Bill Commons

CA AB 32

dead

Tribal judges.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower

Follow this bill’s action updates (Atom)

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 32 pass?

No. CA AB 32 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process. Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

What is CA AB 32 about?

Existing law makes it a crime for a person to assault, among other people, a judge of any local, state, or federal court of record in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of their official duties, as specified. Existing law requires a county elections official to, upon application by a public safety officer, make confidential that officer's residence address, telephone number, and email address appearing on the affidavit of voter registration, as specified. Existing law requires, upon request of specified persons, including an active or retired judge, that the person's home address that appears in a record of the Department of Motor Vehicles be made confidential. This bill would additionally make it a crime for a person to assault a judge or former judge of a tribal court in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of their official duties, as specified. The bill would clarify that a tribal judge of a federally recognized California Indian tribe can request to make their records confidential pursuant to the above-described provisions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 32?

Soria is the primary sponsor of CA AB 32, joined by 3 cosponsors.

Description

Existing law makes it a crime for a person to assault, among other people, a judge of any local, state, or federal court of record in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of their official duties, as specified. Existing law requires a county elections official to, upon application by a public safety officer, make confidential that officer's residence address, telephone number, and email address appearing on the affidavit of voter registration, as specified. Existing law requires, upon request of specified persons, including an active or retired judge, that the person's home address that appears in a record of the Department of Motor Vehicles be made confidential. This bill would additionally make it a crime for a person to assault a judge or former judge of a tribal court in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of their official duties, as specified. The bill would clarify that a tribal judge of a federally recognized California Indian tribe can request to make their records confidential pursuant to the above-described provisions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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
—
Latest action
2026-02-02 — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Soriaauthor
  • Pachecocoauthor
  • Ramoscoauthor
  • Schiavocoauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

Newest first

  1. 2026-02-02

    From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

    committee-passage,failure

  2. 2026-01-31

    Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

    failure

  3. 2025-05-23

    In committee: Held under submission.

  4. 2025-05-23

    Coauthors revised.

  5. 2025-04-09

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

    referral-committee

  6. 2025-03-25

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (March 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  7. 2025-03-04

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 4). Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  8. 2025-02-03

    Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and TRANS.

    referral-committee

  9. 2024-12-03

    From printer. May be heard in committee January 2.

  10. 2024-12-02

    Read first time. To print.

    reading-1

Versions

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Transportation] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

    2025-03-04 · pass · 9-0

    Member-level votes (9)
    • Lackey: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Nguyen: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Alanis: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Schultz: yes

  • Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

    2025-03-24 · pass · 16-0

    Member-level votes (16)
    • Tangipa: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Lackey: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Davies: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Hadwick: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Hart: yes

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB32

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Source and document changesStatus and relationship changes

Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:

Bulk imports for this sessionSession dates and activity

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 32. 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.