As California experiences a budget freefall, record homelessness, and mass immigration, state legislators focus on putting speed-limiting devices in cars and other unusual priorities.
Last month marked the end of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session in Sacramento. It was an unruly affair which saw the supermajority amending the rules for deliberation, which Republicans argue was done to limit discussion in order to push through as many bills as possible in a short time. This led to shouting matches, the silencing of opposition, and the Speaker Pro Tem’s refusal to recognize Assemblymember Bill Essayli (R). If nothing else, it was an appropriately ugly way to end a tumultuous legislative session characterized by a myriad of disastrous legislation.
It’s not easy to keep up with the litany of new laws. Some come with devastating economic implications; others curtail local control; and many establish dangerous precedents. In this article, we’ll delve into ten of the worst bills to come before the California Legislature in 2024.
1. SB-1116: Subsidizing Strikers
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” is a timeless idiom if ever there was one. It also accurately describes the strategy taken by Senators Portantino (D) and Durazo (D) to pass a bill that would force employers to pay Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits to workers when they choose to strike.
The most recent attempt was SB-1116, which was read for the first time in February 2024. SB-1116 is conspicuously similar to 2023’s SB-799, which Newsom vetoed. Both were marked as “priority bills” by public unions and would have constituted decisive wins for their labor movement if approved. In fact, SB-799 was called “the brainchild of California Labor Federation boss Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher,” by the OC Independent.
The bills “[transform] the practically bankrupt Unemployment Insurance trust fund into a taxpayer-funded strike fund,” according to the OC Independent Editorial Board. “It literally forces employers to subsidize union strikes against employers. It is the definition of anti-business legislation.”
“State UI law must operate in conformity and compliance with federal law, which specifically provides that unemployment compensation may only be paid to individuals who are not able to work, available to work, and actively seeking work,” argued representatives from the California Chamber of Commerce. “Unemployment insurance payments are intended to assist employees who, through no fault of their own, are forced to leave their employment. This is clearly not the case for workers who choose to join a strike.”
CalChamber was joined by a massive coalition of organizations who, in their opposition letter to SB-1116, cited the cost these additional UI benefits would add to California’s outstanding $20 billion in federal loans. AB-1116 also would have awarded UI to undocumented migrants.
This time, the bill failed to pass through the Assembly Committee on Insurance. But, if the past is prelude, it’s unlikely we’ve seen the last attempt of this gambit.
2. AB-1840: Housing Aid for Illegal Immigrants
California faces both record homelessness and record housing unaffordability. More than a third of Californians have reported that they’ve considered leaving the state due to housing costs. When Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula (D) authored AB-1840, he argued it would make homeownership a reality for more California families by expanding the California Dream for All Program to include illegal immigrants—thereby allowing non-citizens up to $150,000 in home loan aid with zero percent interest from the government.
In actuality, the bill felt like a slap in the face to legal American citizens struggling to afford their homes.
“Democratic lawmakers are so out of touch with everyday Californians that they are quite literally taking money away from law-abiding citizens, their own constituents, and handing it over as a free gift to people who broke federal law to cross the border illegally,” said Sen. Brian Jones (R).
Despite passing in both the State Assembly and the State Senate, the bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, citing budgetary constraints rather than moral objections.
“Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively,” read a statement issued by Newsom’s office. “For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.”
It was a major blow to the credibility of the California Dream for All Program, which was already at an all time low after the operation ran out of funds less than two weeks from its inception.
3. AB-957: Considering Gender Identity in Custody Disputes
Few if any bills made waves in the media quite like Assemblymember Lori Wilson’s (D) AB-957. This bill proposed that a child’s gender identity be a critical consideration in custody disputes. If a child wanted to socially transition, for instance, and one of the parents were to continue recognizing the child by their biological sex, that could constitute an abridgment of “the health, safety, and welfare of the child.”
In theory, a parent could lose custody for not affirming their child’s claims about gender.
Naturally, this raised alarms about government overreach into family courts and parental rights. Opponents argued that it creates a precedent of parents being unfairly judged for not fully agreeing with their child’s gender identity—especially when doing so could lead to damaging the physical and/or mental health of the child.
“This trans conversation is very complicated and delicate, and I do think there might be parents who have different viewpoints on a particular child—especially young children…” said Assemblymember Essayli in opposition. “And I think parents have to be given space to go on that journey with their child. And so if there is a dispute, the court should not choose sides and automatically assume the parent who wants to affirm is acting in the child’s best interest.”
While it appeared in the earlier part of the 2023-2024 session, the consideration of the Governor’s veto was stricken from file in January of this year.
“I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of a state government attempt to dictate—in prescription terms that single out one characteristic—legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply,” reads Newsom’s statement. “Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.
4. AB-2200: Universal Health Care
Universal health care has long been a political pipe dream. This year, Assemblymember Ash Karla (D) tried to make it a reality with the introduction of AB-2200.
The bill would establish a single payer bureaucratic health plan known as CalCare and, shockingly, make private insurance illegal. The text confirms that AB-2200 would “prohibit a participating provider from billing or entering into a private contract with an individual eligible for CalCare benefits” for anything other than “a health care item or service that is not a covered benefit” and only if “specified criteria are met.”
It would also cripple the state economically. That is perhaps an understatement.
“The Healthy California for All Commission recently estimated that total health care costs annually exceed $500 billion in California. This amounts to one-seventh of the gross state product and would more than double the state’s budget,” CalChamber points out.
“While major reforms are needed, I’ve long had concerns about placing the very same corrupt and incompetent state government that has given us the DMV and the budget, homelessness, crime, energy, and other crises, not to mention locked down schools and businesses and imposed unethical/unscientific mandates, in complete charge of our health, while DOUBLING state taxes to pay for it,” writes ophthalmologist & PhD research scientist Houman David Hemmati, MD, PhD.
It is fortunate, then, that AB-2200 could not get the needed support and has been held under submission. It would have placed a massive financial burden on taxpayers while absolutely dismantling the current private insurance market.
“Fixing healthcare requires us to acknowledge that a one-size-fits-all approach isn’t feasible in a diverse state like California, and that people should have CHOICE in their healthcare decisions: The choice to get the care they want, from who they want, using the treatments they need, with zero interference from politicians and bureaucrats who can’t solve basic issues,” continues Hemmati.
5. AB-1955: Ban on Parental Notification Policies
Each of the bills featured up until this point failed or were killed at some point in the legislative process. In contrast, AB-1955 not only recently became law, but is set to trigger a series of timely, expensive, and arduous lawsuits from the state when it goes into effect on January 1, 2025.
Assemblymember Chris Ward (D) is the architect behind AB-1955, the bill which prohibits schools from implementing parental notification policies concerning students’ gender identity. Prior to its passage, nearly one dozen California school districts passed their own versions of this policy which, despite cries from the opposition, is designed to promote transparency and uphold the notion that parents are the primary caretakers for their children—not the state.
Aside from concerned parents, AB-1955 has also caught the attention of high-profile personalities like Elon Musk.
“This is the final straw,” wrote Elon Musk on Twitter/X after Newsom signed AB-1955 into law. “Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas.”
“I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children,” Musk wrote in another tweet.
Now, several school districts have indicated they will openly defy the law. East County’s Cajon Valley Union School District passed their own parental notification policy in August 2024, mere weeks after the law was passed. A lawsuit is almost assuredly imminent. All eyes are on the outcome and what it will mean for the parental rights movement.
6. SB-1174: Prohibiting Voter ID Laws
It’s not often that a new law feels so expressly personal. SB-1174 prohibits local governments, like City Councils, from enacting or enforcing voter ID laws. While the bill does not specifically mention Huntington Beach—and the success of Measure 1—it very much seems like a direct affront to the will of its voters.
For context, there were talks of a proposed charter amendment requiring voter identification to participate in Huntington Beach municipal elections as early as September 2023. That month, Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) sent a dire warning to the City Council: “if the City moves forward and places it on the ballot, we stand ready to take appropriate action…” At its next meeting, the Council voted to refer the charter amendment to the ballot in the form of Measure 1, leaving it up to a vote of constituents.
Measure 1 went on to pass by seven percentage points in March 2024. However, mere weeks earlier SB-1774 was introduced by Senator Dave Min (D), who represents a neighboring senatorial district. While the bill would not pass into law until late September, its introduction in February means it—technically—preempts Measure 1 (and will be used to challenge it in court).
“The California Department of Justice stands ready to defend the voting rights that make our democracy strong,” stated Bonta after filing a lawsuit against the City.
Ironically, for all of Bonta’s posturing about the preservation of democracy, the passage of Measure 1 was an example of direct democracy in action. In this instance, SB-1774—which was never brought before the voting public—will supersede the results of a democratic election, and furthermore, be upheld not by democracy, but by judicial fiat.
“The people of Huntington Beach have made their voices clear on this iscsue and the people’s decision on the March 5th ballot measures for election integrity is final,” said City Attorney Michael Gates in a statement. “To that end, the City will vigorously uphold and defend the will of the people.”
Sadly, SB-1774 is not the only instance of Sacramento attempting to muscle out undesirable political outcomes in local municipalities this cycle. It would seem that Orange County was a popular target on more than one occasion—and Sen. Min was frequently the one looking through the crosshairs.
7. SB-907: Reshaping the Orange County Board of Education
If for no other reason, SB-907 deserves a spot on this list for its sheer, unmatched pettiness. Also authored by Sen. Min (and co-authored by Sen. Josh Newman (D)), this bill’s sole aim was to change the structure of the Orange County Board of Education from five to seven members.
It seems innocuous at first (suspending the sheer fact that this was a legislative priority amid the State’s abundant unresolved challenges). But, beneath the surface, SB-907 was hiding a bitter contempt for the Board’s conservative majority—an anomaly for large school districts within blue states. Why, for example, did state legislators not prioritize any other countywide Boards of Education who still employ five trustees—like San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Contra Costa County and so forth?
“This is not simply adding two trustees, this is a wholesale attempt to completely reconfigure the board,” wrote former Superintendent for Aspire Public Schools, Dr. Stefan Bean, in an Orange County Register op-ed. “The very same board [has] been on the vanguard of school choice, approving over 40 charter schools in the last 10 years. The California Teachers Association reflexively opposes school choice at every turn. That is why SB 907 targets Orange County and turns a blind eye to San Diego, Los Angeles and the rest of the state.”
SB-907 passed in both the Senate and Assembly before ultimately being vetoed by Newsom.
“State circumvention of these local procedures, especially with respect to a single county board of education, should be avoided absent extraordinary circumstances,” reads the veto letter. “Unfortunately, I am not convinced those circumstances exist in the context of this legislation.”
One wonders what the Governor meant by “unfortunately.”
8. ACA-10: Housing as a Right
What would it mean to enshrine housing as a human right? That’s precisely what ACA-10 endeavors to do—without actually quantifying how it will be achieved.
The Constitutional Amendment was adopted in both houses in June 2024. Its author, Assemblymember Matt Haney (D) argues it’s about “ensuring access to housing for all.”
“But the language of the measure is brief and vague, and doesn’t specify what a right to housing entails or how it would be enforced,” writes Marisa Kendall for CalMatters. “The proposed amendment recognizes the fundamental right to ‘adequate housing’ for everyone in California. Local and state lawmakers must work toward fulfilling that right ‘by all appropriate means.’ That’s about it.”
Nevertheless, it passed and paved the way for Proposition 5, otherwise known as the Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment, which will appear as a ballot measure this November.
As is implied by its title, Prop 5 would—if passed—“reduce the vote threshold to approve general obligation bonds and allow taxes used to repay bond debt to exceed the constitutionally established 1% limit, diminishing the people’s voice on tax increases and eroding critical property tax safeguards,” as described by CalChamber. Ironically, this will cause housing costs to rise—achieving the very opposite of ACA-10’s stated purpose.
9. SB-961: Mandatory Speed-Limiting Devices in Cars
Rightly or wrongly, Assemblyman Scott Wiener (D) has been called a “nanny-stater,” one who tends to support strong government intervention in affairs typically reserved for individual rights and preferences. It makes sense, then, that Wiener is the progenitor of SB-961—a bill which the California State Senate Republican Caucus has called outright “Orwellian.”
This bill requires that cars manufactured in 2030 and beyond be equipped with a “passive intelligent speed assistance system,” which would use a “visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time the speed of the vehicle is more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit.” It also creates a new criminal offense: “a violation of the above requirements would be punishable as a crime.”
The bill was even more draconian upon its introduction. Initially, the bill would require cars manufactured after 2027 “to be equipped with an intelligent speed limiter” which would kick in at 10 miles per hour over the limit and physically limit a driver’s top speed.
Both iterations allow emergency vehicles and authorities to disable their devices. Similarly, in order to be effective, either device would require real-time vehicle location tracking. According to prior case law (i.e. the landmark United States v. Jones), Americans have a right to be free from warrantless, continuous tracking of their movements, as this is generally considered an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The potential for widespread technical issues, enforcement problems, and privacy concerns led to its veto last month.
10. SB-399: Restricting Employer Speech
SB-399, authored by Senator Aisha Wahab, outright violates the First Amendment and curtails freedom of speech. Its goal is to protect employees from coercion by their employers (which is already illegal), and also enables workers to refuse to attend employer-sponsored meetings or participate in any communications with the employer or its agents or representatives if they feel such meetings will involve discussions of “religious or political matters.”
If they did refuse, based on those grounds, the employer would still be required to pay the employee for their time as if they had attended. It further promotes litigiousness by allowing employees who feel they have been coerced into attending such a meeting to sue for punitive damages.
CalChamber points out that this prevents employers from discussing important matters “that impact a company, their industry, and even new rules governing their jobs,” including—but not limited to—”informing workers about impacts of legislation, hosting fundraisers, or supporting local candidates.” All of the latter would constitute “political” discussions.
“A similar bill was vetoed in Colorado for putting employers in the ‘impossible position’ of trying to determine when any communication may constitute a political matter,” writes CalChamber’s Ashley Hoffman. “Similar legislation has been struck down, challenged in court, or vetoed in other states.”
The bill passed and was signed into law by the Governor—but there may be hope for a legal challenge in the future.
The 2023-2024 Legislative Session may have ended, but it has left a bitter aftertaste. The common themes of the year are—if nothing else—government overreach, excessive regulation, and the wildness of one-party rule. Laws such as these demonstrate how far the state is willing to go in reshaping everyday life under the guise of progress.
