Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislation Sb 280 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee approves urgency clause for SB 280 after debate over process and referral request
Summary
The Assembly Rules Committee approved adding an urgency clause to SB 280 (Cervantes) after members debated whether the clause met constitutional standards and a separate motion to refer the bill and an unspecified ACA to the Judiciary and Elections committees was ruled out of order.
The California State Assembly Rules Committee approved a motion to add an urgency clause to SB 280 (Cervantes) after a roll-call vote during its meeting. The committee vote followed a request from a member to remove the item from the consent calendar and a subsequent procedural debate over whether the urgency clause met the constitutional threshold.
Assemblymember Lackey argued that the urgency clause request did not meet the standard in Article IV of the California Constitution, which limits urgency statutes to measures “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.” Lackey said the urgency request “does not meet that threshold” and questioned the asserted emergency, saying rushing the measure amounted to political expediency rather than a true state emergency.
The motion to add the urgency clause for SB 280 was put to a roll-call vote. Members recorded the following positions: Assemblymember Pacheco — aye; Assemblymember Lackey — no; Assemblymember Flora — no; Assemblymember Gonzales — aye; Assemblymember Erwin — aye; Assemblymember Krell — aye; Assemblymember Patel — aye; Assemblymember Rodriguez — aye; Assemblymember Sanchez — no. A vote from the member listed as Ziburr/Zabir in the transcript was not specified on the record. The presiding officer declared the motion passed.
After the vote, a member moved to refer item 7 (the urgency clause request for SB 280) and an unspecified ACA to both the Judiciary and Elections committees, saying the measures would have “an immense impact on the lives of Californians as well as the health of our democracy” and that more hearings and public input were needed. The presiding officer ruled that referral motion out of order on procedural grounds, saying the current motion concerned only adding an urgency clause and not the merits or referral of the underlying measures.
The committee returned other consent items earlier in the meeting by voice/roll call and then took the separate urgency-clause vote on SB 280. No further substantive action on the underlying bill or the ACA was recorded in this segment; the referral request was not sustained. The committee adjourned soon after the ruling on procedure.
