California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 1027 — Cannabis: testing: quality assurance.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 20, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.

Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Senate.

Prognosis

Advancing 48% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Moderate

How often bills like it became law.

  • Passed Assembly

    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 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 Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA and any applicable local ordinances to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license, if conducted as prescribed. Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities, and requires the Department of Cannabis Control to administer its provisions. Existing law prohibits cannabis or cannabis products from being sold by a licensee unless specified quality assurance standards and testing standards are met. Existing law requires representative samples of the cannabis or cannabis products in their final form to be tested by a licensed testing laboratory, and requires the department to develop criteria to determine which batches are tested. Existing law authorizes the testing laboratory to retest a sample if the testing laboratory notifies the department, in writing, that the test was compromised due to equipment malfunction, staff error, or another circumstance authorized by the department, and the department authorizes the retest of that sample. Existing law requires the testing laboratory to issue a certificate of analysis that the cannabis batch has passed the testing requirements, and authorizes the testing laboratory to amend the certificate of analysis to correct minor errors, as specified. This bill would specify that all cannabis or cannabis products are subject to test or retest, and would revise the retest requirements to instead authorize a testing laboratory to retest a sample of cannabis or cannabis products if either the testing laboratory notifies the department, in writing, that the test was compromised due to equipment malfunction, staff error, or other circumstances allowed by regulation, if the department requires the retest, or if the department authorizes the request. This bill would require the licensee to allow the department to obtain or access any cannabis or cannabis products held or offered for retail sale for the purposes of conducting off-the-shelf laboratory testing. The bill would also require a retailer and any other licensee authorized to engage in the retail sale of cannabis or cannabis products to provide the certificate of analysis associated with any cannabis or cannabis product held or offered for retail sale to a customer upon request. This bill would also require a testing laboratory to be subject to performance testing, as specified, to ensure consistency of results across laboratories. (2) Existing law, upon the issuance of a certificate of analysis by the testing laboratory, requires a distributor to conduct a quality assurance review before distribution of cannabis or cannabis products to ensure the labeling and packaging conform to the requirements of MAUCRSA. Existing law also requires a quality assurance compliance monitor, who is an employee or contractor of the department, to conduct random quality assurance reviews at a distributor's licensed premises before distribution to ensure the labeling and packaging of the cannabis and cannabis products conform to the requirements of MAUCRSA. This bill would repeal the requirement that a quality assurance compliance monitor conduct random quality assurance reviews, and instead would require the department to conduct those reviews. The bill would expand those reviews to include a microbusiness or retailer's licensed premises, and would require the department to additionally ensure the testing of the cannabis and cannabis products conform to the requirements of MAUCRSA. (3) Existing law authorizes a testing laboratory to receive and test samples of cannabis or cannabis products from state or local law enforcement, or a prosecuting or regulatory agency, as specified, and provides that the testing of that cannabis is not commercial cannabis activity for purposes of MAUCRSA and is not arranged or overseen by the department. This bill would require a licensed testing laboratory to comply with the department's request to evaluate the laboratory's testing practice. (4) Existing law, if the department finds or has probable cause to believe that cannabis or a cannabis product is adulterated or misbranded, or sold in violation of MAUCRSA, requires the department to affix a tag or other appropriate marking to the cannabis or cannabis product, and to give notice that the cannabis or cannabis product is in violation of MAUCRSA and has been embargoed. Existing law makes it unlawful to remove, sell, or dispose of embargoed cannabis or an embargoed cannabis product without written permission of the department or a court, and subjects each violation to a fine. This bill would remove the requirement that the department affix a tag or other appropriate marking to the cannabis or cannabis product, and instead would require the notice to reasonably identify the cannabis or cannabis product subject to the embargo. The bill would also require the licensee, within one business day of receiving a notice of the embargo, to physically separate all embargoed cannabis and cannabis products from all other inventory, as specified.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (July 14). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  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. P. & E.D.

  5. Referred to Com. on B. P. & E.D.

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

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1871.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).

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

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Coauthors revised.

  13. Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.

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

  15. Referred to Com. on B. & P.

  16. From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

  17. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

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, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Republican 3000
Total 11000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1027 Sharp-Collins Assembly Third Reading

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 59000
Republican 19000
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 79000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
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 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
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 Yea
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
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
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

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11000
Republican 3001
Total 14001
% of votes cast 93%0%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Not Voting
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 13000
Republican 4001
Total 17001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Not Voting
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety healthcare health-insurance
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 1027 do?
(1) Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA and any applicable local ordinances to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license, if conducted as prescribed. Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities, and requires the Department of Cannabis Control to administer its provisions. Existing law prohibits cannabis or cannabis products from being sold by a licensee unless specified quality assurance standards and testing standards are met. Existing law requires representative samples of the cannabis or cannabis products in their final form to be tested by a licensed testing laboratory, and requires the department to develop criteria to determine which batches are tested. Existing law authorizes the testing laboratory to retest a sample if the testing laboratory notifies the department, in writing, that the test was compromised due to equipment malfunction, staff error, or another circumstance authorized by the department, and the department authorizes the retest of that sample. Existing law requires the testing laboratory to issue a certificate of analysis that the cannabis batch has passed the testing requirements, and authorizes the testing laboratory to amend the certificate of analysis to correct minor errors, as specified. This bill would specify that all cannabis or cannabis products are subject to test or retest, and would revise the retest requirements to instead authorize a testing laboratory to retest a sample of cannabis or cannabis products if either the testing laboratory notifies the department, in writing, that the test was compromised due to equipment malfunction, staff error, or other circumstances allowed by regulation, if the department requires the retest, or if the department authorizes the request. This bill would require the licensee to allow the department to obtain or access any cannabis or cannabis products held or offered for retail sale for the purposes of conducting off-the-shelf laboratory testing. The bill would also require a retailer and any other licensee authorized to engage in the retail sale of cannabis or cannabis products to provide the certificate of analysis associated with any cannabis or cannabis product held or offered for retail sale to a customer upon request. This bill would also require a testing laboratory to be subject to performance testing, as specified, to ensure consistency of results across laboratories. (2) Existing law, upon the issuance of a certificate of analysis by the testing laboratory, requires a distributor to conduct a quality assurance review before distribution of cannabis or cannabis products to ensure the labeling and packaging conform to the requirements of MAUCRSA. Existing law also requires a quality assurance compliance monitor, who is an employee or contractor of the department, to conduct random quality assurance reviews at a distributor's licensed premises before distribution to ensure the labeling and packaging of the cannabis and cannabis products conform to the requirements of MAUCRSA. This bill would repeal the requirement that a quality assurance compliance monitor conduct random quality assurance reviews, and instead would require the department to conduct those reviews. The bill would expand those reviews to include a microbusiness or retailer's licensed premises, and would require the department to additionally ensure the testing of the cannabis and cannabis products conform to the requirements of MAUCRSA. (3) Existing law authorizes a testing laboratory to receive and test samples of cannabis or cannabis products from state or local law enforcement, or a prosecuting or regulatory agency, as specified, and provides that the testing of that cannabis is not commercial cannabis activity for purposes of MAUCRSA and is not arranged or overseen by the department. This bill would require a licensed testing laboratory to comply with the department's request to evaluate the laboratory's testing practice. (4) Existing law, if the department finds or has probable cause to believe that cannabis or a cannabis product is adulterated or misbranded, or sold in violation of MAUCRSA, requires the department to affix a tag or other appropriate marking to the cannabis or cannabis product, and to give notice that the cannabis or cannabis product is in violation of MAUCRSA and has been embargoed. Existing law makes it unlawful to remove, sell, or dispose of embargoed cannabis or an embargoed cannabis product without written permission of the department or a court, and subjects each violation to a fine. This bill would remove the requirement that the department affix a tag or other appropriate marking to the cannabis or cannabis product, and instead would require the notice to reasonably identify the cannabis or cannabis product subject to the embargo. The bill would also require the licensee, within one business day of receiving a notice of the embargo, to physically separate all embargoed cannabis and cannabis products from all other inventory, as specified.
Who sponsors AB 1027?
AB 1027 is sponsored by Sharp-Collins, LaShae (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 1027?
This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 20, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track AB 1027?
Track AB 1027 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1027

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 1027

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →