CA AB 869
in committeeState agencies: information security: Zero Trust architecture.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 869 pass?
Not yet. CA AB 869 is in committee as of 2025-08-29 and has not come to a final vote. Latest recorded action (2025-08-29): In committee: Held under submission.
What is CA AB 869 about?
Existing law establishes the Office of Information Security within the Department of Technology for the purpose of ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of state systems and applications and to promote and protect privacy as part of the development and operations of state systems and applications to ensure the trust of the residents of this state. Existing law requires specified state entities to implement the policies and procedures issued by the office. Existing law additionally authorizes the office to conduct, or require to be conducted, an independent security assessment of every state agency, department, or office, as specified. Existing law requires every state agency, as specified, to certify, by February 1 annually, to the office that the agency is in compliance with all adopted policies, standards, and procedures and to include a plan of action and milestones, as specified. This bill would require every state agency, as specified, and subject to specified exceptions, to implement Zero Trust architecture for all data, hardware, software, internal systems, and essential third-party software, including for on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments, to achieve prescribed levels of maturity based on the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Maturity Model, as defined, by specified dates. In implementing Zero Trust architecture, the bill would require state agencies to prioritize the use of solutions that comply with, are authorized by, or align to federal guidelines, programs, and frameworks and, at a minimum, prioritize multifactor authentication for access to all systems and data, enterprise endpoint detection and response solutions, and robust logging practices, as specified. The bill would require the office's chief to develop or revise uniform technology policies, standards, and procedures for use by all state agencies in Zero Trust architecture to achieve specified maturity levels on all systems in the State Administrative Manual and Statewide Information Management Manual. The bill would require the chief to update requirements for existing annual reporting activities to collect information relating to the progress state agencies are making to increase internal defenses of agency systems. The bill would authorize the chief to update existing annual reporting activities to include how a state agency is progressing with respect to specified goals. The bill would also state the Legislature's intent that the bill's provisions be implemented in a manner consistent with the state's timely compliance with requirements that are conditions to receipt of federal funds. The bill would also make related legislative findings and declarations.
Who sponsors CA AB 869?
Irwin is the primary sponsor of CA AB 869.
Description
Existing law establishes the Office of Information Security within the Department of Technology for the purpose of ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of state systems and applications and to promote and protect privacy as part of the development and operations of state systems and applications to ensure the trust of the residents of this state. Existing law requires specified state entities to implement the policies and procedures issued by the office. Existing law additionally authorizes the office to conduct, or require to be conducted, an independent security assessment of every state agency, department, or office, as specified. Existing law requires every state agency, as specified, to certify, by February 1 annually, to the office that the agency is in compliance with all adopted policies, standards, and procedures and to include a plan of action and milestones, as specified. This bill would require every state agency, as specified, and subject to specified exceptions, to implement Zero Trust architecture for all data, hardware, software, internal systems, and essential third-party software, including for on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments, to achieve prescribed levels of maturity based on the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Maturity Model, as defined, by specified dates. In implementing Zero Trust architecture, the bill would require state agencies to prioritize the use of solutions that comply with, are authorized by, or align to federal guidelines, programs, and frameworks and, at a minimum, prioritize multifactor authentication for access to all systems and data, enterprise endpoint detection and response solutions, and robust logging practices, as specified. The bill would require the office's chief to develop or revise uniform technology policies, standards, and procedures for use by all state agencies in Zero Trust architecture to achieve specified maturity levels on all systems in the State Administrative Manual and Statewide Information Management Manual. The bill would require the chief to update requirements for existing annual reporting activities to collect information relating to the progress state agencies are making to increase internal defenses of agency systems. The bill would authorize the chief to update existing annual reporting activities to include how a state agency is progressing with respect to specified goals. The bill would also state the Legislature's intent that the bill's provisions be implemented in a manner consistent with the state's timely compliance with requirements that are conditions to receipt of federal funds. The bill would also make related legislative findings and declarations.
- Introduced
- —
- Latest action
- 2025-08-29 — In committee: Held under submission.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Irwinauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-19
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
2025-02-20
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
2025-03-10
Referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
referral-committee
2025-04-02
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-30
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-05-23
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-05-27
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-06-02
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1860.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-06-03
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-06-11
Referred to Com. on G.O.
referral-committee
2025-07-08
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-08-18
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-08-29
In committee: Held under submission.
Versions
Documents
- 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)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-04-01 · pass · 15-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Berman: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bryan: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Ward: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Wilson: yes
Do pass.
2025-05-23 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Calderon: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Hart: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Solache: yes
- Ta: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Fong: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Sanchez: other
AB 869 Irwin Assembly Third Reading
2025-06-02 · pass · 78-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Rivas: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ward: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Patel: yes
- Solache: yes
- Chen: yes
- Bonta: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Lee: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Papan: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Davies: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Berman: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Soria: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Ta: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Flora: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Addis: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Krell: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Fong: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Haney: yes
- Hart: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Bains: yes
- Ellis: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-07-08 · pass · 15-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Jones: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Padilla: yes
Placed on suspense file
2025-08-18 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Grayson: yes
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 869. 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.