← California State Legislature · All bills
AB 62
Civil Rights Department: racially motivated eminent domain.
Assembly · Civil rights
What this bill does
This bill would require the Civil Rights Department (department) , to, upon appropriation by the Legislature, review, investigate, and make certain determinations regarding applications from persons who claim they are the dispossessed owner, as defined, of property taken as a result of racially motivated eminent domain. The bill would define "racially motivated eminent domain" to mean when the state, county, city, city and county, district, or other political subdivision of the state acquires private property for public use and does not distribute just compensation to the owner at the time of the taking, and the taking, or the failure to provide just compensation, was due, in whole or in part, to the owner's ethnicity or race. …
Read the full official summary
Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2030, the Racial Equity Commission within the Office of Planning and Research and requires the commission to develop resources, best practices, and tools for advancing racial equity by, among other things, developing a statewide Racial Equity Framework that includes methodologies and tools that can be employed to advance racial equity and address structural racism in California. Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, establishes the Civil Rights Department and sets forth its powers and duties, including, among others, receiving, investigating, and prosecuting complaints alleging violations of civil rights, as specified.
This bill would require the Civil Rights Department (department) , to, upon appropriation by the Legislature, review, investigate, and make certain determinations regarding applications from persons who claim they are the dispossessed owner, as defined, of property taken as a result of racially motivated eminent domain. The bill would define "racially motivated eminent domain" to mean when the state, county, city, city and county, district, or other political subdivision of the state acquires private property for public use and does not distribute just compensation to the owner at the time of the taking, and the taking, or the failure to provide just compensation, was due, in whole or in part, to the owner's ethnicity or race. Upon a determination that providing property or just compensation is warranted, as provided, the bill would require the department to certify that the dispossessed owner is entitled to the return of the taken property, as specified, or other publicly held property, as defined, of equal value, or financial compensation, as specified. Upon a determination that the dispossessed owner is entitled to other publicly held property of equal value, the bill would require the department to solicit and select, as specified, a list of recommendations of publicly held properties that are suitable as compensation, as provided. Upon a rejection of the determination of the department by the state or local agency that took property by racially motivated eminent domain, the bill would authorize the dispossessed owner, as specified, to bring an action to challenge the taking or the amount of compensation, as provided. Upon a determination that an applicant is not a dispossessed owner or issuing property or just compensation is not warranted, the bill would require the department to notify the applicant of its finding and provide an appeal process, as specified. The bill would require the department to prioritize processing applications for claims made by the individual or individuals who held legal title to the affected property at the time of its taking, as specified. The bill would make every finding, decision, determination, or other official act of the department subject to judicial review.
Existing law generally prohibits state agencies from employing in-house counsel to act on behalf of the agency or its employees in specified judicial or administrative adjudicative proceedings, but exempts specified agencies from this provision.
This bill would exempt the Civil Rights Department from that provision, as specified.
This bill would make related findings and declarations, including those related to a gift of public funds.
Official summary from the Legislative Counsel’s office, via OpenStates.
Floor votes (3)
May 29, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 57 yes · 4 no · 18 other
Yes (57): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, Juan Alanis, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Tasha Boerner, Mia Bonta, Lisa Calderon, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Damon Connolly, Sade Elhawary, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, James Gallagher, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Gregg Hart, Jacqui Irwin, Corey Jackson, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Al Muratsuchi, Liz Ortega, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Darsh Patel, Joe Patterson, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Kate Sanchez, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, Catherine Stefani, Avelino Valencia, Greg Wallis, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Rick Zbur, Anamarie Ávila Farías
No (4): Carl DeMaio, Stan Ellis, Heather Hadwick, Ali Macedo
Other / no vote recorded (18): David Alvarez, Isaac Bryan, Leticia Castillo, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Heath Flora, Joshua Hoover, Jeff Gonzalez, Tom Lackey, Michelle Rodriguez, Stephanie Nguyen, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Tri Ta, David Tangipa, Chris Ward
Official motion wording
AB 62 McKinnor Assembly Third Reading
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 8, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 30 yes · 7 no · 3 other
Yes (30): Ben Allen, Bob Archuleta, Jesse Arreguín, Angelique Ashby, Josh Becker, Catherine Blakespear, Anna Caballero, Sabrina Cervantes, Dave Cortese, María Elena Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Tim Grayson, Melissa Hurtado, John Laird, Monique Limón, Mike McGuire, Jerry McNerney, Caroline Menjivar, Roger Niello, Steve Padilla, Sasha Pérez, Eloise Reyes, Laura Richardson, Susan Rubio, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Tom Umberg, Suzette Valladares, Aisha Wahab, Akilah Weber Pierson, Scott Wiener
No (7): Marie Alvarado-Gil, Steve Choi, Megan Dahle, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Kelly Seyarto, Tony Strickland
Other / no vote recorded (3): Christopher Cabaldon, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Henry Stern
Official motion wording
3rd Reading AB62 McKinnor et al. By Smallwood-Cuevas
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 9, 2025 — Concurrence vote
Passed · 66 yes · 4 no · 10 other
Yes (66): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, Juan Alanis, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Tasha Boerner, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Lisa Calderon, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Damon Connolly, Sade Elhawary, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, James Gallagher, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Gregg Hart, Jacqui Irwin, Corey Jackson, Natasha Johnson, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Al Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Liz Ortega, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Darsh Patel, Joe Patterson, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Kate Sanchez, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Avelino Valencia, Greg Wallis, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Rick Zbur, Anamarie Ávila Farías
No (4): Carl DeMaio, Stan Ellis, Heather Hadwick, Ali Macedo
Other / no vote recorded (10): Leticia Castillo, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Heath Flora, Joshua Hoover, Jeff Gonzalez, Tom Lackey, Tri Ta, David Tangipa
Official motion wording
AB 62 McKinnor Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov