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