(1) Existing law requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to enforce the standards in the hazardous waste control laws and the regulations adopted to implement those laws. A violation of the hazardous waste control laws is a crime. This bill would require the department to prioritize an enforcement action affecting communities that have been identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency as being the most impacted environmental justice communities. (2) Existing law prohibits a person from transporting hazardous waste, as specified, if the final destination of the transported hazardous waste is in a state other than this state or in a territory of the United States, unless the facility is issued a permit pursuant to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 or the facility is authorized by the state to accept that waste. This bill would instead prohibit a person from transporting hazardous waste, as specified, if the final destination of the transported hazardous waste is a domestic facility outside the jurisdiction of the state unless certain conditions apply to the facility, including whether the facility is subject to a cooperative agreement, as specified. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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.
Sponsored bills
(1) The existing Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) prohibits any person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from knowingly discharging or releasing such a chemical into water or any source of drinking water, except as specified. The act imposes civil penalties of not more than $2,500 per day upon persons who violate those prohibitions, and provides for the enforcement of those prohibitions by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or specified city attorneys or prosecutors, and by any person in the public interest. The act requires any person bringing an action in the public interest, or any private person filing an action in which a violation of the act is alleged, to notify the Attorney General, the district attorney, city attorney, or prosecutor in whose jurisdiction the violation is alleged to have occurred, and the alleged violator that such an action has been filed. This bill would require a person filing an enforcement action in the public interest for certain specified exposures to provide a notice in a specified proof of compliance form. The bill would prohibit an enforcement action from being filed by that person, and would prohibit the recovery of certain payments or reimbursements, if the notice to the alleged violator alleges a failure to provide a clear and reasonable warning for those specified exposures and, within 14 days after receiving the notice, the alleged violator corrects the alleged violation, pays a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per facility or premises, and notifies the person bringing the action that the violation has been corrected pursuant to the specified proof of compliance form. The bill would specify that the alleged violator may correct the violation, pay the civil penalty, and serve a correction notice on the person who served notice of the violation only one time for a violation arising from the same exposure in the same facility or on the same premises. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on April 1, 2019, and at each 5-year interval thereafter, to adjust that civil penalty, as specified. (2) Proposition 65 provides that it may be amended by a statute, passed in each house by 23 vote, to further its purposes. This bill would find and declare that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 65 and would make other findings regarding the purposes of the bill. The bill would declare that a specified provision of the bill is independent and severable from the other changes made by this bill. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes the Supreme Court to admit an applicant as an attorney at law in all the courts of the state, upon certification by the examining committee of the State Bar of California that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements for admission to practice law, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize the Supreme Court to admit to the practice of law an applicant who is not lawfully present in the United States, upon certification by the committee that the applicant has fulfilled those requirements for admission, as specified.
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. This bill would make it a violation of specified provisions of law relating to the unauthorized practice of law for any person who is not an attorney to literally translate from English into another language the phrases "notary public," "notary," "licensed," "attorney," "lawyer," or any other terms that imply that the person is an attorney. The bill would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for a person who violates these provisions. The bill would authorize these penalties to be allocated to a specified fund for purposes of providing free legal services related to immigration reform act services to clients of limited means, or to a fund for the purposes of mitigating unpaid claims of injured immigrant clients, as specified, as directed by the Board of Trustees of the State Bar. The bill would require the Board of Trustees of the State Bar to annually report any collection and expenditure of these moneys to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would require, when a contract for legal services is required in writing pursuant to specified provisions of law, that an attorney providing immigration reform act services, as defined, provide a written notice informing the client that he or she may report complaints to specified entities. The bill would make these provisions operative when the State Bar posts the form and specified translations of the form on its Internet Web site, but no later than 45 days after the effective date of the bill. Existing law provides for the regulation of a person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of an immigration consultant, and provides that a violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law requires an immigration consultant to provide a client with a written contract containing specified information prior to providing services. Existing law requires an immigration consultant to file a bond of $50,000 with the Secretary of State in accordance with specified provisions of law. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2014, increase the amount of this bond to $100,000. The bill would require that the written contract contain additional information relating to an explanation of the purpose of each service to be performed. The bill would require an immigration consultant to establish a client trust account and to deposit in this account any funds received from the client prior to performing immigration reform act services, as defined, for that client, and would impose certain requirements relating to the expenditure of funds from this trust account. The bill would prohibit an attorney or an immigration consultant from demanding or accepting the advance payment of any funds from a person before the enactment of an immigration reform act, as defined, and would require any funds received after the effective date of this bill, but before the enactment of an immigration reform act, to be refunded to the client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt of any funds. The bill would require any funds that were received before the effective date of the bill for services not rendered before the effective date of the bill to be either refunded to the client or deposited in a client trust fund in accordance with specified provisions. The bill would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for immigration consultants who violate these provisions. Existing law prohibits an immigration consultant from literally translating the phrase "notary public" into Spanish. This bill would provide that a violation of these provisions constitutes a violation of specified provisions of law relating to the unauthorized practice of law. The bill also would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for immigration consultants who violate these provisions. Because a violation of these provisions by an immigration consultant would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to allow pupils whom the school district has determined would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work to attend a community college as special part-time or full-time students, as specified. Existing law authorizes community college governing boards to exempt these special part-time students from paying the $46 per unit per semester enrollment fee. This bill would authorize a community college district to exempt a pupil attending a community college as a special part-time student from paying nonresident tuition at the community college. This bill would incorporate changes to this provision proposed by both this bill and SB 141, contingent on the prior enactment of that bill, as specified.
Existing law defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right. Existing law further provides that fear sufficient to constitute extortion may be induced by certain threats, including a threat to accuse the threatened individual, or his or her relative or family, of a crime. This bill would provide that a threat to report the immigration status or suspected immigration status of the threatened individual, or his or her relative or a member of his or her family, may also induce fear sufficient to constitute extortion. The bill would also specify that its provisions are intended to clarify existing law. By broadening the acts that constitute a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing federal law authorizes any authorized immigration officer to issue an immigration detainer that serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the federal department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien. Existing federal law provides that the detainer is a request that the agency advise the department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the department to arrange to assume custody in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement official, as defined, from detaining an individual on the basis of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody, unless, at the time that the individual becomes eligible for release from custody, certain conditions are met, including, among other things, that the individual has been convicted of specified crimes.
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to require an applicant for an original driver's license or identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. Existing law prohibits the department from issuing an original driver's license or identification card to a person who does not submit satisfactory proof that his or her presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. This bill would require the department to issue an original driver's license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law if he or she meets all other qualifications for licensure and provides satisfactory proof to the department of his or her identity and California residency. The bill would require the department to adopt emergency regulations, in consultation with appropriate interested parties, as prescribed, to implement those provisions, including identifying documents acceptable for the purposes of providing identity and California residency and procedures for verifying the authenticity of the documents. The bill would require the department to accept various types of documentation for this purpose. The bill would require a license issued pursuant to those provisions, including temporary licenses, to include on the front of the card a recognizable feature and a specified notice. The bill would authorize the department to modify these licenses if these licenses do not meet federal requirements. The bill would provide that information collected pursuant to those provisions is not a public record and shall not be disclosed by the department, except as required by law. This bill would make it a violation of law to discriminate against an individual because he or she holds or presents a license issued under these provisions. The bill would require, on or before January 1, 2018, the California Research Bureau to compile and submit to the Legislature and the Governor a report that, among other things, includes instances when these licenses are used to discriminate against an individual. The bill would provide that a person applying for a license pursuant to these provisions may be required to pay, only until June 30, 2017, an additional fee to offset the reasonable administrative costs of implementing these provisions. The bill would make other technical and conforming changes. (2) Existing law requires the department to require an application for a driver's license to contain the applicant's social security number and any other number or identifier determined to be appropriate by the department. Existing law authorizes an applicant who provides satisfactory proof that his or her presence in the United States is authorized under federal law, but who is not eligible for a social security number, to receive an original driver's license if he or she meets all other requirements for licensure. This bill would authorize an applicant who is unable to provide satisfactory proof that his or her presence in the United States is authorized under federal law to sign an affidavit attesting that he or she is both ineligible for a social security number and unable to submit satisfactory proof that his or her presence in the United States is authorized under federal law in lieu of submitting a social security number. The bill would prohibit the use of this information to consider an individual's citizenship or immigration status as a basis for a criminal investigation, arrest, or detention. This bill would make these changes operative on January 1, 2015, or on the date the director of the department executes a specified declaration, whichever is sooner. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on the effective date of a final judicial determination made by any court of appellate jurisdiction that any of these provisions, or their application, are enjoined, found unconstitutional, or held invalid for any reason. The bill would require the department to post this information on its Internet Web site. This bill would state that its provisions do not authorize an individual to apply for, or be issued, a commercial driver's license without submitting his or her social security account number with his or her application.
(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district or community college district to order an election and submit to the electors of the district the question whether the bonds of the district should be issued and sold to raise money for specified purposes. Existing law requires the bonds to bear a rate of interest that does not exceed 8% per annum and requires the number of years the whole or any part of the bonds are to run to not exceed 25 years. This bill would require the ratio of total debt service to principal for each bond series to not exceed 4 to one. The bill would require each bond, as defined, that allows for the compounding of interest, including, but not limited to, a capital appreciation bond, maturing more than 10 years after its date of issuance to be subject to redemption before its fixed maturity date, as specified, beginning no later than the 10th anniversary of the date the bond was issued. The bill would authorize a school district or community college district with a note issued before December 31, 2013, to seek from the State Board of Education or the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, as applicable, a one-time waiver from certain requirements of this bill if 2 specified conditions are satisfied. (2) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district, before the sale of bonds, to adopt a resolution as an agenda item at a public meeting that includes specified information. This bill would require, if the sale includes bonds that allow for the compounding of interest, including, but not limited to, capital appreciation bonds, the agenda item to identify that bonds that allow for the compounding of interest are proposed and require the governing board of the school district or community college district to be presented with specified information concerning the bonds. The bill would require the resolution to be publicly noticed on at least 2 consecutive meeting agendas, first as an information item and 2nd as an action item. (3) Additionally and alternatively to the authority described above, existing law authorizes the legislative body of an issuer, by resolution, to provide for the issuance of bonds or refunding bonds. This bill would provide that bonds issued pursuant to this authority by a school district or community college district that do not allow for the compounding of interest may have a maturity that is greater than 30 years, but not greater than 40 years, if certain requirements are satisfied. The bill would require a school district or community college district that intends to issue bonds that allow for the compounding of interest, including, but not limited to, capital appreciation bonds, pursuant to this authority to conform the bond issuance to certain requirements otherwise applicable to bonds issued by a school district or community college district pursuant to the authority specified in (1) , above.
Existing law requires a school district, as part of its adopted course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to offer courses in specified areas of study, including, among others, social sciences, drawing upon the disciplines of anthropology, economics, geography, history, political science, psychology, and sociology. Existing law requires the State Board of Education to ensure that the state curriculum and framework, where appropriate, include instruction on Cesar Chavez, and the history of the farm labor movement in the United States, and that the state criteria for selecting textbooks include information to guide the selection of textbooks that contain sections that highlight the life and contributions of Cesar Chavez, and the history of the farm labor movement in the United States. This bill would additionally require that the state board ensure that the state curriculum and framework, where appropriate, include instruction on the role of immigrants, including Filipino Americans, in the farm labor movement. The bill would provide that it shall not be implemented unless funds are appropriated by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act or another statute for its purposes.