(1) Existing law makes it a crime to acquire a firearm with the intent to transfer the firearm to a minor or to evade specified requirements on the transfer of firearms. This bill would expand that crime to apply to firearms brought into the state with that intent. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law generally makes the violation of laws relating to the illegal transfer of a firearm a misdemeanor, except that the illegal transfer of a handgun to a minor or the illegal transfer of a handgun without conducting the transaction through a firearms dealer may be punished as a felony. Existing law also allows a dealer transaction involving a handgun to be punished as a felony if the dealer delivers the handgun sooner than 10 days from the date of purchase, is not presented with clear evidence of the transferee's identity and age, transfers the firearm after being notified that the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm, transfers a handgun to a person who does not present a handgun safety certificate, or delivers a handgun to a person who has made another application to purchase a handgun within the preceding 30 days. This bill would allow those illegal firearms transactions to be prosecuted as felonies if they involve a centerfire semiautomatic rifle. By increasing the punishment for a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the Franchise Investment Law, generally provides for the regulation of the offer and sale of franchises and requires the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to maintain a risk-based process of reviewing franchise applications with emphasis on risks associated with the franchisor's financial condition, the franchisor's compliance record, and significant deficiencies with the franchisor's application. The law requires specific written disclosures, and authorizes the sale of a franchise to be exempt from specified requirements if the franchisor meets certain disclosure and notice requirements. Existing law makes it unlawful for a person to offer or sell any franchise unless the franchise has been registered or exempted pursuant to these provisions. This bill, contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature, would require a franchise broker, as defined, to register with the commissioner before engaging in certain activities, including offering or selling a franchise in this state. This registration process would require the franchise broker to sign and verify a specified form, under penalty of perjury. The bill would make it unlawful for a franchise broker to offer or sell a franchise in this state unless the franchise broker is registered pursuant to these provisions. The bill would authorize the commissioner to summarily issue a stop order suspending or revoking a registration under these provisions and would prescribe a hearing process if the commissioner receives a written request for hearing from the franchise broker, as specified. The bill would impose certain recordkeeping and regulatory requirements on franchise brokers and would make various actions by franchise brokers unlawful. The bill would make these provisions operative on the later of: (1) July 1, 2026, or (2) the first anniversary of the date on which the above-described appropriation is made. Existing law makes it unlawful for any person to effect or to attempt to effect a sale of a franchise unless, among other exceptions, the person is identified in an application or amended application with the commissioner, licensed by the Department of Real Estate as a real estate broker or real estate salesperson, or licensed by the commissioner as a broker-dealer or agent pursuant to the Corporate Securities Law of 1968. This bill would add as an exception to the provisions described above a person registered as a franchise broker. Under existing law, a person who offers or sells a franchise in violation of specified provisions is liable to the franchisee or subfranchisor, who may sue for specified damages. This bill would make a franchise broker who offers or sells a franchise in violation of specified provisions liable to the franchisee or franchisor, who may sue for damages, as specified. Existing law requires the commissioner to charge and collect specified fees in connection with an application for registration for, renewal of, and amendment of, a registration of an offer of franchises, as specified, which are credited to the Financial Protection Fund. This bill would establish specified fees in connection with an application for registration or amendment of a registration as a franchise broker, and would require the commissioner to charge and collect those fees. By expanding the crime of perjury, as specified above, 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.
Under existing law, unless expressly provided by law, the State Bar of California is not subject to various state laws prescribing the mode of procedure for exercising the powers of state public bodies or state agencies, as specified. Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, defines "public official" broadly, but it expressly excludes specified persons, including those affiliated with the State Bar of California, from that definition. Under the act, each agency is required to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code that requires designated employees of the agency, as defined, to file statements disclosing specified economic interests. Existing law generally requires such a code to contain specific provisions setting forth any circumstances under which designated employees or categories of designated employees must disqualify themselves from making, participating in the making, or using their official position to influence the making of any decision. However, the act specifically provides that the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the Board of Governors of, and designated employees of, the State Bar of California need not contain such a provision. The act further requires certain enumerated public officials to file their conflict of interest statements, and make specified disclosures, pursuant to specific provisions of the act. This bill would instead expressly require include board members and designated employees of the State Bar of California within its definition of "public official." The bill would eliminate the above-referenced exception for Conflict of Interest Codes with respect to board members and designated employees of the State Bar of California, thereby requiring these codes to contain such disqualification provisions. The bill would also specify that board members and designated employees of the State Bar of California are not enumerated public officials required to comply with specified filing and disclosure requirements; rather, they would only need to file conflict of interest statements and make specified disclosures pursuant to the requirements of their own code. A violation of the act's provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of an existing 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. 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.
Existing law prohibits driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent. Existing law also prohibits driving a vehicle in excess of an established speed limit. Existing law requires that specified convictions, violations, and traffic-related incidents count as points against a driver's record for purposes of suspension or revocation of the privilege to drive. This bill, the Negligent Operator Treatment (NOT) in California Act, would, commencing on January 1, 2027, prohibit excessively speeding, defined as driving a vehicle at a speed that exceeds the posted speed limit by 26 miles per hour or more on a highway with a posted speed limit for passenger vehicles of 55 miles per hour or less. The bill would provide that a conviction for excessively speeding is punishable as an infraction and one point shall be assessed against a driver's record for a first violation and 2 points for any subsequent violation that occurs within 3 years after a previous violation for which the driver was convicted. By creating a new infraction, 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.
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for those purposes. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is known as the "ABC" test, as described above. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of Dynamex and the provisions described above. These exemptions include a temporary exemption for newspaper distributors working under contract with a newspaper publisher and newspaper carriers, as those terms are defined, until January 1, 2025. Existing law, as part of that temporary exemption, requires every newspaper publisher or distributor that hires or directly contracts with newspaper carriers to submit prescribed information on carrier payroll taxes, wage rates, and wage claims to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) , on or before March 1, 2022, March 1, 2023, and March 1, 2024. This bill would extend the operation of that exemption until January 1, 2030. The bill would require the information on carrier payroll taxes, wage rates, and wage claims to be reported to the LWDA on or before March 1, 2025, March 1, 2026, March 1, 2027, March 1, 2028, and March 1, 2029.
Existing law prohibits, except as specified, a person sentenced to imprisonment in a county jail from being administered any psychiatric medication without prior informed consent. Existing law authorizes a county department of mental health, or other designated county department, to administer to an inmate involuntary medication on a nonemergency basis only after the inmate is provided, among other things, a hearing before a superior court judge, a court-appointed commissioner or referee, or a court-appointed hearing officer. Existing law, until January 1, 2025, additionally protects all inmates in a county jail from being administered any psychiatric medication without prior informed consent, with certain exceptions, and imposes additional criteria that must be satisfied before a county department of mental health or other designated county department may administer involuntary medication, including a requirement that the jail first make a documented attempt to locate an available bed for the inmate in a community-based treatment facility, under certain conditions, in lieu of seeking involuntary administration of psychiatric medication. Until January 1, 2025, if an inmate is awaiting resolution of a criminal case, existing law requires that a hearing to administer involuntary medication on a nonemergency basis be held before, and that any requests for ex parte orders be submitted to, a judge in the superior court where the criminal case is pending. Existing law, also until January 1, 2025, sets limits on the amount of time such orders are valid and requires any court-ordered psychiatric medication to be administered in consultation with a psychiatrist who is not involved in the treatment of the inmate at the jail, if one is available. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2030. The bill would also require any county that, between January 1, 2025, and July 1, 2028, administers involuntary medication to any inmate awaiting arraignment, trial, or sentencing, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified. The bill would require any involuntary treatment to be consistent with the standard of care. The bill would also permit the county to demonstrate a documented attempt to locate an available bed by submitting a declaration under penalty of perjury. By imposing new duties on counties and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, 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 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.
Existing law requires the State Board of Education to adopt at least 5 basic instructional materials in specified subject areas, including, among others, social science, for use in kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, as specified. Existing law establishes the Instructional Quality Commission, as specified, and requires the commission to, among other things, develop criteria for evaluating instructional materials. This bill would require the commission, when the state board adopts new instructional materials for history-social science on or after January 1, 2025, to consider providing for inclusion, in its evaluation criteria, content on the case of Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 51226.3 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1821 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1821 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments, and requires an association to manage a common interest development. Existing law, unless otherwise provided in the declaration of a common interest development, generally makes an association responsible for repairing, replacing, and maintaining the common area, except as specified. This bill would make an association responsible for repairs and replacements necessary to restore interrupted gas, heat, water, or electrical services that begin in the common area even if the matter extends into another area, as specified, unless the utility service that failed is required to be maintained, repaired, or replaced by a public, private, or other utility service provider or otherwise provided in the declaration of a common interest development. The bill would require an association's board to commence the process to make those repairs within 14 days, as provided. If there are insufficient funds in reserve to cover the cost of repairs, the bill would authorize an association to obtain competitive financing to commence repairs or replacements without a vote and to levy an emergency assessment to repay the loan if certain conditions are met. If the board is unable to reach a quorum during the 14-day period, the bill would require a limited reduced quorum at the next duly noticed board meeting, only for the vote to commence the process to make repairs. The bill would also authorize directors of an association to vote by electronic means for purposes of initiating repairs or replacements pursuant to the bill's provisions. The bill would additionally exempt an association from the above-described requirements and the general duty to repair, replace, and maintain the common area, if (A) the association is in an area affected by a state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government, a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, or a local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official, and (B) the disaster or emergency materially impacts the association's ability to comply with the above-described requirements or duties. (2) Existing law requires an association to distribute an annual budget report 30 to 90 days before the end of its fiscal year. Under existing law, that budget report includes, among other things, a summary of the association's reserve accounts. Existing law requires an association to perform a study of the reserve account requirements, and, as part of that study, to cause to be conducted a visual inspection of the accessible areas of major components that the association is obligated to repair, replace, restore, or maintain. This bill would provide that, for purposes of the above-referenced visual inspection, the term "major components" includes gas, water, and electrical service to the extent the association is required to repair or replace those parts. (3) Existing law imposes specified duties on an association with respect to managing a common interest development, including levying regular and special assessments sufficient to perform its obligations. Existing law imposes limits on increases in those assessments, except those increases necessary for specified emergency situations, including an extraordinary expense necessary to repair or maintain the common interest development for which the association is responsible where a threat to personal safety on the property is discovered. This bill would expand that emergency situation to include an extraordinary expense necessary to operate, repair, or maintain the common interest development for which the association is responsible where a threat to personal health or safety or another hazardous condition or circumstance on the property is discovered.
This measure would designate a specified portion of Interstate 80 in the City and County of San Francisco as the Willie Mays Highway. The measure would 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.
The California Constitution provides that voters may recall a state officer by majority vote and, in the same election, elect a successor with a plurality of the vote. The Constitution prohibits an officer who is the subject of a recall election from being a candidate for successor. The Constitution provides that the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor when a vacancy occurs in the office of Governor, and requires the Lieutenant Governor to act as Governor during the impeachment, absence from the state, or other temporary disability of the Governor or of a Governor-elect who fails to take office. When a recall of the Governor is initiated, the Constitution requires the Lieutenant Governor to perform the recall duties of the Governor. The Constitution requires the Governor to fill vacancies in certain judicial and executive offices by appointment, as specified. This measure would eliminate the successor election for a recalled state officer and instead provide, in the event an officer is removed in a recall election, that the office will remain vacant until it is filled in accordance with the Constitution and statute. The measure would repeal the prohibition against the officer subject to the recall being a candidate to fill the office in a special election, but would prohibit the appointment of the officer subject to the recall election to fill the vacancy. If the Governor is removed from office in a recall election, this measure would provide that the Lieutenant Governor will become Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term. If the Governor is removed from office by recall before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election during the first two years of the Governor's term, the measure would provide for a special election to be held to replace the Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term, to be consolidated with the next statewide primary election and, if necessary, the subsequent statewide general election. The measure would require the Secretary of State to perform the recall duties of the Governor when a recall of the Governor is initiated. The measure would require the Controller to perform the recall duties of the Governor and Secretary of State if recalls of those two officers are initiated at the same time. If adopted by the Legislature, the measure would appear on the ballot at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.