Laws Breaking New Ground Are Blunted

Hundreds of new California laws go into effect Jan. 1, among them measures that will make it illegal for drug stores to sell the stimulant ephedra and allow courts to fine no-show jurors $250 and clear the way for people to sell fresh -- not reheated -- churros from a mobile trailer.

But some of the most sweeping bills passed in the last regular legislative session and signed by since-recalled Democratic Gov. Gray Davis have been swept away in part or in full:

* A bill by state Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles) that had been heralded as the nation’s strongest attempt to halt unsolicited e-mail advertisements, or spam, was overridden Dec. 16 when President Bush signed a new federal anti-spam law that consumer advocates say is not as tough as California’s law.

* A bill by Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough) aimed at preventing banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions from selling their customers’ financial information -- such as annual income, debts and spending habits -- appears to have been supplanted in part by a federal law signed Dec. 4 by Bush.

* A bill by Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) that would have allowed illegal immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses was signed by Davis in September and overturned by the Legislature this month. The Democrats who dominate the Legislature repealed the unpopular law to avoid forcing voters to consider it themselves in a referendum that was headed for the March ballot.

In jeopardy is a measure watched nationally that would require employers with payrolls of 200 or more to help provide health insurance for their workers. Business groups have collected more than 600,000 signatures to repeal the new law by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco). Voters could be asked to overturn it in the March or November elections, depending on court decisions and ballot deadlines.

Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, said he was not surprised by the number of recent laws enacted by Davis that have been challenged or overturned.

“It’s what you expect if you push bills that push the frontier,” he said.

Many of the bills, Cain said, are the result of Davis’ shift to the left late this year as he tried to shore up liberal support and beat back challenger Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican who defeated him in the Oct. 7 recall election.

“The hallmark of the Davis administration was that, for the first three or four years, he resisted highly liberal bills,” Cain said. “And then, as he became vulnerable and needed to fight back the recall, he repositioned himself.... He ended up signing legislation well to the left of anything Congress would sign, and sometimes bills well to the left of public opinion.”

Other groundbreaking laws generated by the Legislature and signed by Davis are not scheduled to go into effect until July 1 or January 2005, so those affected have more time to prepare.

One such law requires electronics makers to pay $6 to $10 for every computer monitor and television they sell into a state-run account to encourage the recycling of electronic waste.

Others ban the sale of sodas from elementary and junior high school vending machines and bestow on gay couples who register with the state dozens of additional legal rights and responsibilities that now are granted only to spouses.

A lawsuit is pending that would block the gay rights bill from taking effect. Sen. William “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale) and the Campaign for California Families, which describes itself as “fighting to restore family-friendly values,” sued in Sacramento County Superior Court. On Thursday, a judge denied their request for a preliminary injunction to block the law from taking effect, pending final outcome of the lawsuit.

Conservative groups argue that the new law undermines a successful 2000 ballot measure that declares only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.

The California laws on gay rights, e-mail spam, health insurance and financial privacy have fed into national debates on those issues, and in some cases spurred action in Congress.

After Davis signed the financial privacy bill, for example, many of the same banks and credit card companies that had called it a reasonable compromise pushed for a federal pre-emption in Washington, D.C.

Exactly how much of California’s law remains intact after passage of the federal law probably will have to be determined by the courts, said Shelley Curran, a policy analyst for the West Coast office of Consumers Union.

Most at risk is a provision of California’s law that gives consumers a once-a-year opportunity to tell their banks, insurance companies or other financial institutions that they do not want private information sold to those companies’ subsidiaries and affiliates.

Similarly, after Davis signed the e-mail spam bill, electronic advertisers pushed for a federal preemption. California’s law would have made it illegal for an advertiser to e-mail a consumer without a prior business relationship or consent.

Sen. Murray said the new federal law, which takes effect Jan. 1, will not halt unsolicited e-mail. To stop a company from sending unwanted e-mail, a consumer must respond by e-mail to the sender. He said that will allow a company to create “an address book for spammers” that it can sell to other companies, which can use the valid e-mails to send more advertisements.

“They could have come up with a better bill or they could have left the states to their own devices,” Murray said.

Even if California’s groundbreaking legislation is undone, it has served a purpose, said Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at Cal State Sacramento.

“One hundred years ago, people called the states the laboratory of reform,” he said. “The states have always had an important role in pushing forward policy innovations.”

In the meantime, bills that will take effect in January include those that ban the sale of diet pills containing the stimulant ephedra, which has been linked to heart attacks, seizures, strokes and deaths.

Metabolife, a diet pill manufacturer based in San Diego, said it would suspend the sale of three brands containing ephedra “until further clarification of ambiguities” in the California law.

Another bill will allow courts to fine people $250 if they fail to show up for jury duty. Second-time violators face a $750 fine. The new law will make it easier for courts to punish no-show jurors than to pursue contempt charges, as current law requires.

Court advocates say they hope it will serve primarily as an incentive for people to appear for jury duty when notified, particularly in Los Angeles County, where violations are common.

And some people hope to launch a new business under a law that allows vendors to prepare and sell fresh churros, a fried-dough treat that, until the passage of a bill by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City), had to be ready-made to be sold from food carts.

Raul Soto, a Sacramento restaurant owner, has purchased five carts in anticipation of the new law. “The churro has to be made fresh,” he said. “Two or three hours later, it doesn’t taste the same.”