California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 793 — Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.

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 18, 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 4 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 regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions, existing law generally defines "potentially dangerous dog" and "vicious dog" as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable. This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog was provoked. The bill would define the term "provoke" for purposes of these provisions. The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to end a dog's life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdiction's requirements for the order are met and to include specified findings. The bill would provide that provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare, as specified. (2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog. This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog, as specified. (3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified. This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements, including, among others, requirements to apply the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in a hearing that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to apply the same requirements described above applicable to issuing an order to end a dog's life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare. (4) This bill would provide that the above-described provisions governing the regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by individual dogs and do not apply to any civil action for remedies. (5) The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 15).

  5. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  7. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.

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

  9. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 0. Page 1276.)

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  12. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 8).

  13. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  15. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  16. From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  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 as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9002
Republican 0002
Total 9004
% of votes cast 69%0%0%31%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Not Voting
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Not Voting
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Not Voting
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

AB 793 Schultz Assembly Third Reading

Passed 68 Yea · 0 Nay · 11 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 14005
Democratic 53006
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 680011
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
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 Not Voting
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 Not Voting
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Not Voting
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 Not Voting
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting
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 Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
DeMaio, Carl Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Ellis, Stan Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Not Voting
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Not Voting
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Not Voting
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 as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 3000
Democratic 9000
Total 12000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety
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 793 do?
(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions, existing law generally defines "potentially dangerous dog" and "vicious dog" as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable. This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog was provoked. The bill would define the term "provoke" for purposes of these provisions. The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to end a dog's life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdiction's requirements for the order are met and to include specified findings. The bill would provide that provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare, as specified. (2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog. This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog, as specified. (3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified. This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements, including, among others, requirements to apply the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in a hearing that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to apply the same requirements described above applicable to issuing an order to end a dog's life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare. (4) This bill would provide that the above-described provisions governing the regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by individual dogs and do not apply to any civil action for remedies. (5) The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.
Who sponsors AB 793?
AB 793 is sponsored by Schultz, Nick (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 793?
This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 18, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track AB 793?
Track AB 793 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 793

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 793

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →