Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vendor Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to protect street vendors’ personal data and block federal use of local vendor registries
Summary
SB 635 would restrict local governments from sharing street‑vendor registration and personal information with federal immigration enforcement and would strengthen privacy protections for micro‑businesses. The Local Government Committee passed the bill to Public Safety after extensive testimony from vendor advocates and public‑safety officials.
The Assembly Local Government Committee voted to pass SB 635, the Street Vendor Business Protection Act, to the Public Safety Committee on July 2, 2025. The bill, presented by Sen. Durazo, seeks to safeguard personal information collected by local street‑vendor registration programs and to limit use of that information by federal immigration authorities.
Sen. Durazo described the bill as a response to recent arrests and immigration enforcement activities that vendors and advocates said have terrorized vendor communities and interrupted livelihoods. "This bill will safeguard micro business owners' personal information to ensure that they can continue their work in peace," she said, stressing the bill's intent to protect low‑income and immigrant workers who rely on street vending for income.
Supporters — including community groups, advocacy organizations and labor unions — said vendors face raids, arrests and family separations and that registration databases can be weaponized by federal actors. Representatives from Inclusive Action for the City, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), the California Federation of Labor and other groups described instances in which vendors declined to travel for committee testimony because they feared enforcement. One witness read a statement from a vendor who called the bill "a game changing step" toward safety and legal recognition.
Disability Rights California and other civil‑rights organizations testified in support and framed the bill as a humanitarian measure. "Feeding the hungry and helping people survive is not a crime," said a disability‑rights witness, arguing that criminalizing Good Samaritans undermines public health and human rights. Several speakers highlighted that approximately half of people experiencing homelessness report a disability, and urged state focus on services and housing rather than criminalization.
Some local governments expressed concerns about the bill’s scope. Representatives from several cities and one county said they opposed the bill unless amended, arguing that it could limit local authorities' ability to maintain public health and safety and exercise established permitting and enforcement processes. The author’s office reported ongoing negotiations with the League of California Cities and that several jurisdictions had withdrawn opposition after technical changes; the league later registered neutral.
Committee discussion emphasized the need to balance humanitarian aid and public safety. Supporters and committee members agreed the bill should not override local rules that preserve clear sidewalks, public health standards and emergency access. The author included clarifying amendments and intent language limiting interference with existing local ordinances addressing sidewalk clearance and related safety concerns.
The committee voted to pass the bill to the Public Safety Committee. The chair recorded the motion as passed (6–1). Committee members said they expect continuing conversations with local government associations as the bill moves forward.
SB 635 was supported by multiple community‑based organizations and unions and opposed unless amended by some cities and counties. The author emphasized working with local governments to refine technical provisions.
