Existing law provides for the county-administered In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, under which qualified aged, blind, and disabled persons are provided with services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes and avoid institutionalization. Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. Existing law authorizes certain Medi-Cal recipients to receive waiver personal care services (WPCS) in order to permit them to remain in their own homes. Existing law permits services to be provided under the IHSS program either through the employment of individual providers, a contract between the county and an entity for the provision of services, the creation by the county of a public authority, or a contract between the county and a nonprofit consortium. This bill would require the department, by March 1, 2024, to issue a request for proposals for a 3-year, grant-based program to support outreach and education to encourage immigrants to become in-home supportive services (IHSS) providers, contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature for that purpose. The bill would require eligible grantees for the program to include nonprofit, community-based agencies that engage with immigrant populations, counties administering the IHSS program, and county public authorities. The bill would set forth eligible outreach activities, including developing educational and outreach materials, and providing community outreach workers. The bill would require grantees to report to the department, at least semiannually, on the outcomes achieved by the outreach campaign, including, but not limited to, activities and methods utilized to reach and recruit providers. If the grantee reporting requirements result in additional workload for counties, those provisions would be implemented only if funding for that purpose is provided in the State Budget. The bill would require the department to report to the Legislature, within 6 months after the conclusion of the program, on the effectiveness of the program, including the extent to which the outreach campaign resulted in an increase in the IHSS provider workforce. The provisions of the bill would be repealed on January 1, 2028. The bill would make related findings and declarations relating to the existence of a shortage in the IHSS program workforce. The bill also would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that permits undocumented in-home supportive services recipients to select a relative as their provider of choice, regardless of immigration status.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish the California Legacy License Plate Program, and to create and issue a series of specialized license plates, consisting of one or more of 3 specified designs that replicate license plates from the state's past. Existing law requires the department to collect and hold paid applications for the plates, as specified, and prohibits the department from issuing a specialized license plate until it has received not less than 7,500 paid applications for any one of the particular plates on or before January 1, 2015. This bill would extend the deadline for receipt of the required number of paid applications to January 1, 2025, for plate designs that did not receive the required number of applications by January 1, 2015.
This bill would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2023–24 fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
Existing law, generally, regulates state and local law enforcement agencies regarding subject matter that includes the selection and training of peace officers, the maintenance and release of records, the use of force, and the use of certain equipment. Previous law, until January 1, 2023, prohibited the use of real-time facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies in connection with body-worn cameras. This bill would prescribe the acceptable and prohibited uses for facial recognition technology (FRT) , as defined, by a law enforcement agency or peace officer, as defined. The bill would set certain requirements for FRT systems and reference databases, as defined, used by law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Department of Technology, in consultation with the Chief of the Office of Information Security, to issue standards to ensure the confidentiality and cybersecurity of FRT data and results. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to establish written policies that adhere to those standards. The bill would require law enforcement agencies utilizing FRT to keep certain records and to annually report certain data to the California State Auditor. The bill would require any law enforcement agency utilizing FRT to have a written policy, as specified, and to post that policy on their internet website. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to provide certain information to any person that FRT is used to identify. The bill would also require each district attorney's office, city prosecutor's office, and the Attorney General to annually report certain data to the California State Auditor. By imposing a new reporting requirement on district attorneys and city prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the California State Auditor to annually analyze the data submitted and to prepare and publicize a report, as specified. The bill would authorize a person harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, including statutory damages, as specified. 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.
(1) Existing law provides that every contract that restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is, to that extent, void, except as provided. Existing law authorizes any person who sells the goodwill of a business, any owner of a business entity selling or otherwise disposing of all of their ownership interest in the business entity, or any owner of a business entity that sells specified assets or ownership interests to agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a specified geographic area in which the business so sold, or that of the business entity, division, or subsidiary has been carried on, if the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill or ownership interest from the buyer, carries on a like business therein. Existing law defines "ownership interest" as a partnership interest, membership interest, or a capital stockholder, as described. This bill would modify the definition of "ownership interest" to require the partnership interest, membership interest, or capital stock to be more than a 10% interest of the total partnership interest, more than a 10% interest of the total membership interest, or more than 10% of the total shares of ownership of the entity, respectively. This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from entering into, presenting an employee, as defined, or prospective employee as a term of employment, or attempting to enforce any contract in restraint of trade, as defined, that is void, as described. The bill would provide that an employer, as defined, that violates that provision is liable for actual damages and an additional penalty of up to $5,000 per employee, as defined, or prospective employee. The bill would authorize an employee or prospective employee to bring an action for injunctive relief and for the recovery of actual damages and penalties and would provide that a prevailing employee or prospective employee is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees. The bill would require the Attorney General to receive and investigate allegations of a violation of this provision and would authorize the Attorney General to bring an action enforcing this provision. Existing law provides for a system of labor standards enforcement administered by the Labor Commissioner. This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to, in coordination with the Attorney General, receive and investigate complaints related to the above-described provisions of this bill. (2) Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. Existing law provides that it is cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any licensee, whether acting on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else, whether or not in the context of litigation, to solicit, agree, or seek agreement that, among other things, misconduct or the terms of a settlement of a claim for misconduct shall not be reported to the State Bar. This bill would provide that it is cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any licensee to enter into with an employee, prospective employee, or former employee, present an employee, prospective employee, or former employee as a term of employment, or attempt to enforce any employee contract or other agreement in restraint of trade, as provided. (3) Existing law prohibits an employer from requiring an employee who primarily resides and works in the state to agree, as a condition of employment, to a provision that would require the employee to adjudicate outside of the state a claim arising in the state or would deprive the employee of the substantive protection of state law with respect to a controversy arising in the state. Existing law provides that this prohibition does not apply to a contract with an employee who is in fact individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an agreement to designate either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of law to be applied. This bill would provide that, for a contract entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2025, the above-described prohibition does not apply to a contract with an employee who is individually represented by legal counsel, excluding when the counsel is paid for by, or was selected based upon the suggestion of, the employee's employer, in negotiating the terms of an agreement and, at the option of the employee, designates either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of law to be applied.
Existing law, the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, governs relocations, terminations, and mass layoffs. Existing law prohibits an employer from ordering a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives prescribed written notice of the order to specified entities, including the local workforce investment board and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs. Existing law exempts certain types of employment from the act, including seasonal employment where the employees were hired with the understanding that their employment was seasonal and temporary (seasonal employment exemption) . Existing law makes an employer who fails to give notice as required liable to each employee entitled to notice who lost their employment for prescribed compensation, calculated for the period of the employer's violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, or 12 the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever period is smaller. Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to enforce specified provisions of existing law, as prescribed. Existing law defines terms for its purposes, including definitions for the terms "employer" and "employee." Existing law defines "mass layoff" for purposes of the act to mean a layoff during any 30-day period of 50 or more employees at a covered establishment, and defines "covered establishment" as an industrial or commercial facility that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more persons. This bill would require the prescribed notice 75 days before the order takes effect, and would make a conforming change to the calculation of employer liability. The bill would modify the requirement for notice to the local workforce investment board and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs to apply only to a termination, relocation, or mass layoff that impacts 50 or more employees at a single location. The bill would require a labor contractor to remit to the employee the payment provided to the client employer in the full amount calculated, as specified, for a violation of the notice requirement, and would define a "labor contractor" for purposes of the act. This bill would additionally require for the application of the seasonal employment exemption that the season be complete. The bill would also exempt from the act employees who are employed by a labor contractor to fulfill the needs of a temporary project with a defined end date and are laid off because of the completion of the temporary employment contract, as specified. This bill would include within the term "employer" a client employer of a labor contractor. The bill would include within the term "employee" a person employed by a labor contractor and performing labor with the client employer for at least 6 months of the 12 months and for at least 60 hours preceding the date on which notice is required. The bill would revise the definition of "covered establishment" to instead mean a place of employment that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more persons, and would specify that a "covered establishment" may be a single location or a group of locations, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of "mass layoff" to also include employees reporting to a covered establishment. This bill would prohibit an employer from utilizing compliance with the act in connection with a severance agreement and waiver of an employee's right to claims. The bill would provide that any general release, waiver of claims, or nondisparagement or nondisclosure agreement that is made a condition of the payment of amounts for which the employer is liable is void as a matter of law and against public policy. The bill would prohibit an employer who is required to give notice from offering an employee a separate agreement that includes a general release, waiver of claims, or nondisparagement or nondisclosure agreement, unless the agreement is offered in exchange for reasonable consideration that is in addition to anything of value to which the individual already is entitled and includes a statement to this effect, as specified. The bill would provide that any agreement in violation of this prohibition is void as a matter of law and against public policy, and would make an employer who violates this provision subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation.
Existing law requires, in conformance with federal law, that the Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles establish and implement the California New Motor Voter Program for the purpose of increasing opportunities for voter registration for qualified voters. Existing law requires the department to transmit to the Secretary of State specified information related to a person's eligibility to vote, which the person provides when applying for a driver's license or identification card or when the person notifies the department of an address change. Existing law requires that if this information transmitted to the Secretary of State constitutes a completed affidavit of registration, the Secretary of State must register or preregister the person to vote, as applicable, unless the person affirmatively declines to register or is ineligible to vote, as specified. This bill would additionally require the Department of Motor Vehicles to transmit specified information to the Secretary of State for a person submitting a driver's license application who provides documentation demonstrating United States citizenship and that the person is of an eligible age to register or preregister to vote. The bill would deem this information to constitute a completed affidavit of registration for such persons, and require the Secretary of State to register or preregister the person to vote, unless the Secretary of State determines they are ineligible. The bill would require, if a person is registered or preregistered to vote in this manner, that the county elections official send a notice to the person advising that they may decline to register or preregister to vote, designate a party preference, or select a language preference. The bill would also require the county elections official to send a notice to a person who is already registered to vote, but for whom the Secretary of State changes their registration information after receiving updated name or address information from the department. This bill would prohibit the department from providing a person the opportunity to attest to meeting voter eligibility requirements when they submit a driver's license application, if the person provides a document to the department during the transaction demonstrating that the person is not a United States Citizen. This bill would expand the definition of "voter registration agency" to include entities designated by the Secretary of State. The bill would require the Secretary of State to establish a schedule whereby specified voter registration agencies must provide the Secretary of State electronic information regarding individuals who are eligible to vote or who provide updated registration information. This bill would make these provisions operative on the earlier of January 1, 2026, or 5 days after the Secretary of State certifies that the information technology infrastructure to substantially implement the bill is functional. The bill would allow the Secretary of State, commencing January 1, 2024, to perform administrative actions necessary to implement these provisions. By imposing new duties on county elections officials with respect to voter registration, 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 establishes the Department of General Services to provide centralized services, including, but not limited to, planning, acquisition, construction and maintenance of state buildings and property. Existing law authorizes the Director of General Services, with the consent of the state agency concerned, to lease state-owned real property when the Director of General Services deems that leasing serves a beneficial public purpose limited to the development of housing. This bill would enact the Social Housing Act and would create, in the Department of General Services, the Social Housing Program, the mission of which would be to ensure that qualified social housing developments are produced on leased state property to help address the housing crisis, as specified. The bill would authorize the program to identify and develop up to 3 qualified social housing projects, as specified, with the intent to use the results to inform public policy related to developing an independent public entity to develop statewide qualified social housing. The bill would require the program to solicit bids to develop qualified social housing units, and prioritize bids that demonstrate long-term revenue neutrality or a cost rent model, as those terms are defined. The bill would require the program to employ 2 different leasing models, the rental model and the ownership model, as specified, in creating social housing. The bill would prohibit a city or county from denying a social housing development authorized under the program. The bill would authorize a city or county to propose objective design review standards, as specified, and authorize a city or county to propose modifications to mitigate any specific, adverse impacts on public health or safety, as specified.
Existing law, the Trial Jury Selection and Management Act, requires all persons be selected for jury service at random, from a source or sources inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court. The act further requires a juror in a civil or criminal superior court case to be paid a fee of $15 a day for each day's attendance as a juror after the first day, except as specified, plus reimbursement for mileage. Existing law authorizes the Superior Court of San Francisco to conduct a pilot program until December 31, 2023, to analyze and determine whether paying certain low-income trial jurors $100 per day for each day they are required to report for service as a trial juror in a criminal case promotes a more economically and racially diverse trial jury panel that more accurately reflects the demographics of the community. This bill would expand the above-described pilot program to include, upon appropriation for these purposes, the superior court in 4 additional counties selected by the Judicial Council that reflect urban and rural diversity. The bill would require the Judicial Council to administer funding for the pilot program court, and would authorize the Judicial Council to accept private or other funds for administration of the pilot program. The bill would authorize the Superior Court of San Francisco to operate the pilot program using local, state, or other funding regardless of whether an appropriation is made for this purpose. The bill would require the pilot program court to collect data self-reported by jurors who receive the increased fee and would require the Judicial Council to prepare an analysis and report of that data and conclusion about the pilot program. The bill would require the pilot program court to terminate the pilot program on or before December 31, 2025, or at any time it determines the increased financial reimbursement is causing prejudice to the rights of litigants or the interests of justice. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2027.
Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings, among other responsibilities, to conduct parole suitability hearings and determine whether an inmate is suitable for parole. Existing law allows an unlawfully imprisoned person to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment. This bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings to notify a parole candidate who has been denied parole of their right to petition the court for habeas relief, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to, upon request, appoint counsel to a parole candidate who has reached their minimum eligible parole date who petitions the court for habeas relief after being denied parole. The bill would establish that a parole candidate who has reached their minimum eligible parole date has made a case for relief that should be accepted as correct unless proved otherwise and that the reviewing court may not deny a petition based on that fact without a hearing. The bill would require a court reviewing a petition for habeas relief based on a parole denial to uphold a decision to deny parole only if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person presents a current, unreasonable risk of danger to others, as specified.