This measure would call on Congress to enact legislation that restores and strengthens the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and it would call on the President to sign the legislation.
Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) , makes various practices unlawful and provides that a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition is liable for a civil penalty and subject to injunction, as specified. The UCL authorizes actions prosecuted under its provisions to be brought by certain public attorneys, including by the Attorney General, a city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000, or by a county counsel of any county within which a city has a population in excess of 750,000. The UCL prohibits the distribution, as provided, of any handbill, as defined, to any individual guest rooms in any hotel where the innkeeper has expressed objection to handbill distribution, as specified. The UCL provides that these provisions do not prohibit the distribution of a handbill to guest rooms in any hotel where the distribution has been requested or approved in writing by the innkeeper, or to any individual guest room when the occupant thereof has affirmatively requested or approved the distribution of the handbill during the duration of the guest's occupancy. This bill would require, under the UCL, the operator of a hotel, as defined, with actual knowledge of a reservation with the United States Customs and Border Protection or United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to post a prescribed notice in a prominent and accessible place where it can be seen by all workers, as provided. The bill would also require an operator of a hotel with the above-described knowledge to disclose, upon request of a guest with a reservation at the time of check-in, the potential presence of the United States Customs and Border Protection or United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on its premises during the guest's reservation. The bill would prohibit the liability of a hotel for violations of these provisions from exceeding $5,000, as provided. The bill would repeal its own provisions on January 1, 2029.
Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, when amending or adopting regulations that may impact the visitation of inmates, to recognize and consider the value of visiting as a means to improve prison safety, the important role of inmate visitation in maintaining connection with family and community, and the role of inmate visitation in preparing for successful release. This bill would require each facility, as defined, to establish at least 3 days of visitation per week. The bill would require a facility, if it will not be open for visitation, to provide notice to the impacted population as soon as possible. The bill would authorize a facility to deny contact visits only for specified reasons, including, among others, possession of contraband or pending or sustained rules violations that result in a restricted housing unit term. The bill would require facility staff to take specified actions with regard to correctable issues with a visitation, including, among other things, allowing the visitor a reasonable opportunity to correct the issue and return to visiting up to one hour before the end of the visiting period. The bill would prohibit denial of visitation if a visitor has traveled more than 170 miles to attend a visit and has not visited within 30 days, unless there has been a finding of a credible and documented security threat. The bill would prohibit a facility from searching visitors without their voluntary, informed, and written consent. The bill would authorize a facility to respond to refusal of that search only with denial of contact visiting for that day, and would require the facility to offer a noncontact visit on the same day, if space is available. The bill would authorize other restrictions and procedures for searches of visitors, as specified.
Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Government Operations Agency. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Existing law, the California Factory-Built Housing Law, generally regulates the design, manufacture, and installation of factory-built housing, as defined and specified. That law specifically and entirely reserves to local jurisdictions certain local requirements, including local use zone requirements, snow load requirements, and wind pressure requirements. That law provides that any person who violates any of those provisions and other specified law is guilty of a misdemeanor, as specified. This bill also would prohibit a city, county, city and county, or district from imposing or enforcing local building standards applicable to a factory-built housing structure, as defined, that exceed or differ from the applicable mandatory standards contained in the California Building Standards Code. The bill would authorize a city or county to make changes or modifications in the requirements contained in the provisions published in the California Building Standards Code that are reasonably necessary to maintain minimum health and safety because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions, subject to the city or county making a specified finding. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption in favor of a determination that facilitates the use of factory-built housing and allows a project to qualify as a factory-built housing structure. This bill would define certain key terms for purposes of the California Factory-Built Housing Law. In this regard, the bill would define "building assembly" to mean assembled construction materials, components, subsystems, subassemblies or other systems designed for use in, or as part of, factory-built housing, and "factory-built housing structure" as a residential building where at least 23 of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and in which at least 30% of the residential use portion of the building is built using factory-built housing. The bill would recast the definition of "factory-built housing" to mean, among other things, a residential building, dwelling unit, building component, building assembly, or building system that is manufactured in a specified manner. The bill would make other conforming changes to definitions in the California Factory-Built Housing Law, the Sales and Use Tax Law, and the Vehicle Code. By adding to the duties of local officials, and expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 specified reasons.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency, on or before January 1, 2021, to maintain a policy that provides a minimum standard on the use of force. Existing law requires that the policy include, among other things, training standards and requirements relating to demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the law enforcement agency's use of force policy by officers, investigators, and supervisors. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or choke hold by any peace officer employed by that agency. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit a law enforcement agency, including a federal law enforcement agency, from using a wearable electroshock device within the State of California. The bill would also prohibit a law enforcement agency from using state funds to purchase a wearable electroshock device. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to update their use of force policies to prohibit the use of a wearable electroshock device. By increasing the duties on local law enforcement, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Division of Law Enforcement within the Department of Justice to conduct a study on the safety and community impacts of wearable electroshock devices and provide recommendations for appropriate standards and safeguards for their use, and would require the department to report to the Legislature on the findings and recommendations of the study on or before January 1, 2029. 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 contains numerous provisions governing the qualifications, standards, and training of peace officers. Existing law specifies circumstances that disqualify a person from holding office or being employed as a peace officer, including, among other things, having been convicted of a felony. This bill, the GTFO Act, would, commencing January 1, 2028, disqualify from being a peace officer a person previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as defined, except as specified. Existing law requires each class of public officers or employees declared by law to be peace officers to meet specified minimum standards, including that they be 18 years of age or older, be fingerprinted for purposes of search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose a criminal record, and be of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation. This bill would, for purposes of those background investigations, authorize a hiring agency to consider news articles, verified social media posts, filings of civil complaints, and other verified sources. This bill, for purposes of an applicant who was previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, would require the hiring agency to complete the background investigation before the candidate participates in a Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) basic course. The bill would require the hiring agency to review the background investigation and determine if the individual is suitable to enter the POST basic course subject to certain suitability standards adopted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. This bill would require every applicant seeking appointment as a peace officer or enrollment in a POST basic course to submit to the hiring agency a declaration submitted under penalty of perjury that states whether the applicant has, at any time been employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor that personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as specified. By requiring this statement to be made under penalty of perjury, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, the State Civil Service Act, requires that the employment procedures of the Department of Human Resources (CalHR) and of each state agency conform to the federal and state laws governing employment practices, including the use of employment forms. Existing law requires employment forms used by a state agency to require a person applying for employment to disclose whether the person has entered into an agreement with the state regarding any previous employment with the state that prohibits the person from seeking or accepting any subsequent employment with the state. This bill would additionally require the above-described employment forms to require a person applying for employment to disclose whether the person has been employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor that personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as defined. Existing law authorizes CalHR or a designated appointing power to refuse to examine or, after examination, to refuse to declare as eligible, or to withhold or withdraw from certification, prior to appointment, anyone who meets certain criteria, such as a person who has misrepresented themselves during the application process. This bill would add to these criteria a person who was previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as defined, except as specified. Existing law makes a person ineligible to hold office or employment of any kind with the state, or any county, city, district, or other political or governmental unit of the state, if the person has by oath bound themselves to support, maintain, or further the military or political activities or policies of a foreign government, as specified, or to obey the orders or directions of any foreign government or its officials. This bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would make a person ineligible to hold public employment, including employment with a city, county, district, or any other public agency of the state, because the person was previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as defined, except as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to establish a certification program for peace officers. Existing law requires, for each applicant for admission to a basic course of training certified by the commission that includes the carrying and use of firearms, who is not sponsored by a local or other law enforcement agency or is not a peace officer employed by a state or local agency, department, or district, to submit written certification from the Department of Justice that the applicant is eligible to possess, receive, own, and purchase a firearm pursuant to state and federal law. This bill would, for purposes of an applicant for the basic course who was previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, require the commission to deny suitability for enrollment in the basic course, unless the commission receives notice from the hiring agency granting the applicant's suitability, as specified. The bill, by January 1, 2028, would require the commission to adopt, by regulation, a definition of "suitability," as specified. Existing law requires any background investigation of a candidate for a peace officer position to include an inquiry into whether the candidate has engaged or is engaging in membership in a hate group. This bill would require the background investigation to include an inquiry into whether the candidate has engaged in immigration enforcement. By increasing the duties of local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the provisions of the act severable. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1029 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1627 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1627 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 13510.8 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 2337 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2337 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
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. Existing law generally prohibits a health care service plan, excluding a Medi-Cal managed care plan, or health insurer from subjecting antiretroviral drugs that are medically necessary for the prevention of HIV/AIDS, including preexposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis, to prior authorization or step therapy. Under existing law, a health care service plan or health insurer is not required to cover all of the therapeutically equivalent versions of those drugs without prior authorization or step therapy if at least one is covered without prior authorization or step therapy. This bill would instead prohibit a health care service plan, excluding a Medi-Cal managed care plan, or health insurer from subjecting antiretroviral drugs, drug devices, or drug products that are medically necessary for the prevention of HIV/AIDS to prior authorization or step therapy. The bill would require, for a health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, a non-self-administered antiretroviral drug, drug device, or drug product that is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of HIV/AIDS to be covered under both the plan or policy's medical benefit and prescription drug benefit, and if obtained under the plan or policy's drug benefit, would require the drug, device, or product to be dispensed and administered by a health care provider acting within the scope of their license. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation by ordinance, or by ministerial approval if the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law requires fees charged for the construction of ADUs to be determined in accordance with specified provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. Existing law prohibits a local agency, special district, or water corporation from imposing any impact fee upon the development of an ADU that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less, and requires any impact fees charged for an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space to be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. This bill would require the charge for certain accessory dwelling units to be based only on the area in excess of 750 square feet of interior livable space. By changing the duties of local agencies with regard to calculating fees for ADUs, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 requires, until July 1, 2027, the Attorney General, or their designee, to engage in reviews of county, local, or private locked detention facilities in which noncitizens are being housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings in California, and, on or before March 1, 2019, to conduct a review of these facilities, as specified, including a review of the circumstances of apprehension and transfer. Existing law also requires the Department of Justice to provide, during the budget process, updates and information to the Legislature and the Governor, concerning the reviews, as provided and pursuant to a specified date. Existing law requires the comprehensive report to be completed by March 1, 2019, and to be posted on the Attorney General's internet website and made available to the public, as provided. Existing law makes these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2027, and repeals those provisions January 1, 2028. This bill would delete all dates specified above, including inoperative and repeal provisions, thereby indefinitely extending those provisions, and would delete the requirement for the review to include an individual's circumstances of apprehension and transfer. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes.
Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts as unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 provides that in a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act, it is sufficient to contain factual allegations demonstrating that the existence of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce is plausible. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 also provides that a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act is not required to allege facts tending to exclude the possibility of independent action. Existing case law, In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal.4th 116, establishes a rule of reason analysis for certain claims under the Cartwright Act, which, among other things, determines whether an act was made for the purpose of avoiding competition and whether the anticompetitive effects of the agreement outweigh any procompetitive justifications. This bill would prohibit any person from monopolizing or monopsonizing any part of trade or commerce, as provided. The bill would require courts to use the analytical framework and guidance provided in In re Cipro Cases I & II. The bill would require a plaintiff bringing an action under its provisions to allege, and prove at trial, substantial market power through either direct or indirect evidence. The bill would exempt a small business, as defined, from these provisions. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prevent, limit, or prohibit certain conduct and legal instruments, including exclusive franchises granted and supervised by a local, state, or federal governmental agency. This bill would require any action brought pursuant to these provisions to be initiated only by the Attorney General or a district attorney, and would, with certain exceptions, preclude an alleged violation under its provisions from serving as a predicate violation under the Unfair Competition Law. The bill would require an action brought pursuant to these provisions to be filed as a "complex case" pursuant to provisions of law requiring the assessment of additional court fees, as specified. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The bill would require courts to liberally interpret California's antitrust laws to best promote free and fair competition, as provided. Because the bill would expand the scope of activities prohibited by the Cartwright Act, the violation of which is punishable as a 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.
