California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

AB 678 — Housing Accountability Act.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 373, Statutes of 2017.

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 15, 2017. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 78% · 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.

  • 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) The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record. This bill would require the findings of the local agency to instead be based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. (2) The act authorizes a local agency to disapprove or condition approval of a housing development or emergency shelter, as described above, if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with specified law. This bill would specify that a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete does not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (3) The act defines various terms for purposes of its provisions, including the term "housing development project," which is defined as a project consisting either of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential units, or transitional housing or supportive housing. For a mixed-use development for these purposes, the act requires that nonresidential uses be limited to neighborhood commercial uses, as defined, and to the first floor of buildings that are 2 or more stories. This bill would instead require, with respect to mixed-use developments, that 23 of the square footage be designated for residential use. (4) If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. This bill would specify that a housing development project or emergency shelter is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision for purposes of the above-described provisions if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill, if the local agency considers the housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, would require the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity within specified time periods. If the local agency fails to provide this documentation, the bill would provide that the housing development project would be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. By requiring local agencies to provide documentation related to disapprovals of housing development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The act authorizes the project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, as defined, to bring an action to enforce its provisions. This bill would entitle a housing organization to reasonable attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce the act. (6) If a court finds that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible the project or emergency shelter or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings, the act requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with its provisions within 60 days, including an order that the local agency take action on the development project or emergency shelter and awarding attorney's fees and costs. This bill would additionally require the court to issue an order compelling compliance with the act, as described above, if it finds that either the local agency, in violation of a specified provision of the act, disapproved or conditioned approval of a housing development project in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter or certain housing without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or, the local agency, in violation of another specified provision of the act, disapproved a housing development project complying with specified standards and criteria or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill would authorize the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development project or emergency shelter in violation of the act. (7) The act authorizes the court to impose fines if it finds that a local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days of the court's judgment. The act requires that the fines be deposited into a housing trust fund and committed for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. This bill, upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with these provisions within 60 days, would instead require the court to impose fines, as described above, in every instance in which the court determines that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible, the housing development project or emergency shelter without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings. The bill would require that the fine be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the bill would require the court to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need and any prior violations of the act. The bill would authorize the local agency to instead deposit the fine into a specified state fund, and would also provide that any funds in a local housing trust fund not expended after 5 years would revert to the state and be deposited in that fund, to be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. If the local agency has acted in bad faith and failed to carry out the court's order, as described above, the bill would require the court to multiply the fine by a factor of 5. This bill would also require that a petition to enforce the act be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (a) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or taking any other final action on a housing development project or (b) the expiration of certain time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act. (8) In order to obtain appellate review of a trial court's order, the act requires a party to file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow. This bill would allow a party to instead appeal a trial court's order or judgment to the court of appeal pursuant to specified law. (9) This bill would make various technical and conforming changes to the Housing Accountability Act. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1515 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1515 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) 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 373, Statutes of 2017.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 70. Noes 7. Page 3511.).

  5. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Page 3507.)

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 27. Noes 10. Page 2962.).

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 17).

  10. (Ayes 27. Noes 11. Page 2026.)

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

  12. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2026.)

  13. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (July 11).

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

  17. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  18. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 8. Noes 2.) (June 20).

  19. 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.

  20. Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and JUD.

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

  22. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 6. Page 1792.)

  23. Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 1711.)

  24. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  26. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (May 10).

  27. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  28. Read second time and amended.

  29. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 26).

  30. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  31. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  32. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

  33. Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV.

  34. From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.

  35. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Bocanegra · Primary
  • Beall · Cosponsor
  • Skinner · Cosponsor
  • Scott D. Wiener · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on · 5 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Bocanegra

Co-sponsors (3)

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 678 BOCANEGRA Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 70 Yea · 7 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 51502
Democratic 15000
Republican 4200
Total 70702
% of votes cast 89%9%0%3%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Levine — Nay
Low — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Obernolte — Nay
Santiago — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Burke — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chu — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Medina — Yea
Fong — Yea
Salas — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Harper — Nay
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Gray — Not Voting
Chiu — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
McCarty — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Steinorth — Not Voting
Waldron — Nay
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB678 Bocanegra et al. By Skinner

Passed 27 Yea · 10 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 24902
Democratic 3101
Total 271003
% of votes cast 68%25%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Bradford — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Newman — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Portantino — Yea
Allen — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Glazer — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4100
Democratic 2000
Total 6100
% of votes cast 86%14%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Hertzberg — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

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

Passed 8 Yea · 2 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7202
Democratic 1001
Total 8203
% of votes cast 62%15%0%23%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Cannella — Not Voting
Allen — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Roth — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Not Voting
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 678 BOCANEGRA Assembly Third Reading

Passed 68 Yea · 6 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 48603
Democratic 16000
Republican 4003
Total 68606
% of votes cast 85%8%0%8%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Holden — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Steinorth — Nay
Voepel — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Not Voting
Cunningham — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Low — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Salas — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Burke — Yea
Gray — Yea
Chau — Not Voting
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Harper — Nay
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Not Voting
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Baker — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Obernolte — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing
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 678 do?
(1) The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record. This bill would require the findings of the local agency to instead be based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. (2) The act authorizes a local agency to disapprove or condition approval of a housing development or emergency shelter, as described above, if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with specified law. This bill would specify that a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete does not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (3) The act defines various terms for purposes of its provisions, including the term "housing development project," which is defined as a project consisting either of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential units, or transitional housing or supportive housing. For a mixed-use development for these purposes, the act requires that nonresidential uses be limited to neighborhood commercial uses, as defined, and to the first floor of buildings that are 2 or more stories. This bill would instead require, with respect to mixed-use developments, that 23 of the square footage be designated for residential use. (4) If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. This bill would specify that a housing development project or emergency shelter is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision for purposes of the above-described provisions if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill, if the local agency considers the housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, would require the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity within specified time periods. If the local agency fails to provide this documentation, the bill would provide that the housing development project would be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. By requiring local agencies to provide documentation related to disapprovals of housing development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The act authorizes the project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, as defined, to bring an action to enforce its provisions. This bill would entitle a housing organization to reasonable attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce the act. (6) If a court finds that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible the project or emergency shelter or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings, the act requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with its provisions within 60 days, including an order that the local agency take action on the development project or emergency shelter and awarding attorney's fees and costs. This bill would additionally require the court to issue an order compelling compliance with the act, as described above, if it finds that either the local agency, in violation of a specified provision of the act, disapproved or conditioned approval of a housing development project in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter or certain housing without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or, the local agency, in violation of another specified provision of the act, disapproved a housing development project complying with specified standards and criteria or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill would authorize the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development project or emergency shelter in violation of the act. (7) The act authorizes the court to impose fines if it finds that a local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days of the court's judgment. The act requires that the fines be deposited into a housing trust fund and committed for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. This bill, upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with these provisions within 60 days, would instead require the court to impose fines, as described above, in every instance in which the court determines that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible, the housing development project or emergency shelter without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings. The bill would require that the fine be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the bill would require the court to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need and any prior violations of the act. The bill would authorize the local agency to instead deposit the fine into a specified state fund, and would also provide that any funds in a local housing trust fund not expended after 5 years would revert to the state and be deposited in that fund, to be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. If the local agency has acted in bad faith and failed to carry out the court's order, as described above, the bill would require the court to multiply the fine by a factor of 5. This bill would also require that a petition to enforce the act be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (a) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or taking any other final action on a housing development project or (b) the expiration of certain time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act. (8) In order to obtain appellate review of a trial court's order, the act requires a party to file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow. This bill would allow a party to instead appeal a trial court's order or judgment to the court of appeal pursuant to specified law. (9) This bill would make various technical and conforming changes to the Housing Accountability Act. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1515 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1515 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) 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 678?
AB 678 is sponsored by Bocanegra, Beall, Skinner, and Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 678?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 15, 2017. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 678?
Track AB 678 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 678

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 678

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →