California · individual fact

California health

Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.

Explore another state

Uninsured rate · all ages5.9%2024 · #35 of 50 · highest first

Uninsured rate · under age 656.9%2024 · #39 of 50 · highest first

Private coverage · under age 6566.6%2024 · #42 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.

ChartDate range

Action typeStatusFind an action

Show major events Explore an event

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a California change.

Show California actionsShow U.S. benchmark where published

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.

Uninsured rate · all ages 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.

321 of 321 reviewed California actions match · 260 date markers shown. 22 major events shown separately.

California · 2024: 5.9% · Rank #35 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%

FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences. 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.

View observations and export data

California Uninsured rate · all ages · source units
Period	California	Rank	U.S. benchmark
2024	5.9%	#35 of 50	8.2%
2023	6.4%	#27 of 50	Not available
2022	6.5%	#29 of 50	Not available
2021	7%	#28 of 50	Not available
2020	Not available	Unavailable	Not available
2019	7.7%	#29 of 50	Not available
2018	7.2%	#30 of 50	Not available
2017	7.2%	#30 of 50	Not available
2016	7.3%	#29 of 50	Not available
2015	8.6%	#26 of 50	Not available
2014	12.4%	#16 of 50	Not available

U.S. Census Bureau · HIC-4_ACS health insurance coverage by state, 2008–2024 ↗

How major events are selected

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

Who has health coverage?

Compare ACS annual estimates for all ages or people under 65. Coverage categories can overlap and do not sum to the insured share.

MeasureComparison period

California · 20245.9%

California rank#35among all 50 states

U.S. benchmark8.2%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.

Uninsured rate · all ages

FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population.

ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences.

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.

CaliforniaShow U.S. benchmark

2024 · California: 5.9% · Rank #35 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparison

View history and select a period

California Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period	California	Compare
2014	12.4%
2015	8.6%
2016	7.3%
2017	7.2%
2018	7.2%
2019	7.7%
2020	Not available
2021	7%
2022	6.5%
2023	6.4%
2024	5.9%

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.

Inspect a stateGraph order

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 · 2.8%Higher value · 16.7%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 · 5.9%2024 · Rank #35 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

Table order

Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank	State	Value	Comparison notes
#1	Texas	16.7%	—
#2	Georgia	12%	—
#3	Oklahoma	11.5%	—
#4	Nevada	11.4%	—
#5	Alaska	11%	—
#6	Florida	10.9%	—
#7	Arizona	10.3%	—
#7	Wyoming	10.3%	—
#9	New Mexico	10.1%	—
#10	Mississippi	9.7%	—
#10	Tennessee	9.7%	—
#12	Arkansas	9.4%	—
#13	Idaho	9.2%	—
#14	South Carolina	9%	—
#15	Montana	8.8%	—
#16	North Carolina	8.6%	—
#17	Kansas	8.5%	—
#18	Utah	8.3%	—
#19	Alabama	8.2%	—
#20	South Dakota	8.1%	—
#21	Colorado	7.9%	—
#22	Louisiana	7.7%	—
#22	Missouri	7.7%	—
#22	New Jersey	7.7%	—
#25	Indiana	7.5%	—
#26	Nebraska	7.1%	—
#27	Delaware	6.9%	—
#27	Illinois	6.9%	—
#27	Virginia	6.9%	—
#30	Kentucky	6.8%	—
#31	Ohio	6.7%	—
#32	Washington	6.5%	—
#33	Maryland	6.3%	—
#34	North Dakota	6.1%	—
#35	California · your comparison	5.9%	—
#36	Connecticut	5.8%	—
#36	Pennsylvania	5.8%	—
#36	West Virginia	5.8%	—
#39	Maine	5.5%	—
#40	Iowa	5.4%	—
#41	Wisconsin	5.3%	—
#42	Oregon	5.2%	—
#43	Michigan	5.1%	—
#43	Minnesota	5.1%	—
#45	New York	5%	—
#46	Rhode Island	4.6%	—
#47	New Hampshire	4.5%	—
#48	Vermont	4.2%	—
#49	Hawaii	3.5%	—
#50	Massachusetts	2.8%	—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

U.S. Census Bureau · HIC-4_ACS health insurance coverage by state, 2008–2024 ↗

People under 65 without health insurance

6.9%2024 ACS annual estimate

Share of California’s civilian noninstitutionalized residents under age 65 who lacked comprehensive health-insurance coverage at the time of the ACS survey.

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 excludes people age 65 and older and is a annual survey estimate rather than a live enrollment count.
Insurance status does not measure affordability, provider access, or quality of care.

U.S. Census Bureau · QuickFacts: California ↗

California · state comparison

Where do healthcare dollars go?

State spending is reported for 2020, the latest year available in this CMS state series. Choose a service to compare California with every state.

MeasureComparison period

California · 2020$10,299

California rank#22among all 50 states

U.S. benchmark$10,191Same 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.

Personal healthcare spending per resident

Personal health care expenditure per resident, assigned to the state where the patient resides.

2020 is the last year in this CMS state series. Personal health care excludes administration, public health, and investment included in national health expenditures. This is spending by all payers, not a household bill.

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.

CaliforniaShow U.S. benchmark

2020 · California: $10,299 · Rank #22 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparison

View history and select a period

California Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period	California	Compare
2014	$7,472
2015	$7,998
2016	$8,325
2017	$8,594
2018	$9,069
2019	$9,628
2020	$10,299

Compare states on the graph

Inspect a stateGraph order

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 · $7.52KHigher value · $14.01KStriped: 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 · $10,2992020 · Rank #22 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

Table order

Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank	State	Value	Comparison notes
#1	New York	$14,007	—
#2	Alaska	$13,642	—
#3	Massachusetts	$13,319	—
#4	Delaware	$12,899	—
#5	West Virginia	$12,769	—
#6	Vermont	$12,756	—
#7	South Dakota	$12,495	—
#8	Connecticut	$12,489	—
#9	Maine	$12,077	—
#10	New Jersey	$11,868	—
#11	New Hampshire	$11,793	—
#12	Rhode Island	$11,694	—
#13	Pennsylvania	$11,603	—
#14	North Dakota	$11,301	—
#15	Wyoming	$10,989	—
#16	Minnesota	$10,846	—
#17	Maryland	$10,839	—
#18	Indiana	$10,517	—
#19	Louisiana	$10,515	—
#20	Nebraska	$10,514	—
#21	Ohio	$10,478	—
#22	California · your comparison	$10,299	—
#23	Hawaii	$10,291	—
#24	Kentucky	$10,257	—
#25	Montana	$10,212	—
#26	Illinois	$10,190	—
#27	Oregon	$10,071	—
#28	Wisconsin	$9,982	—
#29	Missouri	$9,921	—
#30	Michigan	$9,897	—
#31	Florida	$9,865	—
#32	Iowa	$9,789	—
#33	Oklahoma	$9,444	—
#34	Kansas	$9,408	—
#35	Mississippi	$9,394	—
#36	Arkansas	$9,338	—
#37	Tennessee	$9,336	—
#38	Alabama	$9,280	—
#39	Washington	$9,265	—
#40	Virginia	$9,195	—
#41	North Carolina	$8,917	—
#42	New Mexico	$8,902	—
#43	South Carolina	$8,766	—
#44	Georgia	$8,758	—
#45	Arizona	$8,756	—
#46	Colorado	$8,583	—
#47	Texas	$8,406	—
#48	Nevada	$8,348	—
#49	Idaho	$8,148	—
#50	Utah	$7,522	—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

CMS · State health expenditure accounts by residence, 1991–2020 ↗

California · state comparison

Health outcomes

Use age-adjusted mortality to account for different age distributions; life expectancy summarizes period death rates.

MeasureComparison period

California · 202279.3 years

California rank#6among all 50 states

U.S. benchmark77.5 yearsSame 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.

Life expectancy at birth

FactVote uses CDC National Center for Health Statistics annual complete life-table estimates for the total California population. Values are rounded to the published tenth of a year.

The latest published comparable state series ends in 2022, even though newer national life-expectancy estimates may be available. Period life expectancy summarizes current mortality rates; it is not a forecast of how long a particular person will live. The 2020 and 2021 estimates reflect the mortality shock during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

CaliforniaShow U.S. benchmark

2022 · California: 79.3 years · Rank #6 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparison

View history and select a period

California Life expectancy at birth history
Period	California	Compare
2018	80.8 years
2019	80.9 years
2020	79 years
2021	78.3 years
2022	79.3 years

Compare states on the graph

Inspect a stateGraph order

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 · 72.2 yearsHigher value · 80 yearsStriped: 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 · 79.3 years2022 · Rank #6 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

Table order

Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
Rank	State	Value	Comparison notes
#1	Hawaii	80 years	—
#2	Massachusetts	79.8 years	—
#3	New Jersey	79.6 years	—
#4	New York	79.5 years	—
#5	Connecticut	79.4 years	—
#6	California · your comparison	79.3 years	—
#6	Minnesota	79.3 years	—
#8	Rhode Island	79.2 years	—
#9	Utah	79 years	—
#10	New Hampshire	78.7 years	—
#11	Colorado	78.5 years	—
#12	Idaho	78.4 years	—
#12	Washington	78.4 years	—
#14	Nebraska	78.3 years	—
#14	Vermont	78.3 years	—
#16	Wisconsin	78.1 years	—
#17	Florida	77.9 years	—
#17	Iowa	77.9 years	—
#17	North Dakota	77.9 years	—
#20	Maryland	77.8 years	—
#21	Oregon	77.7 years	—
#22	Illinois	77.5 years	—
#22	Virginia	77.5 years	—
#24	Montana	77.3 years	—
#24	Pennsylvania	77.3 years	—
#24	South Dakota	77.3 years	—
#27	Texas	77.1 years	—
#28	Michigan	76.8 years	—
#28	Wyoming	76.8 years	—
#30	Arizona	76.7 years	—
#31	Maine	76.6 years	—
#32	Delaware	76.5 years	—
#32	Kansas	76.5 years	—
#34	Nevada	76.4 years	—
#35	Georgia	75.9 years	—
#35	North Carolina	75.9 years	—
#37	Alaska	75.8 years	—
#38	Ohio	75.6 years	—
#39	Indiana	75.4 years	—
#40	Missouri	75.2 years	—
#41	South Carolina	75.1 years	—
#42	New Mexico	74.5 years	—
#43	Arkansas	73.9 years	—
#44	Alabama	73.8 years	—
#44	Louisiana	73.8 years	—
#44	Oklahoma	73.8 years	—
#44	Tennessee	73.8 years	—
#48	Kentucky	73.6 years	—
#49	Mississippi	72.6 years	—
#50	West Virginia	72.2 years	—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

CDC National Center for Health Statistics · U.S. state life tables, 2018–2022 ↗

California · state comparison

Chronic illness and health risks

Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.

MeasureComparison period

California · 202310.6%

California rank#22among 48 states with data

U.S. benchmark10.7%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.

Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted

Adult self-reported prevalence, age-adjusted to a common population.

Published CDC 2019–2023 series. Missing or suppressed estimates remain unranked. Confidence intervals describe sampling uncertainty; point ranks are not significance tests.

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.

CaliforniaShow U.S. benchmark

2023 · California: 10.6% · Rank #22 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparison

View history and select a period

California Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period	California	Compare
2019	9.5%
2020	9.3%
2021	10.9%
2022	10.7%
2023	10.6%

Compare states on the graph

Inspect a stateGraph order

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 · 7.8%Higher value · 15.1%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 · 10.6%2023 · Rank #22 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 9.8% – 11.4%Selected 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

Table order

Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
Rank	State	Value	Comparison notes
#1	Mississippi	15.1%	95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1	West Virginia	15.1%	95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3	Louisiana	14.6%	95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4	Alabama	14%	95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5	Arkansas	13.1%	95% CI: 12–14.3
#6	South Carolina	12.7%	95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6	Tennessee	12.7%	95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8	Texas	12.1%	95% CI: 11–13.3
#9	Indiana	11.7%	95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10	Georgia	11.5%	95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10	Ohio	11.5%	95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12	Oklahoma	11.3%	95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13	Delaware	11.1%	95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14	North Carolina	11%	95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15	Illinois	10.9%	95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15	Maryland	10.9%	95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15	Michigan	10.9%	95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18	Nevada	10.8%	95% CI: 8.9–13
#18	New Mexico	10.8%	95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20	Missouri	10.7%	95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20	South Dakota	10.7%	95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22	California · your comparison	10.6%	95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23	Kansas	10.5%	95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24	Virginia	10.4%	95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25	Florida	10.1%	95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26	Rhode Island	10%	95% CI: 9.1–11
#27	Arizona	9.9%	95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27	Iowa	9.9%	95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29	Nebraska	9.7%	95% CI: 9–10.3
#30	Wisconsin	9.6%	95% CI: 9–10.2
#31	Hawaii	9.5%	95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31	New York	9.5%	95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31	Oregon	9.5%	95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34	Wyoming	9.4%	95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35	Minnesota	9.3%	95% CI: 8.6–10
#36	New Jersey	9.1%	95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37	Maine	9%	95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38	North Dakota	8.9%	95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39	Idaho	8.7%	95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40	Washington	8.6%	95% CI: 8.2–9
#41	Massachusetts	8.5%	95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42	Connecticut	8.4%	95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43	Alaska	8.2%	95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44	Utah	8.1%	95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45	Colorado	8%	95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46	Montana	7.9%	95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46	New Hampshire	7.9%	95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48	Vermont	7.8%	95% CI: 7–8.7
—	Kentucky	Not available	No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—	Pennsylvania	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.

CDC · Chronic Disease Indicators / BRFSS ↗

California · state comparison

Where are healthcare workers in short supply?

Compare coverage of need, practitioners needed, or affected population for each discipline.

MeasureComparison period

California · June 30, 202653.2%

California rank#20among all 50 states

U.S. benchmark47.4%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.

Primary care · need met

HRSA-designated shortage areas; measures describe need within those areas, not the entire state population.

National report totals can include territories. Designation rules and populations differ by discipline; do not add disciplines. Absolute population and practitioner ranks also reflect state size.

Compare states on the graph

Inspect a stateGraph order

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 · 11.2%Higher value · 83.2%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 · 53.2%June 30, 2026 · Rank #20 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

Table order

Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
Rank	State	Value	Comparison notes
#1	New Jersey	83.2%	—
#2	Vermont	82.6%	—
#3	South Carolina	79.4%	—
#4	New Hampshire	74.8%	—
#5	Rhode Island	74.3%	—
#6	Louisiana	72.1%	—
#7	Hawaii	67.1%	—
#8	Utah	65.4%	—
#9	Wisconsin	65.2%	—
#10	Alabama	63%	—
#11	Connecticut	60.3%	—
#12	Massachusetts	58%	—
#13	Tennessee	58%	—
#14	Virginia	57.2%	—
#15	Pennsylvania	56.7%	—
#16	Maine	56%	—
#17	Minnesota	55.4%	—
#18	Wyoming	54.4%	—
#19	Indiana	54.2%	—
#20	California · your comparison	53.2%	—
#21	Arkansas	52.6%	—
#22	Texas	49.8%	—
#23	Ohio	49.7%	—
#24	Nebraska	49.1%	—
#25	Alaska	48.9%	—
#26	North Carolina	48.1%	—
#27	Colorado	47.5%	—
#28	Michigan	44.9%	—
#29	Oregon	43.9%	—
#30	Idaho	43.9%	—
#31	Washington	42.4%	—
#32	Illinois	41.5%	—
#33	Nevada	41.5%	—
#34	Arizona	41.2%	—
#35	Kansas	41.1%	—
#36	Iowa	40.5%	—
#37	Florida	39.7%	—
#38	Georgia	39.1%	—
#39	Montana	38.5%	—
#40	West Virginia	38.3%	—
#41	North Dakota	36.5%	—
#42	New York	35.3%	—
#43	South Dakota	34.6%	—
#44	Mississippi	34.1%	—
#45	Maryland	31.6%	—
#46	New Mexico	31.4%	—
#47	Kentucky	30.8%	—
#48	Oklahoma	28.6%	—
#49	Missouri	23.7%	—
#50	Delaware	11.2%	—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

HRSA · Health Professional Shortage Areas quarterly report ↗

California · state comparison

Employer coverage costs

Premium comparisons use a published historical all-state employer survey. Total premiums combine employer and employee payments.

MeasureComparison period

California · 2020$7,173

California rank#24among all 50 states

U.S. benchmark$7,149Same 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.

Single coverage premium · all firms

Average total annual employer-plan premium per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments offering coverage.

Historical 2020 published all-state table; not a current quote. Includes both employer and employee contributions, rather than just a worker’s payment. Survey estimates and small firm samples carry uncertainty. Missing estimates remain unavailable.

Compare states on the graph

Inspect a stateGraph order

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 · $6.39KHigher value · $8.64KStriped: 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 · $7,1732020 · Rank #24 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

Table order

Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank	State	Value	Comparison notes
#1	Alaska	$8,635	—
#2	New York	$8,177	—
#3	New Hampshire	$7,991	—
#4	Vermont	$7,868	—
#5	Wyoming	$7,743	—
#6	Nebraska	$7,611	—
#7	South Carolina	$7,516	—
#8	Connecticut	$7,501	—
#9	Maine	$7,496	—
#10	Massachusetts	$7,452	—
#11	Washington	$7,440	—
#12	New Mexico	$7,424	—
#13	Illinois	$7,376	—
#14	New Jersey	$7,373	—
#15	Maryland	$7,352	—
#16	Rhode Island	$7,326	—
#17	Indiana	$7,319	—
#18	Delaware	$7,280	—
#19	Wisconsin	$7,250	—
#20	Pennsylvania	$7,246	—
#21	North Dakota	$7,216	—
#22	Colorado	$7,206	—
#23	Missouri	$7,179	—
#24	California · your comparison	$7,173	—
#25	Florida	$7,078	—
#26	South Dakota	$7,070	—
#27	Oklahoma	$7,058	—
#28	Hawaii	$7,040	—
#29	North Carolina	$7,036	—
#30	Texas	$7,017	—
#31	West Virginia	$6,993	—
#32	Ohio	$6,989	—
#33	Kentucky	$6,949	—
#34	Iowa	$6,932	—
#35	Virginia	$6,928	—
#36	Oregon	$6,917	—
#37	Minnesota	$6,910	—
#38	Georgia	$6,876	—
#39	Montana	$6,860	—
#40	Idaho	$6,744	—
#41	Louisiana	$6,713	—
#42	Michigan	$6,683	—
#43	Kansas	$6,675	—
#44	Arizona	$6,612	—
#45	Utah	$6,593	—
#46	Mississippi	$6,561	—
#47	Nevada	$6,493	—
#48	Tennessee	$6,485	—
#49	Arkansas	$6,414	—
#50	Alabama	$6,393	—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

AHRQ · MEPS Insurance Component state premiums, 2020 ↗

California · state comparison

Mental health and treatment

Adult statewide estimates use the same SAMHSA model and survey period. Treatment use is a share of all adults, not a share of adults with mental illness.

MeasureComparison period

California · 2023–202421.6%

California rank#43among all 50 states

U.S. benchmark23.1%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.

Any Mental Illness · adults 18+

Civilian noninstitutionalized adults age 18+, past-year prevalence or treatment use, estimated by small-area survey models.

Mental illness and depression estimates pool 2023–2024; treatment use covers 2024 only. Definitions and model-based uncertainty differ from the national page’s annual 2025 survey estimates. Point-estimate ranks do not establish significant differences. Serious mental illness is a subset of any mental illness, so their percentages must not be added.

Compare states on the graph

Inspect a stateGraph order

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 · 18.1%Higher value · 31.6%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 · 21.6%2023–2024 · Rank #43 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

Table order

Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank	State	Value	Comparison notes
#1	Oregon	31.6%	—
#2	Vermont	29.1%	—
#3	West Virginia	28.1%	—
#4	Washington	27.9%	—
#5	New Hampshire	27.7%	—
#6	Tennessee	27%	—
#7	Utah	26.7%	—
#8	Maine	26.7%	—
#9	Arkansas	26.6%	—
#10	Colorado	26.4%	—
#11	Rhode Island	25.8%	—
#12	Missouri	25.7%	—
#13	Montana	25.6%	—
#14	Indiana	25.3%	—
#15	Kentucky	25.3%	—
#16	Georgia	25.2%	—
#17	Iowa	25%	—
#18	Massachusetts	24.9%	—
#19	Wyoming	24.7%	—
#20	Nevada	24.6%	—
#21	Arizona	24.6%	—
#22	Wisconsin	24.6%	—
#23	Idaho	24.5%	—
#24	Nebraska	24.1%	—
#25	Louisiana	24.1%	—
#26	Alaska	24%	—
#27	Pennsylvania	23.9%	—
#28	New Mexico	23.9%	—
#28	Ohio	23.9%	—
#30	Connecticut	23.7%	—
#31	Kansas	23.7%	—
#32	Michigan	23.6%	—
#33	Virginia	23.1%	—
#34	Alabama	23%	—
#35	North Dakota	23%	—
#36	Maryland	22.7%	—
#37	Oklahoma	22.6%	—
#38	Minnesota	22.6%	—
#39	Illinois	22.2%	—
#40	Delaware	22.1%	—
#41	New York	21.9%	—
#42	South Dakota	21.8%	—
#43	California · your comparison	21.6%	—
#44	North Carolina	21.4%	—
#45	Florida	20.8%	—
#46	Texas	20.7%	—
#47	Mississippi	20.5%	—
#48	Hawaii	19.8%	—
#49	South Carolina	19.8%	—
#50	New Jersey	18.1%	—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

SAMHSA · 2023–2024 NSDUH state model-based prevalence tables ↗

California officeholders

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.

321 of 321 reviewed California actions · newest first

Jul 31, 2026 · Other executive action · Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration’s Effort to Expand Catastrophic Health Insurance Plans and Again Undermine Affordable Care Act Protections · Official action recorded

California agencies · Other executive action

Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration’s Effort to Expand Catastrophic Health Insurance Plans and Again Undermine Affordable Care Act Protections

Jul 31, 2026 · Official action recorded

Rob Bonta · Issued

FactVote reviewed summary

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 21 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge a federal rule that once again illegally undermines the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and would make health insurance more expensive and harder to obtain for millions of Americans. The lawsuit seeks to block provisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, a federal rule that sets standards for health plans offered in 2027 and was opposed by the…

Published by the official office

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration’s Effort to Expand Catastrophic Health Insurance Plans and Again Undermine Affordable Care Act Protections

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Rob Bonta’s profile ↗

Inspect this action on the timeline ↑

Jul 22, 2026 · H.R.9831 · Medicaid Dental Benefit Act of 2026 · Introduced

U.S. Congress · California delegation · H.R.9831

Medicaid Dental Benefit Act of 2026

Jul 22, 2026 · Introduced

Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Medicaid Dental Benefit Act of 2026 This bill requires state Medicaid programs to cover dental and oral health services for adults. It also increases the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (i.e., federal matching rate) for such services. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must develop oral health quality and equity measures and conduct outreach relating to such coverage. Additionally, the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Payment and Access Commission must report on specified information relating to adult oral health care.

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Medicaid Dental Benefit Act of 2026 This bill requires state Medicaid programs to cover dental and oral health services for adults.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Open in FactVote →Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán’s profile ↗

Inspect this action on the timeline ↑

Jul 7, 2026 · Policy proposal · Attorney General Bonta Releases 5-Year Strategic Plan to Reduce Gun Violence in California · Proposed policy

California agencies · Policy proposal

Attorney General Bonta Releases 5-Year Strategic Plan to Reduce Gun Violence in California

Jul 7, 2026 · Proposed policy

Rob Bonta · Issued

FactVote reviewed summary

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Bonta today announced the final release of a Strategic Plan to Sustain California’s Record Progress Against Gun Violence. Assembly Bill 1252, authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, required the Attorney General’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP) to publish a strategic plan report outlining recommendations on “new legislation, improvements to statutory implementation, and increased programmatic funding necessary to achieve sustained reductions in gun violence in California” over the next five years. The OGVP published two reports for that strategic plan:

Published by the official office

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.

Assembly Bill 1252, authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, required the Attorney General’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP) to publish a strategic plan report outlining recommendations on “new legislation, improvements to statutory implementation, and increased programmatic funding necessary to achieve sustained reductions in gun violence in California” over the next five years.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Rob Bonta’s profile ↗

Inspect this action on the timeline ↑

Jul 6, 2026 · ACR 191 · National Gun Violence Awareness Day. · Resolution adopted

California Legislature · ACR 191

National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Jul 6, 2026 · Resolution adopted

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

This measure would declare June 5, 2026, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on July 6, 2026: Chaptered.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This measure would declare June 5, 2026, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

Inspect this action on the timeline ↑

Jul 2, 2026 · AB 1753 · Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures. · Amended Senate

California Legislature · AB 1753

Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures.

Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.

Why this record is included

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.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

Inspect this action on the timeline ↑

Jul 2, 2026 · AB 458 · Public contracts: firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories. · Amended Senate

California Legislature · AB 458

Public contracts: firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law generally regulates contracts entered into by any state agency for the acquisition of goods and requires public contracts to be awarded by competitive bidding pursuant to specified procedures. This bill would require, no later than July 1, 2027, the Department of General Services, in consultation with the Department of Justice, to develop model guidelines for offices, officers, departments, divisions, boards, bureaus, and commissions of the state on the procurement of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Public contracts: firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

Inspect this action on the timeline ↑

How California action records are selected

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 health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health 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.

RaceConnection to this factFind a candidate or statement

344 statements from 87 candidates

2026 California Attorney General — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Rob Bonta

1 statement

Democratic · Attorney General · CA

Health coverage

Attorney General Bonta believes health care is a human right. He is defending Obamacare and California’s health care expansions from GOP legal attacks. He went to court to get justice for Californians who were denied mental health benefits from their insurers, and he is seeking justice for families …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Protect healthcare and reproductive access

Candidate campaign source

Attorney General Bonta believes health care is a human right. He is defending Obamacare and California’s health care expansions from GOP legal attacks. He went to court to get justice for Californians who were denied mental health benefits from their insurers, and he is seeking justice for families of opioid victims who were targeted by Big Pharma. At a moment when our reproductive health care is under attack, Attorney General Bonta is defending California’s laws that ensure every woman has access to reproductive health care.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

Issues - Re-elect Rob Bonta Attorney General of Californiahamburger menu_alternativehamburger menu_alternative ↗

Original source ↗

Candidate profile →

2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 1 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 3 statements

Nelson Esparza

3 statements

Democratic · Board of Equalization Member District 1 · CA

Care & public health

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

Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗

Original source ↗

View 2 more statements from Nelson Esparza

Care & public health

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

HOME | Nelson Esparza for Board of Equalization ↗

Original source ↗

Care & public health

Protect public revenue so California can invest in education, health care, public safety, and economic development.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public Investment

Candidate campaign source

Protect public revenue so California can invest in education, health care, public safety, and economic development.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

ABOUT | Nelson Esparza ↗

Original source ↗

Candidate profile →

2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 3 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Mike Gipson

1 statement

Democratic · Board of Equalization Member District 3 · CA

Care & public health

Assemblymember Mike Gipson is a proven leader with decades of experience fighting for working families. He is running for the Board of Equalization to fight for fairness, transparency, and accountability. Mike will fight to close tax loopholes that billionaires and corporations exploit to avoid payi…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Fund healthcare, schools and social services

Government-published candidate material

Assemblymember Mike Gipson is a proven leader with decades of experience fighting for working families. He is running for the Board of Equalization to fight for fairness, transparency, and accountability. Mike will fight to close tax loopholes that billionaires and corporations exploit to avoid paying their fair share. Born and raised in Los Angeles, Mike has dedicated his life's work to public service. He has worked for service employee and public educator unions, as a local city councilmember, a former local police officer, and currently is a member of the California State Assembly. He is the longest-serving Assembly Democratic Caucus Chair in state history. As Assemblyman, Mike has championed groundbreaking laws protecting California children and families from ICE, laws to get 3-D printed “ghost guns” off of the streets and out of the hands of criminals, funding for expanded access to healthcare, education, and childcare, and Investments in mental health services. That's why Governor Gavin Newsom said, “Mike has been a bold leader for the people of our state.” Previously serving as Chief of Staff to the former Board of Equalization Chairman, Mike currently serves as Chair of the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, which oversees the Board of Equalization. On the BOE, Gipson will bring in the funds needed to support quality healthcare, strong schools, and vital social services that sustain families and communities across our state. By June 2nd, vote Mike Gipson for Board of Equalization! Endorsed by nurses, construction workers, and classroom teachers. Visit mikegipson.net

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗

Original source ↗

Candidate profile →

Race groups · Page 1 of 19

How statements are selected

This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health 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.

Government bodyProposal statusFind a sponsor or proposalOrder incumbents

197 matching sponsorships or proposals · 74 California incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Asm. Al Muratsuchi

California State Assembly · District 66 · D–CA

4 proposals

View proposals from Asm. Al Muratsuchi

California Legislature · AB 2545

Theft: receiving stolen property: firearms.

Feb 17, 2022 · Session ended · final outcome unverified

Asm. Al Muratsuchi · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Under existing law, theft of any property of a value exceeding $950 is grand theft and is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Under existing law, theft of any firearm, regardless of value, is grand theft and is punishable as a felony.Under existing law, knowingly buying or receiving stolen property, as specified, is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony if the value of the property exceeds $950.Existing law, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by Proposition 47, as approved by the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, requires the receipt of stolen property that does not exceed $950 to be punished as a misdemeanor, except in cases when…

The 2021–2022 regular session ended on November 30, 2022. The retained bill text is dated February 17, 2022 and records: Assembly - Died - Public Safety. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would, upon approval by the voters, make knowingly buying or receiving a stolen firearm, as specified, regardless of the value of the firearm, punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Al Muratsuchi’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 255

COVID-19 Emergency Small Business Eviction Relief Act.

Jun 1, 2021 · Session ended · final outcome unverified

Asm. Al Muratsuchi · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord in specified circumstances, including when the tenant has violated the lease or rental agreement by defaulting on rent, and requires the tenant be served a 3 days’ notice in writing to cure the default, as specified. Existing law provides that an unlawful detainer action is subject to the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020, which provides tenants with specified temporary protections from eviction, if the default in the payment of rent is based upon COVID-19 rental debt, as defined.This bill, the COVID-19 Emergency Small Business Eviction…

The 2021–2022 regular session ended on November 30, 2022. The retained bill text is dated June 1, 2021 and records: Assembly - Died. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.

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.

This bill, the COVID-19 Emergency Small Business Eviction Relief Act, would, until July 1, 2025, require a landlord, who receives a statement signed by a commercial tenant, as defined, and supported by documentary evidence that evidences that the tenant requests emergency rent relief because the business of the commercial tenant has experienced a decrease in average monthly gross revenue of at least 50%, which is reasonably attributable to public health regulations adopted to address the COVID-19 pandemic,…

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Al Muratsuchi’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 2362

Firearms dealers: conduct of business.

Sep 29, 2020 · Enacted

Asm. Al Muratsuchi · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid seller’s permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the department. Existing law regulates licensed firearms dealers and provides that a license is subject to forfeiture for a breach of specified prohibitions in existing law. Existing law establishes the Dealers’ Record…

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on September 29, 2020: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 284, Statutes of 2020..

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid seller’s permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the department.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Al Muratsuchi’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 1064

Firearms dealers: conduct of business.

Jan 31, 2020 · Died

Asm. Al Muratsuchi · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid seller’s permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the Department of Justice. Existing law regulates licensed firearms dealers and provides that a license is subject to forfeiture for a breach of specified prohibitions in existing law.This bill would authorize the…

The official California Legislative Information history records this action on January 31, 2020: Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution..

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid seller’s permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the Department of Justice.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Al Muratsuchi’s profile ↗

Asm. Alex Lee

California State Assembly · District 24 · D–CA

1 proposal

View proposals from Asm. Alex Lee

California Legislature · AB 1509

Enhancements: firearms.

Apr 21, 2021 · Session ended · final outcome unverified

Asm. Alex Lee · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law imposes various sentence enhancements, consisting of additional and consecutive terms of imprisonment, including, among others, enhancements for being armed with a firearm during the commission of a felony, being armed with a firearm during the commission of a street gang crime, as defined, being armed with ammunition designed to penetrate armor during the commission of a felony, furnishing a firearm to another for the purpose of aiding, abetting, or enabling that person to commit a felony, and using a firearm during the commission of a felony, and the infliction of great bodily injury on any other person during the commission of a felony. This bill would repeal those…

The 2021–2022 regular session ended on November 30, 2022. The retained bill text is dated April 21, 2021 and records: Assembly - Died - Appropriations. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Enhancements: firearms.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Alex Lee’s profile ↗

Asm. Avelino Valencia

California State Assembly · District 68 · D–CA

3 proposals

View proposals from Asm. Avelino Valencia

California Legislature · AB 2352

Medi-Cal providers: nonprofit public benefit corporations.

May 18, 2026 · Amended Assembly

Asm. Avelino Valencia · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is in part governed by, and funded pursuant to, federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law sets forth various procedures, including the submission of an application package, for provider enrollment, continuing enrollment, or enrollment at a new location or a change in location under the Medi-Cal program.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on May 18, 2026: Amended Assembly.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would also apply the above-described provision to a nonprofit public benefit corporation that has been granted tax-exempt status and through which licensed providers enumerated in the Medicaid state plan provide nonspecialty mental health services, as specified.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Avelino Valencia’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 1483

Firearms: purchases.

Sep 26, 2023 · Enacted

Asm. Avelino Valencia · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law, subject to exceptions, prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period. Under existing law, a violation of this prohibition is a crime. Existing law exempts from that prohibition a firearms transaction where neither of the parties is a firearms dealer if the transaction is completed through a dealer.

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on September 26, 2023: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 246, Statutes of 2023..

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The bill would add an exemption for any private party transaction where the seller is, at the time of the transaction, required under state law or by court order to relinquish all firearms, and for any private party transaction where the seller is transferring the firearms as a result of the death of the owner of the firearms, as specified.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Avelino Valencia’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 1230

Medi-Cal and Medicare: dual eligible beneficiaries: special needs plans.

Feb 16, 2023 · Session ended · final outcome unverified

Asm. Avelino Valencia · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing federal law establishes the Medicare Program, which is a public health insurance program for persons who are 65 years of age or older and specified persons with disabilities who are under 65 years of age.Existing law sets forth various provisions, including within the Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI) and the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) initiative, relating to…

The 2023–2024 regular session ended on November 30, 2024. The retained bill text is dated February 16, 2023 and records: Assembly - Died - Health. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Medi-Cal and Medicare: dual eligible beneficiaries: special needs plans.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Avelino Valencia’s profile ↗

Asm. Buffy Wicks

California State Assembly · District 14 · D–CA

5 proposals

View proposals from Asm. Buffy Wicks

California Legislature · AB 1743

Firearms.

Jun 4, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Buffy Wicks · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to enter each firearm into the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, held for safekeeping, surrendered, relinquished, or under observation. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice all available information necessary to identify and trace the history of all recovered firearms that are illegally possessed, have been used in a crime, or are suspected of having been used in a crime, within 7 calendar days of obtaining the information.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on June 4, 2026: Amended Senate.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Firearms.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Buffy Wicks’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 1252

Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Sep 24, 2024 · Enacted

Asm. Buffy Wicks · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms. The California Constitution establishes the Attorney General as the chief law officer of the state and makes it the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced.This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. The bill would require the office to advise the Attorney General on, among other things, gun violence prevention-related…

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on September 24, 2024: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 529, Statutes of 2024..

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Buffy Wicks’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 2156

Firearms: manufacturers.

Jul 21, 2022 · Enacted

Asm. Buffy Wicks · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing federal law requires a manufacturer of firearms to be licensed by the federal government. Existing state law requires any federally licensed firearms manufacturer that produces 50 or more firearms in the state in a calendar year to also be licensed as a manufacturer by the state. A violation of this requirement is punishable as a misdemeanor.This bill would expand this prohibition to prohibit any person, regardless of federal licensure, from manufacturing firearms in the state without being licensed by the state.

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on July 21, 2022: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 142, Statutes of 2022..

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Existing federal law requires a manufacturer of firearms to be licensed by the federal government.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Buffy Wicks’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 1189

Abortion.

Jan 31, 2020 · Died

Asm. Buffy Wicks · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law regulates the performance of abortions. Existing law, the Reproductive Privacy Act, provides that the state may not deny or interfere with a person’s right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. The act defines “abortion” as a medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth.

The official California Legislative Information history records this action on January 31, 2020: Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution..

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 the State Department of Public Health to develop and make available to the public informational materials that identify a person’s privacy rights with respect to abortion, and the prohibition against state denial or interference with the right to choose or obtain an abortion, as specified.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Buffy Wicks’s profile ↗

California Legislature · ACR 110

Access to reproductive care and abortion services.

Jun 27, 2019 · Session ended · final outcome unverified

Asm. Buffy Wicks · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

This measure, among other things, would declare that California is a Reproductive Freedom State for All and provide that the Legislature is committed to guaranteeing the constitutionally protected right to an abortion and supporting efforts to increase access to the best available reproductive and pregnancy-related care for women and pregnant individuals.

The 2019–2020 regular session ended on November 30, 2020. The retained bill text is dated June 27, 2019 and records: Senate - Died - Judiciary. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.

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 measure, among other things, would declare that California is a Reproductive Freedom State for All and provide that the Legislature is committed to guaranteeing the constitutionally protected right to an abortion and supporting efforts to increase access to the best available reproductive and pregnancy-related care for women and pregnant individuals.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Buffy Wicks’s profile ↗

Asm. Carl DeMaio

California State Assembly · District 75 · R–CA

1 proposal

View proposals from Asm. Carl DeMaio

California Legislature · AB 256

Crimes: intoxication and firearms.

Jan 5, 2026 · Amended Assembly

Asm. Carl DeMaio · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law imposes various sentence enhancements, consisting of additional and consecutive terms of imprisonment, including, among others, enhancements for being armed with a firearm during the commission of a felony. Existing law makes it a crime for a person to be unlawfully under the influence of cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, methamphetamine, or phencyclidine while in the immediate personal possession of a loaded, operable firearm, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year or in the state prison for a first conviction, or in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years for a 2nd or subsequent conviction.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on January 5, 2026: Amended Assembly.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would create an enhancement for any person who, while armed with a firearm in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, is under the influence of a controlled substance they are prohibited from possessing, as specified.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Carl DeMaio’s profile ↗

Asm. Catherine Stefani

California State Assembly · District 19 · D–CA

7 proposals

View proposals from Asm. Catherine Stefani

California Legislature · ACR 191

National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Jul 6, 2026 · Resolution adopted

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

This measure would declare June 5, 2026, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on July 6, 2026: Chaptered.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This measure would declare June 5, 2026, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 1753

Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures.

Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.

Why this record is included

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.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 458

Public contracts: firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Public contracts: firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

California 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.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 2208

Medi-Cal: cost sharing and accessibility.

Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is in part governed by, and funded pursuant to, federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing federal law, enacted on July 4, 2025, sets forth various changes to Medicaid eligibility with regard to community engagement reporting, redeterminations, cost sharing, and retroactive coverage, among other factors, for certain Medicaid populations, including beneficiaries between 19 and 64 years of age, inclusive, with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level, commonly known as…

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 Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Existing federal law, enacted on July 4, 2025, sets forth various changes to Medicaid eligibility with regard to community engagement reporting, redeterminations, cost sharing, and retroactive coverage, among other factors, for certain Medicaid populations, including beneficiaries between 19 and 64 years of age, inclusive, with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level, commonly known as Medicaid expansion adults.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 1974

Firearms: voluntary firearm storage program.

May 28, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law requires a person, who claims title to a firearm that is in the custody of a court or law enforcement agency and wishes to have it returned, to make an application for a determination by the Department of Justice as to whether the applicant is eligible to possess a firearm.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on May 28, 2026: Amended Senate.

Why this record is included

Retained California evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would authorize a law enforcement agency, as defined, to create a voluntary firearm storage program that allows a person to voluntarily transfer custody of their firearm to the local law enforcement agency for temporary safekeeping purposes to prevent firearm violence, suicide, and other injury.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

California Legislature · AB 824

Protective orders: firearms and ammunition.

Jun 19, 2025 · 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. 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

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.

Review official supporting evidence ↗

Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

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.

← All California individual facts

Uninsured rate · all ages i

Compare states on the graph

People under 65 without health insurance

Personal healthcare spending per resident i

Compare states on the graph

Life expectancy at birth i

Compare states on the graph

Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted i

Compare states on the graph

Primary care · need met i

Compare states on the graph

Single coverage premium · all firms i

Compare states on the graph

Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ i

Compare states on the graph

Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration’s Effort to Expand Catastrophic Health Insurance Plans and Again Undermine Affordable Care Act Protections

FactVote reviewed summary

Medicaid Dental Benefit Act of 2026

FactVote reviewed summary

Attorney General Bonta Releases 5-Year Strategic Plan to Reduce Gun Violence in California

FactVote reviewed summary

National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

FactVote reviewed summary

Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures.

FactVote reviewed summary

Public contracts: firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

FactVote reviewed summary

What candidates are saying

2026 California Attorney General — General Election

Rob Bonta

2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 1 — General Election

Nelson Esparza

2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 3 — General Election

Mike Gipson

Asm. Al Muratsuchi

Theft: receiving stolen property: firearms.

FactVote reviewed summary

COVID-19 Emergency Small Business Eviction Relief Act.

FactVote reviewed summary

Firearms dealers: conduct of business.

FactVote reviewed summary

Firearms dealers: conduct of business.

FactVote reviewed summary

Asm. Alex Lee

Enhancements: firearms.

FactVote reviewed summary

Asm. Avelino Valencia

Medi-Cal providers: nonprofit public benefit corporations.

FactVote reviewed summary

Firearms: purchases.

FactVote reviewed summary

Medi-Cal and Medicare: dual eligible beneficiaries: special needs plans.

FactVote reviewed summary

Asm. Buffy Wicks

Firearms.

FactVote reviewed summary

Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

FactVote reviewed summary

Firearms: manufacturers.

FactVote reviewed summary

Abortion.

FactVote reviewed summary

Access to reproductive care and abortion services.

FactVote reviewed summary

Asm. Carl DeMaio

Crimes: intoxication and firearms.

FactVote reviewed summary

Asm. Catherine Stefani

National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

FactVote reviewed summary

Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures.

FactVote reviewed summary

Public contracts: firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

FactVote reviewed summary

Public health: public postsecondary education: student health centers: abortion by medication techniques.

FactVote reviewed summary

Medi-Cal: cost sharing and accessibility.

FactVote reviewed summary

Firearms: voluntary firearm storage program.

FactVote reviewed summary

Uninsured rate · all ages

Personal healthcare spending per resident

Life expectancy at birth

Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted

Primary care · need met

Single coverage premium · all firms

Any Mental Illness · adults 18+