Gavin Newsom began his first year as California governor with surpluses of money in the budget ($21 billion) and Democrats in the Legislature (about 75%), a combination that helped him realize an ambitious agenda to expand public preschool, add a year of tuition-free community college for full-time students, offer health care to young adults who are undocumented, pass a tax to improve 911 emergency service and offer $1 billion in tax rebates to low-income Californians.
After finishing the budget in June, Newsom and lawmakers turned attention to hashing out deals on several contentious policy issues. They successfully reached compromises between warring interest groups on bills to limit when police can use deadly force, cap rent increases, regulate charter schools and help utilities manage their liability for wildfire damages.
Other conflicts could not be resolved, and lawmakers tabled proposals to limit teen vaping, regulate for-profit colleges, increase tax credits for renters and reduce consumption of soda and other sugary drinks.
For many lawmakers, the dawn of the Newsom Administration is an opportunity to take another swing at a bill that failed in the past. Numerous measures advancing to Newsom’s desk amount to reruns of legislation vetoed by former Gov. Jerry Brown, including measures to let bars stay open later, require college health clinics to provide abortion pills and extend the lenghth of time child sex abuse victims have to file lawsuits.
Newsom signaled a willingness to break from his fellow Democrat in signing a bill to require presidential candidates release their tax returns to appear on California’s presidential primary ballot — a Trump-trolling measure that Brown vetoed two years ago.
Below are some of the most interesting remakes and fresh takes that now face the new governor. Keep checking back as we update this article throughout the bill-signing period that ends on Oct. 13.
— Laurel Rosenhall and CalMatters staff
Student Athlete Compensation
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Under SB 206, college athletes could sign paid sponsorship deals and hire agents without being penalized by their schools or the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The bill contradicts current NCAA rules, though it doesn’t allow schools to pay athletes a salary. Community colleges are exempt.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
The National College Players Association, AFL-CIO and California Faculty Association support SB 206, which also drew endorsements from basketball players LeBron James and Draymond Green, and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Supporters call athlete compensation a civil rights issue, saying college players are being exploited and should be paid for the value they create. The bill is authored by Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Berkeley Democrat.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
The NCAA asked legislators to delay taking action until its own internal working group can address the issue, and then on Wednesday appealed directly to Newsom in a letter asking him to reject SB 206. The University of California, California State University and private colleges oppose the bill, fearing their teams could be shut out of NCAA championships.
WHY IT MATTERS
College sports are a multi-billion-dollar industry. SB 206 sets up a showdown between California and the NCAA — but with an effective date of 2023, there’s also time for the two sides to come to an agreement.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Newsom hasn’t said much on this one. The NCAA is calling the bill “unconstitutional.”
Contract Workers
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Codifies the 2018 Dynamex decision by the California Supreme Court that makes it harder for gig workers, truckers and other industries to classify workers as independent contractors. The bill, AB 5, provides exemptions for a host of professional and specialized services from doctors to hairdressers.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
In a word: unions. The bill was sponsored by the California Labor Federation and backed by the State Employees International Union, Teamsters, State Building & Construction Trades Council of California as well as Gig Workers Rising and Mobile Workers Alliance.
WHO OPPOSED?
Gig employers such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash have already contributed $90 million to a ballot measure in order to keep workers classified as contractors. The trucking industry and hospitals are also opposed.
WHY IT MATTERS
California is the birthplace of the gig economy but it is also a state of growing wealth inequality. The bill is labor’s boldest effort to date to secure better wages, workplace standards and expand collective bargaining rights.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Newsom says he’s committed to sign, but he has also said he’s committed to continuing negotiations with California-based gig behemoths Uber and Lyft.
Local Control Over New Housing
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 330 would limit many tools developers say local governments artfully deploy to prevent new housing from getting built. Dubbed the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019”, the bill temporarily bans cities from imposing a moratorium on new housing construction, prohibits “downzoning” (changing zoning law to outlaw denser housing like apartment buildings), and prevents cities from raising fees during the development approval process. Intended to stop cities from wiggling out of their state-mandated housing goals, it will be in effect for five years unless re-authorized by the Legislature.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
A coalition of developers, tech companies and affordable housing and environmental advocates who argue that California’s severe housing shortage is partly to blame on “not-in-my-backyard” cities obstructing new housing. Backers include the California Building Industry Association (the statewide developer interest group), the State Building & Construction Trades Council (unionized construction workers), California YIMBY (“Yes in my Backyard”), Facebook and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The bill’s author is Berkeley Democratic Sen. Nancy Skinner.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Cities — especially wealthier, suburban ones like Pasadena in Southern California and Mountain View in the Bay Area — chafe against state incursions into what housing gets built where in their communities. The League of California Cities fears that locking in fees early in the development approval process would saddle them with the costs of sewers, parks and other infrastructure for new housing. Also opposed: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that poured millions into a failed 2017 moratorium on denser housing in L.A.
WHY IT MATTERS
Cities are in a protracted war with the state over who should control housing decisions. Gov. Newsom ambitiously promised to create 3.5 million new housing units by 2025, and pro-development advocates argue that will mean forcing cities to approve more housing more quickly. A more aggressive approach to forcing cities to allow more housing — SB 50 by Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco–was shelved earlier this year.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
While Newsom kept his distance from Wiener’s bill, he publicly endorsed SB 330.
Childhood Vaccine Exemptions
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
SB 276 could make it harder for parents to avoid vaccinating their children against serious contagious diseases. The bill changes how doctors provide exemptions that allow unvaccinated children to enter school, gives final say to a local public health official instead of a physician, and creates a process for investigating doctors with five or more exemptions and schools with less than 95% vaccine compliance.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Intended to crack down on physicians selling inappropriately issuing medical waivers and stop the rise of exemptions across California, the bill was backed by prominent physician groups including the California Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, California and a vocal parent group called Vaccinate California. It’s authored by Democratic Sen. Richard Pan of Sacramento.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Critics objected to state involvement in the doctor-patient relationship and to final authority resting with an official who is not the child’s physician. They also say the new directives may inhibit doctors from writing exemptions even for kids who need them. Protesters temporarily shut down a committee hearing and the Legislature’s floor sessions with cries of “My child, my choice” and “You’re killing our children.” Opponents include Advocates for Physicians’ Rights.
WHY IT MATTERS
At the state’s last count, about 4,800 California kindergartners had permanent medical exemptions, out of about a half-million students in that grade. But certain parts of the state have higher clusters of unvaccinated kids, potentially putting at risk those who cannot be vaccinated, such as infants and those with compromised immune systems.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Newsom signed the bill Sept. 9, 2019 — not that the process was without controversy. Twice he pushed to alter the legislation, first with amendments that weakened it, and later with a companion bill.
Charter Schools
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Months of behind-the-scenes negotiations between legislators and education interests led to the final version of AB 1505, which adds significant regulations to the state’s sector of independently operated, publicly funded charter schools. The bill gives local school boards much more discretion in approving new charters and allows districts in fiscal distress to consider financial impact, which hadn’t been previously allowed. All charter teachers in California also would be required to hold some sort of state credential and undergo a background check, and new online charter schools would be banned for two years.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Education unions, including the California Teachers Association, support the bill by Long Beach Democratic Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell. Proponents, who also included State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, said its charter regulations are overdue and local school boards should have more power to decide how charters fit into their education needs.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Charter school advocates — including the California Charter Schools Association — fought the bill along each step in the legislative process, characterizing it as an existential threat to charters in California. But the association formally shifted to a “neutral” position on AB 1505 after the bill’s original, more restrictive version was softened to retain a pathway to appeals for denied charters, and additional protections were secured. Republicans in the Legislature remained opposed, as do some charter leaders and advocates.
WHY IT MATTERS
The legislation marks the most significant revisions to the state’s charter school law since its 1992 inception and, at least for the moment, puts to rest a years-long, deep-pocketed and bruising legislative fight between charter advocates and unions over charter schools.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
The governor’s office helped broker the deal. He’ll likely sign it.
Far-flung Charters
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1507 removes a loophole that enabled the controversial practice of school districts authorizing charter schools outside of their geographic boundaries. Under the proposal by Assemblywoman Christy Smith, a Santa Clarita Democrat, a charter school would be required to locate within the boundaries of the district that authorized it.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Part of a package of charter school regulations introduced early in the session, it’s supported by teachers unions, the California Parent Teacher Association, the California School Boards Association and several local school districts.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
The Charter Schools Development Center, a charter advocacy group, and numerous local charter schools have formally registered opposition.
WHY IT MATTERS
Though charter schools have been a contentious issue at the Legislature for several years, this issue in particular has been a source of debate in California for nearly a decade. Districts are allowed to charge fees for oversight of the charters they authorize, and state auditors found that a handful of small, financially strapped districts had exploited the law to authorize numerous charters that were sometimes hundreds of miles away from their geographic boundaries and that drew enrollment from other districts. The Legislature had twice passed versions of AB 1507 that were vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
The governor has not specifically commented on this proposal, though his office helped broker the agreement on AB 1505, a separate charter regulation bill.
Police Training
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
A companion to the more high-profile bill Newsom signed in August that limits when police can use deadly force, Senate Bill 230 focuses on officer training. It establishes training programs on the new deadly force standard, and requires that basic training include lessons on de-escalation tactics, as well as awareness of mental illness, bias and cultural competency. It also requires law enforcement agencies to adopt policies that say officers must de-escalate situations when feasible, only use force proportional to the situation and intervene if they see other officers using excessive force.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
The bill by Sen. Anna Caballero, a Salinas Democrat, is backed by the California Police Chiefs Association and several other law enforcement groups, which tout it as setting a national precedent by requiring consistent policies and mandatory training standards across all law enforcement agencies in the state. They originally proposed a different version of SB 230 as a rival to the bill to limit the use of deadly force, but lawmakers tailored the two bills to compliment each other.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups say SB 230 could undermine the goal of limiting deadly force that’s contained in the recently signed law, which they supported, by giving officers too much leeway in deciding whether to de-escalate a situation. The League of Women Voters calls SB 230 “toothless” because it does not include an enforcement mechanism to ensure that agencies follow the standards and guidelines it sets.
WHY IT MATTERS
California police shoot and kill someone every two to three days, a rate that’s higher than the national average. Emotional debate over how to reduce the number of shootings without putting officers in greater danger has consumed the statehouse for much of the last year and a half. SB 230 represents law enforcement’s solution to that dilemma.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Signed Sept. 12, 2019, in a private ceremony in the governor’s office after passing the Legislature with unanimous bipartisan support.
Stronger Red Flag Laws
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Phil Ting’s AB 61 would give coworkers, teachers and school staff the right to ask a judge to order the firearms removed from someone if they are believed to be a threat to themselves or others. The removal period can last up to 21 days before the subject of the order is given an opportunity to appeal the decision. Currently, only immediate family members and law enforcement officers have that power.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
A coalition of gun-control advocacy groups, state and local law enforcement agencies and public health groups.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Predictably, gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association. Less predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union.
WHY IT MATTERS
California was the first state to introduce a so-called red flag law in 2014. Five years (and countless mass shootings later) 16 states have followed suit. In the wake of massacres in El Paso, Dayton and Gilroy, President Trump himself has suggested he would be open to a national red flag law.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Newsom has made his support for tougher gun laws (and his opposition to the gun rights lobby) one of his calling cards. He is all but certain to sign the bill.
Ghost Guns
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 879 by Assemblyman Mike Gipson would allow only licensed firearm dealers to sell “unfinished” gun receivers, which, with a little machining, can be assembled into untraceable “ghost guns.” The new regulations would not go into effect until the summer of 2024.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Gun control advocates and violence intervention groups, plus the California Department of Justice and both the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the District Attorney’s office.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Virtually every major gun rights group in the state, including the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Gun Owners of California and the California Sportsman’s Lobby.
WHY IT MATTERS
Last year Gipson introduced a bill that would have effectively treated unfinished receivers as if they were functioning firearms. The bill was passed by both chambers, but vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown who called the proposal “unduly vague” and warned of “far reaching and unintended consequences.” Now Brown is gone and this year’s version is a bit narrower in scope.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Given Newsom’s pro-gun control record, there’s no reason to believe he won’t sign this. And after a California Highway Patrol officer was killed by a home-assembled rifle in Riverside last month, there is all the more reason to think that he will.
Caps On Rent Hikes
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 1482 would limit how much landlords can increase rents annually to 5% plus inflation. It would also force landlords to give a “just cause” before evicting tenants (right now landlords in California technically don’t need a reason to remove renters from their property). Not quite conventional rent control, the measure exempts units built within the last 15 years and most single-family home rentals.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Local tenant unions, organized labor, Gov. Gavin Newsom and even pro-business groups like the California Business Roundtable. While not technically in support, the primary advocacy groups for California landlords and developers signed off on the bill after extracting compromises.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Some moderate Democrats and Republicans voted against the measure, out of fear it would crimp new housing supply — or out of fear of the California Association of Realtors, a major campaign donor. The Realtors are piqued that Democrats reneged on an earlier rent-cap deal.
WHY IT MATTERS
It would give California arguably the strongest statewide renter protections in the country. Rents have soared over the past half decade in many major California cities. It’s also a political victory for Newsom, who said early in his administration he wanted more protection for renters.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Newsom pushed for this bill. He’ll very likely sign it.
Oil Drilling
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB342 by Al Muratsuchi would bar state agencies from allowing pipelines or other development that supports oil and gas production to cross state land, if those projects are near national parks, monuments, wilderness areas and other specially protected places.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
A long list of environmental and conservation groups signed on in support of this bill, in part because of threats from the Trump administration to allow oil and gas drilling in and around protected federal land that had been closed to energy development.
WHO OPPOSED?
The bill had no formal opposition.
WHY IT MATTERS
The state has already prohibited similar oil infrastructure from being constructed to bring crude onshore from drilling platforms in federal waters off the state’s coast. This bill mirrors that one, which makes it more difficult and expensive to produce oil in California.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Newsom opposes new offshore drilling, so he’s likely to support this.
Wildfire Outages
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Sen. Bill Dodd’s SB167 would require electrical utilities to prepare wildfire mitigation plans that include how to provide backup power for low-income and medically compromised people during temporary power shutoffs.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
The state fire chiefs and the California Association of Counties supported the bill as a prudent backstop for vulnerable populations.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
The bill had no formal opposition.
WHY IT MATTERS
Utilities may cut off power in areas where there is acute fire danger. This measure would provide access to power during emergency outages for those who rely on life-support machines and other medical equipment.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Newsom has made wildfire issues a priority. He is expected to sign this bill.
Dialysis industry practices
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
AB 290 aims to crack down on a dialysis-industry practice: signing patients who would qualify for Medicare with a company that will pay their premiums for private insurance instead, because those insurers pay more for dialysis than the government-run program. The “third-party” companies are nonprofits that receive a significant amount of funding from dialysis providers. The bill would allow patients already in these arrangements to continue but would bar dialysis companies from steering people to third-party payers in the future. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2022.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Assemblyman Jim Wood, the bill’s author, calls third-party arrangements a “scam” by dialysis companies that have figured out a way to get inflated reimbursement rates. Health Access California and the California Labor Federation also support the bill.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Dialysis companies DaVita and Fresenius, the nation’s two largest providers, spent nearly $1 million this year lobbying on this and other health issues in Sacramento. Opponents were successful in having the bill amended to push the start date to 2022 and to “grandfather” in those already enrolled with third-party payers.
WHY IT MATTERS
There have been several efforts in recent years to regulate the deep-pocketed dialysis industry. If this bill becomes law, it’s possible that more regulations could be imposed on the industry in the future.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
It’s not clear whether the governor will sign this measure, which was amended 52 times. Former Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill last year.
Fertility procedures
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Senate Bill 600 spells out that health insurance companies must cover certain fertility procedures for patients with medical diagnoses that indicate treatment such as chemotherapy could damage their fertility. The procedures include egg and sperm freezing, in vitro fertilization and the freezing of embryos. This bill does not apply to the one-third of Californians enrolled in the Medi-Cal program for low-income residents.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Democratic state Sen. Anthony Portantino is behind the bill. He argues that the state already has regulations in place that make fertility preservation in those circumstances part of essential health care benefits — but insurers are not following it. Proponents of the measure argue that this is a basic health care right and those diagnosed with a condition like cancer should not have to scramble to pay for the costly procedures out of pocket or forgo their future fertility.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Health insurers object, noting that existing law does not specify these types of fertility-preservation procedures as essential services all insurers must cover. The state Department of Managed Health Care, which oversees health plans in California, has determined otherwise, but insurers say that determination does not follow current law. Portantino wants his bill to settle the dispute.
WHY IT MATTERS
This bill could open the door for future legislation to require broader coverage of fertility and infertility services.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
The state is in a legal battle with Kaiser Permanente over coverage of fertility-preservation procedures, and the governor is expected to sign the bill.
Housing Discrimination
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO
Current law prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants for reasons such as race, disability and source of income. SB 329 would expand the definition of “source of income” to ban landlords from discriminating against people who receive federal Section 8 housing vouchers.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Affordable housing advocates, public interest law organizations and several cities and counties that have already passed similar bans back the measure by Senator Holly Mitchell, a Los Angeles Democrat They say the bill will make the Section 8 program a more effective tool against the state’s affordable housing crisis.
WHO’S OPPOSED?
Most major apartment, realtor and housing associations argue that landlords are justified in rejecting Section 8 tenants because of the red-tape involved in working with housing agencies, which can cause costly vacancies. Among the opposition: the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors.
WHY IT MATTERS
Low-income Californians often wait for years to qualify for Section 8 vouchers. If and when they do, they face a severe shortage of rental units that accept the housing assistance. The legislation wouldn’t bar landlords from denying Section 8 tenants for standard reasons, such as poor credit or rental history, but it would prohibit blanket rejections. If Newsom signs the bill, the multitude of rental ads that say “No Section 8” would become illegal overnight. A dozen other states have passed similar bans.
GOVERNOR’S CALL
Though Newsom hasn’t officially declared support, his promises to take on the state’s housing crisis make it likely he’ll sign the bill.
