BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Isadore Hall, III
Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1887 Hearing Date: 6/14/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Low |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/7/2016 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Felipe Lopez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: State government: discrimination: travel
DIGEST: This bill prohibits state agencies from requiring
state employees to travel to states that discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender
expression, and prohibits state agencies from approving
state-funded travel to such state, except as provided.
ANALYSIS:
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
extent that funds are authorized and available, reimbursement
for actual and necessary expenses for travel outside of the
state as authorized.
2)Provides, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that all persons
within this state are free and equal, an 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.
AB 1887 (Low) Page 2 of ?
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) Requiring 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) Approving 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
authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex
couple 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 incurred
before January 1, 2017, or for the protection of public
health, welfare, or safety.
3)Requires the Attorney General to develop, maintain, and post
on his or her Internet Web site a current list of states that,
AB 1887 (Low) Page 3 of ?
after June 26, 2015, have enacted 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
have 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, or
have 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.
4)Specifies that it shall be the responsibility of an agency,
department, board, authority, or commission described in
subdivision (b) to consult the list on the Internet Web site
of the Attorney General in order to comply with the travel and
funding restrictions imposed by this bill.
5)Makes various legislative findings pertaining to the role of
California in promoting fairness and equality and combating
discrimination.
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author, "California has
one of the strongest civil protection laws in the country, the
Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Our laws do not allow government entities or organizations that
offer services to the public to discriminate or treat people
differently. AB 1887 will send a strong message to states with
laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,
gender identity, or gender expression that such laws are not
acceptable to the State of California. By banning state-funded
travel to such states, it sends a signal that we do not tolerate
discrimination in our state and beyond our borders."
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In 1993, the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was signed into law by President
Bill Clinton in order to "ensure that interests in religious
freedom were protected." Unfortunately, according to the
author, "some states have used RFRA laws to allow discrimination
laws to allow discrimination towards certain individuals."
AB 1887 (Low) Page 4 of ?
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures' Web
site, as of late 2015, 21 states have enacted some form of RFRA.
Some of these bills were in response to the Supreme Court
decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, where the Supreme Court ruled
that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex
couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection
Clause or of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Since then, numerous states have introduced bills
that, according to the author, "are designed to allow
discrimination against LGBT people in virtually all aspects of
their lives."
For example, North Carolina recently enacted an
anti-discrimination law 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
rights.
Impact. It is not clear how often state agencies require state
employees to travel to other states as part of their employment,
or how often boards or commissions require their appointed or
elected members to travel to other states as part of their
duties. 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 out of state travel "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.
Suggested amendment. The bill currently specifies that the
prohibition shall not apply to travel that is necessary for the
protection of public health, welfare, or safety. However the
bill is not specific about who shall make that determination.
Therefore the author might wish to amend the bill to add the
following language on page 3, line 23, "as determined by the
affected agency, department, board, authority, commission of the
affected Legislative office described in subdivision (b)."
AB 1887 (Low) Page 5 of ?
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 229 (Chang, Chapter 770, Statutes of 2015) prevented state
agencies from prohibiting state employees traveling on official
state business from using transportation network companies or
lodging in a short-term rental.
AB 1732 (Ting, 2016) requires, commencing on March 1, 2017,
businesses, places of public accommodation, or state or local
government agencies that offer a single-user toilet facility to
be designated as an all-gender toilet facility, as specified.
(Pending in Senate Transportation and Housing Committee)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT:
Equality California (Co-source)
National Center for Lesbian Rights (Co-source)
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris
BAYMEC
Berkeley City Council
California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla
California Teachers Association
City of West Hollywood
Consumer Attorneys of California
Fiona Ma, State Board of Equalization
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Porterville Democratic Club
Rainbow Chamber of Silicon Valley
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Secular Coalition for California
Stonewall Democrats of Tulare County
OPPOSITION:
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Equality of California states that "as
AB 1887 (Low) Page 6 of ?
states like North Carolina and Mississippi seek to target and
jeopardize the lives of the LGBT citizens, others have just as
forcefully opposed these efforts. Businesses, cities, and other
states are taking a firm stand against this dangerous
scapegoating of and backlash against LGBT people and their
families. AB 1887 would ensure that California is part of that
nationwide effort. California is a leader when it comes to
protecting the rights of its LGBT citizens and their families.
The laws targeted by AB 1887 are completely out of step with
California's values and laws."
DUAL REFERRAL: Senate Judiciary Committee