Existing law authorizes the Department of the California Highway Patrol to retain license plate data captured by license plate reader technology, also referred to as an automated license plate recognition (ALPR) system, for not more than 60 days unless the data is being used as evidence or for the investigation of felonies. Existing law authorizes the department to share that data with law enforcement agencies for specified purposes and requires both an ALPR operator and an ALPR end-user, as those terms are defined, to implement a usage and privacy policy regarding that ALPR information, as specified. Existing law requires that the usage and privacy policy implemented by an ALPR operator or an ALPR end-user include the length of time ALPR information will be retained and the process the ALPR operator and ALPR end-user will utilize to determine if and when to destroy retained ALPR information. This bill would include in those usage and privacy policies a requirement that, if the ALPR operator or ALPR end-user is a public agency and not an airport authority, ALPR data that does not match a hot list be destroyed within 24 hours. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and an ALPR end-user to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. Under existing law, the reasonable security procedures and practices must include operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would additionally require those procedures and practices to include an annual audit to review ALPR end-user searches during the previous year and, where the ALPR operator or ALPR end-user is a public agency and not an airport authority, the destruction of all ALPR information that does not match information on a hot list within 24 hours. The bill would also prohibit an ALPR operator or an ALPR end-user that is a public agency and not an airport authority from accessing an ALPR system that retains ALPR information for more than 24 hours that does not match a hot list. Existing law requires an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to maintain a record of that access and require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy. This bill would extend the requirement to keep a record of access to ALPR information to an ALPR end-user. The bill would additionally require an ALPR operator or an ALPR end-user that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to conduct an annual audit to review ALPR end-user searches during the previous year and to confirm that, if the ALPR operator or ALPR end-user is a public agency and not an airport authority, all ALPR information that does not match a hot list is routinely destroyed in 24 hours or less. The bill would require these annual audits be made available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator or ALPR end-user has an internet website, would require the annual audits be posted conspicuously on that internet website. This bill would require the Department of Justice, on or before July 1, 2022, to draft and make available on its internet website a policy template and would permit local law enforcement agencies to use the template as a model for their ALPR policies. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to develop and issue guidance to help local law enforcement agencies identify and evaluate the types of data they are currently storing in their ALPR database systems.
Sponsored bills
Existing federal law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) , requires each state to establish an American Health Benefit Exchange to facilitate the purchase of qualified health benefit plans by qualified individuals and qualified small employers. PPACA defines a "qualified health plan" as a plan that, among other requirements, provides an essential health benefits package. Existing state law creates the California Health Benefit Exchange, also known as Covered California, to facilitate the enrollment of qualified individuals and qualified small employers in qualified health plans as required under PPACA. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law provides for 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. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. This bill, the California Guaranteed Health Care for All Act, would create the California Guaranteed Health Care for All program, or CalCare, to provide comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage and a health care cost control system for the benefit of all residents of the state. The bill, among other things, would provide that CalCare cover a wide range of medical benefits and other services and would incorporate the health care benefits and standards of other existing federal and state provisions, including the federal Children's Health Insurance Program, Medi-Cal, ancillary health care or social services covered by regional centers for persons with developmental disabilities, Knox-Keene, and the federal Medicare program. The bill would require the board to seek all necessary waivers, approvals, and agreements to allow various existing federal health care payments to be paid to CalCare, which would then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously paid for with those funds. This bill would create the CalCare Board to govern CalCare, made up of 9 voting members with demonstrated and acknowledged expertise in health care, and appointed as provided, plus the Secretary of California Health and Human Services or their designee as a nonvoting, ex officio member. The bill would provide the board with all the powers and duties necessary to establish CalCare, including determining when individuals may start enrolling into CalCare, employing necessary staff, negotiating pricing for covered pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, establishing a prescription drug formulary, and negotiating and entering into necessary contracts. The bill would require the board, on or before July 1, 2024, to conduct and deliver a fiscal analysis to determine whether or not CalCare may be implemented and whether revenue is more likely than not to pay for program costs, as specified. The bill would require the board to convene a CalCare Public Advisory Committee with specified members to advise the board on all matters of policy for CalCare. The bill would establish an 11-member Advisory Commission on Long-Term Services and Supports to advise the board on matters of policy related to long-term services and supports. This bill would provide for the participation of health care providers in CalCare, including the requirements of a participation agreement between a health care provider and the board, provide for payment for health care items and services, and specify program participation standards. The bill would prohibit a participating provider from discriminating against a person by, among other things, reducing or denying a person's benefits under CalCare because of a specified characteristic, status, or condition of the person. This bill would prohibit a participating provider from billing or entering into a private contract with an individual eligible for CalCare benefits regarding a covered benefit, but would authorize contracting for a health care item or service that is not a covered benefit if specified criteria are met. The bill would authorize health care providers to collectively negotiate fee-for-service rates of payment for health care items and services using a 3rd-party representative, as provided. The bill would require the board to annually determine an institutional provider's global budget, to be used to cover operating expenses related to covered health care items and services for that fiscal year, and would authorize payments under the global budget. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would develop a revenue plan, taking into consideration anticipated federal revenue available for CalCare. The bill would create the CalCare Trust Fund in the State Treasury, as a continuously appropriated fund, consisting of any federal and state moneys received for the purposes of the act. Because the bill would create a continuously appropriated fund, it would make an appropriation. This bill would prohibit specified provisions of this act from becoming operative until the Secretary of California Health and Human Services gives written notice to the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly that the CalCare Trust Fund has the revenues to fund the costs of implementing the act, the people of California have approved the necessary revenue mechanisms, and the Legislature has approved implementation of the CalCare by statute. The California Health and Human Services Agency would be required to publish a copy of the notice on its internet website. 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 prohibits health care service plans and their contracting entities from including provisions in their contracts that interfere with the ability of a physician and surgeon or other licensed health care provider to communicate with a patient regarding their health care. This bill would prohibit a health facility from requiring a physician or surgeon, as a condition of obtaining or maintaining clinical privileges, to agree to comply with criteria, rules, regulations, or other policies or procedures that are not knowingly and explicitly ratified, issued, or promulgated by the medical staff, that directly or indirectly prohibit, limit, or restrict the ability of the physician or surgeon to provide a particular medical treatment or service that falls within the scope of their privileges, or from requiring a physician or surgeon to obtain permission from a nonphysician or nonsurgeon to perform a particular medical treatment or service for which consent has been obtained from the patient or the patient's representative, except as provided. The bill would prohibit a health facility from limiting or otherwise exercising control over the independent professional judgment of a physician or surgeon concerning the practice of medicine or the diagnosis or treatment of disease, if the physician or surgeon, exercising their independent professional judgment, determines that a particular medical service or treatment is medically appropriate, unless specified circumstances apply. This bill would authorize a superior court, upon application by a health facility's medical staff or an individual member of a facility's medical staff, to issue an injunction or other appropriate order restraining any acts or practices that could constitute a violation of these provisions. The bill would specify that its provisions cannot be construed to prohibit a health facility from establishing criteria, rules, regulations, policies, or procedures that are required by federal or state law or regulation as a condition of licensure, receipt of federal or state funds, or participation in Medicare, Medi-Cal, or other federal or state health care programs, or limit a medical staff's authority to take corrective action against medical staff members in accordance with the medical staff bylaws, except in specified circumstances. The bill would also prohibit health facility corporate bylaws, policies, rules, contracts, or other institutional requirements that conflict with these provisions from being applied to directly or indirectly affect a physician's clinical privileges or rights, or privileges of membership on the medical staff, except as required by federal or state law. (2) Existing law requires each shareholder, director, and officer of a medical or podiatry corporation, except as provided, to be a licensed person, as defined. This bill would require the shareholders, directors, and officers of a medical corporation to manage and have ultimate control, as defined, over the assets and business operations of the medical corporation and not be replaced, removed, or otherwise controlled by any lay entity or individual, as specified. (3) Existing law requires any nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a health facility or operates or controls a facility that provides similar health care, as specified, to provide written notice to, and to obtain the written consent of, the Attorney General prior to entering into any agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to a for-profit corporation or entity or to a mutual benefit corporation or entity when a material amount of the assets of the nonprofit corporation are involved in the agreement or transaction, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of the assets or operations of the nonprofit corporation to any for-profit corporation or entity or to any mutual benefit corporation or entity, as specified. Existing law requires any nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a health care facility, or that or operates or controls a facility that provides similar health care to provide written notice to, and to obtain the written consent of, the Attorney General prior to entering into any agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to another nonprofit corporation or entity when a material amount of the assets of the nonprofit corporation are involved in the agreement or transaction, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of the assets or operations of the nonprofit corporation to another nonprofit corporation or entity. Existing law gives the Attorney General discretion to consent to, give conditional consent to, or not to consent to these agreements or transactions considering any factor they determine to be relevant. This bill would include among those factors that, if applicable, may be relevant to the Attorney General in determining whether to consent whether the agreement or transaction may create a reduction of or limitation on the availability of the full range of health care services to any group of individuals based on any characteristic listed or defined in the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The bill would also include among those factors whether the agreement or transaction may result in undue interference in patients' access to medical care due to improper or unlawful motives. (4) This bill would state that its provisions are severable.
(1) Existing law prohibits health care service plans and their contracting entities from including provisions in their contracts that interfere with the ability of a physician and surgeon or other licensed health care provider to communicate with a patient regarding their health care. This bill would prohibit a health facility from requiring a physician or surgeon, as a condition of obtaining or maintaining clinical privileges, to agree to comply with criteria, rules, regulations, or other policies or procedures that are not knowingly and explicitly ratified, issued, or promulgated by the medical staff, that directly or indirectly prohibit, limit, or restrict the ability of the physician or surgeon to provide a particular medical treatment or service that falls within the scope of their privileges, or from requiring a physician or surgeon to obtain permission from a nonphysician or nonsurgeon to perform a particular medical treatment or service for which consent has been obtained from the patient or the patient's representative, except as provided. The bill would prohibit a health facility from limiting or otherwise exercising control over the independent professional judgment of a physician or surgeon concerning the practice of medicine or the diagnosis or treatment of disease, if the physician or surgeon, exercising their independent professional judgment, determines that a particular medical service or treatment is medically appropriate, unless specified circumstances apply. This bill would authorize a superior court, upon application by a health facility's medical staff or an individual member of a facility's medical staff, to issue an injunction or other appropriate order restraining any acts or practices that could constitute a violation of these provisions. The bill would specify that its provisions cannot be construed to prohibit a health facility from establishing criteria, rules, regulations, policies, or procedures that are required by federal or state law or regulation as a condition of licensure, receipt of federal or state funds, or participation in Medicare, Medi-Cal, or other federal or state health care programs, or limit a medical staff's authority to take corrective action against medical staff members in accordance with the medical staff bylaws, except in specified circumstances. The bill would also prohibit health facility corporate bylaws, policies, rules, contracts, or other institutional requirements that conflict with these provisions from being applied to directly or indirectly affect a physician's clinical privileges or rights, or privileges of membership on the medical staff, except as required by federal or state law. (2) Existing law requires each shareholder, director, and officer of a medical or podiatry corporation, except as provided, to be a licensed person, as defined. This bill would require the shareholders, directors, and officers of a medical corporation to manage and have ultimate control, as defined, over the assets and business operations of the medical corporation and not be replaced, removed, or otherwise controlled by any lay entity or individual, as specified. (3) Existing law requires any nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a health facility or operates or controls a facility that provides similar health care, as specified, to provide written notice to, and to obtain the written consent of, the Attorney General prior to entering into any agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to a for-profit corporation or entity or to a mutual benefit corporation or entity when a material amount of the assets of the nonprofit corporation are involved in the agreement or transaction, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of the assets or operations of the nonprofit corporation to any for-profit corporation or entity or to any mutual benefit corporation or entity, as specified. Existing law requires any nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a health care facility, or that or operates or controls a facility that provides similar health care to provide written notice to, and to obtain the written consent of, the Attorney General prior to entering into any agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to another nonprofit corporation or entity when a material amount of the assets of the nonprofit corporation are involved in the agreement or transaction, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of the assets or operations of the nonprofit corporation to another nonprofit corporation or entity. Existing law gives the Attorney General discretion to consent to, give conditional consent to, or not to consent to these agreements or transactions considering any factor they determine to be relevant. This bill would include among those factors that, if applicable, may be relevant to the Attorney General in determining whether to consent whether the agreement or transaction may create a reduction of or limitation on the availability of the full range of health care services to any group of individuals based on their membership in a protected class. The bill would, in the case of an agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to another nonprofit corporation or entity, also include among those factors whether the agreement or transaction may result in undue interference in patients' access to medical care due to improper or unlawful motives. (4) This bill would state that its provisions are severable.
This bill would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2021–22 fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
(1) Existing law, the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020, establishes certain procedural requirements and limitations on evictions for nonpayment of rent due to COVID-19 rental debt, as defined. The act, among other things, prohibits a tenant that delivers a declaration, under penalty of perjury, of COVID-19-related financial distress from being deemed in default with regard to the COVID-19 rental debt, as specified. Existing law defines COVID-19 rental debt as unpaid rent or any other unpaid financial obligation of a tenant that came due between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Existing law repeals the act on February 1, 2025. This bill would extend the definition of "COVID-19 rental debt" as unpaid rent or any other unpaid financial obligation of a tenant that came due between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. The bill would also extend the repeal date of the act to January 1, 2026. The bill would make other conforming changes to align with these extended dates. By extending the repeal date of the act, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and create a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a landlord to require a high-income tenant, as defined, to submit additional documentation supporting the claim that the tenant has suffered COVID-19-related financial distress if the landlord provides the tenant with a specified notice. This bill would provide that a tenant is not required to submit that additional supporting documentation unless the landlord provides the tenant with a copy of the proof of income that demonstrates that the tenant qualifies as a high-income tenant. Existing law prohibits a landlord from interrupting or terminating utility service furnished to a tenant with the intent to terminate the occupancy of the tenant, and imposes specified penalties on a landlord who violates that prohibition. Existing law, until February 1, 2021, imposes additional damages in an amount of at least $1,000, but not more than $2,500, on a landlord that violates that prohibition, if the tenant has provided a declaration of COVID-19 financial distress, as specified. This bill would extend the imposition of those additional damages to January 1, 2022, and would remove the condition that the tenant provide a declaration of COVID-19 financial distress. This bill would additionally prohibit a landlord from taking certain actions with respect to a tenant's COVID-19 rental debt, including, among others, charging or attempting to collect late fees, providing different terms or conditions of tenancy, or withholding a service or amenity. Existing law, until February 1, 2021, prohibits a landlord from bringing an action for unlawful detainer based on a cause of action other than nonpayment of COVID-19 rental debt for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because the lessee has COVID-19 rental debt. This bill would extend that prohibition to January 1, 2022. Existing law, until February 1, 2025, provides that a small claims court has jurisdiction in any action for recovery of COVID-19 rental debt, as defined, regardless of the amount demanded. This bill would extend that provision to January 1, 2026. Existing law prohibits action to recover COVID-19 rental debt from commencing before March 1, 2021. This bill would extend that prohibition to January 1, 2022, or the end of a local jurisdiction's repayment period, whichever is later. (2) Existing law, the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, provides for the regulation of consumer credit reporting agencies that collect credit-related information on consumers and report this information to subscribers and of persons who furnish that information to consumer credit reporting agencies, as provided. This bill would prohibit a housing provider, credit reporting agency, tenant screening company, or other entity that evaluates tenants on behalf of a housing provider from using an alleged COVID-19 rental debt, as defined, as a negative factor for the purpose of evaluating creditworthiness or as the basis for a negative reference to a prospective housing provider. (3) Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, requires the management of a mobilehome park to comply with notice and specified other requirements in order to terminate a tenancy in a mobilehome park due to a change of use of the mobilehome park, including giving homeowners at least 15 days' written notice that the management will be appearing before a local governmental board, commission, or body to request permits for the change of use. This bill would instead require the management to give homeowners at least 60 days' written notice that the management will be appearing before a local governmental board, commission, or body to obtain local approval for the intended change of use of the mobilehome park. (4) Existing law prescribes various requirements to be satisfied before the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust. In this regard, existing law requires that a notice of default and a notice of sale be recorded and that specified periods of time elapse between the recording and the sale. Existing law establishes certain requirements in connection with foreclosures on mortgages and deeds of trust, including restrictions on the actions mortgage servicers may take while a borrower is attempting to secure a loan modification or has submitted a loan modification application. Existing law, until January 1, 2023, applies those protections to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by residential real property that is occupied by a tenant, contains no more than four dwelling units, and meets certain criteria, including that a tenant occupying the property is unable to pay rent due to a reduction in income resulting from the novel coronavirus. The bill, commencing January 1, 2023, would limit the extension of those protections to the above-described first lien mortgages and deeds of trust to instances in which the borrower has been approved for foreclosure prevention, as specified, or the borrower submitted a completed application for a first lien loan modification before January 1, 2023, and, as of January 1, 2023, either the mortgage servicer has not yet determined whether the applicant is eligible, or the appeal period for the mortgage servicer's denial of the application has not yet expired. (5) 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. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and authorizes local educational agencies throughout the state to provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law establishes procedures for the apportionment of state funds to these local educational agencies. Existing law, for purposes of calculating apportionments for the 2020–21 fiscal year, requires a local educational agency to offer in-person instruction and authorizes these agencies to offer distance learning, as specified. This bill would specify that the requirement to provide in-person instruction applies when that instruction is allowed under state and local public health orders. (2) Existing law establishes criteria for local educational agencies to offer distance learning for the 2020–21 school year, including as a result of an order or guidance from a state public health officer or local public health officer, or for pupils who are medically fragile or would be put at risk by in-person instruction or who are self-quarantining. This bill would specify that, from March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, inclusive, distance learning is authorized on an agency-wide or schoolwide level as a result of an order from a state public health officer or a local public health officer requiring school campus closure. The bill would also include, in addition to pupils, certificated employees who are medically fragile or who are self-quarantining within the scope of this provision. (3) Existing law requires local educational agencies to offer in-person instruction to the greatest extent possible and to develop written procedures for tiered reengagement strategies for all pupils who are absent from distance learning for more than 3 schooldays or 60% of the instructional days in a school week. This bill would require local educational agencies to publicly adopt plans that offer in-person instruction within 2 weeks of local or state public health orders allowing school campuses to be open, and that outline all local educational agency plans to meet local and state public health school campus safety standards. The bill would also require each local educational agency to implement the written procedures for the tiered reengagement strategies for all pupils who are absent from distance learning for more than 3 schooldays or 60% of the instructional days in a school week, as specified. The bill would also require local educational agencies to develop and implement written procedures for tiered reengagement strategies for all unduplicated pupils who are performing significantly below grade level, with a priority for pupils in kindergarten or grades 1 to 3, inclusive, and pupils at risk of not graduating from high school. Because these provisions would impose new duties on local educational agencies, they would create a state-mandated local 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, 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. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law establishes the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHSA) , which includes departments charged with the administration of health, social, and other human services. Existing law requires CHHSA to enter into partnerships to increase patient access to affordable drugs and to produce or distribute generic prescription drugs and at least one form of insulin, as specified. This bill would create the Affordable Prescription Drug Importation Program in CHHSA, under which the state would be a licensed wholesaler that imports prescription drugs, as specified, for the exclusive purpose of dispensing those drugs to program participants. The bill would require CHHSA to seek federal approval for the importation program on or before June 1, 2022, and would require CHHSA to contract with at least one contracted importer to provide services under the importation program within 6 months of receiving federal approval. The bill would require a contracted importer to, among other things, establish a wholesale prescription drug importation list that identifies the prescription drugs that have the highest potential for cost savings to the state and identify and contract with eligible Canadian suppliers who have agreed to export prescription drugs on that list. This bill would authorize a contracted importer to import a prescription drug from a Canadian supplier if specified requirements are met. The bill would authorize CHHSA to expand the importation program to authorize a manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or pharmacy in a foreign country other than Canada to export prescription drugs to California if specified requirements are met, including a change in federal law. If the importation program is expanded, the bill would authorize a contracted importer to import prescription drugs from a manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or pharmacy in a foreign country other than Canada.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district, by a vote of 23 of its members, to render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district, if specified conditions are met. Existing law prohibits the governing board of a school district from exercising this authorization if the proposed use of the property by the school district is for nonclassroom facilities. This bill would authorize the governing board of a school district to render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable if the proposed use of property by the school district is to offer school district employee housing under specified conditions. Existing law authorizes a city or county to commence an action seeking a review of the action of the governing board of the school district to determine whether it was arbitrary and capricious, as specified. The bill would exempt the rendering of a city or county zoning ordinance as inapplicable, in order to offer school district employee housing, from review under this authority. 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.
Existing law outlines the procedures for agencies to follow in the collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information, as defined, in order to protect the privacy of individuals. Existing law generally prohibits an agency from disclosing any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains. Existing law permits the disclosure of that information to the University of California or a nonprofit educational institution, under specified conditions. Existing law establishes a center for research into firearm-related violence, administered by the University of California, to conduct research with a mission to provide the scientific evidence on which sound firearm violence prevention policies can be based, as specified. Existing law collects various data relating to crimes and firearms, including, among other things, criminal history information, a database of gun violence restraining orders, and a database of firearm precursor parts purchases. Existing law makes the unauthorized furnishing of criminal history information a crime. Existing law, as amended by the Safety for All Act of 2016, an initiative statute approved by voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, created a database of ammunition purchases and made that database confidential. Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act. This bill would name the center for research into firearm-related violence the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis. The bill would generally require that the information above be made available to researchers affiliated with the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis, and, at the department's discretion, be made available to any other nonprofit bona fide research institution or public agency concerned with the study and prevention of violence, for academic and policy research purposes. The bill would require that material identifying individuals only be provided for research or statistical activities, and require that information to only be used for those purposes and for reports or publications derived from that information to not identify specific individuals. By providing access to criminal history information, the unauthorized furnishing of which is a crime, this bill would expand a crime and create a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally require the Department of Justice to establish procedures for these requests, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.