BILL ANALYSIS
Subject matter was not heard in Assembly policy committee this
legislative
Session, should be noted in the last paragraph of the background
section of the
CSA analysis. Language will vary depending on the circumstance.
AB 540
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 540 (Firebaugh)
As Amended September 7, 2001
Majority vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |52-15|(May 24, 2001) |SENATE: |27-7 |(September 12, 2001) |
| | | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |8-1 |(September 13, |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | |2001) | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
SUMMARY : Qualifies long-term California residents, as specified,
regardless of citizenship status, for lower "resident" fee payments
at the California Community Colleges (CCC) and the California State
University (CSU). Specifically, this bill :
1)Exempts non-residents from paying resident tuition at CSU and CCC
provided they:
a) Attended high school in California for three or more years.
b) Graduated from a California high school or attainment of
the equivalent thereof.
c) Have registered at or attends an accredited institution of
higher education in California not earlier than the fall
semester or quarter of the 2001-02 academic year.
d) Have, if he or she is an alien without lawful immigration
status, filed an affidavit, as specified.
Subject matter was not heard in Assembly policy committee this
legislative
Session, should be noted in the last paragraph of the background
section of the
CSA analysis. Language will vary depending on the circumstance.
AB 540
Page 2
1)Authorizes a student exempt from nonresident tuition, as provided
in this bill, to be reported by a community college district as a
full-time student for apportionment purposes.
2)Requires the Board of Governors of CCC and the Trustees of CSU to
prescribe rules and regulations for implementing this bill.
3)Requires student information obtained in the implementation of
this bill to be confidential.
The Senate amendments , provided for all the substance of the bill,
given that this legislation was only intent language when it left
the Assembly.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill expressed various findings and
declarations of the Legislature, and makes statements of
legislative intent, with respect to the impact of student aid
residency requirements and nonresident tuition payment requirements
on undocumented students.
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 the University of California (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.
Subject matter was not heard in Assembly policy committee this
legislative
Session, should be noted in the last paragraph of the background
section of the
CSA analysis. Language will vary depending on the circumstance.
AB 540
Page 3
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 met the prescribed requirements
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 attend college. They point to several
cases in which students were encouraged to take college preparatory
coursework, only to find that they must pay an extremely high
tuition due to their nonresident status.
Non-resident fees: In the current year, UC undergraduate resident
students pay $3,964 while nonresident students pay in excess of
$10,000. At CSU, undergraduate resident students pay $1,839 in
mandatory systemwide fees, while nonresident students pay $7,380.
Within CCC, resident students pay $11 per unit while non-residents
pay $130 per unit.
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.
Subject matter was not heard in Assembly policy committee this
legislative
Session, should be noted in the last paragraph of the background
section of the
CSA analysis. Language will vary depending on the circumstance.
AB 540
Page 4
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 1623).
In response to the veto message, the Chief Legislative Counsel
issued an opinion that AB 1197 did not violate federal law since it
did not tamper with a student's residency status under federal law
and because it excluded from out-of-state tuition exemptions
foreign residents as specified in the United States Code.
Pending federal legislation: HR 1918 (Canon-R, Utah), recently
introduced in Congress, allows states to set their own residency
rules without being required to subsidize out-of-state residents.
States will have the authority to determine which immigrants, if
any, would be exempt from federal immigration laws.
Other states: The Governor of Texas recently signed legislation
similar to AB 540 allowing long-term immigrants to pay in-state
tuition at Texas public colleges and universities if they:
a)graduated from a Texas high school; and, b) attended a Texas high
school for three years.
Analysis Prepared by : Paul Mitchell / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960
FN: 0003586