This measure would urge Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to resign, and would urge the United States Congress to impeach her if she does not resign.
Maddy summaryCalifornia House Resolution 84 formally condemns a social media post by President Donald Trump that depicted former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes, characterizing the imagery as racist dehumanization. The resolution calls on the President to issue a public apology to the Obamas and Black Americans nationwide for promoting this content. It also urges all elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, to reject the use of dehumanizing imagery against Black communities. Finally, the Assembly reaffirms its commitment to advancing policies that confront systemic racism and protect civil rights within the state.
Maddy summaryThis bill designates February 2026 as Unclaimed Property Month in California to raise awareness about state-held financial assets. It encourages residents to check the state Controller's website to claim unclaimed funds such as uncashed checks and insurance proceeds. The resolution does not change any laws or policies but serves as a public awareness campaign to help people locate and claim their abandoned property. It directs the Assembly Chief Clerk to distribute copies of the resolution for public distribution.
Maddy summaryThis House Resolution formally recognizes the importance of affordable homeownership for California families, particularly those with lower incomes, and highlights how nonprofit-led programs help build generational wealth and reduce economic disparities. The document emphasizes that existing state programs like CalHome support the construction and preservation of affordable homes through competitive funding to cities, counties, indigenous communities, and nonprofit builders such as Habitat for Humanity. While the resolution does not create new laws or funding, it serves as an official acknowledgment of homeownership's role in improving educational outcomes, health, civic participation, and neighborhood stability. The text also notes California's significant housing deficit and racial wealth gaps as context for why expanding affordable ownership opportunities is a priority for state policy.
Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law and requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes infill development, and housing-related parks. This bill would enact the Social Housing Bond Act of 2026 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $950,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, to fund social housing programs, as specified. The bill would create the California Housing Authority, which would be governed by the California Housing Authority Board, to ensure that social housing developments that are produced and acquired align with specified goals and would authorize the authority to issue the bonds and, upon appropriation of the Legislature, utilize funds from other sources to build more low, very low, and extremely low income housing. The bill would create the Social Housing Revolving Loan Fund to be used, upon appropriation of the Legislature, to provide zero-interest loan for the purpose of constructing housing to accommodate a mix of household incomes. The bill would provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law prohibits various ingredients in consumer products for the protection of the health of Californians, including, among others, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in juvenile products, textile articles, and food packaging, and intentionally added Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in intravenous solution containers, as specified. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2028, prohibit a person, as defined, from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, or offering for sale, into commerce in this state consumer body wash and hand soap, as those terms are defined, that contains a prohibited ingredient, which includes substances such as benzalkonium chloride, among others. The bill would not apply to products intended for use in health care facilities. The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2028, a manufacturer of hand soap or body wash to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control and provide, among other things, a registration charge and a statement of compliance with the prohibition. Upon request by the department, the bill would require a manufacturer to provide technical documentation to demonstrate compliance with the prohibition, as specified. This bill would, on or before January 1, 2028, require the department to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, enforce, or make specific the above provisions. The bill would require the department to specify by regulation the manner of registering and the amount of the registration charge. This bill would require the department to issue a notice of violation to a person in violation of the prohibition, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by an administrative or civil penalty of not less than $10,000, as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, on behalf of the department or the people of the state, to bring an action in superior court to obtain an order restraining a person from violating any of these provisions, as specified. The bill would require penalties collected to be deposited in the Safer Soap Act Fund, which the bill would create in the State Treasury, as provided. This bill would make it a crime for a person to willfully prevent, interfere with, or impede the lawful enforcement of these provisions, as specified. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the department's duties to initiate, implement, or enforce any of these requirements are contingent upon sufficient funds in the Toxic Substances Control Account, as determined by the Department of Finance, and an appropriation by the Legislature for the purposes of implementing and enforcing these requirements. (2) 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.
Under existing law, it is unlawful for a person who is under 18 years of age to purchase etching cream or an aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property. Existing law further makes it unlawful for a person, firm, or corporation, except as specified, to furnish to a person who is under 18 years of age any etching cream or aerosol container of paint without first obtaining bona fide evidence of majority and identity. Existing law punishes a violation of these provisions as a misdemeanor. This bill would make it unlawful for a person, firm, or corporation to sell to another person, who is in fact under 18 years of age, an over-the-counter anti-aging skin care product or anti-aging cosmetic product that lists as an ingredient vitamin A or an alpha hydroxy acid without first verifying the purchaser's age and identity. The bill would define "verifying age and identity" to include, among other things, verbally asking the buyer's age and asking for documents that are evidence of age and identity related to the age-based prohibitions for aerosol paint and etching cream.
Existing federal law establishes the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , known in California as CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county. Existing law establishes a statewide electronic benefits transfer (EBT) system, administered by the State Department of Social Services, for the purpose of providing financial and food assistance benefits, including CalFresh benefits. Existing law establishes the California Fruit and Vegetable EBT Pilot Project, and requires the department, in consultation with the Department of Food and Agriculture and specified stakeholders, to include within the EBT system a supplemental benefits mechanism that allows an authorized retailer to deliver and redeem supplemental benefits. Existing law repeals the pilot project on January 1, 2027. This bill would rename the pilot project as the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable Supplemental Benefits Program, and would delete the repeal of these provisions, thereby making the program operative indefinitely. The bill would also specify how the department is required to allocate the funding provided for the program, and would require the department to quarterly publish certain data on program utilization on its internet website.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer, as defined, or a regularly employed and salaried employee, who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations, of a city, county, or jurisdiction of a state agency in which a vehicle is located, to remove a vehicle located within the territorial limits in which the officer or employee may act, under designated circumstances, including, but not limited to, when a vehicle is found upon a highway or public land, or removed pursuant to the Vehicle Code, and it is known that the vehicle has been issued 5 or more notices of parking violations to which the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded within designated time periods, or the registered owner of the vehicle is known to have been issued 5 or more notices for failure to pay or failure to appear in court for traffic violations for which a certificate has not been issued by the magistrate or clerk of the court hearing the case, as specified. Under existing law, a vehicle that has been removed and impounded under those circumstances that is not released may be subject to a lien sale to compensate for the costs of towage and for caring for and keeping safe the vehicle. This bill would remove the authority of a peace officer or public employee, as appropriate, to remove a vehicle under the above-described circumstances, and make conforming changes. Existing law similarly authorizes a peace officer, as defined, or a regularly employed and salaried employee, who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations, of a city, county, or jurisdiction of a state agency in which a vehicle is located, to remove a vehicle from an off-street parking facility located within the territorial limits in which the officer or employee may act, when the vehicle is known to have been issued 5 or more notices of parking violation over a period of 5 or more days, to which the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded or when any vehicle is illegally parked so as to prevent the movement of a legally parked vehicle. Existing law authorizes the vehicle to be impounded until the owner or person in control of the vehicle furnishes to the impounding law enforcement agency evidence of their identity and an address within this state at which they can be located and furnishes satisfactory evidence that bail has been deposited for all notices of parking violation issued for the vehicle. In lieu of requiring satisfactory evidence that the bail has been deposited, existing law authorizes the impounding law enforcement agency to, in its discretion, issue a notice to appear for the offenses charged, as specified. In lieu of either furnishing satisfactory evidence that the bail has been deposited or accepting the notice to appear, existing law authorizes the owner or person in control of the vehicle to demand to be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in which the offenses charged are alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offenses and is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the vehicle is impounded. This bill would delete the authorization to remove a vehicle from an off-street parking facility when the vehicle is known to have been issued 5 or more notices of parking violation over a period of 5 or more days, to which the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded. The bill would also delete the impounding provisions described above. Existing law authorizes a peace officer, as defined, or a regularly employed and salaried employee who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which a vehicle is located, to immobilize the vehicle that is located on a highway or public lands located within the territorial limits in which the officer or employee may act, if the vehicle is found upon a highway or public lands and it is known to have been issued 5 or more notices of parking violations that are delinquent because the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded to the agency responsible for processing notices of parking violation within designated time periods, or the registered owner of the vehicle is known to have been issued 5 or more notices for failure to pay or failure to appear in court for traffic violations for which no certificate has been issued by the magistrate or clerk of the court hearing the case, as specified. Existing law authorizes the vehicle to be immobilized until the person furnishes to the immobilizing law enforcement agency evidence of their identity and an address within this state at which they can be located and furnishes satisfactory evidence that the full amount of parking penalties been deposited for all notices of parking violation issued for the vehicle and any other vehicle registered to the registered owner of the immobilized vehicle and that bail has been deposited for all traffic violations of the registered owner that have not been cleared. This bill would delete that provision.
