By Jenna Peterson and Kristen Hwang
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 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 some noteworthy bills being tracked by this news outlet:
Allow more outdoor alcohol and cannabis sales
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
SB 969 would let local governments create “entertainment zones,” where bars and restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages that people can drink on public streets and sidewalks. Starting Jan. 1, cities could tailor these zones to fit their needs.
AB 1775 would legalize cannabis cafes in California. Cannabis lounges already exist in some places, but they’re limited to selling prepackaged food and drinks.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and author of SB 969, says the bill would help boost local businesses and “make our cities more fun!” Currently, cities can designate open-container zones for events such as festivals and parades, but they’re only applicable to outside vendors. The city of San Jose, the California Nightlife Association, and the city and county of San Francisco are sponsors of the bill.
AB 1775’s author, Assemblymember Matt Haney, also a San Francisco Democrat, says the bill is necessary to support small cannabis businesses. He’s compared California’s cannabis culture to Amsterdam’s, which has well-known cannabis cafes that have been legal for decades. Many cannabis organizations are supporters of the bill.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Recorded opponents — which include the California Alcohol Policy Alliance, Alcohol Justice, California Council on Alcohol Problems and Citizens for a Better Los Angeles — say the bill could harm mixed-use neighborhoods and contribute to rising alcohol mortality rates and drunk driving accidents.
The American Heart and Lung Associations and other health-focused organizations oppose AB 1775 because cannabis contains particulate matter, which can cause cardiovascular disease and lung infections. They also say that secondhand cannabis smoke can be harmful to workers at cannabis cafes.
WHY IT MATTERS
Many California cities have yet to see foot traffic recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year, a University of Toronto study tracked cell phone activity to determine how many downtown visitors cities have recovered. While San Jose was at 96% as of October, Los Angeles was at 83%, San Francisco at 67% and Sacramento at 66%. Wiener pushed through a similar bill last year, but it was limited to San Francisco. Cannabis cafes could also contribute to post-pandemic recovery of foot traffic.
Protect maternity wards from closures
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
Two bills on the governor’s desk aim to improve transparency when a hospital plans to shut down its maternity ward and help state agencies understand the ripple effects of growing labor and delivery “deserts.”
If a hospital plans to close labor and delivery or inpatient psychiatric services, SB 1300 by Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat from Campbell, would require public notification four months in advance. The hospital would also need to hold a public hearing with its county board of supervisors and report why it is eliminating services and how its patients may be affected.
AB 1895 by Assemblymember Akilah Weber, a Democrat from La Mesa, would require hospitals to notify state regulators, including the Department of Public Health, of challenges keeping maternity services open. Regulators would be required to assess how service cuts would affect the community and identify the next closest hospitals with operating labor and delivery wards.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
Cortese’s proposal is co-sponsored by the National Alliance on Mental Illness and supported by a number of behavioral health associations and consumer advocates. Supporters of Weber’s measure include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District IX, the California Nurse-Midwives Association, and Reproductive Freedom for All California, which all co-sponsored the legislation.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The California Hospital Association opposes Cortese’s measure, arguing that it does not address the underlying financial and staffing challenges many hospitals are struggling with, and may make it more difficult to keep services running.
Weber’s bill is unopposed.
WHY IT MATTERS
Maternity wards are closing in California at an unprecedented rate. More than 50 hospitals have closed or reduced labor and delivery services in the past decade with at least eight more closures planned this year, according to an ongoing CalMatters investigation. In addition, birth centers, which can handle low-risk pregnancies, are also shutting down rapidly.
CalMatters reporting has revealed that these losses disproportionately impact low-income and Latino communities.
Ban more plastic bags
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 1053 would ban all plastic grocery bags in California, so customers would have to use paper or reusable bags, effective Jan. 1, 2026. Voters approved a similar ban in 2016, but a loophole allowed for plastic bags that are thick enough to reuse.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill was authored by state Sens. Ben Allen and Catherine Blakespear, Democrats from El Segundo and Encinitas, respectively. They wrote the bill to raise awareness of the current law’s contribution to plastic pollution. More than 70 environmental organizations — including the Center for Environmental Health, Climate Action California and California Environmental Voters — support the bills because they would prevent plastic waste, which releases toxic chemicals into the air, water and soil.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Opposition includes the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance, which says that according to a survey they conducted, 60% of Californians are reusing plastic bags from the grocery store. They also say that many reusable bags have a more negative impact on the environment than the currently legal plastic bags.
WHY IT MATTERS
Plastic waste contributes to 3.4% of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to a CalRecycle report, plastic grocery bags made up more than 231,000 tons of California waste in 2021. When plastic enters a landfill, it breaks down into microplastics, which can seep into soil and contaminate groundwater.
