Asm. Blanca Rubio

The Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 requires the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to administer a statewide program to license manufacturers, distributers, and retailers of cigarettes and tobacco products. The act requires a retailer to have in place and maintain a license to engage in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products. The act requires a $265 fee to be submitted with the application for the license. Existing law requires every retailer to file an application for renewal of the license accompanied by a $265 fee per retail location. This bill would make conforming changes to the provisions describing the application process for the license described above and recast that license as a retailer license. The bill would require each application for a retailer license filed on or after July 1, 2026, to be accompanied by a fee of $450 per retail location. The bill would increase the fee for renewal of a retailer license to $450 for renewal applications filed on or after July 1, 2026. The bill would authorize the department to adjust application and renewal fees applicable after July 1, 2026, to an amount not exceeding $600 per retail location to maintain the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund at a level that is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the department to administer the act. The act requires a retailer who sells tobacco products that are exempt from taxation under the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law to pay a fee of $265 for the issuance or renewal of a license. This bill would recast that license as a retailer license and make other conforming changes. The bill would require each application for a retailer license filed on or after July 1, 2026, to be accompanied by a fee of $450 per retail location. The bill would increase the fee for renewal of a retailer license to $450 for renewal applications filed on or after July 1, 2026. The bill would authorize the department to adjust application and renewal fees applicable after July 1, 2026, to an amount not exceeding $600 per retail location to maintain the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund at a level that is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the department to administer the act. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst, on or before December 1, 2027, and again on or before December 1, 2029, to prepare and submit reports to the Legislature on the tobacco retailer enforcement landscape, including enforcement of California's flavor, youth access, taxation, and licensing laws. The bill would require specified state agencies to cooperate with the Legislative Analyst in the preparation and production of the report. The bill would repeal those reporting requirements on January 1, 2034. Chapter 849 of the Statutes of 2024 (AB 3218) revised the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 by, among other things, authorizing the department or a law enforcement agency to seize illegal flavored tobacco products or tobacco product flavor enhancers that a wholesaler or retailer possesses, stores, owns, or sold, as specified. Existing law further requires the department to impose on the wholesaler or retailer a specified civil penalty per individual package of flavored tobacco product or tobacco product flavor enhancer. Existing law defines "package" for purposes of the penalty provision applicable to retailers. This bill would define "flavored tobacco product" and "tobacco product flavor enhancer" for these purposes and would add the same definition of "package" for purposes of the penalty provision applicable to wholesalers. Chapter 462 of the Statutes of 2024 (SB 1230) , among other things, added a provision to the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 similar to the above-described provision relating to the seizure of a retailer's products added by AB 3218. Specifically, SB 1230 authorizes the department to seize illegal flavored tobacco products or tobacco product flavor enhancers if the department discovers that a retailer sells, offers for sale, or possesses with the intent to sell or offer for sale, those products, and deems the seized products as forfeited. This bill would repeal the above-described provision added by SB 1230. 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, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, authorizes 2 or more public agencies, if authorized by their governing bodies, by agreement to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties. Existing law authorizes 2 or more local public entities, or a mutual water company, as defined, and a public agency, to provide insurance, as specified, by a joint powers agreement. Existing law authorizes a mutual water company and a public agency to enter into a joint powers agreement for the purposes of risk pooling, as specified. Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including water corporations. This bill would authorize a water corporation, as defined, a mutual water company, and one or more public agencies to provide insurance, as specified, by a joint powers agreement. The bill would also authorize a water corporation, a mutual water company, and one or more public agencies to enter into a joint powers agreement for the purposes of risk pooling, as specified. The bill would prohibit the Public Utilities Commission from allowing a water corporation to join a joint powers agency for insurance coverage if there are no greater benefits to the customers of the water corporation than are provided by the water corporation's current insurance policy. The bill would require the joint powers agency to be 100% reinsured with no joint and several liability, no assessments, and no financial liability attributable to the participating members, as provided. If a water corporation enters into a joint powers agreement for the purposes of risk pooling, the bill would require the water corporation to submit an annual information filing to the Public Utilities Commission and the joint powers agency, as specified.

Existing law requires the juvenile court to appoint counsel for a child or nonminor dependent in dependency proceedings if they are not represented by counsel, unless the court determines that there would be no benefit from the appointment of counsel. Existing law authorizes counsel to be a district attorney, public defender, or other member of the State Bar, who satisfies certain conditions. Existing law specifies that a primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a child or nonminor dependent is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child or nonminor dependent. Under existing law, counsel in general is charged with representation of the child's best interests. Existing law requires, when counsel is appointed for a nonminor dependent, counsel to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent. This bill would remove the requirement that a primary responsibility of appointed counsel is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of a nonminor dependent. The bill would also remove the above-described exception to representing the wishes of the nonminor dependent when those wishes conflict with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Public Health of health facilities, including general acute care hospitals, as defined. Existing law requires a health facility to allow a patient's domestic partner, the children of the patient's domestic partner, and the domestic partner of the patient's parent or child to visit unless no visitors are allowed, the facility reasonably determines that the presence of a particular visitor would endanger the health or safety of a patient, a member of the health facility staff, or other visitor to the health facility, or would significantly disrupt the operations of a facility, or the patient has indicated to the health facility staff that the patient does not want this person to visit. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor. This bill would require a general acute care hospital to allow a patient with physical, intellectual, or developmental disabilities, a patient with cognitive impairment, including dementia, and a patient with another disability, as specified, to have a family or friend caregiver with them as needed, including outside standard visiting hours, unless specified conditions are met, including, but not limited to, that the hospital reasonably determines that the presence of a particular visitor would endanger the health or safety of the visitor, a patient, a member of the staff, or other visitor to the hospital, or would significantly disrupt the operations of the hospital. The bill would not prohibit a hospital from otherwise establishing reasonable restrictions upon visitation. The bill would authorize the hospital to impose legitimate health and safety requirements on visitors, as specified. The bill would specify that its provisions do not prohibit restrictions to patient visitation policies implemented during a state of emergency declared by the Governor, a health emergency declared by the State Public Health Officer, or a local health emergency declared by a local health officer, as specified. The bill would specify that its provisions do not create any new civil or criminal liability, including, but not limited to, liability for any illness, infection, or injury experienced by a patient or visitor on the part of a hospital that complies with its requirements. By expanding the scope of 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, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude those compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law expressly ratifies a number of tribal-state gaming compacts, and amendments to tribal-state gaming compacts, between the State of California and specified Indian tribes. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. This bill would ratify the amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact entered into between the State of California and the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California. The bill would provide that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions related to this amended compact are not projects for the purposes of CEQA. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law declares the public policy of the state regarding labor organization, including, among other things, that it is necessary for a worker to have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Existing law establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in state government as a means of resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of specified public employers and employees under various acts regulating collective bargaining. Under existing law, PERB has the power and duty to investigate an unfair practice charge and to determine whether the charge is justified and the appropriate remedy for the unfair practice. Existing law, the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) , establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating unfair labor practices on the part of employers and labor organizations in industries affecting interstate commerce, and vests in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the power to conduct elections to determine employee representatives and to prevent unfair labor practices affecting commerce. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would expand PERB's jurisdiction by authorizing a worker, to petition PERB to protect and enforce prescribed rights under specified circumstances, including if the worker is employed in a position subject to the NLRA but the NLRB has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction. The bill would authorize PERB to, among other things, decide unfair labor practice cases pursuant to a specified timeline and order all appropriate relief for a violation, including civil penalties, as prescribed. In order to pursue relief from PERB, the bill would require a covered worker or their representative to file an unfair practice charge or petition that includes specified information, including, where applicable, the original charge or petition filed with the NLRB. The bill would require PERB to hold the supporting documentation and evidence confidential and maintain it as part of its investigatory file and would exempt this documentation and evidence from the California Public Records Act. If PERB determines, among other things, it has insufficient resources to process certain cases or doing so would prevent it from meeting specified statutory deadlines, the bill would require PERB to process and prioritize charges, as specified. The bill would also establish the Public Employment Relations Board Enforcement Fund (fund) in the State Treasury, would require the above-described civil penalties to be deposited into the fund, and would make moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature to PERB for the purpose of administering the above-specified provisions. The bill would authorize PERB to rely on its own decisions and precedent under the NLRA and would authorize review of its decisions by a state appellate court, as specified. Existing law, the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, grants agricultural employees the right to form and join labor organizations and engage in collective bargaining, as specified, and prohibits agricultural employers and labor organizations from engaging in unfair labor practices. Those provisions establish the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and empower the ALRB to prevent any person from engaging in those practices. Existing law establishes various definitions for these purposes. Existing law requires the ALRB to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA. This bill would specify that the ALRB has exclusive jurisdiction in all phases of the administration of the act, and to determine whether any person or entity meets one or more of those definitions. The bill would instead authorize the board to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA, but would not obligate the board to follow precedents where the ALRB deems it inappropriate to do so. This bill would make related findings and declarations and would make its provisions severable. 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 establishes the Tribal Nation Grant Fund, administered by the California Gambling Control Commission, for the receipt and deposit of moneys received by the state from Indian tribes pursuant to the terms of tribal-state gaming compacts. Under existing law, moneys in the Tribal Nation Grant Fund are available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the discretionary distribution of funds to nongaming and limited-gaming tribes, as specified. Existing law establishes the Tribal Nation Grant Fund Program and authorizes Tribal Nation Grant Fund Panel to award grants from available moneys within the fund and make other distributions from the fund to eligible tribes, as specified. Existing law requires an eligible tribe requesting a grant to submit an application on a form approved by the panel and provided by the commission. Existing law authorizes the panel to distribute of the available moneys in the fund to all eligible tribes that submitted a completed grant application, as specified. Existing law authorizes the panel, in its discretion and based upon the purpose or project set forth in the application, to require an eligible tribe to encumber or expend any or all of a grant within a specified period of time, as described. Existing law requires each eligible tribe and each individual applying on behalf of each eligible tribe to agree to return to the fund any amount of a grant not encumbered or expended, as specified. This bill would additionally establish the fund for the receipt and deposit of moneys received by the state from Indian tribes pursuant to the terms of class III gaming secretarial procedures. The bill would revise the grant distribution provisions described above to authorize the panel to award grants as specific distribution grants to fund a specifically described purpose or project, or as equal shares grants for distribution to eligible tribes in equal amounts, as specified. The bill would require the panel to develop application forms for the specific distribution grants and the equal shares grants, as described, and would require the equal shares grants application form to include, among other things, a certification from the eligible tribe that the funds will be used for specified purposes. The bill would require the panel to distribute as equal shares grants $600,000 per eligible tribe, or at least 85% of the available moneys in the fund, whichever is greater, as specified. The bill would authorize the panel to distribute as specific distribution grants the remaining available moneys in the fund, as specified. The bill would no longer authorize the panel to require an eligible tribe to encumber or expend any or all of a grant within a specified period of time and would make a related conforming change. The bill would no longer require each eligible tribe and each individual applying on behalf of each eligible tribe to return to the fund any amount of a grant not encumbered or expended, as specified. The bill would make a related statement of legislative intent.

(1) The California Constitution provides for the fundamental rights of privacy and to choose to have an abortion. Existing law, the Reproductive Privacy Act, prohibits the state from denying or interfering with a pregnant person's right to choose or obtain an abortion before the viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. Existing law prohibits conditions or restrictions from being imposed on abortion access for incarcerated persons and committed juveniles. Existing laws requiring parental consent for abortion and making assisting in or advertising abortion a crime have been held to be unconstitutional. This bill would repeal those unconstitutional provisions and delete obsolete references to criminal abortion penalties. The bill would make technical changes to provisions authorizing abortion for incarcerated and committed persons. (2) Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for labeling requirements of drugs and devices. The Pharmacy Law requires a pharmacist to dispense a prescription in a container that is correctly labeled with specified information, including the name of the prescriber and the name address of the pharmacy. A violation of the Pharmacy Law is a misdemeanor. This bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to adopt regulations to include or exclude mifepristone and other medication abortion drugs from the requirements of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, but would exclude the drugs from those requirements if the drugs are no longer approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , as specified. The bill would authorize a pharmacist to dispense mifepristone or other drug used for medication abortion without the name of the patient, the name of the prescriber, or the name and address of the pharmacy, subject to specified requirements. The bill would require the pharmacist to maintain a log, as specified, that is not open to inspection by law enforcement without a subpoena, and would prohibit the disclosure of the information to an individual or entity from another state. The bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing action against a pharmacist for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in specified other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs, and would prohibit the California State Board of Pharmacy from denying an application for licensure or taking disciplinary action against an applicant or licensee for engaging in certain acts relating to mifepristone or other medical abortion drugs. By expanding the scope of a crime under the Pharmacy Law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law establishes various healing arts boards in the Department of Consumer Affairs that license and regulate various healing arts licensees. This bill would prohibit subjecting a healing arts practitioner who is authorized to prescribe, furnish, order, or administer dangerous drugs to civil, criminal, disciplinary, or other administrative action for prescribing, furnishing, ordering, or administering mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA or that varies from an approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategy under federal law, as specified. The bill would state that the laws of another state or federal actions that interfere with the authority of a healing arts practitioner to take specified actions relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs are against the public policy of this state. The bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing actions against an applicant or licensee for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs. (4) Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of clinics and health facilities by the State Department of Public Health. This bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing action against a licensed clinic or health facility for transporting or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs that are lawful in California. The bill would prohibit the department from denying an application for licensure or taking disciplinary action against an applicant or licensee for engaging in certain acts relating to mifepristone or other medical abortion drugs. (5) Existing law prohibits a health care provider from knowingly disclosing, transmitting, transferring, sharing or granting access to identifiable medical information related to an individual seeking, obtaining, providing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion that is lawful under the laws of this state, as specified and subject to specified exclusions. Existing law exempts a health care provider from liability for damages or from civil or enforcement actions for failing to comply this prohibition before January 31, 2026, if the health care provider is working diligently and in good faith to comply with the prohibition. This bill would exempt a health care provider from liability for damages or from civil or enforcement actions for an additional year, until January 31, 2027. (6) 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, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of disability and health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law prohibits a health care service plan contract or a group or individual disability insurance policy or certificate that covers prescription drugs from limiting or excluding coverage of a drug on the basis that the drug is prescribed for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA. Existing law prohibits a contract between a health care service plan or health insurer and a health care services provider from containing any term that would result in termination or nonrenewal of the contract or otherwise penalize the provider based on a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or another professional disciplinary action in another state if the judgment, conviction, or professional disciplinary action is solely based on the application of another state's law that interferes with a person's right to receive care that would be lawful if provided in California. Existing law also prohibits a health care service plan or health insurer from discriminating against a licensed provider solely on the basis of a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or another professional disciplinary action in another state if the judgment, conviction, or professional disciplinary action is solely based on the application of another state's law that interferes with a person's right to receive care that would be lawful if provided in California. This bill would prohibit a health care service plan contract or a group or individual health insurance policy or certificate that covers prescription drugs from limiting or excluding coverage for brand name or generic mifepristone solely on the basis that the drug is prescribed for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA or that varies from an approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, except if the state deems it necessary to address an imminent health or safety concern. The bill would require those contracts and policies to include coverage for brand name or generic mifepristone, even if it has not been approved by the FDA if specified requirements are met, except if the state deems it necessary to address an imminent health or safety concern. The bill would prohibit a plan or insurer from contracting with a health care services provider to terminate or nonrenew the contract or otherwise penalize the provider, or from discriminating against a licensed provider, for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs that are lawful in California. Because a violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4076 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 1503 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1503 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (8) 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. (9) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

This measure would designate November 1, 2025, as Fernando Valenzuela Day, to highlight the positive impact his legacy created in the Latino and Hispanic community.

This measure would recognize the importance of California Native American Day, celebrated this year on September 26, 2025, and the annual California Indian Cultural Awareness Conference, to the enhancement of awareness of California Indian culture.