An act to amend Section 13350 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. Sections 40245, 40246, 40247, and 40248 of, to amend the heading of Article 3.6 (commencing with Section 40245) of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of, and to add Article 5 (commencing with Section 40275) to Chapter 1 of Division 17 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
AB 2376 is a vehicle code cleanup bill that amends Section 13350 of the California Vehicle Code. As introduced, it does not change the substance of the law governing mandatory driver’s license revocation; instead, it makes technical and nonsubstantive wording revisions to the statute that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke a person’s driving privilege upon receipt of a certified court abstract showing certain convictions, including hit-and-run involving injury or death, felonies involving use of a motor vehicle, and reckless driving causing bodily injury.
The bill also preserves existing procedures for drivers convicted of specified DUI-related offenses and vehicular manslaughter-related offenses, including the requirement that courts obtain an affidavit acknowledging revocation and habitual traffic offender status, and the rule that reinstatement cannot occur until one year has passed and proof of financial responsibility is provided. Because the measure is limited to technical edits, it is not expected to alter enforcement standards, penalties, or eligibility for reinstatement in any meaningful way.
AB 2376 would amend Vehicle Code Section 13350, but only in a nonsubstantive way. The practical effect is to update statutory language without changing the DMV’s authority to revoke licenses, the offenses that trigger revocation, the affidavit process for certain convictions, or the one-year reinstatement and insurance-proof requirements. It affects drivers convicted of serious traffic and felony offenses, courts that transmit abstracts and affidavits, and the DMV’s administrative enforcement process, but it does not create new programs, funding, or local government duties.
The available context suggests the bill is largely procedural and noncontroversial. The digest identifies it as a technical, nonsubstantive measure, and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition or debate. The absence of fiscal impact and the lack of substantive policy change also point to a generally neutral or routine legislative reception.
There is no documented substantive contention in the provided materials. Because the bill is framed as a technical cleanup of existing license-revocation language, any discussion would likely focus on drafting precision rather than policy disagreement. If any issue were to arise, it would most likely concern whether the wording changes are truly nonsubstantive or whether they could affect interpretation of DMV revocation procedures, but no such dispute is shown in the available record.