Senate Committee to Consider AB 2569 [UPDATED with approval]

The Senate Public Safety Committee will consider AB 2569 during its hearing on June 28 which starts at 9:30 a.m. in Room 3191. If enacted into law, the bill would reduce the number of people eligible to apply for exclusion from the Megan’s Law website.

The full Assembly passed AB 2569 in May. In order to become law, the bill must be passed by two Senate committees and the full Senate.

“If enacted, Assembly Bill 2569 would harm hundreds of registered citizens and their families,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “This bill must be stopped by sending letters and making phone calls to members of the Senate Public Safety Committee.”

UPDATE 6/29 :

Final Vote on AB 2569:
AB 2569 was passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee. Final vote – 4 “yes” votes, 1 abstain and 2 “no” votes. As the author was able to secure 4 “yes” votes the bill has moved out of the Public Safety Committee to Appropriations.

Yes – Stone, Anderson, Glazer and Monning
No – Lui, Leno
Abstain – Hancock

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hello All –
We will have the Senate Public Safety Committee’s recommendation to either pass the bill forward or not today (Wednesday). In order for the bill to move forward Assembly Member Melendez needs at least 4 “yes” votes. Right now she has 3. Both of the Republican Senators, Stone and Anderson voted “yes” which we expected. They were joined by Democrat Steve Glazer. HOWEVER, the Chair of the Committee, Senator Hancock (D), said the testimony presented concerned her so she abstained from voting. The remaining committee members, Lui, Monning and Leno were presenting their own bills in other committee hearings during the debate on AB 2569. This is not unusual. Their votes on AB 2569 were cast at the end of the day yesterday and we will know the final vote tally today.
Please know that the committee members did listen to us and everyone who attended and spoke against the bill was treated with respect.

Final Vote on AB 2569:
AB 2569 was passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee. Final vote – 4 “yes” votes, 1 abstain and 2 “no” votes. As the author was able to secure 4 “yes” votes the bill has moved out of the Public Safety Committee to appropriations.
Yes – Stone, Anderson, Glazer and Monning
No – Lui, Leno
Abstain – Hancock

If anyone thinks this is going to be a slam/dunk defeat of this bill, then you are going to be as disappointed as Melendez apparently was to have her bill whittled down to a sliver of it what was. She even added actual, clear wording that this bill will not be retroactive. Good for her.
It was an exiting experience to see how our government works. It was clear to me that anyone who shows up at one of these hearings and takes a position represent hundreds if not thousands of the others who are not there. The lawmakers have got to realize the difficulty of coming to these hearings and sitting all day through them to make a point. I know, I was on a small advisory board long ago. It is almost terrifying when a group of citizens shows up to oppose what you plan to approve — especially if you expect it to be a slam/dunk. And there is the added hurdle of a Registered Citizen overcoming shame to stand up for something. It shows a commitment that they notice and it is our advantage, not a liability. A star shines brightest when surrounded by a void.
But this isn’t about harming politicians, but about slowing down a run away train that has built up a lot of momentum and is going to keep rolling on for awhile, even if we continue to put obstacles in its path. No one is going to stand in front of it and say “stop” and have it obey. I saw that train slow down yesterday. The confidence in its movement is decreasing, as seen in the words of the Chairperson, Loni Hancock — doubt and reason take the place of emotional reaction. Doubt is a seed that grows, especially if it is re-enforced by new information, which I am confident now CARSOL will provide to those now receptive to looking at it.
Slowing down a reckless moving object becomes exponentially easier the more counter force is applied. I encourage more to join those who show up. It was not that difficult after all, definitely easier than trying to get into Mexico, and more effective than if I had only given the travel money instead to CARSOL.

Was there ever specific verification on who this applies to? Is it just family-related?
Some specific clarity would be very helpful.

As Ive said before, if this does become law it’ll hv definite impacts upon my kids, all 6, I wish I could hv been present to tell the committee how its been these past 25 yrs, yes Im excluded for now it doesnt erase what Ive suffered nor will its passing improve the quality of life & yes Ive been law abiding all these yr’s. This is in my understanding a “post ex facto” scenrio that should have never been brought to the law makers table.
Dont gv up the fight constituients,.plow deeper in our quest for mercy..

Please clarity,
Everyone w any pc 290 related charge (except juvinels) that was excluded under the exclusion clause’s (criteria) for pc 243.4 (a-d)..remember ca goes all the way back to 1947, it would hv been decent if the senators would implement the tier arrangent so many law enforcement officials have been talking about in conjunction with mercy and since this rsol has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt it serves no practical applicatons except monitoring those on parol and extending public scruinity which doesnt make the guarantee the constitution of Ca extends to ALL its citizens a reality let alone justified. You can not in any sense of the word, phrase or context imply justice in truth and liberty for all with a life long sentence true mercy, what of the harlot jesus spoke to ? and what of the theif on the cross jesus spoke to ? tell me how will yoi senators and associates answer on judgment day ? I hv’nt been on parole for 18 yrs, maybe a charge of murder would hv been better, at least I’d hv been done w it all long ago..
carry on constituients..

I suppose someone could review the new folks added to the online registry and from that and media reports, create a victim’s registry that lists all those people who played with mommy, daddy, little brother and Uncle Chester. Then send links of that site to the people who wrote and sponsored the law at the same time the list of victims is sent to each victim.

Not even I could go that far to defeat our enemy.

But out there, someone lacks the empathy required to block such a move. It will happen.

What then Sacramento?

We were present and I actually emailed and voice mailed Steve Glazer our closer rep that we voted for due to LGBT factors. HE FAILED US and will educate him and his staff what this has done if it goes beyond House and Senate for the final sig.
Also Janice, please let us know how your Fed Trials went, we lived there for decades, thx.

It disgusts me that there were 4 yes votes on this bill. These senators don’t care about the well being of children like my daughter. Melendez pretends to care, but it’s a farce!

I will continue to show up in Sacramento to tell legislators that these laws do NOTHING to protect our children. The public registry surely didn’t protect mine. It only gave me a false sense of security. They say they want to list names if that is in the best interest of the child. Well, my question is, then why didn’t they care about what was in the best interest of my daughter? When she spoke about what she wanted and it didn’t fit into their agenda, they declined to listen, EVEN if it was in her best interest.

I refuse to be silent. I will be at the next meeting to help fight this bill.

They just revised the bill once again, it’s like they just have to punish someone . At first it was just incest, but thankfully they admend to allow exclusion, but added the interview with the victim prior to granting exclusion, but since they lost that group of offenders they juat had to go after someone now it’s
offender who has been convicted
of the commission or attempted commission of felony sexual battery,
misdemeanor child molestation, or other specified sexual offenses to
apply to the department for exclusion from the Internet Web site. No more if this bill passes

As they red lined the paragraph I made an assumption it was being removed from the 290 language, hence no more exclusion. However from what you are saying, I am reading this wrong. I am not a lawyer so i don’t completely understand this process. I hope you are correct for everyone concerned. It makes since thoe, as someone else said, by doing this, should it not start the legislation process all over again, as it changes the intent of the bill completely.

For those who have been tracking the progress of AB2569 bill, below is the latest update.
I am not sure if this means they’re starting over and or killing it.
I due know if it stays here past 31st of August, it will not move forward in committy until next year.
Please anyone correct me if I am wrong of my assumption and understanding of legislation process.
Updated CA-AB2569.
As of 2016-08-11
In committee: Held under submission.
An action taken by a committee when a bill is heard in committee and there is an indication that the author and the committee members want to work on or discuss the bill further, but there is no motion for the bill to progress out of committee. This does not preclude the bill from being set for another hearing.