On the verge of changing into legislation: These 2020 payments are as much as California’s governor

0
16
On the verge of becoming law: These 2020 bills are up to California’s governor

In a year in which the coronavirus pandemic ravaged every aspect of normal life, the impact in the California Capitol was also dramatic. Legislators took an unprecedented two-month hiatus in the spring when Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statewide ordinance that people should stay home to prevent the virus from spreading. They returned to the Capitol in May, approved a state budget that had shrunk from the pandemic-triggered recession, and set aside hundreds of bills that could not be cut in that cut year. With less time for hearings and less money to spend on new initiatives, legislators threw in an estimated three quarters of the bills introduced earlier this year.

Along the way, laws were abandoned or rejected requiring police to intervene when they saw officials use excessive force, allowing homeowners to indulge their mortgages during the pandemic, and a "Green New Deal" to combat it Climate change started.

But despite the reduced workload, lawmakers have addressed numerous sensitive issues and passed laws that could affect life in California in the years to come – including facilitating mental health care, banning flavored tobacco, and revising the use of plastic packaging .

It is now up to the governor to decide whether their ideas should become law. Below are some of the most interesting choices he faces. Keep checking for updates: we'll be adding newly submitted invoices until the session ends tonight, then tracking their fate until the end of the invoice signing, which ends September 30th.

– Employed by Laurel Rosenhall and CalMatters

Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services 24-hour mental health crisis service on August 21, 2019. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

By Jocelyn Wiener

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 855 would greatly expand the list of mental illnesses deemed medically necessary under California Parity Law. Currently, this law, which aims to ensure an equal level of care for physical and mental health, only covers nine mental illnesses and does not include substance use disorders. The bill from Democratic State Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco would require health plans to make decisions about what is covered based on criteria developed by nonprofit clinical trade associations, rather than allowing them to make those determinations themselves .

WHO SUPPORTS IT?

A grand coalition of mental health advocacy groups, low-income and disabled Californian groups, and mental health professionals associations. They say commercial health insurers have often failed to provide psychiatric care that is equivalent to physical health care – a situation that has led some patients to cancel private insurance to opt for taxpayer-funded public medication. Qualify Cal System.

WHO IS OPPOSITE?

The health insurance industry rejects the bill. Representatives say the plans already comply with state and federal parity laws and that the bill would drive up health care costs.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

Mental health care is a growing problem for Californians – and the pandemic has increased the need for it. A recent report by the CDC shows that since the pandemic began, nearly 63 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds nationwide had symptoms of anxiety or depression in the past month, and more than a quarter said they had seriously thought about suicide. Attempts to change the state's 20-year-old parity law have failed several times. If the governor signs this bill, proponents say it would put California at the forefront of mental health and addiction protection.

© 2020
CalMatters

Hundreds gathered at Oscar Grant Plaza in downtown Oakland on May 29, 2020 to show solidarity with protesters in Minneapolis against the police killing of George Floyd earlier this week. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters "data-recalc-dims =" 1Hundreds gathered at Oscar Grant Plaza in downtown Oakland on May 29, 2020 to show solidarity with protesters in Minneapolis against the police killing of George Floyd earlier this week. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

By Elizabeth Castillo

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 3121 would set up a nine-member task force to educate Californians about slavery and recommend ways the state can make amends. The committee would submit its findings to the legislature. The bill by Shirley Weber, a Democrat from San Diego, had quietly woven its way through the legislature before protests erupted across the country against the death of George Floyd.

WHO SUPPORTS IT?

Supporters include the Western Center for Law and Poverty, the American Civil Liberties Union of California, a grand coalition of social justice groups, and several politicians including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara.

WHO IS OPPOSITE?

Republican lawmakers largely voted against the proposal. Congregation member Kevin Kiley, a Rocklin Republican, said "the federal level is a more appropriate place for this discussion," said his chief of staff. Some Republicans, including Senators Ling Ling Chang of Diamond Bar and Brian Dahle of Bieber, voted in favor.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

The task force would not have the authority to make reparations, but would try to answer questions about who would pay and who would be paid. Descendants of enslaved individuals would receive special consideration for the payment. The governor would appoint five members, while the Assembly Speaker and the Senate President would each appoint two pro tempore. California joined the Union as a "free state" but passed a fugitive slave law in the 1850s that allowed slaves as long as they were eventually returned to the south.

© 2020
CalMatters

Shelves full of flavored tobacco products such as disposable e-cigarettes, pipe tobacco, and shisha in a Berkeley smoking shop. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

By Elizabeth Aguilera

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 793 prohibits the sale of all flavored tobacco products – from cotton candy to mango to menthol. San Mateo Democratic Senator Jerry Hill's bill aims to reduce the number of children who smoke, smoke and use tobacco products. The ban includes pods for vape pens, tank-based systems, menthol cigarettes, and chewing tobacco. It originally contained cigars and shisha tobacco, but these were later exempted. The responsibility rests with the retailers who will be fined for continuing to sell these products.

WHO SUPPORTS IT?

A long list of health organizations, work groups, cities, state officials, and community groups. Allies include the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Children, and CALPIRG.

WHO IS OPPOSITE?

Tobacco companies and law enforcement agencies, including the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association. Community advocates like Neighborhood Forward are also against it. They say the law would create an illegal market for the products and also wrongly target smokers with color who prefer menthol cigarettes.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

Supporters say teenagers and young people are attracted to tobacco by flavored products. They believe that banning these products will reduce tobacco use among adolescents and deter them from becoming tobacco users for life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one in ten middle school students and a quarter of high school students reported e-cigarette use in the previous month. In 2018, 49 percent of middle school students and 67 percent of high school students who had used tobacco in the previous 30 days said they used a flavored product.

GOVERNOR & # 39; S CALL

On August 28, hours after the bill cleared the law, Newsom signed the bill. He publicly signaled his move earlier in the day by saying he was very clear about his “absolute condemnation of this tobacco industry which continues to find ways to target our youth. It will be a point of deep pride and personal privilege to sign this bill as a father of four and someone who has many, many family members died from the tobacco industry. “The law will come into force in January 2021.

© 2020
CalMatters

UC Berkeley graduation 2010. Image via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

By Mikhail Zinshteyn

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Its supporters call it the strongest government consumer protection for student loan borrowers. AB 376 by Congregator Mark Stone is a rulebook for student loan service providers – the companies that manage federal and private student loan debt. The long list includes rules like informing borrowers about programs that might lower their monthly payments and extend their loans, warning veterans of extra relief, and minimizing late fees for partial payments. Importantly, the bill opens the credit service providers to lawsuits from consumers if the service providers fail to meet the bill's expectations, including staff retraining and greater transparency about borrowers' payment history. The bill also provides for a government student loan ombudsman to follow up on complaints from borrowers, provided that lawmakers and the governor approve a budget for that office's staff.

WHO SUPPORTS IT?

70+ student debt advocacy groups, labor unions, and trade groups. These include the California Federation of Teachers, the California Dental Association, Consumer Reports, and AARP. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis also support this.

WHO IS OPPOSITE?

Bank and credit service providers. The national student loan service trade group says the bill exposes businesses to unjustified lawsuits. The Consumer Bankers Association and California Bankers Association deny that their members must abide by the rules of the bill and want to be excluded from the regulations.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

Borrowers have long complained that loan service providers offer bad or misleading advice, which results in them having to pay more and longer for loans. This calculation would change that.

© 2020
CalMatters

At the end of the day, school buses are waiting to be picked up in 2019 at Garfield Elementary School in Oakland. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

By Ricardo Cano

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1835 would fill a loophole in California's School Funding Act, the Local Control Funding Formula, by requiring school districts to report unspent dollars intended for low-income students, foster youth, or English learners. According to the legislation, the schools would have to spend these earmarked additional and concentration funds for disadvantaged students, regardless of whether these funds are carried over to the following school year.

WHO SUPPORTS IT?

A coalition of civil rights groups and some state lawmakers, including the author of the law, Democratic Congregation member Shirley Weber of San Diego, has long pushed the state to streamline the 2013 School Funding Act, which funds the way schools are funded has been fundamentally revised. Proponents have argued that while the new funding formula improves the state's outdated school funding laws, it is not accountable and transparent about how schools spend funds on pupils in need.

WHO IS OPPOSITE?

The California School Business Officials Association and some local districts oppose the law, saying it would affect the ability of local executives to cope with the deteriorated school budget prospects from the pandemic.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

According to the formula, school districts receive additional funding per student if they have a higher concentration of disadvantaged students. But for years lawyers and some lawmakers have questioned whether schools are appropriately spending this extra money on services and staff to serve the intended student groups. Former Governor Jerry Brown opposed any changes to the funding formula after signing the law and urged patience. However, a critical government review in 2019 confirmed the suspicions of many proponents of bills and made several recommendations that were incorporated into that legislation.

© 2020
CalMatters

Many California corporate boards would become more diverse with an upcoming bill. Photo by Eli Sagor via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

By Elizabeth Castillo

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 979 would require individuals from "underrepresented communities" to have at least one seat on corporate boards in California by the end of 2021. Individuals who consider themselves Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native or Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender qualify as someone from an underrepresented community. The proposal was changed to include people who identify themselves as LGBT. The bill drawn up by members of the congregation, Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat, and Cristina Garcia, a Bell Gardens Democrat, was inspired by a similar 2018 bill that required women in boardrooms. If passed, it would be the first law in the country to oversee the racist makeup of corporate boards. The requirements will increase in 2022 when board members with four to nine people must have at least two members from an underrepresented community and board members with nine or more people must have at least three members.

WHO SUPPORTS IT?

State inspector Betty Yee and state treasurer Fiona Ma are supporters. Others include the American Civil Liberties Union of California, the California Chambers of Commerce for Blacks and Hispanics, and other advocacy groups representing people of color.

WHO IS OPPOSITE?

Keith Bishop, a publicly traded opponent and corporate law attorney, says the bill is unconstitutional. No large corporate groups like the California Chamber of Commerce are listed as formal opponents.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

Nationwide, according to a report from 2018, 19.5% of the board members of Fortune 100 companies are colored people. The Latino Corporate Directors Association reported that 86% of California-based public corporations do not have Latinos on their boards, even though 39% of the state's residents are Latinos. The state law mandating women on company boards faces legal challenges. If this law becomes law, it is likely to have similar objections.

© 2020
CalMatters

Students from Johanna Boss High School in Stockton graduate from behind barbed wire at O.H. Close Stockton Juvenile Detention Center. Photo by Charlotte West for CalMatters

From Jackie Botts

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 1290 would wipe off any debts parents owed for the cost of incarcerating their children in juvenile justice, such as daily stays in youth facilities or the cost of electronic surveillance wristbands. The bill by two Los Angeles Democrats, Senator Maria Elena Durazo and Senator Holly Mitchell, builds on a 2018 bill that stopped collecting such fees, but did not require counties to pay fees that parents collected before 2018.

WHO SUPPORTS IT?

A coalition of Poverty and Criminal Justice Reform groups and San Diego County, which wiped over $ 40 million in youth debt for 9,100 families in May.

WHO IS OPPOSITE?

The bill did not meet with public opposition.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

When Newsom committed to closing and redefining the California youth prison system, 22 counties continued to pursue nearly $ 137 million in youth debt. A handful of counties recently paid off youth fee debts to ease the financial burden on low-income residents. But the pandemic that is affecting the county's households has the next move by some watchful advocates: stop charging adult administrative fees in the criminal justice system.

© 2020
CalMatters

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here