The changing lawscape: Impact of recent legislation on rural Californians

California, known for its diverse landscapes and vibrant urban centers, is also home to a significant rural population— 4.9% of California's population is rural. Recently, the California Assembly passed several bills that will have disparate impacts on rural Californians.

On September 12, the California Assembly passed SB-244, a Right to Repair Act, with a 50-0 vote. SB-244 will require device manufacturers to allow consumers to bypass digital locks, which have previously prevented consumers from accessing and fixing a device's software. SB-244 will also make repair manuals publicly available and require manufacturers to sell replacement parts to consumers. Parts and materials for electronic or appliance products costing between $50-$99.99 will be kept by manufacturers for three years, while manufacturers will keep parts and materials for products costing $100 or more for seven years.

SB-244 is good news for those in rural areas. Repair is critical for local economies and rural areas, which generally house independent repair shops rather than authorized Toyota and John Deere dealers. Over the past two decades, as tractors have become more advanced with GPS, 360-degree cameras, and smartphone controls, manufacturers have limited farmers’ repair options to authorized dealers. Right-to-repair legislation seeks to safeguard consumers from anti-competitive practices by ensuring they have the freedom to repair products themselves or choose independent repair services. Read more about the ongoing “right to repair” battle and its disproportionate impact on rural America here and here. 

Meanwhile, California lawmakers have voted to restrict the use of hand-counted election ballots by local governments, which is aimed at addressing a  situation that has arisen in Shasta County. The new law, AB 969, permits hand counting only in specific situations: regularly scheduled elections with fewer than 1,000 registered voters and special elections with fewer than 5,000 eligible voters. 

This move comes after Shasta County, with approximately 112,000 voters, canceled its contract with Dominion Voting Systems. The county made that decision based on unfounded fraud claims pushed by former President Donald Trump and his supporters. Read more about Northern California’s election disputes and insurrection plans here, here and here. 

Shasta County officials, including County Clerk Cathy Darling Allen, supported the bill as a "commonsense protection for all California voters." However, County Board of Supervisors Chair Patrick Henry Jones has vowed to sue if the bill is signed. Jones argues that state officials cannot ensure the security of voting machines.

In other news, after years of unsuccessful attempts, the California Legislature has finally passed AB-28, which aims to impose an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition sales. Funds generated will be used to support gun violence prevention efforts. This legislation, sponsored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Woodland Hills (greater Los Angeles), is modeled after a similar federal tax used for wildlife conservation. The annual revenue from this tax is estimated at around $160 million, which will be allocated to violence intervention programs, school safety enhancements, and law enforcement actions to seize firearms from individuals prohibited from owning them. 

Critics of the new law argue that businesses may pass the cost onto customers, which will have a disproportionate impact on rural Californians, who participate in sport shooting, hunting, or using firearms for personal protection. This extra financial burden could discourage firearm owners from maintaining their guns or participating in hunting or competitive shooting. Read more posts on hunting and ammunition bans here, here and here. 

To remedy the disproportionate effects the guns and ammunition law might have on rural Californians, the state might consider “rural proofing.” Rural proofing is a practice where lawmakers consider rural community circumstances and needs when developing and implementing policies.

A “rural proofing” approach involves considering factors like rural spatiality, access to essential services, compliance costs, and the potential disproportionate impact on rural communities when creating laws. Rural proofing in California could help mitigate negative consequences of laws on rural areas, foster trust between the government and rural populations, and provide a voice for rural communities in the legislative process. In essence, rural proofing offers a constructive avenue for lawmakers to consider rural communities' unique needs and traditions in their decision-making processes. Read more about rural proofing here.