Chris Micheli

Is “Encouragement” Sufficient in Legislation?  By Chris Micheli             In reviewing legislation in the California Legislature over the years, we are well aware of statements of legislative intent. Sometimes there are single statements of intent and, in other instances, there are multiple intent statements. Recently, I came across a bill in which, rather than an intent statement, there was a different word used. In this particular instance, the statement was one of “encouragement.”             Specifically, this bill during the 2023 Legislative Session contains the following statement: “ The Legislature encourages   county offices of education  to establish their own respective County Working Group on Fentanyl Education in Schools.” In most instances, we would expect to find a statement such as: “the Legislature intends the county offices of education to establish…”             Although I had not recalled seeing this type of encouragement statement in legislation, there are a

Named Acts, but No Tombstones in California Legislation  By Chris Micheli             In the past, usually for important pieces of legislation, the main legislator or group of key legislators who authored the bill would occasionally place their name in the act’s title, which became part of the statute. In some instances, the important legislative act has been simply known by the legislator’s name. Examples of Tombstone Acts The following examples are of acts that were named after their key legislative authors: This chapter shall be known as the Ralph M. Brown Act. This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Examples of Formal Acts The following examples are of formal acts know by their subject matter. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Offshore Wind Advancement Act. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Safe and Supportive Schools Act. Examples of Named Acts             The following exam

Another California Legislative Process Bill Example  By Chris Micheli             For those watching the Senate and Assembly Floors on Thursday, March 23, 2023, one bill jumped through several procedural hurdles in a single day. The bill is SBX1 – 2 (or SB 2x) dealing with the maximum gross gasoline refining margin. It is a special session (in the First Extraordinary Session) bill. In the Senate Today             Before the Senate Session, SB 2x was heard and voted out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Once the Senate convened its Floor Session, this bill was placed on a Supplemental File (rather than the regular Daily File) and was debated and voted upon. In addition, the Senate voted to waive Joint Rule 37.4(b), explained below. After passing the Senate, the bill was transmitted to the Assembly. In the Assembly Today             During this morning’s Assembly Session, the Assembly completed three procedural steps: First, the Assembly waived Article IV, Section 8(b)(1)

California Court of Appeal Mainly Upholds Prop. 22 – App-Based Drivers  By Chris Micheli             On March 13, 2023, the California First District Court of Appeal, in Castellanos v. State of California , primarily upheld Proposition 22 on two main grounds. As readers may recall, Prop. 22 was approved by 58% of the voters on the November 2020 general election ballot in California. Prop. 22 allows app-based drivers to be classified as independent contractors if specified conditions are met. Prop. 22 was a statutory initiative and it added Sections 7448 – 7467 to the Business and Professions Code.             An Alameda County Superior Court judge granted a petition filed by opponents of Prop. 22 that the entire ballot measure was invalid. The court of appeal on March 13 ruled 2-1 that Prop. 22 does not violate the state Constitution on either the Legislature’s authority over the workers’ compensation system or the single subject rule. However, two subdivisions were deemed to viola

Combining Legislative Findings and Intent Statements  By Chris Micheli             In reviewing legislation in the California Legislature over the past few years, as well as a number of California appellate court decisions, I definitely have a preferred approach to setting forth legislative findings, declarations, and intent in legislation. In that vein, I came across a recently bill in the 2023 California Legislative Session that follows this approach.             In this particular bill, Section 1 sets forth a series of legislative findings and declarations, followed by a statement of legislative intent. In this particular bill, Section 1 is uncodified language, but that is not the important part. Instead, combining these statements and using them together is my preferred approach.             The legislative findings and declarations “set the stage” regarding a general basis or purpose of the legislation, followed by a clear statement of legislative intent. This approach is di

Legislative Declarations Regarding Non-Municipal Affairs  By Chris Micheli             Bills in the California Legislature occasionally designate a provision of state law to apply to all cities, which means the proposed state law applies equally to both general law cities and charter cities. This occurs when the Legislature makes a finding and declaration that the matter addressed by the legislation “is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair” pursuant to the California Constitution.             By making this finding and declaration, the Legislature states that the bill’s provisions apply to all cities, including charter cities (which are otherwise governed by their voter-approved city charter). The following is a recent example of this standardized language found in 2023 legislation:   The Legislature finds and declares that cybersecurity and the transmission of sensitive information is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that te

Can the Governor Skip the State-of-the-State Address?  By Chris Micheli             Governor Newsom announced that he would not be delivering the traditional State-of-the-State address in the Assembly Chambers in the historic California State Capitol in 2023. Can he do that? The answer is yes.                Article 5, Section 3 of the California Constitution states: “The Governor shall report to the Legislature each calendar year on the condition of the State and may make recommendations.” This language is clear that an annual report must be made to the Legislature, but form that report takes is not specified. In other words, the state Constitution does not specify whether a written or verbal report is done.               Of course, to use legislative terminology, it has been the “custom and practice” of California Governors to address the two houses of the Legislature in the Assembly Chambers for many decades. This has occurred since roughly the time of World War II when Gove

What Are the Component Parts of California’s Codes?  By Chris Micheli             California has over 155,000 individual statutes. Those statutes are placed in one of 29 Codes, which this state gives a name to, as opposed to the federal government and some states, which provide a number. California’s 29 Codes begin with the Business and Professions Code and conclude with the Welfare and Institutions Code, with 27 other Codes in between.             What are the component parts of these 29 Codes?             In the Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 6 notes that d ivision, part, chapter, article, and section headings contained in the Codes are not to be deemed to govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions of any division, part, chapter, article, or section hereof. So, those are the component parts of the Codes. Just as a bill has a format or hierarchy, so does each code. Each code has its own hierarchy of provisions and org

This Bill Has a Number of “Plus Sections”  By Chris Micheli             As readers may recall, at the end of bills in the California Legislature, there may be “plus sections,” which are uncodified provisions that may do a number of things, such as expressing legislative intent, making legislative findings and declarations, or explaining why a bill may have a certain designation. Probably the most common plus section is the state-mandated cost disclaimer language.             Many bills in the California Legislature do not contain any plus sections. When bills do contain them, there is usually just one plus section, but sometimes a reader might see two or even three of these sections.             While reading through recently gutted-and-amended bills, I came across a measure with five plus sections, which definitely stood out to me. Other than the budget bill, or a budget bill junior, which often contain a number of plus sections, this particular Assembly Bill had quite a few. Th

Why Do California Tax Bills Contain “Section 41” Provisions?  By Chris Micheli             If you have reviewed a number of bills in the California Legislature that add new provisions to the Revenue and Taxation Code, you may have noticed references to Section 41. What is “Section 41” and why do we often find it mentioned in tax bills?             Revenue and Taxation Code Section 41 requires any bill introduced after January 1, 2020 to contain specified information if the bill would authorize a new tax expenditure (defined as “ a credit, deduction, exclusion, exemption, or any other tax benefit as provided for by the state”) . These new tax expenditures have to fall under the Personal Income Tax Law, Corporation Tax Law, or00 the Sales Tax Law (creating an exemption).             Section 41 requires the bill to contain:   ·          Specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure will achieve.   ·          Detailed performance indicators for the Legislatu

It’s Not Just the Spot Bill Deadline  By Chris Micheli             In another one of my “legislative geek” moments, I would like to suggest that we change our terminology to “placeholder bill.” For example, everyone is aware of the upcoming “spot bill deadlines” in the Assembly (amendments in Legislative Counsel form due March 13 by 5pm) and Senate (amendments in Legislative Counsel form due March 22 by 3pm).             However, these deadlines apply to more than just spot bills. They also apply to bills that contain only legislative intent statements, and even a bill introduced that only contains legislative findings and declarations. All three of these types of introduced bills are meant to be placeholder bills, awaiting substantive language to be added so that the respective Rules Committees will refer those bills to a policy committee for their first hearing.             I realize that many individuals working in and around the California Legislature simply refer to all of t