SB 56 — Property taxation: disabled veterans' exemption: household income.
Last action — Set, first hearing. Held in committee and under submission.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced January 07, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Assembly.
Odds of enactment
High chanceBased on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a high chance of becoming law.
Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.
A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.
Prognosis
-
Passed Senate
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 R).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 6 recorded votes so far.
Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.
Summary
The California Constitution provides that all property is taxable, and requires that it be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value, unless otherwise provided by the California Constitution or federal law. The California Constitution and existing property tax law provide various exemptions from taxation, including, among others, a disabled veterans' exemption. Under existing law, the disabled veterans' exemption exempts from taxation part of the full value of property that constitutes the principal place of residence of a veteran, the veteran's spouse, or the veteran and veteran's spouse jointly, and the unmarried surviving spouse of a veteran, as provided, if the veteran incurred specified injuries or died while on active duty in military service, as described. Existing law exempts that part of the full value of the residence that does not exceed $100,000, or $150,000 if the household income of the claimant does not exceed $40,000, as adjusted for inflation, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2036, exclude service-connected disability payments from the definition of "household income" for purposes of the disabled veterans' exemption. The bill would also correct an erroneous cross-reference in the above-described provisions. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Bill Text
- Amended 06/19/25 - Amended Assembly Current pdf June 19, 2025
- Amended 03/05/25 - Amended Senate pdf March 05, 2025
- Introduced 01/07/25 - Introduced pdf January 07, 2025
- SB56 View text html
Action History
-
July 14 hearing: Placed on REV. & TAX. suspense file.
-
Set, first hearing. Held in committee and under submission.
-
Coauthors revised.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on M. & V.A.
-
Re-referred to Coms. on M. & V.A. and REV. & TAX. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
-
Referred to Coms. on REV. & TAX. and M. & V.A.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1322.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Ordered to special consent calendar.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1189.) (May 23).
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Set for hearing May 23.
-
May 12 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 12.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 918.) (April 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing April 28.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on M. & V.A. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (March 12). Re-referred to Com. on M. & V.A.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
Set for hearing March 12.
-
Referred to Coms. on REV. & TAX. and M. & V.A.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 7.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Kelly Seyarto · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Seyarto, Kelly Republican
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (8)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Ávila Farías | — | Yea |
| Carrillo, Juan | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Michelle | Democratic | Yea |
| Schiavo, Pilar | Democratic | Yea |
| Sharp-Collins, LaShae | Democratic | Yea |
| Valencia, Avelino | Democratic | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Yea |
| Gonzalez, Jeff | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 28 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 38 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 0% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Cabaldon, Christopher | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Richardson, Laura | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Not Voting |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Cabaldon, Christopher | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Richardson, Laura | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 80% | 0% | 0% | 20% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| McNerney, Jerry | Democratic | Yea |
| Menjivar, Caroline | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Ashby, Angelique V. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| McNerney, Jerry | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Valladares, Suzette Martinez | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 56 do?
- The California Constitution provides that all property is taxable, and requires that it be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value, unless otherwise provided by the California Constitution or federal law. The California Constitution and existing property tax law provide various exemptions from taxation, including, among others, a disabled veterans' exemption. Under existing law, the disabled veterans' exemption exempts from taxation part of the full value of property that constitutes the principal place of residence of a veteran, the veteran's spouse, or the veteran and veteran's spouse jointly, and the unmarried surviving spouse of a veteran, as provided, if the veteran incurred specified injuries or died while on active duty in military service, as described. Existing law exempts that part of the full value of the residence that does not exceed $100,000, or $150,000 if the household income of the claimant does not exceed $40,000, as adjusted for inflation, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2036, exclude service-connected disability payments from the definition of "household income" for purposes of the disabled veterans' exemption. The bill would also correct an erroneous cross-reference in the above-described provisions. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
- Who sponsors SB 56?
- SB 56 is sponsored by Seyarto, Kelly (Republican).
- What is the current status of SB 56?
- This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced January 07, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
- Where can I track SB 56?
- Track SB 56 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 56
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 56
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →