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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Public Health of health facilities, as defined. Existing law requires a health facility to allow a patient's domestic partner, the children of the patient's domestic partner, and the domestic partner of the patient's parent or child to visit unless no visitors are allowed, the facility reasonably determines that the presence of a particular visitor would endanger the health or safety of a patient, member of the health facility staff, or other visitor to the health facility, or would significantly disrupt the operations of a facility, or the patient has indicated to the health facility staff that the patient does not want this person to visit. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor. This bill, Dianne's Law, would require a health facility to allow specified persons to visit, including the patient's children and grandparents. The bill would require the health facility to develop alternate visitation protocols, if circumstances require the health facility to restrict visitor access to the facility due to health or safety concerns, that allow visitation to the greatest extent possible while maintaining patient, visitor, and staff health and safety. Notwithstanding the requirement mentioned above, the bill would prohibit a health facility from prohibiting in-person visitation in end-of-life situations unless the patient has indicated to the health facility staff that the patient does not want this person to visit, as specified, and would authorize a health facility to require visitors to adhere to personal protective equipment and testing protocols not greater than those required of facility staff for the duration of their visit. The bill would also require the facility to provide personal protective equipment and testing resources to each visitor for a patient in an end-of-life situation, to the extent that those resources have been made readily available to the facility by state or local entities for that purpose. By expanding 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.
This measure would, among other things, urge the United States Congress and President Joseph R. Biden to fully fund the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive Infrastructure Solution for the Tijuana River due to the ongoing impacts to public health, the environment, and the local economy caused by cross-border pollution and would urge President Joseph R. Biden to declare a national emergency due to those ongoing impacts.
Maddy summaryThis bill proclaims September 2024 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month in California to raise public visibility about mental health resources and suicide prevention services. The measure encourages residents to recognize warning signs, discuss mental health openly, and direct those in crisis to support systems like the 988 lifeline. While it does not create new laws or funding, it serves as an official state declaration to promote education and community engagement during the designated month.
This measure would provide for the promotion and encouragement of solutions and resources for keeping the oceans and coastlines healthy and eliminating the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
This measure would request that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conduct further investigation into the concerns raised regarding potential health impacts attributed to pollution in the Tijuana River.
Existing law establishes the California Border Environmental and Public Health Protection Fund in the State Treasury to receive funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act, including, but not limited to, proceeds of bonds sold as specified, and other sources, such as from the North American Development Bank (NADBank) , and makes money in the fund available, upon appropriation, to the California-Mexico Border Relations Council, a state entity. Money in the fund is used to assist local governments in implementation of projects to identify and resolve environmental and public health problems that directly threaten the health or environmental quality of California residents or sensitive natural resources of the California border region, among other purposes. This bill would authorize, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act or another statute, funds to be made available to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) for NADBank for loans, grants, and direct expenditures to address water quality problems arising in the California-Mexico cross-border watersheds. The bill would require the funding to be available for specified purposes, as provided, including water quality projects for the Tijuana River, and would make 10% of the funding available for the administrative costs of implementing these provisions. The bill would authorize funding provided for activities or projects in the State of Baja California to be provided through direct expenditures and for grants to an eligible funding recipient authorized to work in Mexico under a specified circumstance. The bill would require grant funding to be conditioned upon the enforceability and accountability requirements mutually agreed upon by CalEPA and NADBank, and would authorize CalEPA to withhold funding if the requirements of the applicable funding agreement are not met. The bill would also authorize grant funding to be conditioned on enforceability and accountability mechanisms agreed upon by CalEPA, NADBank, and the recipient. The bill would require CalEPA to notify the leadership office in each house of the Legislature on cross-border collaboration and the expenditure of the funding, as provided. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the North American Development Bank.
Existing law establishes the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. The Donahoe Higher Education Act prohibits the campuses of those segments from charging mandatory systemwide tuition or fees to specified students who apply for a waiver, including a child of any veteran of the United States military who has a service-connected disability, has been killed in service, or has died of a service-connected disability, an undergraduate student who is a recipient of a Medal of Honor, or an undergraduate student who is a child of a recipient of a Medal of Honor and who is no more than 27 years of age, if certain requirements are satisfied. This bill would additionally prohibit the campuses of the University of California and California State University from charging tuition or fees for specified students who enroll in an extended education course if certain requirements are satisfied and the extended education course is being used to meet the requirements of an undergraduate degree program. The bill would apply to the campuses of the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make it apply.
Existing law establishes various commissions within state government. This bill would, until January 1, 2028, establish the California Commission on the United States Semiquincentennial in state government to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States of America. The bill would require the commission to plan and coordinate commemorations and observances of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. The bill would require the commission to be solely supported by private or federal funds made available for the purpose of supporting the commission. The bill would require that these funds be deposited in the Semiquincentennial Fund, and would create that fund in the State Treasury. The bill would require funds in the Semiquincentennial Fund to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified. The bill would require the records, files, and other memoranda of the commission, other than any private possessions, to be deposited and filed with the State Archives before January 1, 2028, and would require the State Archives to receive those materials. These provisions would become operative only if the Treasurer determines that sufficient private or federal funds have been made available.
Under existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) , it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California, to refuse to hire or employ a person or to refuse to select a person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or discharge a person from employment or a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of that person. FEHA provides that nothing in that act relating to discrimination on account of sex affects the right of an employer to use veteran status as a factor in employee selection or to give special consideration to Vietnam-era veterans. FEHA is enforced by the Civil Rights Department, which is in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, and is under the direction of an executive officer known as the Director of Civil Rights. This bill would enact the Voluntary Veterans' Preference Employment Policy Act to authorize a private employer to establish and maintain a written veterans' preference employment policy, to be applied uniformly to hiring decisions, to give a voluntary preference for hiring a veteran over another qualified applicant. The bill would require a private employer with a veterans' preference employment policy to annually report to the Civil Rights Department the number of veterans hired under the preference policy and any demographic information about those veterans that the employer obtained in response to the department's reporting requirements. Under the bill, failure to submit that report would render any preference granted by the employer ineligible for the protections provided by this bill. The bill would require the department to report that information, in addition to the number of discrimination claims received based on an employer's veterans' preference employment policy, to specified legislative policy committees by July 1, 2026, and July 1, 2028. This bill would provide that the granting of a veterans' preference pursuant to the bill, in and of itself, shall be deemed not to violate any local or state equal employment opportunity law or regulation, including, but not limited to, the antidiscrimination provisions of FEHA. The bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist any private employer in determining if an applicant is a veteran, to the extent permitted by law. The bill would prohibit a veterans' preference employment policy from being established or applied for the purpose or with the effect of unlawfully discriminating against an employment applicant on the basis of a protected classification, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2029.