According to a report on Asians in America released by Pew Research Center this April, about 14% of unauthorized immigrants in the United States in 2017 were of Asian descent. The number highlights the fact that Asians in America are not a monolith—we are a diverse group coming from diverse backgrounds with diverse needs.

In recent years, as anti-immigrant sentiment has increased, Asian communities have experienced the effects firsthand. For example, in Northern California, in the past few years alone, deportations of Cambodian Americans have gone up 279%.

Immigrants rights groups like Asian American Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus and NorCal Resist, along with lawmakers, have fought to stop the deportations of hundreds in the Southeast Asian refugee community. Many Asian immigrants have found themselves in ICE custody and deportation proceedings through transfers from their local prison after completing their sentence. This included Phi Pham, a Vietnamese refugee and formerly incarcerated firefighter, who was featured on the cover of the San Francisco Chronicle.

In response, the VISION Act was created to stop ICE transfers. Co-sponsored by 50 organizations, including the Asian Law Caucus, the VISION Act was priority legislation for the API, Latinx, and Black Legislative Caucuses. The VISION Act has currently been put on hold, but advocates continue to fight against such transfers.

If you or someone you know is an unauthorized immigrant living in the United States, you can find more information on your rights and how to speak with ICE in the Immigrant Defense Project links below. All people in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have certain rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution. And to report ICE activity, you can call the Sacramento FUEL Network’s Rapid Response Hotline at 916-245-6773.

About Kishwer Vikaas

Kishwer is a Staff Attorney at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law’s Immigration Clinic. She has been an attorney in the Immigration Clinic since July 2017.

As 1Ls prepare application materials in a bid to participate in the 2022 SCBA Diversity Fellowship, John Gutierrez (’23) shared his experience as a fellow in last year’s program and what it has done for his law school journey. Read John’s story below:

John Gutierrez, ’23

“I have always loved storytelling. As a child, my mother would lull me to bed with old Mexican-heritage stories from her abuelita that painted reminiscent pictures of Jalisco’s red-dirt ranches that we would visit in the hot summers. Although I did not know it at the time, these stories were my first cultural connection to my Mexican heritage. Their folkloric lessons introduced me to my family values and, in time, taught me to love my Chicano identity that seemed ever fleeting as my family assimilated into an American lifestyle.

Yet, after my first year in law school, storytelling seemed out of place in the legal profession amidst rote memorization of statutes and regulations. However, my participation in the Sacramento County Bar Associations’ (SCBA) Diversity Fellowship in my 1L summer showed me the part of the law that I was missing: the law is a tool for telling stories.

The SCBA Diversity Fellowship placed me with Boutin Jones Inc., Attorneys at Law, in Sacramento, California. Boutin Jones is Sacramento’s premier business law firm and the firm aspires to a client-centered approach. A critical part of client-centeredness is learning your client’s story and communicating that story to the court.

Whether I was helping a client amend a trust to protect their family’s earnings, or helping a business collect on a judgment that they fairly deserved, every assignment involved telling a story. It was my responsibility to learn the history of the case, actively read the facts, perform legal research with purpose, and apply the law in creative ways to achieve our client’s desired outcome. Through this process, I helped create seamless stories that my firm used to advocate for our clients. Indeed, storytelling is a critical component of the legal profession.

The SCBA Diversity Fellowship is one of those rare gems that can make a transformational change in a person’s life.  Before my 1L summer, I had zero experience in private law and had few connections in the legal field.  Yet, my Fellowship gave me the chance to work hard and demonstrate my legal skills in a top law firm filled with intelligent attorneys.  Without the SCBA Fellowship, I would never have had that chance.

Reapplying to Boutin Jones through McGeorge’s ‘On-Campus Interviews’ (OCI) was a no-brainer, and I was excited to speak about the skills I developed in my Fellowship.  My experience with billable hours, drafting client letters, and working independently gave me an edge over my peers.  I felt confident and prepared for all of my OCI applications because I knew my professional record in a leading firm made me a competitive applicant. Although I was fortunate to receive other OCI offers, I knew if I returned to Boutin Jones then I could learn and develop my legal skills in an environment where I felt welcomed and valued.  I am thrilled to have accepted a return offer from Boutin Jones for my 2L summer and I look forward to the challenging work ahead.

I am grateful that the SCBA Fellowship gave me what all law students desire the most: a chance. A chance to prove myself in a premier law office. A chance to learn from the best attorneys in Sacramento.  And a chance to learn that the legal profession is all about telling stories.”

With all the legislative deadlines completed, and all the bills signed or vetoed, we can now take a look at the 2021 legislative session by the numbers. Just more than 800 bills reached the Governor’s desk, including close to 700 bills that were passed in the final month of the legislative session.

2,421 bills were introduced in 2021. 828 bills were introduced in the State Senate, 1,593 came from the Assembly. In total, 836 bills made it to the desk of Governor Gavin Newsom, roughly 34.5% of the total number of bills introduced. 32% of the bills introduced were signed into law, and 3% of all bills introduced were vetoed.

Governor Newsom signed 770 of the 836 bills that reached his desk, good for a 92.1% signature rate. 66 bills were vetoed, meaning 7.9% of the bills reaching the governor’s desk got vetoed.

Of the 770 bills that were signed into law, 66% were Assembly Bills, 34% were Senate Bills. Of the Assembly Bills that were signed into law, 75% were authored by Democrats, 11.5% were authored by Republicans, and the remaining 13.5% were either committee bills or authored by the independent legislator. 76% of the Senate Bills that became law were authored by Democrats, 8.5% were authored by Republicans, and 15.5% were committee bills.

Of the 66 vetoed bills, 68% were AB’s and 32% were SB’s. Of the AB’s that were vetoed, 91% were written by Democrats, 4% by Republicans, and the remaining 5% came from committees or the independent legislator. As far as SB’s are concerned, 86% were authored by Democrats and 14% were written by Republicans.

Governor Newsom’s 7.9% veto rate this year is down from the 13% of bills he vetoed last year, when the length of the legislative session and the number of bills was cut down by the COVID-19 pandemic. Both are lower rates than the 16.5% of bills he vetoed in his first year.

By comparison, Governor Brown in his second stint as Governor received between 850 and 1,250 bills annually. He vetoed a low of 10% and a high of 15% of those bills. His predecessor, Governor Schwarzenegger received between 900 and 1.250 in his seven years as governor. He vetoed between 22% and 35%. In Governor Gray Davis’s five years, he received between 950 and 1,450 bills, vetoing a low of 6% and a high of 25% of the bills. Before him, Governor Pete Wilson received between 1,050 and 1,700 bills and vetoed between 8% and 24% of bills.

You can read a transcript of the audio in this post here.

Another topic that Ray LeBov and I have put thought into is advice for organizations hiring a lobbyist. There are numerous things to think about when you’re hiring an employee lobbyist or a contract lobbyist, and we offer some of our best practice suggestions for navigating that process.

Regardless of the type of individual an organization has to hire, either one internally as an employee or one externally as a contractor, the fundamental questions to ask yourself are still, what do I and my organization need and what does our lobbying effort need? Keep in mind that the individual(s) that you hire, whether they are an employee or a contractor, will be a public face for your company, your association, your industry, or your trade group. Choose wisely.

The first question to consider is whether to hire an employee lobbyist or a contract lobbyist. While a contract lobbyist can address some short-term needs, hiring for an in house lobbyist should have a long term view in mind. For employee, or in house, lobbyists, some other questions you should answer are do you want a newly minted individual or someone with more experience? Do you need to diversify your workforce? If so, remember to consider things like party affiliation, ethnicity, technical expertise, and relationships with elected or appointed officials.

For contract lobbyists, there are different questions you should look answer. Those include What expertise does the lobbyist bring to the table? Does their skill set match with your organization’s needs? What is their track record? Do they have any conflicts of interest that cannot be easily resolved?

You can find the transcript of the audio in today’s post here.

The CDO is excited to announce a new way to schedule your career advising appointments via Squarespace Scheduling! No more playing phone tag or back-and-forth emails needed to set up your next appointment – just pick a date and time and you’re set! Whatever your needs may be, we’ve got you covered. (Note: This will replace the scheduling feature on McGeorgeCareersOnline.)

Click the button at the top of the sidebar to schedule a meeting with a career advisor now or scan the QR code below to make an appointment from your phone!

 

CDO Scheduling QR code

You will be prompted to download the Scheduling app upon first scanning.

One of the most critical things for a lobbyist to get right is the lobbyist-client relationship. This is something my colleague Ray LeBov and I have written about before and the most important advice we can impart is that expectations need to be set early by both parties – what does the client expect from the lobbyist? What does the client need or want?

Sometimes those questions are easy and clear. Pass or defeat a specific bill, for example. However, there are other times where it may be less clear. In other instances, maybe they want to increase their presence or develop certain relationships. At a minimum, the client expects to be treated with respect, to be kept apprised of all major developments and to not have a lobbyist who has a conflict in representing the client.

There are a number of obligations to the client that can be found in the Institute of Governmental Advocates Code of Conduct. First, the lobbyist has definite ethical obligations to a client to be truthful, to follow the law, to protect any confidential and proprietary information that the lobbyist obtains. Second, the lobbyist should be an effective representative for the client. She or he must have knowledge and confidence throughout the legislative process when representing his or her client.

The lobbyist’s goal should be to under-promise and over-deliver, as Ray likes to say. Do not set unreasonable expectations or suggest the ability to achieve something that cannot realistically in fact be achieved. That does not bode well for a successful engagement between the lobbyist and her or his client. And when it comes to major decisions, remember that the client is the ultimate boss. It’s their money and interests at stake.

Some clients are located in, or frequently visit, Sacramento and may want to be much more involved in the lobbying effort whereas others never come to Sacramento, and some the lobbyist may never even meet face to face. Regardless of the location or the level of involvement of your client, the lobbyist needs to educate the client about the legislative process, about the personalities, about the policy and the politics, and of course, what the client should expect throughout the legislative process. The more the client understands what is happening under the Capitol dome, it’ll be better for both parties to this engagement.

You can find the transcript audio in this post here.

Over the years, my colleague, Ray LeBov, and I have seen some mistakes that are common among new lobbyists but have also been made by more experienced advocates as well. I’ll detail some of those here.

Not reading the bill

Don’t rely on someone else’s description or understanding of the bill. Read the bill and any committee or floor analyses of the bill.

 

Not having paper 

Always provide a leave behind. Whether you deliver a physical piece of paper, by hand, or send it in an email, leaving a one-pager (or two if the bill is particularly complicated or detailed) helps jog the memory of the people you’ve lobbied. And they’ll have something written that they can reference after your conversation with them.

 

Taking votes for granted

Even if you think a legislator is likely to vote with your position, take the time to pay a courtesy visit. Don’t rely on only a hunch. Even if you think the legislator will vote against your position, check. Sometimes you might be pleasantly surprised that the legislator might actually vote with your stated position.

 

Failing to meet with both committee consultants

Both the majority party and the minority party have committee consultants. Be sure to communicate with both of them and supply them with the same paperwork so that all elected officials have the same information and these consultants have all the relevant details to complete their bill analyses.

 

Not finding the right bill author

This merits its own article but note that this takes time and effort to determine the best author for your bill. There are myriad factors that go into selecting the best bill author,

 

Not reading the room

Whether you’re in a legislator’s office or in a committee hearing; whether you’re for or against a bill, read the room. My colleagues and I can’t count how many times we’ve seen other lobbyists at the podium or at the table read their entire testimony for several minutes, right after the committee just admonished them to keep it brief.

 

Not understanding/appreciating the lobbyist/client relationship

Manage your client’s expectations. You need to establish how questions like “How is information provided?” “Who determines strategy and tactics?” and more are addressed before you get going in your relationship with your client.

 

Not telling the whole story

Eventually, everything becomes public in the legislative process. It is better to let everyone know in advance about a development, particularly an adverse one, than for them to find out about it from someone else.

 

Not being careful with what gets put in writing

In today’s world with social media and easily forwardable emails word travels fast. If you don’t want something widely known, don’t put it in writing.

You can find the transcript of the audio in this post here.

Today we’ll take a look at some key differences in four common legislative floor operations at the end of the legislative session versus earlier in the session.

Concurrence

Under Assembly Rule 77, a vote to concur in any Senate amendments to an Assembly Bill must meet the same vote threshold required for the bill itself to pass. This is generally a simple majority vote unless otherwise specified. However, the concurrence vote cannot be taken until the bill has been on the unfinished business file for one calendar day; this is known as the one-day waiting period. This does not apply to the last two days of the legislative session. Assembly Rule 77 can and does get suspended, as recently as the end of the 2020 legislative session.

The California Senate has no one-day waiting period. Senate Rule 29 still requires that the amended measure being returned to Senate from the Assembly with amendments appear in the unfinished business file of the Senate Daily File, and that Senators be provided with analysis of the amended Senate Bill, but there is no requirement in the Senate’s rules for one day to pass.

Floor Amendments

The two houses of the California Legislature operate slightly differently in how they amend the other house’s bills on the floor. In the Assembly, they are required to submit amendments the night before the Friday deadline, i.e. Thursday evening at 5:00 PM, although at the end of the session, the desk is known to stay open later to process the crush of amendments coming in. On Friday, the Floor Manager, that is the Assembly Member who is managing or presenting the Senate Bill on the Assembly floor, has to stand up on the floor and present the proposed amendments and seek approval for those amendments. Approval can either be made with the unanimous consent of the members or by a roll call vote. Any member can request a roll call vote. And in that case, the bill is amended by a majority of those present and voting.

In the Senate, amendments are not presented on the floor. Instead, amended bills are placed on the second reading file and amendments are processed by the Senate Desk. This effectively meant that, during the end of the 2021 session, amendments to ABs were made through 5 pm on the Friday before the last week of session.

Batching and the Consent Calendar

In recent years, the term “batching” has come up increasingly on the Assembly floor. It’s a process that once unanimous consent is received on the floor, permits a single vote for multiple bills or amendments to be adopted. It’s used, occasionally, when both the Democratic and Republican caucuses both have a support recommendation and no Republican legislators have abstained or voted no on the bill in committee or on the floor. It is most similar to the Senate’s special consent calendar.

Going Past Midnight

This question always arises at the end of session, as the clock ticks closer and closer to midnight, can legislative business be conducted after midnight on the last day of session?

In an even-numbered year, an election year, this question is clearly answered by California’s Constitution. Article IV, Section 10, Subdivision C states the Legislature must conduct work by midnight, August 31. There are three types of bills that are exceptions to this mandate.

However, in odd-numbered years, the date of adjournment is set by the Joint Rules of the Assembly and Senate. In past years, in following with its custom and practice, the Senate will work past the midnight deadline without suspending the Joint Rule. The Assembly, however, generally passes a resolution suspending the Joint Rule. Do they need to do that? I don’t think so. As a general principle of California’s separation of power doctrine, the judicial branch won’t consider a legal challenge to a statute that is alleged to have violated internal rule of procedure of either of the houses of the Legislature

You can find the transcript of the audio in today’s post here.

People often ask me what is the biggest problem that craft breweries face today.  To call a particular issue the “biggest” is nearly impossible considering the many ailments the craft brewing industry faces at present.  But there is one issue that stands out to me based on my experience with this industry as one that needs to change and is not supported by good policy:  legislative protections for distributors imbedded in distribution contracts.

Imagine you lovingly and successfully built a craft beer brand.  Your brand grew and grew until self-distribution wasn’t really an option anymore because you really never wanted to be a trucking company (complete with dispatch and car crashes and insane insurance).  You’d be proud, and if you were lucky, you’d attract the interest of a distributor who wants to take those trucking responsibilities away from you (for roughly 30% off the top).  Next imagine that two years have passed.  The distributor that you signed with sold your distribution rights to another distributor who you never wanted to do business with.  Worse yet, the new distributor has decided that it just doesn’t want to deliver your beer to the accounts that you cultivated over the years or that your brand has “plateaued” and is therefore not worthy of attention or promotion.  What can you do?  Answer in most states:  Nothing.

Most states provide statutorily mandated protections for distributors that make contracts between breweries and distributors heavily weighted in favor of distributors.  For example, most states provide distributors with transfer protections meaning that the distributor can sell a brewery’s distribution rights to another distributor with little or no say from the brewery.  In addition, most states provide termination protections whereby a brewery can only terminate a contract for statutorily defined “good cause” (something along the lines of fraud, bankruptcy, or other illegal conduct). California, for example, expressly states that a distributor’s failure to meet sales goals is not grounds for termination.  See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25000.7.  Further, distributors enjoy territorial exclusivity in most states.

What this boils down to is that distributors have breweries over a barrel.  They can buy and sell breweries’ distribution rights on whim; they can decide they don’t want to push a brand anymore for whatever reason; and because of territorial exclusivity, the brewery can’t find alternative means to get its product to shelves and tap handles.  Does that seem fair to you?

It is not.

The distributor’s lobby is powerful.  At the time many of these laws were passed, there were very few breweries and many small distributors.  So arguably, the small distributors were at the mercy of the few large breweries and were allegedly treated unfairly.  So distributors helped pass these laws to protect them from the whims of the few breweries.  The situation is precisely flipped today.

There are roughly 8500 breweries in the US, and the distribution tier is becoming more and more consolidated by the day.  I am saying that there is no legal or policy justification for providing distributors with legislative protections.  Not anymore (if there ever was).  Distributors have the power in the market without these legislative freebies.  They control whose beer goes where and how much.  Breweries have to sit by and hope.

This needs to change yesterday. I have seen too many breweries in this position—where they are stuck in an unhappy marriage with an indifferent distributor.  The brewery has to sit by and watch its brand die in those circumstances.  It’s not right.

I am starting a new project focused on this very important issue.   Stay tuned–I might need your help.

Post Script:  Some distributors are amazing and do incredible work.

With the 2021 legislative session at a close, we can now turn our attention to the actions Governor Newsom can take on the bills that were passed at the conclusion of the session on September 10. Governor Newsom can consider bills under October 10.

As a quick reminder, there are three actions that the governor can take on legislation on his or her desk. The governor can sign the bill into law. They can veto the bill. Or they can allow the bill to become law without a signature, California’s so-called pocket signature rule.

In this third year of Governor Newsom’s term, he received just over 800 bills to act on. That number was slightly depressed by the coronavirus pandemic compared to his first year in office. So far, he has acted on 159 of the 800 bills. During his first year in office, just over 1,000 bills were sent to Governor Newsom’s desk and he vetoed 16.5% of them. In his second year, where the pandemic reduced the number of bills introduced by 76%, just over 425 bills reached the governor’s desk. Newsom vetoed 13% of those bills.

How does this compare historically to other governors in the era of bill introduction limits? Since the 1990’s, when bill introduction limits were introduced, a typical year would have between 850 and 2,100 bills reach the Governor’s desk. Governor Pete Wilson usually received between 1,050 and 1,700 bills. His lowest veto rate was 8%, and his highest veto rate was 24%. In Governor Davis’s five years in office, he received between 950 and 1,450 bills and vetoed between 6% and 25%. Governor Schwarzenegger received between 900 and 1,250 bills during his term. He vetoed between 22% and 35% of bills. And most recently Governor Brown, in his second stint as governor, received between 850 and 1,200 bills annually, vetoing between 10 to 15% of them.

You can find the transcript of the audio in today’s post here.