The State Legislative Process

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The State Legislative Process Legislative Advocacy The State Legislative Process The following is an overview of the State legislative process. Introduction of Bills When the author wishes to introduce a bill, he or she delivers it to the Assembly Chief Clerk or Secretary of the Senate who gives the bill a number. During a regular session, no bill, other than the Budget Bill, may be heard by any committee or acted upon by either house until A schedule or calendar of bills set for hearing is 30 calendar days have elapsed following the proposed by each committee. Publication of date the bill was introduced; however, this this list in the Daily File must occur at least four provision may be dispensed with by the consent calendar days prior to the first committee of of three-fourths of the members of the house. reference hearing the bill. For instance, a This waiting period permits proponents and Senate or Assembly bill first referred to the opponents to review the provisions of the bill Assembly Committee on Transportation must and to prepare testimony for presentation to be noticed at least four days prior to the the committee. hearing; if the bill is subsequently re-referred to For convenience, bills are referred to or a second committee such as the Assembly designated as AB for Assembly bills and SB for Committee on Local Government, the bill must Senate bills. Concurrent resolutions are then be noticed two days prior to hearing in indicated by ACR or SCR, joint resolutions carry that committee. Many times, opposition to bills the letters AJR or SJR, and constitutional can be overcome by amendments submitted in amendments are identified as ACA or SCA. A committee. Amendments can be proposed by single house resolution in the Assembly is the either the committee or the author, but the designated HR (House resolution) and SR bill cannot be amended without either the (Senate resolution) in the Senate. author’s consent or a vote of the full house. Restriction on Bill Introduction Most bills are referred to the appropriations Bills must be introduced by late February, with committee following passage in the policy a few exceptions, such as for constitutional committee. The appropriations committees amendments. The rules in each house presently hold most bills for consideration at a single time place a limit on the number of bills that can be to ensure that only the most important bills introduced in a two-year session. Currently a that cost money are passed. Senator or Assembly Member may introduce The Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly are no more than 50 bills in the regular session. explicit regarding the conduct of the meetings of standing committees. A quorum must be Bills and Standing Committees present in order for a bill to be passed out of After introduction, a bill is referred by the Rules committee. When a committee takes action on Committee to the standing committee, or a bill, the vote must be by roll call. Further, all occasionally two committees, which deals with roll call votes must be recorded by the the bill’s policy. committee secretary and transmitted to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly or the Secretary of County Supervisors Resource Guide V2 5-1 Legislative Advocacy the Senate for publication as part of the and placed on the third reading file. In the Journals of the respective houses. Committee event that the bill has been reported out of actions are also published in a manner committee with amendments, it is reprinted, prescribed by each house. If a bill fails to get showing such amendments by the use of the necessary votes to pass it out of committee strikeout type for matter omitted, and italic and reconsideration is not granted within 15 type for the new matter. Thereafter, the bill is legislative days, it is returned to the Chief Clerk as of the date of the last amendment, e.g., AB of the Assembly or the Secretary of the Senate, 2207 as amended in the Senate, August 19, as the case may be, and may not be considered 2014. further during the session. Third Reading and Floor Consideration When a bill is placed on the Third Reading File, it is eligible to be taken up on the floor for a vote of the full membership. However, it is not unusual for some bills to remain on the Third Reading File for many days or weeks before they are taken up. Each bill receives an item number in the Third Reading section of the Daily File and is referred to by that number. The number changes daily as items in other sections of the Daily File move off or are added to the file. No bill may be taken up on either floor until The biennial session is governed by printed copies are distributed to members and constitutional deadlines for bills to be acted floor analyses are available. The floor analysis upon. The first occurs on January 31 of the summarizes the bill in its current version, second year of the biennium (even numbered including most recent amendments, and years), at which time those bills introduced in provides other details such as how members the first year of the biennium (odd numbered voted on the measure in policy and fiscal years) and still in the house of origin may no committees. In the Assembly, floor analyses are longer be acted upon by the house, and they prepared by the Floor Analysis Unit in the Office are filed with the Chief Clerk or the Secretary of of the Chief Clerk. In the Senate, floor analyses the Senate. No bill may be presented to the are prepared by the Senate Office of Floor Governor after November 15 of the second year Analyses under the direction of the Secretary of of the session. Another deadline occurs at the the Senate. end of the second year, following adjournment If a bill is amended on the floor of either house, sine die (November 30), when all bills remaining it must be sent out to print and returned to the in committee are returned to the Chief Clerk or Daily File. This means the bill cannot be taken Secretary of the Senate. up that same day unless the rules are waived. After final adjournment, the Chief Clerk of the In the Assembly, bills as amended and reprinted Assembly and the Secretary of the Senate file all cannot be acted upon until they have been on the bills of the respective houses in the archives the Daily File for one calendar day. of the Secretary of State’s office. Amendments require a majority of those present and voting for adoption. Second Reading and Engrossment of Bills After a bill has been reported from a committee In the final days of a legislative session, special without amendments, it is read the second time rules regarding floor amendments can apply. Except for unusual circumstances, the last day V2 5-2 County Supervisors Resource Guide Legislative Advocacy to amend bills has been usually four to five days regardless of the number of votes recorded on prior to the close of session. a measure. If, however, there is objection, it takes a majority of those present and voting to After an author has taken up a measure and all place a call. debate has concluded, voting begins. In the Assembly, the roll is opened and members vote electronically from their desks. In the Senate, the roll is called by the Reading Clerk and members answer “aye” or “no” or abstain from voting. Voting Most bills require a majority vote of each house (41 votes in the Assembly; 21 votes in the Senate). However, some measures require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of each house. Measures requiring a two-thirds vote: (54 votes Reconsideration - If a measure fails to receive in Assembly; 27 votes in Senate) the required number of votes, the author can 1. The budget bill move that the bill be reconsidered (“I move that 2. Urgency measures (effective immediately the vote whereby SB _____ was defeated be upon signature of the Governor instead of reconsidered.”). This motion, if adopted, allows January 1 of following year) the measure to be taken up for a vote on 3. Constitutional amendments passage on another legislative day (another 4. General Fund appropriation bills (any bill Floor Session day). The motion to reconsider is appropriating money from the General Fund, not granted unless receiving at least 41 “aye” except money for public education) votes in the Assembly or 21 “aye” votes in the 5. Tax levies (imposes, repeals, or alters a state Senate. Reconsideration motions must be tax) made in the Assembly on the same day that the 6. Personal property tax exemptions or measure in question was taken up. On the day reclassifications the measure is taken up, the motion in the 7. Veto overrides (bills passed over the Assembly is made by a Member “noticing Governor’s veto) reconsideration” on the next legislative day. 8. Bills that amend the Political Reform Act The motion to reconsider is then placed on the Daily File on the next legislative day and is then Measures requiring a four-fifths vote: (64 votes eligible to be voted on at that time. In the in Assembly; 32 votes in Senate) Senate, a motion to reconsider may be made 1. Amending the Tobacco Tax and Health and is usually taken up on the same day the Protection Act of 1988 measure in question is voted on. After the 2. Suspending Proposition 1A (2004) property succeeding legislative day, the reconsideration tax protections motion may not be taken up without the concurrence of 30 Members.
Recommended publications
  • Guide to New Legislators
    Guide to New Legislators 2017 Edition Contents Locating Your Senate and Assembly Districts 1. Go to http://www.legislature.ca.gov/ 2. Look for the Blue Box on the right side of the screen titled “Find My District” 3. Click on Search by Address. (This web page will be updated on December 3, 2012 to reflect new Districts. If you have this tool saved in your web browser it will have a new URL after this date.) 4. Enter your Street, City and Zip into the fields and click Find. New Senator Biographies .. 3 District 3, Senator Bill Dodd………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 3 District 9, Senator Nancy Skinner…………………………...……………………………………………………………………………….3 District 11, Senator Scott Wiener…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 District 21 - Senator Scott Wilk……………………………..………………………………………………………………………………..4 District 25, Senator Anthony Portantino…………………………….…………………………………………………………………..5 District 27, Senator Henry Stern.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 District 29, Senator Josh Newman……………………………………………………………………………………………….…….……5 District 35, Senator Steven Bradford……………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 District 39, Senator Toni Atkins….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 New Assembly member Biographies District 4, Assembly member Cecila Aguiar-Curry….……………………………………………………………………………….7 District 6, Assembly member Kevin Kiley……….……………………………………………………………………………………….7 District 12, Assembly member Heath Flora…..………………………….……………………………………………………….…….8 District 14, Assembly member Tim Grayson……………………………………………………………………………………..…....8
    [Show full text]
  • California State Assembly
    January 25, 2021 Honorable Anthony Rendon Honorable Toni G. Atkins Speaker of the Assembly President pro Tempore of the Senate State Capitol, Room 219 State Capitol, Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Speaker Rendon and President Pro Tem Atkins, We respectfully request that the Legislature convene a joint, bi-partisan committee to hold oversight hearings regarding the Newsom Administration’s unwillingness to share COVID-19 data with the public. To regain the public’s trust, it is crucial that we share data with the public, including the formulas and calculations that are being used to guide the Governor’s decisions related to responding to the pandemic. This information is critical to understanding the reasons behind the abysmal vaccine rollout, as well as the seemingly-random issuance of stay-at-home orders and business closures. It is important to hold the Administration accountable when so many lives are at stake. During the Governor’s recent stay-at-home order, his Administration has yet to share the data relied upon to lift the order in the Greater Sacramento region, or information in the recent statewide lift, despite the fact that ICU capacity in some regions is far below the 15% threshold he established when he imposed the order. This has confused communities, counties and businesses, leaving them unprepared to take immediate action. The Administration’s justification that the data and modeling are too complicated is both inadequate and quite frankly, insulting. The public has the right to know what is behind his decision-making process. Specifically we believe the public has a right to the following information: Data, metrics, calculations, and formulas being used to make decisions regarding stay-at- home orders and vaccine distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Monsanto's Jan 2014
    MGGF CONTRIBUTIONS JANUARY 1, 2014 - JUNE 30, 2014 In an effort to improve Monsanto's political disclosures, this report dated January 1, 2014-June 30, 2014 is formatted differently than past reports. Name State Candidate Amount Party Total STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL Alabamians for Luther Strange, Inc. AL Atty. Gen. Luther Johnson Strange, III (R) $1,000 REP STATE SENATE Roger Bedford for Senate AL Sen. Roger H. Bedford, Jr (D) $1,000 DEM Paul Bussman for State Senate AL Sen. Paul Bussman (R) $1,000 REP Friends of Gerald Allen AL Sen. Gerald Allen (R) $1,000 REP STATE HOUSE Friends of Ron Johnson AL Rep. Ronald G. Johnson (R) $1,000 REP ALABAMA TOTAL $5,000 STATE ASSEMBLY Katcho Achadjian for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Katcho Achadjian (R) $1,000 REP Rudy Salas for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Rudy Salas (D) $1,500 DEM Brian Dahle for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Brian Dahle (R) $1,500 REP Friends of Frank Bigelow for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Frank Bigelow (R) $1,500 REP Bill Quirk for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Bill Quirk (D) $2,000 DEM Glazier for Assembly 2014 CA Mr. Steve Glazier (D) $1,500 DEM Olsen for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Kristin Olsen (R) $1,500 REP Shannon Grove for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Shannon L. Grove (R) $1,500 REP Sebastian Ridley-Thomas for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (D) $2,000 DEM Beth Gaines for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Beth Gaines (R) $1,500 REP Jim Frazier for Assembly 2014 CA Assm. Jim Frazier (D) $2,000 DEM CALIFORNIA TOTAL $17,500 OTHER Senate Majority Fund CO $1,000 REP Colorado BioScience Political Action Committee CO $550 NP COLORADO TOTAL $1,550 STATE SENATE Black Campaign Committee GA Ellis Black (R) $250 REP OTHER Democratic Party of Georgia GA $2,500 DEM GEORGIA TOTAL $2,750 STATE CONTROLLER Brandon Woolf for State Controller ID Brandon Woolf (R) $1,000 REP STATE SENATE Brent Hill for Senate ID Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Release
    MEDIA RELEASE For Immediate release March 5, 2019 Contact: Dave Jacobson, [email protected] Mac Zilber, [email protected] STATE SENATE COLLEAGUES CONSOLIDATE AROUND JOSH NEWMAN IN SD-29 REMATCH Wave of 10 State Senators Endorse Citizen Josh Newman's 2020 Campaign for State Senate District 29 ORANGE COUNTY, CA -- On the heels of officially launching his 2020 rematch campaign to represent California's State Senate District 29, today, U.S. Army veteran, businessman and former State Senator, citizen Josh Newman, earned the potent and highly coveted support of 10 California State Senators, including: • State Senator Tom Umberg • State Senator Connie Leyva • State Senator Maria Elena Durazo • State Senator Ben Allen • State Senator Richard Pan • State Senator Mike McGuire • State Senator Steven Bradford • State Senator Bob Archuleta • State Senator Anthony Portantino • State Senator Ed Hernandez (Ret.) In making public their firm backing of Newman's 2020 rematch campaign, the myriad of State Senators released the following statements of support: “Josh Newman brings guts, brains and heart to everything he does. As a veteran, a businessman and a former State Senator, his life experiences are unrivaled in this race. Josh's commitment to building a smarter, more effective and efficient state government represents precisely what we need more of in the capitol. I'm thrilled to support his campaign for State Senate." -- State Senator Tom Umberg "In this watershed moment of our nation's history, it's more important than ever that we in California have bold leaders who have the courage to stand up and do what's right for the working families in our state.
    [Show full text]
  • California SEIU Developmental Disabilities Council
    California SEIU Developmental Disabilities Council 2015 First Quarter Update First Quarter Meeting Lanterman Coalition ‐ Budgetary Advocacy ‐ Catherine McCoy and David Mulvey have been representing the council on the Lanterman Coalition monthly meetings. We were successful this year in encouraging the Lanterman Coalition to adopt and promote a joint budget plan. Across the state we have been supporting the Lanterman Coalition 10% plan. On January 23rd our ARC SF members worked in concert with Golden Gate Regional Center and other local service providers to put on a successful rally in San Francisco is support of the campaign. The rally was covered by local media including KTVU Fox, and KCBS Radio. On March 4th we also participated in a large Lanterman Coalition Rally on the Capitol steps. Dave Mulvey was one of the speakers chosen to address the group. Later that day our members attended and gave testimony at the Assembly budget sub-committee hearings. On March 12th our members attended and gave testimony at the Senate Budget Sub Committee. California State Council on Developmental Disabilites – Employment First Committee. Dave Mulvey continues to represent us on this committee that has a legislative mandated to look at ways to increase employment for persons with Developmental Disabilities. Department of Developmental Disabilities Self-Determination Program Workgroup Dave Mulvey also represents us on this group, and continues to consult with SEIU Local and International staff on organizing opportunities this program may present and how to best structure the program. Health and Human Service Department’s Delivery Service Task Force: Catherine McCoy represents us on the task force.
    [Show full text]
  • State Issues
    Week of January 14, 2019 State Issues Legislative Analyst This week, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) released its overview of Governor Newsom’s budget proposal for FY Report on State 2019-20 that was presented last week, and saw a new leader selected to lead this non-partisan organization. The Budget Legislature appointed a new state Legislative Analyst to fill the role Mac Taylor has held for 10 years. They named Gabriel Petek to the post, who most recently worked for Standard and Poor’s Global Ratings San Francisco Office where he is currently the state’s primary credit analyst. He takes the reins on February 4. In addition to getting a new chief, the LAO released its overview of the Governor’s January budget highlighting that that state’s budget position continues to be strong. They also focus on the fact that the Governor’s proposed budget prioritizes the repayments of state debts and a great deal of one-time funding. Nearly half of the discretionary spending is earmarked to pay down state liabilities, including unfunded retirement liabilities and budget debts. Twenty-five (25) percent of the discretionary spending is for one time or temporary funding proposals, and 15 percent for discretionary reserves. The LAO applauds the Governor’s decision to focus on the repayment of state debts. The LAO points out one thing that many took note of – the Governor has outlined many priorities for budgetary spending. And at least some of the proposals are not fully fleshed out or reflected in the budget document. The LAO was not critical of this but pointed out that these un-finalized proposals give the Legislature the opportunity to weigh in with the Administration and have their say in its development.
    [Show full text]
  • Paypal Inc. State Political Contributions (Candidates & Organizations)
    PayPal Inc. State Political Contributions (Candidates & Organizations) 2019 Candidate/Organization Amount State Arizona House Victory PAC $1,000.00 AZ Arizona Senate Victory PAC $1,000.00 AZ Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee $2,000.00 AZ Anthony Rendon for Assembly $2,000.00 CA Portantino for Senate $2,000.00 CA Evan Low $2,000.00 CA Senator Toni Atkins $2,000.00 CA Assemblywoman Autumn Burke $2,000.00 CA Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin $2,000.00 CA Assemblyman Marc Berman $2,000.00 CA Limon for Assembly 2020 $2,500.00 CA Friends of Jason Barickman $1,000.00 IL Committee to Elect Keith Wheeler $500.00 IL Jil Tracy for State Senate $500.00 IL Citizens to Elect Grant Wehrli $500.00 IL Friends of Terry Link $250.00 IL Citizens for Michael E. Hastings $500.00 IL Friends of Napoleon Harris $500.00 IL Friends of Don Harmon for Senate $500.00 IL Citizens for Durkin $500.00 IL Friends of Kelly M. Burke $250.00 IL Carol Blood for Legislature $500.00 NE Anna Wishart for Legislature $500.00 NE Wayne for Nebraska $500.00 NE Vargas for Nebraska $500.00 NE Friends of Mike McDonnell $500.00 NE Linehan for Legislature $750.00 NE La Grone for Legislature $750.00 NE Friends of Mike Hilgers $500.00 NE Suzanne Geist for Legislature $500.00 NE Calabrese for Assembly $300.00 NJ Craig Coughlin $500.00 NJ Sweeney for Senate $500.00 NJ Troy Singleton for NJ Senate $500.00 NJ Nellie Pou for Senate $500.00 NJ Nicholas Chiaravallotti for Assembly $150.00 NJ Cryan for Senate $150.00 NJ Election Fund of John F.
    [Show full text]
  • Campaign Contributions (California)
    CLOROX DIRECT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS: CALIFORNIA 2015-2016 PAYMENT DATE PAYEE CONTEST POSITION AMOUNT TYPE THE COMMITTEE TO The Committee to 05/24/2016 KEEP BART SAFE & Keep BART Safe & SUPPORT MONETARY $10,000.00 RELIABLE 2016 Reliable 2016 CALIFORNIA CHAMBER 03/06/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $5,000.00 OF COMMERCE PAC CALIFORNIA CHAMBER 03/18/2016 SUPPORT MONETARY $5,000.00 OF COMMERCE PAC JIM FRAZIER FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 01/27/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $2,000.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 011 MAIENSCHEIN FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 05/28/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $2,000.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 077 01/27/2015 HALL FOR SENATE 2016 STATE SENATOR 035 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 01/27/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 033 TRAVIS ALLEN FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 02/10/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 072 JIM COOPER FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 02/10/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 009 YOUNG KIM FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 02/10/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 065 BRAIN DAHLE FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 03/06/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 001 GARCIA FOR ASSEMBLY STATE ASSEMBLY 03/06/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 2016 PERSON 058 AUTUMN BURKE FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 03/06/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 062 MELISSA MELENDEZ STATE ASSEMBLY 03/10/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 FOR ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 067 JONES-SAWYER FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 03/10/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY $1,500.00 ASSEMBLY 2016 PERSON 059 TONY THURMOND FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 03/10/2015 SUPPORT MONETARY
    [Show full text]
  • Over 350 Endorsers of AB 249, The
    Over 350 Endorsers of AB 249, the California DISCLOSE Act (Mullin-Levine)* More than 160,000 Californians have signed petitions urging the legislature to pass the California DISCLOSE Act, with 100,000 signing petitions specifically for AB 249 or this year’s original version AB 14. SPONSOR Authors California Clean Money Campaign Assembly Speaker pro Tem Kevin Mullin Assemblymember Marc Levine EDITORIAL ENDORSEMENTS San Francisco Chronicle Principal Coauthors Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León CONGRESSIONAL & OTHER ENDORSERS Senator Ben Allen Senator Jerry Hill House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Senator Henry Stern Congressmember Anna Eshoo Assemblymember Marc Berman Congressmember Jimmy Gomez Assemblymember Matthew Dababneh Congressmember Ro Khanna Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian Congressmember Zoe Lofgren Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones Coauthors Board of Equalization Member Fiona Ma Senator Jim Beall Secretary of State Alex Padilla Senator Bill Dodd Assembly Majority Floor Leader Ian Calderon Senator Cathleen Galgiani Eric Bauman, Chair of the California Democratic Party Senator Connie Leyva Senator Josh Newman Kimberly Ellis, Former Executive Director of Emerge California Senator Anthony Portantino Senator Scott Wiener CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry Judge Quentin Kopp, San Francisco Ethics Commission Assemblymember Rob Bonta Bob Stern, Principal co-author of 1974 Political Reform Act Assemblymember David Chiu Assemblymember Kansen Chu REFORM ORGANIZATIONS Assemblymember Laura Friedman Assemblymember Todd
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Political Corporate Contributions 2-19-2015.Xlsx
    2014 POLITICAL CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS Last Name First Name Committee Name State Office District Party 2014 Total ($) Alabama 2014 PAC AL Republican 10,000 Free Enterprise PAC AL 10,000 Mainstream PAC AL 10,000 Collins Charles Charlie Collins Campaign Committee AR Representative AR084 Republican 750 Collins‐Smith Linda Linda Collins‐Smith Campaign Committee AR Senator AR019 Democratic 1,050 Davis Andy Andy Davis Campaign Committee AR Representative AR031 Republican 750 Dotson Jim Jim Dotson Campaign Committee AR Representative AR093 Republican 750 Griffin Tim Tim Griffin Campaign Committee AR Lt. Governor AR Republican 2,000 Rapert Jason Jason Rapert Campaign Committee AR Senator AR035 Republican 1,000 Rutledge Leslie Leslie Rutledge Campaign Committee AR Attorney General AR Republican 2,000 Sorvillo Jim Jim Sorvillo Campaign Committee AR Representative AR032 Republican 750 Williams Eddie Joe GoEddieJoePAC AR Senator AR029 Republican 5,000 Growing Arkansas AR Republican 5,000 Senate Victory PAC AZ Republican 2,500 Building Arizona's Future AZ Democratic 5,000 House Victory PAC AZ Republican 2,500 Allen Travis Re‐Elect Travis Allen for Assembly 2014 CA Representative CA072 Republican 1,500 Anderson Joel Tax Fighters for Joel Anderson, Senate 2014 CA Senator CA038 Republican 2,500 Berryhill Tom Tom Berryhill for Senate 2014 CA Senator CA008 Republican 2,500 Bigelow Frank Friends of Frank Bigelow for Assembly 2014 CA Representative CA005 Republican 2,500 Bonin Mike Mike Bonin for City Council 2013 Officeholder Account CA LA City Council
    [Show full text]
  • January 6, 2021 the Honorable Cecilia Aguiar-Curry California
    January 6, 2021 The Honorable Cecilia Aguiar-Curry California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 5144 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: AB 14 (Aguiar-Curry) – Communications: broadband services: California Advanced Services Fund. Support – As Introduced December 7, 2020 Dear Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry: On behalf of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), representing all 58 counties in the state, I am pleased to support your AB 14, related to broadband and the infrastructure subsidies needed to deploy it more broadly. Inequitable access to broadband is a longstanding issue, but the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on students, workers, small businesses, and everyday life has highlighted just how severe and urgent the disparity is. Bringing our infrastructure into the modern era is critical for all communities, whether or not providers consider them profitable. Addressing these issues will undoubtedly require additional resources to be available as soon as possible, so the additional funding AB 14 would authorize—as well as the authority to issue a revenue bond of up to $1 billion—is critically important. Counties also appreciate the explicit authority for Boards of Supervisors to approve the construction and operation of broadband infrastructure and services. For the aforementioned reasons, we support AB 14 and appreciate your efforts on this important issue. We would like to work with you and your co-authors as this bill moves forward to ensure it contains the reforms necessary to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number
    [Show full text]
  • May 19, 2020 Senator Scott Wiener California State Senate Sacramento
    May 19, 2020 Senator Scott Wiener California State Senate Sacramento, CA 95814 Via email to: [email protected] cc: [email protected] & [email protected] Re: OPPOSITION of SB 939 – UNFAIRLY NEGATES LEASES & UNEVENLY HARMS BUSINESSES Dear Senator Wiener: Established in 1924, Central City Association is an advocacy organization committed to the vibrancy of Downtown Los Angeles and increasing investment in the region. As you know from our support of SB 50 and SB 827, we are strong advocates for walkable and inclusive communities and greatly appreciate the work you have done to support businesses across California; however, we strongly oppose SB 939 as proposed. CCA understands the impossible fiscal challenges that businesses are facing across the state due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but we believe SB 939 unfairly benefits one business over another. COVID-19 will continue to impact the health and safety of our communities and businesses. As a membership organization that represents approximately 400 organizations in LA County, we know that all businesses are impacted by this pandemic. However, SB 939 only provides protection to a small segment, while shifting economic harm to other private businesses and removing rights from commercial property owners. Governor Newsom has shown strong leadership in issuing a series of executive orders limiting evictions, including Executive Order N-28-20 which gives local government the ability to protect commercial tenants from evictions. Legislative leadership has also proposed a plan that helps lessors and lessees. We request your bill be changed to protect all businesses and not a special subset.
    [Show full text]