Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California (State Bar) , a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. Under existing law, the officers of the State Bar are a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary. Existing law requires the chair to preside at all meetings of the State Bar and of the board, and requires the vice chair to preside at those meetings in the event of the chair's absence or inability to act. Existing law authorizes the board to prescribe additional duties of the chair and the vice chair and to prescribe the duties of the secretary. Existing law sets the length of the terms of the chair and the vice chair at one year, and requires them to assume the duties of their office at the conclusion of the annual meeting following their appointment. This bill instead would extend the length of those terms up to 2 years, and would require them to assume the duties of their office at the conclusion of the September meeting following their appointment. This bill would require the board to appoint an executive director of the State Bar, who would be responsible for the leadership and management of the State Bar according to the strategic direction set by the board, and to appoint a general counsel of the State Bar to serve as the chief legal advisor to the board on issues not related to attorney discipline, as specified. The bill would set the length of the term for those appointments at 4 years, and would authorize reappointment for additional 4-year terms. The bill would require the State Bar to notify the Senate Committee on Rules and the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary within seven days of the dismissal or hiring of those positions, and would make those appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate, as specified. The bill would limit the application of these provisions to persons appointed on or after January 1, 2024. Existing law exempts the State Bar from laws restricting, or prescribing a mode of procedure for the exercise of powers of state public bodies or state agencies, as specified. This bill would subject members of the board of trustees and employees of the State Bar to specified conflicts of interest provisions relating to contracts, which are generally applicable to public officers and employees. By expanding the scope of provisions, the violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a member of the board to disqualify themself from making, participating in the making of, or attempting to influence any decisions of the board or a committee of the board in which the member has a financial interest, as defined, that it is reasonably foreseeable may be affected materially by the decision. Existing law makes an intentional violation of this requirement subject to specified criminal penalties. Existing law also requires a member to disqualify themself when there exists a personal nonfinancial interest that will prevent the member from applying disinterested skill and undivided loyalty to the State Bar in making or participating in the making of decisions. Under this bill, the scope of the disqualification requirement relating to decisions in which a member has a financial interest, as described, would be expanded to include any decision of the State Bar. By expanding the scope of this requirement, an intentional violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under the bill, the scope of the disqualification requirement relating to a member's personal interests would also be expanded to include any personal interests that may have that effect on the member's making or participating in the making of decisions. Under existing law, the State Civil Service Act, certain acts, including convictions of certain crimes, are cause for discipline of a state employee or of a person whose name appears on an employment list. Existing provisions of the Penal Code require the Attorney General to furnish state summary criminal history information to various entities, including an agency, officer, or official of the state if the information, among other things, is required to implement a statute or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct applicable to that person. Existing law authorizes the agency, officer, or official of the state to perform state and federal criminal history information checks, as provided. If a fingerprint-based criminal history information check is required pursuant to any statute, existing law requires the check to be requested from the Department of Justice and requires the applicable agency or entity to submit to the Department of Justice fingerprint images and related information required by the Department of Justice, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to provide a state or federal response or a fitness determination, as appropriate, to the agency or entity, as specified. This bill would revise and recast these provisions, as applicable to the State Bar, within the State Bar Act. In this regard, the bill would require the State Bar to require all employees and prospective employees to submit fingerprints to the Department of Justice and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish identity and to determine whether the individual has a record of criminal conviction in this state or in other states, including through a national criminal history check. The bill would authorize the State Bar to impose this requirement on volunteers, contractors, and subcontractors. This bill would also revise and recast similar provisions of the State Bar Act relating to applicants for admission or reinstatement and licensees. In this regard, the bill would require an applicant for admission or reinstatement to submit or resubmit fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in addition to the Department of Justice, in order to establish the identity of the applicant and in order to determine whether the applicant or licensee has a record of criminal conviction in this state or in other states, including through a national criminal history check. Existing law states legislative intent and findings regarding diversity and inclusion in the practice of law. Existing law requires the State Bar to develop and implement a plan to meet specified goals and to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, by March 15, 2019, and every 2 years thereafter, on the plan and its implementation, as prescribed. This bill would change the date for the submission of the report to March 30 every 2 years. Existing law authorizes the State Bar Court to order the involuntary inactive enrollment of an attorney for violation of probation under specified circumstances and requires the State Bar Court to terminate such an enrollment upon expiration of a period equal to the period of stayed suspension in the probation matter, or until the State Bar Court makes an order regarding the recommended actual suspension in the probation matter, whichever occurs first. This bill would require the State Bar Court to terminate enrollment upon expiration of that described period or until the effective date of a Supreme Court order imposing an actual suspension on account of the probation violation or other disciplinary matter, whichever occurs first. Existing law provides for the creation of an examining committee within the State Bar with varied responsibilities relating to examinations and other requirements for admission to the practice of law, including, among others, registration of law students, receiving applications for the general bar examination, and collecting fees fixed by the board and paid by applicants to defray the expense of administering existing law relating to admission to practice. This bill would, with respect to these specified responsibilities, replace the examining committee with the State Bar. The bill would make related conforming changes. The bill would delete obsolete provisions relating to passing the law students' examination. Existing law requires an applicant for admission and licensure to practice law to meet certain requirements, including passing a general bar examination. Existing law gives an unsuccessful applicant for admission to practice, after they have taken any examination and within 4 months after results have been declared, the right to inspect their examination papers at the office of the examining committee located nearest to the place at which the applicant took the examination. The applicant also has the right to inspect the grading of the papers. This bill would delete those inspection provisions and, instead, would require that an applicant for admission to practice who did not pass the California bar examination, for 30 days following the release of examination results, have electronic access to their answers to the written sessions of the bar examination, including the ability to download, save, and print. Existing law, except as specified, requires hearings and records of original disciplinary proceedings in the State Bar Court to be public, following a notice to show cause. This bill would, instead, require those proceedings to be public following the filing of a notice of disciplinary charges. Existing law requires disciplinary investigations of licensees to be confidential until formal charges are filed, and requires investigations of certain related matters to be confidential until the formal proceeding is instituted. Existing law authorizes waiver of that confidentiality requirement by specified entities under specified circumstances, including by the Chief Trial Counsel or the chair of the board when warranted for the protection of the public. This bill would revise the circumstances under which the confidentiality of those investigations may be waived. In this regard, the bill would additionally authorize the board to vote to waive confidentiality, but only when warranted for protection of the public. The bill would require the board to hold a meeting under these provisions in closed session and to provide notice to a licensee whose confidential information is being considered for disclosure. The bill, for the board's assessment whether to waive confidentiality, would establish a presumption in favor of maintaining confidentiality and establish specified considerations. The bill would provide for related public announcements by the Chief Trial Counsel or Chair of the State Bar and for prior notice of such announcements to the licensee. The bill would authorize a licensee to file a motion to prevent the State Bar from disclosing information pursuant to the waiver. The bill would require the State Bar Court to rule on the motion within 10 court days of the filing. This bill would also restrict the Chief Trial Counsel's and the chair of the board's authority to waive confidentiality of disciplinary investigation. In this regard, the bill would require the Chief Trial Counsel to exercise the authority with the written concurrence of the chair, and would require a determination that disclosure is needed to prevent an immediate harm to the public, as specified, and that the above-described provisions relating to the board's authority to waive confidentiality are inadequate for the protection of the public. This bill, beginning January 1, 2025, would prohibit the Chief Trial Counsel from issuing private reprovals to an attorney accused of misconduct. The bill, by April 1, 2024, would require the board, in consultation with the Chief Trial Counsel, to provide to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees recommendations for codifying a formal disciplinary diversion program for attorneys accused of minor violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Existing law requires the State Bar to issue an Annual Discipline Report by October 31 of each year describing the performance and condition of the State Bar discipline system, including all matters that affect public protection, as prescribed. This bill would change the deadline for that report to November 30 of each year. Existing law authorizes the board, with the approval of the Supreme Court, to formulate and enforce rules of professional conduct for all licensees of the State Bar. Under existing law, a person who reports to the State Bar or causes a complaint to be filed with the State Bar that an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct, knowing the report or complaint to be false and malicious, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes the State Bar to notify the appropriate district attorney or city attorney that a person has filed what the State Bar believes to be a false and malicious report or complaint against an attorney and recommend prosecution of that person. This bill would require a licensee to inform the State Bar if the licensee knows that another licensee has conspired to engage in or has engaged in seditious conspiracy, treason, rebellion, or insurrection, as specified. The bill would deem to have committed professional misconduct any licensee of the State Bar who makes a complaint to the State Bar pursuant to this reporting provision with the intent to intimidate, harass, or otherwise deter a fellow licensee from engaging in the lawful practice of law. The bill would authorize the board to amend the rules of professional conduct, and require the board to propose those amendments to the Supreme Court for approval, to implement these reporting provisions. Existing law relating to suspension or disbarment of an attorney requires a court that finds after prescribed proceedings that a crime of which an attorney was convicted or the circumstances of its commission involved moral turpitude, to enter an order disbarring the attorney or suspending them from practice for a limited time, according to the gravity of the crime and the circumstances of the case, or to otherwise dismiss the proceedings. This bill, in lieu of the alternative of dismissing the proceedings, would require a court to determine if the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction involve other misconduct warranting discipline, and if so, impose the appropriate discipline. Existing law, until January 1, 2024, requires the board to charge an annual license fee for active licensees for 2023 of up to $390, or of up to $386 if the State Bar has entered into a contract to sell its San Francisco office building by October 31, 2022. Existing law requires the board to charge an annual license fee for inactive licensees of up to $97.40, or of up to $96.40 if the State Bar has entered into a contract to sell its San Francisco office building by October 31, 2022. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would, instead, require the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $390 for active licensees for 2024, without the exception relating to the sale of the San Francisco office building described above. The bill, beginning January 1, 2024, would require the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $97.40 for inactive licensees, without the exception relating to the sale of the San Francisco office building described above. Existing law generally requires the State Bar to hold the net proceeds from the sale of real property, as described, without expenditure or commitment for any purpose until approved by the Legislature by statute. Existing law, as an exception to that provision, authorizes up to 10% of the net proceeds from the sale of the State Bar's San Francisco office to be used for improvement of the State Bar's discipline system, as specified. This bill would revise that exception to instead authorize the State Bar to use the net proceeds from the sale of the State Bar's San Francisco office to cover employee salaries and to cover operational costs associated with the State Bar's discipline system and administration of the biannual admissions exam. Existing law requires the board to establish and administer a Client Security Fund to relieve or mitigate pecuniary losses caused by the dishonest conduct of active licensees, registered foreign legal consultants, and certain other attorneys, arising from or connected with the practice of law. Existing law requires reimbursement of the fund by an attorney whose actions have caused payment from the fund and provides for collection, as specified. This bill would further provide that the licensee's obligation to reimburse the fund is imposed as a penalty, payable to and for the benefit of the State Bar, to promote rehabilitation and protect the public. The bill would also provide that the reimbursement provisions are declaratory of existing law. Existing law authorizes the board to increase the annual license fee for active licensees by up to $40 and the annual license fee for inactive licensees by up to $10 for the purposes of the Client Security Fund and the costs of its administration, as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would authorize the board to disburse or appropriate any excess funds not needed to support the Client Security Fund, including reserve funds, to the State Bar's general fund. The bill would require funds that are disbursed or transferred pursuant to that authority to first be used to cover salaries and benefits of employees in bargaining units for which a memorandum of understanding has been agreed to by the State Bar before being used for any other purpose. Existing law requires the board to establish and administer an Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program, as prescribed, to identify and rehabilitate attorneys with impairment due to substance use or a mental health disorder affecting competency so that attorneys so afflicted may be treated and returned to the practice of law in a manner that will not endanger the public health and safety. Existing law requires moneys for the support of the program, treatment services for those who cannot afford to pay, and related programs to be paid in whole or part by an annual fee of $10 per active licensee and annual fee of $5 per inactive licensee. Existing law authorizes the board to seek alternative sources for funding the program. Existing law authorizes the transfer of any excess funds not needed to support the Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program, including reserve funds, to the Client Security Fund if there are sufficient funds available to fully support the program. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would authorize the board to disburse or appropriate any excess funds not needed to support the program, including reserve funds, to the State Bar's general fund. The bill would require funds that are disbursed or transferred pursuant to that authority to first be used to cover salaries and benefits of employees in bargaining units for which a memorandum of understanding has been agreed to by the State Bar before being used for any other purpose. Existing law requires the board to establish a committee to oversee the operation of the Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program with membership and responsibilities as prescribed. Existing law requires the committee to report to the board and to the Legislature annually on March 1 on the implementation and operation of the program, as specified. This bill would delete that committee report requirement. Existing law requires the board to engage the services of an independent national or regional public accounting firm with specified experience for an audit of its financial statement for each fiscal year. Existing law requires that a copy of the audit and financial statement be submitted within 120 days of the close of the fiscal year to the board, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would require that submission annually on or before May 31. This bill would require the State Bar to prepare a report on how it would use revenue generated by an increase in the mandatory annual license fees for active and inactive licensees. The bill would require the report to include, among other things, the State Bar's calculation of the necessary fee increase to maintain its existing operations and service levels and the State Bar's assessment of all programs and activities that require additional funding, as specified. The bill would also require the State Bar to provide a progress report on the Office of Chief Trial Counsel's case processing standards, as specified. The bill would require the State Bar to submit these reports no later than April 1, 2024, to the board of trustees, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would make findings and declarations relating to the intent of the Legislature to work on issues relating to client trust accounts. 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. 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
The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to classify personal property for differential taxation or for exemption by means of a statute approved by a 23 vote of the membership of each house. Pursuant to this constitutional authorization, existing property tax law, for the January 1, 2014, lien date to and including the January 1, 2024, lien date, exempts qualified property, as defined, for use in space flight, as specified. Existing law repeals this exemption as of July 1, 2025. This bill would extend to January 1, 2029, the operation of the property tax exemption for qualified property used in space flight. By extending the operation of this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. The Legislative Open Records Act (LORA) authorizes any person to inspect legislative records, as defined, subject to specified exemptions. This bill would include findings and reporting requirements in compliance with the above-described new tax expenditure requirement. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to provide the report and would provide that records received by and in the custody of the LAO are confidential and not subject to disclosure under LORA. 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.
The Unfair Competition Law (UCL) makes various unfair competition practices unlawful, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Existing law regulates consumer refunds specific to certain industries under specified circumstances. This bill would require a hotel, third-party booking service, hosting platform, or short-term rental, as defined, to allow a reservation for a hotel accommodation or a short-term rental located in California to be canceled without penalty for at least 24 hours after the reservation is confirmed if the reservation is made 72 hours or more before the time of check-in. This bill would require, if a consumer cancels a reservation pursuant to that provision, the hotel, third-party booking service, hosting platform, or short-term rental to issue a refund to a consumer for all amounts paid to the hosting platform, hotel, third-party booking service, or short-term rental to the original form of payment within 30 days of the cancellation of the reservation. This bill would authorize certain public attorneys, including the Attorney General, to bring an enforcement action, as provided. The bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation pursuant to consideration of specified factors. The bill would exempt certain types of reservations from its provisions, including a reservation made for a negotiated rate that was not advertised, or otherwise made available, for booking by the general public.
Existing law, as added by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, adopted by voters as Proposition 36 at the November 7, 2000, statewide general election, requires that persons convicted of certain nonviolent drug possession offenses be granted probation and participate in and complete an appropriate drug treatment program as a condition of that probation. After completion of drug treatment and the terms of probation, the act requires the court to conduct a hearing, set aside the conviction, and dismiss the complaint if the court finds, among other requirements, that the defendant successfully completed drug treatment. For purposes of the act, a defendant has successfully completed treatment if they have completed the prescribed course of drug treatment and, as a result, there is reasonable cause to believe that they will not abuse controlled substances in the future. The act allows its amendment by a statute passed by 2/3 of both houses of the Legislature and requires that all amendments further the act and be consistent with its purposes. This bill would amend the act by removing the requirement that there be reasonable cause to believe that the defendant will not abuse controlled substances in the future in order to be considered as having successfully completed treatment. Existing law requires the court, when granting probation after conviction of any controlled substance offense, as specified, to order as a condition of probation that the defendant secure education or treatment from a local community agency designated by the court. Existing law requires a juvenile court to order a minor, found to have been in possession of any controlled substance, to receive education or treatment from a local community agency, as specified, and to order the minor's parents or guardian to participate in the education or treatment if beneficial to the minor. Existing law provides that a defendant's willful failure to complete a court-ordered education or treatment program shall be a circumstance in aggravation for purposes of sentencing in any subsequent prosecution for specified controlled substance violations. This bill would allow the court to order the defendant to complete a controlled substance education or treatment program, as specified, if available and as appropriate for the individual. The bill would require the court to determine the defendant's ability to pay for the program and would authorize the court to develop a sliding fee schedule based on the person's inability to pay, including making a person who is granted specified relief from court fees and costs not responsible for any costs. The bill would strike the requirement that a juvenile court order a minor and their parents or guardians to receive education or treatment. The bill would require the court or probation department to refer defendants to controlled substance education or treatment programs that adhere to specified standards. The bill would require the county drug program administrator, with input from representatives of the court, the county probation department, and substance use treatment providers, to design and implement an approval and renewal process for controlled substance education and treatment programs. The bill would require the court, when a defendant is convicted of a controlled substance offense resulting in imprisonment, to recommend that the defendant attend a controlled substance education or treatment program while imprisoned. By imposing additional duties on local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires every county drug program administrator, in consultation with representatives of the court and the county probation department, to establish minimum requirements, criteria, and fees for the successful completion of drug diversion programs, including a minimum of 20 hours of education, counseling, or any combination of both for each divertee. This bill would require that the 20 hours or more of education or counseling include education about, among other things, how the use of controlled substances affects the body and the dangers of using controlled substances, as specified. 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 11373 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by AB 890 to be operative only if this bill and AB 890 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to maintain canteens at its facilities, as specified. Existing law requires the sale prices of the articles offered for sale to be fixed by the Director of Corrections at the amounts that will, as far as possible, render each canteen self-supporting. This bill would instead require the department to maintain a canteen at its active facilities, as specified. The bill would, until January 1, 2028, prohibit the sale prices of the articles offered for sale from exceeding a 35% markup above the price of the articles paid to the vendors. The bill would, commencing on January 1, 2028, require the sale amounts of the articles to be offered for sale to be fixed by the secretary at amounts that will render each canteen self-supporting.
Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health, subject to an appropriation in the Budget Act of 2016, to award funding to local health departments, local governmental agencies, or on a competitive basis to other organizations, as specified, to support or establish programs that provide naloxone or another opioid antagonist to first responders and at-risk opioid users through programs that serve at-risk drug users. Existing law exempts from civil liability a person who, in good faith and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct, as provided. This bill would require each stadium, concert venue, and amusement park to maintain unexpired doses of naloxone hydrochloride or any other opioid antagonist on its premises at all times, and to ensure that at least 2 employees are aware of the location of the naloxone hydrochloride or other opioid antagonist. The bill would exempt from civil or criminal liability a person who, in good faith, administers naloxone hydrochloride or another opioid antagonist by nasal spray or auto-injector on the premises of a stadium, concert venue, or amusement park, other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct, except as specified. The bill would exempt from civil or criminal liability a stadium, concert venue, or amusement park, or its employees, or an entity that owns, occupies, or operates a stadium, concert venue, or amusement park, or its employees, for the administration of naloxone hydrochloride or another opioid antagonist, or the failure to administer naloxone hydrochloride or another opioid antagonist, on the premises of the stadium, concert venue, or amusement park, as provided.
Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to allocate federal funds appropriated for refugee social services programs to each eligible county, and authorizes the department, to the extent permitted by federal law, to contract with or award grants to a qualified nonprofit organization for the purpose of administering refugee social services within a county. This bill would require each county human services agency to post a single page on its internet website with a list of resources available for refugees that includes, among other things, public transportation, financial literacy information, and affordable housing and rental assistance programs. By imposing new duties on counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the department to post a single page on its internet website with a list of available state resources available for refugees and a link to the internet website of each county human assistance agency. 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.
The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to permit private, nonprofit organizations to conduct raffles as a funding mechanism to support beneficial and charitable works, if, among other conditions, at least 90% of the gross receipts from the raffle go directly to beneficial or charitable purposes in California. The California Constitution further authorizes the Legislature to amend the percentage of gross receipts required to be dedicated to beneficial or charitable purposes by a statute passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature. Existing statutory law implements those provisions and requires the Department of Justice to administer and enforce those provisions. Existing statutory law, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a major league sports raffle at a home game conducted by an eligible organization, as defined, for the purpose of directly supporting specified beneficial or charitable purposes in California, or financially supporting another private, nonprofit, eligible organization, as defined, that performs those purposes if, among other requirements, 50% of the gross receipts generated from the sale of raffle tickets are used to benefit or provide support for beneficial or charitable purposes, as defined, the other 50% is paid to the winner, and the winners of the prizes are determined by a manual draw, as specified. This bill would permanently extend the operation of those provisions beyond January 1, 2024. By extending the operation of provisions that revise the percentage of gross receipts required to go to beneficial or charitable purposes pursuant to the California Constitution, this bill would require a 23 vote of each house.
Existing law requires the board of supervisors, following a county's decision to elect its board using district-based elections or following each decennial federal census for a county whose board is already elected using district-based elections, by ordinance or resolution, to adjust the boundaries of all of the supervisorial districts of the county so that the districts are as nearly equal in population as possible and comply with applicable federal law, and specifies the procedures the board of supervisors must follow in adjusting those boundaries. Existing law establishes the Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Riverside and the Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Fresno, which are charged with adjusting the supervisorial district boundaries for their respective counties. This bill would establish the Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Orange, which would be charged with adjusting the boundary lines of the districts of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange in accordance with specified criteria. The commission would consist of 14 voting members and 2 nonvoting, alternate members who meet specified qualifications. The bill would require each commission member to attend all public hearings and meetings of the commission, except as specified, and would create specified procedures by which the commission may remove a member for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct of office, inability to discharge the duties of the office, or if it is later discovered that the commission member did not meet the required qualifications at the time of appointment or no longer meets those qualifications while serving on the commission. The bill would provide that if the commission is unable to act because it does not have nine voting members to constitute a quorum, then the Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange and the commission must fill the vacancies to bring the commission to nine voting members, as specified. By increasing the duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If Assembly Bill 1248 of the 2023–24 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2024, this bill would provide that the provisions of AB 1248 do not apply to the Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Orange, which instead would be governed by the provisions of this bill. If Assembly Bill 764 of the 2023–24 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2024, this bill would make conforming changes as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the unique circumstances facing the County of Orange. 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.
The Civil Discovery Act authorizes the court, with the stipulation of the parties to a civil action other than an unlawful detainer or small claims action, to order the parties to provide initial disclosures to the other parties to the action within 45 days of the court's order. Existing law requires a party providing initial disclosures to provide information regarding persons who have information, or records containing information, supporting the party's claims and defenses, and information regarding agreements which would make a person or an insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment in the action through reimbursement or indemnification. Existing law requires a party to supplement or correct such a disclosure or response, as specified. Existing law requires initial disclosures to be verified by the party under penalty of perjury. Under existing law, these provisions do not apply to unlawful detainer actions or actions brought in the small claims division of a court, as specified. This bill would instead require each party that has appeared in a civil action to provide initial disclosures, as specified, to the other parties to the action within 60 days of a demand by any party to the action unless modified by the stipulation of the parties. The bill would require a party making initial disclosures of persons or records to additionally disclose persons or records that are relevant to the subject matter of the action, except as specified, and to disclose information and records regarding insurance policies or contracts that would make a person or insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment. The bill would allow a party who has made, or responded to, a demand for initial disclosures to propound supplemental demands, as specified. The bill would instead require initial disclosures to be verified via the written declaration of the party or the party's authorized representative, or signed by the party's counsel. The bill would exempt any party not represented by counsel from these requirements. In addition to the exemptions described above, the bill would specify that its provisions do not apply to actions or proceedings commenced in whole or in part under the Family Code or Probate Code, or to an action in which a party has been granted preference, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2027. Existing law requires a court to impose a $250 sanction against a party, person, or attorney upon findings that the party, person, or attorney (1) failed to respond in good faith to a document request, (2) produced the requested documents within 7 days of a motion to compel that is filed by the requesting party as a result of the other party, person, or attorney's failure to respond in good faith, or (3) failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, by letter, or other means of communication in writing, to resolve any dispute regarding the request. This bill would increase the amount of the sanction to $1,000.