Existing law prohibits an agency from disclosing personal information that would link the information to the individual unless, among other things, the information is provided to a governmental entity by law, or the disclosure is to the individual to whom the information pertains. Existing law makes vital records related to adoptions, other than a newly issued birth certificate, available only upon the order of the superior court of the county of residence of the adopted child or of the county granting the order of adoption. This bill would authorize, beginning on July 1, 2028, the disclosure of an original birth certificate, as defined, to an adopted person, or descendant, as defined, of a deceased adopted person, would require the State Registrar to provide a copy of the original birth certificate to those persons, and would establish a process to request an original birth certificate, as specified. The bill would also require the State Registrar to create and make available to a birth parent a contact preference form on or before July 1, 2028, containing certain elections that would be available for release when a request for an original birth certificate is made. Existing law requires the clerk of the court to report the decree to the State Registrar within 5 days after a decree of adoption. Existing law requires the State Registrar to generate a new birth certificate when the State Registrar receives a report of adoption from a specified court or when the State Registrar receives a specified court order. Existing law requires the new birth certificate to bear certain information and be identical to the certificate issued to the natural parents, except, when requested by the adopting parents, the certificate is required to omit the facility of birth and the race and color of the parents. This bill would remove the adopted parents exception described above that required the certificate to omit the facility of birth and the race and color of the parents. Existing law authorizes the adopting parents to request an amended certificate that omits, among other things, the city and county of birth, or the color and race of the parents. This bill would repeal that authorization.
The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. Under the act, rates and premiums for automobile insurance are determined based on specified factors, including the insured's driving safety record. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 23 vote. This bill, the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, would authorize a consumer to opt to use telematics to establish their driving record, thus amending Proposition 103. The bill would prohibit the use of telematics data for a purpose other than rating private passenger automobile insurance. The bill would require a rate application under which telematics would be used to establish an insured's driving record to include specified materials related to the insurer's telematics program. This bill would prohibit an insurer that uses telematics from taking specified actions, including conditioning eligibility for a discount upon participation in a telematics program, unless the discount is approved by the commissioner. The bill would also set forth written consent and privacy requirements for the collection and use of telematics data. The bill would authorize the commissioner to impose specified penalties for violations of the bill's provisions, including civil penalties and suspension of an insurer's telematics program. This bill would require an insurance provider or third-party vendor to take specified actions with respect to the telematics data, including immediately deleting the data once a rating has been assigned to the consumer and obtaining an express written or electronic signature of a consumer on a notice meeting specified conditions. The bill would additionally prohibit an insurance provider or third-party vendor from keeping the telematics data for longer than 6 months and collecting audio or visual recordings of the occupants of the vehicle or persons outside the vehicle, among other specified prohibitions. The bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes of Proposition 103. 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.
(1) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required. This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified. (2) The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the person's condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others. This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services. This bill would update the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioner's relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law. This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days. (4) Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondent's safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondent's failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondent's participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. (5) Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings. This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance. This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agency's provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entity's provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. (7) Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts. This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available. (8) Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act. This bill would require the agency to annually release a list of overperforming counties and shall annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified. (9) 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 authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to designate a proposed enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding community, including, among other things, the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of very low, low, and moderate income for rent or purchase, as specified. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing plan to contain a provision for the division of taxes levied upon taxable property in the area included within the district and authorizes the public financing authority of the district to issue bonds, as provided. This bill would establish the Workforce Housing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Act, which would authorize a city or county to establish a workforce housing enhanced infrastructure financing district (district) if certain requirements are met, including the adoption of an infrastructure financing plan as specified. The bill would prescribe requirements applicable to those districts. Among these requirements, the bill would prescribe requirements for the construction of residential housing that meets specified occupancy and affordability criteria. The bill would provide definitions for its provisions. The bill would authorize the governing board to issue bonds, subject to approval by 23 of the voters voting on the proposition. The bill would prescribe requirements for the issuance of the bond pursuant to its provisions. The bill would further require a district, which finances affordable housing units through the bond, to maintain the housing units at affordable housing costs through a recorded covenant or restriction, as specified. By adding to the duties of local elections officials with respect to administering the above-described provisions, 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, 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 prescribes various requirements regarding the formation, content, and enforcement of state and local public contracts. Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2027, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project against a public entity, as specified. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "public entity" to include, among others, a city, including a charter city, and county, including a charter county. Existing law imposes various requirements on a public entity in relating to the claim resolution process, including, among other things, conducting a reasonable review of the claim and, within 45 days, providing the claimant a written statement identifying the disputed and undisputed portions of the claim. This bill would repeal the above-described January 1, 2027, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely. By indefinitely extending the duties of local agencies in relation to the above-specified claim resolution process, 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 requires that a housing development project, as defined, within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development stop, as defined, be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the development complies with certain, applicable requirements, as provided. Among these requirements, existing law prohibits a proposed development under these provisions from being located on sites where the development would require demolition of housing, or that was previously used for housing, that is subject to rent or price controls, as provided. This bill would additionally prohibit the development from being located on an existing parcel of land or site governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, the Mobilehome Parks Act, or the Special Occupancy Parks Act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would urge the Governor, relevant state agencies, and all local governments to adopt an urgent and coordinated approach to end and prevent unsheltered homelessness statewide, as specified.
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 state and federal law provides for the enforcement of laws related to elections. This bill would prohibit a peace officer from interfering with the administration of an election, as specified. This bill would authorize certain persons to enforce those prohibitions by filing a civil action, as specified. This bill would also prohibit any individual from permitting an agent of a law enforcement agency, as specified, to access, disrupt, modify, or take possession of rosters, combined rosters, or voter lists unless authorized by a court order or to investigate certain types of voting fraud. The bill would additionally require the Attorney General to provide guidance and information regarding how to respond to requests by law enforcement, as defined, to access areas where ballots are present. (2) Existing law requires an elections official, upon receiving a vote by mail ballot, to compare the signature on the identification envelope with the voter's prior signatures, and it also provides a mechanism by which a voter can verify their signature and cure this defect. Existing law provides that the processing of vote by mail ballots is open to the public and permits specified persons and organizations to observe this processing. This bill would prohibit a vote by mail observer from challenging a signature on a vote by mail ballot that has been verified by the voter. (3) Under existing law, it is a crime for a person in possession of a firearm, a uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel, or any person wearing the uniform of a peace officer, guard, or security personnel, to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without authorization from the appropriate elections official. It is also a crime for a person to hire or arrange for such a person to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without authorization from the elections official. This bill would authorize the Secretary of State or Attorney General to object to authorization provided by the appropriate elections official, in which case the person stationed or posted at the polling place, or the person who hired or arranged for such a person to be stationed or posted at the polling place, is guilty of a crime. By expanding the scope of these crimes, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and any local elections official in the county in which the act occurs, to bring a civil action against an individual, business, or other legal entity that commits any specified act of tampering with a voting system or voting equipment before, during, or after an election. This bill would additionally authorize the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the appropriate local elections official to bring a civil action against a person, business, or entity that takes a package containing ballots from the custody of an elections official. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for an individual to undertake a number of enumerated actions that would result in interference with an election, including displaying a container for the purpose of collecting ballots with the intent to deceive a voter into casting a ballot in an unofficial ballot box. This bill would also make it a crime to take a package containing voted ballots out of the custody of an elections official. By expanding the scope of this crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law requires the elections official of any county or city using a voting system to inspect the machines or devices at least once every 2 years. This bill would prohibit an individual from permitting an agent of a law enforcement agency, as defined, to access, disrupt, modify, or take possession of certified voting technology unless authorized by a court order. To the extent this bill would establish new procedures for the conduct of elections, it would create a state-mandated local program. (7) 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. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant to be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. This bill, the Tenant Protections for Immigrant Families Act of 2026 (Act) , would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property, as defined, from initiating or continuing an unlawful detainer action to evict a tenant whose income, ability to obtain income, or financial support is impacted by immigration enforcement activities until no sooner than 90 days after the tenant or household member's detention-related hardship ends, as specified. The bill would require a court to stay the proceeding of a pending unlawful detainer action against a covered tenant if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the tenant provides the court with specified documentation, such as a signed declaration of detention-related hardship that includes a specified statement, that the tenant or household member suffered a detention-related hardship that prevented them from paying the unpaid rent alleged in the unlawful detainer action. Any person who knowingly provides false information in the declaration of detention-related hardship would be subject to a civil fine of up to $1,500. Under the bill, if a tenant has raised detention-related hardship as an affirmative defense, an owner of residential real property may request an evidentiary hearing regarding the tenant's detention-related hardship stay of the unlawful detainer action, at which the tenant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence their detention-related hardship. The bill would prohibit the owner from charging or collecting any late fees, interest, or other penalties related to the nonpayment of rent by a tenant subject to these provisions. Within 90 days after the end of the detention-related hardship, the bill would require the tenant to either pay all past due rent or enter into a mutually agreed upon payment plan with the owner of the residential real property. For purposes of the Act, this bill would define "immigration enforcement activities" to include any efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal immigration law, including any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person's presence in, entry or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. The bill would define "detention-related hardship" to mean, among other things, loss of income or financial support by the tenant or household member due to detention, arrest, or ordered removal of a tenant or household member by any federal law enforcement agency. This bill would prohibit a landlord from charging a tenant subject to these provisions fees assessed for the late payment of that rental debt. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or assigning any unpaid debt as a result of detention-related hardship. The bill would prohibit a housing provider or tenant screening company from using an alleged debt as a result of detention-related hardship as a negative factor for the purpose of evaluating a prospective housing application or as the basis for refusing to rent a dwelling unit to an otherwise qualified prospective tenant. The bill would delete similar provisions related to debts as a result of COVID-19 rental debt. The bill would require the Judicial Council to review its existing forms and develop new forms to effectuate these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030.
