California Democrats rush to pass additional anti-ICE bills

California Democrats have not taken a break when it comes to Trump-proofing the state. As U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to carry out President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda, state lawmakers have introduced dozens, if not hundreds, of bills to protect their communities.

May 29 is the last day for both the Assembly and Senate to pass any non-urgent bills, making the month a mad dash to the finish line. 

Senate Bill 957

Nicknamed the “Shield Act,” this bill, introduced by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena) would require social media companies to notify Californians when federal agencies file subpoenas to access their personal data. The bill outlines a 30-day period for Californians to challenge the subpoena and would also require the companies to disclose what data was shared and report the interaction to the state attorney general.

SB 957 is backed by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group.

The Shield Act faced no public opposition and the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure with support from every Democrat and a single Republican member.

“Social media has become a critical tool for Californians to engage in activism, political expression and information sharing. This is especially true now,” Perez said during the April 21 hearing. “Discussions around politics and government have been particularly prominent as communities across the state are responding to increased federal immigration enforcement.”

According to the New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has increasingly used subpoenas to pressure social media companies to release personal information - including names, telephone numbers and email addresses - of account holders that have posted online about ICE presence or even criticized the agency.

“The lack of transparency in these instances undermines trust, exposes individuals to potential retaliation and discourages people from speaking out publicly,” Pérez said. “People should not be intimidated into silence out of fear that their personal information may be secretly shared to the federal government without their knowledge.”

Assembly Bill 1896

Aptly named the Get the Feds Out (GTFO) Act, Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Salinas) have turned heads with the controversial bill.

“California expects its public employees to be moral to defend its people against all enemies and to support and defend both the Constitution of the United States and of California,” Gonzalez said at the bill’s latest hearing. “And anyone who has participated in these raids has shown that they do not live up to the bar that Californians deserve from their public servants.”

The bill would ban anyone who was involved in federal immigration enforcement between 2025 and 2029 from most local and state jobs; this includes working as police officers. The bill, expectedly, has a high number of police organizations publicly against it, 23 organizations, to be exact, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Police officer associations from throughout the state, as well as the powerful lobbying group Peace Officers Research Association of California, have expressed opposition to the bill. The California State Sheriffs Association (CSSA) argues the bill would unfairly discriminate against a whole subset of DHS employees.

Based on the current language, the bill could seemingly keep individuals who work office jobs in DHS from later becoming peace officers, argued CCSA representative Usha Mashra.

“Recruiting and retraining qualified peace officer candidates is already hard enough in California, and AB 1896 will unnecessarily make that process more difficult,” Mashra said.

Gonzalez clarified that the bill only targets individuals who explicitly participated in federal “kidnappings.”

The GTFO Act was passed along party lines and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Senate Bill 73

The California Assembly Elections Committee this week advanced SB 73, authored by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) and Sen. Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana). Designed as an urgency measure, the legislation seeks to bolster election security by restricting the presence of military personnel and law enforcement at polling locations.

SB 73 is in direct response to the Trump administration alluding there could be ICE presence at polls during the midterm election, as well as a response to Riverside County Sheriff and gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco seizing Prop 50 ballots.

The measure would go into effect in time for this year’s mid-term election in November and would also prohibit access to ballots or voting machinery without a court order, while further establishing that the removal of ballots from a registrar’s possession constitutes a felony offense.

The Elections Committee recommended various amendments to make the bill clearer, according to Digital Democracy, including removing some of the proposed penalties and reintroducing the term "uniformed" to relevant code sections and making it clear that law enforcement is still permitted to offer authorized security or logistical transport.

After the amendments were accepted, the bill was sent along with a 6-1 party-line vote.

“We cannot stand idle by while the MAGA movement throughout our country tries to dismantle our democracy piece by piece,” Cervantes said during a May 6 hearing. The senator later went on to say, “we have a chance to act now and to protect ourselves against the threats we see forming in front of our very own eyes.”