BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 312
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 13, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                   AB 312 (Lowenthal) - As Amended:  April 7, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              JudiciaryVote:7-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill:

          1)Stipulates that the protections and remedies of the Ralph 
            Civil Rights Act apply to violence, or intimidation by threat 
            of violence, committed against a person or property because 
            the person is or is perceived to be "homeless," as defined.

          2)Stipulates that the above does not prohibit or restrict the 
            enforcement of any law and that a public agency is not subject 
            to civil liability for such enforcement.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Minor absorbable workload increase, from increased claims and 
            investigations, to the Department of Fair Employment and 
            Housing (DFEH), which is charged with enforcing the Ralph 
            Civil Rights Act.

          2)Minor increase in court costs and caseloads, and in the civil 
            case backlogs, due to additional filings related to a new 
            cause of action.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Background  .  The Ralph Civil Rights Act provides that all 
            persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right 
            to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of 
            violence, committed against their persons or property because 
            of personal or other characteristics or statuses, such as 
            political affiliation, sex, race, color, religion, marital 
            status, sexual orientation or position in a labor dispute. 








                                                                  AB 312
                                                                  Page  2

            These rights may be enforced by a private action for damages 
            and equitable relief as well as criminal sanctions for 
            violations.  In addition, an individual whose legal rights 
            have been interfered with may bring an action for injunctive 
            relief. The Attorney General, or any district attorney, or 
            city attorney may also bring a civil action for injunctive or 
            other equitable relief, and recover civil penalties against 
            the violator. Finally, the DFEH may receive and investigate 
            complaints and enforce the Act's provisions.

           2)Purpose  .  According to the author, there are an estimated 
            157,000 homeless people in California, many of whom suffer 
            from mental and physical illness, and are less likely to 
            receive comprehensive medical treatment.  Compounding these 
            difficulties, homeless people are often the target of violent 
            attacks because they are perceived to be defenseless targets, 
            second-class citizens unworthy of respect or mercy, or because 
            the perpetrators know the likelihood of suffering legal 
            consequences from their actions is not as high as it would be 
            if they assaulted another member of the community.  AB 312 
            seeks to address this problem through the proven mechanism of 
            the hate-crimes statute, adding homeless people to the list of 
            persons protected against hate-based violence.

           3)Prior Legislation  . This bill is virtually identical to AB 2706 
            (Lowenthal) of 2010, which was vetoed by Governor 
            Schwarzenegger, who cited concerns with legal challenges and 
            increased court costs.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081