Which of these 2025 bills did Gavin Newsom sign into law?

By Alejandro Lazo

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

Assembly Bill 1207 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, a Democrat from Thousand Oaks, and SB 840 by Sen. Monique Limón, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, respectively reauthorize the state’s landmark cap-and-trade climate program and provide a blueprint for how lawmakers should spend the billions of dollars it generates.

Cap and trade, renamed “cap and invest,” is California’s way of putting a price tag on greenhouse gas emissions — those responsible for climate change. The state sets a strict cap on those emissions and hands out a limited supply of permits. Companies that cut their pollution enough can sell excess permits, creating a market incentive to address climate change.

The reauthorization makes slight changes to how the California Air Resources Board distributes free “allowances” — or pollution permits — to various types of greenhouse gas emitters. But the bill leaves most potential future policy changes up to the air board.

Meanwhile, the funding bill reshapes how some of the money raised from businesses is spent, notably guaranteeing $1 billion a year for California’s troubled high-speed rail project and $1 billion a year for lawmakers to assign through the budget. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire negotiated the deal in the final days of the state’s legislative session. The reauthorization was supported by a host of mainstream environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, construction trade unions and notable climate activists, including billionaire San Francisco Tom Steyer and former Gov. Jerry Brown.

WHO IS OPPOSED

The California Chamber of Commerce led the opposition, while the oil industry’s main trade group, after initially resisting reauthorization, shifted to a neutral stance. On the other side, environmental justice advocates stayed firmly opposed, arguing the program propped up oil and gas at the expense of vulnerable communities near refineries and other polluting industries.

WHY IT MATTERS

Cap and trade is considered one of California’s most important tools for pricing carbon and generating billions for climate programs. Extending it gives industry certainty and secures funding at a time of budget shortfalls and federal rollbacks under the Trump administration. But it also highlights divisions between climate advocates, industry, and communities living near pollution.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Alexei Koseff

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Drill, baby, drill! Senate Bill 237 by state Sen. Tim Grayson, an Orinda Democrat, could get oil pumping again in California by granting blanket approval for environmental reviews of Kern County wells — a strategy to sidestep litigation that has long been sought by local producers. But the measure would also create new standards for restarting idle pipelines that could block a controversial offshore drilling project in Santa Barbara County. Other provisions would allow the governor to suspend California’s summer gasoline blend, a specially formulated fuel to reduce air pollution, to protect consumers against price spikes and to direct state regulators to study the feasibility of developing a Western regional gas formulation.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The oil industry has been pleading for years for relief from California’s strict environmental rules, which it blames for driving up gasoline prices in the state to among the highest in the country. At the top of its wish list was unleashing domestic production, a cheaper way to meet demand than importing crude oil from foreign countries. With at least two of California’s last remaining fuel refineries now closing sooner than expected, potentially raising costs at the pump even further, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats who previously saw the oil industry as a political enemy were suddenly willing to come to the negotiating table.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Environmental groups feel betrayed. California has been a leader in climate action for decades, fast-tracking a transition to clean energy that phases out a reliance on fossil fuels. Opponents see this deal as a major step backward and an industry giveaway. They argue that oil companies falsely linked the refinery closures to drilling, creating urgency for the state to adopt a policy that will pad their profits without actually reducing gasoline prices.

WHY IT MATTERS
Affordability was the buzzword this legislative session, and nowhere is the cost of living more immediately visible to Californians than in the rise and fall of gasoline prices. Unthinkable even a few years ago, this olive branch to the oil industry was Newsom’s bid to stave off a politically toxic surge in what drivers pay at the pump. It could also mark a significant turning point in California’s relationship with an industry that had become a favorite political boogeyman for Democrats. Oil refiners are likely to seek further changes next year to avoid a doom spiral in the market.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Alejandro Lazo

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Assembly Bill 825 by Democratic Assemblymembers Cottie Petrie-Norris of Irvine and Sen. Josh Becker of Menlo Park, would open the door for California to join a Western regional energy market, aiming to save customers money by allowing electricity to flow more freely across state lines and steadying the grid when power is needed most, like during a heat wave.

The bill repeals an older process for turning California’s grid operator into a regional body and replaces it with a new framework developed through years of talks among Western power companies, system operators, regulators and others.

The law would open the door to a shared electricity market across Western states while aiming to have each state retain control of its own energy policies and planning. An expanded market could include climate-aligned states such as Oregon and Washington but potentially also coal-burning states such as Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

California often wastes solar power on mild spring and fall days when production outpaces demand, and that’s one of the biggest reasons environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council back this measure. They said a regional market would allow the state to sell surplus solar to its neighbors and tap renewable energy from other states.

Those big environmental groups are joined by major utilities and industry players — including Google and Microsoft, eager to power new AI data centers — as well as the statewide electrical workers’ union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

WHO IS OPPOSED

The Utility Reform Network opposes the bill after key safeguards it negotiated were stripped from the final plan. TURN advocates for ratepayers, but said the bigger danger from the plan is California ceding control of its renewable energy agenda to a federal government that is openly hostile to clean energy — a risk the group said outweighs any potential savings. TURN is joined in opposition by other consumer and environmental groups.

WHY IT MATTERS

California spent decades greening its grid: ditching coal, slashing fossil fuels and building the world’s second-largest battery fleet to store solar power after dark. This bill would take a major step toward linking that system to other parts of the country, reshaping how clean and fossil power move across the West.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Jeanne Kuang

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Senate Bill 254 by Sens. Josh Becker, Cottie Petrie-Norris and Aisha Wahab would boost the state’s wildfire liability fund, which is paid for by the big three utility companies’ shareholders and customers. The fund, which pays victims of wildfires caused by utility infrastructure, is running low from claims stemming from this January’s Eaton Fire. The $18 billion boost over 10 years would be split equally between shareholders and ratepayers, who contribute to the fund through a charge on their bills. The bill also includes new regulations on the three investor-owned utilities, preventing utilities from profiting from $6 billion worth of wildfire-proofing work (such as moving power lines underground). It would also set up a program for the state to help publicly finance the cost of building new transmission lines, a significant factor in energy bills, and fast-track some permitting for solar and other clean energy projects. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is part of a package of climate and energy policies negotiated between legislative leaders, who wanted to try to curb utilities rates, and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who wanted to replenish the wildfire fund. It’s backed by mainstream environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and consumer advocates such as The Utility Reform Network. The California Chamber of Commerce, initially opposed, has since gotten on board after the bill was amended to include the wildfire fund.

WHO IS OPPOSED

A group representing some past wildfire survivors says the measure doesn’t go far enough for them, arguing the wildfire fund has benefitted utilities and their shareholders at the expense of homeowners and residents who struggle with the legal process to get paid. Some electricity users’ advocates also are frustrated consumers would have to continue paying into the fund.

WHY IT MATTERS

In the grand energy policy bargain of California leaders trying all at once to maintain climate goals, keep energy flowing reliably and drive down costs, SB 254 represents the latter portion of those efforts. While other parts of the deal boost oil drilling or expand energy markets, this bill contains the more progressive of this year’s energy proposals that reflect Democrats’ desire to lower prices by regulating utilities.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Ben Christopher

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Housing developers would be allowed to build apartment buildings up to seven stories within a walkable half-mile of many major train, light-rail, subway and high-frequency rapid bus stations — even if local zoning restrictions would otherwise ban such dense development. Authored by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, Senate Bill 79 would also let public transit agencies build apartments on their own land. Developers would be required to set aside a small share of the new units they build under the law for low-income renters. The bill would only apply in counties with significant passenger rail systems in place — that is, major metro areas. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

People who want to see the state build a lot more housing and those who want to boost the ridership numbers and financial sustainability of California’s public transit systems lined up behind the bill. The coalition includes “Yes In My Backyard” activists, many construction worker unions, business groups and transit rider advocates. Supporters say building apartment buildings near public transit hubs will both address the state’s chronic shortage of lower-cost housing and encourage more residents to take the train or bus — a win for transit systems, traffic and the climate. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Plenty of local governments are opposed because they don’t want the state bigfooting their authority over what gets built where. Many neighborhood groups and homeowners associations don’t like it either, as it threatens to foist new development and density on their communities. A handful of advocates for low-income Californians are also opposed, arguing that the bill does not go far enough in mandating that the new units be restricted for low earners.

WHY IT MATTERS

For nearly a decade now a growing cohort of California lawmakers have been writing bills aimed at making it easier to build more homes to tackle the state’s dearth of affordable housing. SB 79 would represent one of the largest state-directed densification efforts to date. It’s also a bill that, in one form or another, Wiener has been trying and failing to get passed since the beginning of his legislative career. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Khari Johnson

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Senate Bill 53 by Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, requires AI makers to test AI models for their ability to enable things like cybersecurity crimes or biological weapons attacks and would give developers and the public a way to report AI that poses a catastrophic risk. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a previous version of the bill last year. A report ordered by Newsom released in June calls for rules to protect whistleblowers and transparency in the model development process to balance innovation with guardrails.

The bill defines catastrophic risk as an AI model that demonstrates the ability to cause the death or injury of 50 or more people, or more than $1 billion in damage or loss of property. Only companies that make $500 million or more annually must comply with the law. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is supported by organizations like Tech Oversight California, independent state oversight group Little Hoover Commission, the Service Employees International Union and several groups concerned that AI can go rogue and harm people.

“While we believe that frontier AI safety is best addressed at the federal level instead of a patchwork of state regulations, powerful AI advancements won’t wait for consensus in Washington,” said Anthropic, a business founded by former OpenAI employees.

It’s unclear if the final version will win the governor’s support, but co-sponsor Encode told CalMatters that the governor’s office helped shape final amendments to the bill.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce and TechNet oppose the legislation, along with OpenAI, which argue instead for a national policy set by lawmakers in Washington D.C.

WHY IT MATTERS

This bill gives the public and people inside companies developing AI an easy way to alert authorities if the tech shows an ability to cause great harm. The legislation states that “timely reporting of critical safety incidents to the government is essential to ensure that public authorities are promptly informed of ongoing and emerging risks to public safety.”

AI researchers have called for whistleblower protections before, because of concerns about how AI can amplify existing inequality and with the hypothetical ways the tech may harm people in the future.

The legislation would also require companies to publish details about how they evaluate models for catastrophic risk on their websites, and establishes CalCompute, a public cloud that must focus on developing AI for the public good.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Khari Johnson

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Landlords, grocery stores, and tech platforms like Amazon, Airbnb and Instacart can use algorithms to rip you off in a variety of ways. To prevent businesses from charging customers higher costs and make life more affordable, Assembly Bill 325 would prohibit tech platforms from requiring independent businesses to use their pricing recommendations. Among half a dozen bills introduced this year to address the problem, it’s the only bill that made it to the governor’s desk. Key examples cited by author Cecilia Aguilar-Curry, a Davis Democrat, include Realpage, which sets the cost of apartment rentals, and Cendyn, a tool used by hotels to set prices, though a case against Las Vegas hotels for using that tool was recently thrown out.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Lawmakers and supporters of the bill say algorithms eliminate fair market competition. In the past, businesses or competitors would go into a room and collude to increase the cost for a particular good, but today they can just use an algorithm, said Sen. Melissa Hurtado, a Democrat from Bakersfield, author of another algorithmic pricing bill that failed. Whether done by people in a room or with digital tools, price-fixing is wrong, said Aguilar-Curry, who has said she believes the algorithms play an important role in California’s affordability crisis. Attorney General Rob Bonta, prominent unions, and the Consumer Federation of California are among supporters of AB 325.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Groups representing apartment landlords, hospitals, hotels, restaurants, retailers, and tech industry groups oppose this legislation. The California Chamber of Commerce maintains that AB 325 will drive up costs.

WHY IT MATTERS

Across industries and markets, when centralized platforms set prices, we lose the competition that drives prices down, said Lee Hepner, a lawyer at the American Economic Liberties Project, who supports AB 325.

Such pricing practices have led to federal lawsuits against businesses like RealPage and Agri Stats, whose practices could have led to higher costs of meat in grocery stores. A 2024 White House study estimated that price-fixing algorithms cost apartment renters $3.8 billion in 2023, amounting to higher rents nationwide, including $99 more a month in San Diego, $62 more a month in San Francisco, and $34 a month more in Los Angeles. Lawmakers in nearly 20 states are considering regulation to prevent rent price fixing.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Colin Lecher

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

Senate Bill 243 by Democratic Sens. Josh Becker of Menlo Park and Steve Padilla of Chula Vista would require tech companies that create artificial intelligence chatbots, like ChatGPT, to clearly inform users that the bot is not human, and to create a protocol to help users experiencing suicidal ideation. The bill would also task companies with instituting “reasonable measures” to prevent minors from interacting with sexually explicit material while using the bots. 

Assembly Bill 1064 by San Ramon Democratic Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, the Leading Ethical AI Development (LEAD) for Kids Act, would outlaw the use of companion chatbots for children entirely unless the bot “is not foreseeably capable” of harming a child, such as by encouraging self-harm or drug use. 

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

Initially, several tech watchdog and child safety groups, including the American Association of Pediatrics, supported SB 243. But many withdrew their support, saying last-minute changes hopelessly watered it down. Some moved their support to the broader AB 1064. Groups including Common Sense Media and Tech Oversight California are now supporting that legislation, while the Computer and Communications Industry Association trade group says SB 243 would at least not create “an overbroad ban on AI products” like AB 1064.

WHO OPPOSES THEM

The CCIA initially testified against SB 243, arguing it was overly broad and would stifle innovation. It altered its position after the last-minute changes. On the other side of the debate, while groups like Common Sense Media supported earlier versions of SB 243, they have since dropped that support to back the other measure. 

WHY IT MATTERS

The bills come as lawmakers face immense pressure to rein in tech chatbots following several high-profile tragedies. News reports nationwide have shown how AI-powered chatbots have fed users’ delusions, sometimes leading to real-world violence.
Some recent scandals have also drawn attention specifically to children’s relationships to chatbots. In August, the New York Times reported on the case of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who spoke to ChatGPT about suicide before ending his life. Watchdog groups have accused ChatGPT of giving other harmful information to teens as well. Meta, Facebook’s parent company, also faced criticism recently after leaked internal documents obtained by Reuters showed the company allowed its AI chatbots to have “romantic or sensual” conversations with children.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅ ❌

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

By Levi Sumagaysay

Assembly Bill 1340 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland, would allow ride-hailing drivers to unionize. Uber and Lyft consider drivers independent contractors, and this bill would make California the second state in the nation to give drivers the right to bargain with the companies. On the Assembly floor right before the bill was approved, Wicks said gig workers lobbied elected officials “so that they can have a seat at the table to fight for paid leave, to fight for higher pay, to fight for safety and all the other things that they deserve.” 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The Service Employees International Union sponsored the legislation, but at least one other drivers group and labor experts say that last-minute amendments made to the bill would make it tough for any other union but the SEIU to be chosen to represent drivers. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas in late August announced a deal tying the unionization legislation to SB 371, an industry-sponsored bill that would lower insurance coverage requirements for ride-hailing. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

The ride-hailing industry dropped its opposition after the deal tying it to their insurance legislation. But Uber called the deal a “compromise,” and Lyft has not explicitly supported the unionization bill. 

Rideshare Drivers United, a Los Angeles-based drivers group that has organized drivers for years, supported the bill at first. But the group’s president, Nicole Moore, said she was “outraged” when she realized the amendments essentially guarantee her group wouldn’t qualify to represent drivers because of its lack of experience in negotiating bargaining agreements.

Republican lawmakers spoke against the bill as it made its way through the Legislature, saying it goes against the spirit of Proposition 22, an industry-backed ballot proposition that became law and enshrined app-based gig workers’ independent contractor status.

WHY IT MATTERS

If the state’s about 800,000 ride-hailing drivers vote to form a union, it would give them the ability to bring longstanding complaints about wages, benefits, deactivations and other issues to the bargaining table. The bill also includes requirements for Uber and Lyft to disclose more information about drivers and rides, data that experts say would increase transparency around the ride-hailing industry.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Cayla Mihalovich 

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Senate Bill 627, authored by Democratic Sens. Jesse Arreguín, Sasha Pérez, Aisha Wahab and Scott Wiener would widely prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing face masks while conducting their duties. The “No Secret Police Act” would apply to all federal and local law enforcement while operating in California. Officers who violate the law would face an infraction or misdemeanor. The legislation does not apply to certain types of face coverings, such as face shields, and exempts certain officers, such as those who are undercover. By July 2026, the bill would require all law enforcement agencies to publish a face covering policy. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill has more than two dozen Democratic co-authors and widespread support from nonprofit organizations, including the ACLU, Indivisible and Drug Policy Alliance. Its sponsor, the nonprofit organization Prosecutors Alliance Action, argues that the legislation would create more transparency and trust in law enforcement, and safeguard against bad actors impersonating the police. Without visible identification, the group contends that masked and anonymous federal agents create dangerous conditions for the public and law enforcement. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Senate Republicans and California law enforcement advocacy groups, including the California Police Chiefs Association, the California State Sheriffs Association and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen oppose the legislation. The powerful umbrella labor organization that lobbies on behalf of police unions, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, argues that the proposal is “misguided, unnecessary, and counterproductive” because California has no jurisdiction over federal agents and has already established accountability measures around officer identification. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Law enforcement officers, particularly federal agents, have concealed their identities during immigration raids across California and the country. Lawmakers argue that extreme masking sows fear, confusion and violence that harms public safety. The proposed law aims to put an end to the practice. “When law enforcement officers hide their identities, it destroys community trust,” said Weiner, of San Francisco, at a legislative hearing in August.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Jeanne Kuang

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Assembly Bill 495, authored by Arleta Democratic Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez, is intended to allow undocumented parents to establish a caregiver for their children if they’re detained by immigration agents or deported. It does that primarily with a long-existing form called the caregiver’s authorization affidavit, which allows an adult relative caring for a child who isn’t their parent, such as a sibling, grandparent or aunt or uncle, to temporarily make decisions such as enrollling the child in school or making medical decisions. The bill would allow a wider range of relatives to sign the form and serve as caregivers, including any adult “who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth-degree of kinship.” Parents could also designate a guardian for their children in family court. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is backed by immigrants’ rights groups and children’s legal advocates who say families should be able to prepare in case parents are unavailable, such as in the case of a deportation. They argue immigrant families might not have many blood relatives nearby but often rely on extended family members and community networks who could step in if a parent is arrested, rather than having the child be put in foster care.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Republican lawmakers and a group of religious and conservative activists fiercely opposed the legislation, arguing it could allow strangers and predators to declare they are caregivers using the easily accessible authorization form. 

WHY IT MATTERS

It’s one of several measures Democrats advanced this year in response to the immigration raids directed by the Trump administration that have roiled California communities. But because it deals with child protection issues, it also energized a deeply active portion of the religious right, who turned out to protest it at the Capitol and have in some cases made false claims that the legislation would allow strangers to take custody of children. Attacks from the right on such issues have often put Democrats in a defensive position. In 2023, activists successfully urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto a bill that requires family court judges to consider a parent’s support of children’s gender transition in custody disputes.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Cayla Mihalovich 

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

California lawmakers passed several immigration bills this year responding to widespread immigration sweeps. Senate Bill 805 would require that officers identify themselves while conducting their duties and SB 81 would prohibit immigration enforcement from entering a health care facility without a judicial warrant or court order. Other bills, such as SB 98, aim to protect students from immigration enforcement on campus. That legislation comes on top of a bill to block law enforcement from wearing face masks and allow undocumented parents to designate a caregiver for their children if they’re detained.

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

Democratic lawmakers this year supported a flurry of bills aimed to protect vulnerable communities from immigration enforcement and limit officers’ presence in sensitive places, such as hospitals and schools. The bills, shaped in response to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, were widely supported by nonprofit organizations, industry groups and immigrant rights advocates. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Republican lawmakers opposed the bills, criticizing the Democratic efforts as an overreaction and voicing concern over the state’s role in federal actions such as immigration enforcement. California police organizations opposed the legislation, arguing that it is misdirected and puts their safety at risk. Opponents also questioned how the laws would be enforced, claiming that California does not have authority to challenge federal law enforcement mandates. 

WHY IT MATTERS

California is home to more immigrants and more immigrants living in the country illegally than any other state. Democratic lawmakers argue that these policies are important to protect public safety as well as immigrants’ constitutional rights during what the Trump administration has promised will be the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅ ✅

By Alexei Koseff

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

California increased its excise tax on cannabis substantially in July, to 19% from 15%. AB 564 by Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat, would undo that increase and freeze the cannabis excise tax — a levy imposed by the state before sales taxes are applied — at 15% through the end of June 2028.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The weed industry has sounded the alarm for years about a failing legal system in California, beset by overproduction, resistant local governments, plummeting prices and high taxes. Growers, dispensary owners and consumer advocates rallied unsuccessfully this spring for a budget deal to avert the excise tax increase, which they argue could push price-sensitive customers back into the illicit market and deal a fatal blow to many businesses already operating with slim margins. Now they hope that Newsom, who previously pledged to sign a proposal halting the tax increase, will reverse it.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Cannabis tax revenues pay for child care slots, environmental cleanup, substance abuse education and impaired driving prevention efforts. Increasing the excise tax is projected to yield about $180 million annually. Loath to lose that financial boost, especially as California faces a growing budget deficit, nonprofits that receive grants from the money have led the charge against AB 564. They accuse supporters of putting industry profits above children’s health and the environment.

WHY IT MATTERS
Since voters legalized recreational weed in 2016, California has struggled to bring its market out of the shadows. The state Department of Cannabis Control estimates that legal sales still comprise less than 40% of consumption in California, and tax revenue has declined recently. The industry blames state and local excise and sales taxes that can raise prices by a third. Cannabis companies contend that tax relief would help stabilize their business and grow legal sales — and, by extension, tax revenue — in the long run. But opponents point out that the industry made the exact same case three years ago, when Newsom and lawmakers cut a similar deal.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Cayla Mihalovich 

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

San Diego Democratic Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson authored two key reparations bills in response to recommendations made by the Reparations Task Force. Senate Bill 518 would establish the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery under California’s Civil Rights Department. The new state agency would create divisions including genealogy, property reclamation and education, to provide infrastructure for implementing reparative policies. The bill is a second shot at a previous attempt by former Democratic Sen. Steven Bradford to establish a new state agency. Her other legislation, SB 437, would allocate up to $6 million for the California State University system to develop a methodology for verifying descendants of enslaved people who wish to access benefits. 

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

Members of the task force support SB 518, along with nonprofit organizations including the Equal Justice Society, which argues the legislation is a step toward addressing the ongoing harms of descendents of U.S. chattel slavery. SB 437 is supported by the California Reparations Task Force and various nonprofits, including Equality California, which maintains that a genealogical verification process will ensure an equitable distribution of benefits. Weber Pierson said the bills will ensure nobody is excluded from the reparative justice process. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Groups that want to see California move more swiftly toward implementing recommendations from the Reparations Task Force oppose the legislation. The grassroots organization Lineage Equity Advancement Project argues that the legislation would delay the implementation of reparative policies and payout of benefits. The group also argued that lawmakers failed to incorporate any input from community voices who have long advocated for reparations and reparative justice. “California doesn’t need more research into whether it should act. It needs to act,” said Chris Lodgson, an advocate with the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California

WHY IT MATTERS

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, California established the nation’s first reparations task force to study and propose ways to provide reparative justice for Black descendents of enslaved people. The California Legislative Black Caucus last year introduced a 14-bill reparations package based on recommendations from the task force, but two key bills were quashed late in the legislative process, creating a wedge between reparations advocates and lawmakers. This year, the caucus returned with 16 “Road to Repair” priority bills, including SB 437 and SB 518.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Yue Stella Yu

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Assembly Bill 1178, by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, a Downey Democrat, would make it harder for the public to access police misconduct records. Already, state law allows agencies to redact those records if disclosing them would put the officer in danger. Under this proposed law, when deciding whether to redact, judges must also consider if the officer is working undercover and should remain anonymous because of their duties. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

District attorneys and law enforcement groups, such as the California Police Chiefs Association and the powerful California Peace Officers Association, argue the measure is necessary to protect undercover agents from being “needlessly” named in public records, which they say could threaten the officers’ safety. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Transparency advocates and good government groups such as the First Amendment Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union in California, argue that carveouts in existing state law already shield the personal information of at-risk officers from disclosure. Opponents deem the measure unnecessary and argue that the legislation would allow agencies to withhold crucial information about an officer simply because of their role.

WHY IT MATTERS

The bill would roll back public access to police misconduct records just years after California lawmakers expanded it. In 2018 and 2021, California adopted laws that required the disclosure of police records about use of force, sexual assault and other misconducts. Those laws enabled UC Berkeley and Stanford University to create an online searchable database of misconduct documents from nearly 700 law enforcement agencies statewide. While the bill does not restrict the release of those records, it would give judges more reasons to redact information about undercover officers from those records. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Kristen Hwang

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Assembly Bill 1264 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Encino, would ban schools from serving harmful “ultraprocessed foods” to students. The measure would task the California Department of Public Health with identifying food or beverages to eliminate that contain high amounts of saturated fat, sodium and sugar. It also identifies for elimination additives like food coloring or flavor enhancers. 

The measure focuses on ingredients where research shows they are associated with cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity and behavioral issues among other health harms. Schools would have to fully phase out these ingredients by July 2035.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The legislation garnered broad bipartisan support from state lawmakers, including co-author and Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, a farmer from Chico, and the legislative progressive caucus. The measure passed the Senate unanimously and made it out of the Assembly with one vote against.

“Democrats and Republicans are joining forces to prioritize the health and safety of our children,” Gabriel said in a statement.

The Environmental Working Group and Consumer Reports co-sponsored the measure, whose supporters also include a coalition of children’s health and medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Diabetes Association. These groups say that “ultraprocessed foods” are linked to serious health risks.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Industry groups like the Consumer Brands Association, California Grocers Association and California Farm Bureau remain opposed, despite significant amendments made to address industry concerns over the definition and regulation of “ultraprocessed foods.” Some opponents have argued that the legislation was “well-intentioned but impractical.” They contend that the definition is still too broad and could result in harmless ingredients that have nutritional value from being unintentionally banned, including canned fruits or vegetables.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a Republican from San Diego, voted against the measure.

WHY IT MATTERS

California Republican support for nutrition regulations predates the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” campaign. This legislation builds upon prior laws passed by Gabriel that ban certain food dyes from school meals and specified additives from grocery store sales. Those bills, which have at times been derided by Republicans nationally as examples of government overreach, have generally enjoyed some bipartisan support from state lawmakers.

This story has been updated to correct the deadline for schools to comply. It is 2035, not 2032.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

By Mikhail Zinshteyn

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Assembly Bill 715 by Assemblymembers Rick Chavez Zbur and Dawn Addis, Democrats from Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo, respectively, would create a state Office for Civil Rights with an antisemitism prevention coordinator and create new processes to root out discriminatory learning materials in schools. The coordinator would develop and provide antisemitism education to teachers and school boards and also recommend other proposals to combat antisemitism.

The proposed law seeks to extinguish antisemitism in classrooms, though the definition of that concept has been the source of heated rhetoric that isn’t reconciled in the bill. A previous version defined antisemitism, including the “denigration” of believers of Zionism. Now the legislation’s focus on addressing antisemitism is limited to legislative declarations that have less legal teeth. Members of the public would be able to file anonymous complaints about alleged bias in school learning materials.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill was sponsored by a coalition of Jewish cultural, political and social outreach groups called Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California and was a priority for the California Legislative Jewish Caucus. No members in either chamber officially opposed it, though 14 lawmakers didn’t vote. The Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museums of Tolerance also backs the measure. “Jewish students across our state are being harassed, bullied, and intimidated simply because of who they are,” said Zbur at a legislative hearing in September. He noted instances of anti-semitic slurs and swastikas spray-painted on a Manhattan Beach school playground and San Francisco teachers being given “materials that justified Hamas’s October 7th attack.”

WHO IS OPPOSED

College student associations, faculty union groups, the main K-12 teachers unions and groups representing the interests of Arab and Muslim Californians and some progressive Jewish groups oppose it. California Teachers Association lobbyist Seth Bramble testified that it would codify into law “subjective standards for instruction under the term ‘factually accurate,’” and “would give advocates on multiple sides of controversial issues a new legal tool to disrupt instruction and to threaten educators.”

WHY IT MATTERS

The rhetoric in schools following the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas and Israel’s subsequent military response has brought to a boil long-simmering frustrations about how to talk about Israel and Palestine. The bill’s earlier language defining antisemitism disturbed many progressives, who viewed it as simpatico with President Donald Trump’s efforts to liken anti-Zionism to antisemitism. Some coalitions of Jewish scholars say criticizing Israel is not inherently antisemitic, but many other Jews cite evidence of widespread Jewish intolerance in rhetoric and action.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅