After eight months, California’s legislative session came to a close this week with a final flurry of frantic activity. Lawmakers rushed to pass hundreds of remaining bills before the clock struck midnight Wednesday. For a select few measures, with urgency clauses that allow them to take effect immediately upon the governor’s signature, the votes stretched into early Thursday.
High-profile measures headed to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom aim to establish California as a progressive leader on abortion access, on measures to counter climate change and on transgender health care for minors. These votes took place as campaigns ramp up for 100 of the 120 seats in the Legislature. On several bills, the governor not only signaled his support, but lobbied lawmakers to approve them.
Not every contentious proposal made it through the gantlet: Bills to restrict bail costs, to allow legislative staff to unionize, and to preserve California’s concealed-carry gun limits all went down to defeat in the final hours. And a bill that would have allowed teenagers to get vaccines without parental permission was pulled Wednesday without a vote.
Now Newsom has until the end of September to either sign or veto the bills that did pass — and his choices will likely be more closely watched than ever as speculation builds about whether he is positioning himself to run for president.
Here are some of the interesting and consequential bills we are tracking:
Tackling greenhouse gases
By Nadia Lopez
WHAT THE BILL DOES
AB 1279, authored by Democratic Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi of Torrance and Cristina Garcia of Bell Gardens, codifies California’s commitment to reach carbon neutrality by 2045. To achieve this target, the state needs to reduce its fossil fuel use by 91% – a target that the California Air Resources Board has prioritized in this year’s climate change blueprint. Carbon neutrality means balancing the volume of greenhouse gases that are emitted with the amount removed from the atmosphere.
It was part of the climate action plan that Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed legislators in mid-August to help meet the state’s carbon-neutral goals. One ambitious bill for tackling climate change, however, was shot down by the Assembly: AB 2133 – which would have ramped up goals for reducing greenhouse gases — failed at the last minute.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Newsom and environmental groups are top supporters. Supporters say the world could exceed the 1.5 degree celsius threshold of dangerous warming as early as 2030, and that California must do its part to avoid the dire effects of climate change.
WHO’S OPPOSED
The Western States Petroleum Association and the California Chamber of Commerce were two of the most outspoken opponents, as were farmers and grower associations. They labeled it a “job killer,” insisting there is no clear plan to achieve the goals and that the rapid transition to a carbon-free economy would cause many workers to lose their jobs. Instead, the groups are advocating for more market-based approaches that trade credits and capture and store carbon while still allowing continued use of fossil fuels.
WHY IT MATTERS
California has long been a global leader in tackling climate change, enacting bold policies to reduce its carbon footprint. Though the state is responsible for less than 1% of greenhouse gases emitted globally, it has the fifth largest economy and helps drive global policy changes. California enacted AB 32 in 2006, which required the state to set strict emission limits, including a target that greenhouse gas emission levels must reach 1990 levels by 2020. The state achieved that target four years early, but it’s not on pace to meet its current 2030 goal of a 40% cut — much less a larger one.
Protecting transgender youth
By Ariel Gans
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 107 would protect from prosecution patients who travel to California for what supporters call gender-affirming care and doctors who provide that care. If signed, the bill would make California a refuge for minors seeking gender-affirming care by prohibiting the removal of a child from their parent or guardian because that parent allowed their child to receive gender-affirming care. It also bans California from complying with out-of-state subpoenas seeking medical information related to gender-affirming care.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill’s supporters list is largely populated by civil rights groups and city governments. They and bill author Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, say that California has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for transgender youth and their families to get gender-affirming care given a recent rise in legislation in other states that would restrict access. They also argue that access to this care lowers suicide rates among transgender youth.
WHO’S OPPOSED
The opposition is led by the California Family Council, which argues that gender-affirming care is not an agreed-upon treatment for transgender children. The council also says that children often misunderstand their gender identity and are likely to regret their decision to get irreversible treatments such as hormone replacement therapy and gender-affirming surgery.
WHY IT MATTERS
According to a survey by The Trevor Project, affirming gender identity among transgender and nonbinary youth is consistently associated with lower rates of attempted suicide. The bill responds to a recent national wave of legislation that aims to restrict access to gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.
Courts compelling mentally ill people into treatment
By Manuela Tobias
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
CARE Court is a proposal put forth by Gov. Gavin Newsom and pushed through the Legislature in SB 1338 by Sens. Tom Umberg of Garden Grove and Susan Talamantes Eggman of Stockton. It creates a court framework in every county to compel people with serious mental illness, many of whom are homeless, into housing and medical treatment. Participants would be ushered to the front of the line for supportive services during the year-long program, after which they could either graduate or be referred to another year of treatment. If a person refuses to comply, or “fails out,” they could be considered by the court for conservatorship — just as if a county fails to provide the necessary services, they could face fines of up to $1,000 per day. The counties of Glenn, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne will have to start the program by Oct. 1, 2023, while the rest of the state will have until Dec. 1, 2024.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Newsom and dozens of cities and mayors desperate to deal with the worsening mental health crisis on the streets. The California State Association of Counties, which initially opposed the measure, dropped their opposition after slowing down the timeline and receiving an additional $57 million to put it in place.
WHO IS OPPOSED
At least 140 organizations and more than 400 individuals registered their opposition to the bill because they say it “sets up a system of coerced, involuntary outpatient civil commitment that deprives people with mental health disabilities of the right to make self-determined decisions about their own lives.” Instead of building up the critical housing and mental health infrastructure people need, the costly new court process will simply re-traumatize people struggling with mental illness, they say. Disability rights groups from across the country worry the model sets a dangerous national precedent.
WHY IT MATTERS
California has struggled for years to keep up with the very real and visible issue of increasing numbers of seriously mentally ill people living on the street. In poll after poll, voters say they are fed up. While the state has finally started to backfill the critical demand for more housing and mental health services, lawmakers believe more is necessary to ensure that the state’s neediest population now languishing on the streets gets the help they need.
