| Type of Measure |
|---|
| Inactive Bill - Vetoed |
| Majority Vote Required |
| Non-Appropriation |
| Non-Fiscal Committee |
| Non-State-Mandated Local Program |
| Non-Urgency |
| Non-Tax levy |
| Last 5 History Actions | |
|---|---|
| Date | Action |
| 01/29/24 | Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file. |
| 01/03/24 | Consideration of Governor's veto pending. |
| 09/22/23 | Vetoed by Governor. |
| 09/14/23 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m. |
| 09/08/23 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 61. Noes 16. Page 3123.). |
| Governor's Message |
|---|
| To the Members of the California State Assembly: I am returning Assembly Bill 957 without my signature. This legislation would require a court, when determining the best interests of a child in a child custody or visitation proceeding, to consider, among other comprehensive factors, a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity or gender expression. I appreciate the passion and values that led the author to introduce this bill. I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office. That said, I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate - in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic - legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply. Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities. Moreover, a court, under existing law, is required to consider a child's health, safety, and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these proceedings, including the parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill. Sincerely, Gavin Newsom |