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