Asm. Jesse Gabriel

The Budget Act of 2022 and the Budget Act of 2023 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2022–23 and 2023–24 fiscal years. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2022 and the Budget Act of 2023 by amending and repealing items of appropriation and making other changes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.

The Budget Act of 2024 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2024–25 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2024 by amending items of appropriation and making other changes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines for school lunches and breakfasts, and for all food and beverages sold on public school campuses. Existing law requires those nutrition guidelines to be consistent with the requirements for a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch. Existing law defines a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch for these purposes to mean those that qualify for reimbursement under the most current meal pattern for the federal School Breakfast Program and the federal National School Lunch Program, respectively. Existing law requires a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to make available a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch, free of charge, during each schoolday to any pupil who requests a meal without consideration of the pupil's eligibility for a federally funded free or reduced-price meal. Existing law authorizes a school operated and maintained by a school district or county office of education, from the midnight before to 30 minutes after the end of the official schoolday, to sell food and beverages other than meals reimbursed by specified federal nutrition programs, only if the food or beverages meet dietary guidelines, as specified, depending on grade level. This bill, beginning December 31, 2027, would prohibit a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, from offering a nutritionally adequate breakfast or lunch containing specified substances, including, among others, red 40 and yellow 5 and would prohibit a school operated and maintained by a school district or county office of education from selling food or beverages, except for food items sold as part of a school fundraising event, containing those specified substances, as provided. To the extent this bill would impose additional requirements on public schools, 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.

The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education and their respective institutions of higher education. A provision of the act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make the provision applicable. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, provides, among other things, that all students have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment, and that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, existing law defines "nationality" to include citizenship, country of origin, and national origin and defines "religion" to include all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice, as provided. This bill would instead provide that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality or national identity, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and other specified characteristics, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, the bill would instead define "nationality" or "national identity" to include a person's actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, citizenship, or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity, as provided. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, the bill would define "discrimination on the basis of religion" to include, but not be limited to, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The bill would also state that it is the intent of the Legislature that each postsecondary educational institution undertake supportive measures to help students who have encountered discriminatory incidents, regardless of the location of the discriminatory incident, if the student feels the incident impairs their access to equal educational opportunities. This bill would require the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and independent institutions of higher education and private postsecondary educational institutions that receive state financial assistance, and would request the University of California, to include training to address discrimination against the 5 most targeted groups in the state, as provided, as part of any general antidiscrimination training or diversity, equity, and inclusion training that is offered by the institution, except as specified. By imposing new requirements on community college districts, 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.

The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education and their respective institutions of higher education. A provision of the act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make the provision applicable. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, provides, among other things, that all students have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment, and that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. This bill would state that the Trustees of the California State University and the Regents of the University of California have the primary responsibility to prevent and address conduct that either creates a hostile environment for students on campus or results in differential treatment of students on campus, as specified. The bill would require the trustees to, among other things, adopt rules and procedures, as specified, to prohibit violent, harassing, intimidating, or discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment on campus, to prohibit conduct that limits or denies a person's ability to participate in or benefit from the free exchange of ideas or the educational mission of the California State University, and to establish, and require each campus to publish on campus internet websites, reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions and, if applicable, any advance permitting requirements for protests on campus. The bill would require the trustees to develop mandatory training programs to educate students on what constitutes violent, harassing, intimidating, or discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment on campus, the procedures for investigating violations of the student code of conduct, when and where protests and gatherings may be held, as specified, and on how to exchange views in an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility. The bill would require the trustees to submit a report, on or before January 2, 2025, and annually thereafter, to the Legislature on the implementation and administration of the bill. The bill would request the University of California to comply with these provisions. The bill would make its provisions severable.

(1) Existing federal law, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, creates the Crime Victims Fund and authorizes federal financial assistance to states for the purpose of supporting eligible crime victim assistance programs. Existing law creates various programs under the Office of Emergency Services related to crime prevention and education, including, among other things, programs concerning family violence prevention and domestic violence prevention. This bill, the California Victims of Crime Act, would establish the California Crime Victims Fund in the State Treasury and would require that moneys deposited in the fund be continuously appropriated to the Office of Emergency Services to support crime victims services. The bill would require the Office of Emergency Services to seek advisement from the Victims of Crime Act Steering Committee on priorities for utilizing the funds and would require the Treasurer to provide an annual report to the Legislature on the amounts deposited into the fund. By continuously appropriating moneys to the Office of Emergency Services for the support of crime victim services, the bill would make an appropriation. (2) Existing law establishes the aggravated white-collar crime enhancement which imposes enhanced penalties against a person who commits 2 or more related felonies, a material element of which is fraud or embezzlement, that involve a pattern of related felony conduct, and the pattern of related felony conduct involves the taking or loss of more than $100,000, as specified. This bill would authorize a court to impose an additional fine, known as the corporate white collar criminal enhancement, against a corporation that is convicted of a misdemeanor or felony. The bill would authorize the court to determine the amount of the fine, but would set specified limits. The bill would require the court to consider certain factors when determining the amount of the fine, including, among other things, the nature and seriousness of the offense and the corporation's assets, liabilities, and net worth, as specified. The bill would require that any moneys collected under this provision be deposited into the California Crime Victims Fund. (3) The California Constitution entitles the victim of a crime to restitution. Existing law requires the court in each criminal case to order a convicted defendant to pay full restitution to the victim and a separate restitution fine, as specified. This bill would, if a corporation is convicted of a misdemeanor or felony offense, require the court to impose a separate and additional restitution fine, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to determine the amount of the restitution fine, but would impose specified maximums. The bill would require any moneys collected under this provision to be distributed to the California Crime Victims Fund and the prosecuting agency that brought the criminal prosecution, as specified.

Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee provides procedures and requirements for the allocation, in modified conformity with federal law, of state insurance, personal income, and corporation tax credit amounts to qualified low-income housing projects that have been allocated, or qualify for, a federal low-income housing tax credit, and farmworker housing. Existing law limits the total annual amount of the state low-income housing credit for which a federal low-income housing credit is required to the sum of $70,000,000, as increased by any percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the preceding calendar year, any unused credit for the preceding calendar years, and the amount of housing credit ceiling returned in the calendar year. Existing law provides for an additional allocation of $500,000,000 in low-income housing tax credits for the 2020 calendar year and up to $500,000,000 for the 2021 calendar year and thereafter. Existing law provides that the additional amount for the 2021 calendar year and thereafter is available only if the Budget Act or related legislation specifies an amount available for allocation. This bill would instead require that this additional allocation of low-income housing tax credits be $500,000,000 for the 2020 calendar year through the 2030 calendar year, and up to $500,000,000 for the 2031 calendar year and every year thereafter. The bill would limit the requirement that this additional allocation is subject to the Budget Act or related legislation to allocations for the 2021 through the 2025 calendar years, and the 2031 calendar year and every year thereafter, thereby eliminating this requirement for the 2026 calendar year through the 2030 calendar year. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. This bill would provide that its provisions would become operative only if AB 3190 is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2025. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 12206, 17058, and 23610.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code proposed by AB 3035 to be operative only if this bill and AB 3035 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California (State Bar) , a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. The act provides that it has been the tradition of those learned in the law and licensed to practice law in this state to provide voluntary pro bono legal services to those who cannot afford the help of a lawyer and further provides that every lawyer authorized and privileged to practice law in California is expected to make a contribution, whether by directly providing pro bono legal services or, if that is not feasible, by providing financial support to organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited means, as specified. This bill would provide that every lawyer should aspire to fulfill their individual commitment to provide pro bono legal services each year and contribute financially to California legal aid organizations. The bill, except as specified, would require an active licensee to report annually whether they have provided pro bono legal services and certain other information through the licensee's My State Bar online profile on the State Bar's internet website, as prescribed. The bill would require the State Bar to retain and maintain the reported information for purposes of historical record for at least 5 years. The bill would make the reported information confidential and exempt from disclosure as a public record, but would authorize the State Bar to publish aggregated and anonymized reports based on that information. Under the bill, the failure of a licensee of the State Bar to comply with its provisions would not be grounds for disciplinary or administrative recourse. The bill would prohibit the State Bar from using specified moneys for any costs associated with these provisions. The bill would define terms for its purposes. 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.

Existing law grants a person sentenced to imprisonment the right to purchase, receive, and read any and all newspapers, periodicals, and books, as specified, subject to restrictions reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Existing law authorizes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of state prisons, including determining which materials are a threat to legitimate penological interests. Existing law creates the Office of the Inspector General and grants the Inspector General responsibility for oversight of the department, as specified. This bill would require the Office of the Inspector General to post the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications maintained by the department on the office's internet website and would require the department to notify the office each time a change is made to that list. The bill would authorize the office, upon request, to review publications on the list to determine if it concurs with the department's determination that the publication violates department regulations. The bill would require the office to notify the department if it does not concur with the department's determination. The bill would also require the office to include information relating to those notifications in an annual report the Inspector General provides to the Governor and Legislature.

Existing law, the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, affords all persons within the jurisdiction of this state the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, any specified personal characteristic, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. Existing law specifies that whoever denies this right, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, exemplary damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney's fees. Existing law authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice in violation of this right to also file a verified complaint with the Civil Rights Department. Existing law defines the phrase "intimidation by threat of violence" for purposes of this provision. This bill would expand the definition of "intimidation by threat of violence" for purposes of these provisions to also include terrorizing the owner or occupant of private property with the distribution of materials on the private property, without authorization, with the purpose of terrorizing, as defined, the owner or occupant of that private property. The bill would prohibit speech alone from supporting an action brought pursuant to the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 unless there is a showing that the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons, the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property, and the person threatening violence is acting in reckless disregard for the threatening nature of their speech and has the apparent ability to carry out the threat. The bill would prohibit that restriction on speech alone supporting an action from being construed to negate or otherwise abrogate the requirements set forth in other specified provisions of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 to bring an action pursuant to that act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.