Issue · Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice

Every criminal justice bill, vote, and legislator stance in California, automatically classified by Maddy, our AI policy reader.

Total bills
1
2025-2026 Regular Session
Top supporter
Anna Caballero
92% support rate
Top opponent
Phillip Chen
8% support rate
Ranked legislators
10
5 support · 5 oppose
Key legislators

Who's moving criminal justice in California

Legislators moving criminal justice in California
Legislator Party Stance Support rate Decisive votes
Anna Caballero
Anna Caballero Senate · District 14
D
Strong +
92% 140
Joaquin Arambula
Joaquin Arambula House · District 31
D
Strong +
92% 99
Celeste Rodriguez
Celeste Rodriguez House · District 43
D
Strong +
91% 56
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan House · District 16
D
Strong +
91% 86
Aisha Wahab
Aisha Wahab Senate · District 10
D
Strong +
90% 122
Phillip Chen
Phillip Chen House · District 59
R
Strong −
8% 65
Heath Flora
Heath Flora House · District 9
R
Strong −
11% 56
Brian Jones
Brian Jones Senate · District 40
R
Strong −
11% 71
Carl DeMaio
Carl DeMaio House · District 75
R
Strong −
12% 82
Ali Macedo
Ali Macedo House · District 33
R
Strong −
12% 96
Showing 1 of 1 bills

All criminal justice bills

signed · California · Assembly Oct 13, 2025

AB 250: Sexual assault: statute of limitations.

Existing law revives certain claims seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday when one or more entities are legally responsible for damages and the entity or their agents engaged in a cover up, as defined, that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. Existing law authorizes a cause of action for any such claim to proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, to be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. Existing law revives such claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following: (1) the plaintiff was sexually assaulted, (2) one or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the assault, and (3) the entity or entities engaged in a cover up or attempted cover up, as defined, of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault. This bill would extend the eligibility period for revival of claims of the type described above to include claims that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2026, because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. The bill would instead require a revived claim against an entity, as defined, to allege that the plaintiff was sexually assaulted and that (1) one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for damages arising out of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator against the plaintiff, and (2) an entity or entities, including their specified representatives, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator. The bill would additionally revive a claim against the person who committed the sexual assault brought by a plaintiff who alleges, among other things, that one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault. The bill would specify that failure to allege a cover up as to one entity does not affect revival of a claim or claims against any other entity or person, including the perpetrator. The bill would permit a cause of action for any such claim to proceed if already pending in court on the effective date of the bill or, if not filed by that date, to be commenced between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027. The bill would exempt public entities from these provisions and would provide that public entities are not required to indemnify perpetrators of sexual assault, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes.