The End-Game for 2023 Legislation in Sacramento: Bills that support, oppose human rights

by Tracy Rosenberg

[Ed. note: these recommendations represent the opinions of the writer, and not necessarily of Berkeley Speaks.]

Between now and October 15, Governor Newsom will decide the fate of numerous proposed new laws that would have big impacts on civil and human rights. 

Here are a number of criminal justice and data privacy bills that may be interesting to people in Berkeley. There is still time for you to have an impact on what Newsom signs into law.

Excited Delirium – Assembly Bill 360 (Gipson) would prevent CA coroners and sheriff-coroners from using “excited delirium” as a cause of death.  This pseudo-scientific diagnosis has often been used to excuse in-custody deaths after the use of tasers or asphyxiation holds. 

ICE Holds – Assembly Bill 1306 (Carillo) would end Department of Corrections ICE holds for inmates being released on youth, elder and medical parole from state prison. 

Data Brokers – Senate Bill 362 (Becker) would allow Californians to opt out of having their data sold by hundreds of third-party data brokers in one fell swoop. 

In-Custody Deaths – Senate Bill 519 (Atkins) would appoint a Director of In-Custody Death Reviews to the Board of Corrections to review inspections of all jail deaths and issue public recommendations to improve jail conditions. The bill would also bolster public records laws regarding in-custody death investigations. 

Psychotropic Drugs in Nursing Homes – Assembly Bill 48 (Aguiar-Curry) would strengthen consent forms for the administration of psychotherapeutic drugs to nursing home patients and prevent their use for chemical restraint. 

Tenants’ Rights – Assembly Bill 1418 (McKinnor) would preempt any local laws that allow or encourage or permit property owners from penalizing or evicting tenants solely due to law enforcement contact with the tenant or members of the tenant’s family. 

Reproductive Health Info – Assembly Bill 352 (Bauer-Kahan) would prevent abortion-related data from being sent to the state health data exchange. 

In-Vehicle Cameras – Senate Bill 296 (Dodd) would beef up customer consent requirements for in-car cameras and prevent manufacturers from inserting back doors to law enforcement in car cameras.

Youth Name Changes – Assembly Bill 223 (Ward) would mandate that name changes for youths under 18 would be sealed by the courts. 

And, of course, there are a few bad bills that passed the legislature and are pending Governor Newsom’s decision:

Fusion Centers – Assembly Bill 474 (Rodriguez) would deploy the state’s fusion center network to intercept “Mexican trans-national gangs” which would point the fusion network and its sizable surveillance capabilities directly at California’s immigrant communities. 

Speed Cameras – Assembly Bill 645 (Friedman) would implement a pilot program in SF, Oakland, San Jose, Long Beach, Glendale, and Los Angeles to install speed cameras and automatically issue speeding tickets. We know there are many perspectives on this program and Berkeley is not one of the six pilot programs, but we continue to assert that automated ticketing is not a substitute for traffic calming measures. 

If you would like to intervene to support or oppose any of these potential state laws, here’s how.

Tell the governor what you think about these bills by sending him an email (leg.unit@gov.ca.gov), posting on social media and tagging him or calling his office (916) 445-2841) 

These bills are just a few of thousands awaiting , but if we can pass the good ones and defeat the bad ones, we will have made some real strides forward in civil and human rights. 

These 9 bills are just a few of thousands awaiting the governor’s pen, but if we can pass the seven good ones and defeat the two bad ones, we will have made some real strides forward in civil and human rights.

Tracy Rosenberg is the advocacy director at Oakland Privacy, a regional citizens coalition that advocates for regulation with respect for privacy, human rights, and community control. Oakland Privacy was the driving force behind Berkeley’s Section 2.99 community safety ordinance.