In a year when the coronavirus pandemic upended every aspect of normal life, the impact in the California Capitol was also dramatic. Lawmakers took an unprecedented two-month pause in the spring, when Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a statewide order for people to stay home to prevent the spread of the virus. They returned to the Capitol in May, passed a state budget shrunken by the pandemic-induced recession, and began setting aside hundreds of bills that would no longer make the cut in this truncated year. Faced with less time to hold hearings and less money to spend on new initiatives, lawmakers chucked an estimated three-quarters of the bills introduced at the beginning of the year.
Abandoned or rejected along the way were bills requiring police to intervene if they see officers using excessive force, allow homeowners to request a forbearance on their mortgages during the pandemic, and launch a “Green New Deal” to fight climate change.
But even with their reduced workload, lawmakers tackled numerous thorny issues, passing legislation that could impact life in California for years to come — to make it easier to get mental health care, ban flavored tobacco and overhaul the use of plastic packaging, among others.
Now it’s up to the governor to decide if their ideas should become law. Below are some of the most interesting decisions he faces. Keep checking back (at this link) for updates: We’ll be adding newly passed bills until the session wraps late tonight, and then tracking their fate through the bill-signing period, which ends Sept. 30.
— Laurel Rosenhall and CalMatters staff
Expanding mental health parity
Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services 24-hour mental health crisis services on August 21, 2019. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 855 would significantly expand the list of mental health conditions considered medically necessary under California’s state parity law. Currently, that law — which seeks to ensure equal levels of care for physical and mental health — covers only nine mental health conditions and does not include substance use disorder. The bill, by Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, would require health plans to make decisions about what gets covered based on criteria developed by nonprofit clinical specialty associations, rather than permitting them to make those determinations themselves.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
A large coalition of mental health advocacy groups, groups that advocate for low-income and disabled Californians, and associations of mental health professionals. They say commercial health insurers have often failed to provide coverage for mental health care equivalent to care provided for physical health — a situation leading some patients to drop private insurance to qualify for the taxpayer-funded public Medi-Cal system.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
The health insurance industry opposes the bill. Representatives say plans are already complying with state and federal parity laws, and that the bill would drive up health care costs.
WHY IT MATTERS
Mental health care is a growing concern for Californians — and the need for it has been heightened by the pandemic. A recent report from the CDC shows that, since the pandemic began, almost 63 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds nationally reported having symptoms of anxiety or depression in the past month, and more than a quarter said they had seriously considered suicide. Attempts to change the state’s 20-year-old parity law have failed on multiple occasions. If the governor signs this bill, supporters say it would make California the nation’s leader on mental health and addiction coverage.
Creating a reparations committee
Hundreds gathered at Oscar Grant Plaza downtown Oakland on May 29, 2020 in solidarity with protesters in Minneapolis against the killing of George Floyd by police officers earlier this week. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 3121 would establish a nine-member task force to inform Californians about slavery and recommend ways the state can provide reparations. The committee would submit its findings to the Legislature. The bill, by San Diego Assemblymember Shirley Weber, a Democrat, had been quietly weaving through the legislature before protests nationwide erupted over the death of George Floyd.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Supporters include the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the American Civil Liberties Union of California, a large coalition of social justice groups and several politicians, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Republican lawmakers largely voted against the proposal. Assemblymember Kevin Kiley, a Rocklin Republican, believes that “the federal level is a more appropriate place for this discussion to take place,” according to his chief of staff. Some Republicans, including state Senators Ling Ling Chang of Diamond Bar and Brian Dahle of Bieber, voted in favor.
WHY IT MATTERS
The task force would not have the power to implement reparations, but it would try to answer questions about who would pay and who would get paid. Descendents of people who were enslaved would get special consideration for payment. Five members would be appointed by the governor, while the Assembly speaker and the Senate’s president pro tempore would appoint two each. California joined the Union as a “free state,” but it enacted a fugitive slave law in the 1850s that allowed slaves as long as they were eventually moved back to the South.
Banning flavored tobacco
Shelves full of flavored tobacco products including disposable e-cigarettes, pipe tobacco and shisha at a smoke shop in Berkeley. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 793 bans the sale of all flavored tobacco products – from cotton candy to mango to menthol. The bill by San Mateo Democratic Sen. Jerry Hill aims to reduce the number of kids vaping, smoking and using tobacco products. The prohibition includes pods for vape pens, tank-based systems, menthol cigarettes and chewing tobacco. It initially included cigars and hookah tobacco but those were later exempted. The onus lies with retailers, who will be fined if they continue to sell these products.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
A long list of health organizations, labor groups, cities, state officials and community groups. Allies include the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and CALPIRG.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Tobacco companies and law enforcement groups, including the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association. Community advocates, such as Neighborhood Forward, also are opposed. They say the law would create an illegal market for the products and also unfairly targets smokers of color who prefer menthol cigarettes.
WHY IT MATTERS
Supporters say teenagers and young people are lured into tobacco use via flavored products. Banning these products, they believe, will decrease the use of tobacco among youngsters and keep them from becoming life-long tobacco users. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that as of last year, 1 in 10 middle-schoolers and a quarter of high-schoolers reported e-cigarette use within the previous month. In 2018, 49 percent of middle-schoolers and 67 percent of high-schoolers who used tobacco in the previous 30 days said they used a flavored product.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
On Aug. 28 — hours after the bill cleared the Legislature — Newsom signed it into law. He publicly signaled his move earlier in the day by saying he had been very clear about his “absolute condemnation of this tobacco industry that continues to find ways to target our youth. It will be a point of deep pride and personal privilege, as a father of four and as someone who has had many, many family members die at the hands of the tobacco industry, to sign that bill.” The law takes effect in January 2021.
A student loan bill of rights
UC Berkeley graduation 2010. Image via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
By Mikahil Zinshteyn
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Its backers call it the strongest set of state consumer protections for student loan borrowers. AB 376, by Assemblymember Mark Stone, is a set of rules for student loan servicers — the companies that manage federal and private student loan debt. The long list includes rules like telling borrowers about programs that could lower their monthly payments and have their loans forgiven, alerting veterans to additional relief, and minimizing late fees for partial payments. Importantly, the bill opens up the loan servicers to lawsuits from consumers if the servicers don’t follow through on the bill’s expectations, which include retraining staff and greater transparency about the payment histories of borrowers. The bill also creates a state student loan ombudsman to track borrower complaints, assuming lawmakers and the governor approve a budget for that office’s staff.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
More than 70 student-debt advocacy groups, unions and trade groups. Those include the California Federation of Teachers, California Dental Association, Consumer Reports and AARP. California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis also support it.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Banking and loan servicing companies. The national trade group for student loan servicers say the bill exposes the companies to unwarranted lawsuits. The Consumer Bankers Association and California Bankers Association dislike that its members will have to follow the bill’s rules and want to be excluded from the regulations.
WHY IT MATTERS
Borrowers have long complained that loan servicers give bad or misleading advice, resulting in them having to pay more and longer for loans. This bill would change that.
Tightening school finance rules
School buses line up outside of Garfield Elementary School in Oakland at the end of the day for pickup in 2019. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters
By Ricardo Cano
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1835 would close a loophole in California’s school finance law, the Local Control Funding Formula, by requiring school districts to report any unspent dollars intended for students who are low-income, foster youth or English learners. Under the legislation, schools would be required to spend these earmarked supplemental and concentration dollars on disadvantaged students regardless of whether those funds roll over into the following school year.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
A coalition of civil rights groups and some state lawmakers, including the bill’s author, Democratic Assemblymember Shirley Weber of San Diego, have long pushed the state to tweak the state’s 2013 school finance law that completely overhauled how schools get funded. Advocates have argued that while the new funding formula made necessary improvements to the state’s antiquated school funding laws, it lacks accountability and transparency over how schools spend funds meant for needy students.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
The California School Business Officials Association and some local districts oppose the bill, saying it would hamstring local leaders’ abilities to deal with school budget outlooks worsened by the pandemic.
WHY IT MATTERS
Under the formula, school districts receive extra per-pupil funding if they have higher concentrations of disadvantaged students. But for years, advocates and some lawmakers questioned whether schools were appropriately spending that extra money on services and staff meant to serve the intended student groups. Former Gov. Jerry Brown resisted changes to the funding formula after signing it into law, urging patience. But a critical 2019 state audit confirmed many of bill supporters’ suspicions and made several recommendations included in this legislation.
Diversity on corporate boards
Many corporate boards in California would become more diverse under a pending bill. Photo by Eli Sagor via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)
By Elizabeth Castillo
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 979 would require people from “underrepresented communities” to have at least one seat on corporate boards in California by the end of 2021. People who self-identify as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native or gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender qualify as someone from an underrepresented community. The proposal was amended to include people who self-identify as LGBT. The bill, by Assembly members Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat, and Cristina Garcia, a Bell Gardens Democrat, was inspired by a similar 2018 law that mandated women in boardrooms. If enacted, it would be the first law nationwide to police the racial makeup of corporate boards. The requirements grow in 2022, when boards with four to nine people must have at least two members from an underrepresented community and boards with nine or more people must have at least three.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
State Controller Betty Yee and State Treasurer Fiona Ma are supporters. Others include the American Civil Liberties Union of California, California’s Black and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and other advocacy groups representing people of color.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Keith Bishop, a listed opponent and a corporate law attorney, says the bill is unconstitutional. No major business groups, such as the California Chamber of Commerce, are listed as formal opponents.
WHY IT MATTERS
Nationwide 19.5% of board members of Fortune 100 companies are people of color, according to a 2018 report. The Latino Corporate Directors Association reported that 86% of California-based public companies have no Latinos on their boards even though 39% of the state’s residents are Latino. The state law mandating women on corporate boards has faced legal challenges, so if this bill becomes law, it will likely face similar objections..
Erasing juvenile justice debt
Students at Johanna Boss High School in Stockton graduate behind razor wire at the O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility in Stockton. Photo by Charlotte West for CalMatters
By Jackie Botts
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 1290 would wipe away all debt owed by parents for the costs of their children’s incarceration in the juvenile justice system, such as daily stays in juvenile facilities or the cost of electronic monitoring bracelets. The bill by two Los Angeles Democrats, Sen. Maria Elena Durazo and Sen. Holly Mitchell, builds on a 2018 law that ended the practice of charging such fees, but didn’t require counties to forgive fees that parents were charged before 2018.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
A coalition of anti-poverty and criminal justice reform groups, and San Diego County, which wiped away over $40 million in juvenile fee debt for 9,100 families in May.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
The bill faced no public opposition.
WHY IT MATTERS
As Newsom has pledged to close and reimagine California’s youth prison system, 22 counties continued to pursue juvenile fee debt that totalled nearly $137 million. A handful of counties have recently cleared the juvenile fee debt as a way to relieve financial burdens for low-income residents. But the pandemic’s hit to county budgets has some warily eyeing advocates’ next push: to stop charging administrative fees to adults in the criminal justice system.
###
CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
CLICK TO MANAGE