An act to amend Section 6219 of the Government Code, relating to state agencies.
AB 2360 would revise California Government Code Section 6219 to strengthen the state’s plain-language requirements for state agencies. The bill requires state agencies to write documents produced on or after January 1, 2027, in plain language whether the documents are digital or printed, and it defines “plain language” as wording that is clear, accessible, and understandable to the intended audience, including people with disabilities or limited English proficiency. It also broadens the scope of covered materials to include a wide range of agency communications such as instructions, forms, licenses, regulations, manuals, memoranda, and other written materials needed to carry out agency duties.
The bill further requires each state agency to create, adopt, and post a plain-language policy on its website describing how it will incorporate or strengthen plain-language writing and design practices. Agencies may use standards developed by the Office of Data and Innovation to help implement these requirements. Agency heads must designate senior officials to oversee implementation, communicate the requirements to staff, establish an ongoing compliance process, and identify points of contact to receive public input or complaints about documents that are not easily readable or not in plain language.
In practical terms, AB 2360 would impose an administrative compliance framework on state agencies but does not create a new appropriation and is described as being implemented within existing personnel and resources. It would amend an existing statute governing state agency communications, expanding and clarifying the obligation to use plain language and making the requirement more operational through policy posting, oversight, and public feedback mechanisms.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available legislative history is strongly favorable. The bill passed committee unanimously, including a 22-0 vote and a later 14-0 committee action recommending it to the consent calendar, suggesting broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. The lack of committee transcript debate also suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward government-operations improvement rather than a controversial policy change.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is not about the goal of clearer government communication but about implementation burden and administrative detail. The bill requires agencies to adopt policies, designate officials, and maintain compliance processes, all within existing resources, which could raise practical concerns for agencies with limited staff. However, the legislative record provided does not show organized opposition or significant disagreement over those implementation requirements.
AB 2360 would amend Government Code Section 6219, expanding California’s plain-language mandate for state agencies to cover both digital and printed documents and to apply to documents produced on or after January 1, 2027. It would define plain language in statute, require agencies to post plain-language policies online, allow use of Office of Data and Innovation standards, and direct agency leadership to assign oversight and public-contact responsibilities. The bill affects state departments, commissions, offices, and other administrative agencies, but it does not create a local program or appropriation and is intended to be implemented within existing personnel and resources.
The bill appears to have received very positive, low-conflict treatment in the Legislature. Committee votes were unanimous, and the measure was recommended to the consent calendar, indicating broad agreement that clearer state communications are beneficial. No committee testimony or recorded debate was provided showing substantive opposition, so the overall sentiment is best characterized as supportive and noncontroversial.
The bill’s likely area of contention is administrative implementation rather than policy direction. Agencies may need to update document-writing practices, publish plain-language policies, designate senior oversight officials, and create public feedback processes, all without additional funding. Any concerns would likely come from state agencies or fiscal observers worried about workload, compliance tracking, or the breadth of documents covered, but the available record does not show active opposition or major disputes.