This bill establishes July 19 through July 25, 2026, as Probation Services Week to honor the work of California's probation professionals. It directly affects probation officers and the public by formally recognizing their role in balancing accountability with rehabilitation within the justice system. The resolution highlights the extensive training and diverse background of these workers while celebrating their efforts to connect individuals with essential services like mental health care and education. Ultimately, the measure serves as a commemorative acknowledgment of the probation system's contribution to community safety and successful reentry rather than enacting new operational rules.
The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a local government upon the approval of 23 of the voters of the local government voting on that tax, and prohibits these entities from imposing an ad valorem tax on real property or a transactions or sales tax on the sale of real property. The Supreme Court of California interpreted this provision and other provisions restricting the authority of local governments to impose, extend, or increase taxes as not restricting the authority of voters to impose taxes via initiative. This measure would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, from imposing, extending, or increasing any special tax, except as provided, unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a 23 vote. The measure would prohibit a local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property, except as provided pursuant to specified constitutional provisions.
(1) The California Constitution establishes the Budget Stabilization Account and requires the Controller to transfer from the General Fund to the account, no later than October 1 of each fiscal year, a sum equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. The Department of Finance is required to report specified information to the Legislature, including (A) an estimate of the amount of General Fund proceeds of taxes that may be appropriated for that fiscal year, (B) an estimate of the portion of that amount that is derived from personal income taxes paid on net capital gains, and (C) the portion of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 8% of the estimate made in (A) . Notwithstanding the requirement for the Controller to transfer 1.5% of General Fund revenues for each fiscal year to the account, for the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2029–30 fiscal year, inclusive, the California Constitution instead requires 50% of that amount and 50% of the amount described in (C) to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account. The California Constitution requires the remaining 50% to be appropriated for unfunded liabilities and other specified purposes. Commencing with the 2027–28 fiscal year, this measure would require the Department of Finance to report the sum of the portion of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 8%, but does not exceed 10%, of the estimate in (A) and 150% of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 10% of the estimate in (A) . The measure would require 50% of that sum and 50% of the amount equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the fiscal year to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account each fiscal year until the 2039–40 fiscal year, and it would require the remaining 50% to be appropriated for unfunded liabilities and other specified purposes. The measure would add repayment of federal loans relating to unemployment insurance to the purposes for which the remaining 50% may be appropriated. The California Constitution limits the amount that is required to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account for any fiscal year from exceeding an amount that would result in a balance in the account that, when the transfer is made, exceeds 10% of the estimated amount of the General Fund proceeds of taxes for the fiscal year, as specified. This measure would increase that limit to 20% of the estimated amount of the General Fund proceeds of taxes for the fiscal year. (2) The California Constitution creates the Public School System Stabilization Account in the General Fund and requires the Controller to transfer specified amounts from the General Fund to the account. Upon a proclamation by the Governor declaring a budget emergency, the Legislature may suspend or reduce transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account or Public School System Stabilization Account, return funds in the Budget Stabilization Account to the General Fund, and appropriate funds in the Public School System Stabilization Account for the support of school districts and community college districts. The California Constitution defines "budget emergency" for these purposes to mean (A) the existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril, as declared by the Governor, or (B) a determination by the Governor that estimated resources are inadequate to fund General Fund expenditures for the current or ensuing fiscal year at a level equal to the highest amount of total General Fund expenditures estimated at the time of enactment of any of the three most recent Budget Acts. The California Constitution requires the Governor, within the first 10 days of each calendar year, to submit to the Legislature a proposed budget for the fiscal year commencing on July 1 of that calendar year. Under existing statutory law, the Director of Finance is required to submit a revised budget proposal to the Legislature on or before May 14. Under this measure, the revised budget proposal submitted on or before May 14, or any other budgetary revision required to be submitted to the Legislature, would constitute the Governor's proclamation of a budget emergency if the above-described conditions for a budget emergency exist, and if the budgetary revision proposes to suspend or reduce transfers from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Account or Public School System Stabilization Account, return funds in the Budget Stabilization Account to the General Fund, or appropriate money from the Public School System Stabilization Account. (3) The California Constitution prohibits the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State and of each local government from exceeding the appropriations limit of the entity of government for the prior year, adjusted for the change in the cost of living and the change in population. The California Constitution defines "appropriations subject to limitation" of the State for these purposes. This measure would exclude both of the following from the appropriations subject to limitation of the State commencing with the 2027–28 fiscal year: (A) transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account; and (B) transfers to a General Fund reserve account established by the Legislature known as the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, provided that the amount not subject to limitation may not exceed 10% of the amount of General Fund proceeds of taxes for the applicable fiscal year. Funds withdrawn, transferred, or appropriated from those reserve accounts, if they were not counted previously as appropriations subject to limitation of the State when deposited, would constitute appropriations subject to limitation of the State in the fiscal year in which the withdrawal, transfer, or appropriation occurs.
This House Resolution officially designates the week of July 17 to July 26, 2026, as California Craft Beer Week to celebrate the state's brewing heritage. The bill highlights the industry's significant economic impact, noting that it supports nearly 1,000 breweries and approximately 46,700 jobs across the state. By proclaiming this specific time frame, the resolution aims to recognize the contributions of craft brewers to California's economy and community life.
Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership for very low and low-income households, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law and requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes infill development, and housing-related parks. Existing law, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, authorized, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,000,000,000 to finance various existing housing programs, as well as infill infrastructure financing and affordable housing matching grant programs, as well as financing for a specified program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. This bill would enact the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which, if adopted, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,250,000,000, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Of the proceeds from the sale of these bonds, $10,000,000,000 would be used to finance programs to fund affordable rental housing and home ownership programs, including, among others, the Multifamily Housing Program, the CalHome Program, and the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, and $1,250,000,000 would be used to provide additional funding for the above-described program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, as provided. This bill would provide for submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, in accordance with specified law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law provides that in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except as provided, is the amount that will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not. This bill, with respect to a civil case, claim, action, or arbitration against a network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver, as defined, arising from an automobile accident, would, except as specified, prohibit the maximum recovery of a plaintiff for damages for any medical expense for services rendered by a lien-based provider, as defined, from exceeding the 70th percentile of FAIR Health, Inc.'s billed charges, or the 70th percentile of a comparable commercially recognized billed charges database for the same or similar service in the applicable geographic area at the time the service was rendered. The bill would prohibit certain evidence from being introduced that exceeds the recoverable amount. This bill would provide that if a medical lien, as defined, receivable, or right to payment has been sold or otherwise transferred, the maximum recoverable medical expense damages shall not exceed the total consideration paid or payable in connection with the transaction to acquire the lien, receivable, or right to payment, as provided. The bill would require any agreement relating to the sale or transfer of a medical lien, receivable, or right to payment, and the consideration paid or payable therefor, to be discoverable, and would prohibit an undisclosed lien sale or transfer from being asserted against a defendant, insurer, settlement, judgment, or settlement proceeds. The bill would also require certain medical lien financial relationships and attorney referral information to be discoverable. This bill would make it unlawful for an attorney representing a plaintiff under a contingency fee agreement in a civil claim, action, or arbitration, as described above, to refer a client to a health care provider in which the attorney or a member of the attorney's immediate family has a direct ownership interest. The bill would also make it unlawful for an attorney to fee split or receive other specified compensation in connection with the furnishing of lien-based provider medical treatment for a plaintiff and would make it unlawful for an attorney or law firm to provide specified compensation for referrals of clients to lien-based providers for lien-based treatment. The bill would also make other actions related to the reduction of a medical lien unlawful, as specified. This bill would provide that these provisions are severable. (2) The Passenger Charter-party Carriers' Act defines a transportation network company as an organization, whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle. Existing law requires a transportation network company to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each participating driver, as specified, and prohibits a transportation network company from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the driver, among other things, is currently registered on the United States Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public website, has been convicted of any of certain terrorism-related or human trafficking felonies or a violent felony or, within the previous 7 years, has been convicted of any misdemeanor assault or battery, any domestic violence offense, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or any of a specified list of felonies. A violation of the act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both a fine and imprisonment. This bill would additionally prohibit a transportation network company from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the driver has been convicted of specified offenses or, within the previous 7 years, has been convicted of other specified offenses, including driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug. The bill would require the background check to be performed prior to the activation of a driver's account and once annually thereafter, as provided. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to full and equal accommodations in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. This bill would provide that notwithstanding that act, a transportation network company or charter-party carrier of passengers, as defined, may allow a woman passenger on its online-enabled application or platform or a participating woman driver to indicate a preference to be matched with a woman driver or woman passenger, respectively, and facilitate passenger-driver matches based on such preferences. The bill would make these provisions apply retroactively, as provided. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Documentary Transfer Tax Act, authorizes the imposition of a tax by a county or city and county, as provided, with respect to specified instruments that transfer specified interests in real property. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a local jurisdiction, defined to include a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, from collecting a transfer tax, as defined, levied on the sale or transfer of a real property interest conveyed if the combined transfer tax rate levied by the local jurisdiction exceeds 1.5% of the consideration paid for or value of the real property interest conveyed, except as otherwise provided. The bill would also prohibit a local jurisdiction from levying a transfer tax on the first sale of single-family housing property occurring within 5 years of one or more housing units on the real property being destroyed or made uninhabitable by a natural disaster, as defined. By imposing new duties upon local officials with respect to transfer taxes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law generally requires a health care service plan contract or a health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2022, to provide coverage without cost sharing for a colorectal cancer screening test assigned either a grade of A or a grade of B by the United States Preventive Services Task Force and for a required colonoscopy for a positive result on a test with those grades. This bill would additionally require that coverage if the screening test is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and either meets requirements for coverage established by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as specified, or is included in the most recently published guidelines from the American Cancer Society. Because a violation of the bill by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Upon receipt of a petition or resolution seeking reorganization of a school district, existing law requires a county committee on school district reorganization to hold one or more public hearings on the petition or resolution and, following the hearing or hearings, to grant or deny the petition. If the county committee grants the petition, existing law requires it to adopt a tentative recommendation and hold one or more further public hearings in the area proposed for reorganization. Following the last public hearing, existing law authorizes the county committee to adopt a final recommendation and requires the county committee to (A) transmit that recommendation with the petition or resolution to the State Board of Education for hearing, (B) transmit the petition to the state board and order the reorganization granted, or (C) transmit the petition to the state board and order that an election be held. Existing law authorizes an action of the county committee under (B) or (C) to be appealed to the state board, as specified. Existing law authorizes the state board to approve proposals for the reorganization of school districts if the state board determines that certain conditions are substantially met, and also authorizes the state board to approve a proposal for the reorganization of school districts if the state board determines that it is not practical or possible to apply the specified criteria literally, and that the circumstances with respect to the proposal provide an exceptional situation sufficient to justify approval of the proposal. If the state board approves the plans and recommendations for the unification or other reorganization of the school districts in any area, existing law requires the county superintendent of schools, within 35 days after being notified of that approval, to call an election in the territory of the districts as determined by the state board, as specified. This bill, notwithstanding any other law, and until January 1, 2030, would authorize the state board to approve a proposal for the reorganization of school districts if the governing board of a school district that is an excess tax entity, as specified, with an enrollment of fewer than 10,000 pupils and the governing board or body of a city, county, special district, or local agency formation commission with a population of more than 10,000 residents that adopted a resolution seeking reorganization of the original school district, have executed one or more legally binding and enforceable written agreements intended to effectuate the reorganization, and the state board determines that the agreements satisfactorily address the specified criteria and provide an exceptional situation sufficient to justify approval of the proposed reorganization. (2) Existing law prohibits the reorganization of a school district or districts from affecting the classification of certificated employees already employed by a school district affected by the reorganization and from affecting the rights of persons employed in positions not requiring certification qualifications to retain the salary, leaves, and other benefits that they would have had if the reorganization had not occurred. Existing law requires that persons employed in positions not requiring certification qualifications in a school district whose territory is included in a unification of districts continue as employees of the unified school district for not less than 2 years and prohibits those persons from being deprived, by reason of the unification, of any benefit that they would have had if the unification had not taken place. When a school district is reorganized as described in this bill, the bill would (A) require, in addition to the above-prescribed prohibitions, both permanent and probationary certificated and noncertificated employees who elect to remain employees of reorganized portion of the divided district to have the same rights as persons employed in positions not requiring certification qualifications in a school district whose territory is included in a unification of districts, including, but not limited to, continuing as employees of the reorganized portion of the divided district for not less than 2 years and (B) require, notwithstanding any other law, any collective bargaining agreement in effect immediately before the effective date of reorganization to remain in full force and effect until the expiration or renewal of the agreement, as specified. (3) When a school district is reorganized and the allocation of funds, property, and obligations are not fixed by terms, conditions, or recommendations as provided by law, existing law requires the funds, property, and obligations of a former district to be allocated in a specified manner. Existing law authorizes a school district to impose qualified special taxes, as defined, subject to specified constitutional and statutory provisions. When a school district is reorganized as described in this bill, the bill would authorize the reorganized portion of the divided school district and the remaining portion of the divided school district, as defined, to continue to impose within their respective geographical boundaries any qualified special taxes imposed in the boundaries of the original school district, as defined, before it was divided.
This measure would call upon relevant federal agencies to consider the ramifications of tariff policies on California ports and to work collaboratively toward strategies that stabilize trade and bolster the competitiveness of California port infrastructure.
Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as defined. Existing law exempts from the provisions of the act counties, cities, any city and county, school districts, municipal corporations, districts, political subdivisions, and other local public agencies, as specified. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2028, recast those provisions to, among other things, remove that exemption for local agencies, and would revise and expand the definition of "personal information." The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive, and conforming changes. Because the bill would expand the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires an agency to provide on or with any form used to collect personal information from individuals an initial notice that includes specified information, followed by a periodic notice of not more than one-year intervals, as provided. This bill would make changes to that notice requirement, including requiring periodic notice at least once every three years. Existing law requires an agency to establish rules of conduct for persons involved in the design, development, operation, disclosure, or maintenance of records containing personal information and instruct those persons with respect to specified rules relevant to the act. This bill would provide that the above-described rules of conduct shall be subject to any limitations or conditions set forth in any applicable collective bargaining agreement, and would prohibit an agency from using records containing personal information for any purpose or purposes other than the purpose or purposes for which that personal information was collected, except as required or authorized by state or local law. Existing law prohibits an agency from disclosing any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains, except under specified circumstances. This bill would revise the circumstances that may allow the disclosure of personal information in a manner that could link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains, including by authorizing disclosure for specified purposes related to real property, social safety net programs, and medical information, and would make conforming changes. Existing law makes an intentional violation of any provision of the act, or of any rules or regulations adopted under the act, by an officer or employee of any agency a cause for discipline, including termination of employment. This bill would also make a negligent violation of the act a cause for discipline. Existing law provides that the intentional disclosure of medical, psychiatric, or psychological information in violation of the disclosure provisions of the act, that is not otherwise permitted by law, is punishable as a misdemeanor if the wrongful disclosure results in economic loss or personal injury to the individual to whom the information pertains. This bill would remove the requirement that the wrongful disclosure result in economic loss or personal injury. Because the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime by deleting this condition, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
This measure would urge Governor Gavin Newsom to exercise his executive authority to promptly submit California's election to participate in the federal Education Freedom Tax Credit program, as provided.
