BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1887
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Cristina Garcia, Chair
AB 1887
(Low) - As Amended April 7, 2016
SUBJECT: State government: discrimination: travel
SUMMARY: Bans state entities from requiring or funding state
employee travel to states with laws that discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender
expression, and directs the California Attorney General to
create, maintain, and post a current list of such states on its
Internet Web site. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits any state agency, department, board, authority, or
commission, including the University of California (UC) or the
California State University (CSU), from doing either of the
following:
a) Requiring any of its employees, officers, or members to
travel to a state that has enacted a law that discriminates
on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or
gender expression, as specified; or,
b) Approving a request for state-funded or state-sponsored
travel to a state that has enacted a law that discriminates
AB 1887
Page 2
on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or
gender expression, as specified.
2)Specifies that the prohibition created by this bill does not
apply to travel that is necessary for the enforcement of
California law, to meet prior contractual obligations, or for
the protection of public health, welfare, or safety.
3)Requires the California Attorney General to develop, and keep
current, a list of such states to post to its Internet Web
site.
4)Makes state entities responsible for consulting the list on
the Attorney General's Web site in order to comply with the
travel and funding restrictions imposed by this bill.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes, under Government Code Section 11032, out-of-state
(OST) travel for any state agency officer or employee upon
approval by the Governor. Exempts legislators or their staff.
2)Prohibits, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, all business
establishments of any kind whatsoever from discriminating on
the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expression, and a number of other grounds.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: This bill prohibits any state agency, department,
board, or commission, including those of the UC and CSU, from
AB 1887
Page 3
requiring an employee, officer, or member to travel to a state
with discriminatory laws, or approving any state funding for
travel to such states. Exemptions are provided for any OST
travel that is necessary for the enforcement of California law,
to meet prior contractual obligations, or for the protection of
public health, welfare, or safety.
Existing law permits OST travel upon approval from the
Governor's office. State entities are required to submit their
annual travel plans to the Department of Finance. The plans
describe an entity's trips for that year, including both mission
critical trips and discretionary trips that have supporting
documentation showing they are a benefit to the state. Upon
approval, entities must work through the Department of General
Services (DGS) when making travel arrangements.
Many agencies, particularly in the executive branch,
occasionally send employees to other states. For example, DGS
reports that its air travel database shows there were over
10,000 OST "person trips" in 2015. Each employee who travels is
counted as a separate trip, even if multiple employees are
traveling to the same location. Therefore, a group of employees
traveling on a single trip would be recorded as multiple
person-trips. Since the DGS database does not indicate the
reason for each trip, it is unknown how many of these trips
would have been exempt from the prohibition in this bill.
Recently, North Carolina and Mississippi enacted discriminatory
laws relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender
expression. In response, other states have banned non-essential
travel to North Carolina and Mississippi via gubernatorial or
administrative, rather than legislative, action.
The author states, "As a leader in protecting civil rights and
preventing discrimination, California should not be funding
states with discriminatory state laws." The author contends
that the ban in this bill will "send a strong message that such
AB 1887
Page 4
laws are not acceptable to the State of California."
By assigning the Attorney General's office the task of compiling
and maintaining a current list of states with such laws, a
single agency with considerable legal expertise will be able to
examine both the text and, if necessary, the legislative history
of these states' laws. However, it remains unclear what impact
a California state employee travel ban, with exemptions for
essential functions, will have on these states.
DOUBLE REFERRAL: This bill has been double referred. It was
previously heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 5,
2016, and passed with a vote of 8-2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Equality California (sponsor)
National Center for Lesbian Rights (sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee
Consumer Attorneys of California
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Rainbow Chamber Silicon Valley
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Cassie Royce / A. & A.R. / (916) 319-3600
AB 1887
Page 5