AB 2134 amends Government Code Section 36513, the statute that declares a city council office vacant when a member is absent without permission for a set number of days. The bill does not change the substantive vacancy triggers — 60 consecutive days for most councils and 70 days for councils that meet monthly or less — but updates the statutory language to modernize pronouns and correct wording.
For municipal clerks, city attorneys, and codifiers this is largely housekeeping: the operational rule that vacancies occur after 60 or 70 days remains intact, but printed code text, templates, and internal policies will need minor updates to match the revised phrasing. The amendment is presented as nonsubstantive and intended to reduce gendered language and tidy the statute’s wording.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Gov. Code §36513 to replace older phrasing with updated text (including singular "they") and fixes minor wording/spacing issues. It leaves intact the existing vacancy triggers and the instruction that the vacancy be filled "as any other vacancy."
Who It Affects
City clerks, municipal attorneys, local legislative staff, and publishers of statutory compilations will need to update forms and citations. Charter cities that govern vacancies by charter should still review local rules, since this change affects the general‑law code rather than charter provisions.
Why It Matters
The change standardizes statutory language and removes gendered pronouns, which reduces editorial inconsistencies and the small legal risks tied to ambiguous or outdated phrasing. Although operational practices won’t change, compliance documents and automated systems that reference §36513 will require updates.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2134 reads like an editorial clean‑up rather than a policy rewrite. It replaces older, gendered phrasing with a singular "they" and corrects a handful of wording/spacing issues within Section 36513 of the Government Code.
The statute still says a city council member’s office becomes vacant if the member is absent without permission for 60 consecutive days from the last regular meeting they attended, with a 70‑day rule for councils that meet monthly or less.
Practically speaking the bill does not alter the mechanics that local governments use to determine a vacancy: councils still grant or deny permission for absences, and vacancies continue to be filled under the existing local procedures referenced by "as any other vacancy." Because the statute remains substantively unchanged, existing municipal policies, agendas, and vacancy‑notification practices will continue to govern how absences are tracked and acted upon.There is a limited implementation task list: update ordinance text citations, templates for vacancy notices, staff training materials, and any software that computes absence thresholds based on the statutory wording. Charter cities or cities with locally adopted rules should cross‑check their charters; this bill modifies the general‑law code and does not automatically change charter provisions or local ordinances.Finally, while the bill is labeled nonsubstantive, the move to singular "they" and slight rewording could invite interpretive questions in edge cases (for example, how to calculate the 60/70 days across irregular meeting schedules).
Those are procedural questions municipal legal offices already resolve under local practice, but codifiers and clerks should be aware they may need to clarify operating guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2134 amends Government Code Section 36513 — the statute that vacates a city council seat after prolonged unpermitted absences.
Subdivision (a) continues to trigger a vacancy when a councilmember misses 60 consecutive days of regular council meetings counted from the last regular meeting they attended.
Subdivision (b) preserves the 70‑day vacancy trigger for city councils that meet monthly or less frequently.
The amendment modernizes grammar and usage (notably replacing gendered phrasing with the singular "they" and adjusting word/spacing) rather than changing any substantive duty or timeline.
The statute still requires that the resulting vacancy "shall be filled as any other vacancy," so local vacancy‑filling procedures remain the operative mechanism.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Modernize wording; retain 60‑day vacancy trigger
This subsection replaces the prior phrasing with updated text while leaving the substantive 60‑day consecutive absence rule in place. Practically, municipal staff should continue to measure absence windows from the last regular meeting the member attended; the change is editorial and does not create a new standard of proof for declaring a vacancy.
Monthly‑meeting exception kept at 70 days
The bill preserves the carve‑out for councils that meet monthly or less frequently, keeping the vacancy trigger at 70 consecutive days in those circumstances. That preserves the statutory recognition that meeting frequency affects how absence periods operate.
Replace gendered pronouns and tidy wording
The amendment swaps gendered language ('he or she') for gender‑neutral singular 'they' and corrects minor spacing/wording inconsistencies in the statute. Those are editorial updates aimed at consistency across the code; they reduce the need for errata and make statutory citations easier to incorporate into modern templates and software.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- City clerks and municipal staff — benefit from clearer, modernized statutory text that simplifies form and notice updates and reduces editorial inconsistency across city documents.
- Municipal attorneys and codifiers — gain uniform, gender‑neutral language that reduces trivial drafting objections and eases statutory citation in legal work and code compilations.
- Publishers and legal‑tech vendors — simpler updates for printed and machine‑readable codes; fewer localized style edits required when ingesting statutory text.
Who Bears the Cost
- City clerks and administrative staff — minor operational costs to update templates, website text, training materials, and any automation that parses statutory language.
- Local governments with bespoke charter provisions — must confirm that local rules still control; some charter cities may choose to update local charters or ordinances for consistency at administrative expense.
- State and local code editors — modest editorial and publication work to align annotated codes and explanatory materials with the revised statutory wording.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves stylistic and inclusion concerns by modernizing wording, but that very modernization can create interpretive friction: keeping the legal rule intact preserves certainty, yet even small textual edits can prompt questions about meaning, enforcement mechanics, or software compatibility — so the trade‑off is between updating language for clarity and avoiding any disruption that accompanies even clerical changes.
Labeling the changes as "nonsubstantive" is appropriate for the edits made, but it does not eliminate implementation issues. Replacing gendered pronouns with "they" modernizes the statute but can introduce grammatical questions when the statute is quoted in composite sentences or in software that expects binary pronoun parsing.
Automated notice systems that search for exact phrases may fail until updated.
More importantly, the statutory phrase "absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for [60/70] days consecutively from the last regular meeting they attended" remains as the operative test. That language already requires local judgment—what counts as "permission," how to count meeting days across cancellations, recesses, special meetings, or irregular schedules, and how to treat hybrid/remote attendance are left to municipal practice.
Because AB 2134 does not address those ambiguities, local counsel will still need to provide operational guidance to staff.
Finally, a drafting oddity visible in the text (duplicated wording between "city councilmember" and "council member") suggests minor editorial slippage in the print copy; if carried into the official code it could create confusion for software parsers or careless readers. The bill’s practical impact is minimal, but stakeholders should treat it as a trigger to review local procedures rather than as a change in legal obligations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.