Sen. Brian Jones

Maddy summarySenate Resolution 103 designates the first full week in May 2026 as Tardive Dyskinesia Awareness Week in California. This proclamation aims to raise public and medical awareness about tardive dyskinesia, a movement disorder that can occur in people taking antipsychotic medications for mental health conditions. The resolution emphasizes the importance of early detection and routine screening for this condition, which affects a significant portion of patients who may be undiagnosed. By highlighting these issues, the bill encourages healthcare providers and patients to prioritize regular check-ups and education regarding the risks and symptoms associated with long-term antipsychotic use.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state the dead body, or a part or product thereof, of a polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf, zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea otter, free-roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise, Spanish lynx, or elephant. This bill would exempt from that prohibition the import into the state for commercial purposes, possession with intent to sell, or sale within the state of kangaroos if they are harvested in accordance with Australian law, the federal Endangered Species Act, and applicable international conventions, as specified.

Maddy summaryThis Senate Resolution establishes April 16, 2026, as "Breaking the Silence Day of Awareness" in California to highlight the issue of unreported child sexual abuse. The measure encourages individuals, schools, and community organizations to participate in educational outreach that helps people recognize signs of abuse and fosters open dialogue about the topic. By promoting awareness and reducing stigma, the resolution aims to support survivors and encourage early intervention without imposing new legal requirements or funding mandates.

Existing law establishes the Elderly Parole Program for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of inmates who are 50 years of age or older and who have served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on their sentence. Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings, when considering the release of qualifying inmates, to give special consideration to whether certain criteria have reduced the elderly inmate's risk for future violence. Existing law excludes various persons from these provisions, including, among others, persons convicted of serious felonies, persons convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer, or persons sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This bill would additionally exclude, among others, persons receiving an enhancement to their sentence for committing certain sexual offenses including, among others, rape, sodomy, or lewd and lascivious acts, and habitual sex offenders. The bill would specify that these exclusions apply to all persons incarcerated as of January 1, 2027, regardless of the person's previous eligibility for parole or the status of any parole petition filed prior to that date.

The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Board of Parole Hearings with respect to the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension of parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate term upon conviction of murder. Existing law classifies certain felonies as violent felonies for purposes of various provisions of the Penal Code. This bill would additionally authorize the Governor to reverse or modify the decision of the board to grant parole to an inmate sentenced for conviction of a violent felony to an indeterminate prison term, as specified, or to a determinate prison term, as specified, if the board's decision is to grant the inmate parole pursuant to the Elderly Parole Program or youth offender parole program. Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmate's eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend. Existing law authorizes certain state bodies to hold closed session meetings for certain purposes, including allowing a state body to hold a closed session when considering and acting upon the determination of a term, parole, or release of any individual or other disposition of an individual case. This bill would require the board to provide an annual report to the Legislature, and publish that report on its internet website, detailing, among other things, the voting record of commissioners, as specified, and whether the prosecuting agency appeared at the parole hearing. The bill would also require recording of parole, en banc, and rescission hearings to be recorded and transcribed, and the recording retained indefinitely by the board. The bill would prohibit an en banc review conducted by the board from being held in a closed session. Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim's Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, requires the board, following a decision denying parole, to schedule the next hearing 3, 5, 7, 10, or 15 years from the date of the last hearing, as specified. Existing law also authorizes the board, in its discretion and after considering the views and interests of the victim, to advance a hearing to an earlier date, when a change in circumstances or new information establishes a reasonable likelihood that consideration of the public and victim's safety does not require additional incarceration. Existing law authorizes an inmate, every 3 years, to request that the board exercise its discretion to advance a hearing and provides the procedure for an inmate to make that request. This bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings, in determining suitability for parole, to consider specified information and give substantial weight to the nature and circumstances of the commitment offense that includes, among other things, the degree of violence involved and the vulnerability of the victim. The bill would change the length of time between requests to advance to 5 years and would also change the inmate's burden to require the inmate to show that there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances or new information. The bill would require the board to provide notice of a request to advance to the prosecuting agency and registered victim, and would authorize the board to summarily deny a request to advance in certain circumstances, including when the request is duplicative or repetitive or fails to include sufficient documentation or explanation. The bill would require the board to set a hearing, following a decision denying parole, at 5 years if the inmate is serving a term of conviction for, among other things, murder involving a victim 14 years of age or younger, or various sexual offenses involving a victim 14 years of age or younger. The bill would require that the board deny a request to advance for an individual serving a term for those offenses, unless the request demonstrates clear and convincing evidence of a material and substantial change in circumstances. These provisions would become operative only if Assembly Constitutional Amendment ____ of the 2025–26 Regular Session, amending Section 8 of Article V of the Constitution, is approved by the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide election. The bill would make related findings and declarations and would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law, the Naturopathic Doctors Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of naturopathic doctors by the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine. Existing law repeals the act on January 1, 2027. This bill would extend operation of the act until an unspecified date. Existing law defines naturopathic medicine and authorizes a naturopathic doctor to perform specific health care functions. Existing law authorizes a naturopathic doctor to dispense, administer, order, prescribe, and furnish or perform, among other things, repair and care incidental to superficial lacerations and abrasions, except suturing, and the removal of foreign bodies located in the superficial tissues. This bill would, instead, authorize a naturopathic doctor to dispense, administer, order, prescribe, and furnish or perform minor office procedures, defined, in part, to mean care and operative procedures relative to lacerations, skin lesions, and abrasions, the incision and drainage of abscesses, and the trephination of subungual hematomas, among other specified procedures. Existing law authorizes a naturopathic doctor to furnish or order drugs, including Schedule III to Schedule V, inclusive, controlled substances, under specified circumstances, including, among others, that the drugs are furnished or ordered under the supervision of a physician and surgeon and in accordance with standardized procedures or protocols developed by the naturopathic doctor and their supervising physician and surgeon and that the board has certified that the naturopathic doctor has completed coursework in pharmacology, as specified. Existing law authorizes a naturopathic doctor to independently prescribe and administer other specified drugs. This bill would revise and recast the above-described authorizations to instead authorize a naturopathic doctor to furnish, order, or prescribe drugs, including, among others, Schedule II to Schedule V, inclusive, controlled substances, and would remove the supervision and standardized procedure requirements. The bill would make conforming changes.

Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review, defined as a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board, and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified. This bill would instead require that all commissioners participate in an en banc review and a request for review made by the Governor. The bill would also require the en banc review decision and the vote of each commissioner to be a public record. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend. Existing law authorizes certain state bodies to hold closed session meetings for certain purposes, including allowing a state body to hold a closed session when considering and acting upon the determination of a term, parole, or release of any individual or other disposition of an individual case. This bill would prohibit an en banc review conducted by the board from being held in a closed session.

(1) Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil unless, before the person's admission to that institution, the person has been fully immunized against various diseases, including any disease deemed appropriate by the State Department of Public Health. Existing law provides for medical exemptions from immunization requirements. Existing law requires the department to develop and make available for use by licensed physicians and surgeons an electronic, standardized, statewide medical exemption certification form to be transmitted directly to the department's California Immunization Registry (CAIR) and submitted directly to the school or institution at which the child will attend, submitted directly to the governing authority of the school or institution, or submitted to that governing authority through the CAIR where applicable. Existing law requires the form to be the only documentation of a medical exemption that the governing authority may accept. Existing law requires the department to identify medical exemption forms that do not meet specified criteria for appropriate medical exemptions. Existing law requires inappropriate or otherwise invalid exemptions to be reviewed by the State Public Health Officer or a physician and surgeon, and authorizes the revocation of the medical exemption. Existing law requires the department to notify the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as appropriate, of any physician and surgeon who has 5 or more medical exemption forms in a calendar year that are revoked. Existing law authorizes the appeal of a revoked medical exemption by a parent or guardian, as specified. This bill would repeal these provisions. Existing law, prior to January 1, 2021, exempts a child from immunization requirements if the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician and surgeon to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances for which the physician and surgeon does not recommend immunization. This bill would exempt a child from immunization requirements if the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement, as described above. The bill would prohibit the department, a local health department, or a third-party review panel from revoking, invalidating, or conditioning a medical exemption duly issued by a licensed physician and surgeon, except by final order of a court upon clear and convincing evidence of fraud. The bill would prohibit the department and local health departments from auditing, disciplining, or referring a physician and surgeon to the Medical Board of California or Osteopathic Medical Board of California based solely on the number of medical exemptions issued. (2) Existing law establishes the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons and osteopathic physicians and surgeons. Existing law authorizes the boards to, among other things, investigate and discipline licensees for misconduct. This bill would prohibit a physician and surgeon from being investigated, disciplined, or otherwise acted against by any state department or board based on their issuance of medical exemptions unless the medical exemption is found to be fraudulent or otherwise invalid. The bill would prohibit a medical exemption from being considered in any investigation or action against a physician and surgeon that is otherwise unrelated to medical exemptions. (3) Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. This bill would prohibit a health care service plan or health insurer from denying coverage, imposing higher premiums, canceling a policy, or otherwise penalizing an enrollee or insured because a covered minor holds a medical exemption. Because a violation of this requirement by a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Public Health. Existing law makes a violation of those provisions a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit a health facility from denying medically necessary care on the basis of a medical exemption. Because a violation of this provision would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to repeal or amend any regulation inconsistent with this bill on or before July 1, 2027. (6) 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, known as the Administrative Procedure Act, governs the procedures for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. Existing law requires a state agency proposing to adopt, amend, or repeal an administrative regulation to, among other things, assess the potential for adverse economic impact on California business enterprises and individuals, and requires a state agency proposing to adopt, amend, or repeal a major regulation on or after November 1, 2013, to prepare and submit to the Department of Finance for comment, a standardized regulatory impact analysis, as provided. Existing law defines "major regulation" for purposes of the act to mean any proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation subject to review by the office that will have an economic impact on California business enterprises and individuals in an amount exceeding $50,000,000, as provided. Existing law establishes procedures for the adoption of emergency regulations, including requiring that the state agency make a finding that the adoption of a regulation or order of repeal is necessary to address an emergency, as defined. Under existing law, a regulation, amendment, or order of repeal adopted as an emergency regulatory action may only remain in effect for up to 180 days, unless the adopting agency complies with specified requirements. This bill, the Restoring Accountability Act, would prohibit a state agency from taking final action to adopt a major regulation until certain requirements are met, including that after the state agency prepares a standardized regulatory impact analysis and submits the analysis to the Department of Finance, as described above, the state agency submits a proposal to the Legislature recommending legislation to authorize the adoption of the major regulation and the Legislature enacts a law expressly authorizing the state agency to adopt that major regulation. The bill, notwithstanding that prohibition, would authorize a state agency to adopt an emergency regulation that is a major regulation if the state agency complies with specified requirements governing the adoption of emergency regulations. The bill would prohibit the emergency regulation from being in effect more than 180 days, except that the state agency may twice readopt an emergency regulation that is the same or substantially equivalent to the emergency regulation previously adopted for a period not to exceed 90 days, if the state agency prepares a standardized regulatory impact analysis and submits the analysis to the Department of Finance for comment, as described above, and the state agency submits a proposal to the Legislature recommending legislation to authorize the adoption of the major regulation.

Existing law requires a state agency, except as specified, proposing to adopt, amend, or repeal a major regulation to prepare a standardized regulatory impact analysis in the manner prescribed by the Department of Finance, addressing specified considerations, and submit that analysis to the Department of Finance. Existing law requires the department to comment, within 30 days of receiving the analysis, on the extent to which the analysis adheres to specified regulations. This bill would require the State Air Resources Board to also prepare and publish a supplemental standardized regulatory impact analysis if the proposed regulation is materially changed after release of the initial standardized regulatory impact analysis described above, and before adoption, that updates the consumer cost analysis to reflect amendments made during the rulemaking process. The bill would require the board to make the supplemental standardized regulatory impact analysis available for public review.