BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






                 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                  Adam B. Schiff, Chairman
                 1999-2000 Regular Session


AB 26                                                  A
Assembly Member Migden                                 B
As Amended April 8, 1999
Hearing Date:  July 7, 1999                            2
Family Code; Health and Safety Code; Insurance Code    6
GMO:cjt                                                
                                                       
                           SUBJECT
                              
                   Domestic Partnerships

                         DESCRIPTION  

This bill would define a domestic partnership and provide  
for its registration and termination in the state.   It  
would specify the legal effect of a domestic partnership,  
establish the validity of domestic partnerships entered  
into outside of the state, and establish the right of a  
domestic partner and his or her child and the domestic  
partner of a patient's parent to make hospital visits to a  
patient.
 
The bill would require group health plans and group  
disability insurers to offer employers coverage for  
domestic partners of employees, in the same manner as other  
dependents.  If an employer elects coverage of domestic  
partners by a group health plan or a group disability  
insurer, the bill would require that the health plan or  
disability insurer that provides hospital, medical or  
surgical expense benefits for employees also enroll  
domestic partners in the same manner as other dependents.

                          BACKGROUND  

This bill is a partial resurrection of AB 1059 (Migden,  
1998), which was vetoed by the Governor.  AB 1059 contained  
only the health plan aspects of this bill, and did not  
include a definition of domestic partners.

The domestic partnership portion of the bill is a  
                                                       
(more)



AB 26 (Migden)
Page 2



resurrection of AB 2810 (Katz) of 1994, which was vetoed.
 
SB 75 (Murray), previously approved by this Committee,  
contains language very similar to this bill vis-?-vis  
domestic partnership creation, registration, and  
termination.

According to the 1990 census, there are approximately  
500,000 unmarried couples in California, 93 percent of  
which are heterosexual couples and 7 percent are same-sex  
couples.  Of the 500,000 unmarried couples, 35,000 are  
senior citizen couples who are not married because of  
social security or other pension restrictions. 

                   CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
  
  Existing law  provides for the creation of marriages,  
specifies the rights and obligations of spouses during  
marriage, and provides the procedure for the termination of  
marriage and the division of marital property and  
obligations after death or marriage.

  This bill  would define the term "domestic partners" and  
require that a domestic partnership meet all of the  
following:
 Both persons have a common residence.
 Both persons agree to be jointly responsible for each  
  other's basic living expenses incurred during the  
  partnership.
 Neither person is married or a member of another domestic  
  partnership.
 The two adults are not related to each other such that  
  they could not be married to each other under existing  
  law.
 Both persons are at least 18 years of age. 
 Both file a Declaration of Partnership with the Secretary  
  of State, as provided.
  
This bill  would require the Secretary of State to provide  
forms for the registration and termination of domestic  
partnerships, to distribute such forms in each county, and  
to establish and charge fees for the actual costs of  
processing these forms.  Termination of a partnership would  
occur under one of the following scenarios: 

                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 3



    1)  One partner serves on the other a written notice  
     that he or she is terminating the partnership;
  2)  One of the domestic partners dies;
  3)  One of the domestic partners marries;
  4)  The domestic partners no longer have a common  
residence.

A Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership would be  
filed with the Secretary of State, and all third parties to  
whom a copy of the Declaration of Partnership had been  
given would have to be notified. 

  The bill  would define the legal effect of creating a  
domestic partnership and would expressly provide that  
registration of the domestic partnership would not  
establish any rights except those specifically provided in  
the bill, and that upon termination of the partnership the  
partners shall incur none of the obligations to each other  
that the bill would establish.  

  The bill  would recognize domestic partnerships validly  
entered into and recognized in other jurisdictions.
 
  The bill  would require health facilities to allow domestic  
partners, their children, and the domestic partner of a  
patient's parent to visit a patient in the facility, except  
where no visitors are allowed or other specified  
conditions.

  The bill  would require a group health care service plan or  
group disability insurer that provides hospital, medical or  
surgical expense benefits to offer to employers or  
guaranteed associations coverage for the domestic partner  
of an employee or subscriber and to inform employers of the  
availability of this coverage.

  The bill  would further require that, if an employer elects  
to purchase coverage for domestic partners of employees or  
subscribers, the health care service plan or disability  
insurer enroll as a dependent the domestic partner of said  
employee or subscriber, in accordance with the terms and  
conditions applicable in general to all dependents under  
the plan.
                           COMMENT
  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 4



  1.Need for the bill

   According to the statistics quoted from SB 75 background  
  material, hundreds of thousands of Californians cohabit  
  without the benefit of marriage, yet their relationships  
  could be as stable as the married couples around them.   
  Especially to senior citizens, cohabitation with a  
  trusted friend, male or female, could give them  
  companionship, security and independence they so need at  
  this time of their lives. Yet, many would not, or could  
  not, marry due to restrictions on social security or  
  other pension benefits that would affect their incomes.

  The author states that AB 26 will help resolve the  
  inequity in law with respect to health benefits available  
  to employees or other group health plan subscribers.   
  Some health plans currently offer benefits to spouses  
  that are not available to a subscriber's partner because  
  the subscriber and partner are not married. The problem  
  is the same for heterosexual couples, same-sex couples,  
  and elderly couples who form committed and exclusive  
  relationships, proponents say.  AB 26 would ensure that  
  "unmarried couples will not be denied access to health  
  benefits for their partner solely because of their sexual  
  orientation or marital status."




2.    Opponents' concerns
    
  Opponents, the Committee on Moral Concerns, asserts that  
  there is no need for AB 26 because the bill doesn't  
  confer on persons who would register as domestic partners  
  any more rights than they have under current law.  If  
  they are adult friends, the CMC states, there is no  
  reason for them to register; they are free to get their  
  own job, and live with whom they please.  If they are  
  heterosexual couples and they are "unwilling to commit to  
  each other in a real marriage, the taxpayer-supported  
  state government should not commit to their relationship  
  either."

  "The historical family arrangement works best for  
  society.  Struggling families do not need their tax  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 5



  burden increased to recognize and support non-dependent  
  adult relationships, which is all domestic partnerships  
  really are. ?.Our society now suffers from high rates of  
  divorce, spousal and child abandonment, child neglect,  
  and illegitimacy.  We cannot afford to further devalue  
  the family with a new easy-in, easy-out semi-marriage.   
  This bill will hurt children." --   Committee on Moral  
  Concerns, Sacramento

   An individual who has had seven years of experience as a  
  Marriage and Family Therapist specializing in  
  partnerships of all kinds, asserts that "domestic  
  partners" are "the least stable of family units,  
  regardless of their sexual orientation.  The rate of  
  'partner turnover' makes them difficult to keep track of  
  and will open this kind of legislation to a great deal of  
  costly abuse and fraud."  This opponent and others also  
  contend that the bill could "drive up the cost of  
  healthcare and disability insurance, which, we as  
  taxpayers, will have to pay for directly through our  
  insurance plans or indirectly through taxes."

  In addition, the Secretary of State is opposed to the  
  bill, based on implementation concerns. (See Comment 8 on  
  Page 10.)

4.    Health plan coverage for domestic partners

   This bill would require group health care service plans  
  that provide hospital, medical, or surgical expense  
  benefits to offer coverage to employers or guaranteed  
  associations for the domestic partner of an employee or  
  subscriber, and would require that the health care  
  service plan inform employers and guaranteed associations  
  of the availability of coverage.

  Should an employer or guaranteed association elect to  
  purchase coverage for domestic partners, the group health  
  care service plan must enroll domestic partners who wish  
  coverage, under the same terms and conditions of group  
  coverage applicable to all dependents.

  Similarly, a group disability insurer that provides  
  hospital, medical or surgical benefits would be required  
  to offer coverage to employers and guaranteed  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 6



  associations for the domestic partner of an employee or  
  subscriber and if the employer elects to purchase the  
  coverage, the group disability insurer must enroll the  
  domestic partner under the same terms and conditions as  
  other dependents enrolled in the plan.

  The author emphasizes that this bill would not require  
  employers to provide domestic partner benefits; requiring  
  the health care service plan to offer the coverage  
  however would give the employer the choice to do so.   
  This would also make it easier and less expensive for  
  those small and medium sized employers who do want to  
  provide benefits to domestic partners, but who do not  
  have the bargaining strength of large companies and  
  municipalities.

  Further, employers who choose to obtain this coverage for  
  employees may require the employee to pay the premium, as  
  would be the case with most dependent coverage, and if  
  the employer decides to pay the premium, it would be  
  fully deductible as a business expense.  Insurers and  
  HMOs, proponents state, would not suffer unreimbursed  
  costs, as they will be able to charge a premium for the  
  coverage.

  Lastly, the author cites statistics that show 60 percent  
  of all Californians support allowing domestic partners to  
  receive benefits such as health coverage, pensions,  
  family leave and death benefits.  Reports from  
  institutions such as the University of California  
  indicate that extending health benefits to the partners  
  of gay and lesbian employees has cost UC far less than  
  predicted, adding only about $1 million to its yearly  
  $442 million health insurance bill (Los Angeles Times,  
  11/6/98).  Further, the University stated, the year-old  
  UC policy has not spawned any costly lawsuits, as was  
  suggested when then-Governor Wilson mounted an all-out  
  fight opposing the adoption by the Regents of a policy to  
  include same-sex domestic partners in the University's  
  health plan.  The argument was that lawsuits would come  
  from unmarried heterosexual couples who would want  
  coverage.  To date, no lawsuit has been filed.

4.   Domestic partnership:  comparison to SB 75 (Murray);  
  remaining issues to  reconcile  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 7




  Because both SB 75 and AB 26 would define "domestic  
  partners" and establish the procedure for the creation,  
  registration, and termination of a domestic partnership,  
  the author of AB 26 has agreed to amend into the bill  
  many of the amendments made to SB 75 when it was heard in  
  this Committee (most of them technical, such as requiring  
  joint filing of registration of partnership with the  
  Secretary of State).   However, there are remaining  
  important issues to reconcile, which should be resolved  
  to avoid inconsistent policies.
  a)   Question of preemption of local ordinances  

    The provisions of SB 75 would preempt, on and after  
    July 1, 2000, any local ordinance or law that provides  
    for the creation of a domestic partnership, except that  
    a local jurisdiction may retain or adopt policies or  
    laws that offer rights to domestic partners within that  
    jurisdiction that are in addition to the rights  
    established by state law.  In other words, SB 75 would  
    set a minimum floor. (SB 75 would also provide that  
    pre-existing domestic partnerships created under a  
    local ordinance remain valid.)

    This preemption language is absent in AB 26.   
    Proponents of AB 26 indicate their fear that with state  
    preemption of local ordinances, those domestic  
    partnerships that had qualified previously under the  
    local rules may lose status, and that broader benefits  
    granted by certain jurisdictions may not then be  
    granted to otherwise qualifying domestic partners.   
    However, since not all jurisdictions in the state have  
    adopted local ordinances and since the definition of  
    domestic partnerships is not uniform across the state,  
    having a basic definition of the term may be helpful in  
    the long run to all health care services plans and  
    businesses/associations that purchase coverage for  
    their employees or subscribers.  Further, the  
    preemption language in SB 75 preserves pre-existing  
    domestic partnerships and would not prevent local  
    jurisdictions from offering more or broader rights to  
    domestic partners within their jurisdictions.

    Language for an amendment to SB 75 has been drafted to  
    clarify that any local jurisdiction may adopt  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 8



    ordinances or policies that offer rights to domestic  
    partners or that impose duties on third parties  
    regarding domestic partners that are in addition to the  
    rights and duties provided by SB 75.  If AB 26 is  
    amended to include a preemption provision, this  
    language should be included.

    SHOULD THESE BILLS BE CONFORMED ON THE PREEMPTION  
    ISSUE?

  b)   Issues regarding property acquisition and ownership
  
     The Committee amended SB 75 to provide clearly that  
     the formation of a domestic partnership under its  
     provisions would not create any interest in any  
     property, real or personal, owned by one partner in  
     the other partner.  The intent of the amendment was to  
     set the basis for any disputes regarding ownership of  
     property in the event of termination of the domestic  
     partnership, and to encourage the domestic partners to  
     set forth in writing their agreements with regards to  
     property ownership.  This bill does not address these  
     property issues, the absence of which could lead to  
     contentious litigation in the event of a termination.

  The following language was adopted in SB 75 to address  
  these property issues.  If amended into AB 26, it should  
  be subdivisions (b) and (c) 
  Section 299.5.

     The filing of a Declaration of Domestic Partnership  
     pursuant to this division shall not change the  
     character of property, real or personal, or interest  
     in real or personal property owned by either domestic  
     partner or both of them prior to the date of filing of  
     the declaration.

     The formation of a domestic partnership under this  
     division shall not in and of itself create in one  
     partner any interest in any property, real or  
     personal, owned by the other partner.  Any property or  
     interest acquired by the partners during the domestic  
     partnership where title is shared shall be held by the  
     partners in the proportion of interest assigned to  
     each partner at the time the property or interest was  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 9



     acquired, unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing  
     by both parties.  Upon termination of the domestic  
     partnership, this subdivision shall govern the  
     division of any property jointly acquired by the  
     partners.

  SHOULD THESE PROPERTY ISSUES BE CLARIFIED?

  c)   Income and estate tax liability

     Similarly, AB 26 does not address any issue regarding  
    liabilities that could be created by a domestic  
    partnership, although it does provide that upon  
    termination of the partnership neither partner would  
    incur any of the obligations to each other created by  
    the bill (such as responsibility for basic living  
    expenses).  The bill also does not address the effect  
    of the domestic partnership on individual income or  
    estate tax liabilities of the partners.

    In SB 75, the following language was adopted to deal  
    with tax liability:

     The formation of a domestic partnership under this  
     division shall 
     not change the individual income or estate tax liability  
     of each 
     partner prior to and during the partnership, unless  
     otherwise 
     provided under another state or federal law or  
     regulation.

     SHOULD THIS TAX LIABILITY ISSUE BE CLARIFIED?
  
   d)   Basic living expenses definition  

      The definition of "basic living expenses" for which  
     both domestic partners would be responsible continues  
     to be a point of debate between AB 26 proponents and  
     SB 75 proponents.  While SB 75 now covers food,  
     clothing, transportation, shelter, utilities and all  
     other costs directly related to the maintenance of the  
     common household of the common residence of the  
     domestic partners, AB 26 would cover only food and  
     shelter.  The expanded definition of "basic living  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 10



     expenses" was adopted at the Committee hearing on SB  
     75, due to concerns that joint expenses incurred for  
     utilities (telephone, gas, electric), direct household  
     maintenance (repairs such as plumbing), transportation  
     (shared expenses for gasoline, car) and clothing (a  
     basic necessity for all intents and purposes) should  
     be the joint responsibility of the domestic  
     partnership.

     While there has been more debate over whether  
     "clothing and transportation" ought to be a "basic  
     living expense" for which the domestic partners would  
     be jointly responsible, utilities and other direct  
     household maintenance expenses have been accepted by  
     SB 75 proponents.

     There are three possible resolutions for this issue:

       1)  leave AB 26 as is, with the narrowest definition  
  or;

        2)  adopt the mini-expanded version (leaving  
     clothing and transportation  
             out) or;

       3)  adopt the current, expanded version now in SB  
  75.

     SHOULD THE DEFINITION OF "BASIC LIVING EXPENSES" BE  
     BROADENED OR LEFT AS IS?

  e)   Protection of creditors  

    To protect creditors, both SB 75 and the original  
    version of AB 26 contained language stating that any  
    person to whom expenses incurred for the basic living  
    expenses of the domestic partners are owed may enforce  
    their rights to payment against the partners.  The  
    current version of AB 26 removes this language, while  
    SB 75 clarified the responsibility to third-party  
    creditors.

    SUGGESTED AMENDMENT:   Under the definition of "joint  
    responsibility," include language protecting creditors  
    who extend credit in reliance upon the domestic  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 11



    partnership and the agreement of the partners to be  
    jointly responsible for the expenses.





5.   Jurisdictions and companies that already provide  
  benefits to domestic partnerships  

  Information provided by the author and background  
  material from SB 75 indicate that there are hundreds of  
  cities and municipalities, colleges and universities,  
  private employers, labor unions, and even the U.S. House  
  of Representatives that recognize and/or provide benefits  
  to domestic partners. 

  In California, among the local governments with domestic  
  partnership policies are the Cities of Alameda, Berkeley,  
  Laguna Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Petaluma, Sacramento,  
  San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, West Hollywood,  
  City and County of San Francisco, Counties of Los  
  Angeles, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and the Santa Cruz  
  Metro Transit System.  Ten university systems, including  
  the University of California, the University of Southern  
  California, Golden Gate University, and the California  
  Institute of Technology, Pasadena have similar policies.   


  In the California private sector, 129 for-profit,  
  not-for-profit and union organizations have chosen to  
  provide benefits to domestic partners, including such  
  organizations as Levi Strauss & Co., Novell, Kaiser  
  Permanente Foundation Health Plan, Inc., International  
  Brotherhood of Teamsters #70, Southern California Gas  
  Co., Ticketmaster Group, Inc., Dow Chemical, Mattel,  
  Eastman Kodak, IBM, Northwest Airlines, Pacific Stock  
  Exchange, Patagonia, Inc., Paramount Pictures, Seagate  
  Technology, Inc., Silicon Graphics, AFSCME #57 and #827,  
  Consumers Union, Bank of America, Apple Computer, Viacom,  
  CBS, ABC, PBS, FOX, Disney Corporation, and Warner  
  Brothers.

  Some of the benefits provided by the above list of  
  organizations include dental and health benefits for both  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 12



  same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners, family leave  
  and bereavement benefits.

6.    Hospital visitation rights

   Many supporters of both AB 26 and SB 75 support the bills  
  because of the provision that would require a health  
  facility to allow a patient's domestic partner, the  
  children of the patient's domestic partner, and the  
  domestic partner of the patient's child or parent to  
  visit the patient, except under specified circumstances  
  (such as, the patient doesn't want the visit, no visitors  
  are allowed, the visit would pose a danger to the patient  
  or others).

  "Indeed, such visitation rights would do nothing more  
  than recognize the patient's need and right to love and  
  support of those closest to the patient during  
  hospitalization, and the concomitant need and right of  
  the patient's partner to be by the side of his or her  
  loved one during that time.  Unfortunately, in some  
  hospitals, a "spouse or immediate family only" visitation  
  rule (e.g., in an intensive care unit) has been used to  
  prohibit the partner of a seriously ill or dying man or  
  lesbian from visiting his or her loved one; no civilized  
  society should tolerate such inhumane practices." --   
  People for the American Way 6/29/99 letter.

7.    Recognizing out-of-state domestic partnerships

   This bill would recognize as valid those domestic  
  partnerships entered into outside the state, which would  
  be valid in the jurisdiction where the partnership was  
  created.  The State of Massachusetts as well as cities  
  such as Atlanta (GA), Ann Arbor (MI), Chapel Hill (NC),  
  District of Columbia (DC), Hartford (CT), Ithaca (NY),  
  Provincetown (MA), Seattle (WA), East Lansing (MI),  
  Cambridge (MA), Madison (WI) have instituted domestic  
  partnership registries. 

8.   Secretary of State:  concerns

   The Secretary of State is concerned about the effective  
  date of the bill.  He suggests that the effective date of  
  the bill be changed to July 1, 2000, to allow appropriate  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 13



  funding to be placed in the Secretary of State's budget  
  to cover the automated system necessary for start-up of  
  the registry.

  SHOULD THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE BILL BE CHANGED TO JULY  
  1, 2000?

  The Secretary of State further suggests that registration  
  be done at the local level, not at the state, because  
  vital statistics have traditionally been recorded and  
  maintained at the local level.  He also states that  
  requiring domestic partners to register with the state  
  would be more burdensome for them than is currently  
  required for engaged couples who can walk into a local  
  government facility to obtain a marriage license.

  The Secretary of State would be required, under this  
  bill, to establish fees for the processing of forms for  
  the registration and termination of domestic  
  partnerships.

  All marriage license fees and confidential marriage  
  certificate fees in California include an add-on fee of  
  $23, to be used for funding domestic violence shelters  
  and programs.  These shelters and programs are available  
  to those who need the services, whether they are married  
  or not.

  SHOULD THE SAME ADD-ON FEE BE ADDED TO FEES CHARGED FOR  
  THE REGISTRATION OF A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP?

9.    AB 1059:  Governor's veto message

   Last year, AB 1059 (Migden) was sent to the Governor, who  
  vetoed it with this message:

  "Domestic partner health benefit coverage is an issue  
  that is more appropriately left to negotiations between  
                                              employers and employees.  This coverage is available for  
  both large and small employers who wish to provide the  
  benefit, as evidenced by the many employers who choose to  
  do so.

  This bill would also increase the cost of health  
  insurance.  No definition for "domestic partner" is  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 14



  provided?. The lack of definition for "domestic partner"  
  lends itself to instability, fraud and adverse  
  selection?" 

  The problem of defining "domestic partner" has been taken  
  care of by AB 26.

10.   The California Family:  dealing with its changing  
character

   Some eight years ago, the Legislature appointed a Joint  
  Legislative Task Force on the Changing Family, to study  
  the nature of different forms that the California family  
  was evolving into, and to make recommendations to the  
  Legislature as to how the needs of that changing family  
  could be better met.  The task force found that indeed,  
  the traditional structure of the family, as it was known  
  in the 50's and 60's, had changed over the years.  Today,  
  there are as many forms that are "the family" as people  
  in growing and fluid relationships could fashion to  
  provide some stability to their lives.  The traditional  
  "nuclear family" is no longer the dominant description of  
  the family in California, rather, the concept of family  
  has been extended to include stepparents, grandparents,  
  parents-in-law, and, in many cities, even domestic  
  partners.   Children have learned to have multiple  
  families, as their biological parents get divorced,  
  remarry and reconstitute new, extended families.

  This session, several bills have been introduced to deal  
  with the changing needs of this changing family.  SB 1173  
  would provide status for a caring de facto parent to  
  maintain a long-term relationship with a child; SB 75 and  

  AB 26 would acknowledge that domestic partners, whether  
  they be of the same sex or not, should have some rights  
  and privileges even though the sanctions of a legal,  
  traditional marriage are not available; and SB 442 would  
  allow the family of an aging, vulnerable person to  
  protect him or her and his or her property from those who  
  prey on the elderly, even after death.  These are major  
  steps in filling the gaps in family law and other areas,  
  where existing law is insufficient or non-existent.

Support:  Service Employee International Union (SEIU);  
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 15



       American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); City and  
       County of San Francisco; California Teachers  
       Association; City of West Hollywood; Elections  
       Committee of the County of Orange (ECCO); L.A. Gay  
       and Lesbian Center; Congress of California Seniors;  
       California Nurses Association; California School  
       Employees Association; California Alliance for Pride  
       and Equality (CAPE); East Bay Municipal Utility  
       District; Older Women's League of California;  
       California National Organization for Women (NOW);  
       Association of Bay Area Governments; Santa Barbara  
       Stonewall Democratic Club; Academic Senate of the  
       California State University; California Child, Youth  
       & Family Coalition (CCYFC); California Professional  
       Firefighters (CPF); People For the American Way;  
       Wildcat International; California State Employees  
       Association; Hit Construction, Fresno; Central  
       California Alliance; Friends Committee on  
       Legislation of California; Kaiser Foundation Health  
       Plan, Inc.; California Church Impact; Inland Empire  
       Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club; National Center for  
       Lesbian Rights; Parents, Families & Friends of  
       Lesbians & Gays, San Jose/Peninsula Chapter;  
       California Federation of Teachers; numerous  
       individuals

Opposition:  Secretary of State Bill Jones; California  
         Catholic Conference; Committee on Moral Concerns;  
         Osborne Neighborhood Church; Calvary Chapel Grass  
         Valley; Central Assembly; Los Gatos Christian  
         Church; Women V.I.P.s (Volunteers in politics);  
         numerous individuals

                           HISTORY
  
Source:  Author

Related Pending Legislation:  SB 75 currently in the  
Assembly  Judiciary 
                         Committee

Prior Legislation:  AB 1059 (Migden, 1998) vetoed

Prior Votes:Asm. Health  (Ayes 9. Noes 4.)
          Asm. Appr. ( Ayes 14. Noes 7.)
                                                             




AB 26 (Migden)
Page 16



          Asm. Flr. (Ayes 41. Noes 38.)
                       **************