CA AB 68
deadSchool safety: armed school resource officers.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 68 pass?
No. CA AB 68 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process (2026-01-07). Latest recorded action (2026-01-07): From committee: Without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).
What is CA AB 68 about?
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security as designated by, and under the direction of, the superintendent of the school district. Existing law also authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police and to employ peace officers. This bill would require, commencing with the 2028–29 school year, and each school year thereafter, a rural school district or charter school, as defined, to determine the appropriate number of armed school resource officers, as defined, authorized to carry a loaded firearm for each school of the rural school district or charter school. The bill would require the governing board of the school district or the governing body of the charter school to ensure that at least one armed school resource officer is present during regular school hours at each school of the rural school district or charter school that meets specified criteria, as provided. By imposing an additional requirement on school districts and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the governing board or body, if it is unable to comply with these requirements due to the unavailability of funding or personnel who qualify to serve as an armed school resource officer, to claim a good cause exception to these requirements by adopting a resolution, as provided. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors CA AB 68?
Gallagher is the primary sponsor of CA AB 68, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security as designated by, and under the direction of, the superintendent of the school district. Existing law also authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police and to employ peace officers. This bill would require, commencing with the 2028–29 school year, and each school year thereafter, a rural school district or charter school, as defined, to determine the appropriate number of armed school resource officers, as defined, authorized to carry a loaded firearm for each school of the rural school district or charter school. The bill would require the governing board of the school district or the governing body of the charter school to ensure that at least one armed school resource officer is present during regular school hours at each school of the rural school district or charter school that meets specified criteria, as provided. By imposing an additional requirement on school districts and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the governing board or body, if it is unable to comply with these requirements due to the unavailability of funding or personnel who qualify to serve as an armed school resource officer, to claim a good cause exception to these requirements by adopting a resolution, as provided. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
- Introduced
- 2024-12-05
- Latest action
- 2026-01-07 — From committee: Without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Gallagherauthor
- Castillocoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2024-12-05
Introduced. To print.
introduction
2024-12-06
From printer. May be heard in committee January 5.
2025-01-06
Read first time.
reading-1
2025-02-03
Referred to Coms. on ED. and PUB. S.
referral-committee
2025-02-27
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
2025-03-19
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-19
In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
2025-03-20
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
referral-committee
2025-04-02
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
2025-05-05
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-05-06
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
referral-committee
2026-01-05
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-01-06
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
referral-committee
2026-01-07
In committee: Set, final hearing. Failed passage.
committee-passage-unfavorable
2026-01-07
From committee: Without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).
committee-passage,failure
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Public Safety]
2026-01-07 · fail · 2-5
Member-level votes (9)
- Hoover: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Muratsuchi: no
- Ortega: no
- Bonta: no
- Patel: no
- Garcia: no
- Wilson: other
- Lowenthal: 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:
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 68. 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.