Leticia Castillo

Voted to pass Assembly Bill 1201, which would narrow when a parent can be denied help getting their child back from foster care. When a juvenile court takes a child into its care, county social workers normally provide reunification services aimed at returning the child home. A court may skip those services today if the parent has a violent felony conviction, whatever the offense involved and whoever the victim was. The bill would apply that exception only where the victim was a child, or was someone the parent had a child with at the time of the crime. A parent whose violent felony involved an unrelated adult could no longer be denied services on that ground alone. The Assembly passed it 56-14. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 20, 2026Supports Social Programs and Welfare

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 40, which would force a full environmental study before a large coal terminal can be approved. Under the California Environmental Quality Act an agency decides case by case whether a project needs a full environmental impact report or a shorter document. The bill would remove that choice for a large-volume bulk coal facility, meaning a site designed to handle, store or export more than five million short tons of coal a year. An air district permit allowing such a facility to be built, or raising its potential emissions, could no longer be treated as automatic and outside the act. An agency could not rely on an older report if the type of coal changed or was never addressed, if the quantity rose sharply or was never disclosed, or if capacity crossed the five-million-ton line. A report that never analyzed coal handling, storage and transport would carry no informational value, and the facility would be treated as a new project. The report would have to identify the coal types and volume and analyze fine and coarse airborne dust during construction and operation, with measures enough to prevent a significant rise in dust beyond the site boundary. The rules would reach approvals pending or made between June 4, 2026 and January 1, 2027. The Assembly passed it 50-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 28, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2227, which would raise the bonds and penalties that apply to farm labor contractors. These contractors hire and supply farmworkers to growers and must be licensed by the Labor Commissioner. A penalty of $100 for each worker plus $100 for each day, capped at $10,000, now applies to operating without a license. The bill would extend it to licensed contractors and to violations across the whole chapter unless another penalty applies. A contractor must post a surety bond, a guarantee that pays workers if the contractor does not. The bond is now set by the size of the annual payroll, at $25,000, $50,000 or $75,000. The bill would set it by annual gross receipts instead and double the amounts to $50,000, $100,000 and $150,000. Because gross receipts are usually larger than payroll, more contractors would fall into the higher brackets. The Labor Commissioner would have to collect documentation of that figure, and would have to publish bond details on the public license database, including the bond number, dates, size and the surety company's contact information. A contractor would also have to tell a worker filing a claim that the bond exists and how to reach it. The Assembly passed it 51-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 28, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1633, which would tax companies that run private detention facilities in California. Starting July 1, 2028 an operator would owe a yearly tax equal to 25 percent of the gross income it earned in the state the year before. The tax would apply whether the facility is under contract to a federal, state or local agency. The money, less refunds and collection costs, would go into a new Due Process for All Fund and pay for immigration-related services once the Legislature appropriates it. The bill does not define which services qualify. Operators would have to register with the state tax department and file a return each July. Because it raises a tax it needs a two-thirds vote in both houses. The Assembly passed it 57-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 28, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 327, which would stop electric and gas utilities from charging customers for fighting public takeovers of their service. Utilities already may not bill ratepayers for lobbying, campaign contributions, promotional advertising, charitable giving, fines and investor relations. The bill would add opposition to municipalization to that banned list, meaning efforts to stop a city or county from taking over electric or gas service as a public utility. That would cover lobbying, appearing at city council or county board meetings to oppose such efforts, and other activities meant to prevent a publicly owned utility being established, along with the research behind them. The bill would also let the Public Advocate's Office, the ratepayer advocate inside the utilities commission, compel information needed to support the commission's duties, not only its own. It would give that office the same power as the commission to review the accounts of any regulated company. The office's yearly staffing and spending report to the Legislature would move from January 10 to February 1. The Assembly passed it 46-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1930, which would route out-of-state demands for abortion and gender-affirming care records through the Attorney General. A person or business operating in California could receive a subpoena, discovery request or similar demand tied to an investigation of that care. They would have to notify the Attorney General at least seven business days before handing anything over, and could not produce the records until that time passed. The notice would include a copy of the request, with identifying details about patients or providers redacted. Where federal law or a federal contract, grant or Medicare condition demands a faster answer, the company would notify the Attorney General at the same time it produces the records instead. No notice would be needed if a court ordered the request, a California agency issued it, the care information is incidental to the investigation, or the requester attached a sworn statement meeting set conditions. A company could rely on that sworn statement. The Attorney General could try to notify the patient, could join a lawsuit resisting the request, and could sue over a false statement, with penalties of $15,000 for a false statement and up to $10,000 and $15,000 for other violations. The Assembly passed it 60-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1886, which would cap how long a young person placed outside the home stays on juvenile probation. Probation for a ward of the juvenile court is already limited to 12 months from the most recent disposition hearing, but that cap does not apply to wards in out-of-home placements. The bill would remove that exception so the 12-month limit covered them too. A court could extend probation only after a noticed hearing and a finding, on the weight of the evidence, that it serves both the young person's interest and the public's. The probation department would have to file a report giving the basis, the young person and the prosecutor could present evidence, and the court would have to state its reasons on the record. If probation were extended the court would have to hold a further hearing at least every six months. The court could keep jurisdiction past the end of probation only to finish the transition process, and could impose no conditions during that time. The cap would still not apply to wards serving custodial commitments or committed to secure youth treatment facilities. The Assembly passed it 43-20. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1770, known as Lindalee's Law, which would put the Attorney General in charge of watching how health plans run forced arbitration. Many health plan contracts require a member to take a dispute to a private arbitrator instead of a court, and state law already sets disclosure rules for that. The bill would give the Attorney General oversight of whether plans follow those rules, the power to require reports from them, and a duty to tell the Department of Managed Health Care about any corrective action taken. It would also require an arbitration claim brought under a health plan to run under California's own arbitration law. It states that the Attorney General's other powers, including enforcing unfair competition law, and the department's existing authority are both left intact. The Assembly passed it 59-16. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1650, which would require police to mark rented cars used to stop, arrest or transport people. A car rented by or supplied to a federal, state or local law enforcement agency for that purpose would have to carry a temporary decal on the front doors. The decal would show the agency's name or insignia, stand out against the background, and be readable from 50 feet in daylight. The agency, not the rental company, would make and attach it. The Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel or a city attorney could sue to enforce the rule and recover legal fees. There is no fine and no private lawsuit. The requirement would not reach plainclothes officers, emergencies, tactical teams, protective details for officials, or officers doing surveillance, undercover or investigative work. It also would not reach a car used only to move someone already in custody under a court warrant or extradition order, when the officer judges that a decal would endanger safety or security. It would not apply to rental contracts signed before January 1, 2027. The Assembly passed it 55-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1448, which would tighten the rules on oil and gas drilling in California's coastal waters. The State Lands Commission may now lease state tidelands for oil or gas when a neighboring federal well is draining the deposit and the lease serves the state's interest. The bill would bar those leases inside state marine protected areas and federal national marine sanctuaries. It would move a cutoff date from 2018 to 2026, and would newly bar using existing pipelines and facilities to serve federal offshore leases issued after that date. Before renewing or changing a lease the commission would have to weigh seven added factors. Those include any past spill, whether the change moves more oil through state waters, and whether the operator has filed spill-response and decommissioning guarantees. Before approving a sale to another company it would have to examine the buyer's finances, safety record and history of breaking other laws. A company selling a lease would stay responsible for plugging wells and cleaning the site, unless the commission found those duties met or accepted security worth the estimated cost plus twenty percent. The Assembly passed it 46-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1457, which would require cities and counties to involve poor and pollution-burdened neighborhoods in their environmental justice planning. A city or county containing such a community must already include an environmental justice section in its general plan, but the law does not say how residents must be brought in. The bill would require at least two public workshops at accessible times, offered both in person and online. It would also require at least two other ways of involving residents and two ways of notifying them. Drafts would have to be posted online, along with information about workshops and hearings translated into the three most commonly spoken languages in those neighborhoods. A first draft would have to appear at least 90 days before adoption, with 45 days for comment and a revised draft 15 days ahead. The city would have to summarize the comments, give them to every member of the governing body, and publish the summary in the adopted plan. It would also set a deadline of June 30, 2031 for places that never revise two plan sections at once. The Assembly passed it 58-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1049, which would stop a sponsor's income from counting against someone applying for state food aid. California runs the California Food Assistance Program for people who cannot get federal food benefits only because of their immigration status. Today the state applies the federal sponsor rules to it. When someone has signed an affidavit of support for the applicant, that sponsor's income and resources are treated as the applicant's own, which cuts the benefit or blocks it. The bill would end that practice for this program. It would begin on January 1, 2028, or later if the state's benefits computer system cannot yet handle it, whichever comes last. The Assembly passed it 59-15. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2531, which would open California's subsidized abortion and contraception program to veterans regardless of income. The state already funds providers who deliver abortion, contraception and gender-affirming care cheaply to people at or below four times the federal poverty level who are uninsured or whose coverage excludes that care. The bill would add a second route with no income test at all. A veteran would qualify if their coverage does not include abortion, or they cannot get abortion or contraception care through the veterans health system, and they are not already covered free through Medi-Cal or Family PACT. A veteran would mean someone with at least 90 consecutive days of active service or National Guard call-up, discharged under conditions other than dishonorable, or discharged earlier for a service-connected disability. A person's own statement of veteran status would be enough for the provider to accept. The state veterans department would have to link to the state abortion information website from its women veterans page. The veteran route would cover abortion and contraception only, not gender-affirming care. The Assembly passed it 60-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1406, which would close a use-tax dodge for expensive cars, boats and planes bought through out-of-state shell companies. California presumes that a vehicle, vessel or aircraft bought outside the state and brought in within 12 months was bought for use here and owes use tax, if certain conditions are met, one being that the buyer is a California resident. A closely held corporation or limited liability company already counts as a resident when Californians hold half or more of it, and the bill would add partnerships of all three kinds to that test. A shell company would count as a California resident if any single owner is a California resident, with no half-ownership threshold. A shell company would mean such a business used to evade taxes, with signs including no specific business purpose, no physical location outside California, no employees receiving federal wage forms, and no tax returns filed in another state. Any officer, manager, partner, owner or member of a shell company could be held personally liable for the unpaid tax, interest and penalties, despite the usual corporate liability shield. The changes would not reach a purchase or binding contract made on or before the operative date, and a deficiency notice would have to issue within three years. Because it raises a tax it needs a two-thirds vote in both houses. The Assembly passed it 59-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1173, which would let a defendant ask the jury to consider a closely related lesser offense. A jury may now convict on an offense necessarily included in the charge, and a judge must instruct on one where the evidence supports it. There is no right to an instruction on a merely related offense. The bill would require the court, at the defendant's request, to instruct on a lesser offense closely related to the charge, if three conditions are met. The defense theory must be consistent with a conviction for the lesser offense, the evidence of it must have been admitted to decide the charged offense, and there must be some basis for the lower finding beyond simply disbelieving the prosecution. A judge could do the same where a jury is waived. The defendant would have to notify the prosecution no later than the start of jury selection, or before evidence in a court trial. That notice could be excused only with the prosecution's agreement or for good cause. The Assembly passed it 44-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2465, which would cut off state grants, loans and tax credits to companies tied to immigration detention. A business would be ineligible for any state grant, loan or tax credit in a year when it invests in, owns, operates or manages a private detention facility, or contracts with one to provide covered services. Covered services would include detention, transport, custody and deportation, and also software, surveillance equipment, data analytics, artificial intelligence, weapons and officer training contracted specifically to support immigration enforcement. Health care provided under such a contract would be excluded. Every state agency handing out grants or loans would have to screen applicants. For the contracting route, only a publicly traded company worth at least $150 billion would be disqualified, so smaller vendors would not be. Blocked credits could be used later if the company stops qualifying. The extra tax collected would be estimated each year and moved into a new Due Process for All Fund for immigration-related services, and that money could not be used to replace existing funding. The Assembly passed it 58-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1806, which would extend the state's independent investigation of deadly shootings to immigration officers. The Attorney General must already investigate a shooting by a police officer that kills an unarmed civilian, and may bring criminal charges if the officer broke state law. The bill would create the same duty and the same charging power for a shooting by an immigration enforcement officer that kills an unarmed civilian. Each investigation would need a written report setting out the facts and giving an analysis and conclusion on every issue. Those reports would have to be posted and kept on a public website, with the redactions the law requires. Any refusal to give investigators access to witnesses, documents or evidence would have to be written down. The bill says it is not to be read as regulating the conduct of federal agents. The Assembly passed it 60-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1807, which would bar immigration enforcement from using California state property as a base. It would prohibit staging, assembling, mobilizing or deploying vehicles, equipment or personnel for immigration enforcement on state-owned land. It would also prohibit processing or detaining people there for immigration purposes. State-owned property would include garages, parking lots, parks and vacant land. State agencies would have to identify sites previously or likely to be used this way, post signs where feasible saying the property may not be used for immigration enforcement, and use existing barriers to limit access. By July 1, 2027 agencies would need procedures to record any attempted or actual use, with photo or video evidence, and report it to the Attorney General. The ban would not reach property under an existing lease, state corrections operations, or Caltrans land used for public transportation or sitting at a federal port of entry. It would not block a lawful judicial warrant. The Assembly passed it 60-15. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1664, which would require local election officials to alert the state when police or prosecutors seek election records. An agency or elections official would have to notify the Secretary of State and the Attorney General no later than one calendar day after learning of a warrant, subpoena or active investigation. That duty would cover election records and certified voting equipment the official holds. Either state official could then go to court to challenge the warrant or subpoena, or seek other relief. The requirement would expire on January 1, 2030. It would take effect at once as an urgency measure. The Assembly passed it 59-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1661, which would send oil-well penalty money directly to households near the Inglewood oil field. Penalties collected from low-producing wells there already flow into an account used for community projects. The bill would require the first $5 million, after administration costs, to go to Los Angeles County to pay equal one-time cash grants to qualifying households. A household would qualify if it sits within two and a half miles of the identified wells, asks for help, has a member with respiratory or reproductive health effects, and proves it lives there. The county could accept a person's own statement about the health effect. No more than 1,000 households could be paid, chosen by random lottery if more qualify, and paid within 60 days of selection. The money would not count as income when the state or county decides eligibility for other benefits. Community projects would have to wait until these payments are made. The Assembly passed it 60-16. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 923, which would widen the right to make a company delete your personal information. That right now covers information the company collected from you; the bill would extend it to information the company collected about you from someone else. A company that got the information from another source could keep a record of the deletion request, plus the least data needed to keep the information deleted and used for nothing else. A business that operates only online would also have to offer a web form or online portal for these requests, not just an email address. The Assembly passed it 49-14. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 2247, which would create a pilot program paying for mental health and counseling care for young survivors of gun violence in Los Angeles County. A survivor, or a parent for a minor, could simply state what happened without producing paperwork about the shooting, and could choose any licensed provider or peer support specialist, whether or not that provider takes insurance. Their treatment records would be confidential and closed to public records requests. The program would run only if the Legislature funds it, and would end on January 1, 2032. The Assembly agreed 60-16. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 938, which would stop former federal immigration officers from skipping California's police academy on that experience alone. To become a peace officer here a person must complete the basic training course set by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, and the commission must offer a waiver for people with comparable prior law enforcement training. The bill provides that federal service whose main duties were immigration inspection, border enforcement, or the apprehension, detention or removal of noncitizens, and the training for that service, does not on its own qualify a person for the basic course waiver. The wording leaves room for an applicant who has that background plus other qualifying law enforcement experience. The bill changes nothing else about peace officer training. The Assembly passed it 57-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 633, which would raise the penalty on drink makers that miss California's recycled-plastic targets and require independent proof of what they use. Plastic bottles sold under the deposit program must contain a minimum share of recycled plastic, now 25 percent and rising to 50 percent in 2030. A bottler that falls short pays 20 cents for each pound of new plastic used in place of recycled, and the bill would raise that to 30 cents. From March 1, 2028 a bottler would also have to give the state proof that its recycled content has been validated by an approved third party, and a supplier of recycled plastic that provides such a validation would have to ensure it is accurate. A bottler that unknowingly passes on an inaccurate validation from its supplier would not be liable. The state would have to publish a yearly list of bottlers and their brands showing whether each has complied. The bill does not change the recycled-content targets themselves or the deposit system. The Assembly passed it 59-16. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 873, which would widen the protection against civil arrest at courthouses. A civil arrest is one not made for a crime, and a person already cannot be civilly arrested inside a courthouse while attending a proceeding or conducting legal business, except under a warrant signed by a judge. The bill would extend that protection to traveling to a courthouse, being present at one, and traveling from one for any lawful activity. A court could issue orders to protect it. An arrest that broke these rules would count as false imprisonment or false arrest, and anyone who committed or assisted in the violation would owe actual damages plus $10,000, along with court costs and legal fees. Courts, judicial officers and court staff acting lawfully to keep order would be exempt from such claims. When court security staff know that a law enforcement officer has entered on official business, they would have to ask the officer to identify themselves and state their purpose and intended action, and request a copy of a valid judicial warrant. The Judicial Council would have to publish yearly statistics on civil arrests by county. The Assembly passed it 58-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 747, the No Kings Act, which would let people sue in state court over violations of their federal constitutional rights. Federal law already allows such a suit in federal court against state and local officials, but California has no equivalent state law. The bill would make any person acting under color of law liable to someone whose federal constitutional rights they violate, and the definition of that phrase would reach officials acting under the law of the United States as well as of a state. Officials sued in their official capacity for money would be excluded, so the claim runs against individuals personally. A judge could not be enjoined for a judicial act unless a declaratory order was violated or unavailable, and could not be charged fees unless clearly acting beyond their jurisdiction. A court could award a winning plaintiff legal fees. Immunity would track federal law exactly. The bill states it does not make any immunity defense broader or narrower than it would be in a federal suit, and does not waive sovereign immunity or affect the right to move a case to federal court. Suits would have to be filed within two years, and for conduct before the act took effect only nominal and compensatory damages would be available. The Assembly passed it 57-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 608, which would widen access to contraception in schools and shops and let the state check sex education compliance. Districts and charter schools must already teach comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention in grades seven through twelve, but the state does not routinely verify it. The bill would let the Department of Education monitor compliance as part of the annual review it already runs for state and federal programs. A local education agency could not stop a school-based health center from making internal and external condoms available and easily accessible to students in those grades at the center. Schools would also have to allow condoms to be handed out through educational or public health programs, community organizations, peer health programs, health fairs and health center staff. A shop could not refuse to sell non-prescription contraception to someone solely because of their age, including by demanding identification. Breaking that retail rule would not carry the criminal penalty that normally applies under the state food and drug law. The school provisions stop schools blocking access rather than requiring them to stock condoms, so their reach depends on whether a school has a health center. The Assembly passed it 58-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1425, which would create criminal and civil penalties for interfering with high-speed rail land. The High-Speed Rail Authority can already buy or condemn the strip of land the trains run on, but there is no permit system for building on it. The bill would create a permit program run by the authority for encroachments on that operating right-of-way. Installing or carrying out an encroachment there without a permit would become a misdemeanor, subject to exceptions the bill sets out. Willfully damaging any part of the rail system or the right-of-way would be a separate misdemeanor. Certain categories of encroachment would also carry civil penalties, and managing water flows in ways that affect the system or the right-of-way would be unlawful without a permit or other legal authority. The authority or the Attorney General could sue to collect those penalties. Permit fees and penalties would go into the High-Speed Rail Property Fund, with penalty money spent on the rail system and fee money on running the permit program once appropriated. The Assembly passed it 53-16. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1414, which would take redistricting in San Bernardino County away from the county's own elected supervisors. A county board of supervisors normally redraws its own district lines after each census, and eight other counties already use an independent commission instead. The bill would create a 14-member citizens redistricting commission for San Bernardino, drawing the supervisorial districts under the criteria already set in state law. A commissioner would have to live in the county, have been registered with the same party for five years, and have voted recently. Neither they nor their family could have held office, worked for a candidate or lobbied in the previous eight years. The elections official would screen applicants to the 60 most qualified, the auditor would draw eight at random including one from each supervisorial district, and those eight would appoint the remaining six. A commissioner could be removed for neglect of duty, gross misconduct or inability to serve, after written reasons and a public hearing, and that decision could not be appealed to a court. The commission would exist only if the Legislature appropriates money for it. This applies only to San Bernardino County. The Assembly passed it 53-21. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1379, which would separate the coroner from the sheriff in Riverside County and require public reporting on jail deaths. A county board of supervisors may now choose to combine the sheriff and coroner offices, or to separate them and appoint a medical examiner instead. The bill would require the Riverside County board to do so by July 1, 2027, abolishing the coroner's office and creating an office of medical examiner. Medical death investigations would move to that office, and no one but the county medical examiner could sign a death certificate or any part of a postmortem examination. The county would have to publish an initial incident report within 24 hours of a death in custody and a preliminary report within 72 hours. It would have to keep a public database of deaths in custody by facility, cause, demographics and medical response times. It would also have to give public notice of serious incidents, including suicide attempts, overdoses, severe withdrawal, medical distress during restraint, and ignored requests for care that led to hospital treatment. Next of kin would have to be told the cause of death within 72 hours of it being determined. Coroner staff would move across keeping their classification, seniority, benefits and union representation. This applies only to Riverside County. The Assembly passed it 59-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1164, which would rewrite the California Voting Rights Act into two separate bans and widen who can sue. That law now reaches only a local government using an at-large election method that weakens a protected class's ability to elect its candidates. The bill would add a ban on any election policy or practice, by a local government or a state agency, that results or is likely to result in voter suppression. Suppression would mean a material disparity in participation or access for a protected class, meaning any race, color or language-minority group, or an impairment of their equal opportunity to take part. A government could defend itself only by showing with clear and convincing evidence that the practice is necessary to a compelling interest with no less harmful alternative. The second ban would cover any method of election that dilutes protected-class votes, not just at-large systems. Proof of intentional discrimination would not be required. The Attorney General could sue alongside affected voters, but a plaintiff would first have to send a notice letter and wait 45 or 60 days. A plaintiff who wins in court could recover reasonable litigation costs and fees. Only a plaintiff who prevails from the notice letter alone, without a lawsuit, would have that recovery capped near $30,000 adjusted for inflation. A government found to have violated voting-rights law in the past decade would need the Attorney General's approval before changing its election method. The Assembly passed it 59-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1237, which would raise the penalty on employers that repeatedly fail to file a pay data report. Larger private employers must file a yearly report with the Civil Rights Department showing employee counts by race, ethnicity and sex, and within each job category the median and mean hourly pay for each group. A court must already impose up to $100 per employee for failing to file and up to $200 per employee for a later failure. The bill would raise that repeat penalty to up to $1,000 per employee, leaving the first-time penalty unchanged. It would also require the department to publish each year the total number of pay data reports it received. That count would still be subject to the existing rule that published figures be arranged so they cannot be traced to any individual business or person. The Assembly passed it 59-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1973, which would widen which health professionals may perform abortions and at what stage of pregnancy. Performing an abortion without a physician's license is an offense, but nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives and physician assistants may already do so by medication or aspiration in the first trimester. The bill would replace that with a general rule covering any licensee whose own practice act authorizes the procedure, and would drop both the first-trimester limit and the wording that restricted the method. Throughout the law, abortion by aspiration would become procedural abortion, a broader term the bill does not define. A nurse practitioner or certified nurse-midwife performing a procedural abortion beyond the first trimester would have to keep written procedures for consultation, referral and transfer of care to a physician when a case exceeds their training. The existing training routes would be unchanged, and online or simulation-only training would still not qualify. The bill would state that the section does not authorize a nurse practitioner or nurse-midwife to perform surgery. The Assembly passed it 59-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1905, which would restrict undercover questioning of young people held in custody. Police already may not use threats, physical harm, deception or psychological manipulation when questioning someone 17 or younger in custody. The bill would bar an officer from seeking statements through undercover officers, informants or others acting as agents of law enforcement. That would apply where the person was 17 or younger when the offense happened and is under 26 while in custody. In deciding whether such a statement may be used, a court would have to consider the failure to comply, and would weigh a willful violation when judging the officer's credibility. That rule would cover statements obtained on or after January 1, 2027. It would not apply where the officer reasonably believed the information was needed against an imminent threat to life and kept the questions to that threat. Questioning begun more than 24 hours after learning of the threat would be presumed unnecessary without good cause, and after 48 hours presumed unnecessary outright. Any such operation would have to stop once the threat is resolved. The Assembly passed it 51-15. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1801, which would make it harder for a local government to approve a private immigration detention facility. A city or county must already give 180 days of public notice and hold two public meetings before signing a land deed or issuing a permit for a private company to detain people for civil immigration proceedings. The bill would widen that to any document showing the government's approval to build or reuse a building, and would cover detaining anyone in civil immigration custody rather than only noncitizens. The government would have to provide the related documents promptly on request, on paper and electronically, subject to the usual public records exemptions. Notice would have to appear on the government's website and at its headquarters, in a local newspaper or three public places, and weekly on radio in the five most spoken local languages. The two meetings would have to be at least 30 business days apart and offer translation. The rules would apply to charter cities, and each public agency would have to meet them separately. The Assembly passed it 59-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2128, which would bar public housing agencies from putting time limits or work requirements on tenants. Housing authorities run federally subsidized housing including public housing, Section 8 vouchers and project-based assistance. The bill would prohibit a covered housing provider from making a term limit, meaning a cap on how long someone may live there, a condition of eligibility. It would equally prohibit requiring a tenant to work, study, train, volunteer or do community service as a condition. Neither could be used to change the size of a tenant's rent subsidy. A provider could still run a voluntary job or training program, as long as taking part does not affect eligibility or subsidy and the program aims at raising income, savings, education or job skills. The ban would not apply where federal law requires the condition. It would not reach agencies in the federal Moving to Work program whose rules follow federal guidance, and it would leave the federal family self-sufficiency program and the federal public housing community service requirement in place. The Assembly passed it 58-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1116, which opens online voter registration to citizens who have no California driver's license or state ID card. Today the Secretary of State's website can register a voter only if the state already holds their license or ID record. Under the bill a voter without either may register online by giving the last four digits of their Social Security number. Their identity is checked against their name, date of birth and those digits through processes the state and federal government already use. The Secretary of State must build an accessible way to collect an image of the voter's signature, and county officials must compare a mail ballot signature against the signatures in the voter's registration record, including that image. The change takes effect on January 1, 2029. The Assembly passed it 59-19. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 25, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1037, which would move the judgment on unreasonable health insurance rate increases from federal to state officials. An unreasonable rate increase now means one the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds excessive, unjustified or unfairly discriminatory. The bill would instead let the Director of the Department of Managed Health Care or the Insurance Commissioner make that finding, and would add increases that are otherwise unreasonable. When filing rates, a plan or insurer would have to show whether its annual rate growth exceeds the state's health care cost target. If growth is expected to exceed the target, the filing would have to list the steps the company is taking or plans to take to get back within it. The bill would delete the current instruction that regulators weigh the effect of those cost targets when judging a single rate. In its place the departments would report each year on whether rates meet an affordability standard for an individual, a couple and a family of four, with five years of premium and cost-sharing changes. The Assembly passed it 59-15. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 24, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1743, which would widen who can obtain the state's crime-gun tracing data. Police already report recovered crime guns to the Department of Justice, which keeps the data at least ten years and studies it for patterns such as where the guns came from. The bill would require the data behind those studies to be available on request to any California city, county or state agency, to the California State University and the University of California, and to certain accredited private colleges. The Attorney General would set the conditions and the format. The bill does not change who may buy, own or carry a firearm. The Assembly passed it 60-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 24, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1250, which would require Caltrans to plan for wildlife crossings on state highways. With each four-year revision of its asset management plan, Caltrans would have to publish a list of wildlife connectivity improvements, and send it to the California Transportation Commission for comment before the final version goes out. Caltrans would have to assess what blocks animals from crossing when it builds its inventory of connectivity needs, and give the public a chance to submit data and comments. It would have to refresh that inventory every two years using priority road segments named by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and carry wildlife connectivity as an objective in its State Highway System Management Plan. The Assembly passed it 59-15. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 24, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1349, which would require the Legislature's own analyst to review six large tax breaks and say whether to keep them. California grants many exemptions, deductions and credits through the tax code, and no one is currently required to review them. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to assess six named breaks, publish a report on each and recommend what the Legislature should do. Those are the water's-edge election, research-activity credits, the stepped-up cost basis on inherited property, like-kind exchanges, accelerated write-offs for research costs, and a special income formula for cable operators. Each review would have to identify savings available from reducing or limiting the break. It would weigh whether the break is a cost-effective use of money against other ways to reach the same goal, its effect on the general fund and school funding, its effect on jobs and wages, and whether it should be improved or repealed. The first report would be due January 1, 2028 and the last on January 1, 2032, with a joint public hearing by the tax committees on each. State tax agencies would have to share anonymized taxpayer data. The requirement would expire at the start of 2033, and the bill repeals no tax break itself. The Assembly passed it 57-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 20, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2186, which would exempt reparations payments from state income tax. California taxes income from any source unless the law specifically excludes it. For tax years from 2028 through 2032, the bill would exclude any reparations benefit or payment a taxpayer receives. That would cover money, grants, trust distributions, debt forgiveness or other compensation provided under a state law, a local ordinance or settlement, or a federal reparations program. A reparations program means a government program compensating people for historical harms, discrimination or unequal treatment. The exclusion would be repealed at the end of 2033. The bill also states the goals and reporting measures that state law requires whenever a new tax break is created. The Assembly passed it 58-16. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 20, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 934, which would extend California's ban on conversion therapy for minors to cover gender identity. State law already bars a licensed mental health provider from performing sexual orientation change efforts on a patient under 18, treats it as unprofessional conduct, and requires the licensing board to discipline the provider. The bill would rewrite the definition as sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, meaning practices that seek to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity during mental health services. That covers directing a patient toward a particular gender identity by suppressing or constraining their gender identity or expression. The existing ban, the unprofessional conduct finding and mandatory discipline would all apply to the widened definition. The bill lists practices that are not covered. Those include age-appropriate steps addressing unlawful or unsafe conduct that do not push the patient toward a particular outcome. They also include non-directive therapy that helps a patient cope or explore their identity, and supportive counseling that respects the patient's gender identity. The Assembly passed it 58-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 19, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 1371, which would stop garbage companies from using a strike as a reason to halt service. Local governments sign franchise contracts for waste hauling, and those contracts often include a clause excusing a company from performing when something outside its control happens. For any waste hauling franchise, license or permit a local agency enters into or substantially amends from January 1, 2027, the bill would bar a clause excusing or suspending performance because of a work stoppage arising from a labor dispute. It would also make any such clause void and unenforceable, including in contracts already signed. Substantially amended would mean an agreed change to a majority of the material terms. The rules would be declared a matter of statewide concern, so they would reach charter cities as well. The Assembly passed it 58-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

August 19, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 2624, which lets people who provide immigration support services keep their home address private when they face threats or harassment because of that work. Their employees and volunteers are covered too, and the program starts on October 1, 2027. It keeps a participant's address out of answers to public records requests. The law also bars selling or trading their personal details or photo online to stir up violence against them, and bars posting that information with the specific intent that someone attack them straight away. The California State Assembly agreed 59-19, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

August 19, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 177, the Fair Share from Big Corporations Act, which orders the state to draw up options for billing large employers whose workers rely on Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal is the state health program for low-income Californians, and some people enrolled in it work for large companies that do not offer them health coverage. The bill requires the Department of Finance, by March 1, 2027, to give the Joint Legislative Budget Committee one or more options for holding the state's largest corporations accountable for the taxpayer cost of those employees. At least one option must include a premium paid by employers with 250 or more employees to offset the cost of their workers on Medi-Cal who are not offered employer coverage. Each option must include state data estimating how many workers at the largest corporations are enrolled, draft legislative language, and an analysis of cost and timing. The requirement falls away if Congress repeals the Medicaid provisions of the federal law enacted in July 2025 before that date. The bill appropriates $10,000 and charges no employer anything. It requires a report, not a payment. The Assembly passed it 57-18 and it became law.

June 29, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2393, which would let someone falsely arrested or held by a private person claim fixed damages instead of proving their losses. A person suing for false imprisonment or false arrest must now prove what the harm actually cost them, which is hard where the injury is fear and humiliation. The bill would let the plaintiff choose $10,000 for each of four things the defendant did instead. Those are wearing a mask or clothing to hide their identity, using handcuffs or other restraints, forcibly moving the person in a vehicle, and brandishing a firearm or other weapon capable of causing death or serious injury. That is up to $40,000 from the list, and everyone involved in one incident could be made to pay the whole amount. The total a person could recover this way would be capped at $250,000 for each incident, though proving actual damages would stay uncapped. The new remedy would not apply to a claim against a peace officer, a custodial officer, or the public agency that employs one. Punitive damages would remain available. The Assembly passed it 61-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

May 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1854, which would widen California's shield for abortion and gender-affirming care against outside investigations. State law already bars officers from arresting someone over care that is lawful here, bars agencies from helping out-of-state or federal investigators, and bars courts from issuing subpoenas for those proceedings. The bill would apply all of that no matter where the patient was. It would bar a state or local agency from knowingly arresting, or helping to arrest, a person the Governor has declined to surrender to another state. It would extend the data shield beyond communication and computing companies to California corporations providing financial services, meaning firms that take deposits, extend credit, move funds or transport cash. Those companies could not answer an out-of-state request for customer data without a sworn declaration that the request is not about protected care. The Attorney General could sue, and a court could impose $10,000 for a first violation and $15,000 after that, with a further $15,000 for a false declaration. The Assembly passed it 60-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

May 27, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2428, which would cancel a set of fees charged to people in the criminal system and wipe unpaid balances. A person in prison or jail who files a civil case must now pay the full court filing fee, taken in installments from their inmate account. The bill would end that, and old balances would become uncollectible from January 1, 2027 with those judgments vacated. It would remove the power of a probation officer or sheriff to bill someone for the cost of a temporary release, and the power to bill a defendant for a guard during house confinement. It would bar counties from charging any fee to take part in community service, and bar a court from refusing community service because it cannot recover costs. It would remove the authority to bill a jailed person or their family for medical, dental or eye care received in jail, leaving insurance and Medi-Cal as the sources of payment. It would end the fee for enrolling in a traffic-fine payment plan and the $50 traffic amnesty fee, and would repeal the section allowing a fine against a minor made a ward of the court. The cost of cleaning up an illegal drug lab would remain owed, but as a penalty rather than a recoverable cost. The Assembly passed it 56-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

May 26, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2122, which would end arrest warrants and jail exposure for infractions, mostly traffic tickets. Willfully failing to appear in court is a misdemeanor today, and a magistrate must issue an arrest warrant within 20 days when someone misses a court date without posting bail. The bill would apply neither rule where the underlying charge is an infraction. No bench warrant could issue at all for a Vehicle Code infraction, and for other infractions a bench warrant could only authorize arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release. Failing to appear on a Vehicle Code infraction would no longer be a misdemeanor, and courts would stop reporting those convictions to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Missing an installment on bail or failing to pay a traffic fine would no longer be a misdemeanor or support an arrest warrant, leaving a civil assessment as the remaining consequence. The bill would also remove the requirement that a court issue a bench warrant for a repeat roadside littering offense. The Assembly passed it 55-18. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

May 22, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 73, which bars police officers from interfering with the running of an election, except as needed to answer an urgent threat to public health or safety, and lets named officials sue to enforce that. No one may let a law enforcement agent see, disturb, change, or take voter rosters or voter lists without a court order, unless they are investigating certain voting fraud. For certified voting machines the rule is stricter: a court order is needed, with no fraud exception. Under either rule, officers may still help with logistics, transport, or security if the elections official has signed a written agreement with their agency. The Attorney General must publish guidance on answering law enforcement requests to enter rooms where ballots are kept. Taking a package of voted ballots from an elections official is now a crime, and an observer may not challenge a signature the voter has already confirmed. It passed the California State Assembly 57-19 and became law.

May 22, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 2448, which would require companies holding sensitive medical records to switch on security features they were only required to build. Businesses that electronically store medical information about sensitive services for providers, plans, drug companies or employers must already develop the ability to protect it. The bill would require them to actually enable those protections. The features cover information about gender-affirming care, abortion and abortion-related services, and contraception. They are limiting access to authorized people, preventing that information from being disclosed or transferred to anyone outside California, keeping it separate from the rest of the patient's record, and being able to automatically switch off access by people or entities in another state. Because breaking the medical confidentiality law is already a crime, extending the duty widens the reach of that offense. The Assembly passed it 55-16. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

May 11, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1876, which would write a broad nondiscrimination rule for health plans and insurers into state law. A plan or insurer could not exclude someone from enrollment, deny them benefits, or discriminate against them because of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex. Sex would include sex characteristics and intersex traits, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex stereotypes. A plan could not deny or limit a covered service, including one usually associated with one sex, because of the person's sex assigned at birth or their gender identity. It could not refuse coverage, deny a claim or add cost sharing on those grounds, and could not use discriminatory marketing or benefit design. It could not apply a blanket exclusion for gender transition or other gender-affirming care that it otherwise covers. A plan could still deny a service for a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason such as medical necessity, so long as that is not a cover for bias. Coverage documents would have to carry a nondiscrimination notice and explain how to file a grievance. The Assembly passed it 56-17. The bill has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor's decision.

May 4, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 25, the California Uniform Antitrust Premerger Notification Act, which requires companies that already report a merger to federal antitrust regulators to file a copy of that federal form with California's Attorney General within one business day. It applies to a company whose main place of business is in California, or whose California sales of the goods or services in the deal reach at least a fifth of the federal reporting threshold. A company based in California must include the extra documents federal law requires with its filing. A company covered only by its California sales sends them within seven business days of the Attorney General asking for them. The Attorney General may not make the filed information public and may seek a civil penalty from a company that fails to file. The requirement covers merger notices filed on or after January 1, 2027. It passed the California State Assembly 52-17 and became law.

January 22, 2026

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 695, which would have let community college students who were deported keep paying in-state tuition online. A student classified as a nonresident pays nonresident tuition on top of normal fees, and a student who leaves the country normally loses California residency. The bill would have exempted a student from nonresident tuition through 2029 if they left the United States on or after January 1, 2025 for a qualifying reason. Those reasons were immigration enforcement action, leaving voluntarily under the threat of enforcement, or being refused reentry after a brief trip abroad. The student must have been enrolled and not already paying nonresident tuition when they left, must sign a statement giving the date and reason and their former college, and must re-enroll in an online program within three years. The college would have had to verify the earlier enrollment. The exemption would have lasted until the student finished a degree, a certificate or the courses needed to transfer. A student who later resumed in-person study in California could have kept resident status and applied for financial aid. The Assembly passed it 60-16, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1376, which limits how long a young person stays on juvenile probation and softens what a court may order. A ward of the juvenile court could be kept on probation with no time limit. The bill caps it at 12 months from the most recent disposition hearing. A court may extend it only after a noticed hearing and a finding, on the weight of the evidence, that it serves both the young person's interest and the public's, with a probation report giving the basis. If probation is extended the court must hold a further hearing at least every six months. Probation conditions must be individually tailored, developmentally appropriate and reasonable, and no heavier than the interest they serve. The bill removes the court's power to impose a fine of up to $250 and to order unpaid work, leaving restitution and adding options such as family counseling. It also turns a set of conditions that courts were required to impose into ones they may impose, covering offenses on school grounds and public transit, truancy, assault on certain officers, drug offenses near schools, and graffiti. The 12-month cap does not reach wards held in juvenile hall, a ranch, a camp or a secure youth treatment facility. The Assembly passed it 48-21 and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1441, which takes redistricting in Merced County away from the county's own elected supervisors. After a switch to district elections, and after each census, a county board of supervisors normally redraws its own district lines. Eight other counties already use an independent commission instead, and the bill adds Merced to that list. An 11-member citizens commission would draw the supervisorial districts using the criteria already set in state law. Members must live in the county, have been registered with the same party or no party for five years, and have voted recently. Neither they nor close family may have run for or held local, state or federal office in the county, worked for such an official, or been a lobbyist in the past eight years. The elections official screens applicants, five members are drawn at random from district pools, and those five appoint six more. The commission must meet in public, hold hearings before and after publishing a draft map, and provide translation. Members may not run for California elective office for five years afterward. The Assembly passed it 59-19 and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 840, which rewrites how California spends the money it raises by selling greenhouse gas permits. The old formula, which sent fixed percentages to transit, affordable housing and high-speed rail, ends on July 1, 2026. From the 2026-27 budget year the money is paid out in a set order. Fire prevention costs and a $3 million legislative climate bureau come first, then $1 billion for high-speed rail, then $1 billion the Legislature appropriates itself. Fixed sums follow, among them $800 million for affordable housing and $250 million for community air protection. The bill also states the Legislature's aim of sending set shares of this revenue to dedicated funds for clean transportation, housing, clean air and water, wildfire, agriculture, clean energy and innovation, but that is an aim rather than a binding rule. The Air Resources Board must study carbon offsets by December 31, 2026, and update every offset rule to match the best available science by January 1, 2029. It must review those rules again by January 1, 2034, and every five years after. The bill took effect immediately as an urgency measure. The Assembly passed it 59-15 and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 352, which keeps a Bureau of Environmental Justice inside the state Department of Justice and sets rules for neighborhood air monitoring. Where the Air Resources Board picks a location to monitor, monitoring must stay active for at least five years, and the local air district and the board may agree to extend it in further five-year stretches. The board must update its statewide monitoring plan by July 1, 2026, and every five years after that. Those monitoring duties apply only as far as funding allows. The board must also report each year, starting March 1, 2027, to the budget subcommittees of both houses on how the monitoring network is coming along. The board's chair and the air district officers must present that progress to legislative policy committees or budget subcommittees when a committee chair asks them to. The Assembly passed it 55-19 and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1084, which lets an adult change their name to match their gender identity without anyone being able to object, starting July 1, 2026. The court must grant the petition without a hearing within six weeks of filing. A child's petition signed by every living parent is granted the same way, within six weeks and without a hearing. If a parent has not signed, the court issues an order setting out the required information, and the petition and order must be served on that parent within four weeks. A hearing is set only if someone files an objection on time and shows good reason to oppose the change. The law also drops the old requirement to file the judgment within 30 days. The California State Assembly agreed 58-16, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1079, which lets a court's fix for illegal local election rules take effect while the losing side appeals, instead of being frozen automatically. It applies when a trial court finds that a city or district's at-large elections break the California Voting Rights Act, or that its district lines break the FAIR MAPS Act, or are likely to. The trial court can still pause its own order, and may pause it if the Secretary of State certifies that a pause is needed to run the state's elections in an orderly way. The side found in the wrong repays county election officials for the cost of running an election under the order. None of this applies to cases already begun on or before January 1, 2026. The California State Assembly agreed 56-17, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 847, which lets civilian boards that oversee the police, and county inspectors general, see officers' confidential personnel records while investigating their conduct. Those records stay closed to the public: the oversight board must keep them confidential and may go into closed session to review them. The California State Assembly agreed 50-16, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 707, which requires larger local governments to let the public take part in open meetings by phone or video, not only in person. It covers city councils and county boards where 30,000 or more people live, city councils in counties of 600,000 or more, and bigger special districts, and it runs from July 1, 2026 to January 1, 2030. Those bodies must offer two-way phone or video access, take steps to encourage residents to take part, and adopt a written policy on service breakdowns by July 1, 2026. If the connection fails in certain ways, the meeting must pause for at least an hour while the body makes a genuine effort to restore it. It passed the California State Assembly 53-16 and became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1036, which widens the right to see the evidence in your own case after you have been convicted. The right used to cover only serious or violent felonies carrying 15 years or more; it now covers any felony with a state prison sentence. What must be handed over includes anything held by a prosecutor who worked on the case that points away from guilt or toward a lighter sentence. A prosecutor who wants to hold back notes from jury selection must first show the court how those notes bear on their case. The California State Assembly agreed 54-18, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1127, which bars licensed gun dealers, from July 1, 2026, from selling or handing over pistols that can be turned into machine guns. The law covers semi-automatic pistols with a cross-shaped trigger bar, which a small device fitted to the back of the slide can convert to fire repeatedly on one pull of the trigger. The bill also treats a pistol with such a device fitted as a machine gun in its own right, so making, selling, possessing, or transporting one carries felony exposure for anyone, not only dealers. A first offense costs the dealer up to $1,000, a second up to $5,000 and possibly their license, and a third is a misdemeanor that takes the license away. Pistols delivered to the dealer before January 1, 2026 are exempt, along with sales to police, listed state agencies, and the military; sales between private parties handled by a dealer; and transfers to gunsmiths, other licensed dealers, and crime laboratories. The California State Assembly agreed 54-16, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1071, which helps a defendant who says the state pursued their conviction or sentence because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. They can ask the court to order the release of all the evidence bearing on that claim. A judge who finds such a violation can also fix it with any remedy another law does not forbid. The California State Assembly agreed 42-21, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 572, which makes every police agency and prosecutor's office adopt rules, by January 1, 2027, for interviewing the family of someone a police officer killed or badly hurt. Before that first formal interview, the officer or prosecutor must give their name and agency, show identification in person, tell the family what happened to their relative, and say the interview is part of an investigation. They must also tell the family they can bring someone they trust, and can choose whether to come to the station. These steps can be skipped if an officer reasonably believes waiting would lose or destroy evidence or put the public in immediate danger, or if the family member has already been given the same warnings or a Miranda warning. The law separately bars threats, lies, fake evidence, and misleading statements to press someone into an interview or during one. The California State Assembly agreed 42-22, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 13, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 647, which would have told applicants for one state energy program that they may qualify for another, and added a seat to a low-income advisory board. The Energy Commission runs the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program, which pays to install cleaner heating and cooling equipment and offers incentives for low-carbon building technology. The bill would have required the commission to set up a way of notifying applicants that they may also be eligible for building efficiency and decarbonization incentives offered through the Public Utilities Commission. It would also have added a twelfth member to the Low-Income Oversight Board, which advises the utilities commission on low-income electricity, gas and water customers, chosen by the Energy Commission's executive director. The bill moved no money and created no new incentive. The Assembly passed it 61-18, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 682, which would have banned so-called forever chemicals from several everyday products. PFAS are long-lasting synthetic chemicals used to resist grease, water and stains. From January 1, 2028 the bill would have barred selling or distributing cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging or ski wax containing intentionally added PFAS. From January 1, 2030 the same would have applied to cookware. Previously used products were excluded, as were products where federal law governs PFAS in a way that overrides state law. Until 2031 certain sealed components of cleaning products, such as O-rings, gaskets and venting caps, were exempt, with the manufacturer carrying the burden of proof. Off-road vehicles and certain motorcycles stayed outside the juvenile product category until 2032. Cleaning products would have had to meet the air board's rules on smog-forming chemicals without using a waiver. Manufacturers of the banned products would have supplied a compliance certificate on request rather than registering and paying the fees the existing chemical program requires. The Assembly passed it 45-21, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 541, which would have required the state to measure and publish how much each electric utility shifts power use away from peak hours. Load shifting means moving electricity use to a different time of day so less generating and grid capacity is needed at the busiest times. The Energy Commission already publishes a report every two years and sets a statewide load-shifting goal. In its first report after January 1, 2027 the commission would have had to analyze how cost-effective particular load-shifting programs and methods are, and roughly how much each delivers and costs. Every report would have had to estimate each retail supplier's load-shifting potential, weighing its service territory, cost-effectiveness and share of statewide demand. From July 1, 2028 and every two years after, the commission would have had to publish how much each supplier actually achieved the previous year. Suppliers with 60,000 or fewer accounts, or under 1,000 gigawatt-hours of yearly demand, were excluded. The bill set no target any utility had to meet and carried no penalty. The Assembly passed it 57-15, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 7, which would have let California colleges give an admissions preference to descendants of slavery. The state constitution bars public education from granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The bill would have said the California State University, the University of California, independent colleges and private postsecondary schools may consider giving an admissions preference to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery, so far as that does not conflict with federal law. A descendant of slavery would have meant a person who can show direct lineage to someone enslaved before 1900 under American chattel slavery and who meets listed criteria. Those include being emancipated by legal or other means, freed under gradual abolition laws or constitutional amendments, treated as a fugitive from bondage, or deemed contraband by military authorities. The bill would have granted permission rather than requiring any school to act, and it did not create a way to certify who qualifies. The Assembly passed it 55-18, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 613, which would have directed state agencies to give priority to cutting methane emissions, including methane from imported oil and gas, where doing so is workable and cost effective. It would have told the Air Resources Board to encourage the state to buy natural gas certified as low-methane, subject to what the Public Utilities Commission judges to be in ratepayers' interest. Agencies could have applied approved measuring and verification rules to methane programs they already run. The bill stated that it required no new oil or gas buying and was not meant to interfere with state efforts to cut fossil fuel use. The Assembly passed it 54-14, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 744, which freezes the list of college accreditors California recognizes. Any national or regional accrediting agency that the U.S. Department of Education recognized as of January 1, 2025, keeps that recognition under California law until July 1, 2029, as long as it keeps operating in substantially the same way it did then. This matters because state licensing rules and eligibility for state programs often require a degree from an accredited school. The rule is repealed on January 1, 2030. The Assembly passed it 60-18 and it became law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 629, which would have widened California's fire hazard maps and created post-wildfire safety areas. The hazard maps would have had to account for recently burned land, for places where buildings themselves can carry embers beyond wildland, and for farmland that affects fire risk. Any area burned by a wildfire on or after January 1, 2025, that covered 1,000 acres, destroyed more than 10 structures, or killed someone would have been mapped as one. State fire building standards would have taken effect there 30 days after the State Fire Marshal sent the map to the local government, which would have had 10 business days to post public notice. Local general plan safety rules would have had to be updated for the new areas. The Fire Marshal would also have had to publish the model and method behind its hazard maps at least 60 days before making them final, and these designations would have been exempt from the usual state rulemaking process. The Assembly passed it 59-18, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 635, which shields sidewalk vendors from immigration enforcement through the local permit process. Cities and counties may not ask about or collect a vendor's immigration or citizenship status, place of birth, or criminal history, and may not require fingerprints or a background check for a vending permit. Records of that kind collected before 2026 must be destroyed by March 1, 2026, unless another law requires keeping them. Officials may not hand over a vendor's personal details, such as name, addresses, birth date, phone number, or identification, unless served with a subpoena or a judicial warrant, and that information is also exempt from release under the California Public Records Act. Any contract with an outside company that helps run these programs must require it to follow the same limits, and the contract ends immediately if the company breaks them. Local money and personnel may not be used to investigate, detain, or arrest vendors for anything beyond enforcing the vending rules themselves, though federal law still allows exchanging citizenship and immigration status information with federal authorities. The health enforcement agencies that inspect food sellers are bound by the same collection, destruction, and disclosure limits. Where a Social Security number would normally be required for a permit, a California ID, an individual taxpayer identification number, or a municipal ID must be accepted instead, and the number stays confidential. Street food sellers working from small carts get the same protections, and breaking these vending rules stays an administrative fine, never a crime. It passed the California State Assembly 58-15 and became law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 59, which keeps court records private when someone asks a judge to change their name, gender, or sex identifier. That privacy used to apply only to people under 18; it now covers petitioners of any age, and reaches name changes made to match a person's gender identity. Only named people, such as the petitioner and their lawyer, may see the records. It applies to petitions filed from July 1, 2026, to earlier ones if the petitioner asks, and to records already sealed. Nobody but the petitioner may post a sealed record online or anywhere else, and after six months a person may sue to enforce that. It passed the California State Assembly 60-16 and became law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 763, which raises the top fines for illegal deals that restrain trade under California's antitrust law. A company can now be fined up to $6 million, up from $1 million, and a person up to $1 million, up from $250,000, or more if the court ties the fine to the money made or the losses caused. The law also adds a penalty of up to $1 million for each violation, which the Attorney General or a district attorney can seek in a civil case. It passed the California State Assembly 53-20 and became law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 325, which makes it easier to bring a price-fixing case under California's antitrust law. A complaint can go forward if the facts it sets out make a conspiracy to restrain trade plausible, and it no longer has to rule out the chance the companies acted on their own. The law also bars using or handing out a shared pricing algorithm as part of such a conspiracy, or pressuring another business into charging the price the algorithm suggests. The California State Assembly agreed 54-18, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 42, the California Fair Elections Act, which lifts the state ban on candidates using public money to run for office. Only candidates who accept spending limits and meet the qualifying rules could take it. Public money could not pay legal bills or pay a candidate back for loans to their own campaign, and the fine for taking money from a foreign government goes up. Because the bill changes a law the voters passed, it takes effect only if voters approve it at the election on November 3, 2026. It passed the California State Assembly 59-20 and became law.

September 12, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 838, which closes a hotel loophole in the law that protects housing projects from local rejection. The Housing Accountability Act stops a city from rejecting a housing project for lower-income households, or attaching conditions that make it unaffordable to build, unless it makes specific written findings. A mixed-use project qualifies for that protection if at least two-thirds of its floor space is residential. The bill provides that no part of such a project may be designated as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn or other short-stay lodging. Where a mixed-use project does include lodging, only the portion without it counts as a housing development project, so the homes keep the protection and the lodging does not. The bill also corrects cross-references in the act. The Assembly passed it 58-17 and it became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 766, which would have required state agencies to build racial equity into their strategic plans. Under current law only agencies for which strategic planning is recommended must write a plan and report each year to the Governor and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. The bill would have applied that duty to every agency, department, office and commission under the Governor's authority. It would also have required each of them, where applicable and feasible, to develop or update the plan to reflect the use of data analysis and inclusive practices to advance racial equity. Plans would have had to respond to identified disparities with changes to the organization's policies, programs and operations. The requirement reached internal planning documents and annual reports. It set no hiring rules, quotas or funding conditions, and carried no penalty or deadline. The Assembly passed it 60-18, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 93, which would have required data centers to disclose how much water they use. Cities and counties license businesses and set license fees, and nothing now requires a data center to report its water use. Before applying for a first business license or permit, the owner or operator would have had to give the water supplier an estimate of expected water use, sworn under penalty of perjury. On the first application they would have had to certify, again under penalty of perjury, that the estimate was given. On every renewal they would have had to certify that they had given the supplier a report of annual water use. The Department of Water Resources would have been allowed, though not required, to sort data centers into tiers based on what drives their water use and set standards for each tier. The rules were declared a matter of statewide concern, so they would have reached charter cities too. The bill set no limit on how much water a data center may use. The Assembly passed it 59-16, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1324, which would have widened who qualifies for CalWORKs, the state's cash aid program for low-income families with children. A child now counts as deprived of parental support through unemployment only if the parent worked under 100 hours in the past four weeks. The bill would have dropped that hour test, so the hours a parent works would not matter as long as the family stayed within the income limits. It would have paid aid to a family whose parent or caretaker is on strike or locked out, as far as federal law allows, and counted that person's needs in the payment. It would have counted self-employment as a work activity. Counties taking subsidized employment money would have had to say in their plans how they will keep those placements from displacing public employees, and avoid employers with a bad safety or labor record. The state would have had to study a wider CalWORKs and report to legislative committees by January 1, 2028. The Assembly passed it 60-15, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1487, which widens what a state public health grant fund for transgender, gender nonconforming, and intersex people can pay for, and renames it to include Two-Spirit people. Grants may now fund job training, resettlement and social support for asylees and immigrants, and diversion and outreach programs for young people. The definition of health care the fund works from now takes in mental health services. An organization serving tribal populations can receive a grant if it applies together with a group that serves those communities. The fund only makes grants when the Legislature sets money aside for it. The California State Assembly agreed 59-15, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1362, which extends California's registration rules for foreign labor recruiters to the people who recruit farmworkers from abroad. Recruiters who bring in workers on H-2B visas for non-farm jobs were already covered; from July 1, 2027 the rules also cover recruiting agricultural workers on H-2A visas. Those recruiters must register with the Labor Commissioner and disclose who has a financial interest in the business. The California State Assembly agreed 59-16, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 628, which adds a working stove and refrigerator to the things a rented home must have to be fit to live in, for leases signed, changed, or renewed from January 1, 2026. If the maker or the government recalls a stove or refrigerator, the landlord has 30 days from being told to repair or replace it. A tenant and landlord may agree when signing that the tenant will supply and look after their own refrigerator, on conditions the law sets. Some homes, including permanent supportive housing, are left out, and tenants keep their existing rights to fix a problem themselves or move out. The California State Assembly agreed 49-17, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 596, which tightens the fines hospitals face for breaking nurse-to-patient staffing limits. A hospital escapes a fine if it has used up its on-call list of nurses, and the law now spells out what that list is. Calling nurses who were not scheduled on call, and who are not in the backup pool for that ward and shift, does not count as using it up. The health department must also treat a breach on each separate day as its own violation. It passed the California State Assembly 48-19 and became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 858, which keeps a job recall law running until January 1, 2027. It covers hotels, private clubs, event centers, airport food and service companies, and the firms that clean and maintain office and retail buildings. Those employers must tell workers they laid off about openings the workers are qualified for, and offer the jobs in an order of preference. It protects workers with at least six months on the job who were laid off for reasons tied to the COVID-19 pandemic, and bars punishing a worker for claiming these rights. The California State Assembly agreed 49-19, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 692, which bars employers from making a worker sign a contract, from January 1, 2026 on, that leaves the worker owing money if the job ends. These stay-or-pay deals can require paying back an employer, a training company, or a debt collector. Some are still allowed: government loan-repayment programs, tuition for a credential the worker can take to another job, approved apprenticeships, certain signing bonuses, and contracts to rent or buy a home. A banned term counts as an illegal restraint on a person's right to work, and a worker can sue over it, for themselves or for others in the same position, and collect penalties. The California State Assembly agreed 46-20, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1319, which makes it illegal in California to bring in, send out, carry, sell, buy, or hold for sale any fish, wildlife, or plant taken in breach of a state or federal wildlife law. It measures those laws as they stood on January 19, 2025, so later cuts to federal protection do not narrow it, and anything seized is forfeited on conviction. When the federal government weakens protection for a California species, the Department of Fish and Wildlife must add it to a temporary candidate list only if the department finds the cut will substantially harm that species here and that listing would meaningfully reduce the harm. The rules stop working at the end of 2031, and a business is not liable while it fully complies with a federal take permit it already held on January 19, 2025. The California State Assembly agreed 51-19, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 495, the Family Preparedness Plan Act, which lets more relatives sign the form that allows an adult to enroll a child in school and approve school-related medical care. A court can name an adult the parent chooses as a joint guardian when that parent will be unavailable for a time, including because of an immigration case, and those guardianship files stay private. School districts must keep their policies on immigration enforcement current with the Attorney General's guidance. Licensed child care centers may not collect information about a child's or family's immigration status, and must report requests from law enforcement for records or for entry to the center. The California State Assembly agreed 60-20, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 79, which makes cities and counties allow apartment buildings near major transit stops, on land already zoned for homes, shops, or a mix of the two. The closer a site sits to the stop, the taller and denser the law lets a building be. Builders must include homes people on lower incomes can afford, follow rules that limit tearing down existing homes and protect tenants from being forced out, and meet pay standards for construction work. A city or county can adopt its own plan for building near transit instead of following the state rules. It passed the California State Assembly 43-19 and became law.

September 11, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 418, which would have required health plans to cover a year's supply of hormone therapy at once and banned discrimination by insurers. Plans set their own limits today on how much of a prescription they will cover in one go. The bill would have required a plan or policy with outpatient drug benefits to cover up to a 12-month supply of approved prescription hormone therapy, dispensed at one time, when a network provider prescribes it. Plans could not have used approval rules or other management to cut that supply below 12 months, though they could still have limited refills in the final quarter of a year in which a full supply had already been dispensed. Medi-Cal would have covered the therapy, but Medi-Cal managed care plans, which cover most enrollees, were excluded. Pharmacists would have had to dispense up to a year's supply, subject to an exception. Separately the bill would have barred any plan or insurer from denying enrollment, benefits or coverage, or adding cost sharing, because of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex, with sex including intersex traits, pregnancy and gender identity. The hormone supply rules would have expired at the start of 2035; the nondiscrimination rules had no end date. The Assembly passed it 60-18, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 630, which lets the state parks department buy and lease land with less outside review. The Director of General Services must normally approve a state contract to buy or rent property, that department must approve appraisals for parks purchases, and land for any agency must go through the State Public Works Board. The bill lets the director waive the contract approval and the appraisal approval for the parks department. Until January 1, 2033 it exempts qualifying parks purchases from both the director's approval and the Public Works Board, where set conditions are met. Those conditions include that the purchase does not create a new park unit, the price does not exceed $1 million, no extra capital work or resources are needed, and public notice and a public meeting have happened. The general threshold below which the director may exempt any state property deal rises from $150,000 to $750,000. For park leases the parks department would do the appraisal itself, with the General Services review of that appraisal able to be waived. The department must report to the Legislature in 2028, 2030 and 2032 on how it used the new authority. The Assembly passed it 60-19 and it became law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 742, which would have required faster professional licensing for descendants of American slaves. The Department of Consumer Affairs holds the boards that license many trades and professions, and those boards must already speed up applications from the spouse or partner of an active-duty service member stationed in California. The bill would have added the same duty for an applicant who is a descendant of American slaves. That duty would only have begun once a process existed to certify who qualifies. The whole section depended on a separate bill passing to create a Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery, and it would have expired four years after taking effect, or at the start of 2032, whichever came first. The Assembly passed it 59-16, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1249, which widens early in-person voting. A voter may cast their mail ballot at the elections official's office or a satellite location starting 29 days before election day. For a statewide election, a county that does not run an all-mail election must open at least one early voting site on the Saturday before election day, for at least six hours. At that site a voter can hand in a mail ballot, register to vote, cast a provisional ballot, or get a replacement ballot. The bill drops the rule that a ballot voted at a satellite location go into a voter identification envelope. It also drops the requirement that officials announce a satellite location through a general news release, and instead requires notice at least two weeks ahead. The Assembly passed it 60-18 and it became law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 263, which keeps the emergency rules protecting water flows in the Scott and Shasta rivers in force until January 1, 2031, or until permanent flow rules for those rivers are adopted, whichever comes first. The State Water Resources Control Board must report publicly each year on how its work toward permanent flow rules is going, and take public comment as it does. The California State Assembly agreed 58-20, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 709, which requires self-storage rental agreements signed on or after January 1, 2026 to disclose key terms on the first page, in larger, standout type. The agreement must give the initial and renewal term, say whether the quoted rent is a discount or promotional rate and how long that lasts, and say whether the rent can be raised. If it can, the agreement must state the highest rent the owner could charge during the first 12 months. It must also list every step the renter must take to end the agreement and stop future charges, and give the owner's contact information. It passed the California State Assembly 57-17 and became law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 727, which requires public schools teaching grades 7 through 12, and public colleges, to print an LGBTQ+ suicide crisis line on the student identification cards they issue. Both the phone number and the text line must appear, starting July 1, 2026, alongside the 988 crisis line those cards already carry. The California State Assembly agreed 58-15, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 825, which confirms that California's financial protection regulator can act against deceptive and abusive practices by the businesses it licenses. That reaches escrow agents, finance lenders and brokers, mortgage lenders and servicers, check sellers, broker-dealers and investment advisers, all otherwise exempt from the state's consumer financial protection law. The bill makes clear that the exemption does not shield them from the ban on deceptive and abusive practices. It passed the California State Assembly 59-19 and became law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 246, the Social Security Tenant Protection Act, which lets a tenant being evicted over unpaid rent point to a break in their Social Security payments as a defense, through January 20, 2029. It covers income lost because something the federal government did, or failed to do, stopped, delayed, or reduced the benefits the household normally receives. A tenant who satisfies the court of that, and that it is why the rent went unpaid, has the eviction put on hold. The hold ends at whichever comes first: 14 days after the benefits start again, or six months. The rent is still owed, and within 14 days of the money resuming the tenant must pay everything behind or agree a payment plan with the landlord. The California State Assembly agreed 50-17, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1037, which widens access to overdose-reversal drugs such as naloxone. Standing prescriptions and the right to carry one now cover any overdose, not only an opioid overdose, and anyone in a position to help a person at risk may hold one and pass it on. It drops the rule that a person be trained before receiving or carrying one. Someone who gives the drug in good faith, and is not paid for it, is generally not liable for civil damages, trained or not, unless they were grossly negligent or acted wilfully. The law also bars the state from requiring treatment facilities to make people be abstinent or sober before being admitted or continuing treatment, and repeals the rule that state-funded drug and alcohol programs carry a no-unlawful-use message. The California State Assembly agreed 53-21, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 10, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 36, which would have widened what counts as illegal price gouging after a disaster and given consumers a way to sue over it. For 30 days after an emergency is declared, or 180 days for repair and reconstruction work, it is already a misdemeanor to raise prices on listed goods and services by more than 10 percent. The bill would not have changed that cap or those periods. It would have added price gouging to the list of deceptive practices consumers can sue over under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which today is enforceable only as a crime. It would have added a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each act of unfair competition committed against someone displaced by an emergency, and allowed courts to treble penalties for that group as they already may for seniors, disabled people and veterans. Housing listing platforms would have had to remove a listing when law enforcement reported it as gouging, publish policies for landlords and renters, provide a way to report suspected violations, and give police a channel for warrants. Rent protection would have reached leases of any length rather than only those of a year or less. The bill would also have removed the Legislature from the bodies that may extend these protections, while letting it end an extension the Governor made. The Assembly passed it 60-17, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 805, which requires law enforcement officers working in plain clothes in California, including federal officers, to visibly show identification giving their agency and either a name or a badge number while carrying out enforcement duties. The rule starts on January 1, 2026, and a willful and knowing violation is a misdemeanor — but the crime does not apply at all to an agency, or its officers, once the agency publicly posts the identification policy the law requires. A posted policy counts as good enough unless a member of the public, an oversight body, or a local governing authority challenges it, and if the agency does not fix the problems within 90 days the challenger can ask a court to decide. The law itself exempts undercover and investigative work, named plainclothes state and federal regulatory roles, protective equipment that prevents display, urgent danger or an escaping suspect, SWAT and tactical operations, and dignitary protection details. It also rewrites the crime of impersonating a law enforcement officer to cover federal officers and impersonation by any means to defraud someone. A peace officer who has reason to suspect someone is impersonating an officer may ask that person to show identification. Bail bond recovery agents may not pass themselves off as law enforcement, and may not hand over a bail fugitive's personal details for immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant or court order. It passed the California State Assembly 60-15 and became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 497, which shields medical records from other states' cases against people for getting or providing care that is legal in California. For gender-affirming care, no doctor, health plan, contractor, or employer may cooperate with another state's inquiry, or with a federal law enforcement agency as far as federal law allows, in a way that would identify the patient. For the wider set of sensitive services, which in California law includes reproductive health care, doctors, health plans, and their contractors may not release records in response to such an out-of-state subpoena; that rule does not reach employers. California courts and attorneys may not issue a subpoena based on those out-of-state cases. State and local agencies also may not hand over prescription-monitoring data or spend public money helping an out-of-state case about care that is legal in California. It passed the California State Assembly 61-17 and became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1312, which requires hospitals, from July 1, 2027, to check whether a patient qualifies for free or discounted care instead of waiting for the patient to apply. A patient enrolled in CalFresh or CalWORKs is presumed to qualify, and a hospital must run the check for patients who are uninsured or meet other listed conditions. A hospital may not make a patient apply for Medicare, Medi-Cal, or other coverage before it screens them. The California State Assembly agreed 62-16, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 634, which stops cities, counties, and special districts from passing or enforcing local laws against people who help the homeless. No local law may stop a person or organization from providing support services, or from helping someone with the basics of staying alive. That means help with eating and drinking, sleeping, staying out of the weather, and staying clean and healthy, including handing out food, water, blankets, and pillows. It does not cover handing out plywood or other heavy building materials. The state calls this a statewide matter, so it binds charter cities too. It passed the California State Assembly 55-20 and became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 518, which sets up a Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery inside the state Civil Rights Department, run by a deputy director the governor appoints and the Senate confirms. A genealogy unit checks whether a person descends from enslaved Americans, and that finding is what qualifies someone for state benefits meant for descendants. The bureau also runs education, outreach, and legal units, and must follow rules on how it collects, stores, and shares personal and genetic information. None of it starts unless the Legislature sets aside money for it. It passed the California State Assembly 60-17 and became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1318, an urgent measure that took effect at once. Wherever state law looks at a charity's federal tax-exempt status to decide who can receive a state grant, contract, or payment, state tax-exempt status now counts as well. The same change reaches the charities that run state programs for refugees and immigrants, which pay for immigration lawyers, emergency help, and resettlement support for people granted asylum. The California State Assembly agreed 60-19, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 30, which stops a public agency from selling, donating, or handing on diesel rail equipment for further use once the agency retires it. An agency may pass it on only if it approves the deal at a public meeting and the equipment qualifies. Equipment qualifies if it meets one of the cleaner federal engine grades, pollutes no more than equipment in those grades, or has had its diesel engine taken out. It passed the California State Assembly 53-22 and became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 627, which makes it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear a face covering that hides who they are while on duty. The rule reaches federal agents and officers from other states working in California, and a willful and knowing violation is an infraction or a misdemeanor. Officers may still cover their faces while working undercover, during tactical operations, where health and safety law requires it, to protect their identity during a prosecution, or as a disability accommodation. SWAT officers actively carrying out SWAT duties are also exempt. Every agency working in the state must post a written face-covering policy by July 1, 2026, and officers whose agency posts one that follows the law cannot be charged. An officer who commits assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution while illegally masked loses any immunity and owes the greater of actual damages or $10,000. It passed the California State Assembly 45-23 and became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 580, which orders the Attorney General to publish model rules, by July 1, 2026, for how state and local agencies deal with immigration authorities. The Attorney General must also publish guidance and audit standards for limiting how far the information in government databases can be reached for immigration enforcement. Every state and local agency must adopt the model rules, or its own equivalent, by January 1, 2027. It passed the California State Assembly 58-19 and became law.

September 9, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 642, which widens California's equal pay law and tightens what a posted pay range means. An employer may not pay someone less than employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, and larger employers must post a pay scale with job listings. The bill changes the comparison from the opposite sex to another sex, so it is no longer limited to a two-sex pairing. A pay scale becomes a good faith estimate of what the employer reasonably expects to pay upon hire, and the law now defines an applicant as someone not already working for that employer. The deadline to sue becomes a flat three years from the last date the violation occurs, replacing two years with three for willful cases. A worker may recover for the whole period a violation lasted, capped at six years. A violation is treated as occurring each time the pay practice is adopted, a worker becomes subject to it, or the worker is affected by it, including each affected paycheck. Wages are defined to include salary, overtime, bonuses, stock, profit sharing, insurance, vacation and other benefits. The Assembly passed it 58-15 and it became law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 437, which puts up to $6 million for the California State University to research reparations and how to verify who descends from an enslaved person. A state task force studied reparations for African Americans until 2023 and made recommendations, but no body was funded to carry the research forward. The bill appropriates the money for the university to do that research, alone or with other universities or nonprofits, and lets it pay for students to take part. Before each fiscal year the university must consult the California Legislative Black Caucus on which topics to fund. It must explore how to confirm a person's status as a descendant of an enslaved person, and must build a process for doing or checking that genealogical research for use in reparative claims. That work must begin by the 2026-27 academic year and the process must be finished by the 2029-30 academic year. The university must report each October until the money runs out, and the final report must give findings, options and the timeline and cost of running the process statewide. The bill pays no claim and decides no one's eligibility. The Assembly passed it 61-17 and it became law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 399, which would have let the Coastal Commission approve wetland restoration projects to measure how much carbon they store. Anyone developing in the coastal zone needs a coastal development permit, and there is no such program today. The bill would have allowed the commission to authorize blue carbon demonstration projects, meaning the restoration of coastal wetland, subtidal, intertidal or marine habitat that can absorb and hold carbon. Projects would have been limited to places where the habitat once existed and has since been degraded, restored toward its historical state, using diverse native species. The commission could have required a non-residential project that damages such habitat to build or fund one of these projects as compensation. Each project would have had to be designed and monitored so the carbon uptake could be shown, including how permanent the storage is, with results presented at a public hearing. The commission would have consulted other state agencies and sought advice from federal ones. None of it would have operated until the Legislature appropriated money for it. The Assembly passed it 58-18, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 435, which sets a clear physical test, starting January 1, 2027, for when a child is big enough to ride using only the car's seat belt instead of a child seat or booster. The child must sit all the way back against the seat, with their knees bending over the edge of it. The shoulder belt must cross the middle of their chest and shoulder rather than their neck, and the lap belt must sit low, touching their thighs. They must be able to stay seated that way for the whole trip. The California State Assembly agreed 49-13, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 31, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 262, which widens what counts as a prohousing policy when the state rates how well a city or county supports new housing. Policies that keep people housed now count, alongside policies that help housing get planned, approved, or built. The bill adds examples: preserving affordable units, turning commercial buildings into housing, safe parking and safe camping programs, and speeding approval of shelters and navigation centers. Points for the safe parking, safe camping, and shelter policies cannot exceed the lowest points given for a policy tied directly to building housing. A city or county rated prohousing gets extra points when it applies for certain state funding programs. It passed the California State Assembly 57-15 and became law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 524, which makes every police agency set rules for official reports written with artificial intelligence. Such a report must say that a computer helped write it and carry the signature of the officer who prepared it, and the first computer-written draft must be kept as long as the report. That draft does not count as the officer's own statement, and the agency must keep a log of who used the tool and what video or audio it worked from. The companies supplying these tools may not share, sell, or otherwise use police information except for that agency's work or under a court order, though they may look at it to fix faults, reduce bias, and improve accuracy. It passed the California State Assembly 50-17 and became law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1061, which narrows a historic-buildings rule that had been keeping small housing projects and lot splits out of fast-track approval. Before, any site inside a listed historic district was shut out; now only a building that actually contributes to such a district, or a property listed as a landmark in its own right, is. Cities and counties may still set clear standards to protect the character of a district on the state historic register. A lot split still may not require tearing down or altering the buildings the law names. The California State Assembly agreed 46-18, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 704, which requires gun barrels to be sold or handed over in person through a licensed gun dealer. The rule does not cover sales to police agencies, the military, licensed dealers, or collectors of antique guns. It also leaves out transfers from someone's estate, a barrel already attached to a gun, and a barrel bought in the same sale as a gun that gets its own background check. Holding barrels with plans to sell them is also barred unless the seller is a licensed dealer. From July 1, 2027 the dealer must check whether the buyer is allowed to own a gun, for a fee of up to $5, and keep a record of the sale. A first or second offense is a misdemeanor, and later ones can be charged as felonies. It passed the California State Assembly 57-20 and became law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 1415, which extends the state's health care cost watchdog to cover the management companies that run medical practices behind the scenes. It writes hedge funds and similar investor owners into the law by name. Those management companies must report data to the office on the terms it sets, and must give it written notice of mergers and other deals involving them or the companies that own them. The California State Assembly agreed 51-19, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 8, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 27, 2026

Voted against agreeing to the Senate's changes to Assembly Bill 454, which makes it unlawful, with no end date, to kill, capture, or possess migratory birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It fixes the list to the birds protected under that federal law before January 1, 2025, plus any added later, so a federal rollback does not narrow California's protection. Federal rules allowing certain takings still apply, unless they conflict with California's own fish and game law. The state protection it replaces had been written to lapse. The California State Assembly agreed 58-17, sending the bill to the governor, and it became law.

September 4, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 30, 2026

Voted against passing Senate Bill 551, which rewrites the stated purpose of California's prison system around normalization and dynamic security. State law already says sentencing serves public safety through punishment, rehabilitation and restorative justice, and that prisons should offer education and rehabilitation programs. The bill adds findings built on two ideas. Normalization means life inside prison should resemble life outside as far as possible, aside from the loss of liberty. Dynamic security means safety comes from ongoing respectful contact between staff and prisoners, not from locks and controls alone. The corrections department must keep a mission statement consistent with those ideas, and must facilitate access for community-based programs run by outside groups inside prisons. Promoting personal growth is added to the stated goals of adult incarceration. The department should develop training for all correctional staff on both ideas. The findings also caution that normalization must not lead to inhumane conditions. Most of the bill is policy language and a mission statement rather than operational rules, and it creates no prisoner right and no way to enforce one. The Assembly passed it 57-20 and it became law.

September 3, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched September 2, 2026

Voted against passing Assembly Bill 1056, which limits who can inherit a commercial gill net or trammel net permit. California stopped issuing new ones long ago, so these permits change hands only by transfer. The law removes the rule that let a permit pass to another qualified fisher when the holder died or became disabled. From January 1, 2027 a long-standing holder may pass a permit only to a family member, and once it moves that way it cannot be passed on again. It passed the California State Assembly 51-17 and became law.

May 27, 2025

Source: legiscan.com · researched August 29, 2026