BILL ANALYSIS
AB 540
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2001
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Elaine Alquist, Chair
AB 540 (Firebaugh) - As Amended: May 1, 2001
SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education: residency.
SUMMARY : Allows specified nonresidents to meet state residency
requirements for the purposes of establishing tuition levels at
the California State University (CSU) and California Community
Colleges (CCC). Specifically, this bill would:
1)Permit a nonresident to pay resident tuition at CSU or CCC
provided that they meet all of the following requirements:
a) Attended high school in California for three or more
years;
b) Graduated from a California high school; and,
c) Continues his or her education at a California
institution of higher education within one year of high
school graduation or on or before January 1, 2002.
2)Request the Regents of the University of California (UC) to
also exempt persons meeting the above criteria from paying
non-resident tuition.
3)Allow persons meeting the above criteria to be deemed to meet
residency requirements with respect to eligibility for
California student aid programs.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes residency requirements for students attending a
CSU or CCC campus and requires CSU and CCC to charge
nonresident tuition to any student who is not a California
resident, as defined.
2)Provides for the Cal Grant Program, administered by Student
Aid Commission (SAC) to provide grants to financially needy
students to attend college. The Cal Grant program consists of
four types of awards: A, B, C T, and the Community College
Transfer Entitlement. Students who are not residents of
AB 540
Page 2
California, as defined, are ineligible for these grants.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The educational rights of undocumented students is a
longstanding issue that has been debated within legislative and
judicial arenas for years. Current law was contested in a 1985
court case Leticia A. v. Board of Regents of the University of
California . This challenge was filed by a group of undocumented
students who were not recognized as California residents for
purposes of determining tuition. At that time, the court ruled
that charging nonresident tuition to undocumented students was
unconstitutional because both UC and CSU used a different
definition of "residency" for undocumented aliens than it used
for United States (U.S.) citizens.
The 1985 decision was later overridden by the 1990 Court of
Appeal, Second District decision Regents of the University of
California v. Los Angeles County Superior Court , also known as
the Bradford decision. In Bradford , the court held that current
law was constitutional and that the related Education Code
sections were to be upheld.
Both Leticia A and Bradford dealt solely with the issue of
defining "California residency" for purposes of assessing
nonresident tuition. Prior legislation on this topic, AB 592
(Polanco) of 1991, would have statutorily altered the definition
of "California residency" as it applies to college tuition.
This measure does not change the definition of "California
resident" nor does it alter current law regarding the assessment
of nonresident tuition to students that are not "California
residents". Instead, this measure simply requires that CSU and
CCC charge only mandatory systemwide fees and not nonresident
tuition to those students who have:
1)Attended a California high school for at least three years;
2)Graduated from high school; and,
3)Obtained admission to a CSU or CCC campus.
UC resident mandatory fees total $3,964 while nonresidents pay
in excess of $10,000. CSU resident students pay $1,839 in
mandatory fees, while nonresident students pay $7,380. Within
AB 540
Page 3
CCC, resident students pay $11 per unit while non-residents pay
$130 per unit.
The current Cal Grant program provides several different
categories of grants. While some Cal Grants provide initial
access costs in the first year of higher education and other
limited funding, the general awards provide tuition costs at UC
and CSU or up to $9,708 at private postsecondary institutions.
According to the author, many of the students that would benefit
under this measure are children of parents who have been granted
amnesty by the federal government and are waiting for their own
applications for citizenship to be accepted by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service. The majority of these students
consider California their home and are expected to become
citizens.
Additionally, supporters argue that this measure will help
talented California high school students, who cannot afford to
pay nonresident tuition, to afford college. They point to
several cases in which students were encouraged to attend
college and apply for programs such as the Cal Grant, only to
find that they are ineligible for aid and must pay an extremely
high tuition due to their nonresident status.
For many of these students, the biggest barrier to attending and
enrolling in college is the cost. Under federal and state law,
undocumented students, regardless of their academic achievement
or financial need, are not eligible for federal or state
financial aid nor are they eligible to receive campus-based aid
or subsidized student loans.
Previous Legislation : This measure is similar to AB 1197
(Firebaugh) of 1999 which was passed by the Committee on Higher
Education, Assembly, and Senate, but vetoed by the Governor. AB
1197 had a provision requiring the students to be in the process
of obtaining citizenship in order to benefit from the in-state
tuition. This is not a part of the current legislation.
In his veto message, Governor Davis cited the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA), by which undocumented aliens are ineligible to receive
postsecondary education benefits based on state residence unless
a citizen or national of the U.S. would be eligible for the same
benefits without regard to their residence (Title VIII, Section
AB 540
Page 4
1623).
A close reading of the legislation shows that the benefit
provided in AB 540 is available to "any person" (page 3, line 4)
which could include non-residents as well as U.S. residents from
other states, as long as they meet the outlined conditions. For
example, a resident of Oregon who lives on the border and is
educated in a California high school would be able to pay
in-state tuition under this legislation. It is unlikely that
the legislation in its current form is in violation with
existing federal law.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Catholic Conference
California Federation of Teachers
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative
California School Employees Association
California State Student Association
California Teachers Association
Center for Third World Organizations
Children's Advocacy Institute
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Community College League of California
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Keek School of Medicine, University of Southern California
Lambda Letters
Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice
Los Angeles Community College District
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Council of La Raza
National Organization for Women
Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund
Several Individual Letters
Opposition
California Coalition for Immigration Reform
Individual Letters
AB 540
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Paul Mitchell / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960