Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas

(1) Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law, makes various practices unlawful and provides that a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition is liable for a civil penalty, as specified. This bill would additionally make a person who violates those provisions, if the act or acts of unfair competition are perpetrated against one or more persons displaced due to a state of emergency or local emergency, as defined, at the time the violation occurred, liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, as specified. (2) Existing law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, makes unlawful certain unfair methods of competition and certain unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by a person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to a consumer. These include, among others, making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of, price reductions. This bill would additionally make it unlawful under those provisions to, among other things, price gouge during a state of emergency or local emergency. (3) Existing law requires the trier of fact, in a civil action to redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair competition brought by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of senior citizens, disabled persons, or veterans, to consider specified factors in determining the amount of a discretionary fine, penalty, or remedy to be imposed. Existing law authorizes the trier of fact, upon a finding of one of those factors, to impose a fine, penalty, or other remedy in an amount up to 3 times greater than the amount authorized by statute or the amount the trier of fact would impose in the absence of the affirmative finding. This bill would make those provisions applicable to persons displaced due to a state of emergency or a local emergency, as defined, at the time the violation occurred. (4) Under existing law, upon the proclamation of a state of emergency by the President of the United States or the Governor, or upon the declaration of a local emergency by the executive officer of any county, city, or city and county, and for 30 days or 180 days, as specified, following the proclamation or declaration of emergency, it is a misdemeanor for a person, contractor, business, or other entity to sell or offer to sell certain goods or services for a price of more than 10% greater than the price charged by that person immediately prior to the proclamation or declaration of emergency. Existing law authorizes the extension of these prohibitions by, among others, the Governor, if deemed necessary to protect the lives, property, or welfare of the citizens. Existing law defines "housing" as any rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year. This bill would specify that an extension authorized by the Governor may be terminated by a concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end. The bill would require a housing listing platform, during the period of 30 days following a proclamation of a state emergency or a declaration of a local emergency, as specified, to, among other things, remove a listing when notified by local, regional, or state law enforcement agencies that the price for a listing made available on the platform violates the price gouging provisions and establish and maintain a policy informing housing providers that listings are prohibited from violating the above-described provisions, as specified. This bill would define "housing listing platform" for these purposes as an internet website, application, or other similar centralized platform that acts as an intermediary between a consumer and another person which allows another person to list the availability of housing, lodging, or units for sale or for rent to a consumer. The bill would remove the one-year lease term limit from the definition of "housing."

Maddy summaryACR 116 is a ceremonial resolution honoring Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and commemorating Martin Luther King Jr. Day. It does not create new laws or affect specific groups, as it is a symbolic gesture of recognition. The measure was adopted by the Assembly on January 16, 2026, and is now pending in the Senate Committee on Rules and Legislative Services. This type of resolution typically serves to acknowledge historical figures or events without implementing policy changes.

Maddy summaryThis is a ceremonial resolution (SCR 107) that formally honors Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and commemorates Martin Luther King, Jr. Day within the state. It does not create new laws or affect specific groups; instead, it serves as an official state recognition of Dr. King's legacy and the holiday. The resolution was unanimously adopted by the Senate and referred to the Assembly for further consideration. As a commemorative measure, it has no direct policy impact beyond symbolic acknowledgment.

Maddy summaryThis Senate Resolution condemns former President Donald Trump for posting a video depicting former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as apes, labeling the act as racist dehumanization. The measure directly addresses the former President by calling for a public apology and urging all elected officials to reject the normalization of such imagery. It also reaffirms California's commitment to confronting systemic racism and protecting civil rights during Black History Month and beyond. As a non-binding resolution, it expresses the Senate's moral stance rather than creating new laws or funding.

This measure would, among other things, reaffirm California's commitment to universal human rights and call for the end to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the immediate release of all hostages.

The Personal Income Tax Law, in conformity with federal income tax law, generally defines "gross income" as income from whatever source derived, and provides various exclusions from gross income, including, until July 1, 2026, an exclusion for payments received from a guaranteed income pilot program or related grants, as specified. Existing law repeals this exclusion as of January 1, 2027. This bill would extend the above-referenced exclusion from gross income until July 1, 2031, and would repeal it as of January 1, 2032. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill also would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

(1) Existing law prohibits the owner of a residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months. Among other residential real properties or residential circumstances, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property, including a mobilehome, that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. The bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (2) Existing law prohibits an owner of residential real property, except as specified, from increasing over the course of any 12-month period the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase, as specified. This bill would reduce the permissible gross rental rate increase under these provisions to the lesser of 2% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5%. Among other residential real properties, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome, if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (3) Notwithstanding the above-described gross rental rate increase prohibition, existing law, upon the expiration of rental restrictions, as defined, authorizes the owner of affordable housing units that meet certain requirements to establish the initial rental rate for the unit, and also authorizes the owner of an assisted housing development who demonstrates compliance with certain requirements under penalty of perjury to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units in the assisted housing development. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would remove the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending the initial rental rate authorizations indefinitely. By extending provisions that require the owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified requirements under penalty of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated program. (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 California Constitution limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property to 1% of the full cash value of the property, and defines "full cash value" for these purposes to mean the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred, as provided. Existing property tax law requires the reassessment of real property upon a change in ownership and specifies what transfers of property do and do not constitute a change in ownership and excludes from a change in ownership, and hence from reassessment, certain transfers. Among these excluded transfers, existing property tax law provides that certain transfers of mobilehome parks to a nonprofit corporation, stock cooperative corporation, limited equity stock cooperative, or other entity formed by the tenants of a mobilehome park if specified conditions are met, including that the individual tenants who were renting at least 51% of the spaces in the mobilehome park prior to the transfer participate in the transaction through the ownership of an aggregate of at least 51% of the voting stock of, or other ownership or membership interests in, the entity which acquires the park. This bill would provide that a transfer of a real property containing dwelling units occupied by tenants to a limited-equity housing cooperative, as defined, formed by the tenants of the real property for the purpose of purchasing the real property at which they reside, provided that the individual tenants who were renting at least 51% of the units in the real property before the transfer participate in the transaction through the ownership of an aggregate of at least 51% of the voting shares or membership interests in the entity that acquires the real property, as specified, is not a change in ownership. The bill would also provide that a transfer of a real property containing dwelling units occupied by tenants to a community land trust, as specified, is not a change in ownership. The bill would require a community land trust utilizing the above-described exclusion to indicate that use on a preliminary change of ownership report or change in ownership statement filed with the county recorder. The bill would authorize the county counsel to require a limited-equity housing cooperative claiming the above-described exclusion to provide specified documentation, including the Articles of Incorporation of the limited-equity housing cooperative. By adding to the duties of local tax officials with respect to the determination of whether a change in ownership has occurred for purposes of taxing real property, 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 requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary schools in this state and authorizes local educational agencies throughout the state to operate schools and provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law authorizes local educational agencies to employ personnel to provide services in schools pursuant to that system. This bill would require the State Department of Education to, on or before July 1, 2027, develop an online cultural competency training delivery platform and online cultural competency training curriculum for school employees to support pupils of color. The bill would, commencing with the 2027–28 school year and ending with the completion of the 2031–32 school year, require a school district, county office of education, or charter school serving pupils in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to annually provide that training to all school employees, unless an employee is exempt from the training or an employee provides proof of completion for a cultural competency training completed while employed at another local educational agency, as provided. The bill would also require local educational agencies to provide a proof of completion to school employees that complete the training and to ensure that all school employees complete the required training on paid time during the employees' regular work hours or designated professional development hours, as provided. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to (1) monitor compliance with the training requirement as part of the department's annual compliance monitoring of state and federal programs, (2) report data, within 9 months of the completion of the 5-year training period, from that compliance monitoring to the Legislature, and (3) post the report on the department's internet website, as provided. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2033, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2034. 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 provides for various public social services programs, including, among others, the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, under which each county provides cash assistance and other benefits to qualified low-income families and individuals, and CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county. Existing law establishes criminal penalties for welfare fraud, defined as willfully and knowingly, with the intent to deceive, by specified means, including a false statement or representation, obtaining or retaining aid through designated public social services for oneself or for a child who is not in fact entitled thereto, as specified. Existing law makes any person who knowingly uses, transfers, sells, purchases, or possesses CalFresh or federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in any manner not authorized, as specified, guilty of a misdemeanor or felony depending on the face value of the benefits. This bill would delete the provision that establishes criminal penalties for an attempt to commit welfare fraud. The bill would delete criminal penalties for welfare fraud when the total amount of aid obtained or retained is above or below $950, and instead make welfare fraud when aid was obtained or retained in the total amount of $25,000 or more punishable by specified imprisonment in a county jail, by a fine, or by imprisonment and fine. The bill would require a county human services agency to determine whether benefits were authorized as a result of an error in the Statewide Automated Welfare System (CalSAWS) and prohibit the agency from referring a case for criminal action if benefits were authorized in error. The bill would prohibit a person from being subject to criminal prosecution under these provisions for an overpayment or overissuance of benefits obtained under various public social services programs, including CalWORKs and CalFresh, under certain conditions, including that the person is in repayment status or grant or benefit reduction status. The bill would prohibit a person from being subject to criminal prosecution or an administrative finding of intentional program violation under these provisions for an overpayment or overissuance of benefits obtained under various specified public social services programs for any month in which the county human services agency was in receipt of any Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) data match information indicating any potential for an overpayment or an overissuance and for which the agency has not provided the person a timely and adequate notice of action for the collection of the overpayment or overissuance. The bill would prohibit a person from being subject to criminal prosecution or an administrative finding of intentional program violation for overpayment or overissuance of benefits under various specified public social services programs for any month the county human services agency was in receipt of any New Hire Registry (NHR) data match information, as specified, indicating any potential for an overpayment or overissuance and the county human services agency did not provide the person a timely and adequate reminder to report income, as specified. The bill would prohibit criminal prosecution for an overpayment or overissuance of benefits obtained under various specified public social services programs, except as specified or as required by federal law. The bill would prohibit a person from being additionally charged with perjury based solely on a statement made to a county welfare department, if they are subject to prosecution for overpayment or overissuance pursuant to these provisions. Existing law authorizes current and future grants payable to an assistance unit to be reduced due to prior overpayments. In cases in which the overpayment was caused by an agency error, existing law requires grant payments to be reduced by 5% of the maximum aid payment of the assistance unit. Prior to effectuating any reduction of current grants to recover past overpayments, existing law requires the recipient to be advised of the proposed reduction and of their entitlement to a hearing. Existing law prohibits a civil or criminal action from being commenced based on alleged unlawful application for or receipt of public social services if the case record or any consumer credit report used in the case has not been made available to that person or has been destroyed, as specified. This bill would provide that a person or household for whom their grant has or may be reduced under these provisions is only subject to administrative remedies available for responding to an overpayment. The bill would require a recipient's case file to be reviewed by a qualified caseworker to identify any errors in determining the overpayment prior to advising the recipient of the proposed reduction. If it is determined during that review that an overpayment was not made, the bill would prohibit subsequent recovery efforts. The bill would also prohibit a civil or criminal action against a recipient if their case file was reviewed by qualified caseworker and it is determined that an overissuance was not made. The bill would provide that an overpayment determined to be an administrative error shall only be collected administratively by the county. Commencing on July 1, 2022, or on the date the Department of Social Services notifies the Legislature that a specified event has occurred, whichever date is later, existing law requires a county to only establish an overpayment if the overpayment occurred within 24 months prior to the county discovering the payment. Existing law also prohibits a county from collecting any portion of a nonfraudulent payment that occurred more than 24 months prior to the date the county discovered an overpayment. This bill would also prohibit a county from taking any other action related to a nonfraudulent overpayment that occurred more than 24 months prior to discovery of the overpayment. Existing law requires current and future CalFresh benefits to be reduced, as specified, to recover a benefit overissuance caused by inadvertent household error or administrative error. Existing law, beginning on July 1, 2022, or on the date the department notifies the Legislature that a specified event has occurred, whichever date is later, limits the period in which a county may establish a claim to recover an overissuance of CalFresh benefits due to inadvertent household error or administrative error to the 24 months preceding the month the county welfare department determined the overissuance occurred. The bill would require a recipient's case file to be reviewed by a qualified caseworker to identify any errors in determining the overpayment prior to establishing a claim to recover an overissuance. If it is determined during that review that an overissuance was not made, the bill would prohibit any subsequent recovery effort. The bill would require a claim established under these provisions to only be pursued through the applicable administrative process provided by federal law or pursuant to specified procedures prescribed by state law. By expanding county duties relating to the administration of benefits, 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, 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.