California Legislation Center//

Welcome to the SaveCalifornia.com Legislation Center

Updated May 22, 2025

Here are the worst bills of the Democrat Party state legislators (controlling 3/4ths of the seats in both the California Assembly and State Senate; also controlling the committees and floors).

The last day for bills to be introduced was Feb. 21 (yet there's nothing prohibiting bills from being amended, or even "gutted and amended" with completely new language).

Hearings in Democrat-controlled committees began in March, continue through late May, and then resume in August for approved bills sent to a new house (Assembly or Senate).

The legislative deadlines are:

May 2: Was the final day for bills to pass their policy committees in their house of origin
May 23: Last day for bills to pass (or escape from) the Appropriations Committee of their house of origin
June 6: Last day for each house to pass bills introduced in that house
Sept. 12: Last day for each house to pass bills (of the regular session) this year
Oct. 12: Last day for the governor to sign or veto bills

MORE 'TRANS' FOR CHILDREN

AB 727 by Democrat Party Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez + 4 other Democrats would promote transsexuality to millions of schoolchildren by requiring a pro-transsexuality suicide hotline number to be imprinted upon all student ID cards in grades 7-12, including at private schools.

According to AB 727, a suicide hotline for "sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression." This would also be a mandate upon private religious schools that issue student ID cards.

Status | Votes: AB 727 on April 30 was referred to the "suspense file" of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, on April 9, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, voting no were both Republicans).

AB 908 by Democrat Party Assemblyman Jose Solache would require an annual compliance review of the current law requiring "social sciences to include a study of the role and contributions of, among others, people of all genders, Latino Americans, LGBTQ+ Americans, and members of other ethnic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic status groups." The goal of this bad bill is to ensure pro-"LGBT+" curriculum is taught to children in all K-12 government school districts.

Status | Votes: AB 908 on May 14 was placed on the "suspense file" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, this bad bill on April 9 passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, voting no were both Republicans).

AB 932 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin prohibits "gender" discrimination in city and county sports programs. In the California statutes, “gender” means subjective “gender identity” and “gender expression.” As such, this bill would still promote transsexuality over people's consciences, would invade girls' sports in particular, and opens the door to lawsuits against dissenters. In sum, the amended AB 932 tells public schools and city/county/special district sports facilities that biological males must be permitted to play on females' teams and use females' locker rooms and restrooms, and vice versa -- or risk a private party lawsuit that aims to penalize you with financial damages.

As the latest Legislative Counsel's Digest describes, AB 932 would prohibit "a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, county office of education, or charter school from discriminating against a person on the basis of sex or gender in the operation, conduct, or administration of community youth athletics programs or interscholastic athletic programs, or in the allocation of parks and recreation facilities and resources or school and recreation facilities and resources that support or enable these programs."

Status | Votes: AB 932 on May 14 was placed on the "suspense file" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, this bad bill on April 29 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (all three Republicans -- Diane Dixon, Alexandra Macedo, Kate Sanchez -- joined nearly all the committee Democrats in voting yes for this deceptive, anti-real-girl-and-real-woman bill). Previously, on April 8, this bad bill passed the Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism Committee (voting yes were 5 Democrats; not voting were 2 Republicans (Jeff Gonzalez and Tom Lackey) and 1 Democrat (Sharon Quirk-Silva).

AB 1084 by Democrat Party Assemblyman Rick Zbur + other "LGBTQ Caucus" members would fast-track legal changes to minors' "genders." The new “gender identifier” will be granted unless parents file a written objection “showing good cause” within 6 weeks of the original petition being filed – and courts have up to 30 days to notify them. This is does not give adequate time for parents to find out, get an attorney, and file a well-writtten objection "showing good cause" why the new "gender identifier" should not be granted.

Status | Votes: AB 1084 on May 14 was placed on the "suspense file" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, this bad bill on April 29 passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Joe Patterson and Kate Sanchez; no vote recorded for Republicans Phillip Chen and Heath Flora). Earlier, on March 25, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Kate Sanchez; there were no votes recorded for Republicans Diane Dixon and Bill Essayli).

AB 1487 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Dawn Addis proposes to rename the State Dept. of Public Health's current "Transgender, Gender Nonconforming, and Intersex Wellness and Equity Fund" as "the Two-Spirit, Transgender, Gender Nonconforming, and Intersex (2TGI) Wellness and Equity Fund" to receive taxpayer-funded appropriations to fund “TGI-serving organizations” to get to “asylees and immigrants” and “transitional-age 2TGI youth” (TGI = “transgender, transsexual, gender-diverse, and intersex”).

From the Democrat-controlled Assembly Health Committee analysis of AB 1487, as amended March 28:

SUMMARY: Renames the Transgender, Gender Nonconforming, and Intersex (TGI) as the Two-Spirit (2TGI) Wellness and Equity Fund, expands the purpose for which grants can be awarded from the 2TGI Fund, and expands the requirements for grant fund availability for 2TGI individuals to include providing workforce development training, resettlement and social integration programs for asylees and immigrants, and for diversion programs for, and outreach to, transitional age 2TGI youth. Specifically, this bill:

1) Renames the Transgender, Gender Nonconforming, and Intersex (TGI) as the Two-Spirit (2TGI) Wellness and Equity Fund (2TGI Fund).

2) Expands the purpose for which grants can be awarded from the 2TGI Fund to also include cultural competency training.

3) Expands the requirement for grant fund availability for 2TGI individuals to include:

a) Requiring grants to be available to 2TGI-serving organizations for the purpose of
providing workforce development training for 2TGI individuals;

b) Requiring grants to be available to 2TGI-serving organizations for the purpose of
providing resettlement and social integration programs for 2TGI asylees and immigrants;
and,

c) Requiring grants to be available to 2TGI-serving organizations for the purpose of
providing diversion programs for, and outreach to, transitional-age 2TGI youth.

4) Expands the definition of “health care” for purposes of the 2TGI Fund and the grants from the 2TGI fund to also include “mental health services.”

5) Defines “Two-Spirit” as a term referring to unique indigenous cultural roles that intersect
with diverse sexual orientations and gender embodiments.

3) Permits, upon appropriation by the Legislature, moneys in the TGI Wellness and Equity Fund to be used to fund grants to various organizations for the following purposes:

a) TGI-serving organizations for the purpose of increasing the capacity of health care professionals to effectively provide TGI health care and institute TGI-inclusive best practices, including the creation of educational materials or facilitation of capacity building trainings;

b) TGI-serving organizations for the purpose of facilitating therapeutic arts programs, such as dancing, painting, or writing;

c) TGI-serving organizations for purposes of assisting, identifying, and referring TGI people to access supportive housing, including case management opportunities, financial assistance, and assisting TGI people in receiving and utilizing housing vouchers. Authorizes a TGI-serving organization that has already implemented a TGI-specific housing program to utilize funding to maintain or expand existing housing programs; or,

d) A hospital, health care clinic, or other medical provider that currently provides gender affirming health care services, such as hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery, to continue providing those services, or to a hospital, health care clinic, or other medical provider that will establish a program that offers gender-affirming health care services and has an established relationship with a TGI-serving organization that will lead in establishing the program. Requires a hospital, health care clinic, or other medical provider that applies for a grant to apply in partnership with a TGI-serving organization and consult with the TGI-serving organization throughout the process of creating and implementing its trans-inclusive health care program.

From the same committee analysis, describing the awful current law, which AB 1487 would make even worse:

4) Defines, for purposes of the above-described provisions:

a) “Health care” to mean all of the following:

i) Medical, behavioral, and spiritual care, which includes, but is not limited to, guided meditation and nondenominational therapy;

ii) Therapeutic arts programs, which includes, but is not limited to, dancing, painting, and writing classes;

iii) Services related to substance use disorder or substance abuse; and,

iv) Supportive housing as a mechanism to support TGI-identified individuals in accessing other social services.

b) “Transgender” as a broad and inclusive of all gender identities different from the gender a person was assigned at birth.

c) “Gender nonconforming” as an inclusive term used to describe individuals who may experience a gender that is neither exclusively male nor female or is in between or beyond both of those genders, including, but not limited to, nonbinary, gender fluid, a gender or without gender, third gender, genderqueer, gender variant, Two-Spirit, Hijra, Kathoey, Mak nyah, Muxe, Waria, Māhū, and Fa’afafine.

d) “Intersex” as an umbrella term referring to people whose anatomy, hormones, or chromosomes fall outside the strict male and female binary.

Status | Votes: AB 1487 on May 14 was placed on the "suspense file" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, on April 22, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no were Republicans Heath Flora, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez; no vote recorded for Republican Phillip Chen).

SB 59 by Democrat Party State Senator Scott Wiener and other Democrats in the "LGBT+ Caucus" would eliminate public information on "all filed petitions for a change of gender and sex identifier," for the purpose of keeping children's "sex changes" hidden from their parents. The bill also permit lawsuits to financially harm anyone disclosing the information. 

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of SB 59, as amended April 10:

"This bill would expand that confidentiality to apply to all filed petitions, regardless of the age of the petitioner, and any papers associated with a proceeding for a change of gender and sex identifier, for a single petition for change to the petitioner’s name and to recognize the change to the petitioner’s gender and sex identifier, or for a change of name to conform the petitioner’s name to the petitioner’s gender identity, as specified.

"This bill would make these confidentiality requirements retroactive and require the Judicial Council to ensure that all courts have implemented a method to ensure the court maintains the confidentiality of these petitions and associated papers that were filed prior to the effective date of this act. The bill would authorize, if a person or entity discovers that a court record is not being kept confidential by the court, a person or entity to apply ex parte and without a fee to the court for an order to make those records confidential. The bill would prohibit those records from being posted publicly, on the internet or otherwise, by anyone other than the petitioner."

"This bill would make a violation of these confidentiality requirements an injury and, commencing 6 months after the effective date of this act, would authorize a person or entity to institute proceedings for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or a writ of mandate to enforce them. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a plaintiff who prevails on a cause of action against a private party pursuant to this authority."

"This bill would also authorize a petitioner who has been harmed by a disclosure or continuing disclosure of confidential information in violation of these confidentiality requirements, as specified, to, commencing 6 months after the effective date of this act, bring a civil action against the private person or entity that caused the harm. The bill would require a private person or entity found liable to pay actual damages or liquidated damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, as specified."

"This bill would require the court, without a public hearing, to seal these types of petitions, as specified, and all court records and papers associated with that proceeding, upon the request of the petitioner and a finding that a petitioner has met the criteria set forth in a specific California Rule of Court."

Status | Votes: SB 59 on May 16 was scheduled for a May 23 hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee (this is the last day for costly bills to escape committee). Previously, on April 22, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no were both of the committee's Republicans).

SR 22 by Democrat Party State Senator Scott Wiener + 5 other Democrat Party "LGBT+ Caucus" members is a Senate resolution that would proclaim "Transgender Week of Visibility" March 24-28. This resolution does not go to the Assembly or the governor.

Status | Votes: On March 24, this pro-everything-transsexual resolution (including more sexual indoctrination and mutiliation for children) adopted by the State Senate (voting yes were 26 of 30 Democrats, voting no was Republican Tony Strickland, abstaining were the rest of the Republicans + 4 Democrats)

AB 40 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Mia Bonta expands the definition of emergency medical services to include "reproductive health services." So paramedics will hand out "birth control" pills to teens and ER doctors will perform baby-killing abortions?

Status | Votes: AB 40 has has been referred to the State Senate Health Committee. Previously, on April 21, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were nearly all the Democrats and Republican Greg Wallis; voting no were 9 Republicans; with no vote recorded for 9 Republicans and 3 Democrats). Before floor passage, the author was permitted to turn AB 40 into an urgency measure (meaning it will go into effect immeidately upon signing by the governor), which increased its voting requirement to two-thirds of the current 79 assemblymembers, which is 53. If Republicans had spoken out to expose the harm of AB 40, it might have been stopped, instead of receiving the "yes" votes of 57 Democrats and 1 Republican. Previously, on April 9, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all but one Democrat; voing no were 3 Republicans (Heather Hadwick, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta); not voting were Republican Diane Dixon and Democrat Gail Pellerin. Earlier, on March 25, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, not voting were all 3 Republicans)

AB 45 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would prohibit other states' law enforcement from using technology to collect or reveal the identity and location of abortionists and teen and pre-teen girls from other states being transported to California for abortions (baby-killing). This bad bill would further prohibit releasing information (in response to subpoenas or court orders) about teen and pre-teen girls from other states brought to California for abortions.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 45, as amended April 9:

[AB 45 would] "prohibit the collection, use, disclosure, sale, sharing, or retention of the personal information of a natural person who is physically located at, or within a precise geolocation of, a family planning center ... "prohibit geofencing, or selling or sharing personal information with a third party to geofence, as defined, an entity that provides in-person health care services." [Geofencing is defined as] "any technology that enables spatial or location detection to establish a virtual boundary around, and detect an individual’s presence within, a “precise geolocation” as defined." [AB 45 would also] "prohibit the release of research records ... in response to a subpoena or a request or to law enforcement if that subpoena, request, or the purpose of law enforcement for the medical information is based on, or for the purpose of enforcement of, either another state’s laws that interfere with a person’s rights to choose or obtain an abortion or a foreign penal civil action."

Status | Votes: AB 45 on May 7 was placed on the "suspense file" of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, on April 29, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Alexandra Macedo and Kate Sanchez; no vote recorded for Republican Diane Dixon). Previously, on April 22, this bad bill passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (voting yes were 10 of 11 Democrats; voting no were Republicans Carl DeMaio and Alexandra Macedo; no vote recorded for Democrat Lori Wilson and Republicans Diane Dixon and Joe Patterson).

AB 54 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry would push chemical abortions (baby-killing) and exempt pushers of these dangerous drugs from civil or criminal liability, or professional disciplinary action.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest: "This bill, the Access to Safe Abortion Care Act, would make legislative findings about medication abortion, with a focus on use of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Under the bill, the Legislature would reaffirm that it has been, and would continue to be, lawful to cause the delivery of, or mail, ship, take, receive, or otherwise transport, any drug, medicine, or instrument that can be designed or adapted to produce an abortion that is lawful in the State of California. The bill would set forth provisions regarding the lack of civil or criminal liability, or professional disciplinary action, for accessing or administering mifepristone or misoprostol, among other certain conduct, on or after January 1, 2020, with this provision applied retroactively, as specified."

Status | Votes: AB 54 on May 21 was assigned to the State Senate Health Committtee, which, if approved, will automatically be transmitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Earlier, on May 12, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 59 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis; voting no were 10 Republicans; no vote recorded for 7 Republicans + 1 Democrat, Catherine Stefani). Previously, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 7 (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Tri Ta; no vote recorded for Republicans Diane Dixon, Kate Sanchez, David Tangipa). Earlier, on April 29, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were nearly all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Alexandra Macedo; no vote recorded for Republicans Diane Dixon and Kate Sanchez). Earlier, on April 8, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all 12 Democrats; voting no were all 3 Republicans).

AB 67 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would permit the State Attorney General to sue anyone for violating the "Reproductive Privacy Act"

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 67, as amended May 1:

Existing law, the Reproductive Privacy Act, prohibits a person from being subject to civil or criminal liability, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome or based solely on their actions to aid or assist a woman or pregnant person who is exercising their reproductive rights as specified in the act. Existing law authorizes a party whose rights are protected by the Reproductive Privacy Act to bring a civil action against an offending state actor when those rights are interfered with by conduct or by statute, ordinance, or other state or local rule, regulation, or enactment in violation of the act, as specified, and require a court, upon a motion, to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.

This bill would authorize the Attorney General, if it appears to them that a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in any act or practice constituting a violation of the Reproductive Privacy Act, to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California in the superior court to enjoin the acts or practices or to enforce compliance with the act, as specified. In this context, the bill would authorize the Attorney General to make public or private investigations, publish information concerning violation of the Reproductive Privacy Act, and subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of documents or records that they deem relevant or material to the inquiry.

This bill would impose a civil penalty not exceeding $25,000 upon any person or governmental entity that violates any provision of the act and a civil penalty for violation of the bill’s provisions, to be determined as specified. The bill would require any costs, fees, and civil penalties collected pursuant to these provisions to be available to the office of the Attorney General upon appropriation of the Legislature for exclusive use by the Attorney General for enforcement of act.

Existing law, the Government Claims Act, generally requires that all claims for money or damages against local public entities be presented in accordance with specified law, and excepts certain claims from this requirement.

This bill would additionally except claims brought under the Reproductive Privacy Act from those requirements under the Government Claims Act.

Status | Votes: AB 67 on May 14 was placed on the "suspense file" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, on May 1, this bad bill passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (voting yes were nearly all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Carl DeMiao and Joe Patterson; no vote recorded for Republicans Diane Dixon and Heath Flora). Earlier, on April 8, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all 9 Democrats; voting no were all 3 Republicans).

AB 260 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry would push dangerous chemical abortions upon minors. This bad bill requiring pharmacists to dispense them, while exempting pushers of abortion drugs from "civil, criminal, disciplinary, or other administrative action." AB 260 would also require Medi-Cal and private insurance plans to offer dangerous abortion drugs, and would also promote baby-killing abortions in several other ways.

Status | Votes: AB 260 has been transmitted to the State Senate Rules Committee after its May 19 passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were 59 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis; voting no were 11 Republicans; not voting were 6 Republicans). Earlier, on May 14, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no were all the Republicans). Previously, on April 29, this bad bill passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats + Republican Juan Alanis; voting no was Republican Alexandra Macedo; no vote recorded for Republicans Phillip Chen, Heath Flora, Heather Hadwick). Earlier, on April 8, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all 12 Democrats; voting no was Republican Kate Sanchez; no votes recorded for Republicans Phillip Chen and Heath Flora).

AB 302 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would prohibit health insurers from disclosing information about the abortions (baby-killing) or "sex changes" of teens or pre-teens transported from another state; the bill would also eliminate patients' right to send their health information to a third party of their choosing.

Status | Votes: AB 302 is on the Assembly floor after passing the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 14 (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no were all the Republicans). Previously, on April 29, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were all 3 Republicans). Earlier, on April 22, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no were Republicans Joe Patterson and Kate Sanchez; no vote recorded for Republicans Phillip Chen and Heath Flora).

AB 551 by Democrat Party Assemblywomen Maggy Krell and Cottie Petrie-Norris would push and prioritize abortion (baby-killing) at hospital emergency rooms.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 551, as amended April 10:

This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature or the availability of funds from private sources, establish the Reproductive Health Emergency Preparedness Program (RHEPP) for the purpose of expanding and improving access to reproductive and sexual health care in emergency departments across California. The bill would require the department to award the grants and administer the RHEPP in collaboration with California-based organizations to serve as the technical assistance provider. The bill would require the department to establish minimum standards, funding schedules, and procedures for awarding grants and would specify the qualifications for the collaborating organizations. The bill would limit the permissible uses of grant funds under the program, as specified.

Status | Votes: AB 551 on April 23 was referred to the "suspense file" of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, on April 8, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all 12 Democrats; voting no was Republican Kate Sanchez; having no vote recorded were Republicans Phillip Chen and Heath Flora).

AB 1500 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo would supercharge the State's pro-abortion website (by very likely letting Planned Parenthood manage it) in order to kill more pre-born babies statewide.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 1500, as amended March 28:

This bill would require the State Department of Public Health to partner with an organization, as specified, to update and maintain the above-described internet website. The bill would require the internet website to include additional information on sexual and reproductive health, including, among others, sexual and reproductive health information historically relied on and made available on federal internet websites, as specified. The bill would require the organization to recruit, form, and consult with a stakeholder workgroup and community workgroup, as specified, to determine and update the information and resources posted on the internet website. The bill would require the organization, in consultation with those workgroups, to review the information and resources on the internet website to ensure that it is current and updated at reasonable intervals, but no less than once every 3 months. The bill would require the department to ensure public awareness of the internet website, as specified. The bill would require the department to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature on an annual basis that includes, at a minimum, information about the internet website’s reach and impact.

Status | Votes: AB 1500 on April 23 was referred to the "suspense file" of the Assembly Appropriations Committee Previously, on April 8, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all 12 Democrats; voting no was Republican Kate Sanchez; having no vote recorded were Republicans Phillip Chen and Heath Flora).

SEXUAL & RACIST INDOCTRINATION OF CHILDREN

AB 86 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Tasha Boerner would require the California State Board of Education to adopt K-8 "sexual health education materials." All based on the anti-family 2019 curriculum frameworks requiring kids to be positively taught to accept masturbation, oral sex, teen fornication, homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, abortion, and more.

Status | Votes: AB 86 on April 9 was referred to the "suspense file" of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee on March 12 (voting yes was nearly every Democrat + Republicans Josh Hoover of east Sacramento County and Leticia Castillo of west Riverside County; Democrat Robert Garcia of Rancho Cucamonga did not vote).

AB 935 by Democrat Party Assemblywoman Rhodesia Ransom would promote, even more than currently, the Big Lies of racism and "LGBTQIA+" within state government.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 935, as amended May 5:

"Beginning July 1, 2026, this bill would require, upon receipt of a complaint subject to the Uniform Complaint Procedures that alleges unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying received by the department, the Superintendent to collect specified information, including, among other things, a description of the complaint received. The bill would require the Superintendent to create and post on the department’s internet website a summary report of the data described above and provide a copy of the report to the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery, which would be established as provided by SB 518 of the 2025–26 Regular Session of the Legislature, and require the bureau to create and publish a dashboard that allows the public to view the data."

"This bill would require the Civil Rights Department to collect, for a complaint received, certain demographic information, including, ethnicity, race, and gender of the individual submitting the complaint, and certain information related to the complaint, including, among other things, a description of the complaint received. The bill would require the department to publish the compiled information on its internet website and to transmit the data to the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery for creation and publication of dashboards, as specified."

Status | Votes: This bad bill on May 14 was placed on the "suspense file" of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Earlier, on April 30, it passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; no vote recorded for the committee's two Republicans: Leticia Castillo and Josh Hoover); on April 8 in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican David Tangipa; no vote recorded for Republicans Diane Dixon and Kate Sanchez).

AB 1468 by Democrat Party Assemblyman Rick Zbur + 30 other Democrats would promote racist "ethnic studies" in all government-run high schools, including those with 9th graders. This bill would require the California State Board of Education to develop and adopt " curriculum frameworks and instructional materials for ethnic studies" by Jan. 1, 2028. It would also require "ethnic studies" curriculum, instruction, and instructional materials to "foster multicultural respect and understanding and focus on the domestic experience and stories of historically marginalized peoples in American society." More about AB 1468, which "LGBTQIA+" activists have coauthored.

Status: After being scheduled for a May 15 hearing in the Assembly Education Committee (while this violates the May 2 deadline for bills to pass their initial policy committees, on April 28, the Assembly, by a two-thirds vote, approved an exemption allowing AB 1468 to be heard in committee), on May 8, the committee postponed the hearing for AB 1468. This bad bill is in trouble!

ACA 7 by Democrat Party Assemblyman Corey Jackson would change the California Constitution to permit blatant discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in all aspects of K-12 schools, colleges, and universities (except in "higher education admissions and enrollment").

Status | Votes: ACA 7 on May 14 was placed on the "suspense file" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, on May 6, this racist proposal passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no; note these late policy hearing dates are permitted for state constitutional amendments, such as ACA 7). Previously, on April 23, this bad proposal passed the Assembly Higher Education Committee (voting yes were 6 of 7 Democrats; voting no were all 3 Republicans; no vote recorded for Democrat Darshana Patel).

SB 608 by Democrat Party State Senator Caroline Menjivar would Invite "internal and external condoms available and easily accessible to pupils" in state schools, grades 7-12, and would eliminate all age barriers by requiring retail stores to sell condoms to minors.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of SB 608, as amended March 24:

"This bill would prohibit a public school, as defined, that serves pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from prohibiting certain school-based health centers, as defined, from making internal and external condoms available and easily accessible to pupils at the school-based health center site and would require those public schools to allow condoms to be made available during the course of, or in connection with, educational or public health programs and initiatives, as provided."

"This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit a retail establishment, as defined, from refusing to furnish nonprescription contraception to a person solely on the basis of age by means of any conduct, including, but not limited to, requiring the customer to present identification for purposes of demonstrating their age. Under the bill, a violation of that prohibition would be exempt from the above-described criminal penalty."

Status | Votes: SB 608 on May 16 was scheduled for a May 23 hearing (this is the last day to escape committee) in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, on April 9, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were 8 Democrats; no vote recorded for 1 Democrat (Akilah Weber Pierson) and the committee's two Republicans (Shannon Grove and Suzette Valladares). Earlier, on April 2, this bad bill passed the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all 5 Democrats; voting no were both Republicans).

ENDANGERING LIVES AND SAFETY

SB 403 by Democrat Party State Senator Catherine Blakespear SB 403 has been gutted and will no longer target dementia patients. Instead it now extends "indefinitely" California's horrible, dangerous "assisted suicide" law, which doesn't even guarantee the choice of the person. SB 403 is still a bad bill killing people who could otherwise live decades. 

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest:

"Existing law, the End of Life Option Act, until January 1, 2031, authorizes an adult who meets certain qualifications, including, among other things, being a resident of the State of California, and who has been determined by their attending physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, as defined, to make a request for an aid-in-dying drug for the purpose of ending their life. Existing law makes specified violations of the act a crime, including knowingly coercing or exerting undue influence on an individual to request or ingest an aid-in-dying drug for the purpose of ending their life. This bill would repeal the January 1, 2031, expiration date of the act, thereby extending the operation of the act indefinitely."

Status | Votes: SB 403 on May 16 was scheduled for a May 23 hearing (this is the last day to escape committee) in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Earlier, on April 29, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiary Committee (voting yes nearly were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Suzette Valladares; no vote recorded for Republican Roger Niello). Previously, this harmful bill on April 23 passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were all of the committee's Democrats; voting no were both Republicans)

DEAD FOR THE YEAR: 

AB 1333 by Democrat Party Assemblyman Rick Zbur would limit justifiable homicide, including limiting self-defense in cases of home invasions

Status: On March 12, the ultra-liberal West Hollywood "LGBTQIA+" author announced he was withdrawing AB 1333 due to "misleading information" that cause public outrage. The story behind the story is that Democrat Party politicians routinely vote pro-criminal and anti-gunowner. But "pushing the envelope" of morality with AB 1333 was going to hurt the Democrat Party brand. So the Democrat Party "leadership" at the State Capitol made the New Communist Democrat author of AB 1333 pull his bill.

SB 510 by Democrat Party State Senator Laura Richardson + 11 other Democrats on April 21 is a "public education" bill that was significantly amended to remove language, such as, "the treatment and perspectives of African Americans regarding the harm California has done to African Americans." The part of the bill that promoted "Critical Race Theory" (CRT) brainwashing is gone; therefore, we're considering that bill "dead fo the year." 

Please share this page with your friends so they realize what California Democrat Party legislators and their RINO accomplices are pushing.

*  *  *  *  *  

Legislative Archive

2024's worst bills and their outcomes

2023's worst bills and their outcomes

2022's worst bills and their outcomes

2021's worst bills and their outcomes