CA AB 2701
deadDomestic Violence Offender Registration Act.
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 2701 pass?
No. CA AB 2701 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process. Latest recorded action (2026-04-21): From committee: Without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).
What is CA AB 2701 about?
Existing law requires each county to develop a procedure for electronically transmitting, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, the contents of the order and other specified information to the Department of Justice through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. Existing law also requires the department to maintain a California Restraining and Protective Order System and to make specified information electronically available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel. This bill, the Domestic Violence Offender Registration Act, would require the department, upon an appropriation by the Legislature, to create a database for the purpose of storing and sharing information with local agencies and the court, regarding persons convicted of a registrable offense, as defined. The bill would also require the department to publish that information on its internet website, as specified. The bill would require the offender, as defined, to register, for up to 20 years, certain information including their place of birth and current address with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over their residence, as specified. The bill would create a petition process for an offender to seek removal from the registry before having completed the applicable term if they demonstrate rehabilitation and no new qualifying offenses, or they demonstrate exoneration, as specified. The bill would require the court to notify the department of certain petition-related events, including when a petition for termination from the registry is granted, denied, or summarily denied. The bill would require local agencies and the court to create a database for the purpose of storing information received from offenders pursuant to these provisions. The bill would create both civil and criminal penalties for the misuse of information disclosed pursuant to these provisions, including, if a person uses that information to commit a felony, a 5-year prison sentence in addition to and consecutive to any other punishment. The bill would also make an offender's failure to comply with registration requirements a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year. By increasing the duties on local agencies and creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors CA AB 2701?
Jeff Gonzalez is the primary sponsor of CA AB 2701, joined by 2 cosponsors.
Description
Existing law requires each county to develop a procedure for electronically transmitting, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, the contents of the order and other specified information to the Department of Justice through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. Existing law also requires the department to maintain a California Restraining and Protective Order System and to make specified information electronically available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel. This bill, the Domestic Violence Offender Registration Act, would require the department, upon an appropriation by the Legislature, to create a database for the purpose of storing and sharing information with local agencies and the court, regarding persons convicted of a registrable offense, as defined. The bill would also require the department to publish that information on its internet website, as specified. The bill would require the offender, as defined, to register, for up to 20 years, certain information including their place of birth and current address with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over their residence, as specified. The bill would create a petition process for an offender to seek removal from the registry before having completed the applicable term if they demonstrate rehabilitation and no new qualifying offenses, or they demonstrate exoneration, as specified. The bill would require the court to notify the department of certain petition-related events, including when a petition for termination from the registry is granted, denied, or summarily denied. The bill would require local agencies and the court to create a database for the purpose of storing information received from offenders pursuant to these provisions. The bill would create both civil and criminal penalties for the misuse of information disclosed pursuant to these provisions, including, if a person uses that information to commit a felony, a 5-year prison sentence in addition to and consecutive to any other punishment. The bill would also make an offender's failure to comply with registration requirements a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year. By increasing the duties on local agencies and creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
- Introduced
- 2026-03-25
- Latest action
- 2026-04-21 — From committee: Without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Jeff Gonzalezauthor
- Rubioprincipal coauthor
- Blanca Rubiocoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-04-21
In committee: Set, second hearing. Failed passage.
committee-passage-unfavorable
2026-04-21
From committee: Without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).
committee-passage,failure
2026-04-07
In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
committee-passage-unfavorable
2026-03-26
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2026-03-25
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
2026-03-16
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.
referral-committee
2026-02-21
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
2026-02-20
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2026-04-07 · fail · 2-3
Member-level votes (9)
- Alanis: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Schultz: no
- Sharp-Collins: no
- Ramos: no
- Harabedian: other
- Haney: other
- Nguyen: other
- Mark González: other
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2026-04-21 · fail · 2-3
Member-level votes (9)
- Alanis: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Schultz: no
- Ramos: no
- Sharp-Collins: no
- Harabedian: other
- Haney: other
- Nguyen: other
- Mark González: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
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 2701. 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.