California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 R cosponsors

AB 1723 — California State Auditor: whistleblower protection.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law, the California Whistleblower Protection Act, prohibits an employee from directly or indirectly using or attempting to use the official authority or influence of the employee to interfere with a person's rights to disclose improper activity. The act requires the California State Auditor to administer these provisions and to investigate and report on improper governmental activities. The act applies to state agencies, as defined, and to the University of California, the California State University, and the courts, as specified. Under the act, a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against an employee or an applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure is subject to criminal penalties and civil liability. The act defines a "protected disclosure" to mean, among other things, a good faith communication that discloses information that may evidence an improper governmental activity. This bill would expand the definition of the term "protected disclosure," for purposes of the provisions described above, to include a complaint made to a Member of the Legislature, the Legislature, or any subdivision thereof. Because this bill would expand the definition of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

1 line(s) added, 1 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

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

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (April 20). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P.E. & R. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 19). Re-referred to Com. on P.E. & R.

  5. (pending re-refer to Com. on P.E. & R.)

  6. Assembly Rule 56 suspended.

  7. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and P.E. & R.

  8. From printer. May be heard in committee February 27.

  9. 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 and be re-referred to the Committee on [Public Employment and Retirement] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4002
Democratic 5000
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Kiley — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Holden — Not Voting
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights labor
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 1723 do?
(1) Existing law, the California Whistleblower Protection Act, prohibits an employee from directly or indirectly using or attempting to use the official authority or influence of the employee to interfere with a person's rights to disclose improper activity. The act requires the California State Auditor to administer these provisions and to investigate and report on improper governmental activities. The act applies to state agencies, as defined, and to the University of California, the California State University, and the courts, as specified. Under the act, a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against an employee or an applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure is subject to criminal penalties and civil liability. The act defines a "protected disclosure" to mean, among other things, a good faith communication that discloses information that may evidence an improper governmental activity. This bill would expand the definition of the term "protected disclosure," for purposes of the provisions described above, to include a complaint made to a Member of the Legislature, the Legislature, or any subdivision thereof. Because this bill would expand the definition of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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 1723?
AB 1723 is sponsored by Patterson, Joe (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 1723?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1723?
Track AB 1723 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1723

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 1723

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →