Decision day in Sacramento
Thursday was an important legislative deadline for California lawmakers — it was the last day of this legislative session for fiscal committees to meet and move bills. The results of their last-minute deliberations contain more than a few surprises.
Lawmakers in both houses allowed scores of controversial bills to die — and many others to pass. Their action on Thursday offers important lessons about the challenges that lie ahead for California.
Marijuana bank. Cannabis farmers, shop owners and investors have complained about being unable to deposit their money in federally chartered banks. Many face elevated security risks from having to hold large amounts of cash.
This is a real problem that’s crying out for a real solution. Unfortunately, SB930, authored by state Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Los Angeles), would have created significant problems for the state. The bill also would have allowed the state to license private banks to handle cannabis industry dollars. But according to a legislative analysis, the bill wouldn’t protect the banks from federal law enforcement action and might have even made them easier targets for it.
Health care for undocumented immigrants. Currently, only undocumented children are eligible for Medi-Cal, California’s low-income health care program. Lawmakers decided not to move forward two bills that could have extended MediCal services to undocumented adults: SB974, which would have granted expanded access to those age 65 and older, and AB2965, which would have extended Medi-Cal to the age of 26.
Expense was the culprit for these bills’ demise: Legislative analysis found both bills would have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
State lawmakers are right to be cautious, yet the episode is a grim reminder of the fact that too many Californians are struggling to make ends meet.
This brings us to a controversial bill the Legislature did choose to move forward:
Bail reform. SB10, a proposal to end the cash bail system for certain defendants awaiting trial, passed out of the Assembly’s appropriations committee. Both Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins have made bail reform a top priority.
They are right to do so — the cash bail system has little to do with public safety and everything to do with a defendant’s wealth. But SB10, which would set up a pretrial release system based on individual risk assessments for defendants, was amended several times and has lost many of its original advocates.
The revised version of SB10 “does not have strong controls on the tools used to evaluate suitability for pretrial release,” said Anne Irwin, director of Smart Justice California. Her organization once supported the bill but has taken a neutral position after its amendments. “What we know from research across the country is that without strong controls those assessments can be incredibly racially biased.”
Should SB10 pass its final votes, its success will depend on how judges choose to implement its strictures. State lawmakers will need to be as vigilant about its fulfillment as they’re being about its strictures.