CA SB 605
deadState attorneys and administrative law judges: compensation.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Quick answers
Did CA SB 605 pass?
No. CA SB 605 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process (2026-02-02). Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
What is CA SB 605 about?
Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position in the state civil service. This bill would require that the salaries of state attorneys and administrative law judges in State Bargaining Unit 2 be no less than the average salaries of public sector attorneys, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Human Resources to annually conduct a survey of salary structures by March 1 of each year, as specified, and determine the average salary of public sector attorneys for each attorney classification, including the minimum salaries for entry-level attorneys, intermediate classifications, and the most senior nonmanagerial attorneys, noninclusive of negotiated differentials. The bill would require that state administrative law judges have salaries not less than the maximum salary of state attorneys classified at a specified level. The bill would require the department to make a good faith offer of parity in salary with respect to public sector agency attorneys' and administrative law judges' salaries in any negotiations with the exclusive bargaining representative. The bill would provide that no state attorney or administrative law judge classification shall be reduced in salary as a result of these provisions. This bill would state that its provisions supersede any memorandum of understanding and shall become effective with respect to salary increases on March 1 of each year. It would provide that its implementation, except for the annual survey, is contingent upon the appropriation of funds in the annual Budget Act and that implementation shall be phased in over 3 fiscal years commencing on July 1, 2026. The bill would also provide that the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising under these provisions.
Who sponsors CA SB 605?
Cortese is the primary sponsor of CA SB 605, joined by 3 cosponsors.
Description
Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position in the state civil service. This bill would require that the salaries of state attorneys and administrative law judges in State Bargaining Unit 2 be no less than the average salaries of public sector attorneys, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Human Resources to annually conduct a survey of salary structures by March 1 of each year, as specified, and determine the average salary of public sector attorneys for each attorney classification, including the minimum salaries for entry-level attorneys, intermediate classifications, and the most senior nonmanagerial attorneys, noninclusive of negotiated differentials. The bill would require that state administrative law judges have salaries not less than the maximum salary of state attorneys classified at a specified level. The bill would require the department to make a good faith offer of parity in salary with respect to public sector agency attorneys' and administrative law judges' salaries in any negotiations with the exclusive bargaining representative. The bill would provide that no state attorney or administrative law judge classification shall be reduced in salary as a result of these provisions. This bill would state that its provisions supersede any memorandum of understanding and shall become effective with respect to salary increases on March 1 of each year. It would provide that its implementation, except for the annual survey, is contingent upon the appropriation of funds in the annual Budget Act and that implementation shall be phased in over 3 fiscal years commencing on July 1, 2026. The bill would also provide that the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising under these provisions.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-20
- Latest action
- 2026-02-02 — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Corteseauthor
- Muratsuchiprincipal coauthor
- Krellcoauthor
- Schultzcoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-20
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
2025-02-21
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.
2025-03-05
Referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.
referral-committee
2025-03-18
Set for hearing March 26.
2025-03-26
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 568.) (March 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-03-28
Set for hearing April 7.
2025-04-07
April 7 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
2025-05-16
Set for hearing May 23.
2025-05-23
May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
2026-02-02
Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
failure
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-03-26 · pass · 4-1
Member-level votes (5)
- Laird: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Strickland: no
Placed on suspense file
2025-04-07 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Dahle: 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=SB 605. 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.