Chris Micheli

What Comes After Reducing Bill Limits?  By Chris Micheli Now that the bill introduction limits have been reduced in both the Assembly (thank you, Speaker Rivas) and Senate (thank you, PT McGuire), I hope that a few other things might change in the legislative process. First, in light of considering fewer bills, many would like to see the standing committees do away with the “2-and-2 for 2 minutes each” rule. Even if a cap on the number of principal witnesses were to remain (perhaps increasing it to 3 or 4), a 2-minute limitation is unwarranted. Legislators should hear from experts and engage those individuals with questions and debate. Of course, witnesses should be admonished from providing duplicative testimony, but 4 or 5 minutes would allow more information to be provided. And, hopefully, that additional, substantive testimony would elicit discussion and debate among the committee members as they decide whether to proceed with proposed legislation. In my opinion, most wit...

Add an Affordability Question to Legislative Bill Analyses By Chris Micheli                For those around during the pandemic, you may recall that a number of policy committees included in their committee worksheet a question about how the particular bill was related to addressing problems associated with the pandemic. That prompts me to suggest the following for the 2025 Session: In this “year of affordability,” perhaps Senate and Assembly committees should include a question in their bill worksheets such as: How does this bill address affordability in this state? Or, will this bill result in a reduction in the cost of purchasing for citizens or the cost of doing business in California? And then the committee should include that information in their bill analysis for consideration by legislators.

California Courts and the Reenactment Rule  By Chris Micheli             In County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates  (2018), the California Supreme Court dealt with the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) which, among other provisions, imposed duties on county governments. The court decision also addressed the California Constitution’s “reenactment rule.” The California Constitution requires that “[a] section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended.” (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 9.) The Supreme Court granted the State respondents’ petition for review to consider whether Proposition 83, by amending and reenacting provisions of the SVPA, constituted a “subsequent change in law” sufficient to modify the Commission's prior decision, which directed the State of California to reimburse local governments for the costs of implementing the SVPA. (Gov. Code, § 17570, subd. (b).) Th...

California Courts and Prospective Application of Laws  By Chris Micheli             California courts follow the statutory construction principle that statutes are to be applied prospectively unless there is clear evidence that the Legislature intended retroactive application as well. What are some recent appellate court statements on the topic of prospective application of new laws? The following are two recent examples: California Medical Assn. v. Brown , 193 Cal.App.4th 1449 (2011) In the absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary, statutory enactments apply prospectively. “‘[I]n the absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary statutory enactments apply prospectively’” ( Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364, 470), and the legislative history in this instance indicates that no retroactive application was intended. The legislation originated in an Assembly Bill which when first introduced stated t...

Number of Registered Lobbyists in California  By Chris Micheli In California, there are over 3,200 registered lobbyists with the state. Note that in most large cities in California there are also registration and reporting requirements for those engaged in local government lobbying (i.e., city councils and boards of supervisors). How does California’s number compare to other large jurisdictions? Official accounts peg the number of lobbyists in Washington, DC at 12,000 (those lobbying the US Congress and federal executive branch) and 29,000 in Brussels, Belgium (those lobbying the EU Parliament), which is up from 25,000 in 2020. How have the number of registered lobbyists grown in Sacramento in lobbying the legislative and executive branches? Based upon data from the California Secretary of State’s Office obtained by Sameea Kamal of CalMatters, the following chart tracks those registrations by 2-year Legislative Session and compares the number year-over-year and from 25 y...

California Courts and State Mandates in Statutes  By Chris Micheli             In County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates  (2018), the California Supreme Court dealt with the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) which, among other provisions, imposed duties on county governments. For the first 15 years of the SVPA's existence, it was the State of California that –– according to the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) –– had to foot the bill. In early 2013, the Department of Finance (DOF) asked the CSM to reconsider its earlier decision and declare that the SVPA was no longer a state-mandated program. The DOF argued that the state's financial responsibility ceased on November 7, 2006, when the voters enacted The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessica's Law (Proposition 83), which “substantively amended and reenacted various sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code that had served as the bas...