(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 governs procedures for specified civil actions, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Existing law requires a plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant under certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff challenges a low- or moderate-income housing development project for the purpose of delaying or thwarting the project. This bill would provide that, in a civil action brought to challenge a project that will engage in fire prevention activities, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a defendant may seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant if the bringing of the action or seeking by the plaintiff of particular relief, including injunctive relief, would result in preventing or delaying the project. The bill would require the defendant to show that the action is without merit and that it was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project. The bill would permit a plaintiff in responding to such a motion to request that the amount of the undertaking be limited because it would result in economic hardship, as specified. This bill would authorize the court to order an undertaking not to exceed $500,000 or to decline to require an undertaking if the court finds that it would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Under existing law, the executive branch of state government includes the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. This reorganization plan, as of July 1, 2026, would eliminate that agency and instead establish in state government the Business and Consumer Services Agency and the California Housing and Homelessness Agency, and would make conforming changes. The plan would provide that the California Housing and Homelessness Agency consists of specified departments. The plan would require the Secretary of California Housing and Homelessness to take various actions, including coordinating specified policies and programs, considering opportunities to align specified requirements and timelines, and coordinating with other departments and agencies, to achieve specified objectives. The plan would specify that the Business and Consumer Services Agency is headed by the Secretary of Business and Consumer Services, and require the California Housing and Homelessness Agency and the Business and Consumer Services Agency, as specified, to coordinate state policy, programs, and funding to help the state achieve its objectives related to housing, homelessness, and consumer protections and minimize service disruption due to the dissolution of the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, as provided. This reorganization plan, as of July 1, 2026, would establish the Housing Development and Finance Committee within the California Housing and Homelessness Agency, headed by an executive director, and, upon appropriation, require all multifamily affordable housing programs, as defined, to be administered by the committee, as specified. This reorganization plan would establish within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency a Housing Development and Finance Executive Committee for the purpose of centralizing affordable housing finance policymaking across state government. The plan would transfer the executive committee to the Housing Development Finance Committee effective July 1, 2026. The plan would require the executive committee to take various actions, including coordinating a cohesive and integrated housing finance system, overseeing the allocation of multifamily affordable housing programs, creating a consolidated application for multifamily affordable housing developers and a coordinated review process for the application of funds, and streamlining compliance monitoring of affordable multifamily rental housing developments, as specified. Existing law requires the Governor to establish the Interagency Council on Homelessness and requires the council to consist of specified members. Under existing law, there is an executive officer of the council who is under the direction of the Secretary of Business, Consumer Services, and Housing and the council is required to be staffed by employees of the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. This reorganization plan would establish the California Interagency Council on Homelessness as an independent entity within the California Housing and Homelessness Agency and would rename the existing council as the California Interagency Executive Council on Homelessness and establish it within the California Interagency Council on Homelessness. This reorganization plan would authorize state agencies, departments, or entities to take actions prior to July 1, 2026, that are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the plan become operative on July 1, 2026, and are implemented in a timely fashion, as specified.
The California Constitution declares that all property is taxable and establishes or authorizes various exemptions from tax for real property, including a homeowners' exemption in the amount of $7,000 of the full value of a dwelling unless the dwelling receives another real property exemption. If the Legislature increases the homeowners' exemption, the California Constitution requires that the Legislature provide a benefit increase to qualified renters comparable to the average increase in benefits to homeowners. The California Constitution and existing property tax law establish a veterans' exemption in the amount of $4,000 for a veteran who meets certain military service requirements, including that the veteran is serving in or has served in and has been discharged under honorable conditions from one of specified branches of the United States military, and generally exempts from property taxation the same value of property of a deceased veteran's unmarried spouse and parents. The California Constitution authorizes and existing property tax law establishes a disabled veterans' exemption in the amount of $100,000 or $150,000 for the principal place of residence of a veteran or a veteran's spouse, including an unmarried surviving spouse, if the veteran, because of an injury incurred in military service, is blind in both eyes, has lost the use of 2 or more limbs, or is totally disabled, as those terms are defined, or if the veteran has, as a result of a service-connected injury or disease, died while on active duty in military service. Existing law prohibits receiving the veterans' exemption on property owned by an unmarried person who owns more than $5,000 of property or a married person who owns more than $10,000 of property. Existing law prohibits receiving the deceased veterans' exemption on property owned by a deceased veteran's unmarried spouse who owns more than $10,000 of property, a deceased veteran's unmarried parent who owns more than $5,000 of property, or a deceased veteran's married parent who owns more than $10,000 of property. This measure would add the United States Space Force to the military branches, the service in which satisfies the veterans' exemption military service requirement described above. This measure would allow a dwelling that receives the veterans' exemption or the disabled veteran's exemption to also receive the homeowners' exemption. The measure would authorize the Legislature to exempt property eligible for the veterans' exemption in an amount up to the full value of the property. If the Legislature increases the homeowners' exemption, the measure would require that the Legislature provide the same increase in the veterans' exemption, except as limited by the full value of the property. The bill would remove the above-described prohibitions on a property receiving the veterans' or deceased veterans' exemption based on the amount of property that a veteran or veteran's parent or spouse owns.
Existing law authorizes a tenant to provide a landlord with 180-day written notice, as specified, that the tenant, household member, or immediate family member, as defined, was a victim of an act of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, abuse of an elder or a dependent adult, or of other specified crimes, and that the tenant intends to terminate the tenancy. Existing law prohibits a landlord from, due to the termination, requiring a tenant who terminates a lease or rental agreement to forfeit any security deposit money or advance rent paid. This bill would require a landlord to pay a calculated share of the security deposit, as provided, to the tenant who terminated tenancy according to the above-described provisions if there are multiple tenants on the lease and a tenant states in their written notice that they are terminating tenancy because another tenant committed the specified crime. The bill would require any tenants remaining on the lease to pay the calculated share of the security deposit to the landlord no later than 14 days after the landlord delivers payment to the tenant who terminated tenancy, and would provide that the remaining tenants are jointly and severally liable for the calculated share of the security deposit.
Existing law requires the lessor of a building intended for the occupation of human beings, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to put the building into a condition fit for that occupation and to repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof that render it untenantable, except as specified. Existing law describes the affirmative standard characteristics that, if lacking, make a dwelling untenantable. Existing law requires a city or county that receives a complaint from a tenant, resident, or occupant that a building contains lead hazards or is substandard to perform an inspection of the building or portion thereof intended for human occupancy, document any violations, advise the owner or operator of each violation and of each action that is required to be taken to remedy the violation, and schedule a reinspection to verify correction of the violations, as specified. This bill would authorize the landlord of a dwelling unit to elect to have an inspection performed to verify that the dwelling unit satisfies the habitability requirements described above before it is made available for hire. Because the bill would require local agencies to provides additional services, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would establish a presumption that, if the landlord has an inspection performed showing no violation of the habitability requirements, the dwelling unit meets that standard for an unspecified period of time. If a tenant makes the landlord aware of a dilapidation of the premises during that time, the bill would provide the landlord an unspecified period of time in which to cure or correct the dilapidation, during which period the landlord would not be deemed to be in violation of the habitability requirements described above. The bill would authorize a local agency that performs an inspection at the request of a landlord to charge the landlord a fee sufficient to cover its cost in providing the inspection. 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) Existing law prohibits the owner of a residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months. Among other residential real properties or residential circumstances, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property, including a mobilehome, that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. The bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (2) Existing law prohibits an owner of residential real property, except as specified, from increasing over the course of any 12-month period the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase, as specified. This bill would reduce the permissible gross rental rate increase under these provisions to the lesser of 2% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5%. Among other residential real properties, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome, if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (3) Notwithstanding the above-described gross rental rate increase prohibition, existing law, upon the expiration of rental restrictions, as defined, authorizes the owner of affordable housing units that meet certain requirements to establish the initial rental rate for the unit, and also authorizes the owner of an assisted housing development who demonstrates compliance with certain requirements under penalty of perjury to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units in the assisted housing development. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would remove the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending the initial rental rate authorizations indefinitely. By extending provisions that require the owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified requirements under penalty of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated program. (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 provides that a trustee's sale of property under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust or mortgage on real property containing one to 4 residential units is not final until the earliest of various time periods. Existing law provides specified eligible bidders, defined to include prospective owner-occupants and eligible nonprofit corporations with certain attributes, various rights in connection with those sales, and sets forth procedures for eligible bidders to submit bids after those sales. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a district attorney to bring an action to enforce these provisions as specified. This bill would remove prospective owner-occupants and eligible nonprofit corporations from the definition of "eligible bidder." The bill would apply the provisions described above only to trustee's sales of eligible property, as defined. The bill would require eligible bidders who submit bids pursuant to the procedures described above to include in the bid an amount equal to 1.2% of the last and highest bid at the trustee's sale. The bill would authorize the last and highest bidder at a trustee's sale to bring an action against an eligible bidder, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes.
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified adult persons 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. This bill would include bipolar I disorder in the criteria for a person to receive services under the CARE Act. By increasing the duties on the county behavioral health agencies, this 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.
