CA AB 1889
vetoedProtective orders.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 1889 pass?
No. CA AB 1889 passed the legislature but was vetoed. Latest recorded action (2026-09-18): Vetoed by Governor.
What is CA AB 1889 about?
Existing law allows the court to issue a protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, human trafficking, a crime in furtherance of a criminal street gang, or a registerable sex offense. Under existing law, the protective order may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. This bill would authorize those orders to be valid for up to 10 years, or one year after the person's release from the state prison or a county jail, whichever is later. Existing law authorizes a protective order restraining a person convicted of the crime of battery of specified persons, including a spouse or former spouse, to be valid for up to 15 years. The bill would authorize those orders to be valid for up to 15 years, or one year after the person's release from the state prison or a county jail, whichever is later. By extending the duration of protective orders, a violation of which is punishable as a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1395 and AB 2261, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors CA AB 1889?
Ramos is the primary sponsor of CA AB 1889.
Description
Existing law allows the court to issue a protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, human trafficking, a crime in furtherance of a criminal street gang, or a registerable sex offense. Under existing law, the protective order may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. This bill would authorize those orders to be valid for up to 10 years, or one year after the person's release from the state prison or a county jail, whichever is later. Existing law authorizes a protective order restraining a person convicted of the crime of battery of specified persons, including a spouse or former spouse, to be valid for up to 15 years. The bill would authorize those orders to be valid for up to 15 years, or one year after the person's release from the state prison or a county jail, whichever is later. By extending the duration of protective orders, a violation of which is punishable as a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1395 and AB 2261, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Introduced
- 2026-03-09
- Latest action
- 2026-09-18 — Vetoed by Governor.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Ramosauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-18
Vetoed by Governor.
executive-veto
2026-09-04
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
executive-receipt
2026-08-27
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
2026-08-27
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 0.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-27
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 6722.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-24
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-21
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-13
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-13
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 13).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-03
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2026-06-25
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-06-24
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 23).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2026-06-16
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
2026-06-03
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2026-05-27
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 5302.)
2026-05-18
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-14
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 14).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-04-08
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2026-03-18
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 17). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-03-10
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2026-03-09
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-03-02
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2026-02-13
From printer. May be heard in committee March 15.
2026-02-12
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2026-03-17 · pass · 9-0
Member-level votes (9)
- Harabedian: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Haney: yes
- Ramos: yes
Do pass.
2026-05-14 · pass · 15-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Dixon: yes
- Krell: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ta: yes
- Fong: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Solache: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Mark González: yes
AB 1889 Ramos Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-26 · pass · 78-0
Member-level votes (80)
- Ellis: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Lee: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Fong: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Papan: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Haney: yes
- Chen: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Berman: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Flora: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Davies: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Ward: yes
- Patel: yes
- Hart: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Ta: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Soria: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Solache: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Krell: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Bains: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Addis: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Muratsuchi: other
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-06-23 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (6)
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Cortese: yes
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-09-21T02:53:48.612860Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 1889. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.