Policy Snapshot_May 2020

Policy Snapshot Spring 2020

Licensed from AdobeStock.com

Maya Ghosh ’22, Maria Gutierrez-Vera ’22, Zenaida Huerta ’20, Phillip Williams ’23 Kenneth P. Miller, Faculty Supervisor

TABLE OF CONTENTS SB 464: Maternal Healthcare Bias........................................... Page 2 SB 206: Fair pay to play Act........................................................... Page 4 SB 276: Vaccine Exemptions.......................................................... Page 6 AB 32:

Private Prisons .................................................................. Page 8

SB 330: Housing Crisis Act of 2019 ......................................... Page 10 SB 24:

Medical Abortions in Universities ....................... Page 12

AB 1482: Caps on Rent Hikes ........................................................ Page 14 SB 230: Police Training ............................................................... Page 16 AB 44:

Fur Ban .................................................................................. Page 18

AB 1383: Admission by Exemption............................................... Page 20

SB 464: Maternal Healthcare Bias

While socioeconomic factors may be partially to blame for the racial disparities in pregnancy-related outcomes in the state, research indicates that when these socioeconomic factors are controlled for, the disparities for black women still exist. Supporters of the bill believe that implicit racial bias in the healthcare system may contribute to the problem. Before enactment of SB 464, the state did not require perinatal health providers to complete implicit bias training. The new law is designed to prepare “perinatal medical providers to better care for mothers…so that childbirth remains a joyful moment for all mothers, and not a life-threatening event for black mothers.”3

Photo licensed from AdobeStock.com

Purpose: SB 464 aims to reduce racial disparities in perinatal maternal care.

Background: According to the California Department of Public Health, the rate of maternal mortality rate black women in the state is quadruple that of white women.1 SB 464, also known as “The California Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act,” seeks to improve perinatal care for women of color by requiring health care providers to complete implicit bias training. The bill’s author, Senator Holly Mitchell, claims that inadequate perinatal care can lead to health risks, which in some cases can lead to death. The bill defines “perinatal care” as the provision of care during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum and neonatal periods.2 1

Adria Watson, “A black mother told not to scream in labor asks: Can California fix racism in maternity care?,” CalMatters, last modified July 2019, accessed February 6, 2020, https:// calmatters.org/health/2019/07/black-women-health-racism-maternity-care-california/.

2 “SB-464 California Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act.,” California Legislative Information, last modified

Policy Snapshot | 2

The bill passed both houses unanimously: 38-0 in the senate and 79-0 in the assembly. On October 7, 2019, Governor Newsom signed it into law.

Key Provisions: SB 464 requires the implicit bias program include these provisions, among many others: • Identification of previous and current biases.

• Information on the effects, including, but not limited to, ongoing personal effects, of historical and contemporary exclusion and oppression of minority communities.

• Information about communicating more effectively across identities, including racial, ethnic, religious, and gender identities.

• Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular racial, identity, cultural, and provider-community relations issues in the community.

October 7, 2019, accessed February 6, 2020, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB464.

3 “SUBJECT: California Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act,” in California Legislative Information, [Page #], last modified September 9, 2019, accessed February 6, 2020, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=201920200SB464.

SB 464: Maternal Healthcare Bias

The bill also requires a facility to offer a certification of completion for the implicit bias training program upon request. Additionally, the bill requires the Department of Public Health track and publish data on maternal death and requires hospitals to give patients information on how to file a discrimination complaint to the Medical Board of California and Department of Public Health.

Fiscal Impact: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, SB 464 would impose one-time costs of $170,000 for the California Department of Public Health to modify records systems used to store death certificates.

Ongoing costs to the California Department of Public Health include $350,000 for research staff to collect and disseminate maternal mortality and morbidity data. In addition, the Medical Board of California, the Department of Public Health, and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing may incur additional costs as a result of discrimination claims authorized by the law.4

Implications: There are 54 registered hospitals in San Bernardino County and 38 registered hospitals in Riverside County.5 All hospitals that provide perinatal care will need to create an implicit bias certification program for perinatal health care workers.

In the past few years, early perinatal care in San Bernardino County had decreased 1.3%. A recent estimate found that approximately 82% of pregnant women in San Bernardino County received early perinatal care, which is still “above the national Healthy People 2020 objective of 77.9%.”6 However, a 2016 estimate demonstrated that around 75% of black women in San Bernardino County received care, which was below the objective percentage.7 The California Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act is an attempt to equalize disparities in maternal care and ensure that all women feel safe and comfortable when in consultations and treatment.

Supporters: Include: • Black Women for Wellness • ACT for Women and Girls • NARAL California • California Hospital Foundation • Western Center on Law and Poverty

Opponents: None documented.

5 “Riverside County CA Hospitals, San Bernardino

County CA Hospitals,” CA Hometown Locator, accessed February 6, 2020, https://california.hometownlocator.com/features/ cultural,class,hospital,scfips,06065.cfm.

6 “Prenatal Care - San Bernardino County,” San Ber-

nardino County - Community Indicators, accessed February 6,

4

Ibid.

2020, http://indicators.sbcounty.gov/wellness/prenatal-care/.

7 Ibid.

Policy Snapshot | Page 3

SB 206: Fair Pay to Play Act

from the viral video of her competition performance (viewed over 44 million times on Twitter). Former UCLA and pro basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar also voiced his support for the Fair Pay to Play Act.9

PHOTO CREDIT: Ben Margot | Los Angeles Daily News

Purpose : SB 206 allows collegiate student-athletes to receive compensation from the promotion and use of their name, image, and likeness.

Background: In September 2019 Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 206 (also called “The Fair Pay to Play Act”) during a taping of basketball star LeBron James’ show, “The Shop.”8 The law gives California student-athletes the right to earn compensation from the use of their image, name, and likeness in sponsorship deals, marketing, YouTube videos, and more. Supporters argue that the law allows for equal financial opportunities among college students, as students who are artists, musicians, and deejays are able to profit off of their work. For sim ilar reasons, this law was supported by former UCLA gymnast Katelyn Ohashi, who did not see any profits 8 Bryan Anderson, “California becomes first state to allow college athletes to be paid,” SacBee, last modified September 30, 2019, accessed February 6, 2020, https://www.sacbee.com/ news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article235617132.html.

Policy Snapshot | 4

The collegiate sports governing body, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), has staunchly opposed the Fair Pay to Play Act. The NCAA is composed of 102 athletic conferences and 1,098 colleges and universities, and the organization’s purpose is to work with these member groups to promote college athletics, tournaments, and athlete well-being.10 In response to the news of Governor Newsom signing the Fair Pay to Play Act, the organization stated that the “new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.”11 The NCAA believes that the bill sets an unfair precedent and will end fiscal equality between student-athletes of different states. Legislators in Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina are all working on proposals which are modeled after California’s Fair Pay to Play Act.12 The Fair Pay to Play Act received bipartisan support and unanimously passed the Assembly (73-0) and Senate (39-0). The act was signed by Newsom on September 27, 2019 and will go into effect on January 1, 2023.

9 “California passes bill that would allow college players to make money,” The Guardian, last modified September 2019, accessed February 6, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/ sport/2019/sep/10/california-bill-college-athletes-paid.

10 “What is the NCAA?,” NCAA, accessed February 6, 2020, http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-

101/what-ncaa.

11 “NCAA statement on Gov. Newsom signing SB 206,” NCAA, last modified September 30, 2019, accessed February 6, 2020, http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ ncaa-statement-gov-newsom-signing-sb-206.

12 Charlotte Carroll, “Tracking NCAA Fair Play Legislation Across the Country,” Sports Illustrated, last modified October 2, 2019, accessed February 6, 2020, https://www.si.com/

college/2019/10/02/tracking-ncaa-fair-play-image-likeness-laws.

SB 206: Fair Pay to Play Act

Key Provisions: SB 206 includes the following provisions: Universities in California and athletic conferences (such as the NCAA) shall not prevent student athletes in the state from earning compensation from use of their names, images, or likenesses.

• Universities cannot revoke scholarships if student-athletes receive compensation or legal representation.

• Athletic program team contracts cannot prevent student athletes from using their own names, images, and likenesses when the athlete is not involved with the team’s activities.

• Universities, conferences and athletic associations cannot provide direct compensation to student athletes for use of their name, image, or likeness.

•

Fiscal Impact: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the fiscal impact of the Fair Pay to Play Act includes a one-time expense of $500,000 to the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, a few hundred thousand dollars to the University of California and California State University to cover the ongoing costs of staffing offices to manage compliance, and then an array of unknown, ongoing costs from violating NCAA laws.13

13 Legislature Senate Rules Committee, Senate Floor Analyses: SB 206 (Sacramento, CA, 2019), 6.

Supporters Include: • Various athletes (LeBron James, UCLA football coach Chip Kelly, Katelyn Ohashi) • Various politicians (Nancy Skinner, Gavin Newsom, Steve Bradford, Buffy Wicks)

Opponents Include: • NCAA • Stanford • USC

Implications: The Fair Pay to Play Act is the first legislative measure of its kind and has sent shockwaves through the NCAA and colleges that participate in its sports leagues. The law has created a clear competitive incentive for other states to provide student-athletes similar financial opportunities. The NCAA is “considering next steps” and may rewrite rules to avoid disadvantaging non-California schools and students who do not receive compensation.14 This law will primarily affect collegiate athletes at Division I schools in California, such as UCLA, USC, Stanford, and Cal. Few student athletes who attend colleges and universities in the Inland Empire will receive promotional deals because they participate in lower profile athletic programs. A few student athletes who played at universities in the region, including former Cal State San Bernardino basketball players Ivan Johnson and James Cotton, as well as former UC Riverside football player Butch Johnson, have gone on to play professionally. In addition, Inland Empire athletes who compete at prominent Division I programs could benefit financially from the new law.

14 “NCAA statement,” NCAA. Policy Snapshot | Page 5

SB 276: Vaccine Exemptions

Additionally, anti-vaxxers argue that government has no place mandating universal vaccinations, and that the choice to vaccinate a child should be decided by parents or doctors. In 2018, 94.8% of California’s kindergarteners had received all of their vaccinations and 0.9% had received medical exemptions.16

Photo licensed from AdobeStock.com

Purpose: SB 276 makes it harder to opt out of required vaccinations.

Background: Child vaccinations are a contentious issue. Research shows that when a sufficient portion of a population is immune to an infectious disease then even individuals not vaccinated (like newborns or those with chronic illnesses) have some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community.15 This is known as herd immunity or community immunity and is the primary public health reason to require vaccinations. Supporters believe that mandated vaccinations will reduce the chance of contracting diseases and that healthier children means healthier communities. Opponents (known as “anti-vaxxers”) believe that vaccines may cause autism or expose children to side effects stemming from the injections themselves.

15

“Community Immunity: How Vaccines Protect Us All” Oct. 2011. Accessed May 2020. https://newsinhealth.nih. gov/2011/10/community-immunity

Policy Snapshot | 6

State Senator Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a practicing pediatrician, authored SB 276 after noticing that vaccination exemption rates in California have increased. In 2016, Senator Pan coauthored a law that eliminated religious or philosophical beliefs as a basis for exemptions from vaccination requirements.17 However, that law preserved a doctor’s ability to provide medical exemptions from vaccinations. The new law prevents medical professionals from exempting children without vaccine-related allergies. Doctors will not be able to receive compensation for issuing vaccine exemptions and will have to report vaccine exemption cases to public health officials. Many doctors opposed this bill. Some argued it prevents their patients from receiving individualized care. Additionally, some argued the law prevents doctors from providing legitimate vaccine waivers in order to protect their careers.

The vaccination bill received national attention when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and actress Jessica Biel came to Sacramento to oppose it. In addition, some anti-vaxxers engaged in disruptive protests in the capitol. After contentious debate, the legislature approved the bill.

Governor Newsom signed it into law on September 9, 2019.

16 Elizabeth Aguilera, “Five things to know now about

California’s new vaccine law,” CalMatters, last modified September 15, 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://calmatters.org/ health/2019/09/california-new-law-vaccination-medical-exemption/.

17

Ibid.

SB 276: Vaccine Exemptions

Key Provisions:

Implications:

SB 276 includes the following provisions:

SB 276 furthers California’s aggressive approach to vaccinating children. However, these policies have faced strong resistance. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s organization, Children’s Health Defense, announced in September 2019 that it intends to sue California to block the law from going into effect. However, no suit has been filed so far. Opponents of this law are deeply committed to their cause and the debate over government accountability and the relationship between doctors, public health officials, and parents will likely continue.

•

The California Department of Public Health will review immunization reports from schools that have a vaccination rate below 95%.

•

The California Department of Public Health will review physicians and surgeons who write more than five medical exemptions from vaccinations in a year.

•

Under penalty of perjury, doctors must testify that their written medical exemptions are valid.

Fiscal Impact: The Assembly Appropriations Committee finds that costs relating to the implementation of the bill are unknown. It is not possible to estimate amount of labor costs during the review or of appeals and exemptions.

However, the committee has approximated a cost of $400,000 for improvements to the California Immunization Registry, systems maintenance, and staffing.18

In 2018, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties both had a kindergarten vaccination rate of 96.5%, which is higher than the statewide average of 94%.19 Pan’s legislation aims not to drastically change vaccination rates but rather to fill the small gap needed to maintain healthy communities.

Supporters Include: • Vaccinate California • California Medical Association • American Academy of Pediatrics

Opponents Include: • The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons • Advocates for Physician’s Rights • Children’s Health Defense • Jessica Biel, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. • Anti-Vaxxers 18 Legislature, Senate Third Reading: SB 276 (Sacramento, CA: Ca, 2019), 2.

19

«2017-2018 Kindergarten Immunization Assessment – Executive Summary California Department of Public Health, Immunization Branch,» CDPH, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/ CDPH%20Document%20Library/Immunization/20172018KindergartenSummaryReport.pdf.

Policy Snapshot | Page 7

AB 32: Private Prisons

Photo licensed from AdobeStock.com

Purpose: AB 32 prohibits the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from entering, or renewing any contracts with private, for-profit prisons after January 1, 2020, and eliminates them in the state after 2028.20

Background: California’s first private prison opened in 1986, and the industry rapidly grew to respond to rising crime and the war on drugs. As of June 2019, the state incarcerated an estimated 2,200 people in for-profit prisons. In addition, as of August 2019, the federal immigration and customs enforcement agency (“ICE”) held an additional 1,300 people in private immigration detention centers in California. The use of private prisons as immigration detention centers has generated controversy.

20

Rob Bonta. 2019. Detention Facilities: Private, for-Profit Administration Services. Penal Code. Vol. Part 2. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB32.

Policy Snapshot | 8

Critics say these facilities are unnecessarily cruel in their treatment of immigrants by denying them access to doctors and lawyers and confining them in their cells for up to 22 hours a day, among other practices.21 Authored by Assembly member Rob Bonta (D-Oakland), AB 32 will cease state reliance on private prisons by 2028. The law’s proponents point to a report by the California state auditor finding that companies like Geo Group have used cities and middlemen to secure contracts for private immigration detention centers.

With promises of jobs and tax revenues, these companies have induced cities to sign agreements with ICE to hold immigrants pending deportation. For example, the city of Adelanto signed such an agreement in 2011 to hold 1,300 detainees.22 Following this agreement, the 21 Rebecca Plevin. n.d. “California Lawmaker Criticizes Conditions at Adelanto ICE Detention Center.” USA TODAY. Accessed February 6, 2020. https://www.desertsun.com/story/ news/2019/09/12/california-lawmaker-criticizes-conditions-adelanto-ice-detention-center/2306003001/.

22 Andrea Castillo. 2019. “California Bans For-Profit Prisons and Immigrant Detention Facilities.” Los Angeles Times. October 11, 2019. https://www.latimes.com/california/ story/2019-10-11/california-bans-for-profit-prisons-and-immigrant-detention-facilities.

Ab 32: Private Prisons

city subcontracted Geo Group to run detention facility operations. This process enabled ICE and Adelanto to sidestep competitive bidding for detention facility operation subcontracts.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association opposed the bill on the grounds that it would eliminate a vital tool for complying with court ordered prison population caps, possibly requiring the transfer of dangerous inmates from state prisons to county jails. Other proponents of private prisons argue that private prison companies save tax revenue and prevent overcrowding of prisons.

Fiscal Impact: Phasing out private prisons has the potential to cost the state of California over $130 million annually, as it absorbs the cost of detaining prisoners and expands its own capacity to house them. The yearly per capita cost of detaining a criminal in state prison is $84,848, approximately three times the cost of housing inmates in a private prison facility.24

Supporters Include: • Immigrants’ rights groups • Civil liberties groups • Progressive activists

Others have argued that the new law does not go far enough in preventing mass incarceration. In addition, immigration activists have expressed concern that AB 32 will not significantly reduce private detention of immigrants, as ICE may just choose to house immigrants in another state that has not prohibited private detention.23

Opponents Include:

Key Provisions:

Implications:

Bans the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from entering into or renewing any contracts with private, for-profit prisons after January 1, 2020.

• Seeks to eliminate the existence of private prisons in California by 2028.

• Expands the ban to include immigration detention centers.

• Covers private detention centers used by ICE. •

23 Alexei Koseff. 2019. “Legislature Votes to Ban Private Prisons, Sends Bill to Newsom.” San Francisco Chronicle. September 11, 2019. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ Legislature-votes-to-ban-private-prisons-sends-14432505.php.

• CA State Sheriff’s Association • Core Civic • GEO Group

Governor Newsom’s signature on AB 32 stands to affect the Inland Empire. Florida-based GEO Group currently operates two private prisons in Adelanto, a small city in San Bernardino county.25 These operations run a bill of $60 million per year and are set to expire in 2023. When they close, San Bernardino County is set to lose tax revenue and some number of jobs.

Shuttering private prisons, especially those in Kern and San Bernardino Counties, may mean that California Institute for Men (CIM) may be used to hold increased numbers of prisoners. Overcrowding in state prisons may become a possibility as private prisons are phased out in the next decade.

24

Legislature, Concurrence in Senate Amendments: AB 32 (Sacramento, CA: Ca, 2019), 3.

25 “The GEO Group - Official Website.” n.d. Accessed October 2019. https://www.geogroup.com/.

Policy Snapshot | Page 9

SB 330: housing Crisis Act of 2019

Photo licensed from AdobeStock.com

Purpose:

SB 330, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, aims to accelerate the construction of new housing by easing the permitting process, preventing local governments from halting construction, and limiting construction fees.

Background: The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 seeks address the state’s desperate need for housing, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Greater Los Angeles Area, by encouraging homebuilding. State Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) the author of the bill, believes that the low rate of affordable homebuilding “has resulted in the highest rents and homeownership in the nation and has deepened homelessness.”26 In fact, the cost of rent consumes half of the income of almost one-third of renters in the state. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 is part of a broader effort to fix the state’s housing problems. This effort includes legislation such 26 Nancy Skinner. 2019. Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

Government Code. Vol. Division 1. https://leginfo.legislature. ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330.

Policy Snapshot | 10

as the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which sought to address rent hikes.

The new law garnered support from the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable. Non-profit groups such as the Housing Association of Northern California and the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing were vocal in their support of the bill. Frank Martinez, director of the latter organization, stated, “... SB330 will help to give more Californians safe, stable, and affordable places to live.”27 The California Association of Realtors praised the bill as “a major step in addressing California’s housing shortage.”28 The League of California Cities (LCC) opposed the bill. Representing the sentiments of many local gov27

«Gov. Newsom Signs SB 330, ‹Housing Crisis Act of 2019,›» Senator Nancy Skinner, last modified October 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/ news/20191009-gov-newsom-signs-sb-330-»housing-crisisact-2019.»

28 Jeff Collins, “Newsom signs SB 330, ‘Housing Crisis Act of 2019’ aimed at speeding up homebuilding,” The Orange County Register, last modified October 9, 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/09/newsom-signsbill-seeking-to-streamline-homebuilding-3/.

SB 330: housing Crisis Act of 2019

ernments, the LCC argued that the bill is an overreach by the state government. Specifically, the league opposed the bill’s provisions allowing developers to keep more profits, its three-year ban on project development fees, and its ban on project specific fees.29

Key Provisions: Requires every city and county to create general plans that consider the role of housing in community growth and development.

• Prevents the scaling down of construction projects through processes such as lowering density, changing the height of proposed plans, or reducing floor-area plans.

• Prohibits local moratoriums on any housing plan unless the plan presents a direct threat to the health and safety of individuals.

•

Fiscal Impact: The Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates a fiscal impact of $405,000 for first-year costs, and an annual amount of $374,000 until 2025 for labor costs regarding city consultations and guideline revisions.

Additionally, local agencies may be burdened with non-reimbursable costs when revising plans to ensure that developments are in accordance with the new law.30

29 League Releases Update on Hot Legislative Bills List

- See more at: https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2019/May/League-Releases-Update-on-Hot-Legislative-Bills-Li#sthash.bhLTH2GY.dpuf,” League of California Cities, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www.cacities.org/Top/ News/News-Articles/2019/May/League-Releases-Update-onHot-Legislative-Bills-Li. 30 Legislature Senate Rules Committee, Senate Rules Committee: SB 330 (Sacramento, CA, 2019), 8.

Supporters Include: • • • • •

California Building Industry Association California Association of Realtors California Council for Affordable Housing Equality California Facebook

Opponents Include: • Association of California Cities (Orange County) • Boyle Heights Community Partners • League of California Cities

Implications: The Inland Empire witnessed a big spike in housing construction this year, adding an additional 1,700 apartment units in 2019 alone.31 This amounts to a 243% increase in overall large apartment construction.

The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 seeks to expand the availability of housing for those who seek to rent or buy homes.32 Riverside County is one of the fastest growing areas in the United States, and over 30,000 people settled in the county between 2017 and 2018.

The housing market in the Inland Empire has outperformed other regions of California, but still has a shortage.

31 Kevin Smith. 2019. “Inland Empire Sees Big

Spike in Apartment Construction, Adding 1,700 Units in 2019.” Press Enterprise. September 20, 2019. https://www. pe.com/2019/09/20/inland-empire-sees-big-spike-in-apartmentconstruction-adding-1700-units-in-2019/.

32 “Inland Empire Housing Forecast 2020: Riverside, San Bernardino, Ontario.” 2019. MetroDepth (blog). July 16, 2019. http://www.metrodepth.com/inland-empire-market-forecast-2020/.

Policy Snapshot | Page 11

SB 24: Medical Abortions in Universities

Photo licensed from AdobeStock.com

Purpose:

od of ending pregnancy through the ingestion of pills.

SB 24 requires student health care clinics at all University of California and Cal State University campuses to provide abortions “by medication techniques” by January 1, 2023.

The Department of Finance opposed SB 24 on the grounds that the expenditures required by the bill will take away valuable resources from other university investments.35 Furthermore, the department asserted that both public university systems do not possess the expertise to operate the program. Religious groups also coalesced in opposition to the bill. Jaime Soto, Bishop of The Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, argued that Governor Newsom’s stance against the death penalty ought to extend to his position on abortion, citing that the protection of human life applies to the unborn.

Conservative student groups at California State University and University of California also opposed the legislation, arguing against its passage on both moral and fiscal grounds.36

Background: The push for abortions on state university campuses began at the University of California, Berkeley, with Students United for Reproductive Justice (SURP) advocating for increased student access to abortion services. Students activists emphasized the difficulty of navigating off-campus referrals, especially for low-income students.33 Many supporters cited increased accessibility as a key reason for their support of the bill, as well as belief in equal access to reproductive justice.34 The law will provide medical abortions, a meth33 “Just CARE California – Campus Action for Reproductive Equity.” n.d. http://justcarecalifornia.org/.

34 “SB24 | California 2019-2020 | Public Health: Public

Policy Snapshot | 12

University Student Health Centers: Abortion by Medication Techniques.” n.d. TrackBill. Accessed February 6, 2020. https://trackbill.com/bill/california-senate-bill-24-public-health-public-university-student-health-centers-abortion-by-medication-techniques/1609439/.

35 “SB24 | California 2019-2020” 36 “SB24 | California 2019-2020”

SB 24: Medical Abortions in Universities

Key Provisions: Requires that each California State University and University of California campus provide abortion by medication services by January 1, 2023.

• Establishes the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls (CCSWG), which will manage the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund.

•

Fiscal Impact: SB 24 allocates $200,000 to the California State University and University of California systems to pay for costs, both direct and indirect, related to distributing abortions by medication. This includes evaluating the individual clinic’s readiness of student health centers, cost of training and hiring staff, and purchase of equipment required for the implementation of SB 24.37

Implications: The Inland Empire is home to three state universities: California State University, San Bernardino, Cal Poly Pomona, and University of California, Riverside. Together these three universities have a combined student population of around 75,000 students. Students on these campuses will now have on-campus access to medical abortions.38 However, this law does not cover California community colleges or private colleges. The Inland Empire is home to eleven community colleges, and twelve private colleges. Among these are Riverside Community College, Chaffey College, University of Redlands, the Claremont Colleges, and University of La Verne. The new law will not provide additional abortion services to students on these campuses.39 Photo licensed from AdobeStock.com

Supporters Include: • NARAL Pro-Choice California • ACLU California • Lieutenant Governor Kounalakis

Opponents Include: • Americans United for Life • Berkeley College Republicans • California Catholic Conference 37 Connie Leyva; Marlena Tavernier-Fine. 2019. “Califor-

nia SB 24 Approved, to Allow Medical Abortion Access at UCs.” DailyCal. April 9, 2019. https://www.dailycal.org/2019/04/04/ california-sb-24-passes-giving-students-on-uc-csu-campuses-access-to-medical-abortion/.

38 “Inland Empire Universities.” n.d. InlandEmpire.Us. https://inlandempire.us/inland-empire-universities/.

39 “Inland Empire Universities.”

Policy Snapshot | Page 13

AB 1482: Caps on Rent Hikes

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons

Purpose: AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibits landlords from raising rents on current tenants by more than 5 percent plus inflation, as defined, up to an absolute maximum of 10 percent each year.

Background: Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1482 into law on October 8, 2019, signaling a concentrated effort to establish strong tenant protection laws throughout the state. Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco) was one of the lead authors of the SB 1482. The bill passed in the Assembly with a vote of 48-26 and in the Senate with a vote of 25-10. AB 1482 joined slew of other newly enacted laws, such as SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, aimed at combatting California’s housing crisis. Ranking 49th in the country for the ratio of housing units per capita, California struggles with housing accessibility.40 The state’s most influential landlord lobbying group, The California Apartment Association, adopted a neutral position on the bill, calling it a “moderate” measure of tenant protection. Despite long held opposition to rent control and to early versions of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, the CAA posted on their website that 40 “Gov. Newsom Signs SB 330, ‘Housing Crisis Act of 2019,’” Senator Nancy Skinner, last modified October 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/ news/20191009-gov-newsom-signs-sb-330-”housing-crisisact-2019.”

Policy Snapshot | 14

the bill carries certain benefits since “with a statewide annually adjusted rent cap in place, tenant activists and progressive city councils and county boards may be less likely to seek their own rent control measures.”41 Governor Newsom framed the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 as part of the solution to California’s problems with high costs of living, declaring, “Cost of living... is the issue that defines more issues than any other issue in this state.”42 Other supporters point to the fact that many areas in California do not have strong tenant protection policies, thereby necessitating a statewide rent control policy. Assemblyman Chiu argued that AB 1482 protects tenants while allowing landlords to earn fair returns for their property, ensuring that there will still be an economic incentive to build housing.

Tenant rights activists worry about this aspect of the bill. Larry Gross, executive director for the Coalition for Economic Survival, found a 5 percent plus inflation rent cap to be “incredibly generous to landlords.”43 Further expounding upon his organization’s concerns with the bill, Gross stated, “Our concern is the state legislature as a whole will think their job is done when it’s far from done as far as passing meaningful tenant protections for the people of California.”44 The California Rental Housing Association has also voiced opposition to the bill, stating that the bill will place undue burden upon small property owners, making the state’s 41

Jason McGahan, “Why Didn’t the Landlord Lobby Fight California’s New Statewide Rent Control Law?,” Los Angeles Magazine, last modified October 11, 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/california-rent-control-law-landlord/.

42 Gavin Newsom, “On Statewide Rent & Housing Tour, Governor Gavin Newsom Signs Nation’s Strongest Statewide Renter Protection Legislation,” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, last modified October 8, 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/10/08/on-statewide-rent-housing-tour-governor-gavin-newsom-signs-nations-strongest-statewide-renter-protection-legislation/.

43 McGahan, “Why Didn’t the Landlord Lobby Fight California’s New Statewide Rent Control Law?,” Los Angeles Magazine.

44 Ibid.

A 1482: Caps on Rent Hikes

housing market all the more volatile.45

Fiscal Impact:

Key Provisions:

The Assembly finds that this bill “would have varying impacts on state and local revenues, specifically property tax, sales tax, and income tax revenues, depending on the actions of landlords and renters.”46

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

Prohibits specified landlords from raising rents on current tenants by more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the regional consumer price index, up to an absolute maximum of 10 percent each year.

Applies to all rent increases occurring on or after March 15, 2019.

Exempts certain types of rentals such as deed-restricted affordable housing for low-income persons and families, higher education dormitories, housing subject to local rent control law that are at least as restrictive as AB 1482, housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the last 15 years, certain single-family residences and condominiums that are not owned by a real estate investment trust, corporation, or LLC. Prohibits landlords from terminating a tenancy without just cause for tenants who have occupied residential real estate for 12 months. Just cause is divided into two categories: at-fault and no-fault.

Requires landlords who terminate a tenancy based on a no-fault cause to provide relocation assistance to the displaced tenant.

Sunsets on January 1, 2030.

Directs the Legislative Analyst’s Office to report on the effectiveness of the bill, including the impact of the rental rate cap on the housing market in California.

State must reimburse local agencies incurring costs while complying with the bill, pursuant to the California State Constitution.

45 bizjournals.com. Accessed February 7, 2020. https:// www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/10/09/gov-newsom-signs-state-rent-cap-law-while.html.

Supporters Include • The California Apartment Association (partially)

Opponents Include: • Tenant rights activists • California Rental Housing Association

Implications: Following the bill’s passage into law, over 2 million tenants not currently protected by local rent control laws will see their landlords have to adhere to caps on annual rent increases. In a truly sweeping measure, AB 1482 establishes an annual rent increase cap for the entire state. However, tenant rights activists assert that tenants could be negatively affected since the bill’s rent cap is seen as generous to landlords. Throughout the Inland Empire and Southern California as a whole, landlords have been preemptively increasing rent prices in response to the Tenant Protection Act47. Increasing demand for apartments and a lack of supply is rampant across the entire state. Many opponents of the bill argue that it does not incentivize new construction, leading to an uncertain future for California.

46

Legislature, Concurrence in Senate Amendments: AB 1482 (Sacramento, CA, 2019), 3.

47 Collins, Jeff. “Fallout from State’s Rent Control Debate: More Rent Hikes.” Orange County Register. Orange County Register, August 19, 2019. https://www.ocregister.com/2019/08/18/ fallout-from-states-rent-control-debate-more-rent-hikes/.

Policy Snapshot | Page 15

SB 230: Police Training

Peace Officers Research Association of California, California’s largest law enforcement organization, stated that SB 230 would give officers tools in “de-escalation tactics interacting with vulnerable populations and alternatives to the use of deadly force.”49 The California Police Officers Association, Governor Newsom, and Senate and Assembly leaders all supported this bill.

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons

Purpose: SB 230 requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy that provides guidelines on the use of force, utilizing de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to use of force, specific guidelines for the application of deadly force, and factors for evaluating and reviewing all use of force incidents.

Background: Authored by state Senator Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), SB 230 represents one of the country’s most sweeping use of force laws. Unanimously passed in the Assembly and Senate and signed by Governor Newsom on September 12, 2019, it requires law enforcement agencies to restructure use of force policies in compliance with AB 392 signed into law on August 19, 2019, that redefines the circumstances under which the use of deadly force is justified. Upon signing SB 230, Governor Newsom stated that the bill, “establishes the nation’s most robust state-level use-of-force training guidelines for law enforcement officers that focus on de-escalation, crisis intervention, bias free policing and only using deadly force when absolutely necessary.”48 48

Ben Adler, “Law Enforcement-Backed California Use Of Force Measure Signed By Gov. Gavin Newsom,” cap radio, last

Policy Snapshot | 16

Critics worry that the legislature will not pursue more austere use-of-force regulatory policy after SB 230 and AB 392, making it possible for local law enforcement to fail to comply with measures aimed at fixing use of force problems. Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and Silicon Valley De-Bug, a Northern California group representing families of police shooting victims, are two of the bill’s most vocal opponents. These organizations argue that the existing law on use of force, dating back to 1872, grants law enforcement broad latitude on the use of force. The March 2018 shooting of Stephon Clark prompted the passage of AB 392, a law which ensures that police will only use deadly force when absolutely necessary. Civil rights groups hold that SB 230 further weakens protections against the use of force.

Key Provisions: Requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy that provides minimum standards on the use of force, with a focus on de-escalation techniques and alternative uses of force, no later than January 1, 2021.

• Requires the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training in the Department of Justice to institute a course or courses that create uniform guidelines on the use of •

modified September 12, 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, http:// www.capradio.org/articles/2019/09/12/law-enforcement-backedcalifornia-use-of-force-measure-signed-by-gov-gavin-newsom/.

49 Modesto Bee Editorial Board. “Good work on new standard for police using lethal force.” The Modesto Bee. Last modified August 19, 2019. Accessed February 7, 2020. https://www. modbee.com/opinion/editorials/article234156752.html.

SB 230: Police Training

force to be used for “regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force.”

• If the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Trainings determines that the bill will impose costs on local agencies, the state must reimburse these costs in accordance with the California Constitution.

Fiscal Impact: The Assembly Appropriations Committee anticipates a one-time cost of up to $450,000 for the development of new use of force training guides. It also estimates a significantly larger one-time cost of over $10 million, for officers working for the University of California, California State University, community colleges, California Highway Patrol, Department of Justice, Department of Insurance, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to attend use of force training. A third one-time cost, “in the tens of millions of dollars in overtime for local officers of 500 local law enforcement agencies around the state,” will be incurred to reimburse local agencies for training costs.50

across the state. In 2017, 172 people were killed by law enforcement officers, a rate higher than that of most states in the country.51 Departments such as the San Bernardino Sheriff Department previously had de-escalation training that mirrors what is now a statewide mandate. Despite this, according to California Department of Justice data, San Bernardino and LA Counties lead the state in police shooting rates in counties of over one million residents, with a 2016 shooting rate per million residents of 8.4 and 8.2, respectively52.

Riverside County had a rate of 6.8 per million residents.53 A KPCC analysis of this data revealed that one in four shooting victims in San Bernardino County were unarmed and that black people were shot at rates higher than their proportion of the population. Inland Empire Black Lives Matter activist, Donovan Caver, stated in an interview with KPCC, “As much training as [police] have told us they’ve had, it hasn’t resolved the issue.”54

Supporters Include: • California Police Officers Association • Governor Newsom • Senate and Assembly leaders

Opponents Include: • Black Lives Matter Los Angeles • Silicon Valley De-Bug

Implications: Despite criticism, SB 230 still signals a concentrated effort by California lawmakers to address the impact of police shootings and use-of-force in communities 50

Legislature, Senate Rules Committee: SB 230 (Sacramento, CA, 2019), 12.

51 “New Bill Limits When California Police Can Use Dead-

ly Force,” ACLUNorCal, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www. aclunc.org/blog/new-bill-limits-when-california-police-can-usedeadly-force.

52 Aaron Mendelson and Annie Gilbertson, “Cops in LA, San Bernardino counties top California police shootings list,” 89.33 KPCC, last modified September 2017, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/09/14/75628/police-insan-bernardino-l-a-counties-top-shooting/.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

Policy Snapshot | Page 17

AB 44: Fur Ban with Animal Hope in Legislation, The Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation, and The Humane Society among the most prominent.

Many of the bill’s opponents are involved in the fur trade. Prior to the bill’s passage, Daniel Wachtenheim, owner of a fur coat shop in Los Angeles, said that his employees, “...are working here because their families depend on them to bring home a paycheck.They know nothing other than working the fur industry.”56

PHOTO CREDIT: AP Photo | NY Daily News

Purpose: AB 44 will make it unlawful to sell or manufacture new fur products as of January 1, 2023.

Background: Assembly Member Laura Friedman’s (D-Glendale) bill passed in the Senate (27-8) and Assembly (55-18).

Governor Newsom signed the bill into law on October 12, 2019. Earlier this year, Los Angeles passed a similar resolution thanks to efforts from animal rights groups like the Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation. San Francisco and Berkeley also preceded AB 44 with similar bans.

Governor Newsom released a statement declaring, “California is a leader when it comes to animal welfare and today that leadership includes banning the sale of fur.”55 Animal rights groups lined up behind the bill, 55

«Governor Newsom Signs Package of Bills to Fight Animal Cruelty, Promote Animal Welfare,» Office of Governor

Policy Snapshot | 18

BC International, Inc., another furrier opposed to the AB 44, noted that fake fur is not renewable, sustainable or biodegradable.57 Many furriers and other opponents also noted that the fur ban will drive many businesses out of California. Opponents also argued that by outlawing a currently regulated industry, AB 44 may encourage a black market that will worsen the conditions for animals.58 The Fur Information Council of America expressed serious opposition to the bill, questioning the effectiveness of AB 44 pointing out that it is possible for a fur consumer to travel to neighboring Nevada and purchase fur products. Moreover, the organization raised concerns over the fact that it is extremely difficult to determine what is new or old fur.

Lastly, they asserted that the bill limits self-expression, possibly violating the First Amendment.

Gavin Newsom, last modified October 12, 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/10/12/governornewsom-signs-package-of-bills-to-fight-animal-cruelty-promoteanimal-welfare/.

56 Jarrett Hill, “LA’s fur ban could set a precedent statewide,” KCRW, last modified September 5, 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/greater-la/ will-las-fur-ban-spread-statewide/las-fur-ban-could-set-a-precedent-statewide.

57 Katy Grimes, “CA Assemblywoman Friedman’s Fur Ban: ‘There is No Need For Fur in the 21st Century,’” California Globe, last modified March 16, 2019, accessed February 7, 2020, https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/ca-assemblywoman-friedmans-fur-ban-there-is-no-need-for-fur-in-the-21st-century/.

58 Ibid.

AB 44: Fur Ban Key Provisions: • • • •

•

•

Prohibits the sale and manufacture of unused fur products, as defined, Effective January 1, 2023.

Used fur product means fur in any form that has been worn or used by an ultimate consumer.

Exceptions included fur products used for religious purposes, for tribal, cultural or spiritual purposes by certain Native American tribes, and any activity expressly authorized by federal law.

Fur products do not include dog or cat fur products, leather products, cowhide, deerskin, sheepskin or goatskin, taxidermy, lawfully hunted deerskin or hide in various forms.

Violations may result in civil penalties of fines up to $500 for the first violation, $750 for the second, and $1,000 for the third and subsequent violations.

Fiscal Impact: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the Department of Fish and Wildlife will need $425,000 for equipment and overhead, as well an annual amount of $600,000 for three new positions in the Wildlife Tracking Unit.59

Opponents Include:

• Various fur sellers • Various fur trade organizations and business associations • California Farm Bureau Federation • California Department of Finance

Implications: AB 44 is the nation’s first statewide ban on fur products. California joins countries like Luxembourg, Norway, and the Czech Republic in far reaching fur bans60.

New York City and Hawaii are also considering similar measures, but no laws have materialized. In the face of $1.5 billion in U.S. fur sales in 2014, an increase of 7.3 percent from 201361, AB 44 is a significant step in combating the influence of the industry and consumer’s use of fur products. A slew of fur stores in the Inland Empire and Los Angeles County will surely feel the economic impact of AB 44. Orange County’s Surfas Ltd. Furriers recently posted an outline of all the reasons to oppose AB 44 on their website, citing the economic benefits of the fur trade and how the bill restricts personal choice.62

Supporters Include: • Animal Hope in Legislation • The Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation • The Humane Society

59 Legislature, Concurrence in Senate Amendments: AB

60

Friedman, Vanessa. “The California Fur Ban and What It Means for You.” The New York Times. The New York Times, October 14, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/style/ fur-ban-california.html 61 “FICA Facts.” FICA - Fur Information Council of America. Accessed February 7, 2020. https://www.fur.org/fica-facts/.

62 “Protect Your Consumer Rights,” Sufas Ltd. Furriers, http://surfasltdfurriers.com/links-news/.

44 (Sacramento, CA, 2019), 2.

Policy Snapshot | Page 19

AB 1383: Admission by Exemption

PHOTO CREDIT: Summit Education Group

Purpose: AB 1383 limits the practice of “admission by exception” to prevent students from receiving unearned admission to public universities in California.

Background: In March 2019, federal prosecutors brought charges against number of wealthy families alleging that they had secured college admission for their children under false premises. The allegations flowed from an investiPolicy Snapshot | 20

gation called “Operation Varsity Blues” which discovered that these families had hired college preparatory business Key Worldwide Foundation, run by William “Rick” Singer, to help students cheat on standardized tests, bribe college coaches and other personnel, and forge documentation. Key Worldwide Foundation often bribed coaches to “recruit” these students for athletic teams. The scam helped these children secure admission in selective colleges such as Yale, Stanford, UCLA, and USC. Prosecutors brought charges against 33 parents, including actresses Felicity Huffman (who was later sentenced to 14 days in federal prison) and Lori Laughlin. Collectively, these 33 people paid Sing-

er more than $25 million. The largest payment was $6.5 million.63 In response to public outcry, Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) introduced AB 1383 to prevent these kinds of abuses in admission to the state’s public universities. The bill places limits on “admission by exception”—that is, the admission of applicants who do not meet the normal admission standards of the California State University or the University of California.

Universities admit applicants in this category based on their demonstrated aptitude for leadership or success and in an academic, athletic, or fine arts program. The law establishes new requirements for “admission by exception.”

The bill was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 4, 2019.

AB 1383 includes the following requirements: At least three senior-level campus administrators must approve admission by exception before the student enrolls.

• After admission by exception, the student-athlete must participate for at least one academic year.

• The university must document all of its employees who were involved in the evaluation of the student’s application.

•

Support / Opposition: No organizations filed statements supporting or opposing the bill. The legislature approved AB 1383 unanimously, demonstrating overwhelming bipartisan support for this proposal.

Implications: This measure aims to protect college admission integrity. However, AB 1383 applies only to the California State University and the University of California systems. Therefore, it will not directly affect California’s private colleges and universities, including USC, Stanford, and the Claremont Colleges. Claremont McKenna College’s administration became aware that a CMC family was a client of the Key Worldwide Foundation.

However, the College found “no indication that there was any irregularity or impropriety during the admission process regarding this family or any other.” Claremont McKenna College’s statement is available at: https://www.cmc.edu/news/statement-on-federal-indictments.

Fiscal Impact: This law will have negligible state costs.

63

Joey Garrison, “Everything you need to know about the nation’s largest-ever college cheating scandal involving Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin,” USA Today, last modified March 13, 2019, accessed February 6, 2020, https://www.usatoday. com/story/news/2019/03/13/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-william-macy-college-admission-bribery-case/3149286002/.

Policy Snapshot | Page 21