Rep. José Solache

(1) Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt and implement motor vehicle fuel specifications for the control of air contaminants and sources of air pollution. Existing law authorizes blends of gasoline containing 10.5% to 15% ethanol by volume to be sold in the state for use as a transportation fuel until specified actions are taken by the California Environmental Policy Council and the state board. Existing law requires the state board to adopt performance standards for gasoline vapor control systems during gasoline marketing operations and to certify any gasoline vapor control system that meets those performance standards and other specified requirements. Existing law also requires the State Fire Marshal, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Division of Measurement Standards to adopt rules and regulations on various aspects of gasoline vapor control systems and components and to certify compliance of those systems and components with their respective rules and regulations. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2029, vapor control systems and their components that are certified or approved by the state agencies listed above for use with gasoline and ethanol blends containing 10% ethanol to also be used with gasoline and ethanol blends containing more than 10% and up to 15% ethanol if the manufacturer of the equipment submits a statement of compatibility, signed under penalty of perjury, to each of those state agencies. The bill would require the service station dispensing an ethanol blend containing more than 10% and up to 15% ethanol to comply with certain labeling required by the State Fire Marshal. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require, on or before December 31, 2026, the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations governing the labeling and safe use of gasoline and ethanol blends containing more than 10% and up to 15% ethanol with vapor control systems and their components that have been authorized for use pursuant to the above-described provisions. (2) Existing law generally regulates the storage of hazardous substances in underground storage tanks and requires underground storage tanks that are used to store hazardous substances to meet certain requirements. Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board and the State Air Resources Board to certify that the equipment that meets certain requirements for enhanced vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities also meets the underground storage tank laws, as specified. This bill would require, until January 1, 2029, that any enhanced vapor control system at gasoline dispensing facilities suitable for gasoline and ethanol blends containing 10% ethanol be deemed certified or approved for the use of gasoline and ethanol blends containing more than 10% ethanol and up to 15% ethanol if the manufacturer of the equipment submits the aforementioned statement of compatibility. (3) Existing law establishes in the Department of Industrial Relations the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board and authorizes the board to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards and orders. Existing law imposes various requirements on occupational safety and health standards, including that those standards be at least as effective as federal standards, as specified. This bill would require, until January 1, 2029, that any device used for dispensing flammable liquids with an ethanol content of up to 10% be deemed approved for purposes of occupational safety and health standards and orders for the use of gasoline and ethanol blends containing more than 10% ethanol and up to 15% ethanol if the manufacturer of the equipment submits the aforementioned statement of compatibility. (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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL) establishes the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to provide a defined benefit to members of the system based on final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. Existing law creates the Public Employees' Retirement Fund, which is continuously appropriated for purposes of PERS, including depositing employer and employee contributions. Under the California Constitution, assets of a public pension or retirement system are trust funds. The California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) establishes a variety of requirements and restrictions on public employers offering defined benefit pension plans. In this regard, PEPRA restricts the amount of compensation that may be applied for purposes of calculating a defined pension benefit for a new member, as defined, by restricting it to specified percentages of the contribution and benefit base under a specified federal law with respect to old age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits. Existing law, the Teachers' Retirement Law, establishes the State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS) and creates the Defined Benefit Program of the State Teachers' Retirement Plan, which provides a defined benefit to members of the program, based on final compensation, creditable service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. This bill, for service performed on and after January 1, 2027, would prohibit the pensionable compensation for calendar year 2027 used to calculate the defined benefit paid to a new member of a retirement system subject to PEPRA who retires from the system from exceeding specified percentages of the contribution and benefit base under the specified federal law with respect to old age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits. The bill would make related, conforming changes to these provisions on pensionable compensation. The bill also would require a new member of STRS to be subject to specified limits of the Teachers' Retirement Law. PEPRA requires each retirement system that offers a defined benefit plan for safety members of the system to use one of 3 formulas for safety members, 2% at age 57, 2.5% at age 57, or 2.7% at age 57. This bill would establish new retirement formulas, for employees first hired on or after January 1, 2027, as 2.5% at age 55, 2.7% at age 55, or 3% at age 55, subject to certain exceptions. For new members hired on or after January 1, 2013, who are safety members, the bill would require employers to adjust the formulas for service performed on or after January 1, 2027, to offer the formula that has the same fraction at age 55 as the fraction at age 57 in the formula the employer offered pursuant to existing law. The bill would authorize a public employer and a recognized employee organization to negotiate a prospective increase to the retirement benefit formulas for safety members and new safety members, consistent with the formulas permitted under PEPRA, including the new formulas described above. This bill would authorize an employer and its employees to agree in a memorandum of understanding to be subject to a higher safety plan or a lower safety plan, subject to certain requirements, including that the memorandum of understanding is collectively bargained in accordance with applicable laws. By increasing the contribution to continuously appropriated funds, and by increasing expenditures from those funds, this bill would make an appropriation.

Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law requires the state board to inventory sources of air pollution within the air basins of the state, determine the kinds and quantity of air pollutants, and monitor air pollutants in cooperation with districts and other agencies. This bill would require the state board to expand its incident air monitoring program, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature for those purposes, to provide support for a regional network of air quality incident response centers, including at least one air quality incident response and evaluation center located at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, in order to facilitate emergency air monitoring response at the local and regional level. The bill would require each air quality incident response center to be operated by the state board or an air district and would require the state board and each district that operates an air quality incident response center to coordinate to provide emergency air monitoring response for disasters or other crises impacting air quality and public health in the state. The bill would provide that funding made available by the Legislature for purposes of these provisions may be used for various purposes, including program funding to plan, create, equip, and maintain air quality incident response centers. To the extent that the bill would expand the duties of an air district, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law imposes taxes upon income and real property, and taxes upon certain transactions and excise taxes. The Fee Collection Procedures Law provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges and is administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) . Under existing law, a violation of the Fee Collection Procedures Law is a crime. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2028, establish the Private Detention Facility Tax Law, which would impose an annual tax on each private detention facility operator, as defined, equal to 25% of the operator's gross income, as defined, for the prior fiscal year, as defined. The bill would establish the Due Process for All Fund in the State Treasury, except as provided, and would require all revenues collected, less refunds and reimbursement to the CDTFA, be deposited into the fund. In the event that Assembly Bill 2465 is enacted, the bill would instead require all revenues be deposited into the Due Process for All Fund as established by that bill. The bill would direct moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, be used for immigration-related services. The bill would require the CDTFA to administer and collect the tax pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. By expanding the application of the crimes associated with the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth the missions and functions of the public institutions of higher education, including the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. The provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make them applicable. This bill would prohibit the University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges from disqualifying a student from being hired for an employment position due to the student's failure to provide proof of federal work authorization, except where that proof is required by federal law or where that proof is required as a condition of a grant that funds the particular employment position for which the student has applied. This bill would require the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges to treat a specified prohibition in federal law on hiring undocumented noncitizens as inapplicable because that provision does not apply to any branch of state government. The bill would further provide that, to the extent student employment is considered a "benefit" for purposes of federal law, the bill constitutes authorization to provide that benefit for purposes of specified federal law. This bill would require the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges to implement the bill by January 6, 2027. The bill's provisions would apply to the University of California, unless it is found inapplicable to the University of California and then only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make them applicable. By imposing new duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of child daycare facilities, including daycare centers and family daycare homes, by the State Department of Social Services. Existing law imposes various training requirements on child daycare facilities, including, among others, at least 15 hours of specified health and safety training that includes pediatric first aid, pediatric CPR, and preventive health practices, and mandated reporter training. A person who willfully or repeatedly violates any provision of the act or any rule or regulation promulgated under the act is guilty of a crime. Existing law prohibits licensed child daycare facilities, employees of licensed child daycare facilities, and license-exempt California state preschool program facilities from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of children or their family members. Existing law also requires the Attorney General, by April 1, 2026, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at child daycare facilities, as specified, and requires the State Department of Social Services to inform licensed daycare facilities of the model policies. This bill would require the State Department of Social Services to notify all licensed and license-exempt family daycare home providers of a person's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as specified, and would also require the department to designate a statewide entity to develop and provide a training program about those rights. The bill would require the designated statewide entity to offer the training program commencing 60 days after the effective date of the bill, and would require licensed family daycare home providers to complete the training within specified timeframes. The bill would specify that a violation of these requirements is not subject to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties, and does not subject a licensee to citation under the act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Maddy summaryThis bill designates September 2026 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. It directly affects state agencies and organizations by encouraging them to recognize this specific month for awareness activities. The measure does not change laws or allocate funding but serves as a formal commemorative resolution.

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.

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.

Existing law makes it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear a facial covering in the performance of their duties, except as specified. Existing law defines law enforcement officer for these purposes 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, agency or law enforcement agency of another state, or any person acting on behalf of a federal law enforcement agency. This bill would add peace officers employed by a state agency to the definition of law enforcement officers, thereby making those law enforcement officers subject to those criminal penalties. The bill would specify that facial coverings does not include certain items, including, among other things, sunglasses. The bill would, for all of the items excluded from the definition of facial coverings, limit that exclusion if the items are combined or otherwise used in a manner intended to conceal or obscure an officer's identity. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits any person who is found to have committed an assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution, while wearing a facial covering in a knowing and willful violation of these provisions, from asserting any privilege or immunity for their tortious conduct against a claim of civil liability, and makes that person liable for the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of not less than $10,000, whichever is greater. This bill would instead make a person who is found liable for false imprisonment or false arrest liable for those damages if the trier of fact finds that the person knowingly and willfully concealed their identity through the use of a facial covering at the time of the conduct giving rise to liability. Existing law requires a 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. Existing law defines 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. This bill would add to the definition of law enforcement agency, a state entity that employs a peace officer and would change the date any law enforcement agency has to comply with that requirement to January 1, 2027. The bill would also require those policies to exempt certain surveillance operations related to enforcement of the Fish and Game Code, or similar federal law. 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.