MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 656, 905, 174 and AB 3129 — September 30, 2018

The Governor waited until the final allowable day, the deadline, to weigh in on SB 656 (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Final Hours For Bills — September 28, 2018). He decided to veto it.

I know this was a difficult bill for him. Does he stick to absolutes, not allowing any pension modifications since his minimalist Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) passed around this time six years ago (see MOORLACH UPDATE — AB 340 Withholdings — September 12, 2012)?

Or does he sign it to address a flaw in the current retirement plans that his Judicial appointees have to live with? A formula where rank and file staff and even courtroom janitors have a better retirement plan (see A flaw where many good candidates turn down the offer of an appointment to the bench?

I believe we had a righteous bill, correcting a concern that became evident after nearly 24 years of experience, that could be remedied with a minor deferral modification at no or minimal cost. I say no or minimal, as the actuarial studies leaned toward the worst case situation more than what is most likely to occur. I’m confident in this as I believe most judges like their jobs and stay long after retirement age. And, besides, the cost would be tantamount to an insignificant increase in wages if a raise is considered, but it would be a much more powerful morale booster than a pay raise.

Thank you, Governor Brown, for giving it your attention for the entire month. We have all been busy with the legislative process with August having the focus on the Assembly and the Senate and September having the focus on you.

The East County Today provides a review of a few bills in a manner that reflects my vantage point. It provides the legislative votes and the Governor’s veto message, if applicable.

Now that you have the status on SB 656, as it may be tomorrow’s news, at least in legal publications, today let’s discuss SB 905, SB 174 and AB 3129.

Believe it or not, I supported SB 905. I don’t go to bars, never really have, but that doesn’t mean I should prevent others from staying out past 2 a.m. The Governor saw it differently in the first piece below. It provides the background, the Governor’s message, the details of the bill, and the voting record, highlighting how the East Bay legislators voted. This information is also available at

The second East County Today piece addresses SB 174, a bill that I recommended that the Governor should veto (see MOORLACH UPDATE — 2018 Top 20 Veto Worthy Bills — September 13, 2018). Well, good news. The Governor vetoed it!

The third East County Today piece addresses AB 3129, which I thought was headed in the right direction, but was a tad severe. The Governor liked the bill.

Governor Brown Vetoes Bill Allowing Cities to Extend Last Call to 4 a.m.


A bill that was introduced by Senator Scott Wiener (San Francisco) that would allow local governments to extend alcohol services for bars and restaurants until 4:00 am was vetoed by Governor Brown on Friday.

According to the Governors veto message, he stated:

I am returning Senate Bill 905 without my signature.

This bill would authorize nine California cities to extend the hours business can serve alcohol from 2:00 am to 4:00 am.

Without question, these two extra hours will result in more drinking. The business and cities in support of this bill see that as a good source of revenue. The California Highway Patrol, however, strongly believes that this increased drinking will lead to more drunk driving.

California’s law regulating late-night drinking has been on the books since 1913. I believe we have enough mischief from midnight to 2 without adding two more hours of mayhem.


Edmund G Brown Jr.

According to the Bill:

This bill, beginning January 1, 2021, and before January 2, 2026, would require the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to conduct a pilot program that would authorize the department to issue an additional hours license to an on-sale licensee located in a qualified city which would authorize, with or without conditions, the selling, giving, or purchasing of alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises between the hours of 2 a.m. and 4 a.m., upon completion of specified requirements by the qualified city in which the licensee is located. The bill would impose specified fees related to the license to be deposited in the Alcohol Beverage Control Fund. The bill would require the applicant to notify specified persons of the application for an additional hours license and would provide a procedure for protest and hearing regarding the application. The bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol and each qualified city that has elected to participate in the program to submit reports to the Legislature and specified committees regarding the regional impact of the additional hours licenses, as specified. The bill would provide that any person under 21 years of age who enters and remains in the licensed public premises during the additional serving hours without lawful business therein is guilty of a misdemeanor, as provided. The pilot program would apply to Cathedral City, Coachella, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Palm Springs, Sacramento, San Francisco, and West Hollywood.

Date Result Location Ayes Noes NVR Motion
8/30/2018 (PASS) Senate Floor 28 8 4 Unfinished Business SB905 Wiener et al. Concurrence
Ayes: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Beall, Cannella, De León, Delgado, Dodd, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stone, Wieckowski, Wiener
Noes: Bates, Chang, Fuller, Gaines, Nguyen, Nielsen, Vidak, Wilk
No Votes Recorded: Berryhill, Bradford, Jackson, Stern
8/29/2018 (PASS) Assembly Floor 51 22 7 SB 905 Wiener Senate Third Reading By SANTIAGO
Ayes: Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Chu, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Fong, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Low, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Mullin, Obernolte, Quirk, Reyes, Rivas, Rubio, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wood, Rendon
Noes: Acosta, Arambula, Baker, Cervantes, Choi, Cooley, Dahle, Frazier, Gallagher, Gonzalez Fletcher, Irwin, Lackey, Levine, Maienschein, McCarty, Melendez, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O’Donnell, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Waldron
No Votes Recorded: Travis Allen, Cooper, Flora, Gabriel, Limón, Patterson, Rodriguez

Governor Vetoes Bill to Let Noncitizens Serve on Boards


On Thursday, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB-174, a bill that would have allowed legal residents and undocumented immigrants to serve on local and state boards.

According to the Governor’s veto message, he stated “This bill would open up all boards and commissions to non-citizens. I believe existing law—which requires citizenship for these forms of public service—is a better path.

The bill was introduced by Senator Ricardo Lara who claimed the bill amends an obsolete and unconstitutional 1872 law that blocked the children of Chinese immigrants from participating in civic life. According to Government Code Section 241, a citizen of California is defined as anyone born in the state, except the children of “transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.”

SB 174 deletes the language about “transient aliens,” and does not change eligibility to hold elected office or vote, defined as a person over 18 who is both a resident of California and a citizen of the United States.

In August, Lara Stated:

“Immigrants are integral to California’s success, but racism and exclusion are part of our history too,” said Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). “The California Inclusion Act is fundamentally about good governance. SB 174 rejects our history of exclusion and says we make the best policy when we hear the voices of all Californians, regardless of where they are born or what they look like.”

Assemblymembers Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) and David Chiu (D-San Francisco) were coauthors of SB 174. Section 241 has been amended only once, in 1971, to lower the age of eligibility for elected office from 21 to 18.

The bill passed the State Senate with a 26-11 vote with Senator Glazer supporting it. In the Assembly, the bill passed with 46-28 vote with neither Assemblymember Frazier or Grayson casting a vote.

Date Result Location Ayes Noes NVR Motion
8/24/2018 (PASS) Senate Floor 26 11 3 Unfinished Business SB174 Lara et al. Concurrence
Ayes: Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, De León, Delgado, Dodd, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener
Noes: Anderson, Bates, Chang, Fuller, Gaines, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak, Wilk
No Votes Recorded: Berryhill, Cannella, Nguyen
8/20/2018 (PASS) Assembly Floor 46 26 8 SB 174 Lara Senate Third Reading By GONZALEZ FLETCHER
Ayes: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Eggman, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O’Donnell, Quirk, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon
Noes: Acosta, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Choi, Cooley, Cunningham, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Gray, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron
No Votes Recorded: Caballero, Cervantes, Daly, Frazier, Grayson, Mayes, Muratsuchi, Quirk-Silva

Governor Brown Signs Domestic Violence Protection Bill


On Friday, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill aimed at increasing protections for survivors of domestic violence from gun violence.

The Bill, AB 3129, authored by Blanca E. Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), will prohibit a person who is convicted on or after January 1, 2019, of a misdemeanor violation of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse, cohabitant, or other specified person, from ever possessing a firearm. The bill would make the violation of that prohibition punishable as either a misdemeanor or as a felony.

Locally, Senator Steve Glazer supported the bill along with Assembly members Catharine Baker and Tim Grayson. Assemblyman Jim Frazier voted against the Bill.

Here is the August Press Release when the Legislator Passed the Bill:

SACRAMENTO, CA – The California Legislature today passed a bill by Assemblywoman Blanca E. Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) that will increase protections for survivors of domestic violence from gun violence.

Assembly Bill 3129 would impose a lifetime ban on firearm possession against an individual convicted of a serious misdemeanor domestic violence offense. While federal law imposes a lifetime firearms ban on the purchasing or possession if convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, California law is more lenient than federal law by only imposing a ten-year ban.

“The role of guns in domestic assaults is not limited to homicides, in fact, a 2004 survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one-third have been threatened or harmed with a firearm,” according to the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. “In nearly two-thirds of all cases where a gun was present, the person harming their partner had threatened to shoot or kill her.”

“This bill is about saving lives. We need to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of domestic abusers,” said Assemblywoman Rubio. “Abused women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser owns a firearm, and domestic violence assaults involving a gun are 12 times more likely to end in death than assaults with other weapons or physical harm. In addition, a recent report from the Center for Disease Control found that 50 percent of all female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners. Current California law is inadequate, and this bill will provide one more layer of protection.”

AB 3129 will better protect our survivors of domestic violence by imposing a lifetime ban on firearms for individuals with a history of domestic violence. The bill now heads to the Governor’s desk.

Assemblywoman Rubio represents the 48th Assembly District, which is comprised of the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bradbury, City of Industry, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Irwindale, Monrovia, West Covina, and the San Gabriel Valley unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, including Bassett, Charter Oak, Citrus, East Arcadia, Ramona, Valinda and West La Puente.

Date Result Location Ayes Noes NVR Motion
8/23/2018 (PASS) Senate Floor 26 7 7 Assembly 3rd Reading AB3129 Rubio By Skinner
Ayes: Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, De León, Delgado, Dodd, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener
Noes: Anderson, Gaines, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak
No Votes Recorded: Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Chang, Fuller, Nguyen, Wilk
8/27/2018 (PASS) Assembly Floor 53 19 8 AB 3129 RUBIO Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Ayes: Acosta, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O’Donnell, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Santiago, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon
Noes: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Cooley, Frazier, Gallagher, Harper, Kamlager-Dove, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk, Salas, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Voepel, Waldron
No Votes Recorded: Aguiar-Curry, Chávez, Chen, Choi, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Holden


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — 2018 Top 20 Veto Worthy Bills — September 13, 2018

For the fourth year in a row, I’ve been asked to partner with a fellow Republican Legislator to provide the 20 worst bills that made it to the Governor’s desk by the conclusion of the Legislative Session that are begging for his veto (see MOORLACH UPDATE — 2017 Top 20 Veto Worthy Bills — September 22, 2017).

The best advice I could give the Governor is that he veto every bill I voted against and consider vetoing those where I laid off (abstained). But, that won’t happen. In fact, he will sign the majority of the bills provided below in the FlashReport. Governor Brown has until September 30th to veto, sign or ignore, thus putting into law, what seems to be at least 1,000 bills that flew out of the Senate and the Assembly Chambers during the last two weeks of August.

Brown was quick to sign a few bills, so SB 100 was not included in our compilation. Obviously, the list could be much, much longer. But, again, I would refer you to those that I voted “No” on. I’ll try to keep you current over the next two weeks as to how many of the top 20 were vetoed in future UPDATEs.

Jon Fleischman

FlashReport 2018 Top Bills

Worthy of Governor Jerry

Brown’s Veto

Introduction from FlashReport Publisher Jon Fleischman

Since 2006, the FlashReport has presented for your viewing displeasure the worst pieces of legislation sitting on the governor’s desk. Of course, there are a great many bills on the governor’s desk – most of them worthy of a veto. Thus the task of trying to cull through those bills and single out just the twenty worst is not easy. This year’s list comes to us courtesy of both State Senator John Moorlach and Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez. I will add that this session in particular was over-the-top with noxious legislation, and limiting this list to twenty bills was no easy task. – Flash

The FlashReport Top 20 Bills Worthy Of The Governor’s Veto

As compiled and described by Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez and State Senator John Moorlach.

California has critical managerial and spending problems which the legislature continues to ignore. However, Sacramento continues to produce bills that don’t solve the pressing fiscal concerns facing this state. Here are 20 bills, in alpha-numerical order, which we believe the Governor should veto (and, yes, we could provide you with 20-plus more). His denial of implementing these proposed laws would show Californians that he’s serious about leaving a significant legacy after serving 16 years as governor.

1) AB 186 (Eggman) Effectively legalizes the use of illegal, injectable narcotics by authorizing sanctuaries for “safer drug consumption programs” as “overdose prevention programs” within the City and County of San Francisco. Permits supervised injection services for adults who can then consume pre-obtained drugs, use sterile consumption supplies, and obtain referrals to addiction treatment. But, assisting is condoning.

2) AB 1184 (Ting and Chiu) Imposes a tax of up to 3.25 percent on each ride provided by a self-driving or driverless vehicle — even though no self-driving or driverless cars offering ride-sharing are in existence. “If it moves, tax it” (satire from President Ronald Reagan).

3) AB 1231 (Weber) Provides for automatic salary increases of 5% for each support staff employee of the California State University after completion of the first year in a position and each year thereafter if the employee meets the standards for satisfactory job performance. This sidesteps collective bargaining and mandates that these salary increases be included within current and future collective bargaining agreements. So much for the overused “meet and confer” argument and trying to prevent tuition increases.

4) AB 1884 (Calderon) The plastic straw ban. Would prohibit a facility where food may be consumed on the premises from providing single-use plastic straws unless requested by the consumer. Fining food servers for prematurely giving plastic straws?

5) AB 1947 (Low) Bans the practice of paying petition circulators per signature by making it a criminal offense to pay initiative, referendum, or recall petition circulators based on the number of voter signatures obtained. Makes proponents liable for a fine of up to $25,000, or a year in jail, or both. When did paying commissions become a crime?

6) AB 2361 (Weber) Requires the Regents of the University of California to record and publicly report specified information about service work performed by a contractor pursuant to an outsource contract, including employee pay and benefit information. Disqualifies contractors who fail to provide this information, or who provide false information, from bidding on any UC contract for two years. UC management believes this hamstringing mandate will increase its operating costs by $26-$75 million per year over the next three years. Why do this to a system that has an unrestricted net deficit between $19 and $38 billion? Can you say “tuition increases”?

7) AB 2601 (Weber) Adds charter schools to the list of schools that must provide instruction on comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention. Really? What about focusing on the three R’s?

8) AB 3034 (Low) Makes supervisory employee units of the San Francisco BART District subject to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which generally governs collective bargaining for local governments. That would allow unfair labor practice charges to be filed at the union-friendly Public Employment Relations Board, rather than in Superior Court. Can you say “Who’s your Daddy?” The public employee union stranglehold continues to get tighter with each passing year, as BART management did not make this request and opposes it.

9) AB 3080 (Gonzalez Fletcher) Significantly expands employment litigation and will increase costs for employers and employees by banning settlement agreements for labor and employment claims, as well as arbitration agreements made voluntarily as a condition of employment. It would likely be preempted under the Federal Arbitration Act, thereby delaying the resolution of claims. Banning such agreements benefits the trial attorneys, not the employer or employee.

10) SB 174 (Lara) Provides that a person, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, is eligible to hold an appointed civil office if the person is 18 years of age and a resident of the state, and may receive any form of compensation associated with carrying out the duties of that office that the person is not otherwise prohibited from receiving pursuant to federal law. So much for “citizen” involvement.

11) SB 320 (Leyva) Requires certain public university student health centers to offer abortion by medication techniques. The College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund will be established to solicit at least $9,600,000 in private funds by January 1, 2019 to theoretically cover the costs of this mandate. This, again, forces taxpayers with a different perspective to condone behavior that they disagree with.

12) SB 328 (Portantino) Prohibits middle schools and high schools (including charter schools) from beginning their school day before 8:30 a.m. Provides an exception for rural school districts. But, this is a local control issue. School district boards can determine the start times that their constituencies wish.

13) SB 822 (Wiener) Imposes net neutrality rules recently repealed by the Federal Communications Commission on internet service providers. However, the requirements go much further than no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. The World Wide Web should not be regulated by a patchwork of state governments. Period. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause, the federal government and Congress have this under control and can and will regulate as necessary. Hopefully, such actions will be as little as possible, so we don’t lose the freedom of the web.

14) SB 826 (Jackson) Imposes gender-based quotas on boards of directors for private California-based corporations. Requires a minimum of one female on the board by the end of 2019. Increases the minimum number to two female directors if the corporation has five authorized directors or to three female directors if there are six or more authorized directors by the end of 2021. “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth. And the author said with a straight face, “It’s not a quota.” California’s corporations should benefit from the value of women directors because they want to, not because they have to.

15) SB 835 & SB 836 (Glazer) Bans all smoking, including e-cigarettes in “state park units.” Includes all parks, public campgrounds, state coastal beaches, monument sites, landmark sites, and sites of historical interest established or acquired by the state. Would require posted signs and possible designated areas exempt from the ban. Isn’t allowing drug addicts to shoot up in the middle of San Francisco, but not using tobacco (which is legal) in state parks and beaches going too far?

16) SB 964 (Allen) Requires CalPERS and CalSTRS to publicly report on the climate-related financial risks in their portfolios, along with an analysis on how their funds align with the Paris climate agreement and California’s climate policy goals. Legislatively mandated divestment or investment micro-management imposed on pension system Chief Investment Officers is unacceptable. Smart money invests for value, not the politically mandated fad of the day, which is usually a money loser (something these two systems do not need at this dire point in their history).

17) SB 1014 (Skinner) Basically requires Uber and Lyft drivers to purchase zero-emission vehicles. Again, one wildfire wipes out all gains from GHG cuts. But yes, regulate Uber & Lyft cars because all their drivers can afford zero-emission vehicles. Besides, they might be out of jobs anyway if these companies have to designate them as employees.

18) SB 1085 (Skinner) Requires public employers to grant a leave of absence to their employees to participate in union activities without loss of compensation or benefits. Guess who is bitter about the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus decision?

19) SB 1100 (Portantino) Raises the age to purchase all legal firearms from 18 to 21. Californians are already barred from purchasing handguns until age 21. Why postpone yet another constitutional right based on age? Go defend your country in war at 18, but not your family when you return?

20) SB 1172 (Beall) Exempts the High-Speed Rail Authority’s property acquisitions, plans, and construction contracts from oversight by the State Public Works Board, Department of General Services, and Department of Finance. Eliminates review and approval steps to accelerate the timeline for obtaining property appraisals, initiating eminent domain proceedings, and starting construction. Less oversight for a boondoggle? How tone deaf does the Authority get?


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so. Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach