The Domestic Violence Reporting Reform Act: How SB 961 Sought to Reform California Domestic Violence Reporting

In the early 2000s, the California domestic violence survivor who was reporting the abuse to the law enforcement agencies was, in most cases, a survivor who was, in the words of the domestic violence advocates, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the law enforcement agencies to report the cases to the district attorneys. The survivor was, in most cases, a survivor who was being told that the case was not being prosecuted. The survivor was, in most cases, a survivor who did not have the data to understand why. The survivor was, in plain language, facing the gap between the report and the prosecution. The gap was, in the early 2000s, a documented barrier. The barrier was, in the words of the domestic violence advocates, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the law enforcement agencies to report the cases to the district attorneys. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his last term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the domestic violence reporting framework the tools. The law was Senate Bill 961, the Domestic Violence Reporting Reform Act, and it was, by any measure, the most ambitious California domestic violence reporting framework of the early 2000s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the bill. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the domestic violence community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

The Law

Senate Bill 961, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco in the 2001 to 2002 Regular Session, sought to reform the California domestic violence reporting framework. The bill would have been codified in the Penal Code, in the chapter governing domestic violence. The operative provisions would have required the law enforcement agencies to report the domestic violence cases to the district attorneys, and would have required the law enforcement agencies to publish the domestic violence case data annually. The bill was VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the bill. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the domestic violence community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California domestic violence framework that came in the 2000s.

The California domestic violence survivor reporting the abuse was, in 2002, in most cases, a survivor facing the gap between the report and the prosecution. The survivor was, in the words of the domestic violence advocates, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the law enforcement agencies to report the cases to the district attorneys. SB 961 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the most ambitious California domestic violence reporting framework of the early 2000s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Davis in September 2002.

The Problem

By 2001, the gap between the domestic violence reports and the domestic violence prosecutions in California was, by any measure, a problem. The California District Attorneys Association, in its 2000 report, had documented that the domestic violence cases were, in the aggregate, being reported at the rate of more than 200,000 cases per year, and that the cases were, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the law enforcement agencies to report the cases to the district attorneys. The 200,000 figure was, in the words of the report, a significant number of cases. The report recommended that the state reform the reporting framework, and that the reform include the law enforcement reporting requirements. The reform had not, by 2001, been implemented.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 961, a Domestic Violence Reporting Reform Act. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to implement. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to report the cases to the district attorneys. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to publish the case data. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the domestic violence survivors required a statutory reporting reform. The statutory reporting reform was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the survivors to be able to understand the prosecution of the cases. The second idea was that the reform required the law enforcement reporting. The law enforcement reporting was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the cases to be prosecuted. The third idea was that the reporting required the publication. The publication was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the reporting framework to be transparent.

The Fight

The fight over SB 961 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 2001 to 2002, intense. The bill had two principal layers of opposition. The first layer was the law enforcement agencies. The agencies argued that the bill would impose new reporting requirements. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the new reporting requirements were, in fact, the kind of requirements that the agencies should have been implementing all along. The compromise was that the bill provided for the reporting to be done using the existing agency reporting structure. The second layer was the Governor. The Governor argued that the bill would impose new costs on the agencies. The veto was the outcome of the disagreement. The Senate passed the bill in May 2002. The Assembly passed the bill in August 2002. Governor Davis VETOED the bill in September 2002. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the bill. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the domestic violence community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 2001 to 2002, in his last term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the law enforcement agencies. He did the floor work. He did not, in the 2021 oral history, describe the veto as a defeat. He described the veto as a setback. The setback was, in his view, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. He did, in the 2021 oral history, describe the bill as part of the larger domestic violence advocacy that he had led. The advocacy was, in his view, the foundation of the California domestic violence framework that came in the 2000s. The framework was, in the 2000s, the foundation of the state domestic violence framework.

What Changed

SB 961 did not change California in the way that the other laws in this archive did. The bill was VETOED. The domestic violence survivors did not, in 2002, receive the reporting reform that the bill would have provided. The law enforcement agencies did not, in 2002, implement the reporting requirements. The domestic violence community did, however, continue to advocate for the reform. The advocacy has, since 2002, been the foundation of the state-level domestic violence framework. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California domestic violence framework that came in the 2000s. The framework has, since 2000, provided the reporting reform to the more than 200,000 domestic violence cases reported per year in California.

The Legacy

SB 961 is on the record as a VETOED bill. The Domestic Violence Reporting Reform Act was not enacted. The domestic violence survivors did not, in 2002, receive the reporting reform that the bill would have provided. The veto was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the policy disagreement with the bill. The disagreement was, in the words of the same analysis, the predictable outcome of a domestic violence reporting framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California domestic violence framework that came in the 2000s. The legacy of SB 961 is the long-term advocacy for the reform, which has continued since 2002. The Domestic Violence Reporting Reform Act is the cleanest record of the early 2000s California domestic violence reporting framework, and the cleanest record of the long-term advocacy for the reform that culminated in the California domestic violence framework.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 961, 2001 to 2002 Regular Session.
2. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 961, May 2002.
3. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 961, August 2002.
4. Governors Office, Veto Message, SB 961, September 2002.
5. California District Attorneys Association, Domestic Violence Statistics, 2000.
6. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
7. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.