AB 2446 makes a narrowly focused amendment to Section 100 of the California Government Code. The bill reorganizes the sentence that locates state sovereignty in the people and explicitly prescribes the style of process and the caption to be used in prosecutions.
On its face the bill is a housekeeping move: it splits the existing language into two subsections, inserts the phrase “State of California” into the sovereignty clause, and sets the process style as "The People of the State of California," adding that prosecutions proceed "in their name and by their authority." The change is presented as nonsubstantive, but it carries straightforward operational implications for court forms, filing templates, and legal publishers that maintain statutory text and procedural captions.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2446 amends Government Code §100 by reorganizing the existing sentence into two subsections. Subsection (a) restates the sovereignty clause with the phrase "State of California"; subsection (b) prescribes the formal caption for process—"The People of the State of California"—and confirms prosecutions proceed in that name and by that authority.
Who It Affects
State and local court administrators, district attorneys and prosecutors, defense counsel who prepare case captions and filings, legal publishers and statute compilers, and vendors of court and case-management software who rely on statutory text and form templates.
Why It Matters
Although the bill does not change substantive rights or powers, it standardizes statutory wording and the official caption used in criminal process. That standardization reduces ambiguity for form design and automated systems, but it also triggers a short list of administrative updates across courts, law firms, and legal-data services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2446 touches a single place in the code—Government Code section 100—but does two distinct drafting things. First, it rephrases the clause locating sovereignty in the people to read with the explicit reference "State of California," and the bill places that language in a new subsection (a).
Second, it creates a new subsection (b) that prescribes the precise style for process and directs that prosecutions be conducted in the people’s name and by their authority.
The change is presented as editorial: it does not add new powers or remove existing ones. Practically, the bill gives a clear, statutory instruction for the caption courts and prosecutors should use on writs, complaints, indictments, and other process documents.
That matters for anyone who prepares or generates those documents—manual drafters and automated systems alike—because an explicit statutory caption reduces local variation and provides a single canonical phrase to use in templates and electronic case-management systems.Implementation will be administrative, not legal: court clerks will need to confirm or update caption templates, prosecutor offices may adjust intake forms, and document-generation vendors and legal publishers should align their outputs to the revised text. Because the amendment is framed as nonsubstantive, it is unlikely to change case law or constitutional interpretation; its importance is practical—consistency in filings and fewer downstream formatting questions in court filings and published statutes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2446 amends Section 100 of the California Government Code and divides its single sentence into two subsections labeled (a) and (b).
The amended subsection (a) places the phrase "State of California" directly into the sovereignty clause.
Subsection (b) prescribes the style of all process as "The People of the State of California.", The bill explicitly states that all prosecutions shall be conducted "in their name and by their authority.", Legislative metadata accompanying the bill lists it as a nonsubstantive change with no appropriation or fiscal committee referral.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Sovereignty clause restated with explicit state name
This subsection carries the bill's rewording that places the phrase "State of California" into the sovereignty sentence. Mechanically this is an editorial rephrasing rather than a doctrinal revision: it keeps the core assertion—that sovereignty resides in the people—but ties the language explicitly to "State of California." For drafters and publishers the practical effect is a new canonical rendering of a foundational clause that will flow into official code prints and online annotations.
Formal caption and prosecution authority specified
Subsection (b) does two related things: it prescribes the wording for the style of process—"The People of the State of California"—and it reiterates that prosecutions proceed in the people’s name and by their authority. Operationally this is the provision that affects case captions, charging documents, and any court process that prints the caption at the top of a document. It gives prosecutors and clerks a statutory reference to justify uniform captioning.
Housekeeping amendment with implementation tasks
Although the bill is presented as nonsubstantive, it is a formal amendment to the text of the Government Code and will require updates to statutory databases, court form repositories, and automated document-generation workflows. The provision does not create new enforcement mechanisms or penalties; its significance is administrative—ensuring that printed and electronic texts match the revised canonical phrasing.
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
- Court clerks and administrators — gain a clear statutory caption to adopt across forms and dockets, reducing local variation and questions about correct phrasing.
- Prosecutors and district attorney offices — obtain an explicit citation to support a uniform caption in charging documents and filings, which simplifies internal templates and training.
- Legal publishers and statutory database maintainers — receive an authoritative textual change to incorporate into official and commercial versions of the Government Code, improving citation consistency.
- Document-automation vendors and case-management providers — can hard-code a single caption string into templates, lowering configuration ambiguity and support requests.
- Legislative counsel and drafter teams — benefit from standardized wording that reduces future editorial inconsistency in related bills and code sections.
Who Bears the Cost
- County and state court administrative offices — must update form libraries, electronic templates, and possibly signage or instructional materials to reflect the prescribed caption.
- Prosecutor offices and public defenders — face small implementation costs to revise intake and charging templates and to retrain staff on the preferred captioning convention.
- Legal practices and in-house counsel — will need to update document templates and internal precedents to match the statutory phrasing, producing minor short-term drafting and administrative work.
- Legal-data vendors and publishers — must revise database entries, print runs, and automated citation outputs to align with the amended text.
- State code printing and online publication offices — carry the editorial task of swapping the old language for the new phrasing in official code publications.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is simple: standardize language to eliminate local variation and ease automation, versus accept the administrative friction and risk that even a minor textual edit introduces mismatches, migration work, or rare interpretive questions in contexts that depend on exact statutory wording.
The principal trade-off is between tidy, uniform statutory language and the small but real administrative work required to implement that uniformity. For most stakeholders the cost is a brief project to update templates and databases; for heavily automated operations the cost includes testing to ensure legacy systems continue to accept existing captions.
Because the amendment is editorial it should not alter substantive law, but even minor textual changes to foundational provisions can generate questions in contexts where exact wording matters—historical citations, archival searches, or automated text-matching tools.
A second practical tension concerns timing and backward compatibility. The bill does not include an express transitional instruction about existing documents or older judgments that use prior wording; courts will likely treat the change as editorial and continue to recognize filings in prior forms, but local practice memos and IT updates will be needed to avoid mismatch errors.
Finally, the bill’s classification as nonsubstantive reduces the chance of legal challenges, yet carriers of official documents and legal-data vendors should still validate that their updates do not inadvertently alter downstream metadata (case captions used as identifiers, automated indexing tags, etc.).
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.