Posts

A Look at 2025 Bill Introductions in the California Legislature

A Look at 2025 Bill Introductions in the California Legislature By Chris Micheli In the first year in which bill introduction limits were reduced to 35 bills per Assembly Member and Senator for the two-year Session, we saw 2,350 bills introduced. Friday, February 21 was the deadline for bill introductions in the 2025 California Legislative Session. There were a total of 2,350 bills introduced by yesterday’s deadline for the first year of the 2025-26 Session. Last year’s total was 2,124 by the February 16, 2024 deadline. Of the total number of bills introduced this year, there were 1,500 Assembly Bills and 850 Senate Bills. Last year in the 2024 Session, there were 1,505 Assembly Bills and 619 Senate Bills introduced by the deadline. In addition, of this year’s total, there are 390 spot bills and 481 intent bills, for a total of 871 placeholder bills, which is 37% of the total bill introductions that lack substantive language upon introduction. (This figure is in line with histo...
Post a Comment
Read more

What Are the Key Dates in Law for the State Budget?

What Are the Key Dates in Law for the State Budget?  By Chris Micheli                Many Capitol observers believe all of the relevant dates applicable to the state’s budget are contained in the California Constitution. However, there are only two dates found in the state Constitution. And, they are both found in Article IV dealing with the legislative branch of state government. So, which dates are constitutional requirements?                Article IV, Section 12(a) specifies that, “Within the first 10 days of each calendar year, the Governor shall submit to the Legislature, with an explanatory message, a budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for recommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues.” This is the first step in the calendar year for the state budget: the Governor submits their budget prop...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interesting Preliminary Provisions of the Family Code

Interesting Preliminary Provisions of the Family Code  By Chris Micheli             California’s over 155,000 statutes are contained in 29 separate Codes. The ninth alphabetically is the Family Code. All 29 Codes have general or preliminary provisions applicable to reading and interpreting that Code’s sections. In reviewing those introductory provisions contained in the Family Code, a few of them caught my attention, including the following, and I have added some commentary:             Section 3 – A provision of this Code, if it is the same in substance as a provision of a uniform act, it is to be construed to effectuate the general purpose to make uniform the law in those states which enact that provision. Comment : Uniform acts are an important tool in drafting statutes both nationally and internationally. The idea behind a uniform act is that all legislative bodie...
Post a Comment
Read more

Maximum Number of Bills in the California Legislature

Maximum Number of Bills in the California Legislature  By Chris Micheli             Under prior rules of the Senate and Assembly in the California Legislature, during their 2-year Sessions, Assembly Members could introduce a maximum of 4,000 bills (50 bills x 80 members) and Senators could introduce a maximum of 1,600 bills (40 bills x 40 members) for a total of 5,600 bills between the two houses. Of course, hundreds of resolutions and constitutional amendments could also be introduced. And, there were over 100 bills in both houses authored by committees, particularly the budget committees. While legislators have not gotten close to the 5,600 bills cap in the past decade, this year’s reduction in total bill introductions will result in a major reduction. For the current 2025-26 California Legislative Session, Assembly Members can introduce a maximum of 2,800 bills (35 bills x 80 members) and Senators can introduce a maxim...
Post a Comment
Read more

What Comes After Reducing Bill Limits?

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Add an Affordability Question to Legislative Bill Analyse

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

California Courts and the Reenactment Rule

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...
Post a Comment
Read more