Meet the other new Members of the Assembly Democratic Caucus in these two episodes:

https://look-west-how-california-is-leading-the-nation-22f6dfb5.simplecast.com/episodes/freshman-class-filled-with-moms-dads-teachers-doctors-and-more

https://look-west-how-california-is-leading-the-nation-22f6dfb5.simplecast.com/episodes/new-faces-join-the-assembly-democratic-caucus-in-2025

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin proudly announces the signing of Assembly Bill (AB) 2839 into law, marking a significant advancement in the protection of electoral integrity and voter trust in California. This groundbreaking bipartisan legislation, authored by Assemblymember Pellerin and coauthored by 11 legislators, addresses the growing threat of deepfake technology that is used to manipulate and deceive voters with false information related to an election.

AB 2839 specifically prohibits the distribution of digitally altered election communications—including mailers, robocalls, and video advertisements—that present false or misleading information pertaining to an officer conducting an election, an elected official, voting equipment, or candidates running for office. The bill acts to safeguard the democratic process from the harmful effects of deceptive deepfake materials by targeting materially deceptive content that is distributed 120 days before an election.

The bill prohibits content that is likely to harm a candidate’s reputation or electoral prospects, or to falsely undermine confidence in the election outcome. Under AB 2839, recipients of such content can seek injunctive relief or damages from the distributor. Additionally, the bill mandates that deepfake parody material be clearly labeled as digitally manipulated.

“Signing AB 2839 into law is a significant step in continuing to protect the integrity of our democratic process,” stated Assemblymember Pellerin. “With fewer than 50 days until the general election, there is an urgent need to protect against misleading, digitally-altered content that can interfere with the election. By targeting deceptive deepfakes and ensuring transparency in parody content, we are reinforcing the public’s trust in our electoral system. I’m thankful that Governor Newsom signed this legislation to ensure that voters are equipped with the accurate information they need to make informed decisions this November.”

The bill will take effect immediately due to its urgency clause, ensuring its provisions are in place well before the November 5, 2024, general election. This timely action reflects California’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of its elections and protecting voters from misleading information.

AB 1778, as amended, Connolly. Vehicles: electric bicycles.

Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Under existing law, a “class 2 electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a “class 3 electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle. Existing law requires a person operating, or riding upon, a class 3 electric bicycle to wear a helmet, as specified.

This bill would, until January 1, 2029, authorize a local authority within the County of Marin, or the County of Marin in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 2 electric bicycle or require a person operating a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a bicycle helmet, as specified. The bill would require an ordinance or resolution that is adopted for this purpose to make a violation an infraction punishable by either a fine of $25 or completion of an electric bicycle safety and training course, as specified. The bill would, if an ordinance or resolution is adopted, require the county to, by January 1, 2028, submit a report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total number of traffic stops initiated for violations, the results of the traffic stops, and the actions taken by peace officers during the traffic stops, as specified. The bill would require the local authority or county to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as specified. The bill would require the local authority or county to only issue warning notices for the first 60 days after the passage of the ordinance or resolution.

Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Under existing law, a “class 2 electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a “class 3 electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle. Existing law requires a person operating, or riding upon, a class 3 electric bicycle to wear a helmet, as specified. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 2 electric bicycle. The bill would require a person operating, or riding upon, a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet, as specified. The bill would clarify that an electric bicycle can only be placed in a certain class if it ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a max speed regardless of the mode.

Because the bill would prohibit certain persons from riding electric bicycles, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Digest Key

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yesno   Local Program: yesno  

Bill Text

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 21214.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

21214.5.

 (a) A local authority within the County of Marin, or the County of Marin in unincorporated areas, may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 2 electric bicycle.

(b) A local authority within the County of Marin, or the County of Marin in unincorporated areas, may, by ordinance or resolution, require a person operating a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a bicycle helmet, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 21213.

(c) An ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this section shall make a violation an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) or completion of an electric bicycle safety and training course pursuant to Section 894 of the Streets and Highways Code.

(d) (1) If an ordinance or resolution is adopted pursuant to this section, the county shall, by January 1, 2028, submit a report to the Legislature that includes all of the following:

(A) The total number of traffic stops initiated for violations.

(B) The results of the traffic stops, including whether a warning or citation was issued, property was seized, or an arrest was made.

(C) The number of times a person was stopped for allegedly operating a class 2 electric bicycle while under 16 years of age but was found to be over the age limit.

(D) If a warning or citation was issued, a description of the warning or the violation cited.

(E) If an arrest was made, the offense cited by the officer for the arrest and the perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics is solely based on the observation and perception of the peace officer who initiated the traffic stop.

(F) The actions taken by a peace officer during the traffic stops, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(i) Whether the peace officer asked for consent to search the person, and, if so, whether consent was provided.

(ii) Whether the peace officer searched the person or any property, and, if so, the basis for the search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered.

(iii) Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing the property.

(G) The number of times a person opted to complete, and did complete, the training course in lieu of paying the fine.

(H) The number of times that a person under 16 years of age was operating an electric bicycle and was involved in an accident that resulted in a permanent, serious injury, as defined in Section 20001, or a fatality in the six months prior to adoption of the ordinance or resolution, the cause of the accident, and the class of the electric bicycle that was being operated at the time of the accident.

(I) The number of times that a person under 16 years of age was operating an electric bicycle and was involved in an accident that resulted in a permanent, serious injury, as defined in Section 20001, or a fatality in the six months after adoption of the ordinance or resolution, the cause of the accident, and the class of the electric bicycle that was being operated at the time of the accident.

(2) A report submitted pursuant to this section shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.

(e) A local authority or the County of Marin shall administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of an ordinance or resolution pursuant to this section, including public announcements in major media outlets and press releases.

(f) A local authority or the County of Marin shall only issue warning notices for the first 60 days after the passage of an ordinance or resolution pursuant to this section.

(g) This section shall become inoperative on January 1, 2029, and as of that date is repealed.

AB 3139, as amended, Weber. Data privacy: vehicle manufacturers: remote vehicle technology.

Existing law establishes various privacy requirements applicable to vehicle manufacturers, including limitations on the usage of images or video recordings from in-vehicle cameras in new motor vehicles equipped standard with one or more in-vehicle cameras. Existing law provides various protections to persons who are escaping from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, and other abuse, including providing for a means to keep the names and addresses of abuse survivors confidential in public records.

This bill would, among other things, require a vehicle manufacturer that offers a vehicle for sale, rent, or lease in the state that includes remote vehicle technology to do certain things, including ensure that the remote vehicle technology can be immediately manually disabled by a driver of the vehicle while that driver is inside the vehicle by a method that, among other things, is prominently located and easy to use and does not require access to a remote, online application. The bill would require a vehicle manufacturer to offer secure remote means via the internet for a survivor to submit a vehicle separation notice that meets specified requirements. The bill would define “survivor” to mean an individual who has a covered act committed, or allegedly committed, against the individual. The bill would define “covered act” to mean, among other things, certain crimes relating to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking.

This bill would require a survivor to submit a vehicle separation notice through the secure remote means described above within 7 days of the date on which the survivor used the method of manually disabling remote vehicle technology and would require the notice to include prescribed information, including a statement by the survivor signed under penalty of perjury that a perpetrator who has access to the remote vehicle technology in the vehicle has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor’s care, or a copy of specified documents that support that the perpetrator has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor’s care, including a signed affidavit from, among other specified individuals acting within the scope of their employment, a licensed medical care provider.

By requiring a survivor to submit a statement signed under penalty of perjury or requiring specified individuals to sign an affidavit, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a vehicle manufacturer that violates the above-described provisions liable in a civil action brought by a survivor for, among other things, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing survivor, in addition to any other remedy provided by law. The bill would specify that any waiver of the requirements of the above-described provisions is against public policy, void, and unenforceable. statutory damages in an amount not to exceed $50,000 or not to exceed $100,000 for a knowing violation.

This bill would define various terms for these purposes, purposes and would make related findings and declarations.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: yes  

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking, and related crimes are life-threatening issues and have lasting and harmful effects on individuals, families, and entire communities.

(b) Survivors of violence and abuse often lack meaningful support and options when establishing independence from an abuser, including barriers of financial insecurity and limited access to reliable communication tools to maintain essential connections with family, social safety networks, employers, and support services.

(c) Perpetrators of violence and abuse increasingly use technological and communication tools to exercise control over, monitor, and abuse their victims.

(d) Remote vehicle technology, including mobile phone wireless connectivity and location data capabilities that are manufactured into vehicles, are among the technological and communication tools perpetrators of violence and abuse can, and have, used.

(e) According to The New York Times, “Modern vehicles have been called ‘smartphones with wheels’ because they are internet-connected and have myriad methods of data collection, from cameras and seat weight sensors to records of how hard you brake and corner. Most drivers don’t realize how much information their cars are collecting and who has access to it.”

(f) Under the federal Safe Connections Act of 2022, survivors of domestic abuse are empowered to protect themselves and their loved ones by requiring telecommunications providers, upon request, to separate their mobile phone accounts from the accounts of their abusers.

SEC. 2.

 Chapter 36.5 (commencing with Section 22948.60) is added to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:

CHAPTER  36.5. Remote Vehicle Technology

22948.60.

 (a) For the purposes of this chapter:

(1) “Covered act” means conduct that is any of the following:

(A) A crime described in subsection (a) of Section 40002 of the federal Violence Against Women Act (34 U.S.C. Sec. 12291), including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking.

(B) An act or practice described in paragraph (11) or (12) of Section 103 of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. Sec. 7102) relating to severe forms of trafficking in persons and sex trafficking, respectively.

(C) An act under state law, tribal law, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Chapter 47 (commencing with Section 801) of Title 10 of the United States Code) that is similar to an offense described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

(2) “Designated person” means a person who provides care to a survivor and meets both of the following criteria:

(A) The person has been authorized by the survivor to submit a request pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 22948.61.

(B) The person did not commit, or did not allegedly commit, a covered act against the survivor.

(2)

(3) “Perpetrator” means an individual who has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against a survivor or an individual under the care of a survivor.

(3)

(4) “Remote vehicle technology” means any technology that allows a person who is outside of a vehicle to access the activity, track the location, or control any operation of the vehicle or its parts, that includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:

(A) A Global Positioning System (GPS).

(B) An app-based technology.

(C) Any other remote wireless connectivity technology.

(4)

(5) “Survivor” means an individual who meets either of the following criteria: has had a covered act committed, or allegedly committed, against the individual.

(A)The individual has had a covered act committed or allegedly committed against them.

(B)The individual provides care to an individual who has had a covered act committed or allegedly committed against, and that caretaker did not commit or allegedly commit the covered act.

(5)

(6) “Vehicle manufacturer” means a vehicle manufacturer or remanufacturer, as defined in Section 672 of the Vehicle Code.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not require a criminal conviction or any other determination of a court in order for conduct to satisfy a definition.

22948.61.

 (a) A vehicle manufacturer that offers a vehicle for sale, rent, or lease in the state that includes remote vehicle technology shall do all of the following:

(1) Ensure that the remote vehicle technology can be immediately manually disabled by a driver of the vehicle while that driver is inside the vehicle by a method that meets all of the following criteria:

(A) The method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall be is prominently located and easy to use and shall does not require access to a remote, online application.

(B) Upon its use, the method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall inform informs the user of the requirements of subdivision (b).

(C) The method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall does not require a password or any log-in information.

(D) Upon its use, the method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall does not result in the remote vehicle technology, vehicle manufacturer, or a third-party service provider sending to the registered owner of the car an email, telephone call, or any other notification related to the remote vehicle technology being disabled.

(E) Upon its use, the method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall cause causes the remote vehicle technology to be disabled for a minimum of seven days and capable of being reenabled only by the vehicle manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (4).

(2) Offer secure remote means via the internet for a survivor to submit a vehicle separation notice that includes a prominent link on the vehicle manufacturer’s internet website that meets both of the following requirements:

(A) The link is titled, in bold and capital letters, “CALIFORNIA SURVIVOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSISTANCE.”

(B) The link provides a designated internet website portal that provides a survivor the ability to submit a vehicle separation notice and includes a form that enables a survivor to submit the information required by subdivision (b).

(3) Upon the request of a survivor, reset the remote vehicle technology with a new secure account and delete all data from the original account.

(4) Reenable the remote vehicle technology only if the registered owner of the car notifies the manufacturer that the remote vehicle technology was disabled in error, and a survivor has not contacted the vehicle manufacturer to provide the information required by subdivision (b) within seven days of the remote vehicle technology being disabled.

(b) A survivor shall submit a vehicle separation notice to a vehicle manufacturer through the means provided by the vehicle manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) within 7 days of the date on which the survivor used the method of manually disabling remote vehicle technology required by subdivision (a), which shall include the vehicle identification number of the vehicle and either of the following:

(1) A statement by the survivor signed under penalty of perjury that a perpetrator who has access to the remote vehicle technology in the vehicle has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor’s care.

(2) A copy of either of the following documents that supports that the perpetrator has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor’s care:

(A) A signed affidavit from any of the following individuals acting within the scope of that person’s employment:

(i) A licensed medical or mental health care provider.

(ii) A licensed military medical or mental health care provider.

(iii) A licensed social worker.

(iv) A victim services provider.

(v) A licensed military victim services provider.

(B) A copy of any of the following documents:

(i) A police report.

(ii) A statement provided by the police, including military police, to a magistrate judge or other judge.

(iii) A charging document.

(iv) A protective or restraining order, including military protective orders.

(v) Any other relevant document that is an official record.

(c) (1) Only if, for technological reasons, a vehicle manufacturer is unable to comply with paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the vehicle manufacturer shall create a conspicuous mechanism that is easy to use by which a survivor or a designated person can submit a request to disable a vehicle’s remote vehicle technology.

(2) A vehicle manufacturer shall disable remote vehicle technology within one business day after receiving a request from a survivor that includes the information required by subdivision (b) and is submitted pursuant to the mechanism required by paragraph (1).

(d) This section does not authorize or require a vehicle manufacturer to verify ownership of a vehicle, the identity of a survivor, or the authenticity of information that is submitted by the survivor.

22948.62.

 (a) In addition to any other remedy provided by law, a vehicle manufacturer that violates Section 22948.61 shall be liable in a civil action brought by a survivor for all of the following:

(1) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing survivor.

(2) A civil penalty Statutory damages in an amount not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) per violation, or a civil penalty statutory damages in an amount not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per violation for knowing violations.

(3) Actual damages or three times the amount at which the actual damages are assessed for knowing or reckless violations.

(b) Any waiver of the requirements of this chapter shall be against public policy, void, and unenforceable.

SEC. 3.

 No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo’s AB 1950 would mandate a historical report, compensation options, and a memorial to honor uprooted residents

Los Angeles, CA – Today, Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo unveiled Assembly Bill (AB) 1950, the Chavez Ravine Accountability Act, which aims to address the historical injustice faced by those living in the Chavez Ravine in Los Angeles, a predominately Latino community. Authored by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo and sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, AB 1950 would acknowledge and rectify the displacement of these communities in the 1950s, offering a path toward historical accountability, reparative measures, and a permanent memorial honoring their legacy.

“AB 1950, the Chavez Ravine Accountability Act aims to correct an injustice that displaced families and has lingered in the shadows of Los Angeles Eastside history for far too long. Amid the 1950s, the vibrant community of Chavez Ravine, home to mostly Mexican-American families, as well as Italian-American and Chinese-American, saw an upheaval as families were uprooted and displaced in the name of progress. Families were promised a return to better housing, but instead, they were left destitute,” said Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles).  “For generations, Chavez Ravine stood as a beacon of hope and resilience, embodying the dreams and aspirations of families who built their lives within its embrace. With this legislation, we are addressing the past, giving voice to this injustice, acknowledging the pain of those displaced, offering reparative measures, and ensuring that we honor and remember the legacy of the Chavez Ravine community."

Chavez Ravine was named after Julian Chavez, a rancher who served as assistant mayor, city councilmember, and, eventually, as one of L.A. County's first supervisors in the mid-1800s. Chavez Ravine as we currently know it, was established in the early 1900s, encompassed approximately 315 acres, and had three main neighborhoods — Palo Verde, La Loma, and Bishop. By the 1950s, this area was home to generations of predominantly Mexican Americans.

Residents, many of whom were working-class families, built a strong sense of community, with local businesses, churches, and social organizations thriving in the area. In the 1950s, the City of Los Angeles initiated plans to acquire land in Chavez Ravine under the guise of building public housing. However, it ultimately abandoned these plans and instead sold the land to a private developer who built Dodger Stadium on the site. This displacement forced more than 1,800 families from their homes and businesses, scattering a close-knit community and leaving a lasting impact on their lives and livelihoods.

"AB 1950 is about confronting a historical injustice and ensuring Angelenos understand the true story of Chavez Ravine," said Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, one of the bill's sponsors. "Only by acknowledging the past can we work towards a more just and equitable future for all communities in Los Angeles."

“The unjust seizure of land from the longtime residents of these three communities in the Chavez Ravine neighborhood is a chapter in our city’s history that we cannot rewrite,” said Alfred Fraijo, Jr., Latino community leader. “Our homes are central to our livelihood and sense of being—and often the most important asset in the building of generational wealth. Belated as it may be, we hope this legislation will begin a larger conversation about how to restore justice to all those who bear the scars of social, racial, and economic discrimination, and create an opportunity for healing and reconciliation for all Angelenos.”

Specifically, if enacted into law, AB 1950 would result in:

• Historical Accountability: Mandates a comprehensive report detailing events surrounding the land acquisition and displacement, and makes it publicly available to foster transparency and education about this pivotal moment in Los Angeles' history.
• Reparative Measures: Proposes various forms of compensation, including offering City-owned real estate comparable to the original Chavez Ravine landowners or providing fair market value compensation adjusted for inflation. It also creates pathways for displaced non-landowning residents to receive relocation assistance, healthcare access, employment support, educational opportunities, and other forms of compensation deemed appropriate by a newly established Task Force.
• Permanent Memorial: Requires the construction of a memorial on Chavez Ravine or adjoining property to honor the displaced residents and their legacy.

It is important to note AB 1950 focuses solely on the displaced community of Chavez Ravine and does not involve the Los Angeles Dodgers or Dodger Stadium.

The measure will be heard in the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. The text of the measure can be found at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1950

###

About Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo

Assemblywoman Carrillo was elected to serve in the State Assembly in December 2017. She represents the 52nd Assembly District, which includes East Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, and South Glendale. She serves on the Assembly Committees on Appropriations, Emergency Management, Health, Labor and Employment, and the Joint Committee on Climate Change Policies. She also serves as the Chair of the Select Committee on Latina Inequities, Vice Chair of the Legislative Progressive Caucus, Commissioner for the California Film Commission, Commissioner for the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, and Member of the California Cultural and Historical Endowment Board.

About Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara

Using every tool at his disposal, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's goal is to safeguard the integrity of the state’s insurance market composed of consumers, drivers, homeowners, and businesses. He is focused on addressing decades-long neglected issues and taking on powerful, entrenched special interests to make insurance more available, which in turn will lead to greater affordability.

Led by Commissioner Lara, the California Department of Insurance is the consumer protection agency for the nation's largest insurance marketplace, safeguarding all of the state’s consumers by fairly regulating the insurance industry. Under the Commissioner’s direction, the Department uses its authority to protect Californians from insurance rates that are excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. The Department oversees insurance company solvency to pay claims, set standards for agents and broker licensing, perform market conduct reviews of insurance companies, resolve consumer complaints, and investigate and prosecute insurance fraud.