California Legislature’s ‘Gut and Amend’ is ‘Bait and Switch’, This Time Trying to Destroy Charter Schools

UPDATE below: The “gut and amend” bills in the California Legislature are nothing more than a legislative bait-and-switch. “Gutting and amending” unrelated bills into controversial legislation prevents Californians the time guaranteed by law to review and deliberate.

We recently saw this explained in a lawsuit over the very controversial and dubious redistricting legislation. The Globe reported in August that the Dhillon Law Group filed and Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate with the California Supreme Court challenging the Legislature’s attempt to bypass the California Constitution’s 30–day public review requirement by “gutting and amending” unrelated bills (AB 604 and SB 280) into sweeping redistricting legislation without giving Californians the time guaranteed by law to review and deliberate.

Democrats in the California Legislature did not disappoint this year.

SB 48 is a last minute complete gut and amend, and is pure nonsense. “Educational equity: discrimination prevention coordinators.”

Here’s a visual so you can understand what a “gut and amend” bill looks like:

“This bill would require the Office of Civil Rights to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator. The bill would require each of the coordinators to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate,” the newly added language says.

Since it was just gutted and amended, there is no analysis of the bill by legislative committee consultants. So we’re on our own trying to figure out what the newly added language (in blue) really does.

These are bills solely written to bring harm California’s charter schools:

AB 84 by Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) would shut down charter schools across the state, Assemblyman Carl DeMaio warns. Charter schools are an important option for families escaping California’s failing schools. DeMaio says AB 84 protects failing government bureaucrats. There has been debate on whether AB 84 is/was dead or not, which may explain the next awful bill.

SB 414 by Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento) takes several pieces of AB 84 and drops them in – these people are underhanded, duplicitous. According to the Sept. 9th bill analysis:

9) Establishes, until 2034, the Office of the Education Inspector General at the CDE to conduct forensic audits to identify fraud, misappropriation of funds, or illegal activity at LEAs and entities managing a charter school.

Language dropped into the bill says:

SB 494 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-Santa Clara) was completely gutted, and mainly extends the sunsets of some current charter school legislation.

(1) Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, authorizes the establishment, operation, and governance of charter schools. Existing law authorizes a charter school that has an approved charter to receive funding for nonclassroom-based instruction only if a determination for funding is made by the State Board of Education, as specified. The act prohibits, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2026, inclusive, the approval of a petition for the establishment of a new charter school offering nonclassroom-based instruction, as specified.

AB 495 was amended – the horrible bill which threatens parental rights by allowing the state to remove custody from parents who do not “affirm their child’s gender identity,” was moved off of the suspense file by Senate Democrats Sept. 2nd, after being placed on the suspense file August 18th.

Attorney Erin Friday calls it a “Child Trafficker’s and Kidnapper’s Dream Bill.”

Democrats laughingly call it the “Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025.”

Greg Burt with the California Family Counsel published this on Monday:

AB 495: Cosmetic Fixes Won’t Cut It—This Bill Still Lets Strangers Claim Kinship Without Verification.

After thousands of parents and parental rights advocates voiced strong opposition to AB 495, the bill’s author introduced amendments over the weekend. But these changes are little more than window dressing. At the heart of the controversy is the expansion of the Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit, a decades-old legal form that grants non-parents authority to make crucial decisions about a child’s education and healthcare. Critics are alarmed because AB 495 strengthens and broadens the use of this form in ways that undermine parental rights. To quiet opposition, lawmakers removed two provisions: one allowing unrelated adults with a “mentoring relationship” to sign the affidavit, and another explicitly stating that “a parent’s signature” is not required. While these tweaks may appear to address concerns, they fail to resolve the bill’s fundamental problems.
First, AB 495 still does not require parents to be notified or to give consent when someone else signs this affidavit for their child—a direct violation of parental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Second, although the bill now restricts use of the affidavit to relatives within the fifth degree of kinship, it contains no safeguards against fraud. A stranger can still falsely claim to be a relative, and because the form is not required to be notarized, there is no way to verify the truthfulness of that claim. In short, these amendments do little to protect parents or children, leaving families vulnerable to abuse and government overreach.

Why are California’s Democrats trying to destroy Charter Schools? I thought they cared about the children.

UPDATE 5:55pm:

Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) released the following statement after legislative Democrats passed Assembly Bill 495:

“As a state senator and more importantly, as a father of two incredible children, I strongly oppose AB 495. At its core, this bill represents government overreach, plain and simple.

“AB 495 threatens the foundational values that California families rely on and undermines the critical bond between parents and their children by creating a legal pathway that bypasses parental rights without due process.

“More so, this measure reflects a troubling trend: placing political agendas above the well-being of families and students. That’s not just bad policy — it’s a betrayal of the trust parents place in our institutions.”