For California laws, the buck does really stop at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
While the Legislature approved hundreds of bills before ending its regular session on Aug. 31, Newsom decides whether they become law.
Already he’s signed a contentious package of bills to address retail theft and he agreed to a deal — not written into legislation — to help fund local newsrooms and AI research.
Now the governor has until the end of the month (Sept. 30) to decide on bills passed in the final days; he sometimes waits until right before the deadline to weigh in on contentious ones. And because he controls the fate of legislators’ bills, that could give him leverage during the special session he called on gas prices.
The governor gives a few typical reasons for vetoing bills: He deems them redundant, or calculates that their potential cost threatens to worsen the state’s budget situation. But he also blocks bills because they’re controversial, or opposed by powerful special interests.
Last year, Newsom vetoed 156 bills and signed 890, or about 15%, a similar ratio as in 2022, when he blocked some very significant ones. In 2021, he vetoed less than 8%. While the Legislature can override vetoes, it takes a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate and that rarely happens. Governors can also allow bills to become law without their signature, but that doesn’t occur very often, either.
Here are summaries of more noteworthy bills being tracked by CalMatters reporters:
Allow tribes to sue cardrooms
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 549 would allow tribal governments to sue their business competitors — private card rooms — over the tribes’ longstanding contention that these private gambling halls are illegally offering table games including blackjack and pai gow poker. Tribes say California voters gave them the exclusive rights to host the disputed table games. But because they’re sovereign governments, the tribes lack legal standing to sue.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Tribes including those operating the state’s 70 tribal casinos support the measure. The bill has several bipartisan coauthors, many of whom have large casinos in their districts. The tribes contend the card rooms’ games have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from historically disenfranchised tribal communities across California. They’ve spent millions of dollars on lobbying and political donations for this bill, as well as a failed sport-betting ballot initiative two years ago that included a similar provision.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Opposing the bill are the state’s 80 or so privately-owned gambling halls, as well as several California cities and the municipalities’ employee unions. Card rooms, which embarked on a massive lobbying blitz this year, say their games are not illegal and that the attorney general’s office has approved each of them. They argue that if the tribes are allowed to sue, the card clubs wouldn’t be allowed to sue tribes back, and they could go out of business from the ensuing legal fees. Card rooms’ annual earnings are barely 10% of what tribal governments make, and the tribes have outspent the card rooms in this fight three to one.
WHY IT MATTERS
Cities, including San Jose, argue that if the card rooms stop offering the disputed table games, it could force the municipalities to cut police, fire and other city services because their budgets are propped up by the taxes and fees that the card rooms pay local governments. Tribes say passing the bill would go a long way toward California making amends for the atrocities the state committed on native peoples.
Restrict private equity in healthcare
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 3129 by Assemblymember Jim Wood, a Democrat from Ukiah, would authorize the attorney general to approve or reject private equity takeovers of most medical businesses, such as doctors offices, outpatient clinics and surgery centers. The attorney general already regulates nonprofit hospital mergers and is able to stipulate conditions intended to protect patient access and cost, such as preventing facilities from eliminating certain services. This would grant similar review powers over transactions in private industry. It exempts for-profit and government-run hospitals.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The measure has been hotly contested in the Legislature. Supporters include consumer health advocates, the state doctors’ lobby, and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who sponsored the legislation. They warn that private equity buyouts in health care drive increased consolidation and higher prices while diminishing patient access.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The state hospital lobby and a coalition of investor groups and dental practices oppose the bill. The coalition, Californians to Protect Community Health Care, spent more than $500,000 lobbying against the measure in the most recent quarter, according to state financial reporting records. They argue that the measure will stifle much-needed investment in health care, leading to service cuts and hospital closures.
WHY IT MATTERS
Private equity investment in health care has drawn scrutiny nationwide. The investment firms tend to finance the purchase of hospitals, doctors offices and the like with borrowed money, saddling them with debt before exiting and selling the properties.
In California, between 2005 and 2021, private equity deals in health care grew from $1 billion to $20 billion annually, according to a recent policy paper from the California Health Care Foundation.
Make key changes in campaign laws
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
AB 1784 by Democratic Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin and Wendy Carrillo would stop candidates from seeking multiple offices, by clarifying state law to prevent candidates from filing papers for more than one office in a primary election. It also allows people to withdraw their candidacy until the filing deadline, which they currently can’t do. The bill does not apply to candidates for statewide office, and clarifies that withdrawal is final.
AB 2041 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta would make it easier for candidates to use campaign cash for their own security. Under current law, threats have to be verified by law enforcement. This bill would lift that requirement and allow spending on home or office security systems and other expenses (but not firearms) due to threats tied to official duties. The bill would allow politicians to protect their families and staff, and spend as much as $10,000 on security expenses over their careers.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
AB 1784 is supported by Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and California’s League of Women Voters, which said that having someone on the ballot twice can confuse voters and undermine confidence in elections. It could also lead to costly special elections if a candidate wins both contests, the group said.
Supporters of AB 2041 include the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, as well as the League of California Cities. The bill’s supporters in the Legislature tell of increasing threats and harassment over controversial bills. They also point out that female candidates and officials are often the targets of threats. “Stalking and harassment have become all too common in today’s politics, especially for candidates who are female, LGBTQ+, and candidates of color,” Bonta said in a statement after her bill passed on the final night of session.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no registered opposition on file to either bill.
WHY IT MATTERS
AB 1784 seeks to address the very specific debacle that resulted from Assemblymember Vince Fong putting his hat in the ring after Rep. Kevin McCarthy stepped down from Congress. Fong was already on the primary ballot to run for re-election in his Assembly district, so the Secretary of State tried to stop him from running for a second office. Fong sued, and won. Authors of the bill want to clarify for future elections that dual candidacies are prohibited.
Gov. Newsom vetoed a similar bill to AB 2041 last year, saying it lacked clear definitions of security expenses and could lead to unintended uses of political donations. But supporters say the bill language has been tightened up to only allow spending for reasonable costs. If Newsom signs this bill, it would take effect immediately, so candidates could take advantage during the fall campaign.
