BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2427|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2427
Author: Eng (D)
Amended: 7/1/08 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/4/08
AYES: Cox, Harman, Kehoe, Machado
NO VOTE RECORDED: Negrete McLeod
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEVEL. COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/23/08
AYES: Aanestad, Denham, Florez, Harman, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ridley-Thomas, Calderon, Corbett,
Simitian
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-7, 4/21/08 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Professions and vocations
SOURCE : California Veterinary Medicine Association
DIGEST : This bill restricts a city or county from
prohibiting a person, or group of persons, authorized by
one of the agencies in the Department of Consumer Affairs
by a license, certificate, or other such means to engage in
a particular business, from engaging in any act or series
of acts that falls within the statutory of regulatory
definition of that business, occupation, or profession.
This bill does not void local ordinances in effect prior to
January 1, 2009.
CONTINUED
AB 2427
Page
2
ANALYSIS : The California Department of Consumer Affairs
(DCA) issues statewide licenses in more than 100 business
and 200 professional categories, including: architects,
automotive repair facilities, contractors, cosmetologists,
doctors, dentists, engineers, and veterinarians.
Semi-autonomous boards, bureaus, commissions, and other
regulatory entities, whose members are appointed by the
Governor and the Legislature and which are administered by
the DCA, establish minimum statewide qualifications and
levels of competency for licensure and enforce occupational
standards of practice.
Counties or cities may not prohibit a person authorized by
an agency of the DCA to engage in a particular business,
from engaging in that business, occupation, or profession,
or any portion thereof (AB 2310 [Shoemaker], of 1967).
A 2007 appellate curt decision in California Veterinary
Medical Association (CVMA) v. City of West Hollywood found
that state law does not preempt or otherwise prohibit a
City of West Hollywood ordinance which, to prevent animal
cruelty, imposed a ban on the performance of declawing
procedures on any animal within the city. The court found
that the language enacted by the 1967 Shoemaker bill only
prohibits a local agency fro imposing additional licensing
requirements or qualifications on a state licensed
profession. The court also found that, in the California
Veterinary Medical Practice Act, the Legislature has
neither explicitly nor implicitly preempted local
regulations by occupying the field of regulating the
practice of veterinary medicine. As a result, the court
decided that West Hollywood's declawing ordinance was
permissible as an incidental restriction on the manner in
which veterinary medicine is practiced.
This bill restricts a city or county from prohibiting a
person, or group of persons, authorized by one of the
agencies in the Department of Consumer Affairs by a
license, certificate, or other such means to engage in a
particular business, from engaging in any act or series of
acts that falls within the statutory of regulatory
definition of that business, occupation, or profession.
This bill does not prohibit the enforcement of a local
ordinance effective prior to January 1, 2009.
AB 2427
Page
3
Comments
Last year's California Veterinary Medical Association
(CVMA) v. West Hollywood decision disrupted a balance
between local regulatory power and the state power to
license businesses and professions that had been maintained
for nearly 40 years. Veterinarians and other
state-licensed professionals think that the court's
decision could allow cities and counties to ban a variety
of medical practices, including elective cosmetic surgery,
the use of mercury in dental fillings, and some fertility
procedures. That result undermines the fundamental purpose
of statewide licensing by substituting the judgment of
local elected officials for that of state regulators.
DCA's appointed regulatory bodies possess the necessary
expertise to regulate the uniform statewide conduct of the
professions. Granting such wide latitude to cities and
counties could result in a patchwork of conflicting local
standards for hundreds of different professions, confusing
both licensees and consumers. This bill restores the
equilibrium between the state's power to establish and
enforce uniform occupational standards and local
governments' power to enforce regulations protecting the
public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
Related legislation
AB 395 (Koretz), 2003, would have prohibited licensed
veterinarians from performing or arranging surgical
declawing, onychectomies and tendonectomies on any domestic
or exotic cat. This bill was held in the Assembly Business
and Professions Committee.
AB 1857 (Koretz) Chapter 876, Statutes of 2004, makes it a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for
a period not to exceed one year, by a fine of $10,000, or
by both, to declaw any cat that is a member of an exotic or
native wild cat species, as defined.
SB 1548 (Figueroa) Chapter 467, Statutes of 2004, initially
included language which would have made it a misdemeanor
for any person to crop ears of any dog, or to procure the
cropping of a dog's ears within the state of California,
AB 2427
Page
4
except for the treatment of disease or injury of the dog,
as defined. Defined ear cropping as the surgical
alteration of the pinna that is performed for the purpose
of manipulating the ears of any dog for cosmetic procedures
so the ears heal pointed. This language was removed from
the bill in Assembly Appropriations because of major
opposition from breeders. However, the CVMA was in
support of this language.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Unable to verify at time of writing - support
reflects prior version)
California Veterinary Medicine Association (source)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees
American Nurses Association/California
American Society of Landscape Architects
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
California Dental Association
California Hospital Association
California Optometric Association
OPPOSITION : (Unable to verify at time of writing -
opposition reflects prior version)
Action for Animals
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Protection Institute
Animal Switchboard
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
Born Free USA
California Animal Association
California Contract Cities Association
California Federation for Animal Legislation
California Municipal Revenue & Tax Association
California State Association of Counties
City of West Hollywood
Give A Dog A Home
League of California Cities
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
San Diego Animal Advocates
AB 2427
Page
5
The Humane Society of the United States
The Human Society Veterinary Medical Association
The League of Humane Voters
The Paw Project
United Animal Nations
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Bass, Beall, Benoit,
Berg, Blakeslee, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Cook, Coto, De La Torre, De Leon, DeSaulnier, DeVore,
Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani,
Gaines, Galgiani, Garcia, Garrick, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Horton, Houston, Huff, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Karnette, Keene, La Malfa, Lieber, Lieu, Ma, Maze,
Mendoza, Mullin, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra, Plescia,
Portantino, Price, Sharon Runner, Salas, Silva, Smyth,
Solorio, Spitzer, Strickland, Swanson, Torrico, Tran,
Villines, Walters, Wolk, Nunez
NOES: Feuer, Hancock, Laird, Leno, Levine, Nava, Ruskin
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Berryhill, Brownley, Davis,
Dymally, Krekorian, Saldana, Soto
AGB:do 7/1/08 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****