AB 2534 California Assembly · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Domestic Violence Prevention Act: forced marriage.

Summary

Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte protective order enjoining a party from, among other things, disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, as defined, which includes unreasonably engaging in specified actions, including isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would include forced marriage for purposes of the act. The bill would define "forced marriage" as a spousal relationship in which one or both parties do not or cannot consent and one or both parties are compelled, through force, fraud, coercion, duress, abuse of power, or coercive control, to enter, attempt to enter, or maintain, a marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is legally valid. If a protective order is sought to protect against a forced marriage, the bill would authorize all persons engaged in conduct to arrange, officiate, finance, or facilitate a forced marriage or attempted forced marriage to be included in one action as respondents. The bill would provide that coercive control, for purposes of the act, includes interfering with, threatening, or attempting to prevent a party or witness from participating in a court proceeding. The bill would provide that conduct undertaken to compel, attempt to compel, prepare for, or facilitate a forced marriage constitutes disturbing the peace of the other party, as specified. The bill would require the provisions of the act to be liberally construed. The bill would authorize a court to grant relief regardless of whether a marriage has occurred or whether a purported marriage would be legally valid in this state or any other jurisdiction. Because a violation of a protective order is punishable as a crime, by expanding the bases for the issuance of these orders, the bill would expand an existing crime, thereby imposing 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.

Issues: ✓ Criminal Justice

Bill status passed both 4 of 5 stages cleared

Introduction

Feb 2026

Committee Review

Aug 2026

Assembly Passage

May 2026

Senate Passage

Aug 2026

Governor

Introduced Feb 20, 2026 Last action Aug 25, 2026

Maddy AI version diff · 3 comparisons

What changed between versions

08/27/26 - Enrolled → AB2534 · 3 edits

MINOR

This diff reflects a change in document format rather than a change in law. The bill text of AB 2534 (Domestic Violence Prevention Act: forced marriage) is substantively identical in both versions. The 'from' version is the formal enrolled document with clerk signatures and official legislative formatting, while the 'to' version is a web page rendering that adds navigation elements, metadata, and author information.

TECHNICAL

The document was reformatted from an official enrolled legislative document (with Chief Clerk and Secretary of the Senate signatures, page numbers, and formal chapter heading) to a web page presentation with site navigation, search tools, share buttons, and bill metadata.

Website UI elements were added including navigation links (home, accessibility, FAQ, feedback, sitemap), a quick search box, version history dropdown, status timeline, and author/coauthor information (Assembly Member Kalra, Senator Wahab, and coauthors).

Formal enrolled document elements were removed including the Chief Clerk of the Assembly signature line, Secretary of the Senate signature line, Private Secretary of the Governor line, page numbers, and the official 'CHAPTER' heading format.

06/11/26 - Amended Senate → 08/27/26 - Enrolled · 5 edits · Aug 27, 2026

MODERATE

The enrolled version of AB 2534 makes several substantive changes from the Senate-amended version. Most notably, it removes a dedicated provision in Section 6300 that specifically authorized protective orders based on 'reasonable proof of prior instances of forced marriage or a credible risk of a forced marriage occurring,' narrows the liberal construction mandate in Section 6230 by removing its specific reference to forced marriage, and eliminates an authorization for courts to issue restraining orders against third parties who knowingly aid or abet enjoined conduct. These changes modestly narrow the bill's protective scope while retaining most of its core framework.

SCOPE

Section 6300 subdivision (d) was removed entirely. This provision had specifically authorized courts to issue protective orders upon 'reasonable proof of prior instances of forced marriage or a credible risk of a forced marriage occurring.' Similar language survives in Section 6301(e), but the removal eliminates a standalone basis for issuing orders tied specifically to forced marriage risk.

Section 6230 (liberal construction provision) was narrowed. The Senate version stated the division 'shall be liberally construed to prevent forced marriage and related coercive conduct.' The enrolled version simply says 'This division shall be liberally construed,' removing the specific tie to forced marriage prevention.

ENFORCEMENT

Section 6340(d) no longer includes a specific authorization for courts to issue orders 'restraining third parties who knowingly aid or abet conduct enjoined under this division, to the extent permitted by law.' This removed a tool for targeting facilitators of forced marriage beyond the primary respondent.

REQUIREMENT

Section 6320(d)(4) removed the explicit knowledge qualifier. The Senate version described 'arranging, officiating, financing, or facilitating a forced marriage ceremony or related travel with knowledge that the marriage is being forced.' The enrolled version drops the 'with knowledge' language, potentially broadening the scope of covered conduct in this example.

Section 6340(d)(1) changed from a time-limited prohibition ('during the term of the order') to a consent-based prohibition ('without the protected party's consent'). The enrolled version focuses on whether the protected party consents rather than limiting the order to its duration.

02/20/26 - Introduced → 06/11/26 - Amended Senate · 5 edits · Jun 11, 2026

MODERATE

The Senate amendment to AB 2534 (forced marriage prevention) makes several substantive additions: it allows multiple respondents (arrangers, officiants, financiers, facilitators) to be named in a single protective order action, adds an entirely new Section 6301 expanding venue and eligibility for filing petitions (including non-residents and minors), narrows the protected class in Section 6211(g) from any 'party to' a forced marriage to only those 'subjected to' one, and expands the specific orders courts can issue in forced marriage cases. These changes broaden both who can seek protection and what remedies are available.

ELIGIBILITY

Section 6211(g) changed from protecting 'a party to a forced marriage' to only 'a party subjected to a forced marriage,' narrowing coverage to victims rather than any participant in the relationship.

REQUIREMENT

New Section 6217(b) allows every person who arranged, officiated, financed, or facilitated a forced marriage to be named as a respondent in a single protective order action, enabling courts to bind multiple actors at once.

Section 6340(d) forced marriage orders were revised: the prohibition on arranging or facilitating a marriage now requires it be 'without the protected party's consent'; document surrender must be 'to the court'; and the order protecting access to activities was expanded to include 'other conduct in which the protected party has a right to engage.'

SCOPE

Entirely new Section 6301 added, providing that non-residents may file petitions, listing multiple permissible filing venues (petitioner's county, defendant's county, where offense occurred, or any court with jurisdiction), confirming minors can be protected, stating that leaving the household does not bar a petition, and clarifying that time elapsed since the most recent act is not determinative.

TECHNICAL

Section 6320(d)(4) changed 'facilitating a marriage ceremony' to 'facilitating a forced marriage ceremony' for clarity, and the bill title now includes Section 6301 among the sections being amended.

Floor votes · Senate Aug 24, 2026 · Assembly May 7, 2026

How they voted

40–0

Passed

Total votes 40

Aug 24, 2026

D Democratic30

30 Yea

100% Yea

R Republican10

10 Yea

100% Yea

Vote distribution

All Yea All Nay Mixed No data

Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions

Key actions

Committee

Amendments

Aug 25, 2026

Lower · Passed

Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0.).

lower

Aug 24, 2026

Introduced

In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

lower

Aug 24, 2026

Upper · Passed

Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.).

upper

Aug 13, 2026

Upper · Passed

From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (August 13).

upper

Aug 13, 2026

Upper · Passed

In committee: Reconsideration of a favorable vote granted.

upper

Aug 3, 2026

Committee

In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

upper

Jun 24, 2026

Upper · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

upper

Jun 11, 2026

Introduced

From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

upper

May 20, 2026

Committee

Referred to Com. on JUD.

upper

May 7, 2026

Lower · Passed

Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 69. Noes 0. Page 4962.)

lower

Apr 22, 2026

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 22).

lower

Mar 24, 2026

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (March 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

lower

Mar 9, 2026

Committee

Referred to Com. on JUD.

lower

Feb 21, 2026

Lower · Passed

From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

lower

1 primary · 6 co-sponsors