Legislative Scorecard 2015

Protecting HOMECARE TOGETHER

2015 Legislative Scorecard

Which lawmakers are supporting in-home caregivers, seniors, people with disabilities,

and working families?

Thank you

For voting 100% with UDW in our

efforts to improve the lives of California’s working families.

Speaker of the Assembly Toni AtkinsAssemblymember Luis AlejoAssemblymember Richard BloomAssemblymember Susan BonillaAssemblymember Rob BontaAssemblymember Cheryl BrownAssemblymember Autumn BurkeAssemblymember Nora CamposAssemblymember Ed ChauAssemblymember David ChiuAssemblymember Kansen ChuAssemblymember Ken CooleyAssemblymember Jim CooperAssemblymember Matthew DababnehAssemblymember Tom DalyAssemblymember Bill DoddAssemblymember Susan EggmanAssemblymember Jim FrazierAssemblymember Cristina GarciaAssemblymember Eduardo GarciaAssemblymember Mike GipsonAssemblymember Jimmy GomezAssemblymember Lorena GonzalezAssemblymember Richard GordonAssemblymember Chris HoldenAssemblymember Jacqui IrwinAssemblymember Reginald Jones-SawyerAssemblymember Marc LevineAssemblymember Patty LopezAssemblymember Evan LowAssemblymember Kevin McCartyAssemblymember Jose MedinaAssemblymember Kevin MullinAssemblymember Adrin NazarianAssemblymember Patrick O’Donnell

Assemblymember Henry PereaAssemblymember Bill Quirk

Assemblymember Anthony RendonAssemblymember Sebastian Ridley-Thomas

Assemblymember Freddie RodriguezAssemblymember Rudy Salas

Assemblymember Miguel SantiagoAssemblymember Mark StoneAssemblymember Philip Ting

Assemblymember Shirley WeberAssemblymember Das Williams

Assemblymember Jim WoodSenate President pro Tempore Kevin de León

Senator Ben AllenSenator Jim Beall

Senator Marty BlockSenator Cathleen Galgiani

Senator Isadore HallSenator Loni HancockSenator Ed Hernandez

Senator Robert HertzbergSenator Jerry Hill

Senator Ben HuesoSenator Hannah-Beth Jackson

Senator Ricardo LaraSenator Mark Leno

Senator Connie LeyvaSenator Carol Liu

Senator Mike McGuireSenator Tony Mendoza

Senator William MonningSenator Fran Pavley

Senator Richard RothSenator Lois Wolk

“Last year we had just six people on this list, so we called on lawmakers to stand up for in-home caregivers and homecare recipients in 2015. Thank you to the 69 elected leaders who chose to put people first by consistently supporting working families and our communities.

Your support has a real impact on the lives of California’s seniors, people with disabilities, and the tireless homecare providers who care for them. But there is more work to be done, and we hope you continue to stand with us in 2016.”

— Doug Moore, UDW Executive Director

for homecare

Editha AdamsPresident

Lientuong Rose NguyenSecretary-Treasurer

Rosalina Flores Executive Vice President

Amy DayVice President, El Dorado

Conception GonzalesVice President, Kern

Josefina OchoaVice President, Merced

Christine NguyenVice President, Orange

William ReedVice President, Placer

Blanca QuinteroVice President, Riverside

Brooks AshbyVice President, San Diego

Elva MunozVice President, Santa Barbara

Allene VillaVice President, San Luis Obispo

Astrid ZunigaVice President, Stanislaus

Doug MooreUDW Executive Director

We can win justice for in-home care workers!UDW’s nearly 90,000 In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) homecare workers are the women and men who help California’s seniors and people with disabilities stay safe and healthy at home and in their communities – where research shows they are happier and healthier. But while our care keeps IHSS clients out of costly institutions and saves the government money, California’s homecare workers remain underpaid and underappreciated.

That’s why it is imperative that we continue the fight to protect the IHSS program and our clients and win a living wage for the people who care for California.

In 2015 we ended the 7% cut to IHSS hours, and passed legislation to develop new law enforcement training to keep individuals with mental illness and intellectual disabilities safer in our communities. We overcame setbacks like the unexpected delay of overtime pay for IHSS workers in January, and now look forward to its implementation in 2016.

But the 7% cut was restored for just one year, and overtime pay and other labor protections for caregivers are still at risk. Our job is not done! In 2016, let’s work together to strengthen California’s homecare program and win justice for caregivers and our clients.

The UDW Executive Board,

A Message from UDW Homecare Providers

2 UDW/AFSCME Local 3930

UDW is made up of nearly 90,000 homecare workers who provide quality, cost-effective in-home care for almost 110,000 seniors and people with disabilities through California’s In-Home Supportive Services program (IHSS).

We provide personal care, paramedical, and domestic and related services that allow people to live independently and with dignity at home. In comparison to an institution, homecare helps our clients live longer, happier, and more fulfilling lives, at a lower cost to taxpayers.

Who are UDW caregivers?

Who we are

Of the nearly 90,000 UDW caregivers, the majority are women and people of color: 90% are women, 25% are Black, 35% are Latino, 9% are Asian, and 30% are white.

Nearly 110,000 seniors and Californians with disabilities in Alpine, Butte, El Dorado,

Imperial, Kern, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Nevada, Orange, Placer,

Plumas, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,

Sierra, Stanislaus, Sutter, and Tuolumne counties live safely at home because of UDW

homecare workers.

Who are the clients of UDW caregivers?

3UDW/AFSCME Local 3930

We provide in-home care for California’s seniors and people with disabilities—your neighbors and loved ones.

As California’s aging population continues to grow, the need for long-term care is on the rise. But skilled nursing facilities cost on average, $65,000 per year per patient. The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, California’s answer to the long-term care crisis, costs, on average just $13,000 per person: that’s 80% less than institutional care!

This means that homecare allows our loved ones to remain happy and healthy at home while saving the state money. Investing in homecare is a win-win for all of us.

What we do

$65,000

$13,000

averageannual cost

Skilled Nursing Facility

IHSS Homecare

averageannual cost


The Legislature passed two bills enacting the FY 2015-2016 budget. The first bill to be voted on – AB 93 – was passed on June 2015 and presented to the governor for his signature. This bill included an end to the existing 7% across-the-board cut to IHSS using a combination of state General Fund and funds from the future enactment of a Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax, effective July 1, 2015 and beyond.

The governor consequently proposed amendments to AB 93 that significantly reduced the estimate of future revenue and eliminated increased spending on many human services programs. These amendments are in SB 97, and were approved by the Legislature on June 19. SB 97 amended the IHSS budget to restore the 7% cut using the General Fund for a period of one year only. This means that the 7% cut will return on July 1, 2016 if new funding is not secured. Both bills were signed into law by the governor on June 24, 2015.

UDW supported AB 93 because it included a permanent restoration of the 7% cut. We did not take a position on the subsequent bill, SB 97. Therefore, AB 93 is the only budget bill used in calculating legislator performance.

“I’ve been taking care of my dad since 2010, and he has 150 IHSS hours a month. He needs every one of those hours, and the cut took them away from him. I was living paycheck-to-paycheck—there were times I couldn’t afford gas for my car to take him to his appointments. Having the 7% restored has been a blessing. I can afford to buy shoes for my kids, and I don’t need food stamps anymore. On top of that, my dad has all his hours, and he feels better too. At 86 years old, he shouldn’t have to worry about his care. We need to find a way to keep the 7% cut permanently restored.”

— Rodolfo “Rudy” SanchezHomecare Provider, Santa Barbara County

Ending harmful cuts to IHSSAssembly Bill 93 and Senate Bill 97: Budget Act of 2015

UDW Priority Legislation


The goal of both SB 11 and SB 29 is to reduce the occurrence of preventable violent interactions between police and people with mental illness, intellectual disabilities, or substance abuse disorders.

SB 11 establishes 15 hours of evidence-based classroom training in the police academy as well as a three-hour continuing education course that will teach officers to recognize, deescalate, and appropriately respond to people who are in crisis. SB 29 mandates eight hours of crisis intervention training relating to behavioral health for all current field training officers. It also requires prospective field training officers to complete at least four hours of training on how to interact with persons with mental illness or intellectual disabilities. Both SB 11 and SB 29 require the training to address issues related to stigma, and to instruct officers on culturally appropriate procedures.

Position: Co-Sponsor

Status: Signed into law on October 3, 2015

“I’m the mother of a child with an intellectual disability who can sometimes be aggressive and is known to wander. For me, SB 11 and SB 29 are imperative because they ensure law enforcement statewide is trained to interact with individuals with intellectual disabilities and mental illness. These bills will not only help save innocent lives in our communities, but they will also prevent our law enforcement from facing costly lawsuits. I feel better knowing that if a police officer comes into contact with my son, they will have been trained to deescalate the situation, rather than resorting to shooting or other violent methods.”

— Astrid ZunigaHomecare Provider, Stanislaus County

Stanislaus County Chair

Protecting people with mental illness and intellectual disabilitiesSenate Bill 11 and Senate Bill 29 (Beall): Peace officer training: Mental health


Currently, UDW collectively bargains on behalf of our members at the county level with local public authorities. The Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI), which was passed as part of the Budget Act of 2012, included provisions to transfer the employer responsibility for IHSS collective bargaining from the county level to the state level. This transition was scheduled to begin in seven pilot counties no earlier than March 2013, but it was delayed by a year or more, depending on the county. In addition, there is no plan in place to expand beyond the seven pilot counties.

AB 211 would have mandated that the IHSS Statewide Authority assume the employer responsibility for collective bargaining with IHSS providers in all 58 counties in California beginning in January 2016. This bill would have allowed all UDW homecare providers to bargain one master contract with the state, ending the current practice of negotiating separately with each county. State level bargaining would have allowed us to fight for improvements for IHSS caregivers and our clients more efficiently and effectively.


Status: Inactive file; two-year bill

“I’m happy to join with providers from San Diego and Orange County to bargain with the state for a better contract for us all. However, we can’t stop there. We need AB 211, so that providers from all 21 UDW counties can come together as one unit to work toward what we deserve: better wages, paid sick leave, and other much-needed benefits, so that we can continue to provide quality care for our clients.”

— Marcus HaynesHomecare Provider, Riverside County

Member of Bargaining Committee

State level bargaining for IHSS providersAssembly Bill 211 (Gomez): In-Home Supportive Services


SB 199 would have addressed a long-standing unmet need in the IHSS program by expanding authorized services to include reading assistance and document completion for the approximately 10,000 IHSS recipients who are legally blind.

Currently, these services are not covered under the IHSS program, despite the fact that access to written information is vital for persons who are blind to live independently. Many IHSS clients live on fixed incomes and are unable to pay out-of-pocket for this service. As a result, they must rely on finding neighbors or friends to help read and prepare important documents for them, which is not always possible.


Status: Vetoed by the governor

“Reading services are vital. My client is blind, and if someone does not read his mail to him or help him complete important forms, he could lose his Section 8 housing. SB 199 would allow providers like me to ensure that our clients who are blind have continued access to the services they currently depend on, such as Social Security or IHSS, by giving us the ability to help them read and complete important paperwork.”

— Noreen WoodsHomecare Provider, San Diego County

Expanding IHSS services for the legally blindSenate Bill 199 (Hall): In-home supportive services: Reading services for blind and visually impaired recipients

Enacted in 2012, the Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI) combined the delivery of medical, behavioral, and long-term care services into a single managed care plan in seven California counties including Orange, Riverside, and San Diego.

Managed care plans providing services through Cal MediConnect, the main component of CCI, have the ability to grant an IHSS client extra hours of in-home care beyond what an IHSS social worker has authorized. However, these plans are prohibited from directly paying an individual provider for these additional hours worked.

AB 97 would have created a mechanism to allow managed health care plans to use the existing IHSS payrolling system to pay a client’s IHSS provider for these additional hours approved through Cal MediConnect.


Status: Vetoed by the governor

Ensuring IHSS providers can be paid for hours worked in the Coordinated Care InitiativeAssembly Bill 97 (Weber): In-home supportive services: Provider wages

“My mom Consuela has diabetes, high blood pressure, and mobility issues. As she ages, she will need more care, and programs like CCI will make it easier to ensure that all of her healthcare needs are under one umbrella. But I worry that as my mom begins to need me more, she may not be granted enough hours through IHSS. AB 97 would ensure that as an IHSS provider, I am paid for any additional hours of care approved through Cal MediConnect.”

— Norma BarajasHomecare Provider, Riverside County


Approximately 7 million Californians are estimated to speak English “less than very well,” and many of these individuals have difficulty accessing quality in-person medical interpretation. AB 635 would have required the state to seek new federal dollars to fund certified medical interpreter services for Medi-Cal recipients who are Limited English Proficient (LEP).

Communication errors between patients and health care providers can lead to missed appointments, unclear treatment plans, unnecessary procedures, misdiagnosis, and even death. Expanding patient access to trained medical interpreters would improve the quality of care in the Medi-Cal program.

Position: Support

Status: Inactive file; two-year bill

“AB 635 is very important. My grandpa is my homecare client, and he speaks Vietnamese and French, but very little English. It can be tough if not impossible for a person who speaks limited English to communicate with doctors, which is why qualified medical interpreters are so important. If my grandfather ever needs to go to a hospital, he should be able to understand the doctor’s plan like any other patient, and he should have an interpreter who can help him communicate his needs to the doctor as well.”

— Vanna NguyenHomecare Provider, Orange County

Providing vital medical interpretation services for Medi-Cal recipientsAssembly Bill 635 (Atkins): Medical interpretation services



SB 548, the Raising Child Care Quality Act, would have established a four-hour orientation for all family child care providers who accept state subsidies to care for children from eligible low-income families. The orientation would have included training on topics such as health and safety standards, how to become a licensed provider, the federal Child and Adult Care Food program, and the state early intervention system. Family child care providers would have been compensated for attending the orientation.

Position: Support

Status: Vetoed by the Governor

“SB 548 would have provided paid, standardized training for child care providers. I know that as a parent, you always want to leave your kids in the safest environment possible. The bill would have given us training focused on children’s health and safety, so providers like me could give parents even more peace of mind.”

— Yessika MagdalenoFamily Child Care Provider, Orange County

“Child care providers and homecare providers have a lot in common, which is why I support them. Child care providers are also the people who watch homecare providers’ children when we are working to provide care for our clients. More training and a voice for child care providers is a win for California’s working families.”

— Lisa ScottHomecare Provider, El Dorado County

Providing training for family child care providersSenate Bill 548: Child care: Family child care providers: Orientation training


Which lawmakers shared our commitment to working families, homecare providers, seniors, and people with disabilities in 2015?

This scorecard records votes on UDW priority legislation by California legislators. Each assemblymember or senator has been scored using votes taken on the Assembly or Senate floors and votes taken in policy or fiscal committees. Abstentions and unexcused absences are scored as a vote in opposition to UDW and count against the legislator’s final score.

The vote records produce a percentage that represents how often the member voted in favor of UDW priority legislation. Higher scores mean that the legislator has voted for the interests of working families. Lower scores, conversely, indicate that the legislator has either not voted for or has voted against the interests of IHSS providers and clients.

The comprehensive vote lists outline each vote made by an assemblymember or senator on UDW priority legislation on the floor and in various policy committees. Because of different committee memberships, some legislators have voted more times than others. These votes are the basis for generating a legislator’s rating. The codes in these tables are as follows:

Y “Yes” Vote

N “No” Vote

EA Excused Absence

A-N Was present that day but abstained or was absent from the floor or the committee vote

Legislative Scorecard


Assemblymember Votes Cast with UDW % Votes Cast with UDWAlejo, Luis (D-30) 9 out of 9 100%

Atkins, Toni (D-78) 9 out of 9 100%

Bloom, Richard (D-50) 13 out of 13 100%

Bonilla, Susan (D-14) 10 out of 10 100%

Bonta, Rob (D-18) 17 out of 17 100%

Brown, Cheryl (D-47) 9 out of 9 100%

Burke, Autumn (D-62) 10 out of 10 100%

Campos, Nora (D-27) 9 out of 9 100%

Chau, Ed (D-49) 9 out of 9 100%

Chiu, David (D-17) 10 out of 10 100%

Chu, Kansen (D-25) 15 out of 15 100%

Cooley, Ken (D-8) 9 out of 9 100%

Cooper, Jim (D-9) 9 out of 9 100%

Dababneh, Matthew (D-45) 9 out of 9 100%

Daly, Tom (D-69) 12 out of 12 100%

Dodd, Bill (D-4) 9 out of 9 100%

Eggman, Susan (D-13) 16 out of 16 100%

Frazier, Jim (D-11) 9 out of 9 100%

Garcia, Cristina (D-58) 9 out of 9 100%

Garcia, Eduardo (D-56) 16 out of 16 100%

Gipson, Mike (D-64) 9 out of 9 100%

Gomez, Jimmy (D-51) 17 out of 17 100%

Gonzalez, Lorena (D-80) 10 out of 10 100%

Gordon, Richard (D-24) 12 out of 12 100%

Holden, Chris (D-41) 16 out of 16 100%

Irwin, Jacqui (D-44) 9 out of 9 100%

Jones-Sawyer, Reginald (D-59) 11 out of 11 100%

Levine, Marc (D-10) 9 out of 9 100%

Lopez, Patty (D-39) 16 out of 16 100%

Low, Evan (D-28) 12 out of 12 100%

McCarty, Kevin (D-7) 10 out of 10 100%

Medina, Jose (D-61) 9 out of 9 100%

Mullin, Kevin (D-22) 9 out of 9 100%

Nazarian, Adrin (D-46) 14 out of 14 100%

O’Donnell, Patrick (D-70) 9 out of 9 100%

Perea, Henry (D-31) 9 out of 9 100%

Quirk, Bill (D-20) 18 out of 18 100%

Rendon, Anthony (D-63) 16 out of 16 100%

Ridley-Thomas, Sebastian (D-54) 10 out of 10 100%

Rodriguez, Freddie (D-52) 10 out of 10 100%

ASSEMBLY SCORECARD

13UDW/AFSCME Local 3930 13

Assemblymember Votes Cast with UDW % Votes Cast with UDWSalas, Rudy (D-32) 9 out of 9 100%

Santiago, Miguel (D-53) 12 out of 12 100%

Stone, Mark (D-29) 14 out of 14 100%

Ting, Philip (D-19) 9 out of 9 100%

Weber, Shirley (D-79) 16 out of 16 100%

Williams, Das (D-37) 8 out of 8 100%

Wood, Jim (D-2) 17 out of 17 100%

Calderon, Ian (D-57) 20 out of 21 95%

Thurmond, Tony (D-15) 15 out of 16 94%

Hernández, Roger (D-48) 10 out of 11 91%

Gatto, Mike (D-43) 8 out of 9 89%

Gray, Adam (D-21) 8 out of 9 89%

Lackey, Tom (R-36) 10 out of 12 83%

Chang, Ling-Ling (R-55) 13 out of 16 81%

Achadjian, Katcho (R-35) 7 out of 9 78%

Linder, Eric (R-60) 7 out of 9 78%

Mayes, Chad (R-42) 10 out of 14 71%

Waldron, Marie (R-75) 7 out of 10 70%

Allen, Travis (R-72) 6 out of 9 67%

Baker, Catharine (R-16) 6 out of 9 67%

Hadley, David (R-66) 6 out of 9 67%

Kim, Young (R-65) 6 out of 9 67%

Maienschein, Brian (R-77) 10 out of 15 67%

Mathis, Devon (R-26) 6 out of 9 67%

Olsen, Kristin (R-12) 6 out of 9 67%

Wilk, Scott (R-38) 6 out of 9 67%

Melendez, Melissa (R-67) 7 out of 11 64%

Gallagher, James (R-3) 10 out of 16 63%

Wagner, Donald (R-68) 10 out of 16 63%

Chávez, Rocky (R-76) 6 out of 10 60%

Steinorth, Marc (R-40) 6 out of 10 60%

Bigelow, Franklin (R-5) 9 out of 16 56%

Dahle, Brian (R-1) 5 out of 9 56%

Gaines, Beth (R-6) 5 out of 9 56%

Grove, Shannon (R-34) 5 out of 9 56%

Jones, Brian (R-71) 9 out of 16 56%

Obernolte, Jay (R-33) 5 out of 9 56%

Patterson, Jim (R-23) 6 out of 11 55%

Brough, William (R-73) 4 out of 9 44%

Harper, Matthew (R-74) 4 out of 10 40%

ASSEMBLY SCORECARD


Member Floor1 Cmte2 Cmte3 Floor4 Floor5 Cmte6 Cmte7 Floor8 Cmte9 Cmte10 Floor11 Cmte12 Comte13 Floor14

Achadjian N - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Alejo Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Allen, T N - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

Atkins Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Baker N - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

Bigelow N - Y Y Y - A-N Y - N Y - Y Y

Bloom Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - Y Y

Bonilla Y - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - - Y

Bonta Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y

Brough N - - A-N Y - - N - - A-N - - Y

Brown Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - -- Y

Burke Y - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - - Y

Calderon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y

Campos Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Chang N - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y - Y Y

Chau Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Chávez N - - Y Y - - A-N Y - A-N - - Y

Chiu Y - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - - Y

Chu Y Y - Y Y Y - Y - - Y - - Y

Cooley Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Cooper Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Dababneh Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Dahle N - - Y Y - - N - - A-N - - Y

Daly Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y - - Y

Dodd Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Eggman Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y - Y Y

Frazier Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Gaines, B N - - Y Y - - N - - N - - Y

Gallagher N - Y Y Y - N N - A-N Y - Y Y

Garcia, C Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Garcia, E Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y - Y Y

Gatto Y - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

Gipson Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Gomez Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y

Gonzalez Y - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - - Y

Gordon Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y - - Y

Gray Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - N

Grove N - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

Hadley N - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

1 Assembly Floor, 6/15/152 Assembly Human Services, 4/28/153 Assembly Appropriations, 5/28/154 Assembly Floor, 6/1/155 Assembly Floor, 9/3/15

6 Assembly Human Services, 3/24/157 Assembly Appropriations, 5/28/158 Assembly Floor, 6/2/159 Assembly Health, 4/14/1510 Assembly Appropriations, 5/28/15

11 Assembly Floor, 6/2/1512 Assembly Public Safety, 7/14/1513 Assembly Appropriations, 8/27/1514 Assembly Floor, 9/1/15

AB 93 AB 97 AB 211 SB 11AB 635

ASSEMBLY COMPREHENSIVE VOTE LIST

Member Cmte15 Cmte16 Floor17 Cmte18 Cmte19 Floor20 Cmte21 Cmte22 Cmte23 Cmte24 Floor25 %

Achadjian - - Y - - Y - - - - N 78%

Alejo - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Allen, T - - Y - - Y - - - - N 67%

Atkins - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Baker - - Y - - Y - - - - N 67%

Bigelow - N N - Y Y - N - - N 56%

Bloom - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Bonilla - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Bonta - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Brough - - Y - - Y - - - - N 44%

Brown - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Burke - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Calderon - Y Y Y Y Y - Y A-N Y Y 95%

Campos - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Chang - Y Y - Y Y - N - - N 81%

Chau - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Chávez - - Y - - Y - - - - N 60%

Chiu - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Chu - - Y Y - Y Y - Y Y Y 100%

Cooley - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Cooper - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Dababneh - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Dahle - - Y - - Y - - - - N 56%

Daly - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Dodd - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Eggman - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Frazier - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Gaines, B - - Y - - Y - - - - N 56%

Gallagher - Y Y - Y Y - N - - N 63%

Garcia, C - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Garcia, E - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Gatto - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 89%

Gipson - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Gomez - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Gonzalez - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Gordon - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Gray - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 89%

Grove - - N - - Y - - - - N 56%

Hadley - - Y - - Y - - - - N 67%

15 Assembly Public Safety, 7/14/1516 Assembly Appropriations, 8/27/1517 Assembly Floor, 9/2/15 18 Assembly Human Services, 6/30/1519 Assembly Appropriations, 8/27/15

20 Assembly Floor, 9/1/15 21 Assembly Labor and Employment, 7/8/15 22 Assembly Appropriations, 8/27/15 23 Assembly Human Services, 9/10/1524 Assembly Human Services, 9/11/15

25 Assembly Floor, 9/11/15

SB 29 SB 199 SB 548





Member Floor1 Cmte2 Cmte3 Floor4 Floor5 Cmte6 Cmte7 Floor8 Cmte9 Cmte10 Floor11 Cmte12 Comte13 Floor14

Harper N - - Y Y - - N - - N - - Y

Hernández, R Y - - Y Y - - Y A-N - Y - - Y

Holden Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y - Y Y

Irwin Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Jones N - Y Y Y - N N - A-N A-N - Y Y

Jones-Sawyer Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y Y - Y

Kim N - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

Lackey N - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y - Y

Levine Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Linder N - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Lopez Y Y - Y Y Y - Y - - Y Y -- Y

Low Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y Y - Y

Maienschein N Y - Y Y A-N - Y Y - Y - - Y

Mathis N - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

Mayes N Y - Y Y Y - Y - - Y - - Y

McCarty Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Medina Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Melendez N - - Y Y - - N - - A-N Y - Y

Mullin Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Nazarian Y - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - Y Y

Obernolte N - - Y Y - - N - - A-N - - Y

O’Donnell Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Olsen N - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

Patterson N - - Y Y - - N A-N - Y - - Y

Perea Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Quirk Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y

Rendon Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y - Y Y

Ridley-Thomas Y - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - - Y

Rodriguez Y - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - - Y

Salas Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Santiago Y - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y - Y

Steinorth N - - Y Y - - N A-N - Y - - Y

Stone, M Y Y - Y Y Y - Y - - Y - - Y

Thurmond Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y

Ting Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Wagner N - Y Y Y - N N - A-N Y - Y Y

Waldron N - - Y Y - - A-N Y - Y - - Y

Weber Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y - Y Y

Wilk N - - Y Y - - N - - Y - - Y

Williams Y - - Y Y - - Y - - Y - - Y

Wood Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y

AB 93 AB 97 AB 211 SB 11AB 635

1 Assembly Floor, 6/15/152 Assembly Human Services, 4/28/153 Assembly Appropriations, 5/28/154 Assembly Floor, 6/1/155 Assembly Floor, 9/3/15

6 Assembly Human Services, 3/24/157 Assembly Appropriations, 5/28/158 Assembly Floor, 6/2/159 Assembly Health, 4/14/1510 Assembly Appropriations, 5/28/15

11 Assembly Floor, 6/2/1512 Assembly Public Safety, 7/14/1513 Assembly Appropriations, 8/27/1514 Assembly Floor, 9/1/15



Member Cmte15 Cmte16 Floor17 Cmte18 Cmte19 Floor20 Cmte21 Cmte22 Cmte23 Cmte24 Floor25 %

Harper - - A-N - - Y N - - - N 40%

Hernández, R - - Y - - Y Y - - - Y 91%

Holden - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Irwin - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Jones - Y Y - Y Y - N - - N 56%

Jones-Sawyer Y - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Kim - - Y - - Y - - - - N 67%

Lackey Y - Y - - Y - - - - N 83%

Levine - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Linder - - Y - - Y - - - - A-N 78%

Lopez Y - Y Y - Y - - Y Y Y 100%

Low Y - Y - - Y Y - - - Y 100%

Maienschein - - Y Y - Y - - N N N 67%

Mathis - - Y - - Y - - - - N 67%

Mayes - - Y Y - Y - - A-N A-N A-N 71%

McCarty - - Y - - Y Y - - - Y 100%

Medina - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Melendez Y - Y - - Y - - - - N 64%

Mullin - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Nazarian - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Obernolte - - Y - - Y - - - - N 56%

O’Donnell - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Olsen - - Y - - Y - - - - N 67%

Patterson - - Y - - Y N - - - N 55%

Perea - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Quirk Y Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Rendon - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Ridley-Thomas - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Rodriguez - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Salas - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Santiago Y - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Steinorth - - Y - - Y - - - - N 60%

Stone, M - - Y Y - Y - - Y Y Y 100%

Thurmond - - Y Y - Y Y - Y Y A-N 94%

Ting - - Y - - Y - - - - Y 100%

Wagner - Y Y - Y Y - N - - N 63%

Waldron - - Y - - Y - - - - N 70%

Weber - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

Wilk - - Y - - Y - - - - N 67%

Williams - - Y - - Y - - - - EA 100%

Wood - Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y 100%

SB 29 SB 199 SB 548

15 Assembly Public Safety, 7/14/1516 Assembly Appropriations, 8/27/1517 Assembly Floor, 9/2/15 18 Assembly Human Services, 6/30/1519 Assembly Appropriations, 8/27/15

20 Assembly Floor, 9/1/15 21 Assembly Labor and Employment, 7/8/15 22 Assembly Appropriations, 8/27/15 23 Assembly Human Services, 9/10/1524 Assembly Human Services, 9/11/15

25 Assembly Floor, 9/11/15


Senator Votes Cast with UDW % Votes Cast with UDW

Allen, Ben (D-26) 10 out of 10 100%

Beall, Jim (D-15) 16 out of 16 100%

Block, Marty (D-39) 11 out of 11 100%

De León, Kevin (D-24) 10 out of 10 100%

Galgiani, Cathleen (D-5) 10 out of 10 100%

Hall, Isadore (D-35) 10 out of 10 100%

Hancock, Loni (D-9) 16 out of 16 100%

Hernandez, Ed (D-22) 11 out of 11 100%

Hertzberg, Robert (D-18) 10 out of 10 100%

Hill, Jerry (D-13) 16 out of 16 100%

Hueso, Ben (D-40) 10 out of 10 100%

Jackson, Hannah-Beth (D-19) 10 out of 10 100%

Lara, Ricardo (D-33) 16 out of 16 100%

Leno, Mark (D-11) 12 out of 12 100%

Leyva, Connie (D-20) 17 out of 17 100%

Liu, Carol (D-25) 16 out of 16 100%

McGuire, Mike (D-2) 15 out of 15 100%

Mendoza, Tony (D-32) 17 out of 17 100%

Monning, William (D-17) 14 out of 14 100%

Pavley, Fran (D-27) 10 out of 10 100%

Roth, Richard (D-31) 11 out of 11 100%

Wolk, Lois (D-3) 11 out of 11 100%

Pan, Richard (D-6) 11 out of 12 92%

Mitchell, Holly (D-30) 10 out of 11 91%

Glazer, Steve (D-7) 9 out of 10 90%

Wieckowski, Bob (D-10) 9 out of 10 90%

Anderson, Joel (R-38) 9 out of 11 82%

Stone, Jeff (R-28) 9 out of 12 75%

Cannella, Anthony (R-12) 7 out of 10 70%

Fuller, Jean (R-16) 7 out of 10 70%

Gaines, Ted (R-1) 7 out of 10 70%

Huff, Bob (R-29) 7 out of 10 70%

Moorlach, John (R-37) 7 out of 10 70%

Morrell, Mike (R-23) 7 out of 10 70%

Bates, Patricia (R-36) 11 out of 16 69%

Berryhill, Tom (R-8) 9 out of 13 69%

Nielsen, Jim (R-4) 11 out of 17 65%

Nguyen, Janet (R-34) 9 out of 14 64%

Vidak, Andy (R-14) 7 out of 11 64%

Runner, Sharon (R-21) 6 out of 11 55%

SENATE SCORECARD

SENATE COMPREHENSIVE VOTE LIST

Member Floor1 Cmte2 Cmte3 Floor4 Cmte5 Cmte6 Cmte7 Cmte8

Allen, B Y - - Y - - - -

Anderson EA - - Y - - - -

Bates N - Y Y - N - N

Beall Y - Y Y - Y - Y

Berryhill N Y - Y A-N - - -

Block Y - - Y - - - -

Cannella N - - Y - - - -

De León Y - - Y - - - -

Fuller N - - Y - - - -

Gaines, T N - - Y - - - -

Galgiani Y - - Y - - - -

Glazer Y - - Y - - - -

Hall Y - - Y - - EA -

Hancock Y Y - Y Y - - -

Hernandez, E Y - - Y - - Y -

Hertzberg Y - - Y - - - -

Hill Y - Y Y - Y - Y

Hueso Y - - Y - - - -

Huff N - - Y - - - -

Jackson Y - - Y - - - -

Lara Y - Y Y - Y - Y

Leno Y - - Y - - - -

Leyva Y - Y Y - Y - Y

Liu Y Y - Y Y - - -

McGuire Y Y - Y Y - - -

Mendoza Y - Y Y - Y - Y

Mitchell Y - - Y - - Y -

Monning Y - - Y - - Y -

Moorlach N - - Y - - - -

Morrell N - - Y - - - -

Nguyen N Y - Y N - Y -

Nielsen N - Y Y - N N N

Pan Y - - Y - - Y -

Pavley Y - - Y - - - -

Roth Y - - Y - - Y -

Runner N - - Y - - - -

Stone, J N - - Y - - - -

Vidak N - - Y - - - -

Wieckowski Y - - Y - - - -

Wolk Y - - Y - - Y -

AB 93 AB 97 AB 211 AB 635

1 Senate Floor, 6/15/15 2 Senate Human Services, 6/23/153 Senate Appropriations, 8/27/15 4 Senate Floor, 9/1/15

5 Senate Human Services, 6/23/156 Senate Appropriations, 8/27/157 Senate Health, 6/24/158 Senate Appropriations, 8/27/15 19

20

SENATE COMPREHENSIVE VOTE LIST

Member Cmte9 Cmte10 Floor11 Floor12 Cmte13 Cmte14 Floor15 Floor16 Cmte17 Cmte18 Floor19 Floor20 Floor21 Cmte22 Floor23 %

Allen, B - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Anderson Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 82%

Bates - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y N - N 69%

Beall - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y 100%

Berryhill - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y Y A-N - N 69%

Block - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Cannella - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y A-N - N 70%

De León - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Fuller - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Gaines, T - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Galgiani - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Glazer - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y A-N - Y 90%

Hall - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Hancock Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Hernandez, E - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Hertzberg - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Hill - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y 100%

Hueso - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Huff - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Jackson - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Lara - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y 100%

Leno Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Leyva - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Liu Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y 100%

McGuire Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Mendoza - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Mitchell - - Y Y - - Y A-N - - Y Y Y - Y 91%

Monning Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Moorlach - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Morrell - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Nguyen - - Y Y - - Y A-N Y - Y Y N - N 64%

Nielsen - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y N - N 65%

Pan - - A-N Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y Y 92%

Pavley - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Roth - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Runner - - A-N Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N A-N N 55%

Stone, J Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 75%

Vidak - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N N N 64%

Wieckowski - - Y Y - - Y A-N - - Y Y Y - Y 90%

Wolk - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%9 Senate Public Safety, 4/7/1510 Senate Appropriations, 5/28/15 11 Senate Floor, 6/2/1512 Senate Floor, 9/2/1513 Senate Public Safety, 4/7/15

14 Senate Appropriations, 5/28/15 15 Senate Floor, 6/3/15 16 Senate Floor, 9/3/15 17 Senate Human Services, 3/24/15 18 Senate Appropriations, 5/28/15

19 Senate Floor, 6/3/1520 Senate Floor, 9/2/1521 Senate Floor, 6/3/15 22 Senate Education, 9/11/15 23 Senate Floor, 9/11/15

SB 11 SB 29 SB 199 SB 548


GOVERNOR’S SCORECARD

Bill UDW’s Position Governor’s ActionAB 97 (Weber) Support Vetoed

SB 11 (Beall) Support Signed

SB 29 (Beall) Support Signed

SB 199 (Hall) Support Vetoed

SB 548 (De León) Support Vetoed

Governor’s Score: 40%

Member Cmte9 Cmte10 Floor11 Floor12 Cmte13 Cmte14 Floor15 Floor16 Cmte17 Cmte18 Floor19 Floor20 Floor21 Cmte22 Floor23 %

Allen, B - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Anderson Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 82%

Bates - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y N - N 69%

Beall - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y 100%

Berryhill - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y Y A-N - N 69%

Block - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Cannella - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y A-N - N 70%

De León - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Fuller - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Gaines, T - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Galgiani - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Glazer - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y A-N - Y 90%

Hall - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Hancock Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Hernandez, E - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Hertzberg - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Hill - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y 100%

Hueso - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Huff - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Jackson - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Lara - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y 100%

Leno Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Leyva - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Liu Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y 100%

McGuire Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Mendoza - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Mitchell - - Y Y - - Y A-N - - Y Y Y - Y 91%

Monning Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Moorlach - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Morrell - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 70%

Nguyen - - Y Y - - Y A-N Y - Y Y N - N 64%

Nielsen - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y N - N 65%

Pan - - A-N Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y Y 92%

Pavley - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Roth - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%

Runner - - A-N Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N A-N N 55%

Stone, J Y - Y Y Y - Y Y - - Y Y N - N 75%

Vidak - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y N N N 64%

Wieckowski - - Y Y - - Y A-N - - Y Y Y - Y 90%

Wolk - - Y Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y 100%19 Senate Floor, 6/3/1520 Senate Floor, 9/2/1521 Senate Floor, 6/3/15 22 Senate Education, 9/11/15 23 Senate Floor, 9/11/15

Governor Jerry Brown is in a position to determine whether a bill becomes a law. This year, five of UDW’s sponsored bills made it to Governor Brown’s desk. The table below displays the actions taken by the governor.

facebook.com/UDW twitter.com/UDWA

Butte Office2555 Zanella Way, Suite B

Chico, CA 95928Office: 530-894-2702

Fax: 530-892-0206

El Dorado/Placer Office4220 Rocklin Road, Suite 3

Rocklin, CA 95677Office: 916-751-2450

Toll Free: 888-228-0837Fax: 916-872-1272

Imperial Office548 Broadway Street, Suite 100

El Centro, CA 92243Office: 760-425-4034

Kern Office1830 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 207

Bakersfield, CA 93301Office: 661-321-0239

Toll Free: 800-851-7272Fax: 661-852-0741

Madera Office120 North E StreetMadera, CA 93638

Office: 559-395-4772

Mariposa Office5148 Highway 140, Suite C

Mariposa, CA 95338Office: 209-742-6780

Merced Office2935 Business Park Way

Merced, CA 95348Office: 209-386-1120

Toll Free: 866-255-7313Fax: 209-725-3121

Orange Office333 Civic Center Drive West

Santa Ana, CA 92701Office: 714-663-1082

Toll Free: 877-483-9937Fax: 714-663-1052

Riverside Office3600 Lime Street, Suite 421

Riverside, CA 92501Office: 951-786-1300

Toll Free: 866-417-7300Fax: 951-786-1318

Sacramento Office900 J Street, Third FloorSacramento, CA 95814Office: 916-554-0931

Fax: 916-448-2306

San Diego Office (UDW Headquarters) 4855 Seminole DriveSan Diego, CA 92115Office: 619-263-7254

Toll Free: 800-621-5016Fax: 619-263-7899

San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara Office402 South Miller StreetSanta Maria, CA 93454Office: 805-349-9656

Toll Free: 877-369-6505Fax: 805-349‐0722

Stanislaus Office416 North 9th Street, #I

Modesto, CA 95350Office: 209-526-5274

Toll Free: 866-307-7271Fax: 209-526-5284

UDW Offices

Legislative Scorecard 2015

Documents

Transcript of Legislative Scorecard 2015