Alcoholic beverages.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 1011 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 1011.
You're tracking SB 1011
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 1011 — Alcoholic beverages.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 136, Statutes of 2022.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 14, 2022. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 5 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
(1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages and the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. Existing law establishes limitations on the number of on-sale general licenses that may be issued by the department based on the population of the county in which the licensed premises are located, as provided. Existing law provides an exception to the license limitation for a county of the 6th class, as specified, for 5 new original neighborhood-restricted special on-sale general licenses for premises located within specified census tracts in that county, subject to specified requirements. This bill would specify that the above-described census tracts correspond to those identified within the 2010 Census. (2) Existing law prohibits any licensee from giving any premium, gift, or free goods in connection with the sale or distribution of any alcoholic beverage, but permits alcoholic beverages to be provided in consumer contests and sweepstakes subject to specified conditions. Existing law permits the department to issue a special temporary on-sale or off-sale beer or wine license to certain nonprofit corporations that entitles the licensee to sell beer or wine, as specified. Existing law limits the period of a special license to 15 days and provides that a special license shall be issued only 3 times in a calendar year. This bill would authorize up to 4 special licenses per nonprofit corporation per calendar year. (3) Existing law requires a special license that is issued for a period exceeding 2 days to be used solely for retail sales in conjunction with an identifiable fundraising event, as specified. This bill would expand that provision, instead requiring a special license that is issued for a period exceeding 2 days to be used solely in conjunction with an identifiable fundraising event, as specified. (4) Under existing law, an alcoholic beverage license is generally renewable unless the license has been revoked, except if it is a temporary license or a specified on-sale general license. Existing law prescribes procedures for the renewal of licenses that presume the use of mail for certain purposes. Existing law authorizes the reinstatement of a license that has been canceled pursuant to specified provisions during the 30 days immediately following cancellation upon payment by cashier's check or money order of the annual renewal fee plus a prescribed penalty fee. This bill would authorize the use of electronic mail for purposes of certain provisions of the above-described renewal process and would replace references to mailing with references to sending. With regard to payments made for the reinstatement of licenses, the bill would require that payment be made by cashier's check, money order, or electronically using payment methods authorized through the online payment portal of Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (5) Existing law generally requires that a hearing held on a protest, accusation, or petition for an alcoholic beverage license be held in the county in which the premises or licensee is located. Existing law authorizes specified hearings before the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to be held at any place in the state where the department is meeting. This bill would authorize any hearing held on a protest, accusation, or petition for an alcoholic beverage license to be conducted in whole or in part by electronic means. The bill would require that any hearing conducted in person be held in the county in which the licensed premises or the licensee is located. For any part of a hearing conducted by electronic means, the bill would authorize the location of the hearing to be any place from which the department or any of the parties participates in the hearing. The bill would delete provisions that may compel holding a hearing in a city if a protest is filed against a license application and the proposed premises are in the city. This bill would authorize a party to a hearing that is noticed to be conducted electronically, as specified, to file a written motion to object to the electronic hearing and to request that the hearing, or portion of the hearing, to be conducted by electronic means be held in person and without the use of electronic communication. The bill would require that motion to include a proposed county for the location of the hearing and establish good cause regarding why an electronic hearing would be inappropriate. The bill would require this motion to be made to the presiding officer of the hearing and would specify the manner in which it is to be made.
Bill Text
- Chaptered 07/19/22 - Chaptered Current pdf July 19, 2022
- Enrolled 07/05/22 - Enrolled pdf July 05, 2022
- Amended 03/17/22 - Amended Senate pdf March 17, 2022
- Introduced 02/14/22 - Introduced pdf February 14, 2022
- SB1011 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 136, Statutes of 2022.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11:30 a.m.
-
In Senate. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 5640.) Ordered to the Senate.
-
Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
-
From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (June 22).
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 21. Noes 0.) (June 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Referred to Com. on G.O.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 3476.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
-
From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.
-
Set for hearing April 18.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 14. Noes 0. Page 3251.) (March 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing March 29.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on G.O.
-
Referred to Com. on G.O.
-
From printer.
-
Article IV Section 8(a) of the Constitution and Joint Rule 55 dispensed with February 7, 2022, suspending the 30 calendar day requirement.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Committee on Governmental Organization · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Committee on Governmental Organization
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 31 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 38 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 78 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 98% | 0% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Smith | — | Yea |
| Cooper | — | Yea |
| Voepel | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| O'Donnell | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Friedman | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Villapudua | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Mayes | — | Yea |
| Cunningham | — | Not Voting |
| Cristina Garcia | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Yea |
| Luz Rivas | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Vince Fong | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Alvarez, David | Democratic | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bennett, Steve | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Cervantes, Sabrina | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Haney, Matt | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| McKinnor, Tina | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Reyes, Eloise Gómez | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Ward, Christopher M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Yea |
| Choi, Steven S. | Republican | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Valladares, Suzette Martinez | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 13 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 81% | 0% | 0% | 19% |
How each member voted (16)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Not Voting |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Not Voting |
| Vince Fong | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 21 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (22)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Smith | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Cooper | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Not Voting |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 22 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 39 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 98% | 0% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Borgeas | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Min | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Newman | — | Yea |
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Not Voting |
| Allen, Benjamin | Democratic | Yea |
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| Becker, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Cortese, Dave | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Hurtado, Melissa | Democratic | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 14 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 93% | 0% | 0% | 7% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Borgeas | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Not Voting |
| Allen, Benjamin | Democratic | Yea |
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| Becker, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 1011 do?
- (1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages and the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. Existing law establishes limitations on the number of on-sale general licenses that may be issued by the department based on the population of the county in which the licensed premises are located, as provided. Existing law provides an exception to the license limitation for a county of the 6th class, as specified, for 5 new original neighborhood-restricted special on-sale general licenses for premises located within specified census tracts in that county, subject to specified requirements. This bill would specify that the above-described census tracts correspond to those identified within the 2010 Census. (2) Existing law prohibits any licensee from giving any premium, gift, or free goods in connection with the sale or distribution of any alcoholic beverage, but permits alcoholic beverages to be provided in consumer contests and sweepstakes subject to specified conditions. Existing law permits the department to issue a special temporary on-sale or off-sale beer or wine license to certain nonprofit corporations that entitles the licensee to sell beer or wine, as specified. Existing law limits the period of a special license to 15 days and provides that a special license shall be issued only 3 times in a calendar year. This bill would authorize up to 4 special licenses per nonprofit corporation per calendar year. (3) Existing law requires a special license that is issued for a period exceeding 2 days to be used solely for retail sales in conjunction with an identifiable fundraising event, as specified. This bill would expand that provision, instead requiring a special license that is issued for a period exceeding 2 days to be used solely in conjunction with an identifiable fundraising event, as specified. (4) Under existing law, an alcoholic beverage license is generally renewable unless the license has been revoked, except if it is a temporary license or a specified on-sale general license. Existing law prescribes procedures for the renewal of licenses that presume the use of mail for certain purposes. Existing law authorizes the reinstatement of a license that has been canceled pursuant to specified provisions during the 30 days immediately following cancellation upon payment by cashier's check or money order of the annual renewal fee plus a prescribed penalty fee. This bill would authorize the use of electronic mail for purposes of certain provisions of the above-described renewal process and would replace references to mailing with references to sending. With regard to payments made for the reinstatement of licenses, the bill would require that payment be made by cashier's check, money order, or electronically using payment methods authorized through the online payment portal of Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (5) Existing law generally requires that a hearing held on a protest, accusation, or petition for an alcoholic beverage license be held in the county in which the premises or licensee is located. Existing law authorizes specified hearings before the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to be held at any place in the state where the department is meeting. This bill would authorize any hearing held on a protest, accusation, or petition for an alcoholic beverage license to be conducted in whole or in part by electronic means. The bill would require that any hearing conducted in person be held in the county in which the licensed premises or the licensee is located. For any part of a hearing conducted by electronic means, the bill would authorize the location of the hearing to be any place from which the department or any of the parties participates in the hearing. The bill would delete provisions that may compel holding a hearing in a city if a protest is filed against a license application and the proposed premises are in the city. This bill would authorize a party to a hearing that is noticed to be conducted electronically, as specified, to file a written motion to object to the electronic hearing and to request that the hearing, or portion of the hearing, to be conducted by electronic means be held in person and without the use of electronic communication. The bill would require that motion to include a proposed county for the location of the hearing and establish good cause regarding why an electronic hearing would be inappropriate. The bill would require this motion to be made to the presiding officer of the hearing and would specify the manner in which it is to be made.
- Who sponsors SB 1011?
- SB 1011 is sponsored by Committee on Governmental Organization.
- What is the current status of SB 1011?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 14, 2022. Enacted.
- Where can I track SB 1011?
- Track SB 1011 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 1011
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 1011
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →