<h1>ASSEMBLY THIRD READING</h1><h1>ATR Bill Id:AB 3024</h1> Author:(Ward)As Amended Ver:April 22, 2024Majority vote<h2>SUMMARY</h2>Prohibits, as a part of the protections afforded by the Ralph Civil Rights Act, the distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another person for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property.<h3>Major Provisions</h3><ol><li>Clarifies that the definition of &quot;intimidation by threat of violence&quot; in the Ralph Civil Rights Act includes, but is not limited to, distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property.</li><li>Defines for the purpose of 1) &quot;terrorize&quot; to mean to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.</li><li>Adopts an urgency clause.</li></ol><h2>COMMENTS</h2>Existing law, the Ralph Civil Rights Act, protects Californians from violence and intimidation based on a person's membership in a protected class. Despite these protections, hate crimes remain a troubling problem in this state. One such hateful act is known as &quot;hate littering,&quot; whereby a person intentionally distributes or places hateful propaganda onto another person's property, seeking to intimidate that person. While California law makes certain egregious types of hate littering a criminal offense, lower-level offenses are harder to deter. This bill would establish civil penalties for all types of hate littering.California maintains some of the nation's most robust civil rights laws. The Unruh Civil Rights Act was one of the nation's first state-level civil rights laws, and thanks to a series of amendments to the law, it remains one of the most widely encompassing civil rights statutes in the country. Similarly, the Ralph Civil Rights Act provides persons who suffer violence or threats of violence on the basis of being a member of a protected class the ability to recover financial penalties from the person who violated their civil rights. Additionally, the state possesses robust criminal statutes preventing hate crimes. Most recently, in response to rising anti-Semitism across the country, the Legislature made it a crime to a place a swastika, noose, or desecrated cross on another person's property seeking to terrorize that person. AB 2282 (Bauer-Kahan) Chapter 397, Statutes of 2022. However, a troubling rise in hate crimes continues to plague California. In 2022, the Attorney General's Office noted that hate-driven crimes increased 20% from 2021 to 2022. (California Justice Information Services Division, Hate Crime in California, California Department of Justice (2022) at p. 1.) More troublingly, the data indicates that hate crimes rose across an array of protected classes including race, religion, and sexual orientation. (Id. at p. 8.) The author and proponents of this bill note that a growing type of hate crime involves the placing of hateful flyers, stickers, banners, graffiti, and posters on private property seeking to intimidate the property owner, also known as &quot;hate littering.&quot; According to data provided to the Committee from the Anti-Defamation League, one of the supporters of this bill, the rate of hate littering incidents grew by 38% nationally in 2022. The proponents of this measure contend that without new legal tools, property owners will possess few tools to stop hate littering. Seeking to stop the proliferation of hate littering, this bill would make the practice a violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act. The bill simply expands the existing definition of &quot;intimidation by threat of violence&quot; in the Ralph Civil Rights Act to include the intentional distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another, without authorization, for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property. The bill also defines &quot;terrorizing&quot; to mean something that would cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety. By adding these provisions to the Ralph Civil Rights Act, an aggrieved party would be able to seek damages from the person hate littering on their property.Given that this measure seeks to prohibit the distribution of hateful materials on another's property, by its nature, this bill is a limitation on speech. While the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from limiting speech, these prohibitions generally do not apply to private property. However, the California Supreme Court has held that some limits on speech on private property violate the Constitution. The State Supreme Court held that soliciting signatures for a petition at a shopping mall is protected speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 899.) The State Supreme Court explicitly noted that California's constitutional speech protections are more inclusive than those at the federal level. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 777.) Accordingly, given that the state prohibits some restriction of speech even on private property, to determine the constitutionality of this measure, the nature of the restriction of speech proposed by this bill must be examined.This measure is clearly aimed at threatening speech, as it is reforming the definition of a &quot;threat&quot; in the Ralph Civil Rights Act. Both the United States and California Supreme Courts have held that &quot;true threats&quot; are not protected speech under the First Amendment. (See, Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343; People v. Lowery (2011) 52 Cal.4th 419.) As it pertains to what is a &quot;true threat,&quot; the California courts have upheld language nearly identical to the language proposed in this bill. Language in former Penal Code Section 11411, the section upon which this bill is modeled, stated, &quot;Any person who burns or desecrates a cross or other religious symbol, knowing it to be a religious symbol, on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property,&quot; is guilty of a crime. That code section also defined &quot;'terrorize'&quot; as &quot;to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.&quot; The court contended that because a reasonable person would feel, &quot;fear and intimidation… it conveys a threat of future physical harm.&quot; (In re Steven S. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 598, 607.) In addition to being a &quot;true threat,&quot; the court also noted that such actions constitute &quot;fighting words,&quot; another class of unprotected speech. (Id. at p. 609.) Thus it appears that this language sufficiently falls within the California case law to be considered a threat and therefore can be prohibited.Additionally, because limits on speech must be as narrow as possible it must be determined if the language of this statute is sufficiently clear to pass constitutional muster. Again, Penal Code Section 11411 and associated case law provide helpful guidance. In holding that the verbiage of that statute, mimicked in this bill, is sufficiently clear, California courts held, &quot;An offender who has a purpose… of terrorizing--that is, of causing 'a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety'&quot; can have no doubt that the behavior is threatening. (In re Steven S., supra, at p. 614.) Essentially, because the statute requires a person to intend to commit an act that would make an ordinary person fear for their safety, the court believes this standard is sufficiently clear. There appears no reason why the logic would change simply because this bill is a civil matter and not a criminal statute. Overall, given the parallels between the language utilized in this measure and language that has passed constitutional muster in Penal Code Section 11411, this bill is unlikely to violate the First Amendment.<h3>According to the Author</h3>The Stop Hate Littering Act, AB 3024, will protect individuals from the distribution of hateful propaganda in the form of flyers, posters, or symbols with the intent to terrorize vulnerable communities. These forms of hateful propaganda have rapidly become the preferred tactic of hate groups because it maximizes personal impact, while allowing them to remain anonymous and avoid accountability. These are not just pieces of paper with words, these are deliberate, targeted attacks that are intended to harass and intimidate victims, dehumanizing them based on their religion, gender or sexual orientation, or other characteristic. They are being left on our windshields, in our driveways, and on our front doors. They have no place in our communities.<h3>Arguments in Support</h3>This bill is sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and is supported by a range of civil rights organizations, the City of San Diego, and several local elected officials from San Diego. In support of this bill the Anti-Defamation League writes:According to ADL's own data, we have seen a precipitous rise of antisemitic incidents across the state. Last year, flyers with horrific antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ+ messages were distributed in the dark of night across the state, attacking not only the values that we hold as a community but threatening the individuals who live in it. We must do all that we can to speak out and take action against this extremist activity and conduct that seeks to have our communities live in fear of hate and potential violence.AB 3024 will make necessary improvements to existing law by strengthening the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 to ensure victims are provided adequate protections against these new tactics and create new legal tools to deter terrorizing activity and hold offenders accountable.This spike in hate has made the path forward clear. California must take action to counter this rise in hate and bigotry. AB 3024 is the first of many steps toward that aim.<h3>Arguments in Opposition</h3>No opposition on file.<h2>FISCAL COMMENTS</h2>None.<h2>VOTES</h2>ASM JUDICIARY: 10-1-1YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes, WaldronNO: DixonABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez<h2>UPDATED</h2>VERSION: April 22, 2024CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334	 FN: 0002760

<h1>ASSEMBLY THIRD READING</h1><h1>ATR Bill Id:AB 3024</h1> Author:(Ward)As Amended Ver:April 03, 2024Majority vote<h2>SUMMARY</h2>Prohibits, as a part of the protections afforded by the Ralph Civil Rights Act, the distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another person for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property.<h3>Major Provisions</h3><ol><li>Clarifies that the definition of &quot;intimidation by threat of violence&quot; in the Ralph Civil Rights Act includes, but is not limited to, distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property.</li><li>Defines for the purpose of 1) &quot;terrorize&quot; to mean to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.</li></ol><h2>COMMENTS</h2>Existing law, the Ralph Civil Rights Act, protects Californians from violence and intimidation based on a person's membership in a protected class. Despite these protections, hate crimes remain a troubling problem in this state. One such hateful act is known as &quot;hate littering,&quot; whereby a person intentionally distributes or places hateful propaganda onto another person's property, seeking to intimidate that person. While California law makes certain egregious types of hate littering a criminal offense, lower-level offenses are harder to deter. This bill would establish civil penalties for all types of hate littering.California maintains some of the nation's most robust civil rights laws. The Unruh Civil Rights Act was one of the nation's first state-level civil rights laws, and thanks to a series of amendments to the law, it remains one of the most widely encompassing civil rights statutes in the country. Similarly, the Ralph Civil Rights Act provides persons who suffer violence or threats of violence on the basis of being a member of a protected class the ability to recover financial penalties from the person who violated their civil rights. Additionally, the state possesses robust criminal statutes preventing hate crimes. Most recently, in response to rising anti-Semitism across the country, the Legislature made it a crime to a place a swastika, noose, or desecrated cross on another person's property seeking to terrorize that person. AB 2282 (Bauer-Kahan) Chapter 397, Statutes of 2022. However, a troubling rise in hate crimes continues to plague California. In 2022, the Attorney General's Office noted that hate-driven crimes increased 20% from 2021 to 2022. (California Justice Information Services Division, Hate Crime in California, California Department of Justice (2022) at p. 1.) More troublingly, the data indicates that hate crimes rose across an array of protected classes including race, religion and sexual orientation. (Id. at p. 8.) The author and proponents of this bill note that a growing type of hate crime involves the placing of hateful flyers, stickers, banners, graffiti, and posters on private property seeking to intimidate the property owner, also known as &quot;hate littering.&quot; According to data provided to the Committee from the Anti-Defamation League, one of the supporters of this bill, the rate of hate littering incidents grew by 38% nationally in 2022. The proponents of this measure contend that without new legal tools, property owners will possess few tools to stop hate littering. Seeking to stop the proliferation of hate littering, this bill would make the practice a violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act. The bill simply expands the existing definition of &quot;intimidation by threat of violence&quot; in the Ralph Civil Rights Act to include the intentional distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another, without authorization, for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property. The bill also defines &quot;terrorizing&quot; to mean something that would cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety. By adding these provisions to the Ralph Civil Rights Act, an aggrieved party would be able to seek damages from the person hate littering on their property.Given that this measure seeks to prohibit the distribution of hateful materials on another's property, by its nature, this bill is a limitation on speech. While the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from limiting speech, these prohibitions generally do not apply to private property. However, the California Supreme Court has held that some limits on speech on private property violate the Constitution. The State Supreme Court held that soliciting signatures for a petition at a shopping mall is protected speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 899.) The State Supreme Court explicitly noted that California's constitutional speech protections are more inclusive than those at the federal level. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 777.) Accordingly, given that the state prohibits some restriction of speech even on private property, to determine the constitutionality of this measure, the nature of the restriction of speech proposed by this bill must be examined.This measure is clearly aimed at threatening speech, as it is reforming the definition of a &quot;threat&quot; in the Ralph Civil Rights Act. Both the United States and California Supreme Courts have held that &quot;true threats&quot; are not protected speech under the First Amendment. (See, Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343; People v. Lowery (2011) 52 Cal.4th 419.) As it pertains to what is a &quot;true threat,&quot; the California courts have upheld language nearly identical to the language proposed in this bill. Language in former Penal Code Section 11411, the section upon which this bill is modeled, stated, &quot;Any person who burns or desecrates a cross or other religious symbol, knowing it to be a religious symbol, on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property,&quot; is guilty of a crime. That code section also defined &quot;'terrorize'&quot; as &quot;to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.&quot; The court contended that because a reasonable person would feel, &quot;fear and intimidation… it conveys a threat of future physical harm.&quot; (In re Steven S. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 598, 607.) In addition to being a &quot;true threat,&quot; the court also noted that such actions constitute &quot;fighting words,&quot; another class of unprotected speech. (Id. at p. 609.) Thus it appears that this language sufficiently falls within the California case law to be considered a threat and therefore can be prohibited.Additionally, because limits on speech must be as narrow as possible it must be determined if the language of this statute is sufficiently clear to pass constitutional muster. Again, Penal Code Section 11411 and associated case law provide helpful guidance. In holding that the verbiage of that statute, mimicked in this bill, is sufficiently clear, California courts held, &quot;An offender who has a purpose… of terrorizing--that is, of causing 'a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety'&quot; can have no doubt that the behavior is threatening. (In re Steven S., supra, at p. 614.) Essentially, because the statute requires a person to intend to commit an act that would make an ordinary person fear for their safety, the court believes this standard is sufficiently clear. There appears no reason why the logic would change simply because this bill is a civil matter and not a criminal statute. Overall, given the parallels between the language utilized in this measure and language that has passed constitutional muster in Penal Code Section 11411, this bill is unlikely to violate the First Amendment.<h3>According to the Author</h3>The Stop Hate Littering Act, AB 3024, will protect individuals from the distribution of hateful propaganda in the form of flyers, posters, or symbols with the intent to terrorize vulnerable communities. These forms of hateful propaganda have rapidly become the preferred tactic of hate groups because it maximizes personal impact, while allowing them to remain anonymous and avoid accountability. These are not just pieces of paper with words, these are deliberate, targeted attacks that are intended to harass and intimidate victims, dehumanizing them based on their religion, gender or sexual orientation, or other characteristic. They are being left on our windshields, in our driveways, and on our front doors. They have no place in our communities.<h3>Arguments in Support</h3>This bill is sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and is supported by a range of civil rights organizations, the City of San Diego, and several local elected officials from San Diego. In support of this bill the Anti-Defamation League writes:According to ADL's own data, we have seen a precipitous rise of antisemitic incidents across the state. Last year, flyers with horrific antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ+ messages were distributed in the dark of night across the state, attacking not only the values that we hold as a community but threatening the individuals who live in it. We must do all that we can to speak out and take action against this extremist activity and conduct that seeks to have our communities live in fear of hate and potential violence.AB 3024 will make necessary improvements to existing law by strengthening the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 to ensure victims are provided adequate protections against these new tactics and create new legal tools to deter terrorizing activity and hold offenders accountable.This spike in hate has made the path forward clear. California must take action to counter this rise in hate and bigotry. AB 3024 is the first of many steps toward that aim.<h3>Arguments in Opposition</h3>No opposition on file.<h2>FISCAL COMMENTS</h2>None.<h2>VOTES</h2>ASM JUDICIARY: 10-1-1YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes, WaldronNO: DixonABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez<h2>UPDATED</h2>VERSION: April 03, 2024CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334	 FN: 0002687

Date of Hearing: April 2, 2024<h1>ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY</h1>Ash Kalra, Chair<h1>ABPCA Bill Id:AB 3024 </h1>Author:(Ward) – As Amended Ver:March 18, 2024As Proposed to be AmendedSUBJECT: Civil rightsKEY ISSUE: should the protections of the ralph civil rights act be expanded to prohibit the distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another without authorization when the purpose of distribution is to terrorize the owner of the property?SYNOPSISIn the wake of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, the pandemic, and ongoing societal change in views toward the LGBTQ+ community, a range of studies indicates that there has been a troubling rise in hate crimes and related acts. Indeed, the California Attorney General reported a double digit rise in the rate of hate crimes during the pandemic. One new form of discriminatory behavior is “hate littering,” or the act of placing literature, pamphlets, stickers, or graffiti onto private property owned by a member of a minority group in an attempt to intimidate and threaten them. Because these activities do not necessarily rise to the level of a hate crime or trigger California’s anti-hate prohibitions on activities such as cross burning, these actions can be difficult to punish or deter under existing California law.Seeking to provide new legal tools to combat hate littering, this bill would make it a violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act to distribute hateful materials on the private property of another person for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property. Because this bill would update the Ralph Civil Rights Act, it would allow victims to seek the civil damages authorized by the existing law for violations of that Act.This measure is sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League and is supported by civil rights organizations, as well as the City of San Diego and several local elected officials. The proponents of this measure highlight the growing instances of hate crimes and associated acts and highlight the need to continue to authorize legal tools to crack down on hate-driven violence and threats. This measure, as in print and as proposed to be amended, has no registered opposition.SUMMARY: Prohibits, as a part of the protections afforded by the Ralph Civil Rights Act, the distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another person for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property. Specifically, this bill: <ol><li>Clarifies that the definition of “intimidation by threat of violence” in the Ralph Civil Rights Act includes, but is not limited to, distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property.</li><li>Defines for the purpose of 1) “terrorize” to mean to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.</li></ol>EXISTING LAW:<ol><li>Provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of the persons membership in a protected class, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics, as specified. (Civil Code Section 51.7 (b)(1).)</li><li>Specifies that the protections provided for in 1) are part of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976. (Civil Code Section 51.7 (a).)</li><li>Provides that a person who violates 1) is liable for the actual damages suffered by any person denied the rights provided in 1) and the following:<ol><li>An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages;</li><li>A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000); and </li><li>Attorney’s costs and fees. (Civil Code Section 52 (b).)</li></ol></li><li>Provides that a person who hangs a noose, knowing it to be a symbol representing a threat to life, on the private property of another, without authorization, for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property, or who hangs a noose, knowing it to be a symbol representing a threat to life, on the property of a school, college campus, public place, place of worship, cemetery, or place of employment, for the purpose of terrorizing a person who attends, works at, or is otherwise associated with the school, college campus, public place, place of worship, cemetery, or place of employment is subject to imprisonment for 16 months or two or three years, by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment for the first conviction. (Penal Code Section 11411 (b).)</li><li>Provides that a person who places or displays a sign, mark, symbol, emblem, or other physical impression, including, but not limited to, a Nazi swastika, on the private property of another, without authorization, for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property, or who places or displays a sign, mark, symbol, emblem, or other physical impression, including, but not limited to, a Nazi swastika, on the property of a school, college campus, public place, place of worship, cemetery, or place of employment, for the purpose of terrorizing a person who attends, works at, or is otherwise associated with the school, college campus, public place, place of worship, cemetery, or place of employment is subject to imprisonment for 16 months or two or three years, by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment for the first conviction. (Penal Code Section 11411 (c).)</li><li>Provides that a person who burns or desecrates a cross or other religious symbol, knowing it to be a religious symbol, on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property, or who burns, desecrates, or destroys a cross or other religious symbol, knowing it to be a religious symbol, on the property of a school, college campus, public place, place of worship, cemetery, or place of employment for the purpose of terrorizing a person who attends, works at, or is otherwise associated with the school, college campus, public place, place of worship, cemetery, or place of employment is subject to imprisonment for 16 months or two or three years, by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment for the first conviction. (Penal Code Section 11411 (d).)</li><li>Defines for the purposes of 4) through 6) “terrorize” to mean causing a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety. (Penal Code Section 11411 (f).)</li></ol>FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.COMMENTS: Existing law, the Ralph Civil Rights Act, protects Californians from violence and intimidation based on a person’s membership in a protected class. Despite these protections, hate crimes remain a troubling problem in this state. One such hateful act is known as “hate littering,” whereby a person intentionally distributes or places hateful propaganda onto another person’s property, seeking to intimidate that person. While California law makes certain egregious types of hate littering a criminal offense, lower-level offenses are harder to deter. This bill would establish civil penalties for all types of hate littering. In support of this bill the author states:The Stop Hate Littering Act, AB 3024, will protect individuals from the distribution of hateful propaganda in the form of flyers, posters, or symbols with the intent to terrorize vulnerable communities. These forms of hateful propaganda have rapidly become the preferred tactic of hate groups because it maximizes personal impact, while allowing them to remain anonymous and avoid accountability. These are not just pieces of paper with words, these are deliberate, targeted attacks that are intended to harass and intimidate victims, dehumanizing them based on their religion, gender or sexual orientation, or other characteristic. They are being left on our windshields, in our driveways, and on our front doors. They have no place in our communities.An array of civil and criminal statutes seek to prevent hate crimes. California maintains some the nation’s most robust civil rights laws. The Unruh Civil Rights Act was one of the nation’s first state-level civil rights laws, and thanks to a series of amendments to the law, it remains one of the most widely encompassing civil rights statutes in the country. Similarly, the Ralph Civil Rights Act provides persons who suffer violence or threats of violence on the basis of being a member of a protected class the ability to recover financial penalties from the person who violated their civil rights. Additionally, the state possess robust criminal statutes preventing hate crimes. Most recently, in response to rising anti-Semitism across the country, the Legislature made it a crime to a place a swastika, noose, or desecrated cross on another person’s property seeking to terrorize that person. (AB 2282 (Bauer-Kahan) Chap. 397, Stats. 2022.) However, a troubling rise in hate crimes continues to plague California. In 2022, the Attorney General’s Office noted that hate-driven crimes increased 20 percent from 2021 to 2022. (California Justice Information Services Division, Hate Crime in California, California Department of Justice (2022) at p. 1.) More troublingly, the data indicates that hate crimes rose across an array of protected classes including race, religion and sexual orientation. (Id. at p. 8.) The author and proponents of this bill note that a growing type of hate crime involves the placing hateful flyers, stickers, banners, graffiti, and posters on private property seeking to intimidate the property owner, also known as “hate littering.” According to data provided to the Committee from the Anti-Defamation League, one of the supporters of this bill, the rate of hate littering incidents grew by 38 percent nationally in 2022. The proponents of this measure contend that without new legal tools, property owners will possess few tools to stop hate littering. This bill. Seeking to stop the proliferation of hate littering, this bill would make the practice a violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act. The bill simply expands the existing definition of “intimidation by threat of violence” in the Ralph Civil Rights Act to include the intentional distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another, without authorization, for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property. The bill also defines “terrorizing” to mean something that would cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety. By adding these provisions to the Ralph Civil Rights Act, an aggrieved party would be able to seek damages from the person hate littering on their property.This measure is narrowly tailored to avoid infringing on the First Amendment right to free speech. Given that this measure seeks to prohibit the distribution of hateful materials on another’s property, by its nature, this bill is a limitation on speech. While the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from limiting speech, these prohibitions generally do not apply to private property. However, the California Supreme Court has held that some limits on speech on private property violate the Constitution. The State Supreme Court held that soliciting signatures for a petition at a shopping mall is protected speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 899.) The State Supreme Court explicitly noted that California’s constitutional speech protections are more inclusive than those at the federal level. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 777.) Accordingly, given that the state prohibits some restriction of speech even on private property, to determine the constitutionality of this measure, the nature of the restriction of speech proposed by this bill must be examined.This measure is clearly aimed at threatening speech, as it is reforming the definition of a “threat” in the Ralph Civil Rights Act. Both the United States and California Supreme Courts have held that “true threats” are not protected speech under the First Amendment. (See, Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343; People v. Lowery (2011) 52 Cal.4th 419.) As it pertains to what is a “true threat,” the California courts have upheld language nearly identical to the language proposed in this bill. Language in former Penal Code Section 11411, the section upon which this bill is modeled, stated, “Any person who burns or desecrates a cross or other religious symbol, knowing it to be a religious symbol, on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property,” is guilty of a crime. That code section also defined “‘terrorize’” as “to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.” The court contended that because a reasonable person would feel, “fear and intimidation… it conveys a threat of future physical harm.” (In re Steven S. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 598, 607.) In addition to being a “true threat,” the court also noted that such actions constitute “fighting words,” another class of unprotected speech. (Id. at p. 609.) Thus it appears that this language sufficiently falls within the California case law to be considered a threat and therefore can be prohibited.Additionally, because limits on speech must be as narrow as possible it must be determined if the language of this statute is sufficiently clear to pass constitutional muster. Again, Penal Code Section 11411 and associated case law provide helpful guidance. In holding that the verbiage of that statute, mimicked in this bill, is sufficiently clear California courts held, “An offender who has a purpose… of terrorizing--that is, of causing ‘a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety’” can have no doubt that the behavior is threatening. (In re Steven S., supra, at p. 614.) Essentially, because the statute requires a person to intend to commit an act that would make an ordinary person fear for their safety, the court believes this standard is sufficiently clear. There appears no reason why the logic would change simply because this bill is a civil matter and not a criminal statute. Overall, given the parallels between the language utilized in this measure and language that has passed constitutional muster in Penal Code Section 11411, this Committee sees no reason why a court would treat the two code sections differently. Accordingly, this bill is unlikely to violate the First Amendment.Proposed amendments eliminate duplicative and ambiguous language. While this bill is likely constitutional, some language of the bill in print is slightly duplicative. The bill requires a showing that a defendant intentionally acted to terrorize a person based on a protected class such that an ordinary person would be fearful of harm. This ordinary person standard eliminates the need for the reference to “reckless disregard” in the existing bill. To avoid confusion, and to ensure any limit on speech is as narrow as possible, the author is proposing the following amendment to eliminate reckless disregard provisions of the bill as follows:(3) For purposes of this subdivision, “intimidation by threat of violence” includes, but is not limited to, distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property. <s>or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property</s>.ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League and is supported by a range of civil rights organizations, the City of San Diego, and several local elected officials from San Diego. In support of this bill the Anti-Defamation League writes:According to ADL’s own data, we have seen a precipitous rise of antisemitic incidents across the state. Last year, flyers with horrific antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ+ messages were distributed in the dark of night across the state, attacking not only the values that we hold as a community but threatening the individuals who live in it. We must do all that we can to speak out and take action against this extremist activity and conduct that seeks to have our communities live in fear of hate and potential violence.AB 3024 will make necessary improvements to existing law by strengthening the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 to ensure victims are provided adequate protections against these new tactics and create new legal tools to deter terrorizing activity and hold offenders accountable.This spike in hate has made the path forward clear. California must take action to counter this rise in hate and bigotry. AB 3024 is the first of many steps toward that aim.REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:SupportAnti-Defamation League (sponsor) City of San Diego City of San Diego Councilmember Raul Campillo Jewish Family Service of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego San Diego City Attorney's OfficeOppositionNone on fileAnalysis Prepared by:	Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Civil rights.

<caml:Preamble>The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</caml:Preamble><caml:BillSection id="id_C4382A94-8E9E-416E-8D31-DB01DC6C301D"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:CIV:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'51.7.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION" xlink:type="locator">Section 51.7 of the <caml:DocName>Civil Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_F7DEFED3-949C-4B37-A624-5265555024A3"><caml:Num>51.7.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_505788BB-83DB-46AB-AB43-6BA69FBCF1BE"><caml:Content>(a)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976.(b)(1)All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. The identification in this subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive.(2)For purposes of this subdivision, intimidation by threat of violence includes, but is not limited to, making or threatening to make a claim or report to a peace officer or law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person has engaged in unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the claim or report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim or report.(3)For purposes of this subdivision, intimidation by threat of violence includes, but is not limited to, distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private
						property.(4)For purposes of this subdivision, terrorize means to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.(c)(1)A person shall not require another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any court or other governmental entity.(2)A person shall not refuse to enter into a contract with, or refuse to provide
						goods or services to, another person on the basis that the other person refuses to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any other governmental entity.(3)Any waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any other governmental entity shall be knowing and voluntary, in writing, and expressly not made as a condition of entering into a
						contract for goods or services or as a condition of providing or receiving goods and services.(4)Any waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section that is required as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services shall be deemed involuntary, unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable. This subdivision does not affect the enforceability or validity of any other provision of the contract.(5)A person who seeks to enforce a waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section has the burden of proving that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and not made as a condition of the contract or of providing or receiving the goods or services.(6)The exercise of a persons right to refuse to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including a rejection of a contract requiring a waiver, does not affect any otherwise legal terms of a contract or an agreement.(7)This subdivision does not apply to an agreement to waive any legal rights, penalties, remedies, forums, or procedures for a violation of this section after a legal claim has arisen.(8)This subdivision applies to an agreement to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including an agreement to accept private arbitration, entered into, altered, modified, renewed, or extended on or after January 1,
						2015.(d)This section does not apply to statements concerning positions in a labor dispute that are made during otherwise lawful labor picketing.(e)The Legislature finds and declares that this section was enacted as part of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, in Chapter 1293 of the Statutes of 1976.(f)This section does not negate or otherwise abrogate the provisions of Sections 1668, 1953, and 3513.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_9411FC2E-8139-41A2-BB01-DE8F049D9CEB"><caml:Num>SEC. 2.</caml:Num><caml:Content>This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:In order to address the rapidly growing trend of hate littering incidents in the community, deter future incidents, and give victims the recourse needed to recover from their trauma as soon as possible, it is necessary that this act go into effect immediately.</caml:Content></caml:BillSection>

<caml:Preamble>The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</caml:Preamble><caml:BillSection id="id_C4382A94-8E9E-416E-8D31-DB01DC6C301D"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:CIV:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'51.7.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION" xlink:type="locator">Section 51.7 of the <caml:DocName>Civil Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_F7DEFED3-949C-4B37-A624-5265555024A3"><caml:Num>51.7.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_505788BB-83DB-46AB-AB43-6BA69FBCF1BE"><caml:Content>(a)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976.(b)(1)All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. The identification in this subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive.(2)For purposes of this subdivision, intimidation by threat of violence includes, but is not limited to, making or threatening to make a claim or report to a peace officer or law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person has engaged in unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the claim or report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim or report.(3)For purposes of this subdivision, intimidation by threat of violence includes, but is not limited to, distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private
						property.(4)For purposes of this subdivision, terrorize means to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.(c)(1)A person shall not require another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any court or other governmental entity.(2)A person shall not refuse to enter into a contract with, or refuse to provide
						goods or services to, another person on the basis that the other person refuses to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any other governmental entity.(3)Any waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any other governmental entity shall be knowing and voluntary, in writing, and expressly not made as a condition of entering into a
						contract for goods or services or as a condition of providing or receiving goods and services.(4)Any waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section that is required as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services shall be deemed involuntary, unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable. This subdivision does not affect the enforceability or validity of any other provision of the contract.(5)A person who seeks to enforce a waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section has the burden of proving that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and not made as a condition of the contract or of providing or receiving the goods or services.(6)The exercise of a persons right to refuse to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including a rejection of a contract requiring a waiver, does not affect any otherwise legal terms of a contract or an agreement.(7)This subdivision does not apply to an agreement to waive any legal rights, penalties, remedies, forums, or procedures for a violation of this section after a legal claim has arisen.(8)This subdivision applies to an agreement to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including an agreement to accept private arbitration, entered into, altered, modified, renewed, or extended on or after January 1,
						2015.(d)This section does not apply to statements concerning positions in a labor dispute that are made during otherwise lawful labor picketing.(e)The Legislature finds and declares that this section was enacted as part of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, in Chapter 1293 of the Statutes of 1976.(f)This section does not negate or otherwise abrogate the provisions of Sections 1668, 1953, and 3513.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection>

<caml:Preamble>The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</caml:Preamble><caml:BillSection id="id_C4382A94-8E9E-416E-8D31-DB01DC6C301D"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:CIV:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'51.7.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION" xlink:type="locator">Section 51.7 of the <caml:DocName>Civil Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_F7DEFED3-949C-4B37-A624-5265555024A3"><caml:Num>51.7.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_505788BB-83DB-46AB-AB43-6BA69FBCF1BE"><caml:Content>(a)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976.(b)(1)All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. The identification in this subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive.(2)For purposes of this subdivision,
						intimidation by threat of violence includes, but is not limited to, making or threatening to make a claim or report to a peace officer or law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person has engaged in unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the claim or report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim or report.(3)For purposes of this subdivision, intimidation by threat of violence includes, but is not limited to, distribution of hateful materials on the private property of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private property.(4)For purposes of this subdivision, terrorize means to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for personal safety.(c)(1)A person shall not require another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any court or other governmental entity.(2)A person shall not refuse to enter into a contract with, or refuse to provide goods or services to, another person on the basis that the other person refuses to waive any legal
						right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any other governmental entity.(3)Any waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Civil Rights Department, or any other governmental entity shall be knowing and voluntary, in writing, and expressly not made as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services or as a condition of providing or receiving goods and services.(4)Any waiver of any legal right,
						penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section that is required as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services shall be deemed involuntary, unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable. This subdivision does not affect the enforceability or validity of any other provision of the contract.(5)A person who seeks to enforce a waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section has the burden of proving that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and not made as a condition of the contract or of providing or receiving the goods or services.(6)The exercise of a persons right to refuse to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including a rejection of a contract requiring a waiver, does not affect any otherwise legal terms of a contract
						or an agreement.(7)This subdivision does not apply to an agreement to waive any legal rights, penalties, remedies, forums, or procedures for a violation of this section after a legal claim has arisen.(8)This subdivision applies to an agreement to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this section, including an agreement to accept private arbitration, entered into, altered, modified, renewed, or extended on or after January 1, 2015.(d)This section does not apply to statements concerning positions in a labor dispute that are made during otherwise lawful labor picketing.(e)The Legislature finds and declares that this section was enacted as part of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, in Chapter 1293 of the
						Statutes of 1976.(f)This section does not negate or otherwise abrogate the provisions of Sections 1668, 1953, and 3513.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_7909C4A1-5D79-4B7F-9244-EBE44A1BBC99"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:CIV:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D&apos;DIVISION&apos;%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D&apos;4.&apos;%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D&apos;PART&apos;%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D&apos;3.&apos;%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D&apos;TITLE&apos;%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D&apos;2.&apos;%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D&apos;3495.&apos;%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION" xlink:type="locator">Section 3495 of the <caml:DocName>Civil Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_A46EB262-33C9-413E-9D20-B04D6392DF68"><caml:Num>3495.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_553AA948-2090-4432-ACC0-D2CE9E8BF447"><caml:Content><xhtml:p>Any person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to them by removing, or, if necessary, destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury.</xhtml:p></caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection>

<caml:Preamble>The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</caml:Preamble><caml:BillSection id="id_7909C4A1-5D79-4B7F-9244-EBE44A1BBC99"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:CIV:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'4.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'3.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'TITLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'3495.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION" xlink:type="locator">Section 3495 of the <caml:DocName>Civil Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_A46EB262-33C9-413E-9D20-B04D6392DF68"><caml:Num>3495.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_553AA948-2090-4432-ACC0-D2CE9E8BF447"><caml:Content>Any person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him them by removing, or, if necessary, destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection>

In Senate.  Read first time.  To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 61. Noes  3.).

Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

Read second time and amended.  Ordered returned to second reading.

From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 10. Noes  1.) (April  2).

From printer.  May be heard in committee  March  18.

AB 3024: Civil rights.

Current Status:

Assembly Floor

Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

News Coverage: