Adult credentials, student learning, graduation, and public-school funding.
High school or higher84.7%2020–2024 · #50 of 50 · highest first
Associate degree or higher45%2020–2024 · #21 of 50 · highest first
Bachelor’s degree or higher37.1%2020–2024 · #15 of 50 · highest first
California over time
Explore California readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. California officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a California effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a California change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Grade 4 reading California · source units
CaliforniaPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
61 of 61 reviewed California actions match · 55 date markers shown. 21 major events shown separately.
California · 2024: 211.7 · Rank #39 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 215
FactVote uses NAEP Data Service mean scale scores for all public-school students in California. The series uses the total student group and the main reading and mathematics composite scales for Grade 4 and Grade 8. NAEP is generally administered every two years; the 2021 administration was postponed, so the timeline moves from 2019 to 2022. NAEP results are estimates from a sample. Statistical significance, not a visual gap alone, determines whether scores differ. Each grade and subject has its own scale. Follow one line over time rather than comparing the numeric distance between grades or subjects. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
California · state comparison
Adult educational attainment
Adults age 25 and older. Higher credentials overlap: these measures must not be added together.
California · 2020–202484.7%
California rank#50among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark89.6%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
High school or higher
Share of adults age 25+ with the stated credential or a higher credential.
Point-estimate ranks are not tests of statistical significance.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · 84.7%Higher value · 94.9%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
California · 84.7%2020–2024 · Rank #50 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
High school or higher · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Vermont
94.9%
—
#2
Maine
94.8%
—
#3
Montana
94.6%
—
#4
New Hampshire
94.4%
—
#5
Wyoming
94.2%
—
#6
North Dakota
94%
—
#7
Minnesota
93.9%
—
#8
Wisconsin
93.6%
—
#9
Alaska
93.6%
—
#10
Utah
93.4%
—
#11
Iowa
93.3%
—
#12
South Dakota
93.2%
—
#13
Hawaii
93.2%
—
#14
Colorado
92.9%
—
#15
Washington
92.3%
—
#16
Nebraska
92.2%
—
#17
Pennsylvania
92.1%
—
#18
Michigan
92.1%
—
#19
Kansas
92%
—
#20
Idaho
91.9%
—
#21
Missouri
91.9%
—
#22
Oregon
91.8%
—
#23
Ohio
91.8%
—
#24
Delaware
91.7%
—
#25
Virginia
91.6%
—
#26
Connecticut
91.5%
—
#27
Massachusetts
91.4%
—
#28
Maryland
91.1%
—
#29
New Jersey
90.7%
—
#30
Illinois
90.5%
—
#31
Indiana
90.4%
—
#32
North Carolina
90.1%
—
#33
South Carolina
90.1%
—
#34
Tennessee
90%
—
#35
Florida
89.9%
—
#36
Rhode Island
89.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
89.4%
—
#38
Arizona
89.4%
—
#39
West Virginia
89.3%
—
#40
Georgia
89.2%
—
#41
Kentucky
88.9%
—
#42
Arkansas
88.7%
—
#43
Alabama
88.6%
—
#44
New Mexico
88%
—
#45
New York
88%
—
#46
Nevada
87.5%
—
#47
Louisiana
87.3%
—
#48
Mississippi
87.1%
—
#49
Texas
86%
—
#50
California · your comparison
84.7%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Share of California residents age 25 and older whose reported attainment is a regular high school diploma or equivalent (including GED or an alternative credential), some college, or an associate’s or higher degree.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts estimate derived from the American Community Survey.
This is adult educational attainment, not the current public-school graduation rate.
It combines people educated in different states, countries, and time periods.
NAEP state comparisons use public-school students in the same grade and subject. National benchmarks include public and private schools.
California · 2024211.7
California rank#39among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark215Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Grade 4 reading
FactVote uses NAEP Data Service mean scale scores for all public-school students in California. The series uses the total student group and the main reading and mathematics composite scales for Grade 4 and Grade 8.
NAEP is generally administered every two years; the 2021 administration was postponed, so the timeline moves from 2019 to 2022. NAEP results are estimates from a sample. Statistical significance, not a visual gap alone, determines whether scores differ. Each grade and subject has its own scale. Follow one line over time rather than comparing the numeric distance between grades or subjects.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
California
2024 · California: 211.7 · Rank #39 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 215 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
California Grade 4 reading history
Period
California
Compare
2003
205.6
2005
206.5
2007
208.5
2009
209.8
2011
211.4
2013
212.5
2015
212.7
2017
215.4
2019
216.5
2022
214.4
2024
211.7
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · 200.6Higher value · 224.8Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
California · 211.72024 · Rank #39 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
Grade 4 reading · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Massachusetts
224.8
—
#2
Wyoming
221.9
—
#3
New Jersey
221.6
—
#4
New Hampshire
221.5
—
#5
Colorado
220.9
—
#6
Indiana
220.1
—
#7
Utah
219.3
—
#8
Connecticut
219.2
—
#9
Mississippi
218.5
—
#10
Florida
218.2
—
#11
Kentucky
218
—
#12
Montana
217.2
—
#13
Rhode Island
216.3
—
#14
Louisiana
216
—
#14
Ohio
216
—
#16
Hawaii
215.8
—
#16
Pennsylvania
215.8
—
#18
Idaho
215.7
—
#18
Washington
215.7
—
#20
Maryland
215.6
—
#21
North Dakota
215.5
—
#22
Wisconsin
215.3
—
#23
Tennessee
215.1
—
#24
South Carolina
214.9
—
#25
Iowa
214.6
—
#25
New York
214.6
—
#27
Georgia
214.4
—
#27
Minnesota
214.4
—
#29
Illinois
214.2
—
#30
South Dakota
214.1
—
#30
Virginia
214.1
—
#32
North Carolina
213.4
—
#33
Alabama
213.2
—
#34
Kansas
213.1
—
#34
Nevada
213.1
—
#36
Vermont
212.7
—
#37
Missouri
211.9
—
#37
Texas
211.9
—
#39
California · your comparison
211.7
—
#39
Nebraska
211.7
—
#41
Arkansas
209.7
—
#42
Maine
209.6
—
#43
Delaware
209.5
—
#44
Michigan
209.1
—
#45
Arizona
208.1
—
#46
Oklahoma
207.3
—
#47
Oregon
207
—
#48
West Virginia
205.9
—
#49
Alaska
201.6
—
#50
New Mexico
200.6
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare spending per pupil and the composition of school revenue and current spending.
California · FY2024$20,791
California rank#13among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$17,619Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current spending per pupil
Public elementary-secondary current spending per enrolled pupil.
Current spending excludes capital spending. More spending is not itself a measure of student outcomes.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · $11.06KHigher value · $31.92KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
California · $20,791FY2024 · Rank #13 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
Current spending per pupil · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$31,918
—
#2
Vermont
$28,818
—
#3
New Jersey
$27,234
—
#4
Connecticut
$26,316
—
#5
Massachusetts
$24,429
—
#6
Hawaii
$23,878
—
#7
New Hampshire
$22,978
—
#8
Delaware
$22,201
—
#9
Rhode Island
$22,110
—
#10
Illinois
$21,776
—
#11
Pennsylvania
$21,091
—
#12
Alaska
$21,004
—
#13
California · your comparison
$20,791
—
#14
Wyoming
$20,521
—
#15
Maryland
$20,208
—
#16
Maine
$19,962
—
#17
Washington
$18,564
—
#18
Michigan
$18,314
—
#19
Oregon
$18,083
—
#20
New Mexico
$17,664
—
#21
Ohio
$17,257
—
#22
Virginia
$17,104
—
#23
North Dakota
$17,102
—
#24
Minnesota
$17,098
—
#25
Nebraska
$16,147
—
#26
Wisconsin
$15,952
—
#27
Colorado
$15,908
—
#28
Georgia
$15,833
—
#29
West Virginia
$15,640
—
#30
Louisiana
$15,581
—
#31
Kansas
$15,558
—
#32
South Carolina
$15,060
—
#33
Nevada
$14,812
—
#34
Kentucky
$14,596
—
#35
Iowa
$14,369
—
#36
Missouri
$14,241
—
#37
Arkansas
$13,873
—
#38
Montana
$13,656
—
#39
Alabama
$13,627
—
#40
Indiana
$13,622
—
#41
North Carolina
$12,995
—
#42
Texas
$12,895
—
#43
Tennessee
$12,882
—
#44
South Dakota
$12,828
—
#45
Florida
$12,693
—
#46
Mississippi
$12,324
—
#47
Oklahoma
$12,162
—
#48
Arizona
$12,003
—
#49
Utah
$11,347
—
#50
Idaho
$11,060
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The federal comparison uses a common adjusted cohort and school year. A newer state graduation snapshot, where retained, uses its own source and period; adult attainment is a separate measure.
California · 2021–2287%
California rank#19among 48 states with data
U.S. benchmark87%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Federal public-school cohort graduation rate
Share of the adjusted ninth-grade public-school cohort graduating in four years. From 2017–18, the federal measure counts regular diplomas and eligible state-defined alternate diplomas for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; earlier years count regular diplomas only.
Published NCES state comparison through 2021–22. Rounded whole percentages produce tied ranks. Missing or suppressed values are excluded. Any newer state graduation snapshot uses its own period and cannot inherit this rank.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
California
2021–22 · California: 87% · Rank #19 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 87% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
California Federal public-school cohort graduation rate history
Period
California
Compare
2011–12
79%
2012–13
80%
2013–14
81%
2014–15
82%
2015–16
83%
2016–17
83%
2017–18
83%
2018–19
85%
2019–20
84%
2020–21
84%
2021–22
87%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · 77%Higher value · 91%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
California · 87%2021–22 · Rank #19 of 48, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Federal public-school cohort graduation rate · 2021–22 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
West Virginia
91%
—
#2
Iowa
90%
—
#2
Kentucky
90%
—
#2
Massachusetts
90%
—
#2
Missouri
90%
—
#2
Tennessee
90%
—
#2
Texas
90%
—
#2
Wisconsin
90%
—
#9
Connecticut
89%
—
#9
Kansas
89%
—
#9
Mississippi
89%
—
#9
Virginia
89%
—
#13
Alabama
88%
—
#13
Arkansas
88%
—
#13
Delaware
88%
—
#13
Indiana
88%
—
#13
New Hampshire
88%
—
#13
Utah
88%
—
#19
California · your comparison
87%
—
#19
Florida
87%
—
#19
Illinois
87%
—
#19
Nebraska
87%
—
#19
New York
87%
—
#19
Pennsylvania
87%
—
#25
Hawaii
86%
—
#25
Maine
86%
—
#25
Maryland
86%
—
#25
Montana
86%
—
#25
North Carolina
86%
—
#25
Ohio
86%
—
#31
New Jersey
85%
—
#31
North Dakota
85%
—
#33
Georgia
84%
—
#33
Minnesota
84%
—
#33
South Carolina
84%
—
#33
Washington
84%
—
#37
Louisiana
83%
—
#37
Rhode Island
83%
—
#37
Vermont
83%
—
#40
Colorado
82%
—
#40
Nevada
82%
—
#40
South Dakota
82%
—
#40
Wyoming
82%
—
#44
Michigan
81%
—
#44
Oregon
81%
—
#46
Idaho
80%
—
#47
Alaska
78%
—
#48
Arizona
77%
—
—
New Mexico
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Oklahoma
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Published charges describe prices before aid. Costs and outcomes require their own definitions and populations.
California · 2022–23$8,637
California rank#36among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$9,750Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public four-year in-state tuition and fees
Average published annual charges at degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the state.
2022–23 academic year, current dollars. Tuition averages are weighted by undergraduate enrollment; room and board use the NCES reporting universe. Charges exclude aid and do not equal a typical student’s net cost.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.54KHigher value · $17.6KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
California · $8,6372022–23 · Rank #36 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
Public four-year in-state tuition and fees · 2022–23 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Vermont
$17,600
—
#2
New Hampshire
$17,019
—
#3
Pennsylvania
$16,217
—
#4
Connecticut
$15,763
—
#5
New Jersey
$15,265
—
#6
Illinois
$14,921
—
#7
Virginia
$14,825
—
#8
Rhode Island
$14,744
—
#9
Michigan
$14,718
—
#10
Massachusetts
$14,345
—
#11
Minnesota
$12,873
—
#12
South Carolina
$12,604
—
#13
Oregon
$12,424
—
#14
Delaware
$11,922
—
#15
Arizona
$11,768
—
#16
Kentucky
$11,299
—
#17
Alabama
$11,081
—
#18
Ohio
$10,922
—
#19
Maine
$10,813
—
#20
Hawaii
$10,484
—
#21
Tennessee
$10,437
—
#22
Iowa
$10,121
—
#23
Maryland
$10,041
—
#24
Missouri
$9,926
—
#25
Indiana
$9,886
—
#26
Louisiana
$9,843
—
#27
Colorado
$9,798
—
#28
North Dakota
$9,728
—
#29
Kansas
$9,274
—
#30
Mississippi
$9,120
—
#31
South Dakota
$9,079
—
#32
Wisconsin
$8,974
—
#33
Arkansas
$8,879
—
#34
Nebraska
$8,862
—
#35
West Virginia
$8,715
—
#36
California · your comparison
$8,637
—
#37
New York
$8,575
—
#38
Oklahoma
$8,519
—
#39
Alaska
$8,291
—
#40
Texas
$8,195
—
#41
Washington
$8,006
—
#42
Idaho
$7,640
—
#43
New Mexico
$7,526
—
#44
North Carolina
$7,327
—
#45
Montana
$7,299
—
#46
Utah
$7,215
—
#47
Georgia
$7,075
—
#48
Nevada
$6,723
—
#49
Wyoming
$5,100
—
#50
Florida
$4,540
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
61 of 61 reviewed California actions · newest first
Jul 2, 2026 · AB 1753 · Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures. · Amended SenateCalifornia Legislature · AB 1753
Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures.
Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate
Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
(1)Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses firearms, ammunition, firearm access, carrying, storage, enforcement, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on California's firearm mortality count or rate.
Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(1)Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jul 2, 2026 · AB 2540 · Public health: public postsecondary education: student health centers: abortion by medication techniques. · Amended SenateCalifornia Legislature · AB 2540
Public health: public postsecondary education: student health centers: abortion by medication techniques.
Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate
Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requires, on and after January 1, 2023, a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus to offer abortion by medication techniques, as specified.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses abortion access, abortion-related services, or Medi-Cal coverage of those services. It does not establish an effect on the displayed Medi-Cal service count.
Retained California evidence context: Medi-Cal-funded abortion-related services. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would require a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus, on or before January 1, 2028, to promote awareness of the services for abortion by medication techniques that the student health center offers, provide information on those services to students, and post the availability of those services on its internet website.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 20, 2026 · AB 1732 · California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: affordable housing projects: public university or public college housing projects. · Amended AssemblyCalifornia Legislature · AB 1732
California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: affordable housing projects: public university or public college housing projects.
May 20, 2026 · Amended Assembly
Asm. David A. Alvarez · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on May 20, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.
Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
… related to this exemption by expanding the exemption to additional projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. "?>CEQA, until January 1, 2033, exempts from its requirements certain actions for affordable housing projects that meet specified requirements, including confirmation by a public agency that, among other things, the project site satisfies specified requirements and a vacant project site does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the development that were…
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 28, 2026 · SB 1147 · Pupil instruction: high school graduation requirements: personal finance. · Amended SenateCalifornia Legislature · SB 1147
Pupil instruction: high school graduation requirements: personal finance.
Apr 28, 2026 · Amended Senate
Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law establishes the Instructional Quality Commission and requires the commission to, among other things, recommend curriculum frameworks to the State Board of Education and consider including, when revising the history-social science curriculum framework, age-appropriate information on specified financial literacy topics for kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, as provided. Existing law requires a pupil to complete designated coursework while in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in order to receive a diploma of graduation from high school. These graduation requirements include, among others, the completion of 3 courses in social studies, including a one-semester course in economics.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on April 28, 2026: Amended Senate.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses high-school completion, diploma requirements, GED credentials, or adult education. It does not establish an effect on the displayed adult attainment estimate.
Retained California evidence context: Adults with at least a high school diploma. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Commencing with the 2027–28 school year, existing law requires a local educational agency with pupils in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, to offer a separate, stand-alone one-semester course in personal finance, and also authorizes a local educational agency to exempt a pupil who completes such a course from the graduation requirement to complete a one-semester course in economics.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 23, 2026 · AB 2114 · Public postsecondary education: nonresident tuition fee exemption: educational asylum program. · Amended AssemblyCalifornia Legislature · AB 2114
Public postsecondary education: nonresident tuition fee exemption: educational asylum program.
Apr 23, 2026 · Amended Assembly
Asm. Isaac G. Bryan · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law establishes uniform residency requirements for purposes of ascertaining the amount of tuition and fees to be paid by students of public postsecondary educational institutions.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on April 23, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses immigration status, immigrant services, asylum, deportation, or immigration enforcement. It does not update or establish an effect on the displayed foreign-born population share.
Retained California evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would authorize a participating public postsecondary educational institution to administer an educational asylum program, in collaboration with the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 1, 2026 · Policy proposal · Attorney General Bonta Provides Guidance to Child Care Providers of New Legal Obligations Relating to Immigration Enforcement Actions · Proposed policyCalifornia agencies · Policy proposal
Attorney General Bonta Provides Guidance to Child Care Providers of New Legal Obligations Relating to Immigration Enforcement Actions
Apr 1, 2026 · Proposed policy
Rob Bonta · Issued
FactVote reviewed summary
OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued guidance and model policies for licensed child care facilities and preschool programs in California regarding their new legal responsibilities under Assembly Bill (AB) 495. Known as the Family Preparedness Act of 2025, AB 495 was authored by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez (D-San Fernando) and took effect on January 1, 2026. AB 495, and this guidance, are intended to help early childhood education and child care providers develop practical plans to protect the rights of immigrants and their families to safely access these facilities by limiting support for immigration enforcement activities.
Published by the official office
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses immigration status, immigrant services, asylum, deportation, or immigration enforcement. It does not update or establish an effect on the displayed foreign-born population share.
Retained California evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
AB 495, and this guidance, are intended to help early childhood education and child care providers develop practical plans to protect the rights of immigrants and their families to safely access these facilities by limiting support for immigration enforcement activities.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified California officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about schools, learning, college costs and educational attainment from FactVote’s California candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
322 statements from 94 candidates
2026 California Attorney General — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 3 statements
We need a new Attorney General. According to FBI data, California ranks 6th highest in the nation for violent crime. Every Californian deserves to feel safe—in their neighborhoods, at school, walking to the store. Too many families don’t feel that way today. Fentanyl is taking our kids. Retail theft…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Fully enforce Proposition 36
Government-published candidate material
We need a new Attorney General. According to FBI data, California ranks 6th highest in the nation for violent crime. Every Californian deserves to feel safe—in their neighborhoods, at school, walking to the store. Too many families don’t feel that way today. Fentanyl is taking our kids. Retail theft is closing the stores we count on. Nearly half of all homeless Americans live in California. And crime always hits working families hardest. I am a husband of 30 years and father of five. I have spent my career trying cases in courtrooms, not politics, as a trial attorney and prosecutor. I enforced Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice and am admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. As a City Attorney, I built a local prosecution program that cut crime by double digits in its first year and made Huntington Beach one of California’s safest cities. I brought residents, leaders, and law enforcement together, and I will do the same as your Attorney General. Californians voted for Prop. 36 overwhelmingly to restore accountability for repeat theft and drug offenses. I will fully enforce it and will prosecute the traffickers poisoning our communities, protect victims, help people off the streets and into treatment, and make sure your tax dollars are spent honestly and effectively. Safe streets and equal justice belong to every community, whatever your zip code or last name. Public safety is not a partisan issue, and I will never treat it like one. www.Gates4AG.com
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026
While he was City Attorney of Huntington Beach, Michael led the charge to protect the parents and children by drafting a "Parents' Right To Know" Ordinance, which was adopted by City Council. He also sued the State of California challenging the AB 1955 - a new state law that mandated teachers and ed…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Defend parental notification and speech
Candidate campaign source
While he was City Attorney of Huntington Beach, Michael led the charge to protect the parents and children by drafting a "Parents' Right To Know" Ordinance, which was adopted by City Council. He also sued the State of California challenging the AB 1955 - a new state law that mandated teachers and educators keep secrets from parents regarding their children's gender issues.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026
Democratic · Board of Equalization Member District 1 · CA
Schools & education
Nelson Esparza is a dedicated public servant and proven champion for California’s working families and small business owners. Raised in California’s Central Valley, Nelson’s life and career have been shaped by a deep commitment to opportunity, fairness, and economic prosperity for all. Nelson is run…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Close loopholes and enforce tax collection
Government-published candidate material
Nelson Esparza is a dedicated public servant and proven champion for California’s working families and small business owners. Raised in California’s Central Valley, Nelson’s life and career have been shaped by a deep commitment to opportunity, fairness, and economic prosperity for all. Nelson is running for the State Board of Equalization to ensure a fair tax system for all Californians. Nelson will fight to close tax loopholes and crack down on tax evaders so that our local governments can continue to invest in public safety, infrastructure, education, healthcare, and economic development. As a long-time educator and economist, Nelson will bring real-world financial expertise to California’s state tax board. On the Fresno City Council, he serves as Chair of the Finance & Audit Committee, where he deals with complex financial issues every day. Additionally, he has secured hundreds of millions in investment for our communities. Nelson will oppose new taxes on middle class and working class families as well as small businesses that are already struggling to make ends meet. He’ll fight for more transparency in our tax system, and for fair impartial property tax assessments. Nelson is supported by local law enforcement, teachers, nurses, construction workers, and leaders at the local, state, and federal levels across California—because they know that he has the experience and the drive to protect our tax dollars and our public services. By November 3rd, Vote Nelson Esparza for State Board of Equalization. Learn more at nelsonesparza.com.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Now, Nelson is running for the California Board of Equalization to protect the people of California, our values and tax dollars, so that our state can invest in our people, from education, to healthcare, public safety to economic development, and more.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Invest tax dollars in public services
Candidate campaign source
Now, Nelson is running for the California Board of Equalization to protect the people of California, our values and tax dollars, so that our state can invest in our people, from education, to healthcare, public safety to economic development, and more.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Republican · Board of Equalization Member District 1 · CA
Schools & education
Isn't it time normal people had a voice when they needed help from our state government in Sacramento? That's why I'm running for the Board of Equalization. It's an office you may have never heard of that is tasked with helping people when they think the government has unfairly taxed them. First, a …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Help taxpayers contest unfair taxation
Government-published candidate material
Isn't it time normal people had a voice when they needed help from our state government in Sacramento? That's why I'm running for the Board of Equalization. It's an office you may have never heard of that is tasked with helping people when they think the government has unfairly taxed them. First, a little about me. I grew up in Kern County. After high school, I joined the U.S. Army, then after my service, I started a small business that helps local people find good-paying jobs. As a business owner, I've had my share of trying to work through endless government regulations and red tape. Later, I ran for and won a seat in the Assembly, and later, the State Senate. In the legislature, I was known for being a strong, bipartisan voice for public safety. Specifically, I led the charge to make sex trafficking children a felony. This was signed into law and now helps protect our most vulnerable Californians. I've also been a voice for small business owners, farmers, and ranchers. These businesses, often run by families, are the heart of our state. I've worked hard to reduce unfair rules, taxes, and fees, and make it easier for businesses to start, to grow, and to hire more people. As your representative on the Board of Equalization, my goal is clear: to make sure that you have somewhere to turn when you believe you were unfairly taxed and need some help. That's my pledge to you.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026
Democratic · Board of Equalization Member District 2 · CA
Schools & education
I am honored to serve as your representative and as Chair of the State Board of Equalization, California’s elected property tax oversight board. On the Board, I have worked to expand access to property tax relief, including tax credits for Veterans and low-income families, increased public informati…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Ensure equitable assessments and taxpayer assistance
Government-published candidate material
I am honored to serve as your representative and as Chair of the State Board of Equalization, California’s elected property tax oversight board. On the Board, I have worked to expand access to property tax relief, including tax credits for Veterans and low-income families, increased public information on Proposition 19, and advanced consumer protections for homeowners’ insurance. I have fought for affordable housing, supported identity theft protections for property owners, and worked to ensure that the Board is efficient, accountable and transparent. I do not accept contributions from corporate PACs and will always insist that wealthy interests pay what they owe. As a member of the Board, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and California, including Proposition13. Over the next four years, I will continue to work for accurate and equitable property tax assessments, expanded taxpayer assistance, and policies that support housing affordability, rapid disaster recovery, and economic stability for working families. Before election to the Board, I served in local, regional, and state government. In the California State Assembly, I authored legislation to raise the statewide minimum wage, protect our coast and the San Francisco Bay, expand renewable energy, increase CalGrant scholarships, and worked to preserve free community college access statewide. I am endorsed by Teachers, Nurses and Firefighters statewide, by the California Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood California, the Sierra Club California, and over forty congressional, state executive and legislative leaders. I am thankful for the support of more than 1.3 million voters in the primary election. I respectfully ask for your vote. www.sallylieber.org
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026
Recruitment and training of future staff that will meet the needs of taxpayers is a vital priority. Working with our colleges and universities, we must ensure that we are preparing and recruiting the next generation of staff leaders that can continue a tradition of excellence and a high level of res…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Recruit future staff through colleges
Candidate campaign source
Recruitment and training of future staff that will meet the needs of taxpayers is a vital priority. Working with our colleges and universities, we must ensure that we are preparing and recruiting the next generation of staff leaders that can continue a tradition of excellence and a high level of responsiveness.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026
This section matches specific schools, learning, college costs and educational attainment terms in retained, attributed source text from published California candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
California incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current California legislators and California’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from California’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
49 matching sponsorships or proposals · 34 California incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Asm. Al Muratsuchi
California State Assembly · District 66 · D–CA
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Al MuratsuchiCalifornia Legislature · AB 49
Schoolsites: immigration enforcement.
Sep 20, 2025 · Enacted
Asm. Al Muratsuchi · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
(1)Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members.
The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on September 20, 2025: Chaptered.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses immigration status, immigrant services, asylum, deportation, or immigration enforcement. It does not update or establish an effect on the displayed foreign-born population share.
Retained California evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(1)Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members.
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Ash KalraCalifornia Legislature · AB 59
Elections: polling places: college and university campuses.
Oct 8, 2019 · Enacted
Asm. Ash Kalra · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law requires the Secretary of State to annually provide every high school, community college, and California State University and University of California campus with voter registration forms. Existing law also expresses the intent of the Legislature that every eligible high school and college student receive a meaningful opportunity to register to vote.Existing law authorizes certain counties, on or after specified dates, to conduct any election as an all-mailed ballot election if, among other conditions, the county elections official permits a voter to vote a ballot at a vote center. Existing law requires a county elections official conducting an all-mailed ballot election to…
The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on October 8, 2019: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 554, Statutes of 2019..
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses voter registration, ballots, voting access, or election administration. It does not establish an effect on California's displayed turnout rate.
Retained California evidence context: Registered-voter turnout. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Elections: polling places: college and university campuses.
This measure would proclaim the week of April 6 through April 12, 2025, as Adult Education Week, and salute the teachers, administrators, classified staff, and students of adult education programs statewide, honoring their efforts, persistence, and accomplishments.
The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on May 20, 2025: Chaptered.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses high-school completion, diploma requirements, GED credentials, or adult education. It does not establish an effect on the displayed adult attainment estimate.
Retained California evidence context: Adults with at least a high school diploma. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This measure would proclaim the week of April 6 through April 12, 2025, as Adult Education Week, and salute the teachers, administrators, classified staff, and students of adult education programs statewide, honoring their efforts, persistence, and accomplishments.
This measure would proclaim the week of April 7 through April 13, 2024, as Adult Education Week, and would salute the teachers, administrators, classified staff, and students of adult education programs statewide, honoring their efforts, persistence, and accomplishments.
The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on May 8, 2024: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Res. Chapter 62, Statutes of 2024..
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses high-school completion, diploma requirements, GED credentials, or adult education. It does not establish an effect on the displayed adult attainment estimate.
Retained California evidence context: Adults with at least a high school diploma. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This measure would proclaim the week of April 7 through April 13, 2024, as Adult Education Week, and would salute the teachers, administrators, classified staff, and students of adult education programs statewide, honoring their efforts, persistence, and accomplishments.
This bill would proclaim the week of March 19, 2023, to March 25, 2023, inclusive, as Adult Education Week, and would honor the teachers, administrators, classified staff, and students of adult education programs statewide for their efforts, persistence, and accomplishments.
The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on May 3, 2023: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Res. Chapter 40, Statutes of 2023..
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses high-school completion, diploma requirements, GED credentials, or adult education. It does not establish an effect on the displayed adult attainment estimate.
Retained California evidence context: Adults with at least a high school diploma. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would proclaim the week of March 19, 2023, to March 25, 2023, inclusive, as Adult Education Week, and would honor the teachers, administrators, classified staff, and students of adult education programs statewide for their efforts, persistence, and accomplishments.
3 proposalsView proposals from Asm. Catherine StefaniCalifornia Legislature · AB 1753
Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures.
Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate
Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
(1)Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses firearms, ammunition, firearm access, carrying, storage, enforcement, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on California's firearm mortality count or rate.
Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(1)Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions.
Public health: public postsecondary education: student health centers: abortion by medication techniques.
Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate
Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requires, on and after January 1, 2023, a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus to offer abortion by medication techniques, as specified.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses abortion access, abortion-related services, or Medi-Cal coverage of those services. It does not establish an effect on the displayed Medi-Cal service count.
Retained California evidence context: Medi-Cal-funded abortion-related services. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would require a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus, on or before January 1, 2028, to promote awareness of the services for abortion by medication techniques that the student health center offers, provide information on those services to students, and post the availability of those services on its internet website.
(1)Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions. Beginning January 1, 2026, upon a court’s issuance of such a protective order, existing law will require the restrained person to relinquish any firearm and ammunition in that person’s immediate possession or control, according to specified procedures.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on June 19, 2025: Amended Senate.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses firearms, ammunition, firearm access, carrying, storage, enforcement, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on California's firearm mortality count or rate.
Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(1)Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions.
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-CurryCalifornia Legislature · AB 1036
Elections: civic outreach and voter engagement.
Oct 13, 2019 · Vetoed
Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
(1) Existing law requires the Secretary of State to provide every high school, community college, and California State University and University of California campus with voter registration forms. Existing law also expresses the intent of the Legislature that every eligible high school and college student receive a meaningful opportunity to apply to register to vote.This bill would create the High School Voter Education Pilot Program to be conducted in Yolo County. Under the pilot program, the Yolo County Elections Office and Yolo County Office of Education would be authorized to conduct mock student government elections on designated high school campuses, using, to the extent possible, the…
The official California Legislative Information record shows the veto action on October 13, 2019.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses voter registration, ballots, voting access, or election administration. It does not establish an effect on California's displayed turnout rate.
Retained California evidence context: Registered-voter turnout. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(1) Existing law requires the Secretary of State to provide every high school, community college, and California State University and University of California campus with voter registration forms.
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. David A. AlvarezCalifornia Legislature · AB 1732
California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: affordable housing projects: public university or public college housing projects.
May 20, 2026 · Amended Assembly
Asm. David A. Alvarez · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on May 20, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.
Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
… related to this exemption by expanding the exemption to additional projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. "?>CEQA, until January 1, 2033, exempts from its requirements certain actions for affordable housing projects that meet specified requirements, including confirmation by a public agency that, among other things, the project site satisfies specified requirements and a vacant project site does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the development that were…
Only current California officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a California statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
California snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to California, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.