ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Janice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Tiered Registry Bill is Reborn

The Tiered Registry Bill is reborn. We now have a second chance to end a 70-year-old law that requires individuals to register for a lifetime, regardless of the nature of their offense, the amount of time that has passed and whether they have re-offended.

We almost lost this opportunity when Senator Ricardo Lara, the original author of the Tiered Registry Bill, withdrew his leadership. His withdrawal came less than three weeks before an important deadline, that is, consideration by the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Those who support the Tiered Registry Bill worked hard behind the scenes to find a new author during that limited period of time. Others worked hard to gain formal support for the bill from law enforcement, including the California Police Chiefs and the California District Attorneys Association.

In addition, it is reported that former state legislators, who understand the need for a Tiered Registry, helped to persuade the bill’s new author to pick up the leadership reins dropped by Senator Lara. Regardless of how and why it happened, the fact is that the Tiered Registry Bill has a new leader – Senator Scott Wiener – who was elected in 2016 and represents the City of San Francisco. Senator Wiener is a member of the State Capitol’s LGBT Caucus as well as a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and a former Deputy City Attorney.

Senator Wiener demonstrated great courage when he agreed to lead the Tiered Registry Bill. In addition, he sacrificed a bill on another subject that he had already introduced – Senate Bill 421 – in order to become the new author of this bill. He did so by removing the contents of his original bill and substituting the language of the Tiered Registry Bill.

Despite the obvious need to end the state’s lifetime registry, the Tiered Registry Bill is sure to attract opposition as it travels through the Senate and Assembly. There may, in fact, be efforts to significantly amend the bill in order to weaken its impact or its scope. We must remain vigilant in order to stop such efforts.

That is why those who will benefit from Senate Bill 421, including registrants and family members, must be heard in its support. The first test for the Tiered Registry Bill will be consideration by the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 25.

ACSOL leadership will be there. Will you?


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.
  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
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Thank you.

Yes, thank you. And Sen. Wiener too.

Re SB421 I cannot attend the hearing, but I did thank Senator Weiner for picking it back up, and I sent an email to Senator Skinner in support of 421, and I called every committee member expressing my support for SB421. While I am beat down after 31 years of registering, these actions have made me feel a lot better. Just doing them, doing something, encourages me. In other words I am in(en) a state of courage. Thanks to Janice and all of you trying to make things change..You all of you add to my encouragement. Blessed be!

Isn’t the Public Safety committee the same ones that shot us down for ab 558, not trying to be negative but realistic

No, the Assembly PSC heard AB 558. The Senate PSC will hear the tiered registry bill. The good news is that the author Weiner sits on that committee.

No, the Assembly Public Safety Committee passed AB 558. The Senate Public Safety Committee will hear the tiered registry bill.

im glad the bill is moving forward. I just hope it doesn’t hurt more than it helps…bill oriely fired from fox for sexual harassment claims..ha..another one spouting about how bad sex offenders are and pushing Jessica’s law gets a taste of his own medicine..people crying wolf the loudest are usually the ones in the hen house….to bad hes rich or he would be heading for list…

Isn’t that the truth!

Does this new version of the tiered registry bill still offer a way for persons who were 1) convicted in California and who currently 2) live outside of California to petition for removal?
I tried to read through the text of this new version, and I can’t seem to find anything. It only says you can petition in the county in which you are currently registering.
Please tell me that this won’t be like the CoR and bar those who have moved out of state!

The “new” tiered registry bill is virtually identical to the original tiered registry bill. Therefore, as currently written, the bill would allow relief for those who currently live in other states. That is, the bill would allow people convicted of a sex offense in California to petition for relief from further registration in California. The decision made in California after a petition for relief is granted may or may not affect the need to register in another state. That is because the need to register in another state is triggered by the laws in the other state. Individuals will need to contact attorneys in the state in which they reside to obtain a complete answer.

Janice: Thank you very much for weighing in here. I definitely know that I’ll need to consult an attorney in my state (if our tiered bill even passes). The problem is that in this state (if our tiered bill passes) and many others with tiers and with a way off the registry, the only way I can petition off is if, and only if, I am allowed off first in California.

I don’t mean to be a pest, but in looking at the proposed 290.5. (a) (1) – (5), I see no language that addresses what someone who was convicted in CA can do if he/she now lives out of state. Right now, the proposed 290.5. (a) (1) says “…may file a petition in the superior court in the county in which he or she is registered…”. What’s crazy is that I could swear it once said something to the effect of “or in the superior court of the county where the conviction was adjudicated…” or something like that.

I truly see no language at all that addresses people in my situation. Can you or someone at ACSOL please double check for such language either in this new bill or in the previous bill? I checked original language of the original SB 695, and I can’t find anything that would pertain to people in my situation.

I appreciate your help with this, and I apologize for any inconvenience.

I see nothing in the bill that says someone out of state can file to stop registering. That is even contrary to what they previously insisted on for a COR after a court ruling and the language from that ruling was added to 290 requiring that you be doing your registration in-state. In fact, for this fake tier relief, it says you must file in the county where you are registering — that is not talking of filing in some county in another state. It says the district attorney of that county may challenge — they are not talking of some district attorney in Florida!

This bill does NOT provide relief for people who have moved out of state. It does not even provide a place for those people to file for the relief! G4Change is right, there is nothing in here for those who are out of state. You can’t ju$st say it is there when it is specifically left out.:

SEC. 6. Section 290.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

290.5. (a) (1) A person who is required to register pursuant to Section 290 and who is a tier one or tier two offender may file a petition in the superior court in the county in which he or she is registered for termination from the sex offender registry at the expiration of his or her mandated minimum registration period. The petition shall contain proof of the person’s current registration as a sex offender.
(2) The petition shall be served on the registering law enforcement agency and the district attorney in the county where the petition is filed. The registering law enforcement agency shall report to the district attorney regarding whether the person has met the requirements for termination pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290. The district attorney may request a hearing on the petition if the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement described in subdivision (e) of Section 290, or if community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration.

“or if community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration.”
I just realized what a really odd statement that is. If a guy has followed the rules for 20 years, how does one determine he will be a danger at this particular time he petitions? That being said, registration itself threatens community safety. Who is more safe, the person on the streets who can’t get a job or friends or someone secure economically and socially?

Well, Timmr, it is good that you now noticed that. But that is only one of many, many details throughout this bill, all of them as bad as that. I have tried for a long time now to point this out. This is a BAD bill.

This bill is NOT going to give the relief people here think it will, this will only make it impossible to ever get what you are thinking you are getting here. This is just a COR falsely labeled as tiers, and you will get this relief as often as you now are able to get a COR, which is a rarity. There is no reason to think the prosecutors will handle it any differently, they have already shown how they will handle it, they show that every time they challenge a COR, which is every time. They have put the COR standards in writing into this bill, including this incredibly vague language Timmr points out that can, and will, be used to deny anyone they want to deny, just as they do to everyone seeking a COR!

Hello Janice first of all thank you so much for all your hard work, it is greatly appreciated. I had a question. When is this bill due to be heard or voted on? How soon could this go into effect?

Thank you to Janice and company for your efforts on this. Any time our representatives have the opportunity to get involved in amendments, it has the potential to turn out badly. As the bill is currently written, there are flaws that none of us like. But as I see it, this is a first step for many people. I am hopeful that the amendments, which are sure to come, don’t make those flaws worse; or add new ones.

Back in the running, hope it goes further/far. Senate, Assembly, House, Gov. AT least it’s back and with a man that is not in fear. Thanks to those that encourage Sen. Wiener to take hold of the reins now. SB 421. April 25th-SAC. Thanks Janice and Team for the update at where we’re at currently. Thanks to Ari(a) as well.

Can’t ask for better timing too, because Gov Brown will sign it if it makes sense.

I am seeking the same answer G4CHANGE. I currently have lived out of state for the last 8 years in the worst state known to the registry, Florida. I have a dream, that we will all no longer have to register, and I am trying to look at everything as positive as i can! It makes you want to just scream.

Thanks, BAM. I’ve searched this thing high and low (both Lara’s original and Wiener’s current version – which does indeed seem identical), and I can’t find any language that refers to “ex-patriot Californians” (if you will). This worries me. I have a single misdemeanor from 1999 with a perfect record before and after. Perfect probation report, etc. I have a family (that continues to suffer under this yoke along with me). But no matter where I go (it seems), the only way off the registry would be to first be released from the California registry. The idea of a technicality of not living in California being the only thing that would disqualify me from this makes me weak in the knees. No matter what, I hope this bill passes. But I hope us ex-pats won’t be excluded. I hope I’m just overlooking a piece of language in this bill.

See my post above under your first comment. You are right G4, and I have been complaining about this since day one, to no avail.

You can’t even be assessed for a tier if you live out of state!

I am in the exact same boat living in Fl. 5 years. I was thinking if we are excluded ill have no choice but move to california to be able to get off the registry.

Another concern: saratso/static 99. High score can get someone into tier 3, regardless of crime. Static 99 risk factors harms young, gay, and non contact offenders more, so they have increased chance of being put into tier 3. Nothing fair about this considering a lot of people question the static’s accuracy. Static is never designed to be used more than 10 after offense free but will be used to label for lifetime? Where is the logic in this?


If Static-99/SARATSO are never designed to be used more than 10 years after offense free time in community, why is it being used to label someone (6 OR higher) for lifetime Tier 3?

Here is a good article from the ABA Journal that addresses ‘risk-assessments’ like the Static-99:

The American Bar Association article quotes Eric Holder, who was former Attorney General:

“In 2014, Eric Holder, then the U.S. attorney general, articulated the uncertainty swirling around these tools in a speech given to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ 57th Annual Meeting. ‘Although these [risk assessment] measures were crafted with the best of intentions, I am concerned that they may inadvertently undermine our efforts to ensure individualized and equal justice,’ he said. ‘They may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.’”

So how do ‘risk assessments’ in this tiered registry (i.e. Static-99/SARATSO) help people? It seems like it has the potential of doing more harm. It’s a slippery slope. Letting the Static-99R into this bill will give the government permission to use more of these junk sciences in the future. I’m pretty sure of this.

Interesting that State Sen. Ricardo Lara is the head of the LGBT Caucus, because the tiered registry bill as originally authored would almost singularly rely on the STATIC-99 assessment to determine which tier a registrant would be categorized under. I say “interesting” because the STATIC-99 – among its many flaws – is blatantly discriminatory against crimes of a homosexual nature.

Scott Wiener is openly gay. Equality California supposedly wants a tiered registry because they claim it will help homosexual registrants. Yet are they not aware of the so-called ‘risk factors’ to the Static-99 that will discriminate against gays? This is on top of the fact risk factors also harm particularly young offenders, as well as non contact offenders (both scored more brutally with the Static tests), without consideration to amount of offense-free period in the community.

Look at questions 1, 7, and 10 showing harsher scoring for people that committed their crime at a young age (without concern for current age), harsher scoring for non-contact offenders, and harsher scoring for homosexuals:

I still don’t understand why if we’ve reduced a F to a M and set the M aside via 1203.4 process, then obtained a COR, why that wouldn’t automatically take one off of registration. The COR process was a very intense, stressful and intrusive process. This bill doesn’t even mention COR relief, why?

I agree with you, Still Trying. In fact, that is how it was handled until the mid-1990s. We have only had actual lifetime registration since then.

In fact, 1203.4 relief was all that was needed for anyone who got it, that is, for anyone who got probation. You weren’t even allowed to apply for a COR, because 1203.4 was considered to have already given you everything a COR gives. In fact, it sometimes was referred to as “statutory rehabilitation.” Those who did not get probation could stop by getting the COR, a pardon was not needed.

That former “tier” approach isn’t even being mentioned, the lawmakers of today have no idea it used to be done like that. They are operating from ignorance, they have nothing to compare this crappy proposal to.

And I have been getting the distinct impression that the powers that be here do not want us to have something as good as that former approach.

Following is a previous post I made upon request in another thread, to elucidate this point — the history of relief under 1203.4 and of that relief being taken away from those who already had obtained it, who have had to register ever since and still — and we won’t even mention this at this junction, and have their relief restored.:

Here is the history of 1203.4 PC relief, down below, being all that was needed for a registrant to stop registering. This comes from former Sec. 290.1 PC, and court cases, including Kelly, further affirmed in Taylor and that affirmed in Mills, and affirmed in I don’t know how many others. Kelly is from at least the 1950s, and a vague item in my memory wants to say 1952, but I would have to look up the actual date, I can’t swear it wasn’t even the 1940s.

In 1981, the law was changed by adding 290.1 PC to limit that 1203.4 relief from registration to being the standard only for misdemeanants, no longer for felons, and in 1994, the law was changed again to end that relief for misdemeanants when 290.1 was changed to drop the word “felony,” making it read so no one, felon or misdemeanant, was relieved of registration by getting 1203.4 relief. (Since this was a statute separate from 290, people could still argue that it was not retroactive, however I believe it was considered by prosecutors to be retroactive.) Then in 2005, 290.1 was repealed and similar language added to 290. And with 290 already established as retroactive, this definitively made it clear that the previous relief people got from registration via 1203.4 was taken away retroactively. (Yes, court rulings over the years acknowledged that 1203.4’s relief from certain “penalties and disabilities” of the conviction could be abrogated by a law making an exception to that, and that was done in 1981 and again in 1994 — and is being done again in this tier proposal for relief via a COR.)

(I also note, I was reminded in looking over the materials of something I knew but had forgotten: Most registrants who could not end registration via 1203.4 could do so by getting a COR. But that standard was eliminated and increased to actually getting the post-COR pardon.

(But this COR relief together with 1203.4 relief shows that registration was never automatically lifetime for anyone but the few who could not stop even with a COR, had to get the pardon. All this ended in the mid-1990s, when everyone was subjected to actual lifetime registration and retroactively, and only the certain lesser offenses could stop if they could get a COR, all others had to look to a pardon. Everyone who already had the relief via either 1203.4 or a COR lost that relief, it was taken away! I note, if you already had 1203.4 relief, you could not apply for a COR.)

I advise, this is the history of that relief, you cannot conclude from this that these details and standards will win the day now, you will have to look at all that came after these details, as court rulings can be overturned, further interpreted and refined and altered, and laws can be changed — and all of that has happened to us over the years.

But this gives some legitimate standard for legislators to understand and consider when debating any new standard, it shows how insanely extreme what the prosecutors are pushing for this tier proposal is. It shows what I would have to hope any elected official would consider to be a serious violation of basic human fairness in taking away relief that had been EARNED and granted, that had required affirmative action on behalf of the registrant to obtain. There is something wrong if the legislators do not see that as being as unAmerican as it gets, and framing an argument in that kind of language can go a long way. The legality of the court rulings and changes in law don’t even matter, it is all unAmerican regardless, and frankly, I think the majority of this country, even the great majority, would say so. And to ignore this now, as we are doing, would be a travesty, especially in the face of this tier proposal doing the same again to those who have stopped registering after getting a COR — it specifically takes that relief out of 290, and without that in the law, there is no relief via a COR for anyone, retroactively — just like for 1203.4 or the previous COR standard that was raised to a pardon. We are being seriously snookered by the prosecutors again.

These tiers, and them once again taking away previously obtained relief via a COR, is the perfect time to argue for including that clause I have proposed, restoring such relief for anyone who had been relieved in the past by whatever means, presumably via 1203.4 or a COR. I do not think most legislators have any idea of this action over the years, and I am very doubtful that even the legislators in office when it was done really understood it would be applied retroactively, that people’s relief already earned and obtained was being taken away — 290 was not considered to be retroactive then.

To the history:

The earliest I have is Kelly v. Municipal Court, 160 Cal.App.2d 38 [324, P.2d 990]. That was a fairly major appellate case, often quoted later. As quoted and affirmed in Taylor, Kelly held, “…that the ‘penalties and disabilities’ from which the defendant was released by virtue of section 1203.4 were ‘criminal or quasi-criminal’ in nature and that the registration requirement of section 290 was one of those ‘penalties’ or ‘disabilities’.”

So there you have it, from at least Kelly, and I can’t say there was not even an earlier case that said the same. 1203.4 relief was the standard for all those who got probation to be able to stop registering, as per the law as passed by the legislators, and it was a LONG time before a new pack of legislators changed that law.

Of course, as already stated, that was affirmed in People v. Taylor, 178 Cal.App.2d 72, [3 Cal.Rptr. 186], an appellate case from 1960.

And Taylor, and in particular the Kelly portion of it, was affirmed in People v. Mills, 81 Cal.App.3d 171; 146 Cal.Rptr. 11. State Supreme Court denied hearing July 13, 1978.

Mills said 290 “imposes lifelong requirement of registration and reregistration absent a court order releasing the registrant from the penalties and disabilities of his conviction under Penal Code section 1203.4 … or the issuance of a certificate of rehabilitation under Penal Code section 4852.01 et seq.

“We would conclude the registration requirement is one of the ‘penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which [Mills] has been convicted.’ ”

From there, we come to 1981. That is when the legislature enacted 290.1 PC. That read as follows:

290.1 Registration of sex offenders; felony sex offenses; probation

Notwithstanding Section 1203.4 and except as provided in Section 290.5, a person convicted of a felony sex offense shall not be relieved from the duty to register under Section 290.

(Added by Stats.1981, c. 105, p. 794. Sec. 1.)

This removed the registration relief via 1203.4 from those convicted of felonies; those who were relieved of it for a misdemeanor still could stop registering, misdemeanants still could get relief via 1203.4.

That relief for misdemeanants continued until 1994, when 290.1 was amended to take the relief away from misdemeanants by taking out the word “felony.”

290.1. Registration of sex offenders: exception

Notwithstanding Section 1203.4 and except as provided in Sec. 290.5, a person who is convicted of a sex offense for which registration is required under Section 290 shall not be relieved from the duty to register under that section.

(Added by Stats.1981,c. 105. p.794, sec. 1 Amended by Stats. 1994, c. 863 (A.B. 3456), Sec. 2.)

Historical and Statutory Notes

In 2005, 290.1 was repealed, and similar language was added to 290 (in other words, it was merged into 290, and at that same time, and under cover of the merger, it was made indisputably retroactive — although I’m pretty sure it was applied retroactively already, even though it never had anything in that statute saying it was retroactive. But 290 had already been definitively retroactive, so putting that langugage in 290 gave the same definitive retroactivity to that loss of relief, and the prosecutors never even had to tell the lawmakers that they were taking away relief that had been earned and obtained, they simply had to say that language was more efficient in 290.


Repealed by Stats.2005, c. 704 (A.B.439), Sec. 2

Historical and Statutory Notes

2005 Legislation

The repealed section, added by Stats.1981, c. 105, sec. 1, amended by Stats.1994, c. 863 (A.B.3456), sec. 2, related to registration of sex offenders and exceptions.

And if you still don’t believe this is retroactive, then consider the Doe v. Harris ruling of a few years back (3 years ago?) in which our state Supreme Court held that changes in the state of the law can change your relief under 1203.4 PC.

Some other interesting things I came across while looking at People v. Taylor, 178 Cal.App.2d 472, [3 Cal.Rptr. 186]. 1960.:

“A release from penalties and disabilities under 1203.4 is also a release from the prohibition of a felon carrying a firearm” — so the firearm ban came later, was not original in 1203.4, the ban now in 1203.4 was added after this ruling. Like I have said, these peripheral things in 1203.4 are add ons, yet the appellate courts now say the add ons are more important to keep than the central point of a 1203.4 “expungment,” so say 1203.4 is not an expungment, the conviction remains.

“The clear intent of the probation sections of the Penal Code, especially 1203.4, is to effect the complete rehabilitation of those convicted of a crime. The record of one released under this section is wiped clean, subject to reinstatement only when the person commits another or subsequent crime or for purposes of exceptional situations.” Like I have said, 1203.4 is already the test of rehabilitation, so why do we need some further test of registration and/or some draconian court battle to get out from under it? If we are going to have this post-probation stuff, then the probation laws should be eliminated from the books, they are simply redundant, they mean nothing!

From Taylor, citing the state Supreme Court ruling in People v. Banks, 53 CAL.2D 370 [348 p.2D 102], a reference to what I have said in these threads multiple times, that 1203.4 used to actually sometimes be referred to as “statutory rehabilitation” — capitals added by me:

” ‘And here it is to be presumed that the Alameda judge who suspended imposition of the sentence for violation of former section 503 of the Vehicle Code did so with recognition that defendant would remain classified as one convicted of a felony within the meaning of section 12021 of the Penal Code until and unless the Alameda offense was reduced to a misdemeanor by imposition of appropriate sentence or until the defendant successfully completed probation and received the STATUTORY REHABILITATION provided for by section 1203.4 of the Penal Code.’ ”

That is, you are already determined to be rehabilitated when you get 1203.4 relief! This is why those who got that in the past were not even allowed to apply for a COR, they already had that determination via 1203.4!

Anonymous Nobody,

Your history actually proves that the State of California has removed the “right to pursue and obtain privacy” as stated in the California Constitution.

The State of California has moved the goal post from 1203.4, to CoR, and to a Pardon to pursue and obtain privacy. Essentially, it makes registration truly a lifetime term that negates the possibility of pursuing and obtaining privacy. No other group of convicts have their privacy taken away after serving their time. I’d like to see a FOIA on the number of legible registrants who have been affected by such goal post moving.

So under the construct of the California Constitution, every California citizen has an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Step by step, the pathway to pursue and obtain privacy has been taken away. In fact, i read that a case to contest that the continuance to register is not specifically listed in 1203.4, but the judge in that case said there were no disabilities to account. Yet in your history, registration has been defined as a “penalty/disability”.

Shouldn’t this be a civil case based off of the California Constitution. Why does the 1203.4 not carry the same weight as it does for any other group of convicts who earn 1203.4? The Constitution is supposed to protect the right to pursue and obtain privacy, but it’s been neglected and negated under 1203.4, and so some the CoR. So now the threshold is all way to a Pardon.

You need a pardon to get your privacy back for the whole lot? What’s the whole point of all these different levels of registrants when they’re all facing the same punishment after serving their custodial punishment supervision?

It is good to see the comments above. Janice and a growing number of advocates are fighting to change the draconian laws which fill us with such despair. Come to the meetings if you are able, come to LA in June, write those letters to our representatives and be heard!

Stay positive. The SARATSO certainly will need to be addressed/I’m 20 years out with an expunged offense! Secondly, how should a tiered bill address expunged offenses? We have people with 21-22 year old expunged misdemeanors/summary probation that are still treated like America’s most wanted! We have to still register, compliance checks, banned from International Traffic (not minor related) and prohibited from certain employment? That’s just the icing on the cake. Wake up California

Thanks Janice – how long is the hearing?

I must fly at noon tomorrow

You can watch live streaming video of both SB 26 and SB 421 from this Senate Page:
Click on live streaming.
Starts at 8:30am

Is the hearing over? Anyone know the results?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x