Home » Capitol Update #21 – June 1, 2023

Share This Post


Capitol Update #21 – June 1, 2023

 June 1, 2023

Golden State Republican Women
Janet Price, President

        Submitted by the GSRW Legislative Analyst Committee        
Karen Contreras,
Lou Ann Flaherty and Elaine Freeman, 


May 5th brought the second Legislative Deadline, J.R. 61(a)(3) requiring all Nonfiscal Bills to be out of their policy committees and move to the floor. All bills subject to deadlines must be out of their policy committees.  186 bills failed this deadline.

Friday, May 19th was the last day for bills to remain in their first house fiscal committees. The big Appropriations deadline has passed and 306 bills failed this deadline. This year has a notable increase in failed bills which made it to the Appropriations Committees of the Assembly and Senate.

The next Legislative Deadline will require all bills be voted out of their house of origin and move on to their second house, it falls on Friday, June 2nd.  We will keep you posted!

SB 94, as amended, Recall and resentencing: special circumstances.

Existing law provides for various specified special circumstances, including murder committed for financial gain or committed during the commission or attempted commission of certain felonies, which, if found true as specified, require a defendant found guilty of murder in the first degree to be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole.

Existing law, added by Proposition 115 of the June 5, 1990, statewide primary election, prohibits a judge from striking or dismissing any special circumstance that is admitted by plea or found true by a jury or court, as specified. Existing law generally authorizes a court to dismiss an action or to strike or dismiss an enhancement in the furtherance of justice, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.

This bill would authorize an individual serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a conviction in which one or more special circumstances were found to be true to petition for recall and resentencing if the offense occurred before June 5, 1990, and the individual has served at least 25 years in custody.

The bill would authorize the court to modify the petitioner’s sentence to impose a lesser sentence and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion, or to vacate the petitioner’s conviction and impose judgment on a lesser included offense, as specified. The bill would require a court to consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the petitioner to prove that specified mitigating circumstances are present.

The bill would provide that proof of the presence of one or more specified mitigating circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing a special circumstance, unless the court finds that petitioner is currently an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined. The bill would require the court to appoint the State Public Defender or other qualified counsel for an indigent petitioner.

This bill continues the trend from the Democrats supporting the perpetrator of a crime rather than the victim.    It passed through various Senate committee hearings with no Republican votes, passed the Senate with 22 yes votes, 12 noes and 6 abstentions and has been sent to the House for a vote.  This begs for a “call to action” to voice our opposition to this legislation which not only orders the recall and resentencing of those individuals facing life imprisonment without the possibility of parole but order the appointment of legal counsel for the “indigent petitioner”.

In a written argument against the bill, the California District Attorneys Association said SB 94 would subvert the will of the people with Proposition 115 and would also impose a substantial and unwarranted burden on the judicial system. 

  • “This measure makes no distinction between those who have demonstrated some indicators of redemption or rehabilitation and those who have not,” the association wrote. “Instead, it would burden the state’s already overburdened judicial system and retraumatize the families of murder victims with resentencing hearings for individuals who have shown few or no signs of redemption, and who jurors did not believe were worthy of the opportunity for parole based on the nature of their crimes.”

AB 1539, as amended, Elections: double voting.

Existing law permits a person to vote at any election held within the territory within which the person resides and the election is held if the person is qualified and registered to vote. If a person is entitled to vote at an election, existing law makes voting more than once, or attempting to vote more than once, a crime.

This bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to vote or to attempt to vote both in an election held in this state and in an election held in another state on the same date. The bill would not prohibit a voter from voting in an election held in this state and in another state if one of the elections is an election held in a landowner voting district or any other district for which an elector is not required to be a resident of the district.

Hearing: Jun 6 @ 9:30 am in 1021 O Street, Room 2100

To contact your U.S. Representatives, call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Legislative Portal links- Express your support or opposition to a bill or directly to the Legislative committee currently reviewing it (as an individual, not as a member of GSRW)– click here, or the bill’s author- click here, enter your bill # and look for tab at top of the bill page labeled “Comments to Author”


Share This Post