Rule changes made in 2019 giving the chair of California Assembly committees power to vet bills and prevent them from being heard by the legislature is a danger to the legislative process, according to state lawmakers.
“It’s anti-democratic,” Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) told The Epoch Times. “If not all the bills are really getting fair consideration, and there’s not really the opportunity for all the members of the committee to utilize their own judgment and deliberation to decide on a bill, that’s an anti-democratic block.”
At issue are several bills blocked by committees earlier this year, including those related to enhancing penalties for convictions associated with rape, human trafficking, domestic violence, and fentanyl distribution. Assembly Chair Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) used his authority to put fentanyl legislation on hold without a hearing before an abrupt about-face in April.
“Often there are duplicative efforts put forth, or broad scoped legislation offering temporary solutions, or providing no rational solutions at all,” Jones-Sawyer told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement in March after he vetoed the bills earlier this year. “Moving forward, I intend to work on this issue by bringing those who understand the causation, prevention, and treatment components together with policy makers to ensure we have a tactical solution in hand.”
Lawmakers later agreed to hold a special hearing in April to address the bills, but critics still blamed the outsized role of the committee chair for the delay.
“When you have that kind of process, it doesn’t really allow the committee to have full input,” Gallagher said. “You might have majority support from the committee, but because of the power of the chair, you can’t move the bill forward.”
Preventing bills from having a vote on the floor effectively sidelines the legislation, though there are procedural methods to overcome the hurdle, including committee members “rolling the chair” to approve the bill as presented, a motion to move the bill to another committee, or a motion to move it forward to the floor for a second reading.
“It happens very seldom,” Gallagher said. “And these generally become party line votes where leadership demands unity to block the motion.”
Even those bills that receive a committee hearing in either the Assembly or the Senate face obstacles in the form of lawmakers’ personal agendas, according to Gallagher.
“The public safety committee is stacked with people that have a much more radical viewpoint when it comes to criminal justice—that there should be no enhancement or penalties,” Gallagher said. “That very fringe part of the legislative body controls whether or not those bills move forward, even though there might be majority support.”
One such piece of legislation with majority support is Senate Bill 44—warning convicted fentanyl dealers that future distribution causing death could result in murder charges—introduced by Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) and killed twice by the Democratic majority in the Senate Public Safety Committee this year, though 22 of the 40 senators were co-authors in support.
Critics note the impact the rule change has on bills and say the power wielded by committees creates undue influence on democratic functions.
“This is a significant change,” former state Sen. Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) told The Epoch Times. “When I first got to the Legislature, every bill had its day in committee hearing.”
The use of tactics to stall and eliminate legislation that is deemed undesirable for the committee or party in power is an ongoing concern, according to Melendez.
“That’s an effort to hide the bills that are bringing to light significant and controversial issues, particularly those where a political party may be divided on how to solve the problem,” she said. “If it’s going to cause an issue with someone’s reelection, they prefer to have it die.”
Legislation proposed to the committees that uses criminal justice methods to address solutions related to property crime and overdose deaths are routinely sidelined by the public safety committees of both houses, with Democratic lawmakers using their majority to block forward progress.
Bipartisan Assembly Bill 1708, which increases penalties for repeat shoplifters, failed to pass the safety committee in April—just one of the bills targeting criminal activity rejected by the panel this year.
Assembly Bill 808, introduced by Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R-Visalia), would increase penalties for rape when the offense involved a child with developmental disabilities, but the legislation was killed by the committee, with only the two Republican committee members voting in favor.
While the public safety committees’ recent decisions are receiving most of the attention from victims’ family members and advocacy groups, lawmakers say the problem is widespread.
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources has refused to hear proposals targeting California Environmental Quality Act reform, and Assemblymembers say their efforts to improve housing regulations are stymied by the committee.
“Now, if there’s something they don’t want to deal with, they just won’t set the bill for a hearing,” Melendez said. “It will never see the light of day, it will never be debated, and it just dies in darkness.”
While the current framework facilitates obstruction at the committee level, a potential solution is for a change in the timeline, where committees could meet at the beginning of the legislative year and hear from interested parties, deliberate the issue, and propose bills in a collaborative fashion, according to Assemblyman Gallagher.
“People should push for a much more transparent and fair process,” he said. “Currently, it’s more reactive than proactive.”
