By: Thomas Gerhart

I always thought of the “Wild West” as a time period. I understood it to represent westward expansion during the mid-to-late 1800s. It evoked the idea of historical figures like Wyatt Earp, “Buffalo Bill” Cody, and Billy the Kid. Then, I watched the HBO series Deadwood, which highlighted lawlessness in unsettled territories and the opportunity for financial gain in the absence of law.

Despite Alaska’s nickname “The Last Frontier” and Star Trek’s claim that outer space is the “Final Frontier,” we do have a contemporary frontier. It is a place of lawlessness where, like in Deadwood, a person can make it rich­–the Internet.

On the Internet, businesses utilize new and creative ways to make money; and, just like in Deadwood, the absence of law provides an opportunity to attain great wealth. Streaming services, social media, and e-commerce all created avenues for Internet businesses to generate revenue with little regulation and, in some instances, without taxation.

One of the new ways that businesses generate revenue is by offering services for free. Facebook’s business model is to provide a free social media service to its users in exchange for personal information. Facebook then monetizes that information by selling it or using it for marketing. Facebook created a system that generates money by turning its users into human capital, essentially monetizing its users.

What is so bad about this practice? Well, the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica debacle became public knowledge in March of 2018. That data breach showed the world the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ways that businesses use and sell consumer information. Couple that with the Equifax data breach in 2017, and there is a problem. People disclose information about themselves on the Internet, either voluntarily or as required to open an account, and businesses buy and sell that information while doing little to protect it.

This gets back to how the Internet is like the Wild West. First, there are no laws restricting what businesses may do with consumers’ personal information. Second, a business can be as secretive as it wants about its data collection practices. Yes, a business must publish its privacy policy on its website, but those policies are generally a bungle of legalese. Also, businesses can start collecting and selling information before giving their customers an opportunity to opt out. Third, there are no laws or incentives for a business to protect the information it collects.

The federal government has been silent on regulating Internet privacy, thereby giving the states the power to regulate it. California is one of only ten states that guarantees it citizens’ right to privacy in its constitution. Unfortunately, corresponding privacy laws never materialized. Enter California Assemblymember Marc Levine, who proposed AB 2182 as the first step toward regulating what businesses can do with Californians’ personal information. Levine is passionate about protecting Californians and wanted to tackle this issue. His bill had a lot of promise but, rather than develop it, other legislators defanged it. Before AB 2182 left the Assembly, legislators ensured that it would not challenge the tech industry’s power to use and abuse Californians’ personal information.

While AB 2182 was stuck in the Senate, Alastair Mactaggart and Rick Arney were finalizing three years’ worth of work to tackle this issue. They qualified a ballot measure that proposed privacy laws to protect Californians’ information. Within a few weeks of qualification, legislators reached out to Mactaggart essentially asking him what it would take to withdraw the measure. Mactaggart leveraged a pending deadline to get the Legislature enact every major provision of his ballot measure. The legislators went to work, but the first draft was a lackluster attempt with no regulatory authority. Mactaggart said that version was unacceptable. The next attempt was much better. Mactaggart withdrew his initiative shortly after Governor Brown signed AB 375 into law.

Taking effect on January 1, 2020, AB 375 forces transparency by requiring businesses to disclose their information-sharing practices prior to data collection. Businesses must give consumers the opportunity to opt out of data collection without recourse. Businesses can incentivize data collection, but they cannot discriminate against customers who exercise their “right to opt out.” AB 375 also has some retroactive applicability because Californians can contact a business and request that it delete their personal information. The business must comply with these requests, so long as it does not need the requested information as part of an ongoing business relationship. Finally, AB 375 permits Californians to file suit against businesses whose negligence results in the breach of non-encrypted or non-redacted information.

AB 375 encourages businesses to be more cautious with the data they collect, store, and sell. More importantly, it gives Californians control over their personal information. While AB 2182 is dead, AB 375 changes the landscape of the Internet in California from a lawless frontier to a regulated environment that protects Californians.

To learn more about AB 2182 and AB 375, listen to my interview on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

By: Devinn Larsen

The controversial practice of sexual orientation change efforts–also known as conversion therapy–attempts to change or alter an individual’s sexual orientation through various methods including but not limited to religious intervention, aversion therapy, and hypnosis. Most medical practitioners and professional medical organizations reject conversion therapy as a valid practice due to the financial and psychological risks associated with the practice such as financial burden, emotional trauma, risk of suicide, and depression.

In 2012, California became the first state to pass an outright ban of conversion therapy practices on minors. To further support and embrace California’s LGBTQ community and to protect from any harmful effects conversion therapy may cause, Assembly Member Evan Low (D – San Francisco) proposed AB 2943. The bill set out to extend the prohibition of conversion therapy practices to adults by making any advertisements for, offers to practice conversion therapy, or the actual practice of conversion therapy violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) as deceptive practices. As the CLRA declares services unlawful when represented as having the approval, benefit, or quality they do not have, the lack of substantiated evidence as to the success of conversion therapy after years of medical research sparked the introduction of AB 2943 to expand the ban of conversion therapy practices to all.

In the original version of the legislation, AB 2943 faced harsh criticism from many conservative and religious groups claiming the broad language of the bill infringed on constitutional freedoms of religion and speech. Many attempts to amend AB 2943 to better comply with individual liberties occurred, and in the latest version of the bill the CLRA violations extension included only advertisements for, offers to sell, and the actual sale of conversion therapy services.

Even with the amendments, concerns of conservative and religious groups remained prompting additional challenges relating to the breadth of the language used. After attempts to reconcile the language concerns failed and after passing through many stages on its way to becoming law, Assembly Member Low ordered AB 2943 to the inactive file, effectively killing the legislation for this legislation session.

In a statement made after the withdrawal of AB 2943, Assembly Member Low explained, “The best policy is not made in a vacuum and in order to advance the strongest piece of legislation, the bill requires additional time to allow for an inclusive process not hampered by legislative deadlines.” Only time will tell as to whether any alternative proposals of similar legislation taking such a strong stance on the protections afforded to California’s LGBTQ community will resurface.

To learn more about AB 2943, listen to my interview on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Devinn Larsen is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

By: Trisha Mannie

After the launch of #MeToo and revelations of many allegations of sexual harassment and assault against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein became public, the media’s coverage of how common sexual harassment is in the workplace has become more prevalent.  Famous women are sharing their experiences and using their status to encourage other women to do the same, resulting in a drastic rise in awareness of the pervasiveness of sexual harassment. The #MeToo and We Said Enough movements are only a couple of examples of how society is taking a stand to deter sexual harassment in the workplace. Now, more than ever, there is mounting pressure to put a halt to the somewhat normalized behaviors of sexual harassment occurring in the workplace that have hindered the success of many women’s careers for years.

SB 224 represents California’s goal to end sexual harassment in the workplace.  SB 224 acts to emphasize that those in powerful positions are liable for their actions by adding investors, producers, directors, lobbyists, and elected officials into legislation as examples of professional relationships where sexual harassment should not occur. This recognition of a broader scope of potentially liable professionals extends to include professional relationships that do not yet exist, but are offered. Additionally, SB 224 removes the requirement that the victim must prove the relationship was not able to be easily terminated before the harasser can be held liable for his or her actions. Lastly, SB 224 revises two Governmental Codes allowing the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to investigate cases of sexual harassment.

Through these changes, there is indication of a greater awareness for sexual harassment and a clear declaration that victims of these situations are supported by the law.  It promotes the eradication of professional behaviors of sexual harassment dictated by money, status, and power that have manipulated the vulnerable as they fear for their jobs. It removes blame from the victim by acknowledging that it is not up to the victim to terminate the relationship, but that the sexually harassing behavior should not have occurred in the first place. SB 224 makes it clear that victims are not alone as the DFEH plays a role, alongside the individual, in seeking justice.  The enactment of SB 224 unambiguously promulgates that those within professional relationships are entitled to respect, while reinforcing that those who violate this right should be held liable.

With its progressive ideals and underlying aim of achieving equality, SB 224 has faced no opposition. It passed in both the Senate and the Assembly and on September 30th, SB 224 was approved by Governor Brown. SB 224 is one step towards achieving the bigger picture of ending sexual harassment across multiple industries.

To learn more about SB 224, listen to my interview on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Trisha Mannie is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

By: Reymond Huang

Divorcing couples often face emotional and financial challenges. Emotions of anger and confusion flood divorce proceedings, creating an uncomfortable atmosphere. Furthermore, the parties must inevitably adjust to a new standard of living. Typically, one party is the breadwinner while the other stayed at home and took care of the children. Divorce overturns these roles. The stay at home parent may find a job to support the family while the breadwinner may work less to spend more time with the children.

Eventually, the parties must determine spousal and child support. Each side will jostle for less or more monetary support. Oftentimes parties will purposefully reduce their income or refuse to work. The objective: to pay less or receive more spousal or child support. Vocational evaluators help solve this problem. A vocational evaluator evaluates how much a party can earn given that party’s education, work experience, and other factors. A judge places great weight on a vocational evaluator’s determination and will assign income on a party based on the vocational evaluator’s report.

Assembly Member Richard Bloom (D – Santa Monica) introduced AB 2780 because vocational evaluators are “underutilized tools in family law cases.” AB 2780 “seeks to increase access to vocational evaluators” by expanding the educational requirements of vocational evaluators. Current state law provides that vocational evaluators must hold a master’s degree in the behavioral sciences. Under AB 2780, a vocational evaluator may possess a master’s degree in the behavioral sciences or any other postgraduate degree that a court will find sufficient to conduct an evaluation. In addition, AB 2780 allows a court to consider the overall welfare and developmental needs of the child along with the amount of time a parent spends with the child in determining the parent’s earning capabilities. AB 2780 included the language ‘the overall welfare and developmental needs of child and the time the parent spends with the children’ into Family Code Section 4058(b).

The Family Law Executive Committee of the California Lawyers Association sponsored AB 2780 and the California Protective Parents Association supported this bill as well. AB 2780 did not face any opposition.

However, A.B. 2780’s goal may be stymied by practical hurdles. Divorce is expensive, and parties may completely avoid hiring attorneys or experts. Courts supply ample resources for parties to conduct the divorce on their own. In addition, mediation provides a popular alternative to hiring attorneys for divorces. Furthermore, A.B. 2780 does not define the scope of educational degrees that may qualify a vocational evaluator. Finally, A.B. 2780 re-states many principles that have already been determined by courts such as the time a parent spends with his or her child and the developmental needs of the child.

Governor Brown approved AB 2780 on August 20, 2018 and became Chapter 178.

To learn more about AB 2780, listen to my interview coming soon on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Reymond Huang is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

By: Hayley Graves

Criminal eyewitness identification procedures – say that three times fast – are when a law enforcement officer asks a witness to look at photos or a lineup of individuals to identify a suspect. SB 923 by Senator Scott Wiener (D – San Francisco) requires California law enforcement agencies to use certain scientifically proven eyewitness identification procedures. Currently only four counties in California have such procedures in place. This bill would require every police department in California to use the new the procedures.

First, and most importantly, the criminal justice system works best when the truth is discovered. Without the truth of what happened, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and jurors must make a best guess of the truth. And when they make that guess someone could be wrongly convicted or mistakenly freed. In several of those instances, 12 out of 13 convictions based on false eyewitness testimony have been overturned by DNA evidence in California.

There is no statewide standard in California for eyewitness identification procedures. SB 923 standardizes the steps officers need to take when administering eyewitness identification procedures. Those steps include: (1) the officer does not know the identity of the suspect; (2) the officer gives specific instructions to the eyewitness, including telling the eyewitness to not feel compelled to make an identification; (3) and the officer records the entire process for quality assurance.

SB 923 does not fully adopt every aspect of modern scientific procedures. The bill requires simultaneous displays—meaning six photos or six individuals are in the lineup at a time. Research shows that is not an accurate way of identification. Research has proven that sequential displays are more effective. In a sequential display, the eyewitness is matching their memory to the single photo or person in front of them. In simultaneous, the eyewitness is matching all the other photos or persons against the other photos and persons. Rather than relying on memory, the eyewitness relies on the other photos or individuals to make their selection.

The bill requires the entire identification process to be visually and aurally recorded. The goal of this provision is to make sure all the procedures are followed. However, this provision fails to address sensitive eyewitnesses. A rape victim might feel uncomfortable and unwilling to be recorded as she or he views a live lineup of potential suspects who sexually assaulted him or her. Or a gang member might fear being recorded while informing on a fellow gang member and refuse to assist the police. The bill only allows for video recording not be used if it is not “feasible.” There are no definitions of feasibility. This may lead to litigation over its meaning.

Existing law provides that when a defendant is not afforded a fair trial because an administrator coached an eyewitness into a faulty identification—the defendant’s due process rights have been violated. SB 923 provides that it does not affect the admissibility of evidence at trial. Therefore, if there has been an improper identification procedure, the identification is admissible in trial.

The goal of SB 923 was to create standardized procedures for all of California law enforcement when conducted criminal eyewitness identification procedures. Although SB 923 does not embrace every aspect of scientific eyewitness identification procedures, if the bill is enacted it will likely help reduce eyewitness misidentifications in California.

To learn more about SB 822, listen to my interview on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Hayley Graves is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

By: Katie Young

The 2017 California wildfires were some of the largest and most destructive on record. The Tubbs fire in Sonoma burned 5,643 structures and was responsible for twenty–two deaths. The Thomas fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties burned 281,893 acres and was the largest in California’s history until this summer’s Mendocino Complex fires overtook it at 459,102 acres. This destruction is occurring despite California’s investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in fire suppression over the last five years.

Assembly Members Jim Wood (D – Healdsberg) and Jim Patterson (R – Fresno) proposed AB 2551 as a response to these fires. The bill addresses one of underlying problems leading to California’s wildfire epidemic – forest health. Scientists and policy makers are realizing that the policy of the total suppression of fire in California has contributed to the conditions necessary for the recent trend of huge catastrophic wildfires. California forests burn regularly as part of the ecosystem’s natural function. The suppression of natural wildfire and other poor forest management decisions has led to densely packed forests with unhealthy trees that are less resilient to drought, climate change, pests, and fire.

In its original form, the bill served the dual purpose of promoting more “prescribed fire” through cooperative agreements between CalFire and private landowners and by creating a new Forest and Wildland Health Improvement and Fire Prevention Program. The latter program was intended to promote forest and wildland health, restoration, and resilience as well as improve fire outcomes, prevention, and preparedness throughout the state.  The latest amended version of the bill eliminated the program focused on forest health, likely due to budget concerns, and AB 2551 now focuses solely on making it slightly easier for landowners to work with CalFire to bring low intensity fire back on to their land, and hopefully reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires in the future.

AB 2551 is supported by a variety of groups including: environmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy and Defenders of Wildlife, land trusts and conservation districts, state parks, local business interests, and insurance organizations. There are no groups opposing this bill.

AB 2551 has been enrolled and was presented to the Governor on September 10th, 2018.

To learn more about SB 822, listen to my interview on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Katie Young is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

By: Molly Alcorn

Stephon Clark, a 22-year-old African American man, was in his grandparent’s backyard late one night when Sacramento police officers shot and killed him. National news screamed about police brutality. Protests against police flooded the streets and the internet.

AB 931 was an attempt to combat the rise of deadly police shootings in California. Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) introduced AB 931 in order to raise the standard for deadly force when used by peace officers. However, as it moved through the California Legislature, more and more pieces of the bill were left behind.

AB 931 was notable in a few ways.

First, AB 931 would have changed California law so that “Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance . . . when necessary given the totality of the circumstances . . . unless committed by a public officer whose gross negligence substantially contributed to making it necessary.”

AB 931 would have additionally amended the California Penal Code to, “Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may use deadly force only when such force is necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or to a third party.”

The legislation defined “Necessary” as “given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable peace officer would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to a third party.”

This is where the opposition began. AB 931 prohibited officers from using deadly force if the officers were at fault for creating the need to use force. Basically, if an officer provoked someone and then had to use deadly force to stop them, the officer would be liable. This provision was similar to the “provocation rule” from City of Los Angeles, California v. Mendez, a previous California court decision. However, this provision conflicted with the Supreme Court’s finding that liability could not be placed on officers involved in deadly shootings if they were reckless or provoked the need to use deadly force. The provision was removed.

Additionally, AB 931 stated that officers could still be liable for using deadly force if they failed to meet the reasonable standard under the Penal Code § 196. This meant that if an officer acted in a way that was incompatible with proper regard to human life or where a reasonable officer would have foreseen that their conduct would create a likelihood for death or serious bodily harm, they could be held liable. Officers and interested parties protested this, citing that the Supreme Court held in Graham v. Connor that hindsight could not be used to establish liability. The provision was removed.

Additional amendments were made due to arguments over the impact of AB 931. Proponents, such as Professor Seth Stoughton, civil rights groups, and members within the legislature, argued that the bill would not harm officers following the law and would benefit the public. Opponents, such as police interest groups, argued that AB 931 would adversely affect peace officers and their training and liability.

Amendments aside, AB 931 was held in committee in the Senate effectively killing the legislation. Thus, the standard of care for police officers remains unchanged since enacted in 1872.

To learn more about SB 822, listen to my interview on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Molly Alcorn is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

By: Camille Reid

Should the internet be open? This question is on the minds of many internet users, startups, and internet service providers (ISPs), like Verizon or AT&T. Those individuals who believe the internet is meant to be open are termed net neutrality supporters. Net neutrality refers to the concept that the internet should be equal to all who access it, and not controlled by ISPs who can slow down, speed up, or otherwise disturb user access.

Consumers and small startups demand net neutrality because of the potential for an ISPs potential to favor its own applications over others it does not own. This and other concerns over the open internet mounted after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” in 2017. The order created a much less regulated Internet by classifying it as an information service. The FCC reasoned that classifying the internet in this way will result in better investment and competition that benefits the consumer. The order rolls back Obama-era net neutrality regulations that many internet users and small companies came to rely on. In response to the FCC’s annihilation of those net neutrality protections, many states responded with lawsuits and legislation. California’s response to the FCC’s order comes in the form of Senate Bill 822 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). Senator Wiener introduced the bill to ensure that all customers have access to the open internet.

SB 822 attempts to restore the regulations contained in the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. In keeping with that ideal, this legislation prohibits ISPs from blocking, speeding up or slowing down websites and applications. The bill also requires ISPs to engage in disclosure of its performance and management practices. One part of SB 822 that goes further than the FCC’s 2015 order are the provisions prohibiting zero-rating.

“Zero-rating” is a provider activity where the ISP excludes a majority of websites from a consumer’s usage allowances, while allowing other applications to squeak by without affecting a user’s data caps. For example, T-Mobile allows its user to stream unlimited video and audio from select services like Netflix, and AT&T gives its users the opportunity to access DirectTV for free. T-Mobile and AT&T could then slow down the stream from Netflix or another competing streaming service, thereby giving preferential treatment to its networks. This legislation would disallow ISPs from such obvious favoritism. Most importantly, SB 822 authorizes sanctions and penalties against an ISP for violations, and it also provides the California Public Utilities Commission authority to oversee the quality of internet service that ISPs offer consumers.

Supporters for SB 822 include more than 200 organizations ranging from websites – like Reddit – to business groups – like the California Association of Realtors – to public safety organizations – like CalFire. These organizations argue that SB 822, and protecting net neutrality, is extremely necessary based on the egregious network discrimination done by ISPs. Recently, Verizon slowed internet connections while firefighters battled the Mendocino Complex Fires. Firefighters said that because they were unable to access items like weather forecasts, lives were jeopardized. Supporters of SB 822 focus on its goal to ensure that each Californian is able to connect, invent, and participate online no matter the amount of money they have or where they live.

Opposition to SB 822 hinges on the notion that Senator Wiener’s net neutrality legislation would throttle investment in parts of California and that it is preempted by the FCC’s 2017 order. Those in the camp opposing SB 822 – which includes members of California’s business community, cell phone companies, ISPs, and organizations like the California State Conference of the NAACP and California League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) – argue that ISPs have a specific budget, and any additional regulations brought on by this bill would stop advancement by stifling investment. Opponents also reference preemption as a blockade to SB 822 and rest their rationale on the preemption clause found in the FCC’s 2017 order, which stops states from regulating the internet if it conflicts with the FCC’s objectives.

Despite strenuous opposition and legal issues, SB 822 continues to move forward, having passed both houses of the California Legislature last week. The bill is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature. Senator Wiener’s enthusiasm and belief in the bill is unwavering: “[w]e are moving closer and closer to enacting the strongest net neutrality protections in the nation. Much work remains… but we have momentum.”

To learn more about SB 822, listen to my interview on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Camille Reid is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

On today’s podcast, McGeorge Capital Lawyering adjunct professor Chris Micheli breaks down the different vote requirements different types of legislation have to clear, and there’s more than just the majority and 2/3 requirements most folks know about. Chris also goes over the different kinds of legislative publications. And to wrap up today’s show, we talk with Kim Barnes – the Chief Legislation Editor for University of the Pacific Law Review’s Greensheets Edition and host of the podcast In Session – to talk about what to expect from the second season of In Session.

If you aren’t subscribing to In Session already, you can find it on Apple Podcasts and you will start seeing new episodes every week starting on Tuesday, September 4. You can also follow University of the Pacific Law Review on Facebook and Twitter.

As always, if you enjoyed today’s episode, please take the time to leave us a five-star rating on iTunes or Apple Podcasts and subscribe to our show wherever you listen to podcasts. All of that helps other people find the show.

You can stay in touch with us and let us know what you think about the show on Facebook and Twitter. Just like CAP impact on Facebook or follow @CAPimpactCA on Twitter.

And last but not least, you can learn more about the Capital Center for Law and Policy at McGeorge School of Law here.

By: Tyler Wood

The Greensheets issue of The University of the Pacific Law Review (UPLR) is a time honored tradition at McGeorge School of Law. It traces its history back to 1969, when Volume 1 critiqued legislation signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. We’re now on Volume 48. Greensheets is more than just the most popular Law Review issue of the year, but it’s also one the most widely read issues of any law review in the country by state legislators, judges, and lobbyists.

So what is Greensheets, exactly? Authoring the Introduction to UPLR’s first volume (then known as the Pacific Law Journal), Earl Warren, then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and former Governor of California captured the enduring vision that still guides our work today, saying in part:

“Without detailed information on the legislative history of a given bill, the courts, of necessity, are left to their own resources to determine the rationale underlying a particular statute. It is such information, together with a critical analysis of newly enacted legislation, which the Pacific Law Journal intends to provide. For that reason, I believe it to be a welcome addition to the field of jurisprudence, and I extend to the staff of the Journal my best wishes for a successful endeavor.”

Today on the podcast, I recap the bills In Session covered this year and provide updates on whether each bill ultimately became law. Thank you so much for following these blog posts and listening to our podcast this season. Stay tuned next fall to hear a new host talk about a new group of bills with a new group of staff-writers. And make sure to check out all of our episodes from Season 1. The bills we looked at this year were:

Episode 1: SB 258 – Cleaning Product Labeling

Episode 2: AB 954 – Food Labeling

Episodes 3 & 4: SB 10 – Bail

Episode 5: AB 1008 – Employment Discrimination

Episode 6: Nevada AB 391 – Bestiality

Episode 7: AB 1528 – Cannabis

Episode 8: AB 1227 – Human Trafficking

Episode 9: SB 33 – Arbitration Clauses

Episode 10: SB 54 – Sanctuary State

Tyler Wood is the Chief Legislation Editor for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.