The convenience store owner had said that six out of 10 people who entered his business came to steal. Sacramento County officials said that larger corporate businesses might be able to survive under those circumstances, but not smaller operations. Small businesses form the country’s economic foundation, and they needed state law to change.

On Nov. 5, they got their wish. About 68% of California voters approved Proposition 36, which swept away much of the decade-old Proposition 47 that lessened penalties for certain drug and theft crimes.

Proposition 36, a voter-initiated measure, took effect Dec. 18. Hundreds of other bills passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor become effective on Jan. 1.

“The people voted for this,” Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, a former state lawmaker, said at a Dec. 17 press conference. “It’s a balanced, measured approach.”

Proposition 36 means someone convicted of two or more theft offenses could face a felony charge for additional thefts. It also increases penalties for trafficking fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that’s torn through the country in recent years.

Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho said over 400 county residents died last year because of fentanyl. He said that was more than all gun-related homicides in the county over the past 10 years.

Democratic lawmakers mostly opposed Proposition 36, instead favoring a series of crime bills they said augmented Proposition 47 but kept its criminal justice reforms intact. Republicans argued Proposition 36 was needed and lambasted urgency and inoperability clauses in the crime bills.

“Why 20 bills this year as opposed to the last nine years?” Cooper asked, adding the public’s anger over crime led to the legislative push.

Elections

Crime played a large role in lawmakers’ debates, as did elections. California lawmakers passed a handful of bills focused on elections, some of which are tied up in the courts.

Assembly Bill 2642 — written by Assemblymember Marc Berman, a Menlo Park Democrat — prohibits people from intimidating or threatening others for performing certain election-related actions. It also creates a presumption that someone openly carrying a firearm or fake firearm while observing election-related activities has engaged in intimidation.

The bill became effective when Governor Gavin Newsom signed it into law in September.

Assembly Bill 2839 — introduced by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat — also became effective immediately after the governor signed it. It was meant to stop false and misleading mailers and video ads that target election workers, elected officials, voting equipment and candidates running for office four months before an election.

A federal judge in October blocked the law, ruling that it targets speech about certain topics and therefore is a content-based restriction that limits public discussion. The case is ongoing.

Assembly Bill 2655 — also by Berman — requires certain social media platforms to create a system to remove deceptive information. It applies to content that’s disseminated during set times around elections, was intentionally manipulated to deceive and is not satire or parody.

X Corp. sued over the law, arguing the state is infringing its First Amendment rights.

Another new law facing a potential legal limbo is Senate Bill 1174, by former state Senator Dave Min, an Irvine Democrat.

That law was a response to a Huntington Beach ballot measure this year that could require voter ID for its municipal elections. Min has said the law would remove any ambiguity about whether a charter city like Huntington Beach could impose that requirement.

California sued the city before passage of Min’s law, arguing local law can’t conflict with a law of statewide concern. An Orange County judge in November ruled the case wasn’t ripe for adjudication. It remains pending.

Online life

While California lawmakers focused much of their attention on regulating social media platforms, they also sought to rein in the effects of social media itself.

Assembly Bill 2481 — written by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, a Long Beach Democrat — will require platforms to create a process that will verify certain people as “verified reporters,” like a school principal. They also must have a process through which a reporter can alert the platform about a social media-related threat.

The law becomes effective in 2026.

Two other bills give power to local school boards over students’ use of social media and their smartphones.

Senate Bill 1283 — written by state Senator Henry Stern, a Malibu Democrat — authorizes local entities to limit or prohibit social media use by students. Assembly Bill 3216 — by Assemblymember Josh Hoover, a Folsom Republican — requires local districts to create and adopt a policy by July 2026 to limit or prohibit students’ smartphone use.

Many lawmakers introduced bills focused on artificial intelligence, or AI. Senate Bill 1047 — written by state Senator Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat — likely drew the most headlines. It would have required safeguards and policies for the development of large AI models, though Newsom vetoed it while simultaneously announcing initiatives he said would protect people from the quickly evolving technology.

However, the governor did sign Senate Bill 896, by former Napa Democratic state Senator Bill Dodd. It codified parts of Newsom’s 2023 executive order on AI and will require the state to widen its scope when assessing potential AI threats to infrastructure and mass casualty events.

In the weeds

Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat, saw a cannabis bill receive the governor’s signature. Assembly Bill 1775 allows local governments to permit cannabis businesses to make and sell non-cannabis food and nonalcoholic drinks. They also could host and sell tickets for live performances.

Michael Vitiello, distinguished professor of law at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, said Proposition 64, which legalized pot in California starting in 2018, was filled with competing policies.

“The rollout has been a disaster,” he added.

Vitiello said California is now trying to help people in the cannabis industry find other sources of income, as many struggle in the legal marketplace.

This past session, the governor also signed:

— Assembly Bill 1955, written by Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat. The controversial bill has three main aspects. It prohibits school employees from telling someone about a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression without the child’s permission. It restricts school districts from imposing policies mandating disclosure. And it doesn’t permit schools to punish employees who support student rights. The new law has been challenged in federal court.

— Senate Bill 1043, written by state Senator Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican. Championed by media personality Paris Hilton, it requires the state Department of Social Services to maintain a public database about the use of behavioral restraints and seclusion in short-term residential therapeutic programs.

— Senate Bill 1414, also by Grove, increases penalties for someone convicted of soliciting a minor under the age of 16. The original bill would have heightened the penalty for a victim under 18, though the age range was changed in committee.