California Bills: Search Results

Results 1-10 of 14,976 bills

AB 1014 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 1524 Of, to Amend, Repeal, and Add Section 18250 Of, to Add Section 1542.5 To, and to Add Division 3.2 (Commencing with Section 18100) to Title 2 of Part 6 Of, the Penal Code, and to Amend, Repeal, and Add Section 8105 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Firearms.

Gun violence restraining orders

Nancy Skinner, Das Williams / The bill has become law (chaptered).

(1)Existing law regulates the sale, transfer, possession, and ownership of firearms, including prohibiting specified persons from owning or possessing firearms. Existing law, among other things, generally prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from owning or possessing a firearm while that order is in effect. This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary… More
(1)Existing law regulates the sale, transfer, possession, and ownership of firearms, including prohibiting specified persons from owning or possessing firearms. Existing law, among other things, generally prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from owning or possessing a firearm while that order is in effect. This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require a law enforcement officer to serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located, file a copy of the order with the court, and have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice. The bill would require the presiding judge of the superior court of each county to designate at least one judge, commissioner, or referee who is required to be reasonably available to issue temporary emergency gun violence restraining orders when the court is not in session. This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order and would require the court to hold a hearing within 21 days of issuing the ex parte gun violence restraining order to determine if a gun violence restraining order that is in effect for one year should be issued. The bill would require a law enforcement officer or a person at least 18 years of age who is not a party to the action to personally serve the restrained person the ex parte order, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. The bill would authorize a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would authorize the renewal of the order for additional one-year periods and would permit the restrained person to request one hearing to terminate the order during the effective period of the initial order or each renewal period. The bill would require a court, upon issuance of a gun violence restraining order, to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in his or her custody or control, or which he or she possesses or owns. The bill would require the local law enforcement agency to retain custody of the firearm or firearms and ammunition for the duration of a gun violence restraining order. The bill would require the court to notify the Department of Justice when any gun violence restraining order has been issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. The bill would also require the court, when sending that notice, to specify whether the person subject to the gun violence restraining order was present in court to be informed of the contents of the order or if the person failed to appear. The bill would require proof of service of the order to be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System, as specified. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to file a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing, knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass. The bill would also provide that a person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with the knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a 5-year period, commencing upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order. By creating new crimes and by requiring new duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2)Existing law states the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including when the property or things to be seized include a firearm or any other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, specified persons. This bill would allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a gun violence restraining order has been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law. The bill would also require the law enforcement officer executing a search warrant issued upon that ground to take custody of any firearm or ammunition that is in the restrained person’s custody or control or possession or that is owned by the restrained person, which is discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search and would provide rules for executing the search warrant when the location to be searched is jointly occupied by the restrained person and one or more other persons. (3)Existing law requires specified law enforcement officers to take temporary custody of any firearm or deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a lawful search when present at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or physical assault. This bill would apply the requirements described above to law enforcement officers serving a gun violence restraining order. The bill would also apply those requirements when the law enforcement officer is a sworn member of the Department of Justice who is a peace officer. (4)Existing law requires the Department of Justice to request public and private mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions to submit to the department information necessary to identify persons who are prohibited from having a firearm because the person has been admitted to a facility, is receiving inpatient treatment, and is a danger to himself, herself, or others. Existing law requires the department to only use the information for certain specified purposes. This bill would additionally authorize the department to use the above-described information to determine the eligibility of a person who is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a gun violence restraining order to acquire, carry, or possess firearms, destructive devices, or explosives. (5)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (6)This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 18250 of the Penal Code, proposed by SB 1154, to be operative only if SB 1154 and this bill are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. (7)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (8)The provisions of this bill would be effective January 1, 2016. Hide

416 times as much $
Support
Oppose

AB 1256 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 1708.8 Of, and to Add Section 1708.9 To, the Civil Code, Relating to Civil Law.

Civil law: privacy: entry and exit of facilities

Richard Bloom / The bill has become law (chaptered).

Existing law provides that a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or… More
Existing law provides that a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person. This bill would recast these provisions to instead provide that a person is liable for a physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person. The bill would define “private, personal, or familial activity,” as specified, and provide that this definition applies to physical and constructive invasion of privacy. Existing law provides that it is a crime punishable by a fine not exceeding $500, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a greater fine and a longer period of imprisonment if the defendant has been previously convicted of a specified violation of law, to come into any school building or upon any school grounds, without lawful business thereon, if the defendant’s presence or act interferes with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school or disrupts the school or its pupils or school activities and the defendant remains there after being asked to leave, reenters or comes upon that place within 7 days of being asked to leave, has otherwise established a continued pattern of unauthorized entry, or willfully or knowingly creates a disruption with the intent to threaten the immediate physical safety of any pupil in preschool, kindergarten, or any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, arriving at, attending, or leaving from school, as specified. This bill would provide that it is unlawful for any person, except a parent or guardian acting toward his or her minor child, to, by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction that is a crime of violence, intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person attempting to enter or exit a facility, or to, by nonviolent physical obstruction, intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person attempting to enter or exit a facility. The bill would define “facility” for purposes of these provisions as any public or private school grounds, or any health facility. The bill would authorize a person aggrieved by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action to enjoin the violation, for compensatory and punitive damages, for injunctive relief, and for the cost of suit and reasonable attorney’s and expert witness’ fees, or with respect to compensatory damages, to elect, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages, as specified. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney to bring a civil action to enjoin a violation of these provisions, for compensatory damages to persons and entities aggrieved by the violation, and for the imposition of a civil penalty, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1708.8 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 2306 that would become operative if this bill and AB 2306 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last. Hide

AB 1356 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 1708.7 of the Civil Code, Relating to Stalking.

Stalking: remedies

Richard Bloom / The bill has become law (chaptered).

Existing law provides that a person is liable for the tort of stalking if he or she engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff, that resulted in the plaintiff reasonably fearing for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member, and the defendant has either made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for… More
Existing law provides that a person is liable for the tort of stalking if he or she engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff, that resulted in the plaintiff reasonably fearing for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member, and the defendant has either made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or that of an immediate family member or has violated a restraining order, as specified. This bill would include a pattern of conduct intended to place the plaintiff under surveillance within those elements defining the tort of stalking. The bill would permit the plaintiff to show, as an alternative to the plaintiff reasonably fearing for his or her safety or that of a family member, that the pattern of conduct resulted in the plaintiff suffering substantial emotional distress, and that the pattern of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. The bill would require the plaintiff to show that the person has either made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or that of an immediate family member, or, reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff or that of an immediate family member. The bill would relieve the plaintiff, under exigent circumstances, as specified, of the requirement to demand that the defendant cease his or her behavior. The bill would also define the terms “follows,” “place under surveillance,” and “substantial emotional distress” for purposes of these provisions. Hide

AB 1431 (2013-2014) - An Act to Add Section 85705 to the Government Code, Relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

Campaign contributions: school district and community college district administrators

Lorena Gonzalez / This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 establishes certain limits on the amount of contributions that a person or group can make to a candidate for elective state office, or to a committee. This bill would prohibit an administrator of a school district or community college district, as defined, from knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a contribution for the campaign of an elected official of… More
The Political Reform Act of 1974 establishes certain limits on the amount of contributions that a person or group can make to a candidate for elective state office, or to a committee. This bill would prohibit an administrator of a school district or community college district, as defined, from knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a contribution for the campaign of an elected official of the district employing the administrator, or any candidate for an office of the school district or community college district employing the administrator. The bill would clarify that this prohibition does not apply to an administrator who is soliciting, accepting, or receiving a contribution for his or her own campaign for an office of a school district or community college district. The bill would also prohibit an elected official of a school district or community college district, or a candidate for an office of a school district or community college district, from requesting an administrator of the school district or community college district to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution for the campaign of that elected official or candidate. Existing law makes a knowing or willful violation of the Political Reform Act of 1974 a misdemeanor and subjects offenders to criminal penalties. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act’s purposes upon a 23 vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act. Hide

AB 1440 (2013-2014) - An Act to Add Sections 21507, 21607, 21621, and 22001 To, to Add Chapter 2 (Commencing with Section 10010) to Part 1 of Division 10 Of, and to Repeal Sections 21500.1, 21601.1, and 21620.1 Of, the Elections Code, Relating to Elections.

Elections: district boundaries: public hearing

Nora Campos / The bill has become law (chaptered).

Existing law requires county boards of supervisors and the councils of general law and charter cities that elect members by or from districts following each decennial federal census, and using that census as a basis, to adjust the boundaries of the supervisorial and council districts, as specified. Existing law requires a county board of supervisors or a city council of a general law city or the… More
Existing law requires county boards of supervisors and the councils of general law and charter cities that elect members by or from districts following each decennial federal census, and using that census as a basis, to adjust the boundaries of the supervisorial and council districts, as specified. Existing law requires a county board of supervisors or a city council of a general law city or the governing body of a charter city to hold at least one public hearing on any proposal to adjust the boundaries of a district prior to a public hearing at which the board or council votes to approve or defeat the proposal. This bill would also require the governing body of a district to hold at least one public hearing on a proposal to adjust the boundaries of a division prior to a public hearing at which the governing body of the district votes to approve or defeat the proposal. The bill would require a political subdivision that changes from an at-large method of election to a district-based election, as defined, to hold at least 2 public hearings on a proposal to establish the district boundaries of the political subdivision prior to a public hearing at which the governing body of the political subdivision votes to approve or defeat the proposal. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions. Because the bill would impose additional duties on local agencies, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Hide

$0
Support
Oppose

AB 1517 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 680 of the Penal Code, Relating to DNA Evidence.

DNA evidence

Nancy Skinner / The bill has become law (chaptered).

Existing law establishes the “Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights,” which, among other things, encourages a law enforcement agency assigned to investigate specified sexual assault offenses to perform DNA testing of rape kit evidence or other crime scene evidence in a timely manner to assure the longest possible statute of limitations. Existing law also requires a law enforcement… More
Existing law establishes the “Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights,” which, among other things, encourages a law enforcement agency assigned to investigate specified sexual assault offenses to perform DNA testing of rape kit evidence or other crime scene evidence in a timely manner to assure the longest possible statute of limitations. Existing law also requires a law enforcement agency to inform victims of certain sexual assault offenses, if the identity of the perpetrator is in issue, if the law enforcement agency elects not to analyze DNA evidence within certain time limits. This bill instead would, with respect to specific sex offenses, encourage a law enforcement agency in whose jurisdiction the sexual assault offense occurred to submit sexual assault forensic evidence received by the agency on or after January 1, 2016, to the crime lab within 20 days after it is booked into evidence, and ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program, as defined, is in place to submit forensic evidence collected from the victim of a sexual assault to the crime lab within 5 days after the evidence is obtained from the victim. The bill would also encourage the crime lab, with respect to sexual assault forensic evidence received by the lab on or after January 1, 2016, to process that evidence, create DNA profiles when able, and upload qualifying DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index System as soon as practically possible, but no later than 120 days after initially receiving the evidence, or to transmit the sexual assault forensic evidence to another crime lab as soon as practically possible, but no later than 30 days after initially receiving the evidence, as specified. The bill would also revise the provisions requiring a law enforcement agency to inform victims of certain sexual assault offenses, to make the requirement applicable without regard to whether the identity of the perpetrator is in issue, if the law enforcement agency does not analyze DNA evidence, and to require those entities to notify the victims within 6 months of the time limits established under existing law. By imposing a higher level of service on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Hide

$0
Support
Oppose

AB 1532 (2013-2014) - An Act to Add Section 20005 to the Vehicle Code, Relating to Accidents.

Vehicle: accidents

Mike Gatto / This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law.

Existing law requires a driver involved in an accident resulting only in damage to property to, among other things, immediately stop the vehicle at the nearest location that will not impede traffic or otherwise jeopardize the safety of other motorists. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by a fine not exceeding… More
Existing law requires a driver involved in an accident resulting only in damage to property to, among other things, immediately stop the vehicle at the nearest location that will not impede traffic or otherwise jeopardize the safety of other motorists. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both. This bill would provide that a driver of a vehicle involved in an accident where a person is struck shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and provide specified information including, but not limited to, his or her name and current residence address. A violation of these provisions would be either an infraction, punishable by a fine not exceeding $250, or a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for 6 months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both, and the Department of Motor Vehicles would be required to immediately suspend the driver’s license of a convicted driver for 6 months. Because these changes would have the effect of expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide

46 times as much $
Support
Oppose

AB 1537 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend, Repeal, and Add Section 65583.2 of the Government Code, Relating to Land Use.

General plan housing element: regional housing need

Marc Levine / The bill has become law (chaptered).

The Planning and Zoning Law requires each city, county, or city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. That law requires the housing element to, among other things, include an inventory of land suitable for residential development and make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of… More
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each city, county, or city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. That law requires the housing element to, among other things, include an inventory of land suitable for residential development and make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. That law prescribes the densities appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households and varies those densities depending upon how an area is classified, whether as metropolitan, suburban, or in another category. A city, county, or city and county is required to submit a draft housing element or draft amendment to its housing element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for a determination of whether the draft substantially complies with state law governing housing elements. This bill would require, until December 31, 2023, a county that is in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont California Metropolitan Statistical Area and that has a population of less than 400,000 to be considered suburban for purposes of determining the densities appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households. The bill would require these counties to utilize the sums existing in their housing trust funds as of June 30, 2013, for affordable housing, as specified. The bill would, for that same purpose, also require a city that has a population of less than 100,000 and is incorporated within that county to be considered suburban. The bill would require a county or city so classified to make 2 reports, as specified, to the Legislature and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would apply housing density requirements in place on June 30, 2014, within 12 mile of a Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit station. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1690 that would become operative if this bill and AB 1690 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for certain areas of the state. Hide

11 times as much $
Support
Oppose

AB 1539 (2013-2014) - An Act to Add Section 60605.4 to the Education Code, Relating to Content Standards.

Content standards: computer science

Curt Hagman / The bill has become law (chaptered).

Existing law requires the State Board of Education to adopt statewide academically rigorous content standards, pursuant to recommendations of the Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards, in core curriculum areas. This bill would require the Instructional Quality Commission to consider developing and recommending to the state board, on or before July 31,… More
Existing law requires the State Board of Education to adopt statewide academically rigorous content standards, pursuant to recommendations of the Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards, in core curriculum areas. This bill would require the Instructional Quality Commission to consider developing and recommending to the state board, on or before July 31, 2019, computer science content standards for kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, pursuant to recommendations developed by a group of computer science experts. The bill would require the commission to consider existing computer science content standards, including, but not limited to, national K–12 computer science content standards developed by the Computer Science Teachers Association. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction, in consultation with the state board, to consider convening that group of experts and ensure that the group includes individuals from specified groups. The bill would declare that the operation of its provisions is subject to an appropriation being made for these purposes in the annual Budget Act or another statute. Hide

$0
Support
Oppose

AB 155 (2013-2014) - An Act to Add Section 11.1 to the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act (Chapter 1159 of the Statutes of 1990), Relating to Water.

Monterey County Water Resources Agency: design-build

Luis Alejo / The bill has become law (chaptered).

(1)Existing law, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, establishes the Monterey County Water Resources Agency as a flood control and water agency within the County of Monterey. This bill would authorize the agency to award a design-build contract for the combined design and construction of a project to connect Lake San Antonio, located in the County of Monterey, and Lake Nacimiento,… More
(1)Existing law, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, establishes the Monterey County Water Resources Agency as a flood control and water agency within the County of Monterey. This bill would authorize the agency to award a design-build contract for the combined design and construction of a project to connect Lake San Antonio, located in the County of Monterey, and Lake Nacimiento, located in the County of San Luis Obispo, with an underground tunnel or pipeline for the purpose of maximizing water storage, supply, and groundwater recharge. Certain alternative provisions of the bill that would authorize the agency to use a different design-build procedure, as specified, would become operative only if SB 785 is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2015. (2)The bill would declare that, due to the unique circumstances of the agency, a general statute within the meaning of specified provisions of the California Constitution cannot be made applicable and a special statute is necessary. Hide

7.9 times as much $
Support
Oppose