[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6696842,"mediaKeyId","5114002-a894aa36ac9c28f4de227359f5f1ad8d","parentId",5114002,"title","Committee advances SB 27 to clarify Care Court eligibility after hours of testimony","audioSeconds",2158,"startMs",2246000,"endMs",4404000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5114002-a894aa36ac9c28f4de227359f5f1ad8d&start=2246&end=4404","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5114002-a894aa36ac9c28f4de227359f5f1ad8d/thumbnail_2246000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6696842/California/Committee-advances-SB-27-to-clarify-Care-Court-eligibility-after-hours-of-testimony","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6696842-930cf59900e7e35ce6273791a43aff88/orig.mp4?Expires=1770444287&Signature=JqPR-4U3gm83ZPOrEWjVTyBPDtUzAv2FOWQ1rNxu~YfBzyw9Z-DqTL7L3LvWSbfe-TRAHqxl5GAb805c8Hu9YcFii1mOlMGyt9DNDE9lrayDgWz4rJYT7UsA2QUFUtk-L26AAwVm4sKw9atmv4UBqqPM0QzPzfJaqGTf0Su-efL8eDlTUcIkk7dJHZooROFs4DrvIEb9pLxI3YI-rMdzNWDfCW7iVzIbd9rCqVMkz7e~tuf4IZsN4FjyG09wobZSS0MTWmtRNIO9IRLjI86ro1Y8SVrkHziMlIgcJGKrLbKeHWVOJ6FB6eVkeNlxYstsfa1R4K6CchD5C3QsTYxAzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Assembly","date","2025-07-01T00:00:00Z","article","The committee advanced Senate Bill 27, a cleanup and clarification measure for California's Care Court program, after more than an hour of testimony from mental-health clinicians, county behavioral-health directors and disability-advocacy groups.

SB 27, introduced by Senator Umberg, would clarify the Care Act/Care Court eligibility standards — notably by defining “clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment” — allow certain misdemeanor defendants found incompetent to stand trial to be considered for a care referral, permit data sharing among licensed care partners and broaden eligibility language to include people with mood disorders with psychotic features. The bill was moved out of committee to the Health Committee.

Supporters said the changes are intended to reduce dismissals of care petitions that arise when courts and advocates disagree about whether a person is truly stabilized in community treatment. Dr. Aaron Meyer, introduced himself as a practicing psychiatrist and contracted behavioral health officer for the City of San Diego and called the lack of a definition a practical problem: “Stability in an ACT program must be questioned when someone is calling 911 more than 20 times in a month, even after enrollment,” Meyer testified, and said SB 27’s clarifying language would help courts identify people “who are stable and not deteriorating, likely to survive safely in the community without supervision, managing symptoms through medication or other therapeutic interventions.”

Local officials and county behavioral-health directors said their members implemented Care Court across all 58 counties and welcome the program’s accountability goals but warned the committee that expanding eligibility to certain mood disorders could multiply the number of eligible people far beyond current capacity. Michelle Cabrera, executive director of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, told the committee that prevalence estimates for mood disorders mean the proposed expansion could encompass an order-of-magnitude larger population than the program was designed to serve and that counties currently lack housing and staff to serve an expanded caseload.

Disability-rights and peer-run organizations offered pointed opposition. Eric Harris of Disability Rights California said the bill would expand Care Court beyond what advocates were promised when the program was first advanced and that the outreach data so far show very small program uptake; Harris said the state had spent roughly $70 million but that only about 100 people had completed the full process to date. Disability Rights California and other community groups urged the committee to prioritize services and housing rather than expand court-ordered interventions.

Author Senator Umberg replied that the bill aims to make the pathway available to those with psychotic episodes and to streamline hearings so courts can hold systems accountable without requiring unnecessary court appearances. Multiple legislators urged the author to work with Health and Public Safety committees on standards and resources: Assemblymember Zuber said she would support the bill but expressed concern about the mood-disorder expansion and asked the author to consult the Health Committee’s clinical experts.

After discussion, the committee adopted a motion to pass SB 27 on to the Health Committee (motion carried; recorded on the committee roll as passed). The committee debate made repeated reference to the lack of housing and behavioral-health capacity statewide and to the need to balance individual liberties, access to care and system accountability.

Votes at the time the motion passed were recorded by roll call; the committee clerk announced the motion passed to the Health Committee and the motion was placed on call for further scheduling. The author and multiple stakeholders agreed to continuing negotiations on eligibility limits, definitions and resource questions.

Ending: SB 27 will next be considered in the Health Committee; the author and stakeholders said they will continue to work on technical fixes, eligibility guardrails and resource questions before the next hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Judiciary Committee","oneSentenceSummary","The committee advanced SB 27, a bill with amendments to the Care Act/Care Court process, after hours of testimony from psychiatrists, county behavioral-health officials and disability-rights groups who sharply disagreed about the proposal to expand eligibility and clarify \"clinically stabilized.\"","taxTitle","California State Assembly, House, Legislative, California","taxId",17099,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":44,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6696834,"Committee advances a slate of bills on housing, AI, arbitration, antitrust and public safety; votes placed on call",4828,7074000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5114002-a894aa36ac9c28f4de227359f5f1ad8d&start=2246&end=7074","/articles/6696834/California/Committee-advances-a-slate-of-bills-on-housing-AI-arbitration-antitrust-and-public-safety-votes-placed-on-call","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6696834-fb1d7d0ab123bc7e326dabe78dbf03bc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770444287&Signature=Bsoo6F6U1llaWnIw0cBRLY7zILe4K0lO~pb0BbuqtFnbCFNro3fcwnUORdnNQbA0czbAP7H7uhBR69FbocSA9~9uROpTmz7es41tOEdiQu1fdw2SLrDfOlmtj5PEfX05ezkFZ9fvX02a9vzBqNn7rROPwMkP-n1o5cYg8XFJlqZH7LKC7v~nh-ndg6RCFGT6VDH1XW~GaIs-2p-LR-T4i~5HfYe13ZOGjMKrH2RFi348XsfkPF691TgCGMdF-HpdSJwQPTvUa8AkZWaei5TyhizAtvn3N-H4z56yMS7M-ZQ7TACOr3eLc4mGcOQzDk~--4~oVPgb36Q9AYRmM-oeqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a single multi-hour hearing the committee considered a broad agenda and voted to advance many measures to subsequent committees. Lawmakers and stakeholders debated bills on Care Court (SB 27), arbitration clauses (SB 82), reparations framework and genealogy (SB 437 and SB 518), algorithmic rent-setting (SB 52), AI safety and public compute (SB 53), a joint resolution rescinding prior calls for an Article V constitutional convention (SJR 1), CEQA vesting protections for projects permitted under community plans (SB 611), nuisance-abatement liens (SB 757), algorithmic pricing and antitrust updates (SB 295 and SB 763), and protections for undocumented higher-education students forced to withdraw due to immigration enforcement (SB 307).

Many of the measures advanced with committee motions to move them to the next relevant committee (Health, Appropriations, Privacy and Consumer Protection, Public Safety) for further analysis, appropriations or amendment. Several hearings featured large public turnout and sharply divided testimony, in particular for the Care Court, the reparations/genealogy bills, and the bills addressing algorithmic pricing and antitrust enforcement.

Votes at a glance
- SB 27 (Care Court cleanup): Motion passed to Health Committee; roll-call recorded and bill placed on call. Major witnesses for and against included Dr. Aaron Meyer and Disability Rights California.
- SB 82 (limits on “infinite” arbitration clauses): Motion passed; committee roll-call (ayes recorded) and bill placed on call.
- SB 437 (CSU genealogy methodology oversight): Motion passed to Appropriations; placed on call. $6,000,000 referenced as budget allocation for CSU methodology work.
- SB 518 (Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery): Motion passed to Appropriations; placed on call. Debate focused on bureau placement and data protections.
- SB 52 (algorithmic rent pricing / “End AI Rent Hikes Act”): Motion passed to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee; bill placed on call. Supporters included tenant advocates and housing groups; opposition from real-estate industry groups asked for narrower language to avoid unintended consequences for small landlords.
- SB 53 (AI whistleblower protections and Cal Compute consortium): Motion passed to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee; author said parts of the Cal Compute consortium would be time-limited and the whistleblower protections would remain active.
- SJR 1 (rescind prior Article V convention calls): Motion passed; roll-call recorded. Supporters included League of Women Voters; proponents argued rescission defends state civil rights safeguards.
- SB 611 (vested-rights for projects permitted under adopted community plans): Motion passed to Appropriations; author said the measure restores protections that expired Jan. 1, 2025, to avoid CEQA litigation halting projects permitted under a community plan.
- SB 757 (nuisance abatement liens and special assessments): Motion passed as amended; debate focused on due process and hardship waivers; opponents warned of foreclosure risk for vulnerable owners.
- SB 295 (algorithmic pricing prohibition) and related bills on pricing algorithms: Motion passed to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee; multiple bills in the same policy space will require reconciliation to avoid inconsistent statutory definitions.
- SB 763 (increase Cartwright Act penalties): Motion passed to Public Safety Committee; sponsors and the Department of Justice argued penalties have not kept pace with corporate revenues; some business groups asked the Legislature to await Law Revision Commission recommendations.
- SB 307 (protections for undocumented higher-education students who withdraw due to immigration enforcement): Motion carried; sponsor stressed reenrollment, grade protections and liaison services for Dreamer students.

Committee chairs and authors repeatedly urged continued inter-committee and stakeholder negotiations to reconcile overlapping bills and refine statutory definitions (particularly for “competitively sensitive data,” “pricing algorithm” and thresholds for whistleblower protections). Several authors accepted committee amendments on privacy, due-process and hardship waivers and told members they would continue to work with opposition before floor consideration.

Ending: Most measures were advanced for further committee review and placement on call; authors and committee staff described ongoing negotiations to reduce conflicts between bills and to refine implementation guardrails.","The committee moved multiple bills to follow-up committees—covering topics from algorithmic rent-setting and antitrust penalties to AI whistleblower protections, arbitration clauses, CEQA vesting and nuisance abatement. Most measures were advanced for further committee review; several received recorded roll-call votes and were placed on call.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6696837,"Committee advances bills setting state roles for reparations genealogy and a bureau for descendants",3107,5200000,8307000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5114002-a894aa36ac9c28f4de227359f5f1ad8d&start=5200&end=8307","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5114002-a894aa36ac9c28f4de227359f5f1ad8d/thumbnail_5200000.jpg","/articles/6696837/California/Committee-advances-bills-setting-state-roles-for-reparations-genealogy-and-a-bureau-for-descendants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6696837-338f677e35cc87846980df7e9eeb8293/orig.mp4?Expires=1770444287&Signature=huzUEWMYowBUqWn4bSzLVN9HZJCR7C~wSmnbX~hVvsXR10C5bSvHDOE5iPTJs--BSFYJJV1E8ukQQc2CfNwDM2Sgb2SUSQHas~XF4VRt~vstmkNsCB9tiPujzJ3Ann6rcdI9FXrVSWdM5AZtDHFcnO-yHFLi018gf4VWpMjxdGvXgAlSfkd6z6phmFEGesjiiSi5EuYNgCrcRucHkwbF-jeIzdApU5xsP9PksHty3qcGXfADWD5E8tt1ftuvD4hM-IM~iwP9v0XIs4cLxPUtx0bTBc9Ue~BEkVZ0Gm1YZIA~BzSOr0mUClwUzIFXR57eryGh1IQpHtDjFp5c-Eb2yQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Two linked measures on reparations advanced from the committee after divided testimony: SB 437 would set guardrails and reporting requirements for a $6,000,000 state-funded project to develop a standardized, evidence-based methodology for genealogical verification at the California State University (CSU) system; SB 518 would create a Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery to coordinate reparations-related services (including a genealogy division, property reclamation and outreach divisions) housed initially in an existing department pending further decisions.

Senator Weber-Pearson presented SB 437 as an accountability measure tied to a budget allocation the legislature and governor approved: “Without SB 437, the CSU will start its work without a clear path or guidance. There will be no oversight to ensure that the allocated funds are used for their intended purpose,” the author said. Supporters — including the CSU Chancellor’s Office, the NAACP and members of the California Reparations Task Force — urged a structured, transparent process for genealogy verification and annual reporting to the legislature.

Opponents included professional genealogists and several grassroots reparations groups. Michael Willis, a professional genealogist and author, told the committee that genealogical methodologies and sources are established and available now and that a $6 million academic study is unnecessary; he urged the CSU to partner with established genealogists or to support certification rather than undertake an expensive internal study. Grassroots reparations advocates said a study would delay delivery of services and risk duplicative or competing processes; some speakers argued SB 437 conflicted with other bills that would provide genealogy services directly to residents.

SB 518 drew similar divisions. Supporters argued the state needs an institutional mechanism to implement the Reparations Task Force’s recommendations — a unit to verify lineage, pursue property reclamation, public education and legal assistance — and cited past models such as the federal Office of Redress Administration for Japanese American incarceration reparations. Opponents objected to housing the new bureau within the Department of Justice, arguing that putting reparations administration under a law-enforcement department creates a conflict and raises data-security concerns.

Authors repeatedly said the bills were designed to be flexible: SB 437 allows CSU to contract with external genealogists and experts; SB 518’s structure was described as an initial placement that could change as the state builds capacity. Both bills were advanced to Appropriations with recorded committee action; authors said they would continue to work with genealogists, community advocates and other legislators to resolve outstanding concerns.

Ending: Both measures were advanced to Appropriations for further consideration; the authors and stakeholders said they would continue negotiations on data protections, certification options and how to coordinate competing bills on genealogy services.","The committee advanced SB 437 (outline and oversight for a CSU-conducted genealogy methodology) and SB 518 (creation of a Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery) after hours of public comment divided sharply between genealogists and grassroots reparations advocates.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances SB 27 to clarify Care Court eligibility after hours of testimony

Committee advances a slate of bills on housing, AI, arbitration, antitrust and public safety; votes placed on call

Committee advances bills setting state roles for reparations genealogy and a bureau for descendants