Asm. Rhodesia Ransom

Existing law requires a Voter Bill of Rights to be printed in the state voter information guide and to be included on posters provided to each precinct. The Voter Bill of Rights informs voters, among other things, that they have the right to receive a new ballot if they made a mistake. This bill would also require the Voter Bill of Rights to inform voters that they have the right to receive a new ballot if they do not have a ballot or their ballot has been damaged.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. The Public Advocate's Office of the Public Utilities Commission is established as an independent office within the commission to represent and advocate on behalf of the interests of public utility customers and subscribers within the jurisdiction of the commission. This bill would require the office to establish, by January 1, 2027, a program to, upon request of the Legislature, analyze legislation that would establish a mandated requirement or program or otherwise affect electrical or gas ratepayers, as specified. The bill would require the office to develop and implement conflict-of-interest provisions to prohibit a person from participating in an analysis for which the person knows or has reasons to know that the person has a material financial interest. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2032.

(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency, as defined, to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time limits. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application to the local agency, as specified. This bill would prohibit the local agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review, except as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency before the local agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency. The bill would require the local agency to notify the applicant, within 3 business days of the start of the tolling and within 3 business days of the resumption of the time limit, of the tolling and the resumption of the time limit, respectively. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) 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. (6) 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 federal law, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, among other things, requires the federal Department of Health and Human Services to carry out a Low-Income Household Drinking Water and Wastewater Emergency Assistance Program, which is also known as the Low Income Household Water Assistance Program, for making grants to states and Indian tribes to assist low-income households that pay a high proportion of household income for drinking water and wastewater services, as provided. Existing law requires the Department of Community Services and Development to administer the Low Income Household Water Assistance Program in this state, and to receive and expend moneys appropriated and allocated to the state for purposes of that program, pursuant to the above-described federal law. The Low Income Household Water Assistance Program was only operative until March 31, 2024. This bill would repeal the above-described requirements related to the Low Income Household Water Assistance Program. (2) Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the State Water Resources Control Board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health. Existing law declares it to be the established policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. Existing law requires the state board, by January 1, 2018, to develop a plan for the funding and implementation of the Low-Income Water Rate Assistance Program, as prescribed. Existing law requires the state board, by February 1, 2018, to report to the Legislature on its findings regarding the feasibility, financial stability, and desired structure of the program, including any recommendations for legislative action that may need to be taken. Existing law requires a public water system to submit a technical report to the state board as part of the permit application or when otherwise required by the state board. This bill would authorize a public urban retail water supplier to provide water rate assistance to its ratepayers, as specified, and would define the term "water rate assistance" to mean any offset of the cost of drinking water service provided through a low-income water rate assistance program, including, but not limited to, a reduction in a water bill, a percentage reduction of a water utility bill, a water account credit, or crisis assistance used to reduce or eliminate a water bill arrearage or potential arrearage. The bill would authorize the water rate assistance to be provided to specified eligible ratepayers, including, among others, residential ratepayers with an annual household income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty guideline level. The bill would authorize a public urban retail water supplier to use any funding it has available to provide water rate assistance to its ratepayers, as specified, including voluntary contributions sought from other ratepayers. The bill would require an urban retail water supplier to, beginning January 1, 2028, include in the technical report to the state board specified information regarding its water rate assistance program. The bill would require the state board to conduct a voluntary survey of urban retail water suppliers, as provided, by July 1, 2026.

The California Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission consisting of 5 members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate. This bill would require that one member be an at-large member with expertise in nongovernmental public advocacy or public interest law and with a nongovernmental background, as specified. The bill would require the Governor, in selecting, and the Senate, in confirming, members of the commission to consider regional diversity in the membership of the commission. The bill would require the Governor, in appointing a candidate for membership in the commission, to consider using a candidate pool that comprises persons with permanent residences in certain regions of the state, as specified. Existing law requires the president of the commission to appear annually before the appropriate policy committees of the Senate and the Assembly to present certain information. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for public utilities, and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. This bill would require the president of the commission, at the annual appearance before those committees, to also present information related to rates affordability and ratesetting cases decided by, or pending before, the commission. Existing law requires the commission to report annually to the Legislature on the timeliness in resolving cases, including the number of orders issued extending the statutory deadline. This bill would specify that the above information includes the number of cases in which the commission failed to issue a decision within the statutory deadline. The bill would require the commission, within 15 days of adopting a final decision on a ratesetting case, to submit to the Legislature a report containing certain information regarding the ratesetting case.

This measure would call on members of the United States Congress to oppose reductions to funding that negatively impact educational services for students with disabilities and would call on the President of the United States and Congress to ensure that services and funding for students with disabilities are uninterrupted.

This measure would recognize February 2025 as Black History Month, urge all citizens to join in celebrating the accomplishments of African Americans during Black History Month, and encourage the people of California to recognize the many talents of African Americans and the achievements and contributions they make to their communities to create equity and equality for education, economics, and social justice. The measure would also recognize the significance in protecting citizens' right to vote and remedying racial discrimination in voting.

Existing law establishes the Instructional Quality Commission and requires the commission to, among other things, recommend curriculum frameworks to the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the commission, when the history-social science curriculum framework is next revised, on or after January 1, 2025, to consider providing for inclusion, in that curriculum framework, related evaluation criteria, and accompanying instructional materials, of instruction on the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization of California and the Gold Rush Era. This bill would require the commission, when the state board next revises the history-social science curriculum framework or adopts new instructional materials, on or after January 1, 2026, to consider including content on the historical, social, economic, and political contributions of African Americans during the Spanish colonization of California, the Gold Rush Era, and Antebellum, as provided.

Maddy summarySCR 97 designates September 2025 as California Emergency Preparedness Month. This procedural resolution does not create new laws or affect specific groups; it solely serves to formally recognize and promote public awareness about emergency preparedness during that month. The measure directs state agencies and organizations to encourage community activities related to emergency planning and safety. It has no direct policy impact beyond this symbolic designation.

Maddy summaryThis is a commemorative resolution, not a bill with policy changes. It recognizes key historical milestones of transgender people in California, including Indigenous gender diversity documented in 1775, 19th-century transgender figures in San Francisco's Tenderloin, early activism like the 1959 Cooper Do-nuts Riot, and legal precedents such as Sir Lady Java's 1967 employment discrimination case. The resolution has no binding effect and does not create new laws or directly affect any individuals or groups. It serves solely to honor these historical contributions.