Asm. Jessica Caloza

Existing law authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to collect fees, rents, and other returns for the use of any state park system area, as provided. Existing law authorizes the department to establish the California State Park Adventure Pass to be available, upon application to the department, to any child in grade 4, or grade 4 equivalent, who is a California resident and enrolled in a California public school. Existing law authorizes the department to waive the day use entrance fees to an eligible unit of the state park system for any child who holds a valid pass, as provided. The bill would declare, among other things, that it is the policy of the state to ensure equitable and inclusive access to the state park system by empowering the department to administer programs that broaden public access to the state parks. The bill would authorize the department to work with the California State Library and individual library systems to provide park passes.

Existing law requires every city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that requires the issuance of a permit as a condition precedent to the construction, alteration, improvement, demolition, or repair of any building or structure, to require the execution of a permit application, as specified. Existing law permits a local agency, defined as a city, county, or city and county, to authorize its enforcement agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions for a nonresidential building, but the local agency is not required to do so if it determines that no entities or persons are available or qualified to perform plan-checking services. Under existing law, when there is an excessive delay, as defined, in checking plans submitted as part of an application for specified nonresidential projects, a local agency is required to, upon request of the applicant, contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform the plan-checking function. Existing law defines "excessive delay" to mean, among other things, the local agency has taken more than 50 days to check plans and specifications, as provided. This bill would, until January 1, 2032, revise and recast the above-described provisions related to private plan checking. The bill would, upon receipt of a complete application for a nonresidential building permit, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which it will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. This bill would require the local agency to, upon an applicant's request, contract with or employ a private plan-checking entity if the estimated timeframe would result in an excessive delay or if there is excessive delay by the local agency. The bill would prohibit a local agency from reducing, eliminating, or failing to fill budgeted civil service positions within the building department as a result of the use of private professional providers, as provided. If the local agency determines no private entities or persons are available or qualified to perform plan-checking services, the bill would authorize the applicant to retain, at their sole expense, a private professional provider, as specified. The bill would shorten the timeframe constituting an "excessive delay" from 50 days to 30 business days. This bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. This bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit, as provided, or notify the applicant that, according to the report prepared by the private professional provider, the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to adopt requirements that limit the size of an eligible nonresidential building, as provided, or specify the eligible types of businesses or occupancy, provided that the requirements do not prohibit or effectively prohibit the use of a private professional provider as authorized by the bill. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, existing law imposes liability upon the public entity for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill would, notwithstanding existing public entity liability provisions, grant a public entity immunity from liability for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any nonresidential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. The bill would require the applicant to enter into an agreement to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the local agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the local agency or its agents, officers, or employees relating to any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Existing law permits the governing body of any county or city, including a charter city, to adopt an ordinance prescribing fees for filing applications for specified building permits, as provided. This bill would broaden the above-described permission and require a county or city that prescribes fees for a nonresidential building permit to prepare a nonresidential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website. This bill would additionally require a local building department to conduct an inspection of the permitted work for specified new nonresidential buildings or structures within 10 business days of receiving a notice of the completion of the permitted work authorized by a building permit issued for those projects. By expanding the crime of perjury, and by imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include related findings and declarations. 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. 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 specified reasons.

Existing law establishes the California Interagency Council on Homelessness and requires the council to take various actions to prevent and end homelessness in California. Existing law establishes various programs to prevent homelessness or assist persons experiencing homelessness, including the No Place Like Home Program and the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program. This bill would require the council, by July 1, 2028, to develop a statewide homelessness prevention strategy in the council's publicly available Action Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. The bill would require the strategy to include specified elements, including a homelessness prevention action plan for certain state agencies and evidence-based model homeless prevention practices, as specified. The bill would require the council to review and update the strategy in the Action Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. The bill would limit each state agency's participation to its existing statutory authority, activities, data, and subject-matter responsibilities.

This measure would recognize and affirm the important role of artists, arts organizations, creative arts therapists, and arts for health initiatives in supporting behavioral health, promoting recovery, strengthening community resilience, and contributing to public safety. The measure would encourage and recognize exploration, support, and integration of arts and behavioral health within California's health care, behavioral health, and community-based systems.

Existing law, the California Prompt Payment Act, requires a state agency that acquires property or services pursuant to a contract with a business to make payment to the person or business on the date required by the contract and as specified, or be subject to a late payment penalty. Existing law requires state agencies to encourage claimants to promptly pay their subcontractors and suppliers, especially those that are small businesses. This bill would authorize a subcontractor or supplier performing work under a state contract to request payment status information from the awarding state agency regarding invoices submitted by the prime contractor, and would require a prime contractor to provide confirmation to the awarding agency, upon the agency's request, regarding payments made to subcontractors.

(1) Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions. Before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a domestic violence restraining order or gun violence restraining order, existing law requires the court to ensure that a search has been conducted to determine, among other things, if the subject of the proposed order owns or possesses a firearm as reflected in the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System. If after the search, the court finds that the subject of the proposed order owns or possesses a firearm, existing law requires the court to make a written record as to whether the subject has relinquished the firearm and provided proof of the required storage, sale, or relinquishment of the firearm. Upon a court's issuance of such a protective order, existing law requires the restrained person to relinquish any firearm and ammunition in that person's immediate possession or control, according to specified procedures. Existing law prescribes procedures by which the restrained person must certify compliance with the court, and for the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the person has a firearm in violation of the order. This bill would make clarifying and conforming changes to the procedures relating to the protective or restraining orders described above by explicitly requiring the restrained person to relinquish, in addition to any firearm, any ammunition in that person's immediate possession or control. The bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would require courts to permit a party or witness to appear remotely at a hearing for a postsecondary educational institution or workplace violence restraining order at no cost. This bill would also require courts to develop rules and instructions for such remote appearances and to post them on their internet websites. The bill would also, commencing on January 1, 2028, require courts to allow filings related to those protective orders to be submitted electronically, as specified. (2) Existing law prohibits court from granting a temporary restraining order without notice to the respondent, except as specified. Existing law requires a peace officer, upon the request of a petitioner, to serve any civil harassment restraining order, domestic violence restraining order, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order, gun violence restraining order, postsecondary school restraining order, or workplace violence restraining order on the respondent, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody. Existing law prescribes procedures that a sheriff or marshal must follow when serving a writ, warrant, summons, order, or other process issued by a superior court in a civil action or proceeding. Existing law requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2024, to create a statewide form or forms to be used by litigants in civil actions or proceedings to request service of process or notice by a marshal or sheriff. This bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would prohibit a court from requiring notice to be provided to the party to be restrained in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order, as specified, if the applicant or the applicant's attorney certifies to the court under oath that providing notice to the party to be restrained in advance of filing the petition would likely endanger the safety of the petitioner or other persons. The bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would require a peace officer, as defined, to follow the procedures that apply to a sheriff or marshal when serving a writ, warrant, summons, order, or other process issued by a superior court, as described above. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2028, to create a statewide form or forms to be used by litigants in civil actions or proceedings to request service of process or notice by a marshal or sheriff, or by a peace officer serving any of the restraining or protective orders described above. By expanding the duties of peace officers, which include officers of local law enforcement agencies, and expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law requires, on any charge involving acts of domestic violence, that the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney conduct a search of certain databases for protective or restraining orders, as specified. This bill would additionally require the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney to conduct a search of the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System. By expanding the duties of the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under existing law, before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a domestic violence restraining order, the court must ensure that a search is or has been conducted to determine if the subject of the proposed order has, among other things, a prior criminal conviction for a violent or serious felony, owns or possesses a firearm, as reflected in the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System, or has a prior restraining order or violation thereof. Existing law requires this search to be conducted of specified records and databases readily available and reasonably accessible to the court. Existing law requires the court, after issuing its ruling, to advise the parties that they may request the information upon which the court relied to conduct the search and information obtained as a result of the search to be maintained in a confidential case file, except as specified. This bill would authorize a court to order any of the searches described above to be conducted before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a civil harassment restraining order, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order, gun violence restraining order, postsecondary school restraining order, or workplace violence restraining order. The bill would require the court, after issuing its ruling, to provide the advisement to the parties described above, and to keep the information obtained as a result of any search to be maintained in a confidential case file, except as specified. (4) Existing law requires a court, when issuing a gun violence restraining order, to notify the Department of Justice regarding the order. Existing law requires the court, when issuing protective orders and firearm or ammunition relinquishment orders, to notify the prosecuting agency and law enforcement officials, as specified, in order, to enable the prosecuting agency and law enforcement officials to take necessary actions to obtain any firearms or ammunition owned, possessed, or controlled by the subject of the order. This bill would require local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting agencies, as defined, to designate a person responsible for accessing or receiving notifications from the superior court indicating that a person has violated a protective or restraining orders' firearm relinquishment requirement and to regularly ensure that the clerk of the court has updated contact information for the person designated to receive those notifications on behalf of the agency. This bill would also require each prosecuting agency to ensure that a protected person or protected people named in the order are notified about the issuance, terms, and duration of the protective order, except as specified. The bill would require each prosecuting agency to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards regarding notification to protected parties on or before January 1, 2028, as specified. By placing new requirements on local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would authorize a law enforcement agency or officer to seek enforcement of a valid extreme risk protection order issued by another state or jurisdiction. The bill would define an extreme risk protection order as an injunction, restraining order, or other civil or criminal court order issued by another state or jurisdiction that does not name a protected individual, but prohibits the subject of the order from possessing, owning, controlling, purchasing, or receiving firearms for the duration of the order based on evidence that the subject of the order poses a danger to themselves or others. The bill would require a valid extreme risk protection order to be registered with a court in this state if requested by a law enforcement officer or other petitioner. (5) Existing law requires each county to electronically transmit data regarding protective orders through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System of the Department of Justice, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain the California Restraining and Protective Order System that contains detailed information regarding protective and restraining orders and injunctions, as specified, and to make that information available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel. This bill would extend these reporting requirements to include any protective order or restraining orders issued pursuant to specified sections, including a gun violence restraining order or an extreme risk protection order. (6) Existing law, the Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, authorizes the enforcement of a valid foreign protection order in a tribunal of this state under certain conditions. The bill would expand the definition of a protection order to include any injunction or order under the federal Violence Against Women Act and would extend these provisions to orders issued by any state or other jurisdiction. The bill would make conforming changes. (7) Existing law authorizes the Department of Justice, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, to establish or contract with a vendor to establish an automated protected person information and notification system, as specified. This bill would authorize the department to establish or contract with a vendor to create the above-described notification system through the availability of necessary funding through grants or other sources. (8) Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would prohibit a person, who is convicted on or after January 1, 2027, of specified offenses, including misdemeanor violations of a gun violence restraining order or other protective orders, or violations that constitute a hate crime, from owning, purchasing, receiving, or having in their possession or under their custody or control any firearm within 10 years of the conviction, and would make conforming changes. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (9) Existing law requires a peace officer who is at the scene of a domestic violence incident or enforcing a domestic violence restraining order or gun violence restraining order to take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or otherwise lawful search, as specified. This bill would additionally require a peace officer to take temporary custody of any ammunition in plain sight or discovered pursuant to such a search. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (10) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (11) This bill would provide that if AB 2179 is enacted, then the changes made to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure by this bill would not be operative. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 1961 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1961 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by SB 1374 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1374 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6383 of the Family Code proposed by SB 99 and SB 1395, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 29805 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1220 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1220 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (12) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law establishes the Natural Resources Agency, which consists of various departments, including the Department of Conservation, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Existing law vests in the Natural Resources Agency various powers, including those related to conservation of lands. By Executive Order No. N-82-20, Governor Gavin Newsom directed the Natural Resources Agency to combat the biodiversity and climate crises by, among other things, establishing the California Biodiversity Collaborative and conserving at least 30% of the state's lands and coastal waters by 2030. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to prepare and submit, on or before March 31, 2024, and annually thereafter, a report to the Legislature on the progress made in the prior calendar year toward achieving the goal to conserve 30% of California's lands and coastal waters by 2030. Existing law provides that it is the goal of the state to conserve at least 30% of California's lands and coastal waters by 2030, known as the 30x30 goal. Existing law establishes the Equitable Outdoor Access Act (act) , which sets forth the state's commitment to ensuring all Californians can benefit from, and have meaningful access to, the state's rich cultural and natural resources. Existing law declares that it is state policy, among other things, to ensure that all Californians have equitable opportunities to safe and affordable access to nature and access to the benefits of nature, and to prevent and minimize the intentional and unwarranted limitation of sustainable public access to public lands, where appropriate, including, but not limited to, local, regional, state, and federal parks, rivers, lakes, beaches, forests, mountain ranges, deserts, and other natural landscapes. Existing law requires specified state agencies to consider and incorporate, as appropriate, the state policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, or grant criteria, or making expenditures, as specified. Existing law requires all state agencies implementing the above-described state policy to do so in a manner consistent with the mission of their agency and that protects the health and safety of the public and conserves natural and cultural resources. This bill would establish the Outdoors for All initiative, to be administered by the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with specified state entities, to advance the objectives of the act and to implement and update specified priorities, including, among other related priorities, establishing outdoor public recreation spaces, as defined, connecting people and the outdoors, and aligning funding to achieve the initiative's goals, as specified. The bill would require the agency to report, on or before January 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature on the progress made to achieve the initiative's goals, as specified.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to be responsible for determining whether a project is exempt from CEQA and whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required. Existing law requires a city or county that determines a certain type of project is subject to the requirements of CEQA to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment, as provided. This bill, among other things, would instead require a city or county, upon receipt of a preliminary application for a housing development project that meets certain conditions, or upon a development application for certain projects being determined as complete or deemed complete, to make that identification of public water systems. The bill would require a city or county, within 15 days of receiving an application that meets either of the above-mentioned criteria, to request each identified public water system to determine whether the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was included in the most recently adopted urban water management plan. By imposing additional duties on a city or county, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the governing body of each identified public water system to submit the requested water supply assessment not later than 90 days from the date that the request was received. Existing law requires that the assessment be approved at a regular or special meeting, as provided. This bill would require, for certain housing development projects, a public water system to submit the requested water supply assessment to the city or county no later than 45 days from the date that the request was received. The bill would provide that those water supply assessments do not need to be approved at a public meeting. The bill would also authorize a city or county to seek a writ of mandamus to compel a public water system that fails to submit the water supply assessment to comply with the requirements relating to the submission of the water supply assessment. 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 law establishes the Office of Small Business Advocate within the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, led by the Small Business Advocate, and sets forth its powers and duties relating to advocacy on behalf of small businesses and providing small businesses with the information they need to survive in the marketplace. Existing law, the Small Business Procurement and Contract Act, which requires the directors of the Department of General Services and other state agencies that enter specified contracts to establish a minimum goal for procurement participation for small businesses, including microbusinesses, in the provision of goods, information technology, and services to the state, and in the construction of state facilities, also requires a contractor, upon completion of a contract for which a commitment to achieve a small business or disabled business enterprise participation goal was made, to report to the awarding department the actual percentage of small business and disabled business enterprise participation that was achieved. This bill would also require an awarding department, upon completion of a contract for which a commitment to achieve a small business or disabled business enterprise participation goal was made, to require a prime contractor that entered into a subcontract with a small business to certify specified information to the awarding department, including, among other things, the total amount that the prime contractor received under the contract, that all payments under the contract have been made to the small business, and the actual percentage of small business participation that was achieved. By requiring a prime contractor to certify this information, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require a prime contractor, after being awarded a contract pursuant to the act, to use the small businesses or microbusiness subcontractor proposed in its bid, proposal, or contract unless certain conditions are met. Existing law, the State Contract Act except as specified, makes all contracts entered into by any state agency for the acquisition of goods or services, the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or maintenance of property, real or personal, or the performance of work or services by the state agency for or in cooperation with any person, or public body, void unless and until approved by the Department of General Services. This bill would require an awarding department, beginning on January 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, through its small business liaison, to make available a report on payment activity during the previous fiscal year related to all contracts awarded to a small business, as specified. Existing law requires a state agency that significantly regulates small business or that significantly impacts small business to designate at least one person to serve as a small business liaison for the agency. Existing law requires these state agencies to notify the Office of Small Business Advocate within the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development and the Department of General Services of specified information, including the name and contact information of the agency's small business liaison. This bill would require the small business liaison for each state agency to annually submit the above-described report on payment activity to the Office of Small Business Advocate. The bill would require the Office of Small Business Advocate to post that information on its internet website. 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.

The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) prohibits a political subdivision from imposing or applying an at-large method of election for members of the political subdivision's governing body in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as specified. Existing law requires courts to implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, for violations of the CVRA. This bill would revise the CVRA. The bill would prohibit a political subdivision or state agency from implementing, imposing, or enforcing any election policy or practice, as defined, that results in, or is likely to result in, voter suppression. An election policy or practice would result in voter suppression if it (1) causes a material disparity in voter participation, access to voting opportunities, or the opportunity or ability to participate in the political process for members of a protected class, which is defined as any race, color, or language-minority group; or (2) based on the totality of circumstances, causes an impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of members of a protected class to participate in the political process. An election policy or practice would not violate the prohibition on voter suppression if the political subdivision or state agency demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the election policy or practice is necessary to significantly further a compelling and particularized governmental interest and there is no reasonable alternative that comparably furthers the governmental interest and results in a smaller disparity between members of a protected class and other members of the electorate. The bill would also prohibit a political subdivision from employing any method of election, as defined, that has the effect, or will likely have the effect, of diluting the vote of protected class members. Vote dilution would be established if there is an impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of their choice, as provided, and another method of election or a change to the existing method of election would likely mitigate the impairment. The bill sets forth various factors that courts could, and could not, consider when evaluating whether voter suppression or vote dilution exists within a political subdivision. The Attorney General, or any voter who is a member of a protected class and who resides in a political subdivision where a violation is alleged, would have standing to bring an action in a superior court of competent jurisdiction or any county in which the Attorney General has an office. The bill would require a potential plaintiff, before filing an action alleging voter suppression or vote dilution, to send a notice letter to the political subdivision identifying the potential violation and how the party's proposed remedy would address it. For allegations of voter suppression, the bill would permit the potential plaintiff to file an action if the political subdivision has not enacted a remedy within 45 days of receipt of the notice letter or if the political subdivision's remedy would not redress the alleged violation. For allegations that a political subdivision's method of election results in vote dilution, the bill would permit the potential plaintiff to file an action if the political subdivision has not, within 60 days, passed a resolution outlining its intention to make changes to its method of election or petitioned a court for authorization to implement a different, appropriate remedy. Notwithstanding the notice requirement, the bill would authorize a potential plaintiff to file an action against a political subdivision at any time if the action is for a preliminary injunction with respect to an election that will occur within 180 days, another party has already submitted a notice letter alleging a substantially similar violation arising out of the same set of facts and the required number of days have passed, or the prospect of obtaining relief would otherwise be futile. If the political subdivision provides some or all of the relief sought in a potential plaintiff's notice letter, the bill would authorize the potential plaintiff to recover their costs, which would be capped at an amount equal to the present value of $30,000 in 2016, subject to an annual inflation adjustment. The bill would prohibit any political subdivision from enacting or administering any covered practice without obtaining preapproval from the Attorney General, if the political subdivision, within the previous 10 years, has entered into a settlement agreement admitting liability for a violation of, or been found by a court to have violated, this bill, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, or any other state law concerning the right to vote for protected class members. Under the bill, covered practices would include new or modified methods of election, annexations and deannexations, or reductions in language assistance. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to grant preapproval to a political subdivision only if the covered practice will not diminish the equal opportunity or ability of members of the protected class to participate in the political process or elect candidates of choice and the covered practice is unlikely to violate the provisions of the bill. The bill would require any law, regulation, charter, ordinance, or other enactment of any political subdivision relating to voting to be construed liberally in favor of the right to vote. Existing law generally prohibits using a voting system unless it has been certified or conditionally approved by the Secretary of State before any election at which it is to be used. This bill would require the Secretary of State to examine and test a voting system and, if the Secretary of State determines that it meets the applicable requirements, certify or conditionally approve the system for use in an election conducted using a method of election adopted to remedy a violation of the CVRA, as provided. Existing law requires the adoption of new election district boundaries for a legislative body that is elected using district-based elections following each federal decennial census. This bill would require a districting body responsible for the adoption of new election district boundaries to comply with the requirements of this bill when adopting new boundaries following the decennial census. By increasing the duties of local elections officials, the bill would create 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.