BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1887
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1887 (Low)
As Amended April 7, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Judiciary |8-2 |Mark Stone, Alejo, |Wagner, Gallagher |
| | |Chau, Chiu, Weber, | |
| | |Holden, Maienschein, | |
| | |Ting | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Accountability |6-3 |Cristina Garcia, |Lackey, Brough, |
| | |Burke, Frazier, |Beth Gaines |
| | |Irwin, Medina, | |
| | |Rodriguez | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |15-5 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Gallagher, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Jones, Obernolte, |
| | |Calderon, Chang, |Wagner |
| | |Daly, Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, McCarty, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
AB 1887
Page 2
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Prohibits state agencies from requiring state
employees to travel to states that discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expressions, and
prohibits state agencies from approving state-funded travel to
such states, except as provided. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits any state agency, department, board, authority, or
commission, including an agency, department, board, authority,
or commission of the University of California (UC) or the
California State University (CSU), from doing either of the
following:
a) Require any of its employees, officers, or members to
travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a
law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or
repealing, existing state or local protections against
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender
identity, or gender expression or has enacted a law that
authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex
couples or their families or on the basis of sexual
orientation, gender identity, or gender expression,
including any law that creates an exemption to
antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination
against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis
of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender
expression.
b) Approve a request for state-funded or state-sponsored
travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a
law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or
repealing, existing state or local protections against
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender
identity, or gender expression, or has enacted a law that
AB 1887
Page 3
authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex
couples or their families or on the basis of sexual
orientation, gender identity, or gender expression,
including any law that creates an exemption to
antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination
against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis
of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender.
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 (AG) to develop, and
keep current, a list of states that, after June 26, 2015,
enacts a law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of
voiding or repealing, an existing state or local protection
against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
gender identity, or gender expression, or enacts a law that
authorizes or requires discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, including
any law that creates an exemption to anti-discrimination laws
in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or
their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender
identity, or gender expression. It shall be the
responsibility of an agency, department, board, authority, or
commission as described, to consult this 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)Provides that any state officer or employee of any state
agency may confer with other persons, associations, or
organizations outside of the state wherever it may be of
assistance in the conduct of state business. Permits, to the
AB 1887
Page 4
extent that funds are authorized and available, reimbursement
for actual and necessary expenses for travel outside of the
state as authorized. Specifies that this section does not
apply to legislators or their staff. (Government Code Section
11032.)
2)Provides, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that all persons
within this state are free and equal, and no matter what their
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital
status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or
immigration status, are entitled to the full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, or services of all
business establishments of every kind whatsoever. Defines
"sex" to include gender identity and gender expression.
(Civil Code Section 51.)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriation
Committee, costs would involve communicating the new travel
policy throughout state government, including UC and CSU, and
regular monitoring the AG's list of states subject to the travel
ban by state agencies when employees plan out-of-state travel.
For any agency, these costs should be minor and absorbable.
Costs to the AG will also be minor and absorbable.
COMMENTS: According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCLS) Web site, as of late 2015, 21 states had
enacted some form of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),
at least some of which were passed in response to recent court
cases recognizing same-sex marriage or other rights affecting
the LGBT community. For example, North Carolina recently
enacted an anti-discrimination measure that pre-empts any local
anti-discrimination ordinance; because some of the local
ordinances bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
and gender identity, while the state law does not, the impact of
the law is to overturn local measures enacted to protect LGBT
AB 1887
Page 5
rights. The author and sponsors believe that such laws and
inconsistent are inconsistent with California values, and that
the state should make a statement against such laws by refusing
to require or fund employee travel to such states.
California Anti-Discrimination Laws: California's two most
significant anti-discrimination laws - the Unruh Civil Rights
Act (Civil Code Section 51) and the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act (Government Code Sections 12900-12996) -
prohibit discrimination on a number of grounds, including most
significantly for purposes of this bill, sexual orientation,
gender identity, and gender expression. According to the author
and sponsors, California has been a leader in protecting the
civil rights of, and preventing discrimination against, the LGBT
community. California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, for example,
prohibits all business establishments "of any kind whatsoever"
from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, gender
identity, and gender expression. The author and sponsors
believe it would be inappropriate, given the values expressed in
our laws, to allow state funds to support states with
discriminatory laws. As a step in this direction, therefore,
this bill would prohibit state agencies from requiring employees
to travel to states that discriminate against the LGBT
community, or to any state that permits such discrimination by
private entities.
Specifically, this bill does two things. First, this bill would
prevent any state agency, department, board, or commission -
including those of the University of California and the
California State University - from requiring an employee,
officer, or member to travel to a state with discriminatory
laws, or from approving any state funding for travel to such
states. The purpose of the bill is apparently twofold: 1) to
prevent a state agency from compelling an employee to travel to
an environment in which he or she may feel uncomfortable; and 2)
to prevent the use of state funds to benefit a state that does
not adequately protect the civil rights of certain classes of
AB 1887
Page 6
people. This bill exempts from the above restrictions any
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.
Second, this bill will require the AG to use its expertise to
develop, and update, a list of states to which the bill
reasonably applies. Not only will assigning this task to a
single agency create uniformity across state agencies, a single
agency with considerable legal expertise will be able to examine
both the text and, if necessary, the legislative history. The
AG will be required to post this list on its Web site, and state
agencies shall be responsible for consulting this list in
establishing policies concerning state-funded travel.
Likely Impact: It is not clear how often state agencies require
state employees to travel to other states as a condition of
their employment, or how often boards or commissions require
their appointed or elected members to travel to other states as
part of their prescribed duties. According to a preliminary
response from the Department of General Services (DGS), however,
many agencies, especially in the executive branch, occasionally
send employees to other states. However, because the DGS
database does not indicate the reason for each trip, it is
impossible to say how many of these trips would have been
covered by the exemptions in this bill - that is, how many of
the trips were necessary for the enforcement of California law,
to meet prior contractual agreements, or for the protection of
public health, welfare, or safety. But whatever the exact
number, and however many of the trips would be covered by
exemptions, travel expenses would seem to constitute a small
portion of the total amount of money that California spends or
invests in other states - thereby greatly limiting the impact of
the bill. For example, employees of the Department of
Transportation visit other states, including Indiana, where
certain goods purchased by California are manufactured,
including buses. Employees apparently travel in order to
AB 1887
Page 7
inspect production sites and meet with manufacturers in
developing manufacturing specifications. But if the premise of
this bill is that state funds should not be spent in states that
discriminate against LGBT persons, why would California ban
state-funded travel but still spend a presumably much greater
amount on procuring goods from that same state?
Analysis Prepared by:
Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN:
0002881