California Assembly Bill AB113

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 2/3/25
• Engrossed: 3/20/25
• Refer: 3/20/25
• Refer: 4/2/25

Caption

An act relating to the Budget Act of 2025.

Summary

AB 113 is a placeholder budget-related measure for the 2025-26 legislative session. As introduced, it does not make substantive policy changes or amend specific code sections; instead, it states the Legislature’s intent to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2025. In practical terms, the bill functions as a vehicle connected to the state budget process rather than as a standalone policy bill with detailed programmatic provisions. Because the bill contains only an intent statement, it does not itself appropriate funds, create or repeal programs, or directly alter state law. Any actual legal changes would have to come later through subsequent budget trailer legislation or other statutory amendments tied to the Budget Act of 2025. The bill’s main effect is procedural: it signals that budget-related statutory revisions are expected and preserves a legislative vehicle for those changes.

Impact

AB 113 would not directly change any existing statutes on its own. Its legal impact is limited to expressing legislative intent regarding future statutory changes associated with the Budget Act of 2025, so any substantive effect on state law would depend on later amendments or companion budget legislation. The bill is not an appropriation measure and does not itself impose obligations on state agencies, local governments, or private parties.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill moved with majority support, including a 53-17 Assembly third-reading vote. That indicates generally favorable treatment consistent with a routine budget-related vehicle. There are no committee transcript excerpts available, so there is no recorded debate in the provided materials showing organized opposition or detailed policy concerns.

Contention

The main point of contention, to the extent one can be inferred from the vote, is likely the use of a broad, non-substantive bill as a placeholder for future budget legislation. Opponents may object to voting on an intent-only measure without knowing the eventual statutory changes, while supporters likely view it as a standard procedural step in the budget process. No specific policy disputes are identified in the provided record because the bill text contains no substantive provisions.