ACR 65 is a nonbinding legislative resolution that proclaims May 2025 as California Tourism Month and reaffirms the Legislature’s support for the state’s tourism industry. It encourages Californians to travel within the state and support local businesses as an expression of civic pride. The resolution frames tourism as a major contributor to California’s economy, workforce, and public revenues, citing visitor spending, job creation, and tax generation.
The measure does not create a new regulatory program or impose duties on state agencies or private parties. Instead, it serves as an official statement of legislative recognition and encouragement, and it directs the Chief Clerk to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution. It also references the Legislature’s prior 2016 declaration of May as California Tourism Month, effectively reaffirming that designation for 2025.
Impact
ACR 65 has no direct effect on the California Codes or existing statutory rights and obligations because it is a concurrent resolution rather than a bill amending law. Its practical impact is symbolic and promotional: it formally recognizes tourism’s economic importance, highlights the role of small businesses and local communities, and encourages in-state travel. The resolution may be used by tourism advocates and local governments as an official endorsement of tourism promotion efforts.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around the resolution appears strongly positive and celebratory. The bill passed its recorded votes unanimously, including a 9-0 committee vote and a 35-0 floor vote, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. The text itself is promotional in tone, emphasizing economic benefits, job growth, tax revenue, inclusivity, and California’s identity as a welcoming destination.
Contention
There is little to no apparent contention in the available record. No committee transcript excerpts are provided, and the unanimous votes suggest the measure was noncontroversial. Any potential points of discussion would likely have centered on the resolution’s symbolic nature, the use of legislative time for commemorative measures, or the policy emphasis on tourism promotion, but no recorded opposition or substantive dispute appears in the materials provided.