California 20252026 Regular Session Status: In Committee 4 D cosponsors

AB 32 — Tribal judges.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill is in committee in the Assembly. Introduced December 02, 2024. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee vote, then a floor vote in the Assembly.

Prognosis

Advancing 42% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • In Committee

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 4 sponsors

    1 primary, 3 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (4 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 2 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

Existing law makes it a crime for a person to assault, among other people, a judge of any local, state, or federal court of record in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of their official duties, as specified. Existing law requires a county elections official to, upon application by a public safety officer, make confidential that officer's residence address, telephone number, and email address appearing on the affidavit of voter registration, as specified. Existing law requires, upon request of specified persons, including an active or retired judge, that the person's home address that appears in a record of the Department of Motor Vehicles be made confidential. This bill would additionally make it a crime for a person to assault a judge or former judge of a tribal court in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of their official duties, as specified. The bill would clarify that a tribal judge of a federally recognized California Indian tribe can request to make their records confidential pursuant to the above-described provisions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

Plain-language change summary

The changes to Bill AB 32 include the addition of a new line that clarifies a specific provision, while another redundant line was removed. This simplification helps make the bill easier to understand and ensures that important information is communicated more clearly. Clearer wording can lead to better implementation and compliance with the law, which is important for the communities affected by the bill.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | Version:
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Held under submission.

  4. Coauthors revised.

  5. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (March 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 4). Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

  8. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and TRANS.

  9. From printer. May be heard in committee January 2.

  10. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (3)

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 4000
Democratic 12000
Total 16000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Transportation] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 2000
Democratic 7000
Total 9000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 32 do?
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to assault, among other people, a judge of any local, state, or federal court of record in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of their official duties, as specified. Existing law requires a county elections official to, upon application by a public safety officer, make confidential that officer's residence address, telephone number, and email address appearing on the affidavit of voter registration, as specified. Existing law requires, upon request of specified persons, including an active or retired judge, that the person's home address that appears in a record of the Department of Motor Vehicles be made confidential. This bill would additionally make it a crime for a person to assault a judge or former judge of a tribal court in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of their official duties, as specified. The bill would clarify that a tribal judge of a federally recognized California Indian tribe can request to make their records confidential pursuant to the above-described provisions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 32?
AB 32 is sponsored by Ramos, James C. (Democratic), Schiavo, Pilar (Democratic), Pacheco, Blanca (Democratic), and Soria, Esmeralda (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 32?
This bill is in committee in the Assembly. Introduced December 02, 2024. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 32?
Track AB 32 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 32

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 32

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →