HOW DID BUSINESS BILLS FARE IN THE 2012 LEGISLATURE? WE’VE GOT THE RESULTS…

Over 900 bills were signed into law by Governor Brown in 2012, out of thousands developed by a prolific Sacramento “bill machine.” Of the 37 bills tracked through OCBC’s Legislative Scorecard, 11 were sent to the Governor, 10 were signed and 1 was vetoed. OCBC earned an 81% “success” rate in advocacy.

OCBC Supported Bills Signed into Law:

  • SB 1225 (Padilla). Authorizes the Department of Transportation to enter into an agreement with a Joint Powers Board for the purpose of assuming responsibility for the Pacific Surfliner Intercity Rail Corridor.
  • AB 890 (Olsen). Exempts projects or activities to repair, maintain, or make minor alterations to existing roadways from preparing an EIR or mitigation measure under CEQA.
  • SB 1070 (Steinberg). Reauthorizes and revises the Career Technical Education Pathways Initiative.
  • SB 1456 (Lowenthal). Provides student support services to students in order to enhance their prospects for success.
  • SB 1099 (Wright). Only allows regulations to be implemented quarterly, giving businesses certainty.

OCBC Opposed Bills Signed into Law:

  • AB 1532 (Perez). Allocates funds from the cap and trade tax to various programs.
  • SB 535 (DeLeon). Allocates funds from the cap and trade program to invest in projects for energy efficiency and sustainable transportation and housing infrastructure for disadvantaged communities.
  • SB 1234 (DeLeon). Creates a state run retirement savings plan for private sector workers.

OCBC No Position Bills Signed into Law:

  • AB 441 (Monning). Before amendments, it would have required the CA Transportation Commission to include health and equity factors to regional transportation plans. After amendments, it requires the commission to attach a summary of policies that promote health and healthy equity.
  • SB 1186 (Dutton and Steinberg). Limits frivolous litigation regarding technical violations concerning disability access.

Vetoed by Governor:

  • AB 1450 (Allen). Would have prevented an employer from stating on a job posting the job was limited to only those applicants currently employed.
Share Post