CAIR-California is focusing its advocacy efforts bills on 10 bills this year, including three that will be featured at Muslim Day at the Capitol.
To help us advocate for legislation, find your representative here. (Check back for updates on how the legislation is faring.)
MDAC BILLS
1) VOTING RIGHTS: ACA 6 – FREE THE VOTE ACT: VOTING RIGHTS
(Authors: McCarty, Bonta, Gonzalez, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove & Weber)
This bill would restore the right to vote to people on parole for a conviction of a felony.
2) CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM: AB 392 – PEACE OFFICERS DEADLY FORCE
(Authors: Weber & McCarty)
This bill would redefine the circumstances under which a homicide by a peace officer is deemed justifiable to include when the killing is in self-defense or the defense of another, consistent with the existing legal standard for self-defense, or when the killing is necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon whose immediate apprehension is necessary to prevent death or serious injury. The bill would additionally bar the use of this defense if the peace officer acted in a criminally negligent manner that caused the death, including if the officer’s criminally negligent actions created the necessity for the use of deadly force.
READ: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article227124549.html
WATCH: AB 392 press conference
3) RACIAL JUSTICE/EDUCATION: AB 331 – HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS: ETHNIC STUDIES
(Authors: Medina, Bloom, Bonta, Gonzalez, Ramos & Weber)
This bill would add the completion of a one-semester course in ethnic studies, in either the subject of social studies or English, based on the model curriculum in ethnic studies developed by the Instructional Quality Commission, to the high school graduation requirements commencing with the 2023–24 school year. The bill would authorize local educational agencies to require a full-year course in ethnic studies at their discretion, as specified.
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY BILLS
4) CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM: AB 33 – STATE PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEMS: DIVESTITURE FROM PRIVATE PRISON COMPANIES
(Authors: Assembly members Bonta, Chiu, Gipson, Gonzalez, Levine, McCarty, Stone; Sen. Wiener)
AB 32 – STATE PRISONS: PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
(Authors: Assembly members Bonta, Chiu, Gloria, Gonzalez, Kamlager-Dove, Santiago, Gipson, Levine, McCarty, Quirk, Stone, Bauer-Kahan, Friedman; Sen. Wiener)
AB 33: This bill would prohibit the boards of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the State Teachers’ Retirement System from investing in private prison companies.
AB 32: This bill would prohibit the department from contracting with a private, for-profit prison to incarcerate inmates in California.
5) IMMIGRATION: AB 1332 – SANCTUARY STATE CONTRACTING AND INVESTMENT ACT
(Author: Bonta)
This bill would enact the Sanctuary State Contracting and Investment Act, which would, among other things, prohibit a city, county, or city and county from entering into a new, amended, or extended contract or agreement with any person or entity that provides United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with any data broker, extreme vetting or detention facilities services, as defined, unless the city, county, or city and county has made a finding that no reasonable alternative exists, as specified. The bill would also prohibit a city, county, or city and county from making any investment in stocks, bonds, securities, or other obligations issued by any provider of data broker, extreme vetting, or detention facilities services to ICE or CBP, as specified. This bill would authorize the Department of Justice to initiate, and require the department to receive and investigate, all complaints regarding violations of these provisions, and would require the department to issue findings regarding any alleged violation and notify any affected city, county, or city and county. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Additionally, this bill would make a violation of these provisions subject to civil and criminal penalties, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.
6) HATE CRIMES: AB 300 – HATE CRIME AND INCIDENT REPORTING
(Author: Chu)
AB 301 – HATE CRIME DATA COLLECTION AND OUTREACH
(Author: Chu)
AB 300: This bill would require a law enforcement agency’s informational, incident, and crime reports to include a check box indicating whether the underlying incident in the report is a hate crime or hate incident, as defined. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to complete for each hate crime or hate incident, a supplemental hate crime or hate incident report form that indicates the type of bias motivation and any other identifying information to assist in the prosecution of the hate crime or hate incident. By creating new reporting requirements for local law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
AB 301: This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would implement all of the recommendations set forth in the California State Auditor’s May 2018 report entitled “Hate Crimes in California: Law Enforcement Has Not Adequately Identified, Reported, or Responded to Hate Crimes.”
7) PRIVACY/SURVEILLANCE: AB 1790 – ONLINE E-COMMERCE MARKETPLACES
(Author: Wicks)
This bill would require: 1. Restricting use of data beyond the purpose for which it was collected. 2. Going from opt-out of selling of personal information to opt-in for sharing. Privacy is the default. 3. Prohibiting companies from charging higher prices to consumers who exercise their privacy rights. 4. Strengthening the private right of action so companies have to follow the law.
8) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: AB 9 – EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
(Author: Reyes, Friedman, Waldron, Berman, Bonta, Chiu, Garcia, Kalra, Lackey, McCarty, Mullin)
This bill would extend the above-described period to three years for complaints alleging employment discrimination, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes in provisions that grant a person allegedly aggrieved by an unlawful practice who first obtains knowledge of the facts of the alleged unlawful practice after the expiration of the limitations period, as specified.
9) VOTING RIGHTS: AB 849 – ELECTIONS: LOCAL REDISTRICTING
(Author: Bonta, Mullin)
This bill would strengthen the criteria for local redistricting by requiring and prioritizing keeping neighborhoods and communities intact; bring new voices into the redistricting process, by requiring robust public engagement that expressly includes engaging non-English-speaking communities that are otherwise all-too-often overlooked improve redistricting transparency, by requiring local governments to upload redistricting information to a dedicated web page and to publish draft maps online before they can be adopted; and adopt logical redistricting deadlines that expand opportunities for participating and set up consistent and fair remedies for when those deadlines are missed.
10) PRIVACY/SURVEILLANCE: AB 1215 – LAW ENFORCEMENT: FACIAL RECOGNITION AND OTHER BIOMETRIC SURVEILLANCE
(Author: Ting)
This bill would ban CA law enforcement agencies from using facial recognition or other biometrics with body cameras. Biometrics like face surveillance would corrupt the core purpose of body cameras, transforming them from officer accountability tools into dangerous surveillance devices aimed at communities.
CAIR-CA OPPOSES THE FOLLOWING BILL(S):
IMMIGRATION: AB 222 – LAW ENFORCEMENT: COOPERATION WITH IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES
(Author: Voepel)
This bill would expand the list of qualifying criminal convictions under the California Values Act (SB 54, de León, 2017). CAIR-CA opposes this bill because: By adding new qualifying convictions without any public policy justification, AB 222 undermines the careful balance struck by the Legislature and the governor in enacting SB 54. Furthermore, these additional crimes are unbound by any time restriction, in comparison with other criminal history provisions of SB 54. As such, these new provisions could result in notifications and transfers to ICE based on decades-old convictions, without any recognition or regard for a person’s rehabilitation and changed life circumstances. Such a provision does not align with California’s values and common-sense criminal justice reforms.