California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 2499 — Vehicles: traffic violator school program.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 599, Statutes of 2010.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 19, 2010. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 76% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 4 sponsors

    1 primary, 3 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 7 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 provides for the licensing and administration by the Department of Motor Vehicles of traffic violator schools, operators, and instructors in a classroom setting. Existing law also defines the term "traffic violator school" for purposes of the Vehicle Code to mean, among other things, a business that provides instruction in traffic safety, including, but not limited to, classroom traffic violator curricula. Existing law authorizes a court, in lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense committed by a person who holds a specified class of driver's license, to order or permit the person to attend a licensed traffic violator school, licensed driving school, or other court-approved program of driving instruction. Existing law also permits a court to order a continuance against a person who receives a notice to appear in court for a violation of a statute relating to the safe operation of a vehicle, in consideration for attendance at a licensed school for traffic violators, a licensed driving school, or any other court-approved program of driving instruction, and after that attendance, to dismiss the complaint, as specified. This bill would revise and recast these provisions and, instead, would authorize the court, after a deposit of bail and bail forfeiture, a plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction, to order a continuance of the proceeding against a person who receives a notice to appear in court for a violation of a statute relating to safe operation of a vehicle, in consideration for completion of a program at a licensed school for traffic violators and order that the conviction be held confidential. The bill would prohibit the record of certain convictions from being confidential under these provisions. The bill, on April 1, 2012, would delete specified provisions governing existing court or county contracts to provide traffic safety instructional services to traffic violations. The bill would also require that no violation point count be assessed if the record of conviction is confidential, unless other specified conditions apply. The bill would require that these provisions become operative on July 1, 2011. (2) Existing law establishes traffic violator school licensing requirements and requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to license traffic violator school operators. This bill would revise these requirements, including the licensing criteria applicable to a traffic violator school owner or operator and a person licensed as an owner/operator and who is so designated on the owner's license. The bill would revise the requirements applicable to a court-approved program and would require a court-approved program that was in operation prior to January 1, 2011, to file an application for licensure as a traffic violator school by January 1, 2012. The bill would prohibit a court from approving a traffic safety program after January 1, 2011. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, under contract, to use a court assistance program (CAP) to perform services related to the processing and monitoring of traffic violators and traffic violator schools and establishes requirements for the program. The bill would instead authorize a traffic assistance program (TAP) under contract with the Department of Motor Vehicles to assist in oversight activities. This bill would delete provisions relating to both a monitoring report prepared by a CAP and other provisions that preclude the department or the court from removing a traffic violator school from a referral list if certain conditions are met. The bill would also delete provisions relating to a requirement that the Judicial Council collect and compile data on CAPs and traffic safety instruction. The bill would authorize the court to charge a traffic violator fee to defray the costs incurred by a TAP for traffic administration services provided to the court and to delegate collection of the fee to the TAP. The bill would require that the fees be approved and regulated by the court and that the fee not exceed the actual costs incurred by the TAP. (4) Existing law requires a traffic violator school owner to file a bond of $2,000 with the department. The bill would increase the amount of the bond to $15,000 for home study schools and require a $2,000 bond for classroom-based schools. (5) Existing law establishes fees related to the department's licensing of traffic violator schools. This bill would discontinue the fee charged for the completion certificate and would, instead, require the department to charge fees for issuance of an original, renewal, or duplicate or corrected traffic violator school owner, operator, instructor, and branch or classroom location license. The bill would require the court to collect a single administrative fee to be collected from the person attending the traffic violator school, which would include an amount sufficient to defray the cost of monitoring traffic violator school instruction. (6) Existing law requires the court to make available to persons who choose the traffic violator school, the current list of traffic violator schools, published by the department. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide a list of licensed traffic violator schools on its Internet Web site, as specified, and to develop a Web-based database accessible by the courts and traffic violator schools to allow oversight of traffic violator school student enrollments and course completions. The bill would also require, if a court or a TAP provides a hard copy list of licensed traffic violator schools to a traffic violator, to provide only a current date-stamped list downloaded from the department's Internet Web site. (7) Under existing law, with certain exceptions, a violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. Because this bill would change the definition of an existing crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (8) The bill would make conforming changes. (9) 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

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 599, Statutes of 2010.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and to the Governor at 12:15 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 64. Noes 8. Page 6420.)

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 20 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 22. Noes 8. Page 4601.)

  7. Read second time. To third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (August 9).

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

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

  11. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

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

  13. From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 29).

  14. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on T. & H.

  15. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on T. & H.

  16. Referred to Com. on T. & H.

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

  18. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 64. Noes 10. Page 5413.)

  19. Read second time. To third reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 28).

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

  22. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 12).

  23. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

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

  25. Referred to Com. on TRANS.

  26. Read first time.

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

  28. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Portantino · Primary
  • Fletcher · Cosponsor
  • Runner · Cosponsor
  • Gilmore · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Portantino

Co-sponsors (3)

  • Fletcher
  • Runner
  • Gilmore

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

AB 2499 PORTANTINO Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 74 Yea · 8 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 70807
Democratic 2001
Republican 2001
Total 74809
% of votes cast 81%9%0%10%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
La — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
De — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Charles — Not Voting
Audra — Not Voting
Fuentes — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Conway — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huber — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Knight — Nay
Lieu — Nay
Logue — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Nava — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Norby — Nay
Ruskin — Yea
Silva — Not Voting
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Not Voting
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Tran — Nay
Villines — Yea
Adams — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Bass — Yea
Blakeslee — Nay
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hill — Yea
Jeffries — Not Voting
Ma — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Eng — Not Voting
Evans — Yea
DeVore — Nay
Yamada — Yea
Garrick — Not Voting
Gatto — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Assembly 3rd Reading AB2499 Portantino By Lowenthal

Passed 22 Yea · 8 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 20709
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 22809
% of votes cast 56%21%0%23%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Florez — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Runner — Yea
Negrete — Not Voting
Cedillo — Not Voting
Wyland — Yea
Hollingsworth — Nay
McLeod — Not Voting
Pavley — Not Voting
Corbett — Not Voting
Dutton — Nay
Price — Nay
Romero — Nay
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Harman — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Not Voting
Oropeza — Not Voting
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10001
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Leno — Yea
Price — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Emmerson — Yea

Official roll call →

AB 2499 PORTANTINO Assembly Third Reading

Passed 74 Yea · 10 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 691006
Democratic 3000
Republican 2001
Total 741007
% of votes cast 81%11%0%8%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Bill — Yea
Evans — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Charles — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bass — Yea
Block — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nava — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Solorio — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Tom — Not Voting
Audra — Not Voting
Garrick — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Conway — Nay
Jeffries — Not Voting
Knight — Nay
Blakeslee — Nay
Norby — Not Voting
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Tran — Nay
Villines — Yea
Adams — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Huber — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Logue — Nay
Ma — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Silva — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Eng — Yea
DeVore — Nay
Fuentes — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 18 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 17000
Democratic 1000
Total 18000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Ammiano — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Charles — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Conway — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Norby — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

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

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 13002
Republican 1000
Total 14002
% of votes cast 88%0%0%13%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Bill — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Furutani — Not Voting
Galgiani — Yea
Jeffries — Not Voting
Blumenfield — Yea
Norby — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Miller — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Eng — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety transportation
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 2499 do?
(1) Existing law provides for the licensing and administration by the Department of Motor Vehicles of traffic violator schools, operators, and instructors in a classroom setting. Existing law also defines the term "traffic violator school" for purposes of the Vehicle Code to mean, among other things, a business that provides instruction in traffic safety, including, but not limited to, classroom traffic violator curricula. Existing law authorizes a court, in lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense committed by a person who holds a specified class of driver's license, to order or permit the person to attend a licensed traffic violator school, licensed driving school, or other court-approved program of driving instruction. Existing law also permits a court to order a continuance against a person who receives a notice to appear in court for a violation of a statute relating to the safe operation of a vehicle, in consideration for attendance at a licensed school for traffic violators, a licensed driving school, or any other court-approved program of driving instruction, and after that attendance, to dismiss the complaint, as specified. This bill would revise and recast these provisions and, instead, would authorize the court, after a deposit of bail and bail forfeiture, a plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction, to order a continuance of the proceeding against a person who receives a notice to appear in court for a violation of a statute relating to safe operation of a vehicle, in consideration for completion of a program at a licensed school for traffic violators and order that the conviction be held confidential. The bill would prohibit the record of certain convictions from being confidential under these provisions. The bill, on April 1, 2012, would delete specified provisions governing existing court or county contracts to provide traffic safety instructional services to traffic violations. The bill would also require that no violation point count be assessed if the record of conviction is confidential, unless other specified conditions apply. The bill would require that these provisions become operative on July 1, 2011. (2) Existing law establishes traffic violator school licensing requirements and requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to license traffic violator school operators. This bill would revise these requirements, including the licensing criteria applicable to a traffic violator school owner or operator and a person licensed as an owner/operator and who is so designated on the owner's license. The bill would revise the requirements applicable to a court-approved program and would require a court-approved program that was in operation prior to January 1, 2011, to file an application for licensure as a traffic violator school by January 1, 2012. The bill would prohibit a court from approving a traffic safety program after January 1, 2011. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, under contract, to use a court assistance program (CAP) to perform services related to the processing and monitoring of traffic violators and traffic violator schools and establishes requirements for the program. The bill would instead authorize a traffic assistance program (TAP) under contract with the Department of Motor Vehicles to assist in oversight activities. This bill would delete provisions relating to both a monitoring report prepared by a CAP and other provisions that preclude the department or the court from removing a traffic violator school from a referral list if certain conditions are met. The bill would also delete provisions relating to a requirement that the Judicial Council collect and compile data on CAPs and traffic safety instruction. The bill would authorize the court to charge a traffic violator fee to defray the costs incurred by a TAP for traffic administration services provided to the court and to delegate collection of the fee to the TAP. The bill would require that the fees be approved and regulated by the court and that the fee not exceed the actual costs incurred by the TAP. (4) Existing law requires a traffic violator school owner to file a bond of $2,000 with the department. The bill would increase the amount of the bond to $15,000 for home study schools and require a $2,000 bond for classroom-based schools. (5) Existing law establishes fees related to the department's licensing of traffic violator schools. This bill would discontinue the fee charged for the completion certificate and would, instead, require the department to charge fees for issuance of an original, renewal, or duplicate or corrected traffic violator school owner, operator, instructor, and branch or classroom location license. The bill would require the court to collect a single administrative fee to be collected from the person attending the traffic violator school, which would include an amount sufficient to defray the cost of monitoring traffic violator school instruction. (6) Existing law requires the court to make available to persons who choose the traffic violator school, the current list of traffic violator schools, published by the department. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide a list of licensed traffic violator schools on its Internet Web site, as specified, and to develop a Web-based database accessible by the courts and traffic violator schools to allow oversight of traffic violator school student enrollments and course completions. The bill would also require, if a court or a TAP provides a hard copy list of licensed traffic violator schools to a traffic violator, to provide only a current date-stamped list downloaded from the department's Internet Web site. (7) Under existing law, with certain exceptions, a violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. Because this bill would change the definition of an existing crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (8) The bill would make conforming changes. (9) 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 2499?
AB 2499 is sponsored by Portantino, Fletcher, Runner, and Gilmore.
What is the current status of AB 2499?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 19, 2010. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 2499?
Track AB 2499 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2499

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 2499

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →