An act to add Section 11818 to the Government Code, relating to state government.
AB 1823 would add Section 11818 to the Government Code to require state agencies and departments subject to the Governor’s authority to incorporate racial equity into strategic planning. For any strategic plan, agencies would have to update or develop the plan using data analysis and inclusive practices aimed at advancing racial equity, respond to identified disparities by adjusting mission, goals, policies, programs, operations, community engagement, and tribal consultation practices, and publicly share the plans. Agencies would also be required to solicit input from historically disadvantaged and underserved communities affected by their programs or policies.
The bill further requires a racial equity analysis before any budget is implemented or any regulation takes effect. That analysis must be performed by the agency’s diversity, equity, and inclusion officer or a comparable position; if no such position exists, the work must be done by a qualified individual with demonstrated expertise in racial equity-related policy, technical assistance, or community-based equity work. The bill also states legislative intent to eventually enact a statewide definition of equity to guide legislation, resource allocation, and systemic practices so underserved communities are not left behind.
AB 1823 would expand state agency planning and review obligations by adding a new racial equity requirement to strategic plans and by creating a pre-implementation racial equity analysis for budgets and regulations. It would affect state agencies and departments under the Governor’s authority, as well as their DEI officers or equivalent staff, and would likely influence how agencies design programs, evaluate policy changes, and document public input. The bill does not itself appropriate funds, but it could increase administrative workload and require agencies to use or develop equity-analysis capacity.
The available vote history suggests generally favorable committee support, with the bill receiving a 14-5 do-pass vote and referral to Appropriations. The bill’s framing around equity, underserved communities, and inclusive governance indicates support from members prioritizing civil rights and equity-focused policy. At the same time, the fact that it was held under submission and advanced with a notable minority of no votes suggests some hesitation about the scope, implementation burden, or policy approach.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the mandate and the administrative burden on state agencies. Critics may question requiring racial equity analyses before budgets or regulations take effect, especially where agencies lack DEI staff and must rely on outside expertise or reassign existing personnel. Another possible concern is the bill’s broad and somewhat open-ended equity standard, including the future intent to define equity statewide, which could raise questions about how the requirement would be measured, enforced, and applied across different agencies and policy areas. Supporters, by contrast, appear to favor making equity review a routine part of state planning and decision-making.