(1) Existing law, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, requires the state and certain counties to provide voting materials in languages other than English, as specified. Existing law requires the Attorney General, upon receipt of the text of a proposed initiative measure, to prepare a circulating title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure. Existing law requires the Attorney General to provide a copy of the circulating title and summary of a proposed initiative measure to the proponents of the measure and the Secretary of State within 15 days, as specified. Existing law specifies that the official summary date of a proposed measure is the date a circulating title and summary is delivered or mailed by the Attorney General to the proponents of the proposed measure. This bill would require the Attorney General to provide a notice to the proponents stating that, if the proponents intend to circulate the petition for the proposed initiative measure, the proponents shall notify the Attorney General, in the manner prescribed by the Attorney General, of their intention to circulate. Upon receipt of the proponents' notice of intention to circulate, this bill would require the Attorney General to prepare a translation of the circulating title and summary of the proposed initiative measure in each language in which the state or a county is required to provide voting materials pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. This bill would require the Attorney General to provide a copy of each translation to the proponents and the Secretary of State, as specified. This bill would provide that if the proponents of a proposed initiative measure do not submit a notice of intention to circulate, the proponents' request for a circulating title and summary shall be deemed withdrawn and the petition shall not be circulated for signature. This bill would specify that the official summary date of a proposed initiative measure is the date a copy of each translation of the circulating title and summary is delivered or mailed to the proponents. (2) Existing law permits any person who is a voter or who is qualified to register to vote in the state to circulate an initiative petition for signature and imposes certain requirements on these circulators. This bill would require a copy of the applicable translated circulating title and summary prepared by the Attorney General to be attached to the petition and made available to each person whom the circulator solicits in that language to sign the petition and to any other person upon request. (3) Existing provisions of the California Constitution and statute authorize the recall of state officers. Existing law requires the proponents of the recall to file 2 blank copies of the petition to recall the officer with the Secretary of State, who is required to ascertain if the proposed form and wording of the petition meet specified requirements. This bill would require the Secretary of State to prepare a translation of the petition for the recall of a state officer in each language in which the state or a county, as specified, is required to provide voting materials pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. This bill would require the Secretary of State, within 10 days after ascertaining that the proposed form and wording of the recall petition meet specified requirements, to provide a copy of each translation to the proponents. (4) Existing law requires a recall petition to use a specified format and contain certain information. Under existing law, any person who is a registered voter of the electoral jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled may circulate the recall petition for signatures. If a recall petition is circulated in a specified county, this bill would require a copy of the applicable translation of the petition prepared by the Secretary of State to be attached to the petition and made available to each person whom the circulator solicits in that language to sign the petition and to any person upon request.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, until January 1, 2020, requires an operator of a store, as defined, to establish an at-store recycling program that provides to customers the opportunity to return clean plastic carryout bags to that store. With specified exceptions, this bill, as of January 1, 2015, would prohibit stores that have a specified amount of dollar sales or retail floor space from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer. The bill, on and after July 1, 2016, would additionally impose this prohibition on convenience food stores, foodmarts, and certain other specified stores. The bill would require all of these stores to meet other specified requirements regarding providing recycled paper bags, compostable bags, or reusable grocery bags to customers. The bill would require a reusable grocery bag that a store is required to sell on and after July 1, 2016, to meet specified requirements. A violation of that requirement and the requirements that would be imposed upon grocery bag producers to submit certain laboratory test results would be subject to an administrative civil penalty assessed by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The department would be required to deposit these penalties into the Reusable Bag Account, which would be created in the Integrated Waste Management Fund, for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement those requirements. The bill would allow a city, county, or city and county, or the state to impose civil penalties for a violation of the bill's requirements. The bill would require these civil penalties to be paid to the office of the city attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General, whichever office brought the action, and would allow the penalties collected by the Attorney General to be expended by the Attorney General, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to enforce the bill's provisions. The bill would provide that these remedies are not exclusive, as specified. The bill would declare that it occupies the whole field of the regulation of reusable grocery bags, single-use carryout bags, and recycled paper bags and would prohibit a local public agency, on and after January 1, 2014, from enforcing or implementing an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule adopted on or after September 1, 2013, relating to those bags, unless expressly authorized. The bill would allow a local public agency that has adopted such an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule prior to September 1, 2013, to continue to enforce and implement that ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule, but would require any amendments to that ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule to be subject to state preemption.
Existing law governs the duties of a landlord and the rights of a tenant with respect to demanding, holding, and returning the security for a rental agreement for residential real property, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court to award statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages, for the bad faith claim or retention by a landlord or the landlord's successors in interest of the security or any portion thereof in violation of these provisions of existing law, or the bad faith demand of replacement security in violation of existing law. This bill would instead require a court to award the above-described statutory damages for the bad faith claim or retention of security or the bad faith demand of replacement security by a landlord or the landlord's successor in interest. Absent bad faith, the bill would require an award of statutory damages of an amount equal to the amount improperly withheld, in addition to actual damages, for an unlawful claim or retention or demand of replacement security.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, requires every rigid plastic packaging container, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to generally meet one of specified criteria. This bill would enact the Plastic and Marine Pollution Reduction, Recycling, and Composting Act and would define terms for the purposes of that act. The bill would define the term "fast food facility" as a facility that is subject to specified federal requirements for the posting of calories and nutrients imposed upon restaurants and other retail food establishments, and that meets other specified requirements with regard to the dispensing and preparation of food. The bill would prohibit a fast food facility, on and after July 1, 2014, from distributing disposable food service packaging or a single-use carryout bag to a consumer, unless the type of disposable food service packaging or single-use carryout bag meets the criteria for either compostable packaging or recyclable packaging specified in the bill. The bill would also prohibit such a facility, on and after July 1, 2016, from distributing disposable food service packaging or a single-use carryout bag to a consumer, unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the department that the type of disposable food service packaging or single-use carryout bag is recovered for composting or recovered for recycling at a rate of 25 percent or more, at a rate of 50 percent on and after July 1, 2018, and at a rate of 75 percent or more on or after July 1, 2020. The bill would specify requirements for the demonstration of that composting or recycling rate. The bill would provide for the imposition of a civil penalty upon a person in violation of the act and would require the department to publish annually a list setting forth any penalties that have been levied against a violator of this act. This bill would require the department to deposit all penalties paid pursuant to the act into the Marine Pollution Reduction Account, which the bill would create in the Integrated Waste Management Fund in the State Treasury. The bill would authorize the department to expend the moneys deposited in the account, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide public education and assist local governmental agencies in efforts to reduce plastic waste and marine pollution, and for the department's costs of implementing the act.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provides that any on- or off-sale licensee, or agent or employee of the licensee, who sells, gives, or delivers to any person any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. of the same day, and any person who knowingly purchases any alcoholic beverages between those hours, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would allow an on-sale licensee to apply to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to authorize, with or without conditions on the on-sale license, the selling, giving, delivering, or purchasing of alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises between the hours of 2 a.m. and 4 a.m., upon completion of specified requirements by the local jurisdiction in which the licensee is located, as provided. This bill would require the applicant to notify specified persons of the application for additional hours and would provide a procedure for protest and hearing regarding the application. 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 imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges. This bill would impose an oil and gas severance tax upon any operator, as defined, for the privilege of severing oil or gas from the earth or water in this state for sale, transport, consumption, storage, profit, or use, as provided, at the specified rates, calculated as provided. The tax would be administered by the State Board of Equalization and would be collected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require the board to deposit all tax revenues, penalties, and interest collected pursuant to these provisions into the California Higher Education Fund, a continuously appropriated fund created by this bill, for allocation to the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and to a reserve account, as provided. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, it 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 make appropriations for support of state government for the 2013–14 fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a budget bill.
Existing law provides that any person who, having been convicted of any crime against the state amounting to a felony and imprisoned in the state prison for that conviction, is granted a pardon by the Governor for specified reasons, and having served the term or any part thereof for which he or she was imprisoned, may present a claim against the state to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board for the pecuniary injury sustained by him or her through the erroneous conviction and imprisonment, as specified. This bill would extend those provisions to a person who was incarcerated in county jail for a felony conviction. The bill would provide that in a contested proceeding, if the court grants a writ of habeas corpus concerning a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, or when the court vacates a judgment on the basis of new evidence, as defined, concerning a person who is no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, and if the court finds that the new evidence on the petition points unerringly to innocence, the court's finding would be binding on the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board for a claim presented to the board. The bill would provide that, upon application by the petitioner, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board would, without a hearing, be required to recommend to the Legislature that an appropriation be made, and the claim be paid, as specified. The bill would require, in a hearing before the board, that the factual findings and credibility determinations establishing the court's basis for granting the writ of habeas corpus, a motion for new trial, or an application for a certificate of factual innocence be binding on the Attorney General, the factfinder, and the board. The bill would also provide that if the district attorney or Attorney General stipulates to or does not contest the factual allegations underlying one or more of the grounds for granting a writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate a judgment, the facts underlying the basis for the court's ruling or order shall be binding on the Attorney General, the factfinder, and the board. The bill would also require the district attorney to provide notice to the Attorney General prior to entering into a stipulation of facts that will be the basis for the granting of a writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate a judgment. The bill would also provide that the express factual findings, as defined, made by the court, as specified, shall be binding on the Attorney General, the factfinder, and board. Existing law requires a claim for wrongful imprisonment be presented by the claimant to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board within a period of 2 years after judgment of acquittal or discharge given, or after pardon granted, or after release from imprisonment in order to be considered by the board. This bill would revise those provisions to extend the time period to be 2 years from release from custody. The bill would define release from custody for those purposes as release from imprisonment from state prison or from incarceration in county jail, where there is no subsequent parole jurisdiction or postrelease jurisdiction exercised by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or community corrections program, respectively, or where there is a parole period or postrelease period subject to jurisdiction of a community corrections program, when that period ends. Existing law requires the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to, upon presentation of a claim, fix a time and place for the hearing of the claim, and to mail notice thereof to the claimant and to the Attorney General at least 15 days prior to the time fixed for the hearing. This bill would instead require the Attorney General to respond to the claim within 60 days or to request an extension of time, upon a showing of good cause, except as specified. The bill would require the board to fix a time and place for the hearing of the claim, to mail notice to the claimant at least 15 days prior to the time fixed for the hearing, and, if the period for response lapses without a request for extension or a response from the Attorney General, to make a recommendation based on the claimant's verified claim and any evidence presented by him or her. The bill would also require the board, in cases involving a finding of factual innocence, as specified, or a finding by the court that the facts point unerringly to innocence, to calculate the compensation for the claimant within 30 days of presentation of the claim, as specified, and recommend to the Legislature the payment of that sum, as specified. Existing law provides that at the hearing set by the board, the claimant is required to prove, among other things, the fact that he or she did not, by any act or omission on his or her part, intentionally contribute to the bringing about of his or her arrest or conviction for the crime with which he or she was charged. Existing law also provides that when determining whether the claimant intentionally contributed to the bringing about of his or her arrest or conviction, the factfinder shall not consider statements obtained from an involuntary false confession or involuntary plea, and that the claimant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the statements were obtained from an involuntary false confession or involuntary plea. This bill would delete those provisions. The bill would require the board to deny a claim if the board finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a claimant pled guilty with the specific intent to protect another from prosecution for the underlying conviction for which the claimant is seeking compensation. Existing law provides that if the evidence shows that the crime with which the claimant was charged was either not committed at all, or, if committed, was not committed by the claimant, and that the claimant did not, by any act or omission, intentionally contribute to the bringing about of his or her arrest or conviction for the crime with which he or she was charged, and that the claimant has sustained pecuniary injury through his or her erroneous conviction and imprisonment, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board shall report the facts of the case and its conclusions to the next Legislature, with a recommendation that an appropriation be made by the Legislature for the purpose of indemnifying the claimant for the pecuniary injury. This bill would remove the requirement on the claimant to prove that he or she did not, by any act or omission, intentionally contribute to the bringing about of his or her arrest or conviction for the crime with which he or she was charged.
Existing law authorizes the City and County of San Francisco and the County of San Mateo, as pilot projects, to develop and implement individualized county child care subsidy plans for the purpose of ensuring that child care subsidies received in those counties are used to address local needs, conditions, and priorities of working families. The provisions authorizing those pilot projects are similar, but not identical. Existing law repeals the provisions relating to the City and County of San Francisco on January 1, 2018, and repeals the provisions relating to the County of San Mateo pilot project on January 1, 2017. This bill would require the City and County of San Francisco to terminate the individualized county child care subsidy plan on July 1, 2016, and would require the city and county from July 1, 2016, to July 1, 2018, inclusive, to phase out the plan, and, beginning July 1, 2018, implement the state's requirements for child care subsidies. The bill would require the City and County of San Francisco to submit a specified report on the pilot project's operation between the 2011–12 and 2013–14 fiscal years to the Legislature, the State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education on or before December 31, 2014. The bill would make those provisions relating to the City and County of San Francisco's individualized county child care subsidy plan inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2019. The bill would make those provisions relating to the County of San Mateo inoperative on July 1, 2014, and as of that date, would authorize the County of San Mateo's individualized county child care subsidy plan to continue in accordance with specified requirements until July 1, 2018. The bill would require the Child Development Division of the State Department of Education to review and approve or disapprove modifications to the plan. The bill would require the County of San Mateo to annually prepare and submit to the Legislature, the State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education a report that contains specified information relating to the success of the county's plan. The bill would also make conforming and related changes and nonsubstantive changes.
(1) Existing law provides protections to victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. Existing law prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment action against a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault who takes time off from work to attend to issues arising as a result of the domestic violence or sexual assault, as long as the employee complies with certain conditions. Existing law entitles an employee who is discriminated or retaliated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has taken time off for specified purposes, to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer. Under existing law, an employer who willfully refuses to rehire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure or hearing authorized by law is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes an employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or otherwise discriminated or retaliated against by his or her employer in violation of these provisions to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations, as specified. This bill would extend these protections to victims of stalking. The bill would also prohibit an employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against an employee because of the employee's status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking if the victim provides notice to the employer of the status or the employer has actual knowledge of the status. The bill would also require the employer to provide reasonable accommodations that may include the implementation of safety measures or procedures for a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as specified. Because a violation of the bill's requirements under certain circumstances would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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.