Which 2024 California bills will Gavin Newsom sign into law?
By CalMatters,
12 hours ago
Stay up-to-date with free briefings on topics that matter to all Californians. Subscribe to CalMatters today for nonprofit news in your inbox.
For California laws, the buck does really stop at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
While the Legislature approves hundreds of bills each session — and will add to that list before adjourning Saturday — Newsom decides whether they become law.
As of Aug. 15, Newsom had signed 164 bills and vetoed four . He 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.
Newsom 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 CalMatters reporters. Bookmark this page for updates.
Let undocumented students work on campus
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 2586 by Assemblymember David Alvarez , a Democrat from Chula Vista, would make California the first state in the nation to allow public colleges and university students who are undocumented to work at their campuses. The bill is based on a novel legal theory , first proposed by UCLA law professors, that argues that the 1986 federal law that bars undocumented residents from working doesn’t apply to state employers. About 60,000 students at California’s community colleges, California State University and the University of California could benefit starting Jan. 6 if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs it.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
A coalition of undocumented students, the student governments of the three public higher education systems, UCLA legal scholars, some individual community colleges and a phalanx of social justice nonprofits. While undocumented students are eligible for state grants and tuition waivers, they’re blocked from receiving federal aid and loans, which denies them full access to funds to afford tuition, rent, school supplies and other basic needs. Many undocumented students already work, but risk being exploited or put in dangerous situations. Working on campus ensures more safety and jobs that are better fits with what students study.
WHO IS OPPOSED
Aside from the few Republicans who voted against the bill, no one officially, though the public university and community college system central offices expressed an assortment of concerns. The University of California worries that its hiring staff would be at risk of prosecution for flouting federal law and that its billions of dollars in federal contracts would be in jeopardy. The Cal State system had similar worries about the federal student financial aid all its students receive. The UCLA law scholars have argued those scenarios are highly unlikely and that in a worst-case scenario, a judge would tell the state and campuses that they can no longer hire undocumented students. The Senate’s judiciary committee staff analysis also pushed back on UC’s concerns.
The community college system, meanwhile, said it’ll struggle to meet the early January deadline to implement the law.
WHY IT MATTERS
Students and UCLA legal scholars first proposed the idea to the UC Board of Regents, who pledged in 2023 to consider the proposal. Ultimately, the regents voted to delay any implementation, citing the analysis of the system’s lawyers and outside counsel about the risks to the UC in the event the federal government retaliates. Heartbroken, the students and their allies synced up with Alvarez to propose this bill.
The bill would mean more economic opportunity for undocumented college students. It may also prompt other state legislation to allow more state agencies to hire undocumented residents. How the bill is received by the federal government will be top of mind for state and national immigration and education watchers. The stakes may be even higher if Donald Trump again wins office: He and his aides want to deport millions of undocumented Americans and establish deportation camps near the southern border .
GOVERNOR’S CALL
© 2024 CalMattersSpeed up ‘tiny homes’ for homeless
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 1395 by Sen. Josh Becker , a Democrat from Menlo Park, would make it easier for cities and counties to quickly set up tiny homes for their homeless residents.
How? Traditional homeless shelters already are exempt from some of the red tape that often slows down housing construction, including the California Environmental Quality Act. Becker’s bill would expand that to include shelters that are “non-congregate and relocatable.” In other words: tiny homes. The bill also would extend cities’ ability to streamline the construction of homeless shelters, which now is set to expire in 2027.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill’s co-sponsors include San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan (whose city has embraced tiny homes as solution to homelessness), DignityMoves (a nonprofit that helps build tiny homes villages), the Bay Area Council, and SPUR (a nonprofit public policy organization focused on housing and transportation).
WHO IS OPPOSED
SB 1395 has no registered opposition. But that wasn’t the case last session, when a similar version introduced by Becker died following opposition from prominent groups that included the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Western Center on Law & Poverty and the Corporation for Supportive Housing. They complained the bill characterized tiny homes as permanent housing. In reality, they said, tiny homes’ substandard construction (many lack kitchens and bathrooms) means they should be used as temporary shelters only. The new version of the bill specifies that tiny homes are temporary shelters.
WHY IT MATTERS
As homeless encampments continue to grow, the state and many cities are doubling down on tiny homes as a quick way to get people off the streets. San Jose has more than 500, and there are 2,000 statewide, according to DignityMoves . Newsom last year promised 1,200 tiny homes to four communities in California, though that project ran into some snags .
GOVERNOR’S CALL
© 2024 CalMattersGive doxxing victims the right to sue
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1979 would allow victims of doxxing — when someone shares identifying information online about someone else with the intent to harm them — to sue their attackers in civil court for damages of as much as $30,000.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Assemblymember Chris Ward , a San Diego Democrat, and Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry , a Davis Democrat, co-authored the bill. AB 1979 has support from many LGBTQ+ rights organizations, as members of the LGBTQ+ community are disproportionately targets of doxxing. A number of Jewish rights organizations announced their support for the bill earlier this month, and the Anti-Defamation League is a co-sponsor.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no recorded opposition to AB 1979. Newport Beach Republican Diane Dixon was the sole “no” vote in the Assembly, and told CalMatters she generally opposes bills that create a private right to action because they clog up the court system. The bill also received five “no” votes in the Senate.
WHY IT MATTERS
It’s difficult to obtain evidence for doxxing, so the crime isn’t prosecuted often. For example, only one doxxing case was filed in Sacramento County in the last five years. According to a 2024 Anti-Defamation League Report , 45% of transgender respondents said they had experienced severe online harassment in the last year, and LGBTQ+ advocates say harassment is worsening as anti-trans legislation rises across the country.
Doxxing has also played a role in recent Gaza war demonstrations, with many protesters wearing face coverings in fear of being identified and facing online harassment.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
© 2024 CalMattersAllow civilian officers to testify
By Ryan Sabalow
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Senate Bill 804 would allow community service officers — uniformed police department civilian employees who don’t have arrest powers — to testify at preliminary hearings where authorities present evidence to a judge who decides whether to move ahead with a full felony trial. Witnesses or victims are still required to testify in a trial. As it stands, only sworn officers are allowed to testify at “prelims,” despite community service officers often taking witness statements at crime scenes and during investigations.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The Redding Police Department brought the issue to the attention of the region’s senator, Republican Brian Dahle , arguing that as police budgets shrink, community services officers should be allowed to testify to free up sworn officers for other duties. The California State Sheriffs Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and the state’s police union support the legislation. Proponents say that it would keep officers from having to re-interview witnesses. Plus, they argue that having fewer armed officers interacting with witnesses helps address concerns about over-policing in communities of color.
WHO IS OPPOSED
ACLU California Action, criminal defense attorneys, including the California Public Defenders Association, and social justice groups opposed the legislation. They argue that the changes could lead to shoddy testimony being admitted into legal proceedings where a suspect’s freedom is on the line. They argue that preliminary hearings are already tilted in the favor of police and prosecutors. “The bottom line is that preliminary hearings are so problematic right now,” Ignacio Hernández of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, told the Assembly Public Safety Committee this summer .
WHY IT MATTERS
Since 1990, the state’s population has grown by nearly 10 million people, yet the numbers of California’s sworn patrol officers have dropped to below where they were in 1991, according to a recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California. Sworn officer staffing shortages are particularly prevalent in rural areas such as those in Dahle’s sprawling Senate district in northeastern California.
At the same time, in the wake of high-profile cases of unjustified police violence, social justice advocates have been urging California lawmakers and local governments to scale back the numbers of armed police patrolling communities of color. Some communities are deploying unarmed social or mental-health workers trained to defuse confrontations in situations where armed officers used to be the sole respondents.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
© 2024 CalMattersExpedite gender-affirming care licenses
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 2442 , authored by Los Angeles Democrat Rick Chavez Zbur , would speed up the licensure process for gender-affirming healthcare providers. The bill does not change the requirements to get a license; rather it prioritizes applicants who intend to practice gender-affirming healthcare or gender-affirming mental health care. As part of a package of new laws on abortion access , the legislature passed a similar law in 2022 to expedite licenses for abortion service providers after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. AB 2442 has a sunset clause, so the legislature would reevaluate the need for the bill in four years.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and Equality California are sponsors of the bill, which also has support from organizations that support LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive justice and healthcare access.
WHO IS OPPOSED
The California Family Council, Our Duty Democrat, Protect Kids Initiative and Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids Advocacy are recorded opponents of AB 2442. The latter group says that other providers should also get expedited licensing, and that the bill could hurt other areas of medicine. Instead, they want to add more staff to the Department of Consumer Affairs so that all medical providers can get licensed more efficiently. The other organizations have concerns about the safety of children undergoing gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy before their brains fully develop, saying it could harm mental health and lead to infertility.
WHY IT MATTERS
Twenty-six states have passed laws that ban gender-affirming care. In a 2022 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality, 47% of transgender respondents said they had considered moving to another state because of these laws. In California, patients seeking gender-affirming care at Stanford Medical Center often have to wait six to eight months to get an appointment. Supporters say AB 2442 would allow California to keep up with the demand from out-of-state patients while continuing to support in-state patients. In 2022, California passed a law protecting those receiving or providing such treatment from prosecution by other states.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
© 2024 CalMattersStop multiple campaigns by candidates
By Sameea Kamal
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1784 by Democratic Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin and Wendy Carrillo clarifies 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.
WHO SUPPORTS IT
The bill 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.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no registered opposition on file
WHY IT MATTERS
This bill 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.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
© 2024 CalMattersDeclare three more state symbols
WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO
AB 2504 would designate the shell of the black abalone — an endangered marine snail — as California’s official state seashell. AB 1797 would name the Dungeness crab the state crustacean. And AB 1850 would recognize the banana slug as the state slug. These would be the latest additions to the state’s 44 official symbols.
WHO SUPPORTS THEM
The shell bill was authored by Assemblymember Diane Dixon , a Republican from Newport Beach who notes that the black abalone has an important history to Native American tribes in Southern California, who have used the shell for trading and ceremony regalia and eaten the snail for thousands of years. The crab measure was authored by Assemblymember Jim Wood , a Ukiah Democrat. And the slug bill came from Assemblymember Gail Pellerin , a Santa Cruz Democrat. All three bills won overwhelming support in the Legislature.
WHO IS OPPOSED
There is no recorded opposition from advocacy groups to any of the three bills. Assemblymember Tom Lackey , a Republican from Palmdale, was the lone vote against the slug bill, but “in good fun .”
WHY IT MATTERS
The National Marine Fisheries Service designated the black abalone as an endangered species in 2009, as it faces environmental threats such as overfishing, disease and natural disasters. Lawmakers hope the designation will help Californians be more aware of those dangers. The Dungeness crab was chosen because of its positive impact on the commercial fishing industry and coastal economies. Pellerin chose the banana slug not only because it’s the mascot of University of California, Santa Cruz, but it also symbolizes California’s biological diversity.
GOVERNOR’S CALLS
© 2024 CalMatters
Local California State
Most PopularIt’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Comments / 0