SB 174 — Courts.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 29, Statutes of 2026.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been sent to the executive. Introduced January 23, 2025. It awaits signature.
Next likely step: the executive signs it into law or issues a veto.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
To Executive
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 3 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.
In plain language
The bill extends provisions for remote court appearances and lactation room access.
This legislation allows for remote appearances in court proceedings until 2032 and extends the timeline for public lactation rooms in courthouses. It also appropriates funds for lactation room modifications.
What this means for you
- Workers: Court employees and users will see a delay in access to lactation rooms in courthouses.
- Families: Families may benefit from the extended use of remote technology in court proceedings.
Summary
(1) Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2027, a party to appear remotely and a court to conduct conferences, hearings, proceedings, and trials in civil cases, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology. Under existing law, a court may require an in-person appearance under specified conditions, including if the court determines on a hearing-by-hearing basis that an in-person appearance would materially assist in the determination of the conference, hearing, or proceeding or in the effective management or resolution of the particular case. Existing law additionally authorizes, until January 1, 2027, the use of remote technology, as defined, for other types of proceedings, including, among others, proceedings regarding the involuntary treatment and conservatorship of gravely disabled persons under specified provisions, contempt proceedings, and competency proceedings. This bill would extend these provisions to also apply to witnesses until January 1, 2032. The bill would instead authorize a court to require an-person appearance if, among other reasons, a court determines on a hearing-by-hearing basis that an in-person appearance is necessary to the determination of the conference, hearing, or proceeding or that remote attendance would materially impair the resolution of the conference, hearing, or proceeding. Beginning January 1, 2027, the bill would require courts to provide a reason for requiring an in-person appearance, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, requires each superior court to annually report to the Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council to annually report to the Legislature, to assess the impact of technology issues or problems affecting remote proceedings. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2032. (2) Existing law generally allows, until January 1, 2027, upon a defendant's waiver of the right to be physically present, criminal proceedings to be conducted through the use of remote technology, except as specified. Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2027, a witness in a criminal proceeding to testify using remote technology, except for felony trials, with the written or oral consent of the parties on the record and the consent of the court. Existing law requires a defendant to be personally present in a preliminary hearing unless otherwise specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, prohibits these provisions from limiting the right of a defendant to appear through the use of remote technology, as specified. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2032. (3) Existing law prohibits, until January 1, 2027, a trial court from retaliating against an official court reporter or official court reporter pro tempore for notifying a judicial officer that technology or audibility issues are interfering with the creation of the verbatim record of a remote proceeding. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2032. (4) Existing law generally subjects any person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Existing law authorizes the use of remote technology in juvenile justice proceedings, as defined, except in specified circumstances, until January 1, 2027. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2032. (5) Existing law generally requires employers, including the superior court, to provide employees with the use of a lactation room or other location for employees to express milk in private, including, among other things, a clean and safe place to sit. Existing law requires the superior court, commencing July 1, 2026 , to provide any court user access to a lactation room in any courthouse in which a lactation room is also provided to court employees, as specified. This bill would delay, until July 1, 2029, the date by which the courts are required to provide public lactation rooms. (6) This bill would appropriate $100,000 from the General Fund to the Judicial Council for purposes of lactation room modifications. (7) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Bill Text
- Chaptered 06/29/26 - Chaptered Current pdf June 29, 2026
- Enrolled 06/29/26 - Enrolled pdf June 29, 2026
- Amended 06/26/26 - Amended Assembly pdf June 26, 2026
- Introduced 01/23/25 - Introduced pdf January 23, 2025
- SB174 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 29, Statutes of 2026.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 6 p.m.
-
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
-
Unanimous consent granted to take up without reference to file.
-
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate.
-
Assembly Rule 63 suspended.
-
Withdrawn from committee pursuant to Asssembly Rule 96.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on BUDGET.
-
Referred to Com. on BUDGET.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes 10. Page 455.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Ordered to second reading.
-
Withdrawn from committee. (Ayes 27. Noes 10. Page 384.)
-
Referred to Com. on B. & F. R.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 23.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 10 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review
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 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 38 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 56 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Republican | 18 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 75 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (79)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Ávila Farías | — | Yea |
| Addis, Dawn | Democratic | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ahrens, Patrick | Democratic | Yea |
| Alvarez, David | Democratic | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bains, Jasmeet | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bennett, Steve | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Caloza, Jessica | Democratic | Yea |
| Carrillo, Juan | Democratic | Yea |
| Connolly, Damon | Democratic | Yea |
| Elhawary, Sade | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Garcia, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| González, Mark | Democratic | Yea |
| Haney, Matt | Democratic | Yea |
| Harabedian, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Hart, Gregg | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Krell, Maggy | Democratic | Yea |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| McKinnor, Tina | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Ortega, Liz | Democratic | Yea |
| Pacheco, Blanca | Democratic | Yea |
| Papan, Diane | Democratic | Yea |
| Patel, Darshana R. | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ransom, Rhodesia | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Celeste | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Michelle | Democratic | Yea |
| Rogers, Chris | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Schiavo, Pilar | Democratic | Yea |
| Schultz, Nick | Democratic | Yea |
| Sharp-Collins, LaShae | Democratic | Yea |
| Solache, Jr., José Luis | Democratic | Yea |
| Soria, Esmeralda | Democratic | Yea |
| Stefani, Catherine | Democratic | Yea |
| Valencia, Avelino | Democratic | Yea |
| Ward, Christopher M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Zbur, Rick Chavez | Democratic | Yea |
| Alanis, Juan | Republican | Yea |
| Castillo, Leticia | Republican | Yea |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Yea |
| DeMaio, Carl | Republican | Yea |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Yea |
| Ellis, Stan | Republican | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Yea |
| Gonzalez, Jeff | Republican | Yea |
| Hadwick, Heather | Republican | Yea |
| Hoover, Josh | Republican | Yea |
| Johnson, Natasha | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Not Voting |
| Macedo, Alexandra | Republican | Yea |
| Patterson, Joe | Republican | Yea |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Yea |
| Ta, Tri | Republican | Yea |
| Tangipa, David J. | Republican | Yea |
| Wallis, Greg | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 28 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 28 | 10 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 70% | 25% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (40)
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 174 do?
- (1) Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2027, a party to appear remotely and a court to conduct conferences, hearings, proceedings, and trials in civil cases, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology. Under existing law, a court may require an in-person appearance under specified conditions, including if the court determines on a hearing-by-hearing basis that an in-person appearance would materially assist in the determination of the conference, hearing, or proceeding or in the effective management or resolution of the particular case. Existing law additionally authorizes, until January 1, 2027, the use of remote technology, as defined, for other types of proceedings, including, among others, proceedings regarding the involuntary treatment and conservatorship of gravely disabled persons under specified provisions, contempt proceedings, and competency proceedings. This bill would extend these provisions to also apply to witnesses until January 1, 2032. The bill would instead authorize a court to require an-person appearance if, among other reasons, a court determines on a hearing-by-hearing basis that an in-person appearance is necessary to the determination of the conference, hearing, or proceeding or that remote attendance would materially impair the resolution of the conference, hearing, or proceeding. Beginning January 1, 2027, the bill would require courts to provide a reason for requiring an in-person appearance, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, requires each superior court to annually report to the Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council to annually report to the Legislature, to assess the impact of technology issues or problems affecting remote proceedings. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2032. (2) Existing law generally allows, until January 1, 2027, upon a defendant's waiver of the right to be physically present, criminal proceedings to be conducted through the use of remote technology, except as specified. Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2027, a witness in a criminal proceeding to testify using remote technology, except for felony trials, with the written or oral consent of the parties on the record and the consent of the court. Existing law requires a defendant to be personally present in a preliminary hearing unless otherwise specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, prohibits these provisions from limiting the right of a defendant to appear through the use of remote technology, as specified. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2032. (3) Existing law prohibits, until January 1, 2027, a trial court from retaliating against an official court reporter or official court reporter pro tempore for notifying a judicial officer that technology or audibility issues are interfering with the creation of the verbatim record of a remote proceeding. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2032. (4) Existing law generally subjects any person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Existing law authorizes the use of remote technology in juvenile justice proceedings, as defined, except in specified circumstances, until January 1, 2027. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2032. (5) Existing law generally requires employers, including the superior court, to provide employees with the use of a lactation room or other location for employees to express milk in private, including, among other things, a clean and safe place to sit. Existing law requires the superior court, commencing July 1, 2026 , to provide any court user access to a lactation room in any courthouse in which a lactation room is also provided to court employees, as specified. This bill would delay, until July 1, 2029, the date by which the courts are required to provide public lactation rooms. (6) This bill would appropriate $100,000 from the General Fund to the Judicial Council for purposes of lactation room modifications. (7) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
- Who sponsors SB 174?
- SB 174 is sponsored by Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
- What is the current status of SB 174?
- This bill has been sent to the executive. Introduced January 23, 2025. It awaits signature.
- Where can I track SB 174?
- Track SB 174 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 174
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 174
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →