Shock glove ban joins end-of-session crush

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Hello and welcome back to Capitol Confidential! 

It may be Friday, but don’t let that fool you – if anything, the countdown to the end of session just hit overdrive. While many rules and deadlines in the Legislature have their own list of exceptions and work-arounds, among the most steadfast is the 72-hour rule. 

All bills must be in print at least 72 hours before the Legislature can vote on them, so today is the last possible day for any pieces of legislation to be finalized.

But even that golden rule isn’t without an alternative. Specifically, should the governor and Democratic lawmakers fail to reach an agreement on the contentious wildfire utility deal before the end of the day Friday, there’s a possibility Gov. Gavin Newsom could call a special session to get it over the finish line. 

When asked whether he would do so at a news conference on Wednesday, Newsom hedged. 

“We'll see how life unfolds,” he said. “There's a lot of time between now and that 72-hour rule. It's four more months to the end of the year.”

Both the Senate and Assembly have submitted their counterproposals to the governor. 

As I reported Wednesday, Assembly Member Cottie Petrie-Norris, D-Irvine, confirmed the governor has responded to at least one of the contested points, offering his own concession. It’s about the controversial practice known as subrogration, in which insurance companies sue utilities to recoup claim costs. Rather than ban the practice outright, Petrie-Norris said Newsom offered a plan to phase out subrogation.

If all three parties manage to reach a deal before the regular session ends, today is when we’ll see it. 

Just under the deadline, Assembly Member LaShae Sharp-Collins, D-San Diego, introduced a gut-and-amend bill that takes aim at a new technology ICE wants to use in its operations.

The bill, AB2760, was motivated in large part by the Department of Homeland Security’s disclosure earlier this month of a multimillion-dollar contract to outfit its agents with Taser-like shock gloves. The legislation would ban its use and purchase in California, by both state and federal law enforcement agencies. 

It joins a wave of legislation seeking to place limits on the conduct of federal immigration enforcement officers in the state amid the administration’s deportation crackdown. News of the purchase has also sparked a wave of opposition in D.C., with U.S. Senate Democrats urging DHS to back off the glove purchase, citing a clear pattern by ICE officers of “misusing tools and devices.” 

“This is a new and dangerous tool, which would be in the hands of our least-trained, and most lawless law enforcement,” Sharp-Collins said, referring to ICE.

The bill has been on an accelerated timeline since it was introduced Friday, right under the deadline, and has amassed significant Democratic support. A group of nearly a dozen Democratic lawmakers assembled early Thursday for a news conference touting the bill – and slamming the administration’s ICE operations. 

In a Senate Public Safety Committee hearing Wednesday, Sharp-Collins said that the gloves are not currently in use in California, but that legislation banning them was necessary to prevent possible harm. She has also expressed concern that the gloves, which DHS is committing up to $20 million to purchase for ICE agents, have not been subject to adequate testing to justify their use. 

Above all, legislators made clear they do not trust ICE officers to wield them responsibly. DHS has faced scrutiny from federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle this year, after a string of fatal shootings by federal agents, including the deaths of Nicole Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Assembly Member Josh Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, made a particularly impassioned address against the gloves in his turn behind the podium: “Welcome to America. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, and tase them.” 

Supporters include the ACLU’s California chapter and immigrant rights groups such as the California Immigrant Policy Center and Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Law enforcement groups have staunchly opposed the bill in multiple committee hearings over the past few days, warning it would cut off local law enforcement access to the gloves in an attempt to target the federal administration. 

The so-called No Kings Act by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, is now in the governor’s hands.

SB747 would close a legal loophole that makes it difficult to sue federal officers, like Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents, over allegations they have violated a person’s constitutional rights. It passed its final Senate floor vote Thursday afternoon. 

If it is signed by the governor and goes into effect, it would be a landmark bill in the ongoing tussle between California and President Donald Trump’s administration over federal immigration operations.

If passed, it could be among the most expansive state laws giving people the ability to sue federal agents for rights violations. This can include unlawful searches, violations of freedom of speech, racial profiling or wrongful death.

Read more about the bill, and the pushback it’s received, from the Chronicle’s Sara DiNatale.

The first and only California tribal member to serve in the Legislature, Assembly Member James Ramos, D-Highland, is behind a bill that would give Indigenous people considerably more say over their vast ancestral lands. 

AB1881, called the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026, seeks to ensure that tribes can visit their historically sacred sites and freely worship, as the Chronicle’s Kurtis Alexander reported. To that end, it would require government agencies to get tribal consent before pursuing activities that might disrupt Indigenous practices on land that is now owned by the state. It also would allow tribes to sue for violations of the law.

But as the measure is now poised for its final floor vote this week, a surge of opposition has emerged, warning the bill may be a step too far, and could undercut critical state projects.

A broad coalition of businesses, water agencies and local governments, led by the California Chamber of Commerce, say the measure would essentially give Native American communities unprecedented veto power over projects on state land. These could range from constructing buildings, improving roads, doing fire prevention work and developing new parks, they argue. 

In response, Ramos and the bill’s sponsor, Indigenous Justice, hosted a rally in support of the bill on Thursday. More than 50 supporters converged along the Capitol steps, urging the Legislature to pass the bill and lamenting the criticism as hypothetical.

Now, with supporters and critics making their final pleas, AB1881 is due for its final floor vote sometime over the next few days.

AB2218 by Assembly Member Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, would require greater coordination between government agencies and Native American tribes during water projects. 

The bill would establish state policy directing the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Natural Resources Agency and other agencies to address inequities affecting California Native American Tribes when developing water policies, regulations, permits and grants.

The bill would also require disputes between Native American tribes and state water agencies over the policy be brought to the Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs before any court action.

“Water decisions affect our fisheries, our cultures, our economies and the ecosystems that sustain our communities,” Malissa Tayaba, vice chair of Shingle Springs Band of Miwok, said in a statement. “Meaningful Tribal participation in those decisions is both a matter of good public policy and justice.”

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