The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education and their respective institutions of higher education. A provision of the act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make the provision applicable. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, provides, among other things, that all students have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment, and that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, existing law defines "nationality" to include citizenship, country of origin, and national origin and defines "religion" to include all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice, as provided. This bill would instead provide that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality or national identity, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and other specified characteristics, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, the bill would instead define "nationality" or "national identity" to include a person's actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, citizenship, or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity, as provided. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, the bill would define "discrimination on the basis of religion" to include, but not be limited to, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The bill would also state that it is the intent of the Legislature that each postsecondary educational institution undertake supportive measures to help students who have encountered discriminatory incidents, regardless of the location of the discriminatory incident, if the student feels the incident impairs their access to equal educational opportunities. This bill would require the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and independent institutions of higher education and private postsecondary educational institutions that receive state financial assistance, and would request the University of California, to include training to address discrimination against the 5 most targeted groups in the state, as provided, as part of any general antidiscrimination training or diversity, equity, and inclusion training that is offered by the institution, except as specified. By imposing new requirements 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.
Sponsored bills
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants to a consumer various rights with respect to personal information, as defined, that is collected by a business, as defined, including the right to direct a business that collects sensitive personal information about the consumer to limit its use of the consumer's sensitive personal information to that use which is necessary to perform the services or provide the goods reasonably expected by an average consumer who requests those goods or services, to perform certain other services, and as authorized by certain regulations. The CCPA defines "sensitive personal information" to mean, among other things, the processing of biometric information, as defined, for the purpose of uniquely identifying a consumer. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA. This bill would define "sensitive personal information," for purposes of the CCPA, to additionally include a consumer's neural data, and would define "neural data" to mean information that is generated by measuring the activity of a consumer's central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act by a majority vote of both houses of the Legislature, as specified. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1008 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1008 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of disability insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law generally authorizes a health care service plan or disability insurer to use prior authorization and other utilization review or utilization management functions, under which a licensed physician or a licensed health care professional who is competent to evaluate specific clinical issues may approve, modify, delay, or deny requests for health care services based on medical necessity. Existing law requires a health care service plan or disability insurer, including those plans or insurers that delegate utilization review or utilization management functions to medical groups, independent practice associations, or to other contracting providers, to comply with specified requirements and limitations on their utilization review or utilization management functions. Existing law authorizes the Director of the Department of Managed Health Care or the Insurance Commissioner to assess an administrative penalty to a health care service plan or disability insurer, as applicable, for failure to comply with those requirements. This bill would require a health care service plan or disability insurer, including a specialized health care service plan or specialized health insurer, that uses an artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tool for the purpose of utilization review or utilization management functions, or that contracts with or otherwise works through an entity that uses that type of tool, to ensure compliance with specified requirements, including that the artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tool bases its determination on specified information and is fairly and equitably applied, as specified. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education and their respective institutions of higher education. A provision of the act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make the provision applicable. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, provides, among other things, that all students have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment, and that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. This bill would state that the Trustees of the California State University and the Regents of the University of California have the primary responsibility to prevent and address conduct that either creates a hostile environment for students on campus or results in differential treatment of students on campus, as specified. The bill would require the trustees to, among other things, adopt rules and procedures, as specified, to prohibit violent, harassing, intimidating, or discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment on campus, to prohibit conduct that limits or denies a person's ability to participate in or benefit from the free exchange of ideas or the educational mission of the California State University, and to establish, and require each campus to publish on campus internet websites, reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions and, if applicable, any advance permitting requirements for protests on campus. The bill would require the trustees to develop mandatory training programs to educate students on what constitutes violent, harassing, intimidating, or discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment on campus, the procedures for investigating violations of the student code of conduct, when and where protests and gatherings may be held, as specified, and on how to exchange views in an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility. The bill would require the trustees to submit a report, on or before January 2, 2025, and annually thereafter, to the Legislature on the implementation and administration of the bill. The bill would request the University of California to comply with these provisions. The bill would make its provisions severable.
Existing law provides for various memorials and monuments on the grounds of the State Capitol. Existing law requires the Department of General Services to maintain state buildings and grounds. Existing law, the Apology Act for the 1930s Mexican Repatriation Program, makes findings and declarations regarding the unconstitutional removal and coerced emigration of United States citizens and legal residents of Mexican descent, between the years 1929 and 1944, to Mexico from the United States during the 1930s "Mexican Repatriation" Program. Existing law expresses the apology of the State of California to those individuals who were illegally deported and coerced into emigrating to Mexico and requires that a plaque to commemorate those individuals be installed and maintained by the Department of Parks and Recreation in an appropriate public place in the City or County of Los Angeles. This bill would authorize a nonprofit organization representing Mexican Americans or Mexican immigrants to enter into negotiations to plan, construct, and maintain a memorial to Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants who were forcibly deported from the United States during the Great Depression, as provided. The bill would require the memorial to be located at an appropriate public place in the City or County of Los Angeles. The bill would require the nonprofit organization to enter into negotiations with the Department of General Services and the state agency with jurisdiction over the state property where the memorial is proposed, where applicable, if the nonprofit organization proposes to locate the memorial on state property. The bill would require the nonprofit organization to submit a plan for the memorial to the department and the applicable state agency for review and approval. The bill would require these provisions to be funded exclusively through private sources. This bill would, if the nonprofit organization proposes a site owned by the City of Los Angeles or the County of Los Angeles for location of the memorial, require the nonprofit organization to follow any procedures that the City of Los Angeles or the County of Los Angeles require to consider approving the proposed memorial. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles.
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish procedures within the State Department of Education to, among other things, annually identify the critical needs for which effective educational programs and practices are to be identified, developed, and disseminated to public schools. This bill would require the Superintendent to convene a working group, composed as provided, for specific purposes related to artificial intelligence in public schools, as specified. The bill would require, among other things, the working group to develop, on or before January 1, 2026, guidance for school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools on the safe use of artificial intelligence in education, and to, on or before July 1, 2026, develop a model policy for those local educational agencies regarding the safe and effective use of artificial intelligence in ways that benefit, and do not negatively impact, pupils and educators, as provided. The bill would require the working group to, on or before January 1, 2027, report its findings and recommendations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, as provided. The bill would dissolve the working group upon submission of that report, and would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2031.
Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Under existing law, the department is responsible for administering various housing programs throughout the state, including, among others, the California Emergency Solutions and Housing Program, which, among other things, provides rental assistance and housing relocation and stabilization services to ensure housing affordability for people who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. Existing law, the Housing Authorities Law, creates a housing authority in each county and each city, which is authorized to transact business and exercise specified powers upon adoption of a resolution by the governing body of the county or city declaring that there is a need for the authority to function. Among other things, existing law authorizes a housing authority to provide leased housing to persons of low income. This bill would require all public housing authorities to report specified data, including their monthly success rates as of the first of each month, to the department beginning on July 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, as specified. Because the bill would require local housing authorities to perform additional duties, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to make the data publicly available, beginning on January 1, 2026, and each year thereafter. The bill would require the department, beginning on July 1, 2025, and bi-annually thereafter until June 30, 2027, to convene a group of public housing authorities to discuss factors that impact success rates and recommendations for state and local intervention. The bill would also require the department, in consultation with participants in the Housing Choice Voucher program and other stakeholders, to publish a report, which shall be made publicly available, with recommendations for state and local interventions to improve success rates, on or before July 1, 2026. 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.
(1) Existing law subjects a minor between 12 and 17 years of age, inclusive, who violates any federal, state, or local law or ordinance, and a minor under 12 years of age who is alleged to have committed specified serious offenses, to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court. Under existing law, juvenile court proceedings to declare a minor a ward of the court are commenced by the filing of a petition by the probation officer, the district attorney after consultation with the probation officer, or the prosecuting attorney, as specified. Existing law requires the juvenile court to order the petition of a minor who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court dismissed if the minor satisfactorily completes a term of probation or an informal program of supervision, as specified, and requires the court to seal all records pertaining to that dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court and in the custody of law enforcement agencies, the probation department, or the Department of Justice in accordance with a specified procedure. Existing law also generally authorizes a person who is the subject of a juvenile court record, or the county probation officer, to petition the court to seal the person's records, including records of arrest, relating to the person's case in the custody of the juvenile court and the probation officer and any other agencies, including law enforcement agencies and public officials. Existing law prohibits the sealing of records under this provision if, following termination of the juvenile court's jurisdiction, the person has been convicted of a felony or of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. This bill would prohibit defense counsel for a minor from being ordered to seal their records pursuant to these provisions. The bill would additionally authorize a person to petition for record sealing under these provisions if their felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude has been dismissed, vacated, pardoned, or reduced to misdemeanors that do not involve moral turpitude. (2) Existing law authorizes a probation officer who concludes that a minor is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or would come within the jurisdiction of the court if a petition was filed, in lieu of filing a petition to declare a minor a ward of the court or requesting that a petition be filed by the prosecuting attorney to declare a minor a ward of the court, as specified, to refer the minor to services provided by a health agency, community-based organization, local educational agency, an appropriate non-law-enforcement agency, or the probation department. This bill would specify that a minor is eligible for informal probation pursuant to these provisions regardless of whether the minor lives in the county where the offense occurred. (3) Existing law authorizes a person who has been arrested for a misdemeanor while a minor to petition the court for an order sealing the records in the case if the person was released from custody because there are insufficient grounds for making a criminal complaint against the person, proceedings against the person were dismissed, or the person was discharged, without a conviction, or the person was acquitted. Existing law requires a probation department to seal the records of a juvenile upon satisfactory completion of a program of diversion or supervision to which a juvenile is referred by the probation department or prosecutor, and requires a public or private agency operating a diversion program to promptly seal the records in its custody after notice from the probation department to seal the records. This bill would additionally authorize a person who has been cited or arrested for a felony while a minor to petition the court for an order sealing records pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require a probation department, the Department of Justice, and the law enforcement agencies to seal the citation, arrest, and other records in their custody relating to a juvenile's arrest and detention if the prosecutor has declined to initiate proceedings within the applicable statute of limitations. By imposing new duties on local probation departments relating to sealing juvenile records, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law generally provides for the confidentiality of information regarding a minor in proceedings in the juvenile court and related court proceedings and limits access to juvenile case files, as defined. Existing law authorizes only certain individuals to inspect a juvenile case file. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to disseminate information obtained pursuant to these provisions, as specified. This bill would specify that limits to the access to juvenile case files under these provisions also apply to matters within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to provisions authorizing the juvenile court to adjudge a minor a ward of the court. The bill would additionally authorize an attorney representing a person who is, or was, subject to juvenile proceedings, to inspect a juvenile case file. The bill would modify the definition of juvenile case files to include any writing, as specified, or electronically stored information relating to the minor that is filed in that case or made available to the probation officer. By expanding the scope of crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law requires a court of criminal jurisdiction to immediately suspend all proceedings against a person whenever it is suggested or appears to the judge that the person charged was, at the date of the offense, alleged to have been committed, under 18 years of age. If the court determines that the person was under 18 years of age, existing law requires the court to certify specified information to the juvenile court of that county and proceedings proceed under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, as specified. This bill would require, if a person whose case was certified to a juvenile court pursuant to these provisions, and who subsequently has their records sealed in juvenile court, that all records in criminal court related to that juvenile record and certification also be sealed. (6) Existing law authorizes a minor to appeal a judgment in a proceeding under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by which a minor may be adjudged to be a ward of the court in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment. This bill would specify that the juvenile court may transfer jurisdiction to another county, terminate its jurisdiction, or seal the record or records of the youth under specified provisions while an appeal is pending and that any of the listed actions do not affect the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The bill would direct which court would have jurisdiction should a matter be remanded by the appellate court following a transfer or termination of jurisdiction by the juvenile court, as specified. (7) Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which is permitted to adjudge certain children to be a ward or a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, and authorizes the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction over those persons until they attain 21 years of age. Existing law provides that a minor or nonminor who met or would meet the criteria to be within the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, but for the fact that the underlying adjudication was vacated because the minor or nonminor was a victim of human trafficking when the crime was committed, is within the court's transition jurisdiction. Existing law establishes the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, under which counties provide payments to foster care providers on behalf of qualified children in foster care and to nonminor dependents up to 21 years of age. Existing law defines a nonminor dependent for purposes of AFDC-FC to mean a foster child who is a current dependent child or ward of the juvenile court, or who is a nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and who meets other specified criteria. This bill would provide that a minor or nonminor who met or would meet the criteria to be within the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, but for the fact that the underlying adjudication was vacated under a specified provision or on appeal is within the court's transition jurisdiction. The bill would require the court to assume transition jurisdiction over the minor or nonminor notwithstanding that vacating of the underlying adjudication pursuant to specified provisions or on appeal. Existing law authorizes a nonminor who attained 18 years of age while subject to an order for foster care placement and who has not attained 21 years of age, for whom the court has dismissed dependency, delinquency, or transition jurisdiction, to petition the court for a hearing to resume the dependency jurisdiction over a former dependent or to assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a former delinquent ward. This bill would authorize the petition to be brought notwithstanding that the underlying adjudication was dismissed, as specified. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions. By expanding the duties of county child welfare agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (8) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that 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. (9) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 786.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 1877 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1877 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the commission to develop a standard contract or tariff, which may include net energy metering, for eligible customer-generators, as defined, with a renewable electrical generation facility, as defined, that is a customer of a large electrical corporation. Existing law requires, in developing the standard contract or tariff for large electrical corporations, the commission to take specified actions. This bill would require, no later than July 1, 2025, the commission to ensure that any contract or tariff established by the commission pursuant to the above-described provisions for renewable electrical generation facilities configured to serve multiple customers with meters at one or more apartment buildings on a single property, or configured to serve multiple meters of a single customer on a public school property, or a set of contiguous public school properties owned, leased, or rented by the public school customer, meets certain requirements, as specified. The bill would require the commission, no later than July 1, 2026, to ensure that any contract or tariff established by the commission pursuant to a specified commission decision meets specified requirements, as provided. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2033. Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because a violation of a commission action implementing this bill's requirements would be a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the state flag and the state's emblems, including, among other things, the poppy as the official state flower, the California redwood as the official state tree, and the California gray whale as the official state marine mammal. This bill would establish the banana slug (Ariolimax) as the official state slug.