Law aims to ban GOP states from sending troops to CA

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Hello and happy Monday. Welcome back to another week of Capitol Confidential! 

After a relatively quiet start to bill-signing month, we’ve seen a rapid succession of new signing announcements over the past few days. That includes the first tranche of the governor’s vetoes, which went public on Friday after 5 p.m. – many government officials’ favorite time to release news. 

Here’s a rundown of some of the most-watched bills Gov. Gavin Newsom greenlit. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB1354 into law early Saturday seeking to ban other states from sending in their National Guard troops – a direct response to President Donald Trump’s unprecedented use of the U.S. military. 

The law, by Sen. Bob Archuleta, D-Pico Rivera (Los Angeles County), aims to insulate California from possible National Guard deployments ordered by other states, including by governors friendly to the Trump administration. 

It applies only to Title 32 deployments of National Guard troops, by barring forces from another state, territory or Washington, D.C. from entering California to perform military duties or law enforcement functions without the governor’s approval. It does not attempt to limit the federal authority used to activate the force, Title 10 – which the president used to send thousands of California guardsmen into Los Angeles last year. 

“In California, the National Guard is deployed to serve the people, not to intimidate them," Newsom said in a statement to the Chronicle. "SB1354 secures the rule of law by affirming our right to defend ourselves against military intrusions against our state. In any matters of public safety, security, and beyond, California will continue to lead.” 

The version of the bill that passed the Legislature last month and now stamped with Newsom’s approval is a watered down version of what Archuleta introduced early this year, which initially proposed making out-of-state deployments a crime. It’s not clear what recourse the governor would use if a state chose to send troops into the state despite the law.

“SB 1354 protects California’s sovereignty by ensuring that military personnel from other states only enter California for appropriate missions and training,” Archuleta said in a statement to the Chronicle. “Other states’ military forces should never be used to enforce federal law in California without receiving proper authority.”

Newsom signed into law two bills that represent the first update to its California Voting Rights Act in nearly 25 years.

The two bills, SB1164 and SB1360 by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside, are among this year’s most high-profile legislative responses to the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict voting access across the country. 

SB1164 broadly prohibits state and local agencies from doing anything that makes it harder for eligible Californians to vote or that would dilute the vote of protected minority groups. It also clarifies the authority of the attorney general and secretary of state to weigh in before local governments change their election processes – something that presumably would have impacted local measures imposing massive restrictions on voting in Huntington Beach and Shasta County.

Its companion bill SB1360 expands requirements for counties to provide ballots and voting information in foreign languages.

The package is a substantial overhaul of the state’s landmark voting rights protections and are among a handful of laws California has passed during Trump’s second term that seek to buttress the state from GOP-directed efforts to restrict voting access.

Newsom also signed SB1418 on Friday, which extends another Cervantes election bill signed into law earlier this year. 

That bill, SB73, was introduced in response to Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s March seizure of 650,000 local voters’ ballots, and makes it a felony to seize ballots from county elections offices. The bill, which Newsom signed into law in May in time to go into effect before the June primary, also made it illegal for law enforcement to search or take custody of voter rolls or voting machines without a signed warrant or agreement with election officials.

Along with Cervantes’ bills, Newsom’s Friday elections signing sprint also included a bill that requires tighter disclosures over the use of influencers in campaign advertisements. 

AB1130 by Assembly Member Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, imposes fines on social media influencers promoting a candidate or party if they do not include disclosures. Penalties could cost influencers up to $5,000 for not complying with the new requirements. 

The issue came to head during the primary, when Democratic candidate Tom Steyer shelled out tens of thousands to social media influencers to post in support of his bid for governor. Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, paid at least $122,000 to social media influencers and content creator platforms over the span of a little over a month ahead of the June primary election, the Chronicle reported.

Ahead of the 2028 elections, the new law will also require campaigns to specify in campaign filings how much they’ve put toward social media influencers. Failure to do that would bring its own set of consequences under the state’s strict campaign finance disclosure laws. 

Newsom unveiled an executive order on Friday to increase oversight of artificial intelligence, riding a wave of political urgency across the country to better regulate the fast-evolving technology. 

The order directs the state to form a working group of AI experts to evaluate options, including the creation of a “kill switch,” or an emergency off control, to give the government authority to shut down AI models in a potential crisis. That off-switch has been a particularly buzzy solution in recent weeks, as legislators across the country muse how to enact swift controls over AI amid heightened public anxiety. 

The order also accelerates the implementation timeline of two recently signed bills that establish increased independent oversight of AI and establish regular audits of its use: AB1405, by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda, and SB813 by Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton.

AB1405 standardizes artificial intelligence audits and creates a state registry for AI auditors. 

SB813 creates a statewide framework governing how independent AI organizations are formed and requires annual transparency reports from the organizations. 

Newsom’s executive order ramps up the timeline for both bills by more than a year: SB813 will now be implemented by May 1, 2027, and AB1405 will have until Dec. 1, 2027 to go into effect. 

McNerney said he plans to introduce bills that tackle the governor’s call for more AI safety standards, including a possible kill switch, when the Legislature returns to session in December. 

The first vetoes are here: 24 on Friday and another 24 on Sunday. 

Here’s a few making the most stir:

AB1729, by Assembly Member Alex Lee, D-San Jose, would have required every state agency to streamline its telecommuting plans by reporting cost savings and reevaluating its policies every decade. It aimed to provide a more flexible and supportable telework policy for state workers. SEIU Local 1000, their biggest union, threw their support behind the bill, pushing it as one of their demands amid an ongoing battle with the administration over the return-to-office work order.

In his veto message on Friday, Newsom said the bill would take the state’s telework policy in the “wrong direction,” and pointed to existing policies that evaluate teleworking on a case-by-case basis.

AB1383 by Assembly Member Tina McKinnor, D-Hawthorne, would have lowered the retirement benefit eligibility age for firefighters and police officers to age 55. 

In his veto message on Sunday, Newsom referred to the state’s pension crisis in the early aughts, and warned the bill would reverse some of the reforms made to the state’s pension system in response by his predecessor, former Gov. Jerry Brown.

SB954 by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, would have halted an environmental review law exemption for qualifying advanced manufacturing projects, such as lithium battery cell manufacturing and strip mining, if they meet specific advanced requirements. The bill sought to limit the reach of SB131, which was signed into law last year, which created the exemption in a bid to limit CEQA’s so-called “green tape.” 

In his veto message, Newsom said SB131 should be given “a meaningful opportunity to work” and expressed concern with approving further CEQA reforms.

Questions? Thoughts? Interesting tidbits to share? Reach out at [email protected], and follow me on X, @KathrynPlmr.