This measure would acknowledge the history of the Chinese in California, recognize the contributions made to the State of California by Chinese Americans and Chinese immigrants, and apologize for past discriminatory laws and constitutional provisions that resulted in the persecution of Chinese living in California.
This measure would designate the portion of State Highway Route 710 between Pico Avenue and the Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach as the Senator Jenny Oropeza Memorial Freeway. The measure would also request the Department of Transportation to determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect those signs.
Existing law, known as the Sex Equity in Education Act, declares that it is the policy of the state that elementary and secondary school classes and courses, including nonacademic and elective classes and courses, be conducted without regard to the sex of the pupil enrolled in those classes and courses. The act also prohibits public funds from being used in connection with any athletic program conducted under the auspices of a school district governing board or any student organization within the school district that does not provide equal opportunity to both sexes for participation and for use of facilities. This bill would express legislative findings and declarations relating to the participation of girls and women in competitive athletics. The bill would require, commencing with the 2015–16 school year and every year thereafter, each public elementary and secondary school in the state, including each charter school, that offers competitive athletics, as defined, to make specified data publicly available at the end of the school year, as specified.
Existing law defines human trafficking as the deprivation of the personal liberty of another person with the intent to effect a violation of certain specified sex crimes, to obtain forced labor or services, or to cause a minor to engage in a commercial sex act with the intent to effect a violation of certain specified sex crimes. Existing law requires, when more than one violation of certain specified provisions of law occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, that jurisdiction for any of those offenses is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue. This bill would add human trafficking, pimping, and pandering to the specified offenses to which the above jurisdictional requirements apply. Existing law, when charges alleging multiple incidences of human trafficking that involve the same victim or victims in multiple territorial jurisdictions are filed in one county, requires the court to hold a hearing to consider whether the matter should proceed in the county of filing or whether one or more counts should be severed and to consider specified factors in making this decision, including the location and complexity of the likely evidence and where the majority of the offenses occurred. Existing law requires the district attorney in the filing county to present evidence to the court that the district attorney in each county where any of the charges could have been filed has agreed that the matter should proceed in the county of filing. This bill would reorganize these provisions.
Existing law provides that the military courts of this state are general courts-martial, special courts-martial, summary courts-martial, and courts of inquiry. Existing law provides that general, special, and summary courts-martial have the power to try and adjudge specified members of the active militia. Existing law establishes various sexual assault offenses, including the offenses of rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, and abduction. Existing law establishes the Military Department, which includes the office of the Adjutant General, the California National Guard, the State Military Reserve, the California Cadet Corps, and the Naval Militia. Federal laws and regulations governing the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Guard and not in conflict with state law are adopted with respect to the state military forces. This bill would require the department, on or before July 1 of each year, to report prescribed information to the Governor, the Legislature, the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Assembly Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General, and the United States Attorneys in California regarding the federal government's activities relating to sexual assault prevention and response. The bill would restrict the authority of the department or the California National Guard to assert jurisdiction over qualifying sexual assault offenses, as defined, by a member of the active militia when subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to occasions when a civilian prosecutorial authority refuses to prosecute on behalf of the state. The bill would require a member of the active militia recommended for court-martial pursuant to a specified hearing for a qualifying sexual assault offense, or an attempt of that offense, to be tried by general court-martial. The bill would prohibit a convening authority from overturning a conviction for a qualifying sexual assault offense issued by a general court-martial. The bill would require the convening authority to dispose of cases on appeal in accordance with the decision of the Courts-Martial Appellate Panel. Under the bill, no statute of limitations would apply for a member of the active militia to be charged with a qualifying sexual assault offense when subject to the jurisdiction of the military court, and the bill would require the punishment for a conviction of any of the specified offenses to be issued as directed by the general court-martial, and to include, at a minimum, dismissal or dishonorable discharge. The bill would define the term "sexual assault crime" to include specified offenses under existing law.
This measure would designate September 2014 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in the State of California.
This measure would express the Legislature's opposition to reduction of the current national and high-cost conforming loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and would urge the FHFA to continue to resist implementation of any such reductions. This measure also would urge the President and Congress of the United States to join California in opposing any reduction of the national and high-cost conforming loan limits.
Existing law, the California Finance Lenders Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders and brokers by the Commissioner of Business Oversight who is the chief officer of the Department of Business Oversight. Existing law prohibits a person from engaging in the business of a finance lender or broker without obtaining a license from the commissioner. Under existing law, a finance lender includes any person who is engaged in the business of making consumer loans or making commercial loans and the business of making those loans includes lending money and taking, in the name of the lender, or in any other name, in whole or in part, as security for a loan, any contract or obligation involving the forfeiture of rights in or to personal property, the use and possession of which property is retained by other than the mortgagee or lender, or any lien on, assignment of, or power of attorney relative to wages, salary, earnings, income, or commission. Under existing law, a broker includes any person who is engaged in the business of negotiating or performing any act as broker in connection with loans made by a finance lender. Existing law makes certain persons and entities exempt from, or not subject to, the law if certain requirements are met. In any proceeding, under this law, the burden of proving an exemption is upon the person or entity claiming it. This bill would make exempt from this law a nonprofit organization that facilitates one or more zero-interest, low-cost loans with a minimum principal amount upon origination of $250 and a maximum principal amount upon origination of $2,500 if certain requirements are met, including, among other things, that the organization is exempt from federal income taxes, no part of the net earnings of the organization inures to the benefit of private persons, and that the loan terms meet certain requirements. The bill would authorize any organization wishing to operate pursuant to an exemption to file a specified application with, and pay a fee in an amount to be determined by, the commissioner. The bill would authorize the commissioner to refuse to grant an exemption, or to suspend or revoke an exemption, if he or she makes a specified finding and finds that such action is in the best interests of the public. The bill would require an organization granted an exemption, referred to as an exempt organization, to, among other things, offer a borrower a credit education program or seminar at no cost to the borrower, report each borrower's payment performance to at least one consumer reporting agency, and underwrite each loan and ensure that a loan is not made if the organization determines that the borrower's total monthly debt service payments exceeds a specified amount. This bill would make the law inapplicable to a nonprofit organization that partners with an exempt organization for the purpose of facilitating zero-interest, low-cost loans, if certain requirements are met, including, but not limited to, that this nonprofit organization, to be known as the partnering organization, meet specified requirements for federal income tax exemption, that no part of the net earnings of the organization shall inure to the benefit of private persons, and that the loan terms meet certain requirements. The bill would require the partnership of each exempt organization and each partnering organization to be formalized through a specified written agreement to be provided to the commissioner upon his or her request. The bill would require each exempt organization to provide the commissioner with notice and certain information upon entering into a written agreement with a partnering organization. Upon a determination that a partnering organization has acted in violation of certain requirements, the bill would authorize the commissioner to, among other things, disqualify that partnering organization from facilitating zero-interest, low-cost loans, bar that partnering organization from performing services at one or more specific locations, terminate a written agreement, and prohibit the use of that partnering organization by all organizations granted exemptions if the commissioner determines it is in the public interest. The bill would authorize the commissioner to examine each exempt organization and each partnering organization for compliance with these provisions upon reasonable notice. The bill would require any examined organization to make available to the commissioner all books and records requested by the commissioner. The bill would require the cost of any such examination to be paid by the exempt organization. The bill would require every exempt organization whose exemption is approved to file an annual report with the commissioner on or before March 15 containing specified information. The bill would also require an exempt organization to include information regarding the loans facilitated by a partnering organization in this annual report. On or before July 1 annually, the bill would require the commissioner to post a report on the department's Internet Web site that summarizes information relating to exempt organizations, partnering organizations, and the facilitation of these zero-interest, low-cost loans including that information compiled by the commissioner from the annual reports submitted by the exempt organizations. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
(1) Existing law, the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,140,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a safe drinking water and water supply reliability program. Existing law provides for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water supply and protection facilities and programs. Existing law, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 84 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000 for the purposes of financing safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park improvements. Existing law, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1E at the November 7, 2006, general statewide election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,090,000,000 for the purposes of financing disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects. Existing law, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 50 at the November 5, 2002, statewide general election, authorizes, for the purposes of financing a safe drinking water, water quality, and water reliability program, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $3,440,000,000. Existing law, the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000, approved by the voters as Proposition 13 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $1,970,000,000 for the purposes of financing a safe drinking water, clean water, watershed protection, and flood protection program. Existing law, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act, approved by the voters as Proposition 204 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $995,000,000 for the purposes of financing a safe, clean, reliable water supply program. Existing law, the Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986, approved by the voters as Proposition 44 at the June 3, 1986, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $150,000,000 for the purposes of financing a water conservation and water quality program. This bill would enact the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $7,120,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a water quality, supply, and infrastructure improvement program. This bill, upon voter approval, would reallocate $425,000,000 of the unissued bonds authorized for the purposes of Propositions 1E, 13, 44, 50, 84, and 204 to finance the purposes of a water quality, supply, and infrastructure improvement program. This bill would provide for the submission of these provisions to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
