Whistleblowers: private entities awarded large state contracts.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 947 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 947.
You're tracking SB 947
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 947 — Whistleblowers: private entities awarded large state contracts.
Last action — June 14 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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
The California Whistleblower Protection Act authorizes the California State Auditor to receive and investigate complaints about state employees or state agencies that have engaged in improper governmental activities, as defined. The act applies to state agencies, as defined, and to the University of California, the California State University, and courts, as specified. Under the act, a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion or similar acts against a state employee, University of California employee, California State University employee, court employee, or an applicant for such employment for having made a protected disclosure, as defined, is subject to civil liability and criminal penalties. This bill would expand these provisions to certain private entities awarded large state contracts, as defined, and their employees. Because this bill would create a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. 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
- Amended 04/21/22 - Amended Senate Current pdf April 21, 2022
- Introduced 02/08/22 - Introduced pdf February 08, 2022
- SB947 View text html
Action History
-
June 14 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
-
Referred to Com. on JUD.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 3964.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 3776.) (May 19).
-
Set for hearing May 19.
-
May 9 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 9.
-
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 3435.) (April 19).
-
Set for hearing April 19.
-
Referred to Com. on JUD.
-
From printer.
-
Article IV Section 8(a) of the Constitution and Joint Rule 55 dispensed with February 7, 2022, suspending the 30 calendar day requirement.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Wilk · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Wilk
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Unaffiliated | 22 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 36 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 90% | 0% | 0% | 10% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Borgeas | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Newman | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Min | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Hertzberg | — | Not Voting |
| Allen, Benjamin | Democratic | Yea |
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| Becker, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Cortese, Dave | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Hurtado, Melissa | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Not Voting |
| Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 0% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Not Voting |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Borgeas | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 947 do?
- The California Whistleblower Protection Act authorizes the California State Auditor to receive and investigate complaints about state employees or state agencies that have engaged in improper governmental activities, as defined. The act applies to state agencies, as defined, and to the University of California, the California State University, and courts, as specified. Under the act, a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion or similar acts against a state employee, University of California employee, California State University employee, court employee, or an applicant for such employment for having made a protected disclosure, as defined, is subject to civil liability and criminal penalties. This bill would expand these provisions to certain private entities awarded large state contracts, as defined, and their employees. Because this bill would create a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 SB 947?
- SB 947 is sponsored by Wilk.
- What is the current status of SB 947?
- This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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 SB 947?
- Track SB 947 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 947
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.
Stay ahead of SB 947
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →