Subject: CA: Legislative Update
From: "Ellen McCormick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 14:14:21 -0700

Hello everyone!
This is a revised legislative update for LIFE Lobby's LGBT Civil Rights
agenda.  I have received many calls and messages regarding the status of
individual bills, so I thought it might be helpful to send out an updated
version of the whole list.  As always, please call or write if you have any
questions.

In brief, the big "wins" this week:
SB 911 (anti-same gender marriage bill): DEAD!
AB 492 (employment protection): PASSED!
AB 257 (sexual orientation added to California's Fair Employment and
Housing Act):
PASSED!

Thanks for all your support!
Ellen

April 24, 1997 (97-2) SUPPLEMENT

LIFE LOBBY
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Civil Rights
Contacts:		Ellen McCormick, Legislative Advocate
			Laurie McBride, Executive Director
			Sam Catalano, Legislative Assistant

1997 PRIORITIES: LGBTQ YOUTH RIGHTS AND EDUCATION

AB 101 (Kuehl) / SUPPORT
Education: sexual orientation: nondiscrimination.
The “Dignity for All Students Bill.”  AB 101 would add “sexual orientation”
to all sections of the Education Code which prohibit discrimination.
	As amended, this bill will have no impact on armed forces training units
(ROTC), Boy Scouts programs, or require any affirmative action based on a
pupil’s sexual orientation in California’s public schools.

ACTIONS:		
01/08/97	INTRODUCED 
03/18/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY HIGHER EDUCATION CMTE., 8-6 04/09/97	PASSED BY
ASSEMBLY EDUCATION COMMITTEE, 11 - 9
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS CMTE., HEARING SET 05/07/97

AB 424 (Baldwin) / OPPOSE
Postsecondary education: armed forces training and recruitment.
Current law is neutral on the establishment or disestablishment of armed
forces training units and military recruitment on public postsecondary
campuses.  A few of California’s public postsecondary campuses have removed
or instituted “phase outs” of armed forces training units because those
programs (in compliance with the U.S. Department of Defense) engage in
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  
	AB 424 would declare that it is the public policy of this state to allow
these units and recruiters access to any campus of any public postsecondary
educational institution.  AB 424 would prohibit the removal or phase out of
any armed forces training unit or recruiter from the curriculum, campus, or
facility of any public postsecondary educational institution.  Last, AB 424
would require the reinstatement of any of these programs that have
previously been removed.

ACTIONS:		
02/20/97	INTRODUCED
04/22/97	PASSED ASSEMBLY HIGHER EDUCATION CMTE., 8 - 6
STATUS: 	PENDING ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

AB 499 (Kuehl) / SUPPORT
Education: discrimination: educational institutions: enforcement.
Under the Education Code, the governing board of a school district has
primary responsibility for ensuring that programs are free from
discrimination based on ethnic group identification, religion, are, sex,
color, or physical or mental disability.  AB 499 would provide that these
provisions on discrimination may be enforced through a civil action.

ACTIONS:	
02/24/97	INTRODUCED
04/16/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 10 - 5
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

AB 1113 (House) / OPPOSE
Parental rights.
AB 1113 would provide that a parent shall retain “the fundamental right to
exercise primary control over the care, upbringing, and education of any
child in his or her charge.”  AB 1113 would also allow any parent to bring
action in a state court for a claim for damages arising “under the
principles established in the...fundamental right of primary parental
control.”
	This is the standard “parental rights” legislation that appears each year,
however, this measure is stronger as it specifies that a parent may bring
action in a state court.

ACTIONS:		
02/27/97	INTRODUCED
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HEARING SET: 05/07/97

AB 1490 (House) / OPPOSE
Sex education: homosexuality.
AB 1490 would provide that no public monies may be used to provide
instruction materials or instruction that “promotes or advocates
homosexuality as a viable alternative lifestyle or...refer any pupil to any
organization that promotes or advocates a homosexual lifestyle.”
	This measure is not only offensive and blatantly homophobic, it could, if
enacted, have detrimental effects on such life-saving programs as Project
10 (Los Angeles).  The good news is this bill will not likely make it out
of its first committee.

ACTIONS:		
02/28/97 	INTRODUCED
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY EDUCATION COMMITTEE

1997 PRIORITIES: SAME GENDER MARRIAGE / DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP	

AB 54 (Murray) / SUPPORT
Domestic partnership: registration, termination, and rights thereof.
The “Murray-Katz Domestic Partnership Act.”  AB 54 would provide a
statewide domestic partnership registry, and hospital visitation and
conservatorship rights for domestic partners.

ACTIONS:	
12/02/97	INTRODUCED
04/02/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 10 - 4
04/23/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS CMTE., 11 - 6
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY FLOOR

AB 427 (Knox) / SUPPORT
Public employees’ health benefits: domestic partners.
This bill would provide domestic partner health benefits to public
employees and State teachers (PERS and STRS), public employees and State
teachers receive health benefits under PERS.  Identical to a Knox bill
introduced during the 95/96 session.  This bill is sponsored by the City of
West Hollywood.  LIFE House of Delegates voted on 2/97 to offer
co-sponsorship to Assembly Member Knox.

ACTIONS:		
02/20/97	INTRODUCED
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE

AB 800 (Margett) / OPPOSE
Family law: marriage.
The “California Defense of Marriage Act.”  AB 800 and SB 911 are two
identical measures which seek to prohibit California from recognizing same
gender marriages - should they ever be legalized - from other states. 
These bills would add into California law “compelling interests (that)
support the statutory recognition of marriage only between one man and one
woman.”  Among such interests are:	
· “Social order... encouraged by fostering procreation and promoting the
optimal development of children within a marital setting...”
· “The institution of marriage... fortified and protected rather than being
further undermined and weakened by fundamentally redefining the
institution... to apply to any consenting... persons regardless of gender
or number.”
· “The state’s treasury... protected from the financial burden of providing
millions of dollars for spousal health care, retirement, and other...
benefits associated with state recognition of marriages other than between
one man and one woman.”
The California Defense of Marriage Act further states that “A same sex
relationship shall not be entitled to the benefits of marriage under the
laws of this state.”  This section could apply to benefits currently
received in certain cities and counties by “domestic partners.”

ACTIONS:		
02/26/97	INTRODUCED
STATUS: 	PENDING ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HEARING SET: 05/07/97

AB 1059 (Migden) / SUPPORT
Health coverage: domestic partners.
This bill would amend and revise the Health and Safety and Insurance Codes
to provide that a health care service plan that provides heath benefits to
employees or subscribers and their dependents shall also provide benefits
to the domestic partner of the employee or subscriber.  This bill also
includes a statewide domestic partner registry identical to AB 54 (Murray).

ACTIONS:	
02/27/97	INTRODUCED
04/15/97	PASSED ASSEMBLY INSURANCE COMMITTEE, 9 - 4
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

SB 841 (Hayden) / SUPPORT
Public contracts: domestic partners.
SB 841 would prohibit any public entity from entering into a contract with
any contractor that discriminates in the provision of benefits between
employees with spouses and employees with domestic partners.  Similar to an
ordinance recently passed by the City of San Francisco.

ACTIONS:		
02/26/97	INTRODUCED
04/22/97	FAILED SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 3 - 4
STATUS:	RECONSIDERATION GRANTED - WILL BE HEARD AGAIN IN COMMITTEE

SB 911 (Knight)	/ OPPOSE
Identical to AB 800 (Margett), above.

ACTIONS:		
02/27/97	INTRODUCED
04/22/97	FAILED SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 2 - 2
STATUS:	FAILED

1997 PRIORITIES: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / IMMIGRATION ISSUES / WELFARE ISSUES

ACA 3 (Murray) / SUPPORT
California Civil Rights Initiative of 1998.
ACA 3 is a constitutional amendment that would provide that “the state may
take all actions, including the creation and implementation of any programs
it deems necessary, designed to promote and enhance equal access and
opportunities for public education, public employment and public
contracting, commensurate with the State’s diverse population, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”
ACA 3 is a legislative response to Proposition 209 (passed by California
voters 11/96) which requires that the state not discriminate or grant
preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or
national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or
public contracting.  Constitutional Amendments require a 2/3 vote.

ACTIONS:		
12/02/97	INTRODUCED
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

SB 1235 (Watson) / WATCH
Human services.
Currently a spot bill on welfare reform, this bill will encompass the
“Advocate” proposal for welfare reform (see “Welfare Reform” - this page). 
Urgency measure, requires a 2/3 vote.

ACTIONS:	
02/28/97	INTRODUCED
STATUS:	PENDING SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE

Welfare Reform: Brief History (taken from the Legislative Analyst’s Office
Proposal)
Welfare reform is one of the most important policy issues facing the
Legislature and the Governor this year.  With the federal enactment of the
1996 welfare reform law, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program was repealed and replaced with a new Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program.  The decisions that the Legislature and the
Governor make in formulating a new TANF program in California will affect
one out of every 13 persons in the state, including 1.8 million children. 
The dilemma facing any welfare reform proposal is that it must address at
least three competing goals: provide public support for children, establish
incentives for their parents to work, and control public costs.

There are now four welfare reform proposals being circulated in the State
Capitol: the Governor’s, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the County
Welfare Directors’, and the “Advocate” proposal (legislation carried by
Diane Watson).  The Governor’s proposal is taken to be the most
conservative, with the LAO’s and the County Welfare Directors seen as
middle of the road.  The Advocate proposal is focused on keeping a safety
net in place and making sure that safety net funding comes from somewhere
other than our children.  LIFE staff is recommending that the House of
Delegates WATCH, with the future likelihood of SUPPORT(ing), the Advocate
proposal which is currently being worked on by the ACLU and the Children’s
Advocacy Institute (CAI), among many other groups.  The Advocate proposal
will take shape in Senate Bill 1235 by Senator Watson.

1997 PRIORITIES: ADOPTION / CHILD CUSTODY / VISITATION

AB 53 (Murray) / SUPPORT
Adoption.
AB 53 would provide that any of the following persons may adopt a child: an
unmarried adult, a married couple, or two adults who are not legally
married.  AB 53 would also prohibit a social worker from stating or
advocating that adoption by an unmarried couple is not in the best interest
of the couple based solely upon that couples’ marriage status.
AB 53 is a legislative response to the Wilson Administration’s proposed
adoption regulations which would require social workers to recommend
against adoptions by unmarried couples.  These proposed regulations are
currently being processed by the State Office of Administrative Law and
have not yet been adopted or rejected.  
	AB 53, as written, is likely to be vetoed by the Governor.  LIFE staff is
working with Murray’s staff and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund on
bill amendments.

ACTIONS:		
12/02/97	INTRODUCED
04/02/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 10 - 4
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY FLOOR

SCR 3 (Kopp) / WATCH
California Law Revision Commission.
Under existing law, the California Law Revision Commission is required to
study topics requested by the Legislature.  SCR 3 would, among other
topics, require the California Law Revision Commission to study: “Whether
the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not
limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil
proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental
custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered
by the Family Code;”
LIFE staff is recommending a WATCH position on this resolution pending
further review and discussion with the resolution’s legislative staff. 
Update: SCR 3 is a measure which is introduced each year, in identical
form, to provide the legislative mandate for the California Law Revision
Commission.  Pending approval by the LIFE House of Delegates, SCR 3 will be
removed from future Legislative Updates.

ACTIONS:		
12/11/96	INTRODUCED
02/18/97	PASSED BY SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 6-0
03/17/97  	PASSED BY SENATE APPROPRIATIONS CMTE., 10 - 0
04/03/97  	PASSED BY SENATE, 38 - 0
STATUS:        	PENDING ASSEMBLY RULES COMMITTEE

GENERAL LGBT CIVIL RIGHTS AND POLICY ISSUES:

AB 257 (Villaraigosa) / SUPPORT
Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
FEHA prohibits discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of
race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical
disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, and
age.  This bill would add “sexual orientation” to the sections of FEHA
which prohibit discrimination. 
	As amended, this bill would repeal the Labor Code provision (Code Section
1102.1) which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in
employment and place that protection under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act.  Current housing protections are already in place through case law
under the Unruh Civil Rights Act - AB 257 would merely require the statute
to reflect current this case law.

ACTIONS:	
02/12/97	INTRODUCED
04/02/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY HOUSING COMMITTEE, 7 - 5
04/23/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY LABOR COMMITTEE, 7 - 2
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

GENERAL LGBT CIVIL RIGHTS AND POLICY ISSUES: COALITION WORK

AB 310 (Kuehl) / SUPPORT
Fair employment and housing.
Sponsored by the ACLU, this measure includes the following amendments to
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA):
· remove caps on damages that can be awarded for employment discrimination
(FEHA only - will not apply to the Labor Code);
· permit courts to award statutory damages in the amount of up to three
times the amount of compensatory damages;
· conform FEHA’s religious exemption to the Federal Title VII (i.e.: permit
discrimination only by a religious organization - not simply a non-profit);
· provide reasonable accommodation for pregnant employees;
· expand coverage to protect contract service providers against harassment
and discrimination (as currently provided under FEHA);
· authorize the department to use “testers” to investigate discrimination
(i.e.: undercover investigators to test for discrimination);
· permit local jurisdictions to provide greater protections for housing
discrimination than under FEHA;
· establish a collection mechanism by which claimants can recover damages;
· prohibit genetic discrimination in employment; and
· codify reasonable person of “same gender” standard to provide mechanism
for determining discrimination (“unwelcome conduct that a reasonable person
similarly situated to the complainant would consider sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of employment or create a hostile or
offensive working environment” - see SB 48, below).

ACTIONS:		
02/14/97	INTRODUCED
04/23/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY LABOR COMMITTEE, 7 - 4
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

SB 48 (Solis) / SUPPORT
Employment: sexual harassment.		
FEHA prohibits harassment of an employee based on race, religious creed,
color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
medical condition, marital status, sex, or age.  SB 48 would provide that
harassment includes “hostile-work-environment harassment,” which, under SB
48 means: “unwelcome conduct that a reasonable person similarly situated to
the complainant would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter
the conditions of employment or create a hostile or offensive working
environment.”  SB 48 is sponsored by the California Labor Federation.

ACTIONS:		
12/02/96	INTRODUCED
04/09/97	PASSED BY SENATE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CMTE., 4-2
STATUS:	PENDING SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

GENERAL LGBT CIVIL RIGHTS AND POLICY ISSUES:
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES

AB 492 (Keeley)	 / SUPPORT	
Under Labor Code Section 1101.2, discrimination based on sexual orientation
in the workplace is prohibited.  Complaints must be filed with the Labor
Commissioner’s Office within 30 days of the incident of discrimination. 
This bill would extend the window to 1 year.

ACTIONS:		
02/24/97	INTRODUCED
04/23/97	PASSED ASSEMBLY LABOR COMMITTEE, 6 - 3
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

GENERAL LGBT CIVIL RIGHTS AND POLICY ISSUES: 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE		

AB 45 (Murray) / SUPPORT
Domestic violence: punishment.
Under current law, any person who inflicts corporal injury resulting in a
traumatic condition upon their spouse, a cohabitant, or the person who is
the parent of the defendant’s child is guilty of a felony.  AB 45 would
expand this definition to include (as a victim): a fiancé, a fiancee, or a
person with whom the defendant has, or previously had a dating
relationship.  This measure is similar to AB 720 (Speier), introduced last
session.
	Under current law, dating relationships are considered valid for battery,
but not in the instance of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic
condition.

ACTION:	
12/02/96	INTRODUCED
03/11/97	PASSED BY ASSEMBLY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, 13 - 0
04/02/97	SENT TO ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE FILE *
STATUS:	PENDING ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS

* The Suspense File
The Senate or Assembly Appropriations “Suspense File” is an interim filing
position for bills which will require a significant allocation from the
State’s General Fund.  Suspense file bills are held until the
Appropriations (fiscal) committee deadline and those bills which are of
utmost importance to each author are considered for passage, traditionally,
all others are defeated by remaining on the suspense file.