Bill Commons

CA SB 1357

Status unknown

Recall elections: notice of intention.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper

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 SB 1357 pass?

The current status of CA SB 1357 is not known from the official record. Latest recorded action (2026-05-14): May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

What is CA SB 1357 about?

Existing law governs the recall of certain state and local elective officers. Existing law requires proponents of a recall to serve, file, and publish a copy of the notice of intention to recall the elective officer, as specified. Existing law requires the notice of intention to contain, among other things, the printed name, signature, and residence address, including street and number, city, and ZIP Code, of each proponent of the recall. Existing law requires publication of the notice of intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled. If there is no newspaper of general circulation, the notice of intention must be posted in at least 3 public places within the jurisdiction. This bill would require the proponents' signatures and the street numbers and street names of their residence to be redacted or otherwise excluded from the notice of intention before it is made available to the public. The bill would require a notice of intention to contain a declaration in which proponents confirm, among other things, that they understand they are signing to initiate the recall petition process and that the notice of intention is a public record. If there is no newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled, the bill would require the notice of intention to also be posted on at least 3 internet websites. 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.

Who sponsors CA SB 1357?

Ochoa Bogh is the primary sponsor of CA SB 1357, joined by 2 cosponsors.

Description

Existing law governs the recall of certain state and local elective officers. Existing law requires proponents of a recall to serve, file, and publish a copy of the notice of intention to recall the elective officer, as specified. Existing law requires the notice of intention to contain, among other things, the printed name, signature, and residence address, including street and number, city, and ZIP Code, of each proponent of the recall. Existing law requires publication of the notice of intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled. If there is no newspaper of general circulation, the notice of intention must be posted in at least 3 public places within the jurisdiction. This bill would require the proponents' signatures and the street numbers and street names of their residence to be redacted or otherwise excluded from the notice of intention before it is made available to the public. The bill would require a notice of intention to contain a declaration in which proponents confirm, among other things, that they understand they are signing to initiate the recall petition process and that the notice of intention is a public record. If there is no newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled, the bill would require the notice of intention to also be posted on at least 3 internet websites. 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.

Introduced
2026-02-20
Latest action
2026-05-14 — May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Ochoa Boghauthor
  • Choicoauthor
  • Niellocoauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

Newest first

  1. 2026-05-14

    May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. 2026-05-08

    Set for hearing May 14.

  3. 2026-05-04

    May 4 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  4. 2026-04-24

    Set for hearing May 4.

  5. 2026-04-22

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 3980.) (April 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  6. 2026-04-09

    Set for hearing April 21.

  7. 2026-04-07

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3755.) (April 7). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  8. 2026-03-16

    Set for hearing April 7.

  9. 2026-03-04

    Referred to Coms. on E. & C.A. and JUD.

    referral-committee

  10. 2026-02-23

    Read first time.

    reading-1

  11. 2026-02-23

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.

  12. 2026-02-20

    Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

    introduction,referral-committee

Versions

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]

    2026-04-07 · pass · 5-0

    Member-level votes (5)
    • Allen: yes
    • Choi: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Cervantes: yes

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

    2026-04-21 · pass · 13-0

    Member-level votes (13)
    • Reyes: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Niello: yes
    • Valladares: yes

  • Placed on suspense file

    2026-05-04 · pass · 7-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Dahle: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Grayson: yes

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1357

Attribution

Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-10-28T22:33:16.614371Z

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=SB 1357. 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.