By Shor M. Masori in San Diego, California
Jewish California has moved all six of its priority bills through the Legislature. As of September 10, each awaited Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature to become law or his veto.
Those bills are:
SB 1387 – To collect voluntary demographic data on Jewish identity, which henceforth will be described in official state records as an ethnicity as well as a religion.
AB 1763 – To expedite religious absences from public school.
AB 395 – To reduce scheduling conflicts with religious holidays.
AB 1836 – To cover cost of security at offsite nonprofit events.
AB 2664 – To protect access to houses of worship
and AB 1853 – To ban prohibited content in candidate’s ballot statements.
Founded in 1972 as the Jewish Public Affairs Committee (JPAC) of California, the coalition represents 43 organizations, including federations and social-service agencies. CEO David Bocarsly’s team develops proposals based on members’ needs, finds legislative authors, and organizes support. He calls the Legislative Jewish Caucus the community’s voice in government and his coalition its voice to government.
Bocarsly, interviewed by telephone, said he wants lawmakers to realize that some Jewish Californians experience hunger, homelessness and poverty, including immigrants and Jews of color whose needs can be obscured by broader demographic categories. Better data would guide services and research into health disparities. SB 1387 adds voluntary identification of Jewish ancestry or ethnicity to covered state-agency forms in 2029 and recognizes Jewish ethnicity in education law.
Jewish California lists 59 supporting Jewish organizations. A June 23 committee analysis recorded 10 Jewish groups or chapters opposing the measure, including three Jewish Voice for Peace chapters, Bend the Arc, and Workers Circle. JVP argues that one ethnicity category obscures Jewish diversity and government records could enable persecution. Its members also opposed last year’s K–12 antisemitism law, citing censorship concerns.
Respondents could still select multiple ethnicities. Bocarsly acknowledges that fears of “lists of Jews” stem from valid intergenerational Holocaust trauma. SB 1387 prohibits agencies from disclosing identifying information or using the data for registries, law enforcement or immigration enforcement. Public reports would show aggregate totals rather than names. If a category were so small that other available information could reveal someone’s identity, the agency would have to combine it with a larger category or withhold that count.
California signed its similar Middle Eastern and North African data law on October 6, 2025. Sexual orientation and gender identity data requirements became law October 7, 2015, and were expanded September 28, 2024. Bocarsly said Jewish California was part of the coalition that helped pass earlier LGBTQ data legislation.
He pointed to transgender communities seeking better data and stronger privacy despite fears of government targeting. “If others can benefit from good data, so can we,” he said. He connects that work to a broader belief: “Our safety is wrapped up in the safety of other people.”
Indeed, many of the proposals, while intended to address the Jewish community’s concerns, would also help other groups. Muslim and Hindu families would also benefit from the two calendar proposals. AB 1763 would remove the parental written request and principal approval requirements for religious absences. AB 395 covers scheduling conflicts with holidays including Yom Kippur, Eid and Diwali. From 2027–28, K–12 boards would have to consider holidays when scheduling first days and high school graduations; community colleges and California State University would have to make reasonable efforts for mandatory events, with the University of California asked to do the same. State agencies would have to make similar scheduling efforts, with local legislative bodies encouraged to avoid conflicts.
For organizations holding these holiday celebrations, the cost of gathering can determine whether an event happens at all. Bocarsly recalled more security than ever at his last local Hanukkah lighting in a park. Elsewhere, he said, events “aren’t happening at all, because they can’t afford that security.”
AB 1836 would extend nonprofit security grants to qualifying offsite events, allowing up to $25,000 of an award for those costs. Equality California joined the effort as Pride organizers face similar expenses.
At houses of worship, the debate concerned how close protesters could approach. AB 2664 would establish a protected area extending 100 feet from each entrance and exit. Within that area, someone protesting or distributing leaflets could not deliberately move within eight feet of a person entering or exiting unless that person consented. ACLU California Action argued that existing laws already protect access and that the additional rule would burden speech on public sidewalks.
Bocarsly argues that speech and worship deserve equal First Amendment protection, citing a 1993 Colorado clinic-access law that the Supreme Court upheld in 2000. He recalled telling an ACLU representative: ask permission to give someone a flyer from eight feet away, then approach if they agree. Protesters could still speak within the larger zone.
While that debate unfolded, an antisemitic candidate statement appeared in the state’s June primary guide. On June 8, lawmakers used California’s ‘gut and amend’ process to replace AB 1853’s contents after introduction deadlines so that it could pass in time for November elections. The bill would limit statements to candidates’ qualifications and require removal of prohibited content, including threats and incitement.
Three days later, the same process revived a debate about campus conduct. A 2024 law Jewish California helped pass requires CSUs to publish protest rules, address harassment and intimidation, and educate students about their responsibilities. UC, whose charter grants it a certain level of autonomy, is asked to comply.
Assemblymember Sade Elhawary’s AB 2551, sponsored by the California Faculty Association, proposed hearings on those rules alongside repeal of the 2024 law in 2029. Supporters alleged disproportionate punishment of minority students. Bocarsly agreed those concerns deserved examination but objected to choosing repeal before the hearings on the law’s impact actually took place. After initial appeals failed, Bocarsly said, about 8,000 people contacted lawmakers to oppose the repeal. Jewish California withdrew its opposition after working with the committee chair to remove the repeal provision.
The union had also proposed changes to the K–12 antisemitism law, citing academic freedom. The law created an antisemitism prevention coordinator and strengthened responses to discrimination. Bocarsly called it “probably the biggest legislative achievement” in the California Jewish community’s history. The union’s proposal never reached a hearing.
The school law drew support from leaders and members of the Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander, LGBTQ and Native American caucuses. Bocarsly said that alliance grew from years of the groups advocating for one another’s communities.
This year, the coalition supported roughly 20 additional bills, including efforts to preserve health coverage and food assistance after federal cuts. Lawmakers passed Assemblymember Mia Bonta’s proposal to help eligible Californians retain Medi-Cal coverage under new federal work requirements. Among its safeguards, counties would have to check other grounds for eligibility before cutting off coverage.
A food-aid expansion stalled in August. Bocarsly said state officials wanted to help but could not afford every request, even with a budget of roughly $352 billion. Other appeals produced funding: Jewish California’s policy tracker reports that it joined the coalition advocating for immigrant legal services, which received $175 million in this year’s budget.
For Bocarsly, those efforts and the six bills follow the same principle: California can protect its residents as their needs grow and federal support recedes. Each bill began with a need raised by Jewish organizations and advanced through years of communities continuing to show up for one another. If Newsom signs them, the six measures would turn that shared advocacy into state law.