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