal justice system, this policy needs to be part of budget discussions,” he wrote.

Sort out water rights

By Rachel Becker

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 389, by Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from Redondo Beach, spells out the state’s powers to investigate even the longest-standing claims to water from California’s rivers and streams. Under the state’s byzantine, Gold Rush-era water rights system, so-called “senior water rights” holders — those who have claims to water flowing past their property or that pre-date a 1914 law — use about a third of the surface water supply. They are not required to have permits or licenses, and the state’s power to investigate them has been murky.

This bill would authorize the State Water Board to investigate and seek verification of these water rights claims, as well as ask for information about water use. It also spells out that the board can take action against unauthorized water users under its existing authority.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill’s sponsor is the Planning and Conservation League, a nonprofit environmental lobbying organization. The group last year published a report from a panel of water experts who recommended a slew of changes to the state’s water rights system. Other supporters listed as of Sept. 9 include Sierra Club California, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Trout Unlimited, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Karuk Tribe.

WHO IS OPPOSED

The bill initially faced a long list of opponents, including water providers, builders, business interests, irrigation districts and agricultural groups, who said that the bill would “strip claimants of their rights with little due process.”

But the bill was amended to clarify due process requirements, drop a reference to forfeiting water rights and add a requirement that the board explain its requests for information. By the time the bill reached the Assembly floor, a coalition of opponents, including the powerful Association of California Water Agencies, the California Farm Bureau and the California Chamber of Commerce, shifted to neutral.

WHY IT MATTERS

The year started out with three major bills taking aim at reforming California’s water rights system, which has been roundly criticized for its exclusion of Native peoples and people of color and for promising more water than is available. A standoff over the Shasta River, where local ranchers diverted water in violation of state orders and faced a fine of roughly $50 each, publicly demonstrated the state’s limited powers to enforce its priority system.

Of the three bills, Allen’s bill is the only survivor, although the others may be revived next year.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 8 he signed the bill.

Strengthen renters’ rights

By Alejandra Reyes-Velarde

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO 

AB 12, by San Francisco Democratic Assemblymember Matt Haney, limits the amount that landlords can require in security deposits to one month’s rent, rather than the previous two months’ rent. The bill aims to make securing housing more attainable for California renters, who often have to save up thousands of dollars to rent a home.

AB 1418, by Inglewood Democratic Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, prohibits cities and counties from enacting “crime-free” housing programs and nuisance ordinances that require landlords to evict people when a household member is a convicted felon.

WHO SUPPORTS THE BILLS

Supporters of AB 12 include tenant advocacy groups and union leaders, such as Tenants Together and the California Labor Federation. They say that working Californians are struggling to keep up with the high cost of living, and that high security deposits are exacerbating the homelessness crisis.

Supporters of AB 1418 include housing rights groups and criminal justice groups, including the National Housing Law Project and Root & Rebound. They say the bill will put an end to a practice that disproportionately impacts Black and Latino households and makes it more difficult for them to find and remain in affordable housing.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Opponents of AB 12 include associations representing landlords, developers and business interests, including the California Apartment Association and the California Rental Housing Association. They say without being able to collect enough in security deposits to cover potential damages, more rental property providers may decide to leave the market and further diminish the housing supply.

There is no opposition listed for AB 1418.

WHY THEY MATTER

Housing is a top priority for Californians and legislators as homelessness continues to grow. These bills would allow California renters to more easily find housing or to stay in their homes.

These bills also are evidence that renters’ influence in the state Capitol is growing in the ongoing battle with landlords and real estate interests.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 8 he signed AB 1418. He announced Oct. 11 he signed AB 12.

Reduce retaliation against workers

By Alejandra Reyes-Velarde

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 497 would mandate that the California Labor Commissioner’s office and state courts assume employers are illegally retaliating if they take certain disciplinary actions against a worker who in the prior 90 days has made a wage claim or a complaint about unequal pay. Employers would be able to rebut the retaliation assumption by showing that there is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the employee discipline.

WHO SUPPORTS IT 

The California Coalition for Worker Power, Equal Rights Advocates, and the National Employment Law Project cosponsored the bill, saying in a statement: “A majority of California workers who report violations to their employer or the government experience retaliation. When workers are too afraid to speak up, wage theft, unequal pay, and workplace hazards are allowed to flourish, making our communities less safe and equitable.”

WHO IS OPPOSED

A coalition of employer organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, oppose the bill, warning it could subject employers to frivolous claims. “Courts already take timing into account when evaluating a retaliation claim,” the groups wrote in a statement, adding, “Creating a presumption simply allows claims to proceed that should not be moving forward, which wastes valuable court and litigant resources.”

WHY IT MATTERS

Labor activists said retaliation claims are rising as workers gain the courage to speak up about negative workplace conditions, but fear often keeps workers from filing claims. Retaliation complaints awaiting investigation by the state Labor Commissioner’s Office have swelled almost five-fold from 2018 through 2021. By April 2023, the waitlist hit 4,878 claims.

In 2021, just 9 out of 237 completed cases were decided in a worker’s favor. The rest were dismissed for lack of evidence.

“California has some of the strongest workplace and equal pay protections in the country,” said Assemblymember Ash Kalra, the San Jose Democrat who presented the bill on behalf of Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, the Los Angeles Democrat who authored it. “However, our strong workplace protections are meaningless if workers are too afraid to speak up when their rights are violated.”

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 8 he signed the bill.

Ban caste discrimination

By Sameea Kamal

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 403 adds caste to the state’s fair employment and housing law, and the education code, which currently prohibit discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation. Caste is a centuries-old social hierarchy system that, in countries including India and Nepal, has historically defined what jobs people can work or whether they can pursue education. The bill, which drew some vocal opposition, was amended to include caste as a subset of ancestry, which is already protected, instead of adding it as a separate category.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Groups representing various South Asian communities, such as Equality Labs (which represents some Dalit Hindus, who are considered the lowest caste), Hindus for Caste Equity, the Jakarta Movement, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Alphabet Workers Union, as well as the California Employment Lawyers Association, California Environmental Voters and the California Labor Federation. Some activists say they are on a hunger strike until Newsom decides the bill’s fate.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Dozens of Hindu community groups in California and beyond, including three Dalit advocacy groups. The split among the South Asian community spurred Democratic Assemblymembers Evan Low and Alex Lee, who both represent parts of the South Asian-heavy Silicon Valley, to call for a delay of the bill. But they later supported it.

WHY IT MATTERS

It is unclear whether caste discrimination is covered under state laws. Both supporters and opponents cite the state’s investigation at Cisco, the San Jose-based networking and cloud management company. Opponents say the fact that the state can already look into allegations renders the bill unnecessary, while supporters say the case shows that caste discrimination is happening and must be addressed.

If signed by Newsom, California would be the first state in the U.S. with such a law. It could be particularly impactful for the tech industry, where Indian workers with bachelor’s degrees made up 27% of tech workers in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties in 2021. Guha Krishnamurthi, an associate professor of law at the University of Oklahoma who has studied the bill, told CalMatters that the bill serves an important educational purpose — making managers and HR departments more aware of the issue.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Gov. Newsom announced Oct. 7 he vetoed the bill, calling it unnecessary. “In California, we believe everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter who they are, where they come from, who they love, or where they live,” he wrote in his veto message. “That is why California already prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other characteristics, and state law specifies that these civil rights protections shall be liberally construed.”

Ban toxic chemicals in food

By Shreya Agrawal

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

This proposal captured headlines as the “Skittles bill” because it would have banned the use of titanium dioxide, which is used as a white dye in the popular fruit-flavored candies. AB 418, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Woodland Hills Democrat, has been amended to remove that particular food chemical from the measure, so it no longer applies to Skittles. It would still prohibit the use of several other chemicals that are common in foods such as candies, baked goods and carbonated drinks: brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and red dye 3.

Under the bill, all food products for human consumption that contain these substances will be banned starting Jan. 1, 2027. Any person who manufactures, stores, distributes, delivers, or sells any food products with these substances could be fined as much as $5,000 for the first offense and up to $10,000 for every subsequent offense.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill was co-sponsored by the Environmental Working Group and Consumer Reports, who aim to improve food safety in California. Several health advocacy groups and environmental organizations also support this bill, including many cancer advocacy groups, since two of the banned substances are found to be carcinogenic. In a last-ditch push for a food safety bill, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and actor Morgan Freeman are among celebrities in an ad campaign.

WHO IS OPPOSED

The American Chemistry Council opposed earlier versions of the bill that included titanium dioxide, calling the ban “an overly broad and unnecessary burden on consumers, manufacturers and regulators.” With the amendments, it changed its position to neutral, as did the California Chamber of Commerce and the Dairy Institute of California.

WHY IT MATTERS

The chemicals this first-in-the-nation bill would ban are present in several popular food brands and have already been banned from food in the European Union, because they have been shown to be detrimental to human health by several scientific studies. Potassium bromate and red dye 3 are carcinogenic while the others have been shown to cause harm to the endocrine, reproductive and nervous systems.

Due to concerns about cancer, red dye 3 was banned from cosmetics by the Food and Drug Administration, but it is still used in food.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 7 he signed the bill. In a signing message, he noted that companies will have until 2027 to comply and said there had been many “misconceptions” about the measure.

Decriminalize psychedelic drugs

By Ana B. Ibarra

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Senate Bill 58, by Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, would ensure that people are not arrested or penalized for using and possessing certain plant-based hallucinogens starting in 2025. The substances include psilocybin and psilocin, the psychoactive ingredient in hallucinogenic mushrooms; mescaline (except peyote); and dimethyltryptamine, or DMT. A fourth substance, ibogaine, was scratched from the bill in a final round of amendments. This bill applies only to people 21 and older and does not legalize the sale of psychedelics.

The bill takes a more incremental approach for supervised medical use of psychedelics. It would require the state’s health agency to form a working group to make recommendations for governing the future therapeutic use of these substances.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is sponsored by a veterans’ group, Heroic Hearts Project. Combat veterans and retired first responders have testified in support of the bill, sharing their “transformational” experiences using psychedelics to help relieve suicidal thoughts and PTSD symptoms.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Registered opposition is largely made up of law enforcement groups. Mothers who have lost a child to an adverse reaction after they ingested hallucinogens have also testified about their concerns during hearings. They’ve pushed for the bill to include more safeguards, arguing that while these substances may promise benefits for some people, they also come with risks.

WHY IT MATTERS

If Gov. Newsom signs this bill, California would join Colorado and Oregon in decriminalizing psychedelics. The current movement to make these substances mainstream is one attempt to help alleviate the ballooning mental health crisis. Growing research portrays the drugs as a promising tool in helping people heal from various mental illnesses, including depression and PTSD. But evidence is still limited and no psychedelic treatment has yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 7 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said that the state needs more guidelines before legalization. “California should immediately begin work to set up regulated treatment guidelines – replete with dosing information, therapeutic guidelines, rules to prevent against exploitation during guided treatments, and medical clearance of no underlying psychoses. Unfortunately, this bill would decriminalize possession prior to these guidelines going into place, and I cannot sign it.”

Let legislative staff unionize

By Sameea Kamal

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1 allows legislative staff to form a union, but not until 2026. Currently, state employees other than the staff of Assemblymembers and state senators can do so, but at least five efforts to extend that right have failed.

The version that passed includes dozens of amendments to address concerns that have come up over the years, such as preserving lawmakers’ discretion over hiring and firing. It doesn’t address what happens if a future union decides to go on strike during the legislative session. The actual union will be organized by staff.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Unsurprisingly, lots of other unions, including the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, Service Employees International Union and the California Teachers Association. Other backers include advocacy groups such as California Environmental Voters, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and political action committee Fund Her. Besides bill author Assemblymember Tina McKinnor of Inglewood, there are more than 40 co-authors on the bill, in both the Senate and Assembly, including the current and immediate past speakers.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Not all lawmakers are on board. Some, including Democratic Sen. Steve Glazer of Orinda and Republican Sen. Brian Dahle of Redding, are concerned that a union could restrict the Legislature’s ability to carry out what constituents want.

WHY IT MATTERS

The 1,800 full-time legislative staffers sometimes work long hours, but don’t receive overtime pay. Until recently, there have been few options for reporting workplace issues, such as sexual misconduct. And the Legislature has struggled to retain longtime employees or attract new talent.

Part of why the bill has taken so long is that the Legislature’s operations are unique from other state employees. Specifics of what might change under a unionized staff would be worked out in contract negotiations.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced Oct. 7 he signed the bill. He didn’t comment, but Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, leader of the California Labor Federation, said in a statement: “We are thrilled for the hardworking staff of the State Legislature who finally have the same rights to join a union as every other worker in California. The work of the Legislature touches the lives of all Californians and none of it would be possible without the contributions and service of district and Capitol staff.”

Revise public access

By Sameea Kamal

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

AB 469 creates an ombudsperson’s office to review state agencies’ denials of public records requests. The Legislature would have to fund the office, and it would expire on Jan. 1, 2027, unless lawmakers extend it. After late amendments, the ombudsperson would be independent and appointed by the governor, not part of the state auditor’s office. Another amendment removed the requirement that someone who requests records be reimbursed if the ombudsperson decides they were improperly denied. This is the third try for this measure, and the first time it reached the governor’s desk.

SB 544 reinstates some flexibility for remote meetings for state boards and commissions started during the COVID-19 pandemic and in place until year’s end. The bill removes requirements to notify the public of all teleconference locations, post agendas at each location and make those locations accessible to the public. Instead, boards would only be required to post the physical address for one site, and only one board member or staff member would have to be physically present at that site. The bill was amended to exclude advisory boards that don’t have decision-making authorities. It sunsets in 2026.

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

AB 469 is supported by the California News Publishers Association, California Broadcasters Association and other press groups, as well as the California Association of Licensed Investigators and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The bill’s author, Republican Assemblymember Vince Fong of Bakersfield, argues that state agencies deny public record requests for “irrelevant and inappropriate” reasons and that people have no right to appeal, other than costly lawsuits.

SB 544 is backed by the California Commission on Aging, which sponsored the bill, along with other state boards and commissions. Sen. John Laird, a Democrat from Santa Cruz who authored the bill, cites privacy concerns with posting the home addresses of those who serve on state boards and commissions. He also argues that remote meetings expand participation.

WHO IS OPPOSED

While not an official opponent of AB 469, the First Amendment Coalition says it is concerned that the bill allows, and even encourages, state agencies to appeal the ombudsperson’s decisions and potentially drag people who requested the records into court.

SB 544 is opposed by the First Amendment Coalition, the California Newspaper Publishers Association and the American Chemistry Council, who say Californians should be able to address their government officials in person.

WHY THEY MATTER

Public and press access to elected officials and state bureaucrats narrowed dramatically during the pandemic and hasn’t been fully restored.

These bills are a mixed bag: AB 469 would give reporters and average Joes and Jills a better chance of securing public records. But SB 544 concerns advocates, who say that relying on remote meetings allows public officials to skirt accountability.

GOVERNOR’S CALL

Newsom announced on Sept. 22 that he had signed SB 544, without any comments. Laird issued a statement: “Senate Bill 544 is a significant step forward in modernizing the Bagley-Keene Act to embrace the power of technology by fostering equity and enhancing public engagement, while also preserving public access to the decision-making process.”

But Newsom announced on Oct. 7 he vetoed AB 469, saying it was unnecessary and could add to the state budget deficit. “This bill would create an unnecessary layer of review by an official who would interpret the law in a manner that may or may not be consistent with case law,” he said in his veto message. “Additionally, establishment of this office would result in tens of millions of dollars in cost pressures not considered in the annual budget process.

Boost clean energy

By Julie Cart

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1373 would give the state Department of Water Resources the authority to procure clean power when needed — offshore wind, geothermal and long duration storage in particular — under the direction of the Public Utilities Commission. It directs the Legislature to al