Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and heard one bill, SB 73. The author described the measure as a response to perceived threats to California elections, including restrictions on armed or non-uniformed personnel at polling places, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on law enforcement access to election materials without a court order. The chair reviewed a set of agreed amendments, including removing a section conflicting with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties, clarifying the role of the Attorney General and Secretary of State, and refining language on signature challenges, law enforcement support, and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force, CHIRLA, the League of Women Voters of California, and Common Cause, argued the bill would protect voters from intimidation and preserve election integrity. Opponents from CALA argued the bill was unnecessary, would hinder legitimate investigations, and reflected distrust of law enforcement and federal oversight. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill was responding to real-world threats and on the ballot seizure in Riverside County. Members questioned how the measure would affect signature challenges, chain of custody, and investigations into possible fraud. The author and supporters said ballots should remain in election officials’ custody and that federal or local agents should not be able to interfere with election materials or intimidate voters. The chair and other members also discussed the urgency clause and the need to move the bill quickly despite the proximity of the June election. The committee voted to do pass and re-refer SB 73 to the Committee on Public Safety. The roll call initially showed the bill passing 5-1, then after the absent member arrived, the final vote was 6-2, and the bill was reported out of committee.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Keywords: 988, house, all

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety heard one item, Senate Bill 73 by Senator Cervantes, and took up committee and Elections Committee amendments. The bill was described as strengthening protections against interference in elections by extending restrictions to military personnel at polling places, protecting the chain of custody of voted ballots, and limiting law enforcement access to voting machines and voter rosters without a court order. The chair explained that the committee amendments would remove certain criminal penalties for peace officers, restore a uniform requirement for some polling-place personnel, and clarify the effect of objections by the Secretary of State or Attorney General. The author and supporters, including API Force and CHIRLA, argued the bill was needed to respond to threats of intimidation and election interference, citing concerns about armed personnel at polling places and the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of ballots. Supporters said the measure would protect voters, especially immigrant communities and in-person voters, and preserve confidence in election administration. Opposition from the California State Sheriffs’ Association and CALA argued the bill was vague, could hinder lawful criminal investigations, and improperly restrict law enforcement and federal election oversight. After closing remarks, the committee voted to pass SB 73 as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The vote was 6-1, with one member not voting. The chair and another member recommended an aye, while one member voted no.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Summary: The Select Committee on Native American Affairs held an informational hearing on the state’s response to the missing and murdered Indigenous people (MMIP) crisis, with an added focus on foster youth and child welfare. Opening remarks from the chair and members emphasized that California has made some progress through the Feather Alert, DOJ coordination, grant funding, and MMIP summits, but that the crisis remains severe and requires ongoing, not one-time, investment. Members repeatedly noted the need for stronger statewide coordination, better data, and more consistent attention to tribal communities and foster youth. Tribal leaders described the crisis as rooted in jurisdictional gaps, poor data collection, and lack of urgency from law enforcement. Witnesses from Hamul, Chachancey, Tahon, Yurok, and Hoopa tribes shared personal accounts of missing and murdered relatives, criticized inconsistent responses, and called for regional response agreements, direct tribal access to data, sustained funding, and clearer law enforcement protocols in Public Law 280 settings. Several leaders said Feather Alert and state grants have helped build infrastructure and partnerships, but stressed that trust-building, training, and accountability are still uneven across the state. The second panel featured the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Justice’s Office of Native American Affairs, both of which reported on implementation improvements. CHP said it has tightened Feather Alert practices, increased activations, improved outreach and training, appointed a tribal liaison, and expanded human trafficking training. DOJ described work under AB 3099 and AB 1334, including a Public Law 280 advisory council, improved crime reporting and data systems, MMIP outreach, and a tribal police pilot program with the Yurok Tribe. Members also raised the need to better support tribal courts and ensure protection orders are enforced. The final panel focused on foster youth as part of the MMIP crisis. Advocates from Pitt River, the California Tribal Families Coalition, and Coyote Valley said Native children are disproportionately represented in foster care and are at heightened risk of going missing or being exploited. They argued that foster care, trafficking, poverty, housing instability, and historical trauma are all connected to MMIP, and called for stronger ICWA implementation, culturally grounded services, better coordination with social workers and law enforcement, and immediate use of Feather Alert when Native children are missing. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with continued calls for legislative, budgetary, and policy action.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and began by approving a large consent calendar of bills on two unanimous-support motions. The committee then heard a series of individual bills, with authors and sponsors generally describing low or absorbable state costs and asking for aye votes. Topics included AI/digital safety education for students (AB 1792), hepatitis C treatment access (AB 1843), rent-now-pay-later consumer protections (AB 2350), retirement information for community college faculty (AB 2417), cannabis regulation changes including tribal commerce, drive-through sales, and beverage labeling (AB 2506, AB 2697, AB 2532), emergency equipment training for law enforcement volunteers (AB 1913), cannery law modernization (AB 2706), child care planning in local governments (AB 1914), EV charger permitting fees (AB 1820), election-record notice requirements (AB 1664), nursing home discharge notices (AB 2135), a San Diego energization-delay pilot (AB 2518), mental health training for school coaches (AB 1665), and education governance and oversight changes (AB 2117). Several bills were described as committee or sponsor measures with technical or clarifying changes, including AB 2780, AB 2615, AB 2121, and AB 2771. Testimony was largely supportive, often from sponsor groups, industry representatives, labor, or advocacy organizations. Notable support included TechNet for AB 1792, the California State Sheriffs’ Association for AB 1913, California Dairies and food manufacturers for AB 2706, the Low Income Investment Fund for AB 1914, EV and environmental groups for AB 1820, the Attorney General’s Office for AB 1664, long-term care ombudsman advocates for AB 2135, and the California State Association of Psychiatrists for the cannabis and mental-health-related bills. Some bills drew limited opposition or “opposed unless amended” positions, including AB 2350, AB 1820, and AB 2506, while AB 2697 and AB 2532 were presented as efforts to support the legal cannabis market and consumer safety. The committee also heard a presentation-only item, AB 2541, creating a lowrider specialty license plate, which drew enthusiastic bipartisan comments and co-author requests from members. Most bills were reported out with due pass recommendations, many on roll call and several with specific members not voting or voting no. AB 1664 was reported out as due pass as amended and placed on call before later being moved out on a B roll call. AB 2350 and AB 1914 were also later reported out from call on B roll calls, with AB 1914 noted as passing despite some Republican no votes. The suspense calendar was then deemed approved without individual action, and the meeting concluded after a brief public comment period in which members of the public voiced positions on unrelated bills, including support for AB 2497, AB 1729, AB 2189, AB 1575, AB 2170, and opposition to AB 1603, AB 2447, AB 2411, AB 2492, and AB 1952.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on CARB’s proposed April amendments to California’s cap-and-invest regulations, adopted under AB 1207 and SB 840. Committee members repeatedly framed the issue as a balance between climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Legislature’s budget priorities. Several senators argued the proposal would weaken the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), reduce funding for transit, affordable housing, drinking water, wildfire prevention, and other programs, and potentially undermine the Legislature’s intent in last year’s reauthorization. Others emphasized that the program’s core purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that any changes should preserve the cap’s integrity and the state’s climate targets. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments were designed to implement legislative direction while responding to public comment and economic uncertainty. She described four main changes: increasing electric bill credits, expanding the manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI) to $4 billion, adding about $800 million in additional compliance support for industry, and removing post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. CARB said the proposal would still maintain declining caps aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, provide near-term affordability relief, and support businesses and jobs while reducing emissions. In response to questions, CARB said the MDI has guardrails, is limited to emissions-reducing projects, and would require reporting and repayment if projects do not materialize. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could affect several legislative priorities. LAO highlighted that the MDI would add allowances above the cap, creating uncertainty about environmental ambition and 2030 compliance, while also shifting more allowances to industry and fewer to the GGRF. LAO said the proposal could significantly reduce GGRF revenues and noted that, if revenues fall to CARB’s estimated level, some tiered programs could go unfunded. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are updated three times a year and are difficult to predict because they depend on auction outcomes and market conditions. Senators pressed both agencies on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether industry savings would be passed through, and whether the Legislature should receive updated revenue estimates before voting on the budget.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first handled several routine actions, including approving three governor’s appointments not required to appear: Anthony Surich as Executive Director of the California Housing Finance Agency, Craig Snelling J.D. to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, and Nicholas Mueller to the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission. The committee also approved referral of bills to committees, all by 4-0 votes. It then took up appointments requiring testimony, beginning with Jereen DiAdamo to the State Water Resources Control Board. DiAdamo focused her remarks on safe drinking water, groundwater sustainability, conservation, and Bay-Delta restoration. She said the number of Californians without safe drinking water has fallen from 1.6 million to 800,000 since 2019, credited the SAFER program, technical assistance, and mandatory consolidation authority, and described ongoing work on failing and at-risk systems, domestic well mitigation, SGMA implementation, and the Bay-Delta Plan. Senators pressed her on audit follow-up, measurable goals for reducing the remaining unsafe systems, funding uncertainty, and concerns from environmental and tribal groups that the board has favored water users over ecosystem protections. Supporters from water, agriculture, business, and local agencies praised her collaborative style and consensus-building, while opponents argued she had not done enough to protect the Delta and called for new leadership. The committee ultimately voted 4-0 to advance her appointment to the full Senate. The committee then heard from Sivagunda Gunda for reappointment to the California Energy Commission. He highlighted progress on grid reliability, zero-carbon generation, and planning for California’s energy transition, including transportation fuels, building electrification, and the eventual retirement of Diablo Canyon. Senators questioned him about the future of Kern Energy and small refineries, the state’s transportation fuels plan, fuel imports and costs, and whether California can retire Diablo Canyon by 2030 without harming reliability. Gunda said the state is planning as if Diablo Canyon retires in 2030, that current resource additions make reliability manageable, and that affordability and market coordination remain key issues. The committee then voted 4-0 to advance his appointment to the full Senate, and the hearing recessed afterward.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several tax and revenue measures, beginning with SB 1329 on solar property tax assessment. The author and solar industry witnesses argued the bill would create a uniform statewide method, provide certainty for developers, and exclude tax credits and other intangibles from valuation; county assessors and several counties opposed it, saying it would reduce assessed value and depart from market-based appraisal. The bill was moved to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote and placed on call. The committee also heard SB 1406 to close the “Montana tax loophole” used to avoid California vehicle taxes, with support from the California Teachers Association and no registered opposition; it passed 2-0 and was placed on call. SB 984, conforming California law to the federal tipped-income deduction, drew support from the restaurant industry, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and enrolled agents, and passed 3-0 to Appropriations, on call. Later, the committee considered wildfire- and energy-related tax credits. SB 1084 would create a fire-safe home tax credit for home hardening and defensible space improvements; supporters said it would reduce wildfire losses and insurance costs, and it passed 3-0 on call. SB 1118 would provide credits for backup generators and solar battery systems in high fire-threat areas; the author framed it as a resilience measure for households and small businesses, but members raised concerns about cost, diesel use, and whether the credit would reach lower-income households. The bill was moved 1-0 and placed on call, with the chair and other members noting unresolved budget and policy concerns. SB 1424, expanding a partial sales tax exemption to zero-emission vehicle refueling equipment, received support from hydrogen and electric transportation groups and passed 4-0 on call. The committee also advanced SB 1249, a senior tax deduction for taxpayers ages 86 to 90, with support from LeadingAge California and senior advocates; members noted it was narrowly targeted and passed 4-0 on call. SB 1113, conforming California tax law to the federal tonnage tax regime for U.S.-flag international shipping companies, drew support from maritime industry groups and opposition from ILWU over the fiscal impact; it passed 4-0 on call. SB 1137, the Medical Expense Deduction Act, would allow a targeted deduction for medical expenses for lower-income taxpayers; supporters said it would help families facing high out-of-pocket costs, and it passed 4-0 on call. Finally, SB 1415 would extend a partial welfare property tax exemption to mixed-income housing that includes moderate-income units; supporters said it would help finance “missing middle” housing, while assessors and housing stakeholders requested amendments and guardrails. The bill was also moved forward on a committee vote and placed on call.

Summary: The joint Senate Education and Budget Committee hearing focused on the Governor’s proposed education governance overhaul, which would shift day-to-day management of the California Department of Education from the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction to a new appointed education commissioner, while giving the Superintendent new voting roles on the State Board of Education and the Community College Board of Governors. Chair Perez opened by stressing that the proposal raises major policy questions beyond the budget process and should be evaluated for its effect on students, local control, and accountability. Brooks Allen of the State Board of Education argued the change would unify policymaking and implementation, reduce fragmented authority, and create clearer accountability, citing decades of reports criticizing California’s “crazy quilt” governance structure and noting the proposal is timed for the 2026 transition. Amber Alexander of the Department of Finance outlined the fiscal and staffing transfers, describing the plan as largely cost-neutral and explaining how positions would shift between the State Board, the Department, and the new Superintendent’s office over 2026-27 and 2027-28. Sarah Cortez of the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the LAO supports shifting management to an appointed commissioner but recommended several refinements: preserving legislative oversight, requiring Senate confirmation of the commissioner, clearly defining the Superintendent’s duties as a public representative/advisor/evaluator, and refining the State Board’s role to focus on major policies requiring public input. She also said the fiscal plan should be cost-neutral and more fully specified. Senators raised concerns about the timing during an election year, the constitutional status of the Superintendent, whether the proposal should instead be a constitutional amendment, and whether governance changes actually improve student outcomes or simply rearrange the org chart. Some members questioned whether the proposal would confuse voters and undermine democratic accountability, while others said the current structure is already confusing and that the reform could improve clarity for districts and local boards. The discussion also covered how curriculum is set, with LAO explaining that the Legislature has broad authority but has delegated much curriculum work to the State Board and the Instructional Quality Commission. Members asked how the new structure would affect local districts, who they would call for guidance, and whether the commissioner would have authority over policy; the presenters said policy authority would remain with the State Board, while the commissioner would handle administration and implementation. No votes were taken during the panel discussion, and the hearing was organized to continue with additional panels and public comment later in the meeting.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Keywords: 988, house, all