BILL ANALYSIS
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 2296 (Mullin) - As Amended: April 1, 2008
As Proposed to Be Amended
SUBJECT : ANIMALS: CALIFORNIA ANIMAL ENTERPRISE PROTECTION ACT
KEY ISSUES :
1)SHOULD CAREFULLY CIRCUMSCRIBED PROTECTIONS BE ENACTED IN AN
EFFORT TO BETTER PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE FACE OF AN
INCREASING NUMBER OF REPORTS OF FRIGHTENING ASSAULTS ON
ACADEMICS ENGAGED IN ANIMAL RESEARCH AND TESTING?
2)SHOULD THE PROPOSED PROTECTIONS IN THIS BILL BE MORE CAREFULLY
LIMITED TO PROTECT UNIVERSITIES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, AS
OPPOSED TO A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL ENTITIES AS WELL?
3)SHOULD THE COMMITTEE TAKE THE APPARENTLY UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF
GRANTING BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS THEIR OWN SEPARATE
STANDING TO BRING LAW SUITS ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYEES FOR ACTS
THAT OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THE WORKPLACE, EVEN IF THOSE EMPLOYEES
CHOOSE NOT TO SUE THEMSELVES?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
In response to frightening and egregious attacks against
University of California animal research employees and their
families in their homes, this bill seeks to create more criminal
protections for prosecution of animal extremists as well as
broad and in some ways unprecedented new civil remedies for
those victimized as a result of their employment in the "animal
enterprise." The breadth of "animal enterprise" extends to
commercial and nonprofit entities that are in some way arguably
engaged in animal research, testing and educational activities,
as specified. Modeled after a broad-reaching federal law
enacted in 2006, the measure seeks to protect third and tertiary
parties from threats of violence or intimidation as a result of
1
their connection to the animal enterprise.
The measure is sponsored by the University of California (U.C.)
on behalf of its academics engaged in research that includes
animal research and testing. In support of the bill, U.C.
provided the Committee with frightening and disturbing stories
of academics and their families reportedly facing literal
assault and battery at their homes by animal protection
activists clearly crossing the line from speech into egregious
criminal misconduct. One such story reportedly involved a
well-publicized and patently outrageous attempted home invasion
just this past February by six masked animal rights extremists
at the home of a U.C. Santa Cruz faculty member who had used
mice in breast cancer research. Another such set of incidents
reportedly occurred recently where Berkeley police have been
investigating a two-month string of animal rights related
vandalism at the homes of six U.C. Berkeley scientists. The
names and addresses of the scientists were reportedly posted on
animal activist websites, along with graphic descriptions of the
academicians' alleged animal testing.
To help combat this alarming reported trend against academic
freedom, U.C. is sponsoring this measure which contains an
unprecedented cadre of potential remedies and penalties. These
include but are not limited to a broad new private right of
action for acts including nonviolent "intimidation" and
"attempted intimidation" of any person that has a connection to
or transacts business with an animal enterprise -to be available
not only to the employees of these entities, as well as their
families and co-residents -- with damages, both compensatory and
punitive, available, as well as the recovery of attorney's fees,
court costs, and the costs of expert witnesses. Employees would
also be granted injunctive relief to have their names removed
from the Internet. And perhaps most unusually, the measure
proposes creating a private right of action for employers of the
alleged victim described above - whether or not the employee
chooses to sue themselves - and the employers, not just academic
institutions but all private and public entities covered by the
bill - could also have standing to sue.
In support of the bill and reflecting the broad call for new
protections by academic institutions, sponsor U.C. writes in
part that "Research involving the use of animals has contributed
2
significantly to the discovery and development of critical
scientific breakthroughs and medical therapies? Animal research
can be an important step in determining whether a promising
therapy might be safe for human use. Radiation therapy and
other cancer treatments, the development of vaccines, organ
transplantation, and many mental health treatments have all
resulted in part from work done on animals? Animal research is
subject to strict federal and state regulation designed to
ensure humane and ethical treatment of animals? When such work
is disrupted by the actions used by extreme animal rights
activists, the deleterious impact on important research can be
significant and can delay the development of greatly-needed and
potentially lifesaving therapies." In opposition, civil
liberties groups like the ACLU and the Newspaper Publishers
Association complain that the bill raises serious constitutional
concerns, including that they feel it is overbroad by
potentially prohibiting the posting of truthful, accurate
information on the Internet, and risking the imposition of civil
and criminal liability for conduct that is commonly related to
public protest. They state that there may indeed be competing
academic freedom rights that are worthy of new protections but
"that is not what is proposed by this legislation." Animal
rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States also
assert in opposition to the bill that as currently drafted it
would regrettably have a chilling effect on lawful advocacy.
This analysis raises a host of constitutional and policy
questions about the measure, as well as issues about its
breadth, while acknowledging the seriousness of the patent
threat to academic freedom that appears to be at the heart of
the sponsor's goals for the measure. The analysis suggests that
the Committee may wish to consider the constitutional merits of
substantially narrowing the scope of the bill, including
significantly narrowing for whom the proposed new remedies are
provided, in order to more closely mirror the approaches of the
so-called "Evans Model" (referring to the path breaking bills
carried by Assemblywoman Evans of this Committee in this area of
the law, discussed in the analysis) which the Committee and the
Legislature have recently supported in their effort to narrowly
protect reproductive rights workers and public officials in
their execution of constitutionally-protected rights.
SUMMARY : Seeks to enact new state crimes analogous to those
3
created under the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act
(AETA), and to create sweeping, and in some respects
unprecedented, new civil remedies and standing for any "animal
enterprise," as well as their employees and family members of
employees and any person who has a connection to, relationship
with or transaction with an animal enterprise. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Defines "animal enterprise as a nonprofit or academic research
enterprise that uses animals or animal products for education,
research, or testing, as well as any commercial entity
described in certain sections of the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) published by the United States
Census Bureau (generally biological manufacturing, research,
development and testing businesses) that uses animals or
animal products for research and testing.
2)Provides that no person, business, or association shall
knowingly publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a
home address, home telephone number, or image of any employee
of an animal enterprise or other individuals residing at the
same home address of the employee of an animal enterprise, as
specified.
3)Provides that every person who commits any of the specified
acts for the purpose of injuring, intimidating, or interfering
with the operations of an animal enterprise, including but not
limited to nonviolent "intimidation" or "attempted
intimidation" of a person who has a connection to,
relationship with or transactions with an animal enterprise,
or who damages or destroys property because of its connection
to an animal enterprise, as specified, is guilty of a
misdemeanor and provides alternate punishments depending on
the elements of the offense of up to 6 months imprisonment in
a county jail and a fine of up to $2,000, or up to one year in
a county jail and a fine of up to $25,000, with such fines
being increased for subsequent offenses and other
circumstances, as specified.
4)Creates an additional private civil cause of action for any of
the foregoing crimes, and authorizes not just the victim of
these prohibitions to maintain an action for damages and for
injunctive relief, as specified, but also proposes, apparently
4
in unprecedented fashion, that the employer of an alleged
victim would have standing to sue even if the person actually
aggrieved chooses not to sue, and further authorizes the
Attorney General and other public prosecutors to bring an
action to enforce the provisions of this measure as well as to
collect civil penalties.
5)States the intent of the Legislature to balance the public's
right of access to information and the ability of animal
researchers to conduct their work without fear of being
targets of harassment and threats of violence.
6)Provides that an interactive computer service or access
software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title of
the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section
unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause bodily
harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause bodily harm
to an owner or employee of an animal enterprise or any person
residing at the same home address.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that no person shall knowingly post the home address
or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or
of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet
knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and
intending to cause imminent great bodily harm to that
individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.
A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily
injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or
child, is an alternate felony/misdemeanor. (Government Code
Section 6254.21(b).)
2)Provides that no person shall knowingly publicly post or
display (intentionally communicate or otherwise make available
to the general public with the intent to: a) incite a third
person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person
identified in the posting or display, or b) to a co-resident
of that person, where the third person is likely to commit
this harm. Victims can demand that the personal information be
removed from an Internet website if the person identified or
the co-resident in objectively reasonable fear for his or her
personal safety. (Government Code sections 6218 and 6218.05.)
5
3)Provides that victims of domestic abuse and stalking may
protect against the public disclosure of their work, home, or
school address by participating in the "Safe at Home" program,
which permits program participants to use a substitute mailing
address maintained by the Secretary of State whenever their
home or work address is required for documents that may become
public records. (Government Code sections 6205 to 6211.)
4)Provides that any employer, whose employee has suffered
unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any
individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out
or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a
temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the
employee and, at the discretion of the court, any number of
other employees at the workplace, and, if appropriate, other
employees at other workplaces of the employer. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 527.8.)
5)Provides that "true threats" by which a speaker means to
communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act
of violence to a particular person or group of persons, are
not protected by the First Amendment. (Virginia v. Black
(2003) 538 U.S. 343, 359-360.)
6)Provides that a state may not forbid or proscribe advocacy of
the use of force, violence, or unlawful actions except where
such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
(Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) 395 U.S. 444, 447.)
7)Provides, under the Public Records Act (PRA), that all records
of state and local agencies are open and the public has the
right to inspect those records under specified conditions.
The PRA exempts specified records, and other provisions of law
exempt specified records from the PRA requirement of open
records. (Government Code 6250 et seq.)
8)Already establishes various criminal offenses in connection
with obstruction of, or interference with, among other things,
places of business. (E.g., Penal Code section 602 (trespass);
section 647c (blocking walkways); and section 594
(vandalism).)
6
9)Provides federal law enforcement officials with the authority
to prosecute animal rights activists who commit crimes, under
the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AETA). (18
U.S.C. Section 43.)
10)Affords colleges and universities and their faculty
protection for academic freedom as a constitutional interest
in addition to protections for employee-speech. See Garcetti
v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) . See also Grutter v.
Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) ("We have long recognized that,
given the important purpose of public education and the
expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the
university environment, universities occupy a special niche in
our constitutional tradition"); Keyishian v. Board of Regents
of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) ("Our
Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom,
which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to
the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special
concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws
that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. 'The
vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more
vital than in the community of American schools'" (quoting
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487); Sweezy v. New
Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957) (a governmental enquiry
into the contents of a scholar's lectures at a state
university "unquestionably was an invasion of [his] liberties
in the areas of academic freedom and political
expression--areas in which government should be extremely
reticent to tread").
COMMENTS : This measure, sponsored by the University of
California (U.C.), seeks to deter a reported increase in
frightening and egregious attacks against U.C. animal research
employees and their families in their homes by animal rights
activists. To address these attacks, the bill seeks to create
more criminal protections for the prosecution of animal
extremists as well as broad and in some ways unprecedented new
civil remedies for those victimized as a result of their
employment in the "animal enterprise." The author's proposed
definition of "animal enterprise" extends not only to nonprofit
and academic entities engaged in animal research, testing and
educational activities but also to many commercial businesses
7
engaged in manufacturing, analytical testing and product
development, primarily with regard to biological and life
sciences, and the bill is modeled after a broad-reaching federal
law enacted in 2006 designed to shield animal researchers from
threats of violence or intimidation as a result of their work.
In support of the bill, U.C. provided the Committee with some
frightening and disturbing stories of academics and their
families reportedly facing literal assault and battery at their
homes by animal protection activists clearly crossing the line
from speech into egregious criminal misconduct. One such story
reportedly involved a well-publicized and patently outrageous
attempted home invasion just this past February by six masked
animal rights extremists at the home of a U.C. Santa Cruz
faculty member who had used mice in breast cancer research.
Another such set of incidents reportedly occurred recently where
Berkeley police have been investigating a two-month string of
animal rights related vandalism at the homes of six U.C.
Berkeley scientists. The names and addresses of the scientists
were reportedly posted on animal activist websites, along with
graphic descriptions of the academicians' alleged animal
testing.
To help combat this alarming reported trend against academic
freedom, this measure contains an unprecedented cadre of
potential remedies and penalties. These include but are not
limited to a broad new private right of action -- not just
available to the academician but to his/her family or
co-residents -- with damages, both compensatory and punitive,
available, as well as the recovery of attorney's fees, court
costs, and the costs of expert witnesses. The academician also
would be granted injunctive relief to have his/her name removed
from the Internet. And perhaps most unusually, the measure
proposes creating a private right of action to the employers of
the alleged victim described above - whether or not the employee
chooses to sue themselves - and the employers, not just academic
institutions but all private and public entities covered by the
bill - could also sue for damages.
Below some of the principal constitutional and policy issues
raised by the current proposed bill language is explored.
However first a quick review of current law which is much more
carefully circumscribed in this area is noted. (The analysis
8
omits any consideration of the Penal Code sections of the
proposal that are outside the jurisdiction and expertise of the
Committee.)
Assemblywoman Evans' Much More Narrowly Tailored Precedents in
This Area of Constitutional Law: Although key components of
this measure are, as noted above, closely modeled after the
federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AETA), a
broad-reaching federal law enacted in 2006 by Congress to combat
animal rights misconduct, it is important to note that there are
important state law analogs this Committee may wish to review in
determining the proper scope and breadth of this proposal.
Fortunately it need look no further than the landmark
legislation of one its current members, Assemblywoman Evans, who
has authored the two key measures in this area of the law
pertaining to the proper balance between protecting the
constitutional rights of reproductive rights workers and
patients and the First Amendment, and protecting the
constitutional rights of public officials to engage in the work
of democracy and the First Amendment.
AB 2251 (Evans) of 2006 -- Reproductive Rights : Two years ago,
this measure by Assemblywoman Evans -- subsequently codified --
much more narrowly sought to proactively confront a challenge to
the safety of women and abortion providers by imposing criminal
and civil penalties solely for the posting of information about
reproductive health service providers, employees, volunteers,
and patients with intent to threaten serious bodily injury or to
incite others to cause such injury. The bill further gave these
individuals who were exercising clear constitutional rights
(including of course the right of privacy) the right to make a
written demand for the removal of their information from any
Internet website that posts or displays personal information.
In addition, the new law subjects to criminal and civil actions
any person, business, or association that solicits, sells, or
trades the address, phone number, or image of covered parties if
the person, business, or association knows, or should know, that
the information will be used with an intent to threaten or
incite another to cause great bodily injury to the identified
person.
AB 1595 (Evans) of 2005 - Public Officials : The year preceding
the enactment of protections for reproductive rights workers and
9
patients, the Legislature also supported a measure by
Assemblywoman Evans - also subsequently codified but which was
considered by the Public Safety Committee rather than Judiciary
-- also much more narrowly sought to protect the
constitutionally-protected rights of public officials to be free
of harassment and intimidation in the execution of their
constitutional duties. That measure narrowly prohibits a
person, business or association from (1) posting or displaying
on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an
elected or appointed official, if that official has made a
written demand that the home address or telephone number not be
disclosed; or (2) soliciting the home address or telephone
number of an elected or appointed public official for the
purpose of posting or displaying the information in violation of
the prohibitions in this bill and in existing law.
What the Evans Measures Did Not Contain That Are Currently
Contained in The Mock-Up of This Proposal : Assuming this
Committee is prepared to apply the "Evans Model" of
constitutionally-grounded protections noted above to
academicians who do animal research and testing to help protect
these researchers from potential heinous criminal misconduct and
harassment, it is important to note the many substantial ways in
which the approach approved previously by the Committee and the
Legislature in the Evans measures (the Evans Model) is much
narrower than the one contained in this proposal. These
differences include:
Much Broader and Perhaps Unprecedented Standing: The Evans
Model narrowly permits only specified victims of harassment
and intimidation via the posting on the Internet of specific
personal identifying information to go to court. This measure
on the other hand seeks to authorize not just the alleged
victim of a violation to maintain an action for damages and
for injunctive relief, as specified, but also proposes,
apparently in unprecedented fashion, that the employer of the
alleged victim has standing to stand in the shoes of the
victim or his or her family to sue -- whether or not the
victim chooses to sue, and indeed even if the employee does
not wish to sue. The right of employers to sue would
encompass not only acts that occur at the workplace but also
any alleged act that takes place anywhere away from the
employer's premises. This provision is in contrast not only
10
to the Evans Model but to existing law, which grants standing
to employers only to protect against violence or threats of
violence in the workplace.
Much Broader Damages and Other Remedies: The Evans Model
narrowly provides for the limited remedies for public
officials and reproductive rights workers to make a written
demand that their private personal information including their
home address or telephone number be removed from the Internet,
and further gives these individuals the right to seek criminal
and civil damages against any person, business, or association
that solicits, sells, or trades the address, phone number, or
image of covered parties if the person, business, or
association knows, or should know, that the information will
be used with an intent to threaten or incite another to cause
great bodily injury to the identified person. This measure on
the other hand seeks to provide a broad new private right of
action -- not just available to the academician but to his
family or co-residents -- with damages, both compensatory and
punitive, available, as well as the recovery of attorney's
fees, court costs, and the costs of expert witnesses.
Much Broader Group of Individuals and Entities Covered: As
noted above, The Evans Model narrowly provides for limited
remedies available to a carefully narrowed group of potential
plaintiffs - either carefully specified reproductive rights
workers and their patients or carefully specified public
officials, all felt to possess clear constitutionally-grounded
interests. As noted, this measure on the other hand seeks to
permit not just academicians and their families threatened by
harassment or distribution of their names on the Internet, to
seek redress, but it proposes allowing an unclear number of
public and private entities to sue in their own right for
alleged violations of the measure's much broader scheme of
provisions.
Key Constitutional and Policy Issues Raised by the Current
Version of the Bill : For all of its laudable aims, this bill
raises a host of constitutional and policy questions. While no
person should be subjected to many of the acts prohibited by the
bill, the Legislature has not previously seen fit to create
special statutory rights to sue -- absent a countervailing
cognizable constitutional interest, such as those implicated in
11
the exercise of rights to reproductive freedom and to the
associational and expressive rights related to performing the
constitutional duties of an elected public official.
By extending rights and protections to a large class of
commercial enterprises - admittedly engaged in lawful and
perhaps even necessary business activities, even if not
constitutionally enshrined - this bill extends far beyond any
existing state precedent. Were the bill to be enacted with the
proposed definition of "animal enterprise," it is difficult to
articulate a basis on which to deny other businesses the same
rights and protections when they are engaged in similarly lawful
but potentially controversial activities that may be the target
of opponents exercising free speech rights, such as tobacco and
oil companies, defense suppliers, gun manufacturers and the
like.
Nevertheless, the author has identified a constitutionally
cognizable interest here that the Committee may find rises to
similar constitutional dimension as the earlier bills by
Assemblywoman Evans recently enacted by the Legislature: namely,
the protection of the right to academic freedom shared by
colleges and universities and their faculty. See, e.g.,
Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006) 547 U.S. 410 (colleges and
universities and their faculty enjoy protection for academic
freedom as a constitutional interest in addition to protections
for employee-speech); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
("We have long recognized that, given the important purpose of
public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and
thought associated with the university environment, universities
occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition");
Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385
U.S. 589, 603 (1967) ("Our Nation is deeply committed to
safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to
all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That
freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment,
which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over
the classroom. 'The vigilant protection of constitutional
freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American
schools'" (quoting Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487); Sweezy
v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957) (a governmental
enquiry into the contents of a scholar's lectures at a state
university "unquestionably was an invasion of [his] liberties in
12
the areas of academic freedom and political expression--areas in
which government should be extremely reticent to tread").
Regents of the Univ. of Cal v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265, at
313-14 (Powell, J.) (academic freedom constitutes a
countervailing constitutional interest against which to weigh
individual constitutional rights).
The Committee may therefore conclude that this recognized
constitutional right is deserving of special protection against
acts of violence and threats of violence. This objective could
be accomplished by redefining "animal enterprise" to mean "an
entity that lawfully uses animals or animal products for
education or research in any exercise of a constitutional right
to academic freedom."
As indicated above, the bill also departs from existing
precedent by affording every covered employer a right to sue for
any employee who is allegedly aggrieved by a violation of the
acts prohibited by the bill - including some that may be
somewhat subjective, such as "nonviolent attempted intimidation"
- regardless of where those acts take place and regardless of
the employee's wishes. This is in contrast to the Evans Model,
which limits the right to seek relief to the injured person or a
public prosecutor.
Again, despite the admirable aims of the author and sponsor to
protect academic employees in their homes, the bill may sweep
too far. If well-meaning universities were able to act on
behalf of frightened and vulnerable employees who are targeted
for violence in their homes because of their association with
the university, it is also true that the bill would apparently
permit less-virtuous employers to override the wishes of their
employees to sue protesters they encounter on the street.
Likewise, there is no obvious bright line limiting the principle
behind the bill to employers involved in an animal enterprise,
rather than to other employers who may be the focus of protests
because of their activities. Assuming the Committee wishes to
pass some version of this legislation, it may wish to discuss
with the author whether the bill should move forward without the
proposed subdivision (b) of the proposed Penal Code section to
be added at 606.1.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill and reflecting the
13
broad call for new protections by academic institutions, sponsor
U.C. writes in part that "Research involving the use of animals
has contributed significantly to the discovery and development
of critical scientific breakthroughs and medical therapies?
Animal research can be an important step in determining whether
a promising therapy might be safe for human use. Radiation
therapy and other cancer treatments, the development of
vaccines, organ transplantation, and many mental health
treatments have all resulted in part from work done on animals?
Animal research is subject to strict federal and state
regulation designed to ensure humane and ethical treatment of
animals? When such work is disrupted by the actions used by
extreme animal rights activists, the deleterious impact on
important research can be significant and can delay the
development of greatly-needed and potentially lifesaving
therapies." Many other entities wrote the Committee in support,
as noted in the list below.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In opposition, civil liberties groups
like the ACLU and the Newspaper Publishers Association complain
that the bill raises serious constitutional concerns, including
that they feel it is overbroad by potentially prohibiting the
posting of truthful, accurate information on the Internet, and
risking the imposition of civil and criminal liability for
conduct that is commonly related to public protest. They state
that there may indeed be competing academic freedom rights that
are worthy of new protections but "that is not what is proposed
by this legislation." Animal rights groups like the Humane
Society of the United States also assert in opposition to the
bill that as currently drafted it would regrettably have a
chilling effect on lawful advocacy..." Other entities wrote the
Committee in opposition, as noted in the list below.
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION :
Support
University of California (sponsor)
Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities
(AICUU)
BayBio
BIOCOM
California Biomedical Research Association
14
California Healthcare Institute
California Institute of Technology
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Postsecondary Education Commission
California State University
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Feld Entertainment, Inc.
Stanford University
University of Southern California
One individual
Opposition
California Newspaper Publishers Association
Animal Place
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
The Humane Society of the United States
One individual
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin Baker and Drew Liebert / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334
15