Niello, a Fair Oaks Republican who also helps oversee his family’s auto dealership business, has spent years pushing legislation aimed at curbing what he describes as opportunistic lawsuits filed against small businesses over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. His concern traces back to Scott Johnson, a Northern California man who filed thousands of such lawsuits and drew widespread criticism for what many viewed as profit-driven litigation rather than genuine advocacy for accessibility.

This year’s attempt, Senate Bill 84, would have given small business owners 120 days to fix ADA violations before they could be sued. The bill cleared the state Senate with strong, bipartisan support. But it never got a chance in the Assembly — not because lawmakers voted it down, but because the chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee simply refused to schedule a hearing.

That chair, Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose, said Niello’s refusal to accept proposed amendments left him no choice. Kalra, a former defense attorney who has led the committee since 2023, called the bill an affront to the disability rights community in its original form.

“Having a piece of legislation that completely undermines the ADA without taking any amendments is a slap in the face to the disability rights community,” Kalra said.

This marks the second time Kalra has effectively killed a similar Niello proposal without a hearing. A nearly identical bill, Senate Bill 585, met the same fate in 2023.

Disability rights organizations have consistently opposed Niello’s approach, arguing it removes incentive for businesses to fix accessibility problems proactively and makes it harder for people with disabilities to enforce their rights. Business groups, however, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association and dozens of local chambers, have thrown their support behind the measure, arguing that a small number of law firms have used minor technical violations — regardless of whether they truly restrict access — to extract settlements from business owners.

While closed-door negotiations over legislation are common in Sacramento, longtime Capitol lobbyist Chris Micheli said it’s highly unusual for a bill from one legislative chamber to be blocked entirely by a committee chair in the other chamber without any public hearing. Micheli, who represents the Civil Justice Association of California, a supporter of Niello’s bill, said such moves are typically reserved for bills within a chamber’s own house.

At the same time Niello’s bill was sidelined, Kalra’s committee helped shape a rival approach: Assembly Bill 649, authored by Long Beach Democrat Josh Lowenthal. That measure builds on California’s existing Certified Access Specialist inspection program, which currently gives businesses 120 days to correct additional violations once they’ve completed a certified inspection. Lowenthal’s bill would extend that protection window to six years.

Niello argues the state doesn’t have enough certified inspectors to make that system work at scale, and said he was frustrated that Kalra’s committee wanted his bill to essentially mirror Lowenthal’s rather than let both proposals compete on their own merits.

“I said to (Kalra), let both bills move forward and let the bill with the best merit win, and if they both pass the Legislature, then let the governor decide,” Niello said. “I’m perfectly happy to cast my fate to that particular whim, but he’s not.”

Kalra pushed back sharply against Niello’s continued lobbying for a hearing, characterizing it as an attempt to strong-arm the process.

“Just trying to push a chair into having a hearing without any consideration about other opinions is not how business is done,” Kalra said.

Niello called that characterization “frankly offensive,” saying he had engaged directly with disability rights advocates about his bill. Those groups, however, remain firmly opposed. In a letter to state lawmakers, Disability Rights California and allied organizations argued that no other civil rights law requires victims to formally notify violators and wait months before they can seek legal recourse. The coalition has instead thrown its support behind Lowenthal’s bill, which it says better balances the concerns of business owners with the rights of people with disabilities.

Kalra has close ties to the Consumer Attorneys of California, a group that also opposes Niello’s legislation. Campaign finance records show Kalra has voted in line with the organization’s positions on 97% of bills it has weighed in on since he took office in 2016, and has received more than $62,000 in campaign contributions from the group during that time. Asked whether those contributions influenced his decision on SB 84, Kalra said he’d had “almost zero conversation” with the group about the bill, but had spoken extensively with disability rights advocates.

“To suggest that somehow I’m being influenced by a group that I’ve hardly ever talked to about this bill at all is just flatly not true,” he said.

Lowenthal’s bill, meanwhile, continues to advance and is expected to be heard again later this summer after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee — though two Democratic senators who had co-authored Niello’s bill voted against it. During the hearing, state Sen. Henry Stern voiced some discomfort with how the process had unfolded, telling Lowenthal he appreciated the chance for a vote but had expected Niello’s competing idea to at least get similar consideration given the level of support it received in the Senate.

As for Niello, he says the fight isn’t over. He’s already considering bringing the proposal back if voters return him to the Legislature this November.

“SB 84 is dead,” he said, “but the idea is not dead.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Backed Bill to Curb ADA Lawsuits — So Why Did It Fail? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

He was the only legislator to vote “no” on a controversial piece of legislation while nearly half of the 80 members in the state Assembly – and a majority of the Democrats – did not vote.

The bill, which would make it easier to arrest shoplifters, is a recent example of a pattern CalMatters revealed in April with legislators dodging votes to avoid offending the bill’s supporters or to eliminate a record of their opposition on controversial topics.

Assembly Bill 1990 passed the Assembly 44-1 last week with 35 lawmakers not casting a vote including 32 of the 62 Democrats and the Assembly speaker, Robert Rivas. Some of those not voting had excused absences, but the Legislature’s online record does not distinguish between an absence, an abstention or not voting. 

The bill would allow police to make an arrest for shoplifting without a warrant, even if they did not witness the crime. Los Angeles Assemblywoman Wendy Carillo, who authored the bill with five Democratic and two Republican coauthors, said it is “in response to the alarming escalation of organized retail theft,” which has become a hot-button political issue. 

But progressive Democrats, leery of increasing incarceration rates for minor offenses, were uncomfortable with the bill.

“Let’s be clear: AB 1990 will not stop retail theft,” Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood, told her colleagues. “AB 1990 will increase the unnecessary harassment, detention, arrest and mass incarceration of Black and brown Californians.”

She concluded her speech: “I am asking all of you to please vote ‘no’ on AB 1990.”

McKinnor, however, did not vote on the bill.

Her office did not respond to CalMatters’ request for an explanation about why she did not vote despite her clear opposition. 

Kalra, of San Jose, also did not respond to a request from CalMatters to explain why he cast the lone “no” vote. 

But Kalra has been a longtime champion of progressive causes. He’s a former deputy public defender and the former chair of the Legislature’s Progressive Caucus. He has advocated for legislation that seeks to end systematic racism in the justice system.

For a time, it seemed that Kalra wasn’t going to be the lone Democrat “no” vote on AB 1990.

Fellow Democratic Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles also was listed as voting “no,” according to video of the voting roll call captured by CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.

But Zbur, who chairs the Assembly Democratic Caucus, changed his vote after the bill passed so that he would be formally listed as not voting. In the Assembly, members can change their vote on a bill after a hearing has concluded, as long as it doesn’t change the final outcome. 

Asked to explain why he changed his vote, his spokesperson, Vienna Montague, said in an email that Zbur “does not have a comment at this time.”

While AB 1990 survived to advance to the Senate, despite so many lawmakers not voting, other bills haven’t fared as well.

Last year, at least 15 bills died due to lack of votes instead of lawmakers voting “no” on them. So far this year, the Digital Democracy database indicates at least 17 bills have died because lawmakers declined to vote. 

Meanwhile, Senate and Assembly leaders have repeatedly refused to answer CalMatters’ questions about whether the Legislature’s voting rules should change.

Politicians may think not voting helps their political career in the long-run since they believe it’ll be more difficult for someone to use a controversial “no” vote against them in a campaign ad, said Thad Kousser, a former California legislative staffer who’s now a political science professor at UC San Diego. But he says that’s shortsighted. He said any savvy political operative can just as easily say they “failed to support this bill” in an ad.

Kousser said if lawmakers really do have strong feelings against a bill, they’re better off voting “no.” 

“Politicians’ political interests are probably best served by taking a stand that best fits their values and explaining that to voters,” Kousser said. 

Not voting, he said, is “just another way of saying, ‘I didn’t represent you on this bill.’ ”

The post How did a shoplifting bill get through California’s liberal Assembly with most Democrats opposed? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.