California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

AB 174 — Courts.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Laird.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced January 08, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    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 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.

In plain language

The bill extends remote technology provisions for court proceedings and modifies lactation room requirements.

This bill extends the use of remote technology in court proceedings until 2032, allowing more flexibility for parties and witnesses. It also delays the requirement for public access to lactation rooms in courthouses until 2029.

What this means for you
  • Workers: If you work in a court, remote technology may allow for more flexible appearances in legal proceedings until 2032.
  • Families: Families using court services may see extended use of remote participation options for hearings and proceedings through 2032.

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

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Laird.

  2. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (June 29).

  3. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  4. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B. & F. R.

  5. Referred to Com. on B. & F. R.

  6. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 53. Noes 17. Page 750.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. (Ayes 53. Noes 17. Page 643.)

  10. Ordered to second reading.

  11. Withdrawn from committee.

  12. Referred to Com. on BUDGET.

  13. From printer. May be heard in committee February 8.

  14. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 17 voted No

Sponsors (1)

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.

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

Passed 18 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 13000
Republican 5000
Total 18000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
McNerney, Jerry Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Pérez, Sasha Renée Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Richardson, Laura Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 174 Gabriel Assembly Third Reading

Passed 53 Yea · 17 Nay · 10 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 52007
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 01703
Total 5317010
% of votes cast 66%21%0%13%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Not Voting
Alvarez, David Democratic Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Not Voting
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
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 Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Not Voting
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Not Voting
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 Nay
Castillo, Leticia Republican Nay
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
DeMaio, Carl Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Ellis, Stan Republican Nay
Essayli, Bill Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Nay
Hadwick, Heather Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Not Voting
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Tangipa, David J. Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety finance labor technology
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 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 AB 174?
AB 174 is sponsored by Gabriel, Jesse (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 174?
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced January 08, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 174?
Track AB 174 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 174

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →