Existing law declares that timely DNA analysis of rape kit evidence is a core public safety issue affecting men, women, and children in the State of California. Existing law finds and declares that law enforcement agencies should either submit sexual assault forensic evidence received on or after January 1, 2016, to a crime lab within 20 days after it is booked into evidence or to ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place, as specified. Existing law also finds and declares that a crime lab that receives sexual assault forensic evidence on or after January 1, 2016, should either process the evidence, create DNA profiles when able, and upload qualifying DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index System, as specified, or transmit the sexual assault forensic evidence to another crime lab as soon as practically possible, but no later than 30 days after receiving the evidence, for processing of the evidence for the presence of DNA. This bill would instead require a law enforcement agency to either submit sexual assault forensic evidence to a crime lab or ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place, as specified, and require a crime lab to either process the evidence or transmit the evidence to another crime lab for processing, as specified. Because this bill would impose a higher level of service on local law enforcement agencies in processing that evidence, it 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
(1) The Political Reform Act of 1974 authorizes certain candidates and elective officers to establish a separate legal defense fund campaign account to defray attorney's fees and other related legal costs incurred in the defense of the candidate or elective officer who is subject to one or more civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of the officers' governmental activities and duties, as specified. This bill would prohibit the expenditure of funds in a legal defense fund campaign account to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the candidate or elective officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. If a candidate or elected officer uses funds in that account for other legal costs and expenses related to claims of those unlawful practices and is held liable for such a violation, the candidate or elected officer would be required to reimburse the account for all funds used in connection with those other legal costs and expenses. The act provides that all contributions deposited into a campaign account are deemed to be held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated with holding office. The act provides that an expenditure to seek or hold office is within the lawful execution of this trust if it is reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. Expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. The act prohibits the use of campaign funds for fines, penalties, judgments, or settlements, except as specified. This bill additionally would prohibit the expenditure of campaign funds to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. If a candidate or elected officer uses campaign funds for other legal costs and expenses related to claims of those unlawful practices and is held liable for such a violation, the person would be required to reimburse the campaign for all funds used in connection with those other legal costs and expenses. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 89513 of the Government Code proposed by AB 220 to be operative only if this bill and AB 220 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (2) Existing law makes a knowing or willful violation of the Political Reform Act of 1974 a misdemeanor and subjects offenders to criminal penalties. By expanding the scope of an existing 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. (3) The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district or community college district to order an election and submit to the electors of the district the question of whether the bonds of the district shall be issued and sold to raise money for specified purposes. Existing law generally requires, to pass a school bond measure, that either at least 23 of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds to pass the measure, or, if certain conditions are met, at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds. Existing law prohibits the total amount of bonds issued by a school district or community college district from exceeding 1.25% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 2%. (2) Existing law also authorizes a unified school district to issue bonds receiving at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing the bonds that, in aggregation with bonds issued with a 23 favorable vote, do not exceed 2.5% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 4%. The bill would make a similar percentage increase for community college districts. (3) The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 provides for the adoption of rules, regulations, and procedures, under the administration of the Director of General Services, for the allocation of state funds by the State Allocation Board for the construction and modernization of public school facilities. This bill would, among other things, require a school district to submit to the Department of General Services a 5-year school facilities master plan or updated 5-year school facilities master plan, as provided, as a condition of participating in the school facilities program under the act, would require the school district to submit specified information in the school district's application for an apportionment of state funds, and would make other changes to requirements a school district is required to comply with before participating in programs under the act. The bill would require the department to process applications to participate in the program, as specified, and would make other changes to the method by which the board makes apportionments of moneys under the act. This bill would establish the 2020 State School Facilities Fund, and authorize the board to apportion, and make disbursements of, moneys in the fund, as provided. The bill would require, for bonds approved by voters in 2020 or thereafter, the board to adjust a school district's required local and state contribution, as specified. The bill would authorize new construction and modernization grants to be used for seismic mitigation purposes and, among other things, to establish schoolsite-based infrastructure to provide broadband internet access. The bill would also authorize modernization grants to be used, among other things, for the control, management, or abatement of lead and for the demolishment and construction of a building on an existing schoolsite that meets specified conditions. The bill would prohibit the use of new construction and modernization grants for the purchase of portable electronic devices with a useful life of less than 3 years. This bill would authorize funding for health and safety projects by a school district, as provided. This bill would authorize the board to provide a grant to test for lead in water outlets used for drinking or preparing food on schoolsites serving kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, as provided. The bill would specify procedures that small school districts, as defined, may use to obtain project and construction management, new construction grants, and modernization grants. The bill would also make conforming changes in, and remove inoperative provisions from, the act. (4) The act also requires the board to adopt regulations for determining the amount of funding and the eligibility and prioritization of funding that school districts with a financial hardship may receive from bond acts for construction, modernization, or relocation assistance. The act requires those regulations to include consideration of various factors, including whether the school district's total bonding capacity is $5,000,000 or less, in which case the school district shall be deemed eligible for financial hardship. This bill, for purposes of the regulations related to financial hardship eligibility, would increase the total bonding capacity cap to $15,000,000, to be adjusted as specified. (5) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (A) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (B) has been passed by a 23 vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (C) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (D) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election. This bill would set forth the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $15,000,000,000 to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election. (6) Existing law establishes the California State University, which is administered by the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as segments of public postsecondary education in this state. This bill would require the Board of Trustees and the Regents to comply with certain conditions, as provided, before receiving funds from the 2020 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund established pursuant to the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020. (7) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to impose, as specified, an alternative fee, charge, dedication, or requirement on developers to fund school facilities, until the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the Preschool-College Public Education Bond Act of 2016 are expended, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This bill would remove this authority beginning the earlier of January 1, 2021, or the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the 2016 bond act are expended or apportioned, until January 1, 2028. The bill would also exempt multifamily housing developments that are located no further than 12 mile from a major transit stop, and reduce by 20% from specified amounts for any other multifamily housing developments, as specified, from any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, as provided. (8) This bill, except for the provision making the provisions of the bill severable, would become effective upon the adoption of the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election.
Existing law establishes the Student Aid Commission as the state agency primarily responsible for the administration and coordination of student financial aid programs at California postsecondary educational institutions. Existing federal law establishes the Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers Program for purposes of providing financial aid to current and former foster youth who are attending qualifying postsecondary educational institutions. Existing law provides that the Student Aid Commission, through an interagency agreement with the State Department of Social Services, currently operates the program in California. Existing law authorizes the commission or the department, for the fiscal years 2018–19 to 2020–21, inclusive, to expend up to $80,000, of any moneys appropriated by the Legislature to expand the Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers Program age eligibility of former foster youth up to 26 years of age, for outreach to newly eligible former foster youth who are at least 23 years of age, but are not yet 26 years of age. Commencing with the 2021–22 award year, this bill would authorize the commission to make initial award offers of up to 200% of total state and federal program funding available for all awards, with the number of initial award offers and the amount of the award to be determined based on the historical rate of award acceptance. The bill would require the commission to make award offers contingent upon available funding. The bill would authorize the commission to adjust or withdraw offers to ensure that awards do not exceed available program funding. The bill would also require the commission to advise award offer recipients that offers may be withdrawn or adjusted before payment and that awards are payable to eligible students only if funding is available. This bill would impose certain requirements on a student who fails to demonstrate satisfactory academic progress, as defined by the institution where the student is enrolled, to maintain Chafee grant eligibility, and would take away Chafee grant eligibility from a student who fails to demonstrate satisfactory academic progress, as specified. The bill would require that institutions provide an appeal process in writing and reinstate the student's Chafee grant when certain conditions are met. The bill would also provide that a student who loses Chafee eligibility and subsequently is not enrolled for one or more terms shall regain eligibility upon reenrollment. The bill would require the California Community Colleges and the California State University, and would request the University of California, to provide all Chafee grant recipients, upon release of the first payment, with information regarding available support services on campus and the process for completing an educational plan and, in that notification, to strongly encourage Chafee grant recipients to avail themselves of those services if they have not already done so. To the extent that the bill would impose new duties on community college districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. This bill would limit the duration of receipt of a Chafee award to 5 years, which would not be required to be consecutive. The bill would prohibit an institution from requiring any other eligibility criteria for a Chafee grant than those described in this bill and in specified 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, 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 requires that employers pay wages to their employees, twice per calendar month, on days designated in advance as regular paydays. However, employees defined as executive, administrative, or professional may be paid once per month. Existing law provides that a violation of this provision is a misdemeanor. This bill would require that employees of the Regents of the University of California be paid on a regular payday. The bill would require those university employees who are paid on a monthly basis to be paid no later than 5 days after the close of the monthly payroll period and would also provide that those employees who are paid on a more frequent basis be paid in accordance with the pay policies announced in advance by the university. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide legislative findings and declarations in support of these provisions. 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 creates a private right of action against a person who intentionally distributes a photograph or recorded image of another that exposes the intimate body parts of that person or of a person engaged in a sexual act without the person's consent if specified conditions are met. This bill would provide that a depicted individual, as defined, has a cause of action against a person who either (1) creates and intentionally discloses sexually explicit material if the person knows or reasonably should have known the depicted individual did not consent to its creation or disclosure or (2) who intentionally discloses sexually explicit material that the person did not create if the person knows the depicted individual did not consent to its creation. The bill would specify exceptions to those provisions, including if the material is a matter of legitimate public concern or a work of political or newsworthy value. The bill would authorize a prevailing plaintiff who suffers harm to seek injunctive relief and recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs as well as specified monetary damages, including statutory and punitive damages.
Existing law requires each educational institution in the state to have a written policy on sexual harassment and to display that policy in a prominent location, as defined, in the main administrative building or other area of the educational institution's campus or schoolsite. Existing law requires a copy of that policy, as it pertains to students, to be provided as part of any orientation program conducted for new students at the beginning of each quarter, semester, or summer session, as applicable. This bill would require a copy of that policy to also be provided as part of an orientation program conducted for continuing pupils, as specified. This bill would require each schoolsite in a school district, county office of education, or charter school, serving pupils in any of grades 9 through 12, inclusive, to create a poster that notifies pupils of that policy and to prominently and conspicuously display the poster in each bathroom and locker room at the schoolsite. The bill would authorize the poster to be prominently and conspicuously displayed in public areas at the schoolsite, as specified. The bill would require the poster to be age appropriate and culturally relevant, be displayed in English and any primary language spoken by 15% or more of the pupils enrolled at the schoolsite, be no smaller than 8.5 by 11 inches, use at least 12-point type, and display certain information pertaining to that policy, including the rules and procedures for reporting a charge of sexual harassment. 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 sets the time for commencement of any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual assault, as defined, to the later of within 10 years from the date of the last act, attempted act, or assault with intent to commit an act, of sexual assault by the defendant against the plaintiff or within 3 years from the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that an injury or illness resulted from an act, attempted act, or assault with intent to commit an act, of sexual assault by the defendant against the plaintiff. Existing law provides that this limitation applies to any action of that type that is commenced on or after January 1, 2019. The bill would clarify that it is not necessary that a criminal prosecution or other proceeding have been brought as a result of the sexual assault or, if a criminal prosecution or other proceeding was brought, that the prosecution or proceeding resulted in a conviction or adjudication. The bill would revive claims for damages of more than $250,000 arising out of a sexual assault or other inappropriate contact, communication, or activity of a sexual nature by a physician occurring at a student health center between January 1, 1988, and January 1, 2017, that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2020, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired, and would authorize a cause of action to proceed if already pending in court on the effective date of the bill or, if not filed by the effective date of the bill, to be commenced between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. The bill would require an attorney representing a claimant seeking to recover under this provision to file a declaration with the court under penalty of perjury stating that the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and consulted with a mental health practitioner, and that the attorney has concluded on the basis of this review and consultation that it is the attorney's good faith belief that the claim value is more than $250,000. By expanding the crime of perjury, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would welcome refugees and declare its support for the resettlement of refugees in California, no matter their religion, race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or country of origin, and calls upon other local governments and communities to join them in supporting a stronger national effort to resettle the world's most vulnerable refugees. This measure would call on the federal government to resettle all 30,000 refugees that the United States has committed to resettle in the fiscal year 2019, and would call on Congress and the presidential administration to raise the Presidential Determination to at least 75,000 refugees for fiscal year 2020.
(1) Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board, in consultation with the Bureau of Automotive Repair and a specified review committee, to adopt regulations requiring owners or operators of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles to perform regular inspections of their vehicles for excessive emissions of smoke. Existing law requires the state board, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, to adopt regulations requiring heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles to use emission control equipment and alternative fuels. This bill would require the state board, in consultation with the bureau and other specified entities, to implement a pilot program that develops and demonstrates technologies that show potential for readily bringing heavy-duty vehicles into an inspection and maintenance program. The bill would require the state board, no later than 2 years after the completion of the pilot program, to develop and implement a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for nongasoline heavy-duty onroad motor vehicles, as specified. The bill would authorize the state board to assess a fee and penalties as part of the program, as specified. The bill would create the Truck Emission Check (TEC) Fund, with all the moneys deposited in the fund to be available upon appropriation. The bill would require the state board, at least 60 days prior to the first hearing of the state board to consider the adoption of any rules or regulations initially implementing the program, to submit those proposed rules and regulations to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. This bill would require the state board, upon the implementation of the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, to provide mechanisms for out-of-state owners of heavy-duty vehicles to establish and verify compliance prior to entering the state. This bill would additionally require the state board, within 4 years following full implementation, to provide on its internet website 2 biennial reports, including information regarding enforcement and operational downtime in addition to an estimate of the emissions reduced and cost-effectiveness. (2) Existing law generally requires the registration of vehicles by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Under existing law, a violation of the Vehicle Code is an infraction, unless otherwise specified. This bill, no later than one year after the effective date of a regulation implementing the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, would require the department to confirm that a heavy-duty vehicle, as specified, is compliant with, or exempt from, the program prior to the initial registration, the transfer of ownership, or the renewal of registration, except as specified. The bill would require the state board to notify the department of the vehicles allowed to be registered pursuant to these provisions. This bill would authorize the department to issue a temporary permit, valid for a specified period and subject to certain conditions, to operate a vehicle for which registration may be refused pursuant to the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require the payment of a $50 fee, as specified, for the temporary permit, to be deposited in the Truck Emission Check (TEC) Fund. This bill, commencing one year after the effective date of a regulation implementing the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, would require a legal owner or registered owner of the heavy-duty vehicle to maintain a certificate of compliance with the vehicle, with exceptions, and would make a violation of this provision subject to a notice issued by an officer to correct the violation, as specified. The bill would require the driver of the vehicle to present the certificate of compliance for examination upon demand by a peace officer. This bill would prohibit the operation of a heavy-duty vehicle on a public road in this state if that vehicle has an illuminated malfunction indicator light displaying a specified engine symbol, and would make a violation of this provision subject to a notice issued by an officer to correct the violation on the basis of its designation as a mechanical violation. The bill would specify that a violation of this requirement is a correctable violation if the correction is made, as specified. This bill would prohibit the operation of a heavy-duty vehicle in a manner resulting in the escape of visible smoke, except during active regeneration. The bill would specify that a violation of this requirement is a correctable violation if the correction is made, as specified. By creating new crimes, 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.