And some more on legislative drafting in California

In my continuing review of pending legislation in the 2026 California Legislative Session, I offer the following observations on a number of bills working their way through the second house policy committees:

This bill has two severability clauses. Neither one is actually needed.

(j) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SEC. 6.

 The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

This bill is clearly being made prospective, which is the default standard:
The provisions of this act shall only apply prospectively. This act does not apply to any legal case that was pending on or before January 1, 2026.

Sometimes we have successor entities designated in statute:
The Food Safety Fund is hereby designated as the successor fund to the Cannery Inspection Fund, as provided by Section 16346 of the Government Code. All moneys shall be transferred to, and become a part of, the Food Safety Fund and be available for immediate use for the purposes specified in this section.

An obvious statement that state law has to be implemented, administered, and enforced consistently with federal statutes and regulations:
It is the intent of the Legislature that this article be interpreted and implemented in a manner consistent with applicable federal requirements, including, but not limited to, Part 113 (Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods Packaged in Hermetically Sealed Containers) and Part 114 (Acidified Foods) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as those regulations may be amended from time to time. To the extent practicable, the department shall administer and enforce this article in a manner that does not conflict with and is consistent with those federal requirements.

This bill contains thirteen legislative findings and declarations, followed by this statement: “Based on the findings, the Legislature declares all of the following:” and contains six statements, including these four, which I think are good:
(3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the provisions enacted by this act be construed as codifying and preserving existing parity protections, not as establishing new health care benefit mandates or expanding the scope of required covered services.

(4) It is further the intent of the Legislature to ensure continuity, stability, and enforceability of parity protections under state law in the event of any repeal, amendment, or invalidation of federal parity regulations.

(5) This act affirms and clarifies the authority of the Department of Insurance and the Department of Managed Health Care, consistent with their existing statutory powers, to issue regulations, guidance, and enforcement actions necessary to implement and enforce mental health parity requirements.

(6) By codifying these standards in state law, the Legislature seeks to promote transparency, accountability, and effective oversight of parity compliance, while avoiding unnecessary duplication, disruption, or additional administrative burden.

Local preemption language:
It is the intent of the Legislature that this section shall preempt all local ordinances or regulations governing the 

Reviving time-barred claims:
Notwithstanding any other law, a claim for damages described in this section arising from conduct that occurred, in whole or in part, on or after January 1, 2009, that has not been litigated to finality and that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2027, because the applicable statute of limitations or any other time limit had expired, shall be revived. These claims may be commenced within three years of January 1, 2027, or within the time period specified in subdivision (b), whichever is later.

Prospective application with an additional requirement:
The amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall apply only to contracts entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, and only to those contracts that have an estimated value that exceeds five hundred fifty thousand dollars ($550,000).

Sometimes we do not want to create a new crime despite a violation of law:
Notwithstanding Section 25617, a violation of this section is not a crime.

Interesting provision in the Penal Code:
This section is directory only and does not mandate dismissal of an action by its terms.

I like the specific reference to the law being amended in the intent statement (this is the proper way of using these types of statements):
It is the intent of the Legislature in amending Section 830.1 of the Penal Code to provide equal statutory recognition to deputy sheriffs who are assigned to custodial duties. This act is not intended to interfere with the collective bargaining process, alter existing bargaining units or job classifications, affect negotiations between the sheriff and employee organizations regarding compensation or assignments, or in any way encourage or authorize correctional personnel to take or displace traditional deputy sheriff law enforcement positions.

A very clear statement regarding applicability:
This section shall apply only to the California State University.

This is not necessary (you do not have to list specific laws after a notwithstanding clause):
Notwithstanding any other law, including, but not limited to, …

Another way to make a law’s provisions prospective:
This section does not apply to any fee adopted or amended prior to the effective date of the act that added this section.

At the end of findings and declarations, we should conclude with an intent statement, and something else like this:
Thus, the Legislature recognizes

These provisions are great:
The purpose of this chapter is to establish….

Certain statutory and regulatory requirements governing ETP recordkeeping, training delivery nomenclature, and program administration are outdated or no longer reflective of modern workforce training and recordkeeping practices.

Modernizing ETP statutes to expressly authorize electronic recordkeeping, digital training attendance tracking, and updated program terminology will improve clarity, consistency, administrative efficiency, and program performance while reducing unnecessary administrative burden.

An example of a well-drafted special statute finding:
The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances in the Salinas Reservoir. The facts constituting the special circumstances are:

Recreational activities, including boating, fishing, hiking, biking, and other activities, take place in the several thousand acres of open space surrounding the Salinas Reservoir. The County of San Luis Obispo manages the reservoir and its untreated water. The City of San Luis Obispo will continue effective water treatment through microfiltration and disinfection.

I like this statement at the conclusion of findings and declarations, and legislative intent statements:
The purposes of this measure are to

Examples of too much legalese in the Budget Bill:
Section 1.80(c) Whenever by constitutional or statutory provision the revenues or receipts of any institution, department, board, bureau, commission, officer, employee, or other agency, or any moneys in any special fund created by law therefor, are to be used for any proper purpose, expenditures shall be made therefrom for any such purpose only to the extent of the amount therein appropriated, unless otherwise stated herein.

Section 1.80(d) Appropriations for purposes not otherwise provided for herein that have been heretofore made by any existing constitutional or statutory provision shall continue to be governed thereby.

There is potentially a difficult standard to meet (see the last phrase):
This section shall be implemented only to the extent that any necessary federal approvals are obtained and federal financial participation is available and is not otherwise jeopardized.

This provision is rarely seen outside omnibus bills:
Any section of Senate Bill 989, Senate Bill 1016, and Senate Bill 1242 enacted by the Legislature during the 2026 calendar year that takes effect on or before January 1, 2027, and that amends, adds, repeals and adds, or repeals a section that is amended or added by this act, shall prevail over this act, whether that act is enacted before, or subsequent to, the enactment of this act.

If you’re going to try to direct the courts on interpretation, I like this approach because it provides a rationale for the requested liberal interpretation:
This article shall be liberally interpreted to achieve its purposes of preserving affordable housing and expanding the opportunities for owners of mobilehomes and manufactured homes to purchase the community in which their homes are located.

Probably the best urgency clause explanation in a bill this year:
This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

(a) Mobilehome and recreational vehicle parks are widely considered to be naturally occurring affordable housing, and are home to 1.6 million Californians who are often older and lower-income individuals.

(b) To maintain California’s progress on slowing down the increase in homelessness, we must keep people housed and preserve all varieties of affordable housing.

(c) There are 5,230 active mobilehome and recreational vehicle parks in the State of California with a total of 453,755 lots and spaces.

(d) The average park size is 86 lots or spaces, however the ten largest parks in the state each have over 500 spaces and the largest mobilehome park in California has 923 spaces.

(e) Half of the ten largest mobilehome parks in California are within Senate District 10; three of those are in Sunnyvale and are impacted by Senate Bill 79 (Chapter 512 of the Statutes of 2025). As public transit expands and bus rapid transit systems become more popular, the impacts of Senate Bill 79 on mobilehome and recreational vehicle parks will become more widespread.

(f) For the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the Legislature must protect mobilehome, recreational vehicle, and special occupancy parks just as deed-restricted and subsidized affordable housing is protected.

One approach in making a “declaratory of existing law” statutory addition:
Consistent with the decisions in Scott v. Bd. of Equalization (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1597 and Schettler v. County of Santa Clara (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 990, the free provision, or granting of incentive payments for use, of compost or mulch by a jurisdiction constitutes a public purpose resulting in the public benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing soil productivity and water retention, and facilitating diversion of organic waste and so shall not be construed to be gifts of public funds in violation of Section 6 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

Interesting statutory provision:
This section provides guidance only. This section does not limit or expand the authority of the state board.

This provision gives clear guidance to the executive branch department when drafting regulations:
(f) (1) The state board may adopt rules and regulations to monitor, verify, and enforce reductions in embodied carbon in building materials pursuant to this section and Section 38561.3, consistent with the requirements of Section 38561.4.

(2) The state board shall minimize the administrative burden of implementing and complying with these regulations when possible.

(3) The state board shall design any rules and regulations to encourage manufacturers of building materials to produce low-carbon materials for sale in California to ensure that entities that undertake construction of projects identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 38561.3 have an adequate supply of low-carbon materials that meet all of the feasibility and cost impact requirements of subdivision (f) of Section 38561.3 to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets established in Section 38561.3.

Support for The Micheli Files is provided by The McGeorge School of Law Capital Center for Law & Policy.