SB 1308 adds Section 9025.5 to the California Government Code to require Members of the Legislature and designated legislative employees to attend a course on the United States and California Constitutions. The Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), working with the Joint Rules Committee, must develop and run the course; attendees may opt out only by passing an LCB evaluation or by holding a California law license.
The change embeds constitutional orientation alongside existing ethics training (see Section 8956). For legislative managers, compliance officers, and counsel this creates a new, recurring training obligation and an administrative responsibility for curriculum development and testing.
It also raises practical questions about scope, enforcement, funding, and who counts as a "designated employee."
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires all Members and designated legislative employees to attend a constitution-focused orientation, developed and conducted by the Legislative Counsel Bureau in consultation with the Joint Rules Committee. The statute lists minimum curriculum topics and allows opt-outs by evaluation or California law licensure.
Who It Affects
All state Senators and Assembly Members and their designated legislative staff; the LCB and Joint Rules Committee will carry primary implementation duties. Newly seated Members and newly hired designated employees must complete the course within six months of taking office or hire date.
Why It Matters
This bill formalizes baseline constitutional training inside the Legislature, potentially changing orientation schedules, staff onboarding, and how drafters and committees approach federalism, preemption, and separation of powers questions. It also imposes new administrative work on LCB and Rule Committee staff.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1308 mandates a formal orientation course about the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution for both elected Members and certain legislative employees. The statute ties that course to the existing ethics training framework and specifies a list of minimum topics—federalism, preemption, separation of powers, civil rights, the Bill of Rights, state constitutional rights and freedoms, and the roles and responsibilities of the three branches of government at both state and federal levels.
The bill assigns the Legislative Counsel Bureau primary responsibility for creating and delivering the course, with the Joint Rules Committee advising. The LCB must develop an evaluation tool so individuals can demonstrate proficiency and avoid attending; anyone licensed to practice law in California automatically qualifies to opt out.
New Members and new designated employees have a six‑month window after assuming office or hire date to complete the training.The text leaves several administrative questions to the implementing agencies: how long the course lasts, whether it is in‑person or remote, how often it must be repeated, and what documentation proves compliance. It also does not define "designated employee" within this section, so implementation will rely on cross-reference to other legislative personnel rules or guidance from the Joint Rules Committee.
The statute contains no penalty language; enforcement will likely be handled through existing training compliance mechanisms tied to legislative orientation and ethics requirements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The course must be provided “in conjunction with ethics training as specified in Section 8956,” tying it into the Legislature’s existing orientation calendar and compliance routines.
Members who assume their seat after session begins and designated employees hired mid‑session have six months from assumption/hire to complete the course.
The Legislative Counsel Bureau, consulting the Joint Rules Committee, must both develop and conduct the curriculum and the competency evaluation used for opt‑outs.
Opt‑outs are available only if an individual passes the LCB’s proficiency evaluation or is licensed to practice law in California; no other exemptions are enumerated.
The statute lists minimum subject areas—federalism, preemption, separation of powers, civil rights, Bill of Rights, state constitutional rights, and the roles of the three branches—creating a curriculum floor but leaving depth and pedagogy to the LCB.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory constitutional orientation aligned with ethics training
This subdivision creates the baseline obligation: all Members and designated legislative employees must attend a constitution-focused orientation. By placing the requirement “in conjunction with” Section 8956 ethics training, the bill signals that the new course should be scheduled alongside established orientation activities rather than as an entirely separate program, which affects planning and workload for training coordinators.
Six‑month completion windows for late entrants
Subsection (b) splits the timing rule into two operative deadlines: newly seated Members and newly hired designated employees get six months to complete the course. Practically, this creates a rolling compliance obligation during the two‑year legislative session and requires HR and clerks to track completion dates tied to assumption of office and hire records.
LCB to develop and deliver course and set minimum curriculum
Subdivision (c) assigns the Legislative Counsel Bureau the work of curriculum design and delivery, in consultation with the Joint Rules Committee. The statute prescribes minimum topics—federalism, preemption, separation of powers, civil rights, the Bill of Rights, state constitutional rights and freedoms, and branch roles—giving the LCB a defined subject list but leaving decisions about format, length, and assessment methodology to implementation.
Opt‑out via proficiency evaluation
Paragraph (1) authorizes an opt‑out if the Member or employee demonstrates ‘‘proficient knowledge’’ through an evaluation the LCB (with Joint Rules Committee input) develops. That makes the evaluation instrument central: it must be defensible, administrable, and consistent across cohorts to prevent uneven opt‑outs and to withstand questions about fairness.
Automatic opt‑out for California‑licensed attorneys
Paragraph (2) creates a categorical exemption for anyone licensed to practice law in California. That is a bright‑line rule that simplifies administration but substitutes licensure for demonstrated knowledge, raising trade‑offs between administrative ease and the relevance of a general law license to the specified curriculum.
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
- New and incumbent Members who lack formal constitutional orientation — they get a standardized, institutionally delivered primer that can reduce preventable drafting errors and improve committee deliberations on federalism and preemption.
- Designated legislative employees involved in policy research or bill analysis — consistent training should raise baseline knowledge across staff, improving memos, briefings, and legal flagging of constitutional issues.
- Legislative Counsel Bureau and institutional leadership — the LCB gains a clearer mandate and a chance to standardize legal educational materials across chambers, reinforcing institutional competency.
- Constituents and outside stakeholders — better‑informed lawmakers and staff can lead to clearer statutory language and fewer constitutional vulnerabilities in bills.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative Counsel Bureau and Joint Rules Committee staff — responsible for curriculum design, delivery, and evaluation development, which requires staff time and possibly contracting for subject‑matter instructors.
- Members and designated employees — must allocate time to attend the course (or take the LCB evaluation), which could displace committee work or constituent outreach during onboarding periods.
- Legislative HR and training coordinators — must track compliance dates, maintain records, and integrate the course into orientation workflows, expanding administrative duties.
- State budget/taxpayers — although the bill contains no appropriation, the LCB may need additional resources to develop and operate the program, creating potential pressure on existing budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 1308 balances two legitimate goals—raising a consistent baseline of constitutional knowledge inside the Legislature and minimizing disruption to legislative work—but does so by shifting substantive choices to the implementing bureaucracy and using a simple attorney‑licensure opt‑out that trades administrative ease for precision; the central dilemma is whether institutional training should be broad and mandatory to ensure consistency or narrowly targeted to avoid burdens and overreach.
The statute sets the training requirement and a minimum topic list but leaves key implementation choices to the Legislative Counsel Bureau and Joint Rules Committee. That delegation raises several practical questions: how the LCB will design a reliable proficiency evaluation, whether the course will be a one‑time orientation or require periodic refreshers, and how attendance will be tracked and enforced in the absence of explicit penalty or reporting language.
Agencies implementing the bill will have to make judgment calls that materially affect how burdensome and effective the program is.
Another tension concerns the opt‑out regime. The law license exemption is administratively simple but blunt: it assumes bar passage and licensure equal relevant constitutional knowledge, which may over‑ or under‑capture qualified participants.
The alternative—an LCB evaluation—requires the LCB to create a defensible assessment that can be administered at scale and insulated from political disagreement over content. Finally, because "designated employee" is not defined in this section, chambers may interpret the term differently, producing inconsistent coverage across offices and raising questions about equal application and potential gaps in onboarding for critical staff roles.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.