Asm. Sade Elhawary

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, the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, added by Proposition 22, as approved by the voters at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election (the initiative) , categorizes app-based drivers for network companies, as defined, as independent contractors if certain conditions are met. Existing law requires, among other things, that the network company provide a health care subsidy to qualifying app-based drivers, provide a minimum level of compensation for app-based drivers, and not restrict app-based drivers from working in any other lawful occupation or business. Existing case law holds that specified provisions of the initiative are invalid on separation of powers grounds; however, the court severed the unconstitutional provisions, allowing the rest of the initiative to remain in effect. Existing law also establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (board) 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. Existing law vests the board with jurisdiction to enforce certain provisions over charges of unfair practices for represented employees. This bill, the Transportation Network Company Drivers Labor Relations Act (act) , would establish that transportation network company (TNC) drivers have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of TNC driver organizations, to bargain through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from such activities. The bill would require the board to enforce these provisions. This bill would require all TNCs to submit certain information every quarter, including information identifying and related personal work information about TNC drivers to the board in a list format, as prescribed. The bill would establish various procedures governing the certification and decertification of TNC driver organizations for purposes of representing drivers in the collective bargaining process. In this connection, the bill would require the board to determine if an entity is a TNC driver organization, as prescribed, and make certain determinations as to whether a specific organization has been designated as the bargaining representative for TNC drivers pursuant to an election process. The bill would establish various notice requirements, conditions, and timelines governing the representation of TNC drivers. The bill would, among other things, require TNCs and certified driver bargaining organizations to negotiate in good faith pursuant to the act, as described, and would set forth procedures for mediation and arbitration for purposes of reaching a sectoral agreement. The bill would set forth procedures and guidelines for the board to approve or disapprove sectoral agreements. The bill would require a TNC that was not a covered TNC when a sectoral agreement took effect but subsequently became a covered TNC to be bound by all terms of the sectoral agreement, as specified. This bill would make it an unfair practice for a TNC, an agent of a TNC, or a multicompany committee, as defined, to fail or refuse to negotiate in good faith with a certified driver bargaining organization, among other things. The bill would also make it an unfair practice for a certified driver bargaining organization or its agents to fail to negotiate in good faith with a TNC or multicompany committee, among other things. The bill would set forth unfair practice charge procedures and remedies for those practices. The bill would define terms for purposes of the act, make the provisions of the act severable, and make related legislative policy statements. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, generally requires all meetings of a state body to be open and public. This bill would exempt any meeting of a mediator or arbitrator with any party or group to the negotiations process and the mediation and arbitration processes in the act from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting act. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. This bill would exclude from public disclosure information regarding TNC drivers that is submitted to the board pursuant to the act, except as specified. 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 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.

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.

(1) Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members. Existing law requires the superintendent of a school district, the superintendent of a county office of education, and the principal of a charter school, as applicable, to report to the respective governing board or body of the local educational agency in a timely manner any requests for information or access to a schoolsite by an officer or employee of a law enforcement agency for the purpose of enforcing the immigration laws in a manner that ensures the confidentiality and privacy of any potentially identifying information. This bill would prohibit school officials and employees of a local educational agency from allowing an officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement to enter a nonpublic area of a schoolsite, as defined, for any purpose without being presented with a valid judicial warrant, judicial subpoena, or a court order. The bill would require school officials and employees of a local educational agency, to the extent practicable, to request valid identification of any officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement seeking to enter a nonpublic area of a schoolsite. The bill would also prohibit a local educational agency and its personnel from disclosing or providing, in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil or a pupil's family and household without the pupil's parents' or guardians' written consent, a school employee, or a teacher to an officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement without a valid judicial warrant or judicial subpoena, or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the Attorney General, by April 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, and ensuring that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status, as provided. Existing law requires local educational agencies, by July 1, 2018, to adopt those model policies developed by the Attorney General or equivalent policies. This bill would require the Attorney General, by December 1, 2025, to update those model policies to ensure that the policies align with the above-described prohibitions on school officials and employees of local educational agencies allowing an officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement to enter a nonpublic area of a schoolsite without a valid judicial warrant or judicial subpoena, or a court order and from disclosing or providing certain information to those officers or employees, as provided. The bill also would require a local educational agency to update its model policy by March 1, 2026, and to make the policy available to the State Department of Education upon request. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) This bill would make these provisions severable. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law prohibits credibly impersonating a peace officer, firefighter, or employee of a public utility, state or local government agency, or search and rescue team, as specified. Existing law also prohibits willfully and credibly impersonating a peace officer, firefighter, or employee of a public utility, state or local government agency, or search and rescue team through or on an internet website, or by other electronic means, for the purposes of defrauding another. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to prohibit impersonating a law enforcement officer, and would clarify that a law enforcement officer, for these purposes, includes a federal law enforcement officer. The bill would extend these offenses to include willfully and credibly impersonating any of those entities through any means for the purpose of defrauding another. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2026, require a law enforcement officer operating in California that is not uniformed to visibly display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number to the public when performing their enforcement duties, except as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor. The bill would define personnel of a law enforcement agency as any peace officer under California law and any federal law enforcement officer. By creating a new crime and imposing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require any law enforcement agency operating in California to, by January 1, 2026, maintain and publicly post a written policy on the visible identification of sworn personnel, including a purpose statement affirming the agency's commitment to specified principles including transparency, accountability, and public trust, and a requirement for sworn personnel to visibly display identification and for specified exceptions. The bill would exempt personnel of any agency from the crime for not displaying identification if an agency maintains a policy pursuant to these provisions. The bill would deem a policy consistent with that exception unless a member of the public, an oversight body, or a local governing authority challenges it. The bill would, if the agency does not address deficiencies within 90 days, authorize the complaining party to proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction for a judicial determination of the exemption, as specified. The bill would also authorize a peace officer, as defined, to request an alleged law enforcement officer to present identification when there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe the alleged law enforcement officer has committed crime, including, but not limited to, impersonating a peace officer. Existing law, the Bail Fugitive Recovery Persons Act, regulates bail fugitive recovery agents, defined as a person given written authorization by the bail or depositor of bail and contracted to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive and any person employed to assist the bail or depositor of bail to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive. This bill would prohibit a person authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive from using that position for the purposes of immigration enforcement and would prohibit a person authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive from disclosing personally identifiable information of any bail fugitive that is requested for purposes of immigration enforcement, except as specified. This bill would declare these provisions are severable. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to wear a mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise, as specified, with the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification while committing a public offense, or for concealment, flight, evasion, or escape from arrest or conviction for any public offense. This bill would make it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear a facial covering in the performance of their duties, except as specified. The bill would define law enforcement officer as anyone designated by California law as a peace officer who is employed by a city, county, or other local agency, and any officer or agent of a federal law enforcement agency or law enforcement agency of another state, or any person acting on behalf of a federal law enforcement agency or agency of another state. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require any law enforcement agency operating in California to, by July 1, 2026, maintain and publicly post a written policy limiting the use of facial coverings, as specified. The bill would exempt personnel of any agency from the crime of wearing a facial covering if an agency maintains a policy pursuant to this section no later than July 1, 2026. The bill would deem a policy consistent with these provisions for the purposes of that exception unless a member of the public, an oversight body, or a local governing authority challenges it. The bill would also impose a specified civil penalty against certain officers for tortious conduct, including, but not limited to, false imprisonment or false arrest of an individual while wearing a facial covering. The bill would, if the agency does not address deficiencies within 90 days, authorize the complaining party to proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction for a judicial determination of the exemption, as specified. The bill would define a law enforcement agency for these purposes as any entity of a city, county, or other local agency, that employs anyone designated by California law as a peace officer, any federal law enforcement agency, or any law enforcement agency of another state. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would declare its provisions to be severable. This bill would make related findings and declarations. 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.

This measure would proclaim the month of October 2025 as California Firefighter Appreciation Month and October 4, 2025, as California Firefighters Memorial Day.

This measure would declare the Legislature's opposition to the unlawful Executive Order No. 14160, entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," ending birthright citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution and would affirm the Legislature's commitment to birthright citizenship, as specified.

This measure would declare the month of March to be March4Water Month in California and would encourage all Californians to participate in activities and programs during March4Water Month to promote awareness, education, and actions that prioritize water as a vital resource for the state's future.