Existing law declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. Existing law defines race or ethnicity to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.

This bill would define ethnicity to include Jewish identity.

Existing law specifies certain requirements relative to state agencies, boards, and commissions that directly or by contract collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, including the requirement to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Asian group and each major Pacific Islander group, as specified. Existing law requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after July 1, 2012. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.

This bill would require a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified and subject to a certain exception. The bill would require these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published on or after January 1, 2030. The bill would further require these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law. The bill would prohibit state agencies from disclosing personal identifying information about any person whose demographic data is collected, and would require those agencies to apply deidentification and privacy protection methods to that data. The bill would limit the purposes for which state agencies can use the demographic data collected under these provisions. The bill would exempt any state agency administering a multiyear grant program with an established end date that began collecting demographic data prior to January 1, 2029, from being required to include or use the demographic category described above for interim or final reports.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins. Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic data pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, disaggregated by the same race and ethnicity categories used by the department for the purpose of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.

This bill would include Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self-identification.

Existing law requires the Employment Development Department, in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes disaggregated demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to implement these requirements by July 1, 2026.

This bill would require the Employment Development Department to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity for these purposes in accordance with specified demographic data collection requirements for state agencies added by the bill.

This bill would become operative on January 1, 2029.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. Existing law defines race or ethnicity to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.

This bill would define ethnicity to include Jewish identity.

Existing law specifies certain requirements relative to state agencies, boards, and commissions that directly or by contract collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, including the requirement to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Asian group and each major Pacific Islander group, as specified. Existing law requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after July 1, 2012. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.

This bill would require a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified and subject to a certain exception. The bill would require these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published on or after January 1, 2030. The bill would further require these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law. The bill would prohibit state agencies from disclosing personal identifying information about any person whose demographic data is collected, and would require those agencies to apply deidentification and privacy protection methods to that data. The bill would limit the purposes for which state agencies can use the demographic data collected under these provisions. The bill would exempt any state agency administering a multiyear grant program with an established end date that began collecting demographic data prior to January 1, 2029, from being required to include or use the demographic category described above for interim or final reports.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins. Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic data pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, disaggregated by the same race and ethnicity categories used by the department for the purpose of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.

This bill would include Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self-identification.

Existing law requires the Employment Development Department, in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes disaggregated demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to implement these requirements by July 1, 2026.

This bill would require the Employment Development Department to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity for these purposes in accordance with specified demographic data collection requirements for state agencies added by the bill.

This bill would become operative on January 1, 2029.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. Existing law defines race or ethnicity to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.

This bill would define ethnicity to include Jewish identity.

Existing law specifies certain requirements relative to state agencies, boards, and commissions that directly or by contract collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, including the requirement to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Asian group and each major Pacific Islander group, as specified. Existing law requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after July 1, 2012. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.

This bill would require a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified. specified and subject to a certain exception. The bill would require these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published on or after January 1, 2030. The bill would further require these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law. The bill would prohibit state agencies form from disclosing personal identifying information about any person whose demographic data is collected, and would require those agencies to apply de-identification deidentification and privacy protection methods to that data. The bill would limit the purposes for which state agencies can use the demographic data collected under these provisions. The bill would exempt any state agency administering a multi-year multiyear grant program with an established end date that began collecting demographic data prior to January 1, 2029, from being required to include or use the demographic category described above for interim or final reports.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins. Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic data pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, disaggregated by the same race and ethnicity categories used by the department for the purpose of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.

This bill would include Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self-identification.

Existing law requires the Employment Development Department, in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes disaggregated demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to implement these requirements by July 1, 2026.

This bill would require the Employment Development Department to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity for these purposes in accordance with specified demographic data collection requirements for state agencies added by the bill.

This bill would become operative on January 1, 2029.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. Existing law defines race or ethnicity to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.

This bill would define ethnicity to include Jewish identity.

Existing law specifies certain requirements relative to state agencies, boards, and commissions that directly or by contract collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, including the requirement to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Asian group and each major Pacific Islander group, as specified. Existing law requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after July 1, 2012. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.

This bill would require a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified. The bill would require these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after January 1, 2029. 2030. The bill would further require these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which the bill would deem confidential. law. The bill would prohibit state agencies form disclosing personal identifying information about any person whose demographic data is collected, and would require those agencies to apply de-identification and privacy protection methods to that data. The bill would limit the purposes for which state agencies can use the demographic data collected under these provisions. The bill would exempt any state agency administering a multi-year grant program with an established end date that began collecting demographic data prior to January 1, 2029, from being required to include or use the demographic category described above for interim or final reports.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins. Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic data pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, disaggregated by the same race and ethnicity categories used by the department for the purpose of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.

This bill would include Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self-identification.

Existing law requires the Employment Development Department, in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes disaggregated demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to implement these requirements by July 1, 2026.

This bill would require the Employment Development Department to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity for these purposes in accordance with specified demographic data collection requirements for state agencies added by the bill.

This bill would become operative on January 1, 2028. 2029.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. Existing law defines race or ethnicity to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.

This bill would define ethnicity to include Jewish identity.

Existing law specifies certain requirements relative to state agencies, boards, and commissions that directly or by contract collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, including the requirement to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Asian group and each major Pacific Islander group, as specified. Existing law requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after July 1, 2012. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.

This bill would require a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified. The bill would require these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after January 1, 2027. 2029. The bill would further require these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which the bill would deem confidential.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins. Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic data pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, disaggregated by the same race and ethnicity categories used by the department for the purpose of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.

This bill would include Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self-identification.

Existing law requires the Employment Development Department, in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes disaggregated demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to implement these requirements by July 1, 2026.

This bill would require the Employment Development Department to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity for these purposes in accordance with specified demographic data collection requirements for state agencies added by the bill.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. Existing law defines race or ethnicity to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.

This bill would define ethnicity to include Jewish identity.

Existing law specifies certain requirements relative to state agencies, boards, and commissions that directly or by contract collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, including the requirement to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Asian group and each major Pacific Islander group, as specified. Existing law requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after July 1, 2012. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.

This bill would require a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified. The bill would require these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published or released on or after January 1, 2027. The bill would further require these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which the bill would deem confidential.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins. Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic data pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, disaggregated by the same race and ethnicity categories used by the department for the purpose of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.

This bill would include Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self-identification.

Existing law requires the Employment Development Department, in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes disaggregated demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. Existing law requires the Employment Development Department to implement these requirements by July 1, 2026.

This bill would require the Employment Development Department to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity for these purposes in accordance with specified demographic data collection requirements for state agencies added by the bill.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1387

Author: Stern (D), et al.

Amended: 8/28/26

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 15-0, 4/14/26

AYES: Rubio, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Blakespear, Cervantes, Choi, Dahle, Hurtado, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wahab, Weber Pierson

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 4/21/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SENATE FLOOR: 33-0, 5/22/26

AYES: Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Becker, Hurtado, Niello, Padilla, Stern

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/31/26

SUBJECT: State agencies: collection and reporting of demographic data: Jewish identity

SOURCE: Jewish California

DIGEST:

This bill requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry.

Assembly Amendments

1. delay implementation until January 1, 2029, and authorize a state agency to deviate from the requirements of this bill only upon showing that collecting or reporting demographic data in the manner required by this bill would result in the loss, denial, reduction, or delay of federal funds to the state agency, as described.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires a state agency, board, or commission to include data on specified collection categories and tabulations in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of California residents that it publishes or releases. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.
2. Requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for specified Asian Groups and Pacific Islander groups.
3. Requires a state or local agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern and North African groups, as specified.
4. Declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. For these purpose, existing law defines “race or ethnicity” to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
5. Requires the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to use additional separate collection categories and other tabulations for major Asian groups and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander groups.
6. Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, released, or paroled, including, but not limited, specified races and ethnic origins. CDCR is required, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic categories used by the department for the purposes of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the CDCR’s internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.
7. Requires the California Employment Development Department (EDD), in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis.
8. Provides that, in enacting the California Public Records Act, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every persons in this state. (Government Code Section 7921.000.)

This bill:

1. Requires, beginning on January 1, 2029, a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Authorizes a state agency to deviate from this requirement only upon showing that collecting or reporting demographic data in the manner required by this bill would result in the loss, denial, reduction, or delay of federal funds to the state agency, as described.
3. Requires the state agency, except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, to do both of the following with the data:
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2029.
   2. Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including, but not limited to, by publishing the data on its internet website.
4. Includes Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self identification for which CDCR is required to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins.
5. Requires the EDD to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity as part of a current requirement that requires EDD to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed.
6. Makes conforming changes to the Education, Penal, and Unemployment Insurance Codes.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “California’s commitment to equity depends on accurate data. Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category. That misclassification has real consequences. It affects how hate crimes are recorded. It affects how disparities are identified. And it affects whether communities are visible in the policymaking process. SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities. Accurate date leads to better understanding and better policy. This bill is about precision, equity, and fairness.”

Jewish Population in California. The Jewish population in California is one of the largest in the United States. According to the World Population Review, most recent estimates put the population at about 1.2 to 1.3 million people, or roughly three percent of the state’s population. This makes California second only to New York in overall Jewish Population nationwide.

The community is heavily concentrated in major metropolitan areas, particularly the Los Angeles metropolitan area, which alone contains one of the largest populations outside of Israel, with more than 500,000 residents. Other significant centers include the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and parts of Orange County.

The Jewish population in California, like other communities, faces a range of social, economic, and security related challenges. One of the most significant concerns is the rise of antisemitism, including hate crimes, harassment, and vandalism targeting synagogues and community institutions. According to the Public Institute of California, while hate crimes against most racial and ethnic groups declined between 2020 and 2023, anti-Jewish crimes more than doubled between 2020 and 2023. Nearly two-third of hate crimes motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment in 2023 were property crimes.

Existing Data Collection for State Agencies. Existing law requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for the following:

1. Each major Asian group, including, but not limited to, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Laotian, and Cambodian.
2. Each major Pacific Islander group, including, but not limited to, Hawaiian, Guamanian, and Samoan.
3. Each major Middle Eastern group, including, but not limited to, Afghan, Bahraini, Emirati, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Omani, Palestinian, Qatari, Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Turkish, and Yemeni.
4. Each major North African group, including, but not limited to, Algerian, Djiboutian, Egyptian, Libyan, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Somali, Sudanese, and Tunisian.
5. Each major transnational Middle Eastern and North African group, including, but not limited to, Amazigh or Berber, Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Circassian, and Kurdish.

In addition to the aforementioned requirements, both the DIR and the DFEH are required to collect and tabulate data for the following:

1. Additional major Asian groups, including, but not limited to, Bangladeshi, Hmong, Indonesian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, and Thai.
2. Additional major Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.

This bill requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.

Additionally, current law requires CDCR to collect voluntary self-identification information regarding the race or ethnic origin of individuals admitted, in custody, or released and paroled. This includes specified races and ethnic origins. Based on this information, CDCR prepares and publishes monthly demographic reports reflecting the categories used for voluntary self-identification. This bill expands those requirements by mandating that CDCR include Jewish as a distinct category in its demographic reporting.

Finally, under current law, EDD is required, in administering disability compensation programs, to collect demographic information for individuals claiming disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits. This includes data on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law also requires EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes demographic gata pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. This bill expands on those requirements by mandating EDD include Jewish ancestry or ethnicity as a distinct category in its demographic reporting.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 91 (Harabedian, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025) required a state or local agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups, as specified.

SB 435 (Gonzalez of 2024) would have required the State Department of Social Services, in the course of collecting demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of California residents for any report on the CalFresh program, to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Latino group, Mesoamerican Indigenous nation, and Mesoamerican Indigenous language, as specified. (Vetoed by Governor Newsom)

AB 943 (Kalra, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2023) required CDCR to publish its monthly demographic data in a manner disaggregated by race and ethnicity, as specified.

AB 2763 (Essayli of 2024) would have required a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of California to use separate collections for the Middle Eastern and North African group, as specified. (Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File)

AB 1088 (Eng, Chapter 689, Statutes of 2011) required certain state agencies to collect and tabulate data for additional major Asian groups, as listed, in order to better reflect the diversity of Asian American, Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Communities in California.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of an unknown amount, likely significant and in the aggregate reaching millions of dollars, across state agencies that collect demographic data on the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians (General Fund, Disability Insurance Fund, various special funds) to add a separate Jewish collection category and tabulation to forms, information technology systems, and published demographic reports. Four agencies have reported estimates totaling approximately $3.4 million in one-time costs and approximately $120,000 in ongoing annual costs, as described below:
   1. One-time costs of $2.4 million and ongoing costs of approximately $100,000 annually to the Employment Development Department (EDD) for changes to the current system design (Disability Insurance Fund, General Fund). According to EDD, the January 1, 2027 date is operationally infeasible and may affect the timeline and scope of the department’s ongoing modernization effort, EDDNext.
   2. One-time costs of $300,000 in fiscal year 2026-27 to the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) for information technology design updates and system administration, and start-up costs of approximately $413,000 in 2026-27 for two limited-term positions — one research scientist and one information technology specialist — to develop standards and support system development and data infrastructure updates (General Fund). HCAI anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount for technical assistance, data scrubbing, and submitter education associated with a reporting structure that diverges from federal requirements.
   3. One-time costs of approximately $200,000 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a third-party vendor to modify the California Incident-Based Reporting System, including the National Incident-Based Reporting System, use of force, domestic violence death review team, and death in custody modules, and ongoing costs of $14,000 annually for storage and $3,750 annually for maintenance and hosting (General Fund). DOJ states the department would be unable to absorb these costs within existing budgeted resources.
   4. One-time costs of $80,659 to the California Department of Human Resources to modify the Cal Careers system, including the State Application (Form STD 678) and the Examination and Certification Online System, update data loading processes and approximately 15 pre-existing reports supporting the State Employee Race/Ethnicity Questionnaire (Form 1070) (General Fund), and coordinate with the State Controller's Office.
2. Costs of an unknown amount to other state agencies that collect ancestry or ethnic origin data, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to add the category to existing collection instruments and published demographic reports. Agencies with simpler collection instruments may absorb the change; agencies operating large claims-processing, eligibility, or case management systems would likely incur one-time system modification costs comparable to those reported above.

Potential cost mitigation by aligning this bill's January 1, 2027 reporting date with the January 1, 2029 reporting date for the Middle Eastern and North African categories required by AB 91 (Harabedian), Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/24/26)

Jewish California (Source)

30 Years After
Adat Shalom Los Angeles
Agudath Israel of California
Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism
Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education & Advocacy
Beverly Hills Synagogue
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
California Jewish Democrats
Chai Marin
Contra Costa Jewish Democrats
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist of America, INC.
Hillel of San Diego
JCC/federation of San Luis Obispo
JCRC, Jewish Long Beach
Jewish California
Jewish Center for Justice
Jewish Center of Berkeley
Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento
Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Jewish Family Service LA
Jewish Family Service of the Desert
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley
Jewish Federation Bay Area
Jewish Federation Los Angeles
Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara
Jewish Federation of Orange County
Jewish Federation of San Diego
Jewish Federation of the Desert
Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys
Jewish Federation of Ventura County
Jewish Silicon Valley
JFCS East Bay
Northern California Jewish Labor Committee
Oakland Jewish Alliance
Palo Alto Jewish Alliance
Progressive Zionists of California
SF Jews in School
Stand With Us
Valley Beth Shalom

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/24/26)

Beyt Tikkun Synagogue

BUSD Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, SF Bay Area Chapter

Jewish Voice for Peace – Bay Area Chapter

Jewish Voice for Peace – Los Angeles Chapter

National Campus Jewish Alliance – California Chapter

The Workers Circle/Arbeter Ring of Northern California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Jewish California, Jewish identity is widely understood as encompassing ancestry, history, language, culture, community, and shared values – not solely religion. These are characteristics of an ethnicity. Yet California's data collection systems treat Jewish identity only as a religion, if at all. This results in the systematic undercounting, misclassification, and misunderstanding of Jewish Californians, undermining equitable policymaking and the accurate tracking of antisemitic hate crimes. Importantly, SB 1387 does not remove or replace existing religious categorization. It simply adds the option

for Jewish Californians to self-identify based on ethnicity – ensuring that our community is neither invisible nor misrepresented in the data systems that drive critical public health, education, and civil rights decisions.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the National Campus Jewish Alliance – California Chapter, “SB 1387 specifies that ‘Jewish’ be added to demographic data collection by the Department of Education (DOE), Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR), and Employment Development Department (EDD). Currently none of these departments collect data on religious identities, and there is no reason for the state to treat Judaism differently than other religions. To do so is unequal and potentially illegal. In addition, history has shown creating ‘lists of Jews’ that could be accessed by government entities is potentially dangerous for Jewish communities. Furthermore, this bill would define ethnicity and race to include Jewish identity. This is wholly unnecessary. Any protection against discrimination afforded by California law already applies to Jews as a religious group.” 

Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530

8/31/26 20:00:08

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1387

Author:(Stern)

As Amended Ver:August 28, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity and makes corresponding changes in various code sections.

Major Provisions

1. Requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, requires a state agency to do both of the following with the demographic data collected:
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2029.
   2. Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including by publishing the data on its internet website.
3. Makes conforming changes to the Education, Penal, and Unemployment Insurance codes.
4. Prohibits state agencies from disclosing personal identifying information whose demographic data is collected, requires agencies to deidentify personal identifying information as specified, and limits the purposes for which the agency may use the data collected.
5. Exempts any state agency administering a multiyear grant program, as described.
6. Permits a state agency to deviate from data collection requirements in this bill only upon a showing that collecting or reporting demographic data would result in a loss or delay of federal funds, as specified.
7. Specifies that the provisions of this bill shall become operative on January 1, 2029.

COMMENTS

This bill requires a state agency that collects demographic data on ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity and makes corresponding changes in various code sections.

Pew Research Center Report on Jewish Identity. ″There is no one way that American Jews think about being Jewish,″ according to a 2020 report by the Pew Research Center. When asked whether being Jewish is mainly a matter of religion, ancestry, or culture- some Jewish respondents picked one descriptor, some picked all of them, and some chose two of three. The Pew report, therefore, supports a central claim made by the author and sponsor: being Jewish is not a matter of religion alone. Indeed, only 11% of the Pew respondents stated that being Jewish was a matter of religion alone, and only 36% included ″religion″ in combination with other choices. Over one-half (52%) of the Pew respondents mentioned ″ancestry,″ either alone or in combination with other categories. A similar number (55%) associated being Jewish with ″culture,″ either alone or in combination with other categories. Even among Jews who identify as religious, just 44% mention religion as a primary facet of Jewish identity, although Orthodox Jews stand out in this regard: 40% say being Jewish is about only religion, and about 30% of Orthodox adults say it is some combination of religion, ancestry, and culture, or all three of these. The vast majority of Jews who do not identify as religious nonetheless still identify as Jewish. The self-identified ″nonreligious″ Jews reported that, for them, being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry (41%), culture (25%) or both (15%). (See Pew Research Center, Jewish Americans in 2020, available at www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020. See especially chapter 2, ″Jewish Identity and Belief,″ and chapter 9, ″Race, Ethnicity, Heritage, and Immigration Among U.S. Jews.″)

The Pew study suggests, therefore, that many Jewish people, if given the option to select one or more categories under the ″race and ethnicity″ question on state forms would select ″Jewish,″ either alone or in combination with another option. This bill, therefore, is consistent with prior legislation enacted by the California Legislature that has followed the more modern understanding of race and ethnicity as a matter of self-identification rather than fixed or absolute categories that the law imposes on people.

According to the Author

California's commitment to equity depends on accurate data. Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category. That misclassification has real consequences. It affects how hate crimes are recorded. It affects how disparities are identified. And it affects whether communities are visible in the policymaking process. SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities. Accurate data leads to better understanding and better policy. This bill is about precision, equity, and fairness.

Arguments in Support

Jewish California, the sponsor, citing the Pew Center study discussed in the analysis, stress that for most American Jews, ″religion is not central to their Jewish identity.″ Rather, Jews are more likely to associate their Jewishness with their ancestry, history, and cultural practices. Jewish California writes further:

California relies on demographic data to identify disparities, conduct research, tailor services, and ensure compliance with civil rights protections. When Jewish ethnicity is absent from data systems, disparities affecting Jewish communities – whether in healthcare needs, educational outcomes, or discrimination – are less likely to be identified or addressed.

Furthermore, antisemitic hate crimes are frequently motivated by perceived ethnicity, ancestry, or peoplehood – not religious observance. When Jews are categorized only as a religion, hate crimes targeting Jews as an ethnic group may be mischaracterized, underreported, or analytically obscured. This weakens California's ability to accurately measure antisemitism, identify trends, allocate prevention resources, and evaluate the effectiveness of state interventions.

State law does not merely collect data – it signals to the public how communities are understood. When California recognizes Jews only as a religion, it reinforces a narrow and incomplete understanding of Jewish identity, encouraging the misconception that Jews are defined solely by belief or worship rather than by a rich and distinct culture, history, peoplehood, and shared experience. That misunderstanding leads to generalizations, creating fertile ground for bias and discrimination.

SB 1387 is consistent with a long-standing legislative principle that California has applied to many communities. Recognizing that good data informs good policy, California has enacted several recent laws requiring more detailed demographic data collection, including for Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups (AB 1088, 2011; AB 1726, 2016), Black subgroups (SB 189, 2022), LGBTQ+ communities (SB 957, 2024), and Middle Eastern and North African populations (AB 91, 2025). Extending the same recognition to Jewish Californians is both equitable and overdue.

Importantly, SB 1387 does not remove or replace existing religious categorization. It simply adds the option for Jewish Californians to self-identify based on ethnicity – ensuring that our community is neither invisible nor misrepresented in the data systems that drive critical public health, education, and civil rights decisions.

Arguments in Opposition

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) of Los Angeles opposes the bill because it ″endangers Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of 'race.'″ In addition, JVP argues that the bill makes state demographic categories inconsistent with federal categories, thereby making comparison with other studies more problematic. Finally, JVP argues that this bill will impose considerable costs upon the state without any corresponding benefit. JVP explains further:

This bill. . . would require state agencies, boards, and commissions to include ″Jewish″ as an ethnic category in the collection and public reporting of demographic data. If enacted, this bill would endanger Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of ″race.″ In addition, the bill would place undue burden on state data collection systems which currently do not collect data on religious identities.

There is no Jewish ″race″ or ″ethnic″ group, and we vehemently reject any attempt to categorize Jews as such. Jewish people in Europe, the US, and elsewhere have been historically and currently racialized (treated as a single ″race″ of people), and Jewish people have subsequently been segregated, excluded, and murdered based on this false notion. Although SB 1837 uses the term ″ethnic″ in state data collection as well as in public discourse the terms ″race″ and ″ethnic″ are used interchangeably or in combination (″race/ethnic″), therefore any application of ″ethnic″ may be included under ″race.″ Notably, the California Department of Education reports data on ″race/ethnicity.″

Federal race/ethnicity standards set by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are primarily based on place of origin and there are no religious identities included. For efficiency and to enable comparison and aggregation of datasets, state and private agencies generally follow the OMB standards. Recognizing that substantial numbers of people with origins in Southwest Asian and North Africa were being counted as ″White″ (which otherwise counts people of European origin), the OMB added Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) as a race/ethnic category. In 2025 California followed suit in passing AB 91, the MENA Inclusion Act.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of an unknown amount, likely significant and in the aggregate reaching millions of dollars, across state agencies that collect demographic data on the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians (General Fund, Disability Insurance Fund, various special funds) to add a separate Jewish collection category and tabulation to forms, information technology systems, and published demographic reports. Four agencies have reported estimates totaling approximately $3.4 million in one-time costs and approximately $120,000 in ongoing annual costs, as described below:
   1. One-time costs of $2.4 million and ongoing costs of approximately $100,000 annually to the Employment Development Department (EDD) for changes to the current system design (Disability Insurance Fund, General Fund). According to EDD, the January 1, 2027 date is operationally infeasible and may affect the timeline and scope of the department’s ongoing modernization effort, EDDNext.
   2. One-time costs of $300,000 in fiscal year 2026-27 to the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) for information technology design updates and system administration, and start-up costs of approximately $413,000 in 2026-27 for two limited-term positions — one research scientist and one information technology specialist — to develop standards and support system development and data infrastructure updates (General Fund). HCAI anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount for technical assistance, data scrubbing, and submitter education associated with a reporting structure that diverges from federal requirements.
   3. One-time costs of approximately $200,000 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a third-party vendor to modify the California Incident-Based Reporting System, including the National Incident-Based Reporting System, use of force, domestic violence death review team, and death in custody modules, and ongoing costs of $14,000 annually for storage and $3,750 annually for maintenance and hosting (General Fund). DOJ states the department would be unable to absorb these costs within existing budgeted resources.
   4. One-time costs of $80,659 to the California Department of Human Resources to modify the Cal Careers system, including the State Application (Form STD 678) and the Examination and Certification Online System, update data loading processes and approximately 15 pre-existing reports supporting the State Employee Race/Ethnicity Questionnaire (Form 1070) (General Fund), and coordinate with the State Controller's Office.
2. Costs of an unknown amount to other state agencies that collect ancestry or ethnic origin data, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to add the category to existing collection instruments and published demographic reports. Agencies with simpler collection instruments may absorb the change; agencies operating large claims-processing, eligibility, or case management systems would likely incur one-time system modification costs comparable to those reported above.

Potential cost mitigation by aligning this bill's January 1, 2027 reporting date with the January 1, 2029 reporting date for the Middle Eastern and North African categories required by AB 91 (Harabedian), Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 33-0-7

YES: Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Becker, Hurtado, Niello, Padilla, Stern

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Macedo, Bryan, DeMaio, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 28, 2026

CONSULTANT: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0004441

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1387

Author:(Stern)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity and makes corresponding changes in various code sections.

Major Provisions

1. Requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, requires a state agency to do both of the following with the demographic data collected:
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2029.
   2. Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including by publishing the data on its internet website.
3. Makes conforming changes to the Education, Penal, and Unemployment Insurance codes.
4. Prohibits state agencies from disclosing personal identifying information whose demographic data is collected, requires agencies to deidentify data, as specified, and limits the purposes for which the agency may use the data collected.
5. Exempts any state agency administering a multi-year grant program, as described.
6. Specifies that the provisions of this bill shall become operative on January 1, 2029.

COMMENTS

This bill requires a state agency that collects demographic data on ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity and makes corresponding changes in various code sections.

Pew Research Center Report on Jewish Identity. ″There is no one way that American Jews think about being Jewish,″ according to a 2020 report by the Pew Research Center. When asked whether being Jewish is mainly a matter of religion, ancestry, or culture- some Jewish respondents picked one descriptor, some picked all of them, and some chose two of three. The Pew report, therefore, supports a central claim made by the author and sponsor: being Jewish is not a matter of religion alone. Indeed, only 11% of the Pew respondents stated that being Jewish was a matter of religion alone, and only 36% included ″religion″ in combination with other choices. Over one-half (52%) of the Pew respondents mentioned ″ancestry,″ either alone or in combination with other categories. A similar number (55%) associated being Jewish with ″culture,″ either alone or in combination with other categories. Even among Jews who identify as religious, just 44% mention religion as a primary facet of Jewish identity, although Orthodox Jews stand out in this regard: 40% say being Jewish is about only religion, and about 30% of Orthodox adults say it is some combination of religion, ancestry, and culture, or all three of these. The vast majority of Jews who do not identify as religious nonetheless still identify as Jewish. The self-identified ″nonreligious″ Jews reported that, for them, being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry (41%), culture (25%) or both (15%). (See Pew Research Center, Jewish Americans in 2020, available at www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020. See especially chapter 2, ″Jewish Identity and Belief,″ and chapter 9, ″Race, Ethnicity, Heritage, and Immigration Among U.S. Jews.″)

The Pew study suggests, therefore, that many Jewish people, if given the option to select one or more categories under the ″race and ethnicity″ question on state forms would select ″Jewish,″ either alone or in combination with another option. This bill, therefore, is consistent with prior legislation enacted by the California Legislature that has followed the more modern understanding of race and ethnicity as a matter of self-identification rather than fixed or absolute categories that the law imposes on people.

According to the Author

California's commitment to equity depends on accurate data. Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category. That misclassification has real consequences. It affects how hate crimes are recorded. It affects how disparities are identified. And it affects whether communities are visible in the policymaking process. SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities. Accurate data leads to better understanding and better policy. This bill is about precision, equity, and fairness.

Arguments in Support

Jewish California, the sponsor, citing the Pew Center study discussed in the analysis, stress that for most American Jews, ″religion is not central to their Jewish identity.″ Rather, Jews are more likely to associate their Jewishness with their ancestry, history, and cultural practices. Jewish California writes further:

California relies on demographic data to identify disparities, conduct research, tailor services, and ensure compliance with civil rights protections. When Jewish ethnicity is absent from data systems, disparities affecting Jewish communities – whether in healthcare needs, educational outcomes, or discrimination – are less likely to be identified or addressed.

Furthermore, antisemitic hate crimes are frequently motivated by perceived ethnicity, ancestry, or peoplehood – not religious observance. When Jews are categorized only as a religion, hate crimes targeting Jews as an ethnic group may be mischaracterized, underreported, or analytically obscured. This weakens California's ability to accurately measure antisemitism, identify trends, allocate prevention resources, and evaluate the effectiveness of state interventions.

State law does not merely collect data – it signals to the public how communities are understood. When California recognizes Jews only as a religion, it reinforces a narrow and incomplete understanding of Jewish identity, encouraging the misconception that Jews are defined solely by belief or worship rather than by a rich and distinct culture, history, peoplehood, and shared experience. That misunderstanding leads to generalizations, creating fertile ground for bias and discrimination.

SB 1387 is consistent with a long-standing legislative principle that California has applied to many communities. Recognizing that good data informs good policy, California has enacted several recent laws requiring more detailed demographic data collection, including for Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups (AB 1088, 2011; AB 1726, 2016), Black subgroups (SB 189, 2022), LGBTQ+ communities (SB 957, 2024), and Middle Eastern and North African populations (AB 91, 2025). Extending the same recognition to Jewish Californians is both equitable and overdue.

Importantly, SB 1387 does not remove or replace existing religious categorization. It simply adds the option for Jewish Californians to self-identify based on ethnicity – ensuring that our community is neither invisible nor misrepresented in the data systems that drive critical public health, education, and civil rights decisions.

Arguments in Opposition

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) of Los Angeles opposes the bill because it ″endangers Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of 'race.'″ In addition, JVP argues that the bill makes state demographic categories inconsistent with federal categories, thereby making comparison with other studies more problematic. Finally, JVP argues that this bill will impose considerable costs upon the state without any corresponding benefit. JVP explains further:

This bill. . . would require state agencies, boards, and commissions to include ″Jewish″ as an ethnic category in the collection and public reporting of demographic data. If enacted, this bill would endanger Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of ″race.″ In addition, the bill would place undue burden on state data collection systems which currently do not collect data on religious identities.

There is no Jewish ″race″ or ″ethnic″ group, and we vehemently reject any attempt to categorize Jews as such. Jewish people in Europe, the US, and elsewhere have been historically and currently racialized (treated as a single ″race″ of people), and Jewish people have subsequently been segregated, excluded, and murdered based on this false notion. Although SB 1837 uses the term ″ethnic″ in state data collection as well as in public discourse the terms ″race″ and ″ethnic″ are used interchangeably or in combination (″race/ethnic″), therefore any application of ″ethnic″ may be included under ″race.″ Notably, the California Department of Education reports data on ″race/ethnicity.″

Federal race/ethnicity standards set by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are primarily based on place of origin and there are no religious identities included. For efficiency and to enable comparison and aggregation of datasets, state and private agencies generally follow the OMB standards. Recognizing that substantial numbers of people with origins in Southwest Asian and North Africa were being counted as ″White″ (which otherwise counts people of European origin), the OMB added Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) as a race/ethnic category. In 2025 California followed suit in passing AB 91, the MENA Inclusion Act.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of an unknown amount, likely significant and in the aggregate reaching millions of dollars, across state agencies that collect demographic data on the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians (General Fund, Disability Insurance Fund, various special funds) to add a separate Jewish collection category and tabulation to forms, information technology systems, and published demographic reports. Four agencies have reported estimates totaling approximately $3.4 million in one-time costs and approximately $120,000 in ongoing annual costs, as described below:
   1. One-time costs of $2.4 million and ongoing costs of approximately $100,000 annually to the Employment Development Department (EDD) for changes to the current system design (Disability Insurance Fund, General Fund). According to EDD, the January 1, 2027 date is operationally infeasible and may affect the timeline and scope of the department’s ongoing modernization effort, EDDNext.
   2. One-time costs of $300,000 in fiscal year 2026-27 to the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) for information technology design updates and system administration, and start-up costs of approximately $413,000 in 2026-27 for two limited-term positions — one research scientist and one information technology specialist — to develop standards and support system development and data infrastructure updates (General Fund). HCAI anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount for technical assistance, data scrubbing, and submitter education associated with a reporting structure that diverges from federal requirements.
   3. One-time costs of approximately $200,000 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a third-party vendor to modify the California Incident-Based Reporting System, including the National Incident-Based Reporting System, use of force, domestic violence death review team, and death in custody modules, and ongoing costs of $14,000 annually for storage and $3,750 annually for maintenance and hosting (General Fund). DOJ states the department would be unable to absorb these costs within existing budgeted resources.
   4. One-time costs of $80,659 to the California Department of Human Resources to modify the Cal Careers system, including the State Application (Form STD 678) and the Examination and Certification Online System, update data loading processes and approximately 15 pre-existing reports supporting the State Employee Race/Ethnicity Questionnaire (Form 1070) (General Fund), and coordinate with the State Controller's Office.
2. Costs of an unknown amount to other state agencies that collect ancestry or ethnic origin data, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to add the category to existing collection instruments and published demographic reports. Agencies with simpler collection instruments may absorb the change; agencies operating large claims-processing, eligibility, or case management systems would likely incur one-time system modification costs comparable to those reported above.

Potential cost mitigation by aligning this bill's January 1, 2027 reporting date with the January 1, 2029 reporting date for the Middle Eastern and North African categories required by AB 91 (Harabedian), Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 33-0-7

YES: Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Becker, Hurtado, Niello, Padilla, Stern

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Macedo, Bryan, DeMaio, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0004008

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1387

Author:(Stern)

As Amended Ver:August 13, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity and makes corresponding changes in various code sections.

Major Provisions

1. Requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, requires a state agency to do both of the following with the demographic data collected:
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2029.
   2. Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including by publishing the data on its internet website.
3. Makes conforming changes to the Education, Penal, and Unemployment Insurance codes.
4. Specifies that the provisions of this bill shall become operative on January 1, 2028.

COMMENTS

This bill requires a state agency that collects demographic data on ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity and makes corresponding changes in various code sections.

Pew Research Center Report on Jewish Identity. "There is no one way that American Jews think about being Jewish,” according to a 2020 report by the Pew Research Center. When asked whether being Jewish is mainly a matter of religion, ancestry, or culture- some Jewish respondents picked one descriptor, some picked all of them, and some chose two of three. The Pew report, therefore, supports a central claim made by the author and sponsor: being Jewish is not a matter of religion alone. Indeed, only 11% of the Pew respondents stated that being Jewish was a matter of religion alone, and only 36% included “religion” in combination with other choices. Over one-half (52%) of the Pew respondents mentioned “ancestry,” either alone or in combination with other categories. A similar number (55%) associated being Jewish with “culture,” either alone or in combination with other categories. Even among Jews who identify as religious, just 44% mention religion as a primary facet of Jewish identity, although Orthodox Jews stand out in this regard: 40% say being Jewish is about only religion, and about 30% of Orthodox adults say it is some combination of religion, ancestry, and culture, or all three of these. The vast majority of Jews who do not identify as religious nonetheless still identify as Jewish. The self-identified "nonreligious" Jews reported that, for them, being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry (41%), culture (25%) or both (15%). (See Pew Research Center, Jewish Americans in 2020, available at www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020. See especially chapter 2, "Jewish Identity and Belief," and chapter 9, "Race, Ethnicity, Heritage, and Immigration Among U.S. Jews.")

The Pew study suggests, therefore, that many Jewish people, if given the option to select one or more categories under the "race and ethnicity" question on state forms would select "Jewish," either alone or in combination with another option. This bill, therefore, is consistent with prior legislation enacted by the California Legislature that has followed the more modern understanding of race and ethnicity as a matter of self-identification rather than fixed or absolute categories that the law imposes on people.

Will this bill produce more accurate data, or merely allow people to self-identify? According to the author, California's "commitment to equity depends on accurate data." To be sure, as discussed above, the bill follows recent state and national trends favoring self-identification. However, whether self-identification results in more accurate data depends upon what one means by "accurate." The revised forms required by this measure will provide a more accurate count of the number of people who self-identify as ethnically Jewish but may not necessarily capture people who do not view their Jewishness as a form of ethnic or racial identity, but who nonetheless still consider themselves Jewish. Based on the data described above this may result in the omission of at least 105 of persons identifying as Jewish in some manner. No doubt some percentage of Jews will take advantage of the option to self-identify as "Jewish," while other Jews may continue to identify as ethnically or racially white, Black, Asian, Latino, or any other category that fits their understanding. Nonetheless, the bill moves California further along the path of collecting demographic data in a manner consistent with modern principles of self-identification and will provide more accurate data on how Jews self-identify, but not necessarily a more accurate accounting of the number of Jewish Californians.

In sum, if the purpose of the bill is to permit Jews to identify in a manner that is most meaningful to them, then that may be justification enough. But if the purpose is, as the author claims, to provide more accurate data, the bill standing on its own may not accomplish this, for the simple reason that a Jewish person who checks that they are racially or ethnically "white" (as 92% of U.S. Jews do now) instead of checking the "Jewish" box will not be recorded as Jewish. As noted by the opposition to this measure, Jews in the United States do not think monolithically about this issue, and thus it seems inevitable that some Jews will check “Jewish” and others will continue to check "white" or some other category. So while this measure, like prior legislation adding new options for demographic self-identification, may not give the state a more accurate count of Jewish persons in California, the bill will, however, tell us how many Jews think of their Jewish identity as a matter of race or ethnicity and, perhaps more important, it will allow Jews to make a choice more consistent with their understanding.

According to the Author

California's commitment to equity depends on accurate data. Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category. That misclassification has real consequences. It affects how hate crimes are recorded. It affects how disparities are identified. And it affects whether communities are visible in the policymaking process. SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities. Accurate data leads to better understanding and better policy. This bill is about precision, equity, and fairness.

Arguments in Support

Jewish California, the sponsor, citing the Pew Center study discussed in the analysis, stress that for most American Jews, "religion is not central to their Jewish identity." Rather, Jews are more likely to associate their Jewishness with their ancestry, history, and cultural practices. Jewish California writes further:

California relies on demographic data to identify disparities, conduct research, tailor services, and ensure compliance with civil rights protections. When Jewish ethnicity is absent from data systems, disparities affecting Jewish communities – whether in healthcare needs, educational outcomes, or discrimination – are less likely to be identified or addressed.

Furthermore, antisemitic hate crimes are frequently motivated by perceived ethnicity, ancestry, or peoplehood – not religious observance. When Jews are categorized only as a religion, hate crimes targeting Jews as an ethnic group may be mischaracterized, underreported, or analytically obscured. This weakens California's ability to accurately measure antisemitism, identify trends, allocate prevention resources, and evaluate the effectiveness of state interventions.

State law does not merely collect data – it signals to the public how communities are understood. When California recognizes Jews only as a religion, it reinforces a narrow and incomplete understanding of Jewish identity, encouraging the misconception that Jews are defined solely by belief or worship rather than by a rich and distinct culture, history, peoplehood, and shared experience. That misunderstanding leads to generalizations, creating fertile ground for bias and discrimination.

SB 1387 is consistent with a long-standing legislative principle that California has applied to many communities. Recognizing that good data informs good policy, California has enacted several recent laws requiring more detailed demographic data collection, including for Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups (AB 1088, 2011; AB 1726, 2016), Black subgroups (SB 189, 2022), LGBTQ+ communities (SB 957, 2024), and Middle Eastern and North African populations (AB 91, 2025). Extending the same recognition to Jewish Californians is both equitable and overdue.

Importantly, SB 1387 does not remove or replace existing religious categorization. It simply adds the option for Jewish Californians to self-identify based on ethnicity – ensuring that our community is neither invisible nor misrepresented in the data systems that drive critical public health, education, and civil rights decisions.

Arguments in Opposition

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) of Los Angeles opposes the bill because it "endangers Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of 'race.'" In addition, JVP argues that the bill makes state demographic categories inconsistent with federal categories, thereby making comparison with other studies more problematic. Finally, JVP argues that this bill will impose considerable costs upon the state without any corresponding benefit. JVP explains further:

This bill. . . would require state agencies, boards, and commissions to include "Jewish" as an ethnic category in the collection and public reporting of demographic data. If enacted, this bill would endanger Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of "race." In addition, the bill would place undue burden on state data collection systems which currently do not collect data on religious identities.

There is no Jewish "race" or "ethnic" group, and we vehemently reject any attempt to categorize Jews as such. Jewish people in Europe, the US, and elsewhere have been historically and currently racialized (treated as a single "race" of people), and Jewish people have subsequently been segregated, excluded, and murdered based on this false notion. Although SB 1837 uses the term "ethnic" in state data collection as well as in public discourse the terms "race" and "ethnic" are used interchangeably or in combination ("race/ethnic"), therefore any application of “ethnic” may be included under "race." Notably, the California Department of Education reports data on "race/ethnicity."

There is no single “Jewish” ethnic group. Jewish people come from all parts of the world, and while some have developed unique subcultures (e.g., Eastern European Jews, North African Jews, Ethiopian Jews, etc.), they also share cultural practices of their places of origins.

Federal race/ethnicity standards set by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are primarily based on place of origin and there are no religious identities included. For efficiency and to enable comparison and aggregation of datasets, state and private agencies generally follow the OMB standards. Recognizing that substantial numbers of people with origins in Southwest Asian and North Africa were being counted as “White” (which otherwise counts people of European origin), the OMB added Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) as a race/ethnic category. In 2025 California followed suit in passing AB 91, the MENA Inclusion Act.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of an unknown amount, likely significant and in the aggregate reaching millions of dollars, across state agencies that collect demographic data on the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians (General Fund, Disability Insurance Fund, various special funds) to add a separate Jewish collection category and tabulation to forms, information technology systems, and published demographic reports. Four agencies have reported estimates totaling approximately $3.4 million in one-time costs and approximately $120,000 in ongoing annual costs, as described below:
   1. One-time costs of $2.4 million and ongoing costs of approximately $100,000 annually to the Employment Development Department (EDD) for changes to the current system design (Disability Insurance Fund, General Fund). According to EDD, the January 1, 2027 date is operationally infeasible and may affect the timeline and scope of the department’s ongoing modernization effort, EDDNext.
   2. One-time costs of $300,000 in fiscal year 2026-27 to the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) for information technology design updates and system administration, and start-up costs of approximately $413,000 in 2026-27 for two limited-term positions — one research scientist and one information technology specialist — to develop standards and support system development and data infrastructure updates (General Fund). HCAI anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount for technical assistance, data scrubbing, and submitter education associated with a reporting structure that diverges from federal requirements.
   3. One-time costs of approximately $200,000 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a third-party vendor to modify the California Incident-Based Reporting System, including the National Incident-Based Reporting System, use of force, domestic violence death review team, and death in custody modules, and ongoing costs of $14,000 annually for storage and $3,750 annually for maintenance and hosting (General Fund). DOJ states the department would be unable to absorb these costs within existing budgeted resources.
   4. One-time costs of $80,659 to the California Department of Human Resources to modify the Cal Careers system, including the State Application (Form STD 678) and the Examination and Certification Online System, update data loading processes and approximately 15 pre-existing reports supporting the State Employee Race/Ethnicity Questionnaire (Form 1070) (General Fund), and coordinate with the State Controller's Office.
2. Costs of an unknown amount to other state agencies that collect ancestry or ethnic origin data, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to add the category to existing collection instruments and published demographic reports. Agencies with simpler collection instruments may absorb the change; agencies operating large claims-processing, eligibility, or case management systems would likely incur one-time system modification costs comparable to those reported above.

Potential cost mitigation by aligning this bill's January 1, 2027 reporting date with the January 1, 2029 reporting date for the Middle Eastern and North African categories required by AB 91 (Harabedian), Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 33-0-7

YES: Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Becker, Hurtado, Niello, Padilla, Stern

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Macedo, Bryan, DeMaio, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 13, 2026

CONSULTANT: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003536

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1387

Author:(Stern) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a state agency, except for personal identifying information, which is deemed confidential, to include the collected data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians published on or after January 1, 2027, and to make the aggregated data available to the public, including by publishing the data on the agency's internet website.
2. Adds “Jewish” to the race and ethnic origin categories the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) collects through voluntary self-identification and publishes through the Offender Data Points dashboard.
3. Requires the Employment Development Department (EDD) to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity as part of existing demographic data collection for disability insurance and paid family leave claimants.
4. Provides, for purposes of the Education Code’s equal-rights provisions, that “ethnicity” is inclusive of Jewish identity, and makes the constitutional findings required for limiting public access to personal identifying information.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs of an unknown amount, likely significant and in the aggregate reaching millions of dollars, across state agencies that collect demographic data on the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians (General Fund, Disability Insurance Fund, various special funds) to add a separate Jewish collection category and tabulation to forms, information technology systems, and published demographic reports. Four agencies have reported estimates totaling approximately $3.4 million in one-time costs and approximately $120,000 in ongoing annual costs, as described below:
   1. One-time costs of $2.4 million and ongoing costs of approximately $100,000 annually to the Employment Development Department (EDD) for changes to the current system design (Disability Insurance Fund, General Fund). According to EDD, the January 1, 2027 date is operationally infeasible and may affect the timeline and scope of the department’s ongoing modernization effort, EDDNext.
   2. One-time costs of $300,000 in fiscal year 2026-27 to the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) for information technology design updates and system administration, and start-up costs of approximately $413,000 in 2026-27 for two limited-term positions — one research scientist and one information technology specialist — to develop standards and support system development and data infrastructure updates (General Fund). HCAI anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount for technical assistance, data scrubbing, and submitter education associated with a reporting structure that diverges from federal requirements.
   3. One-time costs of approximately $200,000 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a third-party vendor to modify the California Incident-Based Reporting System, including the National Incident-Based Reporting System, use of force, domestic violence death review team, and death in custody modules, and ongoing costs of $14,000 annually for storage and $3,750 annually for maintenance and hosting (General Fund). DOJ states the department would be unable to absorb these costs within existing budgeted resources.
   4. One-time costs of $80,659 to the California Department of Human Resources to modify the Cal Careers system, including the State Application (Form STD 678) and the Examination and Certification Online System, update data loading processes and approximately 15 pre-existing reports supporting the State Employee Race/Ethnicity Questionnaire (Form 1070) (General Fund), and coordinate with the State Controller’s Office.
2. Costs of an unknown amount to other state agencies that collect ancestry or ethnic origin data, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to add the category to existing collection instruments and published demographic reports. Agencies with simpler collection instruments may absorb the change; agencies operating large claims-processing, eligibility, or case management systems would likely incur one-time system modification costs comparable to those reported above.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

California’s commitment to equity depends on accurate data. Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category. . . . SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities.

1. Background. Existing law requires state agencies collecting ancestry or ethnic origin data to use separate collection categories for specified Asian and Pacific Islander groups, and, under AB 91 (Harabedian), Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025, requires state and local agencies to use separate categories for major Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) groups in reports published on or after January 1, 2029. This bill follows the same disaggregation model for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, applying to state agencies only. Collection remains voluntary and self-identified, personal identifying information remains confidential under existing law, and published data appear only in aggregate. The Assembly Judiciary Committee analysis observes that because self-identification is voluntary and many Jewish Californians identify racially or ethnically in other categories, the bill will produce a more accurate picture of how Jewish Californians self-identify rather than a complete count of the Jewish population. The bill’s categories will also diverge from the federal Office of Management and Budget race and ethnicity standards, which do not include a Jewish category; researchers comparing state and federal datasets will need to account for that difference.
2. Support and Opposition. This bill is sponsored by Jewish California and supported by more than 40 Jewish community organizations and the California Federation of Teachers, who contend that Jewish identity encompasses ancestry, culture, and peoplehood, and that the absence of a Jewish category obscures disparities and impedes accurate tracking of antisemitism. Opposition, including Jewish Voice for Peace chapters and Bend the Arc: Jewish Action California, contend the bill inappropriately treats Jewish identity as a single ethnicity, diverges from federal data standards, and carries historical risks associated with government enumeration of Jewish populations. The Judiciary Committee analysis notes that the bill does not create any list of individuals: personal identifying information is confidential under existing law and exempt from public records disclosure.
3. Related Legislation. AB 1726 (Bonta), Chapter 607, Statutes of 2016, required disaggregation of additional Asian and Pacific Islander subgroups.

SB 189 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 48, Statutes of 2022, required disaggregation of Black subgroups on specified forms.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 23, 2026

Fiscal:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1387

Author:(Stern) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 33-0

SUBJECT: State agencies: collection and reporting of demographic data: Jewish identity

SYNOPSIS

California state agencies regularly collect personal information – including information on race or ethnicity – from employees, students, residents, and others. Sometimes this information is necessary to provide the service or carry out the function that the agency was created to perform. Existing law requires state agencies to collect demographic data related to ancestry, race, and ethnicity to make the information publicly available in aggregate form, excluding confidential personal identifying information that could link the demographic data to a particular individual.

This bill adds “Jewish” to the existing ethnicities on voluntary, self-selecting demographic collection forms. Supporters of the bill note that “Jewish identity is widely understood as encompassing ancestry, history, language, culture, community, and shared values – not solely religion. These are characteristics of an ethnicity.” Opponents, on the other hand argue that state departments do not currently “collect data on religious identities, and there is no reason for the state to treat Judaism differently than other religions. To do so is unequal and potentially illegal.”

The larger policy questions of this bill are under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The question before this Committee is whether adding “Jewish” to the list of ethnicities erodes Californians’ right to privacy.

This bill is sponsored by Jewish California and enjoys the support of a significant number of other Jewish organizations. A number of Jewish organizations have registered their opposition to the bill. Opponents include Jewish Voice for Peace – Bay Area, Orange County and Sacramento chapters, Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation, and National Campus Jewish Alliance – California chapter.

This bill was previously heard by the Judiciary Committee where it passed on a 12 – 0 vote.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, released, or paroled. Requires CDCR, based on information collected, to prepare, publish, and otherwise make information publicly available, as specified, except for personally identifying information, which is deemed confidential. (Pen. Code § 2068.)
2. Requires the California Employment Development Department (EDD) to collect demographic data, including race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity data, for individuals who claim disability benefits, as specified. (Unemp. Ins. Code § 2615(a).)
3. Requires EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that provides access to disaggregated demographic data, as specified. (Unemp. Ins. Code § 2615(f).)
4. Prohibits the inclusion of any question relative to an applicant’s race, sex, marital status, or religion in any application or form required to be filled in and submitted by an applicant to any department, board, commission, officer, agent, or employee of the state. (Gov. Code § 8310)
5. Notwithstanding 4), subsequent to employment, gender and marital status data may be obtained and maintained for research and statistical purposes when safeguards preventing misuse of the information exist, except that in no event shall any notation, entry, or record of such data be made on papers or records relating to such employment application. (Gov. Code § 8310)
6. Notwithstanding any other law, prohibits a state or local agency or public employee acting under color of law from providing or disclosing to federal government authorities personal information regarding the religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation of any individual for the purpose of compiling a list, registry, or database of individuals based on religious affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity. (Gov. Code § 8310.3)
7. Requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for specified Asian groups and Pacific Islander groups. (Gov. Code § 8310.5 (a).)
8. Requires state and local agencies, as defined, that collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups and to include that data in every demographic report published on or after January 1, 2029, and to make the aggregated data available to the public. (Gov. Code § 8310.4.)
9. Requires the Department of Industrial Relations and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to use additional separate collection categories and other tabulations for major Asian groups and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander groups. (Gov. Code § 8310.7.)
10. Establishes the Information Practices Act of 1977, which generally enumerates the requirements applicable to state agencies that collect, maintain, and disclose personal information from California residents, including limitations on permissible disclosure, the rights of residents to know and access the information, and required accounting of disclosures of the information. (Civ. Code § 1798, et seq.)
11. Requires that each state agency maintain in its records only personal information that is relevant and necessary to accomplish the purpose of the agency. (Civ. Code § 1798.14.)
12. Requires that each agency collect personal information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the individual who is the subject of the information rather than from another source. (Civ. Code § 1798.15.)
13. Prohibits an individual’s name and address from being distributed for commercial purposes, sold, or rented by an agency unless such action is specifically authorized by law. (Civ. Code § 1798.60.)
14. Defines “personal information,” for purposes of the IPA, as any information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. (Civ. Code § 1798.3(a).)

THIS BILL:

1. Requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, requires a state agency to do both of the following with the demographic data collected:
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2027.
   2. Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including by publishing the data on its internet website.
3. Makes conforming changes to the Education, Penal, and Unemployment Insurance codes.

COMMENTS:

1) Author’s statement. According to the author:

Jewish identity is not solely a matter of religion. For many Jewish Californians, it is also rooted in shared ancestry, ethnicity, culture, history, language, and family heritage. SB 1387 ensures that California’s demographic data systems reflect that reality. By allowing individuals to voluntarily self-identify as Jewish ethnically, this bill improves the accuracy of state data, strengthens civil rights analysis, and helps policymakers better understand and respond to the experiences of Jewish communities across California.

2) Demographic Data Collection. As the United States was being formed, the framers of the Constitution understood that for people to maintain power of their government, every person living in the newly created United States of America must be counted, and that count would be used to determine representation in the Congress. The first U.S. Census was conducted in 1790 and they have occurred every 10 years since that time.

Collecting demographic data provides the cornerstone for making state and federal policy and funding decisions. In addition, detailed demographic data is an important part of the historical record and can track large shifts in population over time, such as the movement of approximately six million Black people from south to the north and west during Great Migration.

Good demographic information is so critical that it is hard to imagine how policy and funding decisions could be made without it. How much funding would flow from the state to our 58 counties if there was no data on the number of people living in those counties, for example. Without demographic information, policymakers would have no way of confirming that pregnant Black women face much higher mortality rates during birth than white women. The examples are endless.

California state agencies regularly collect personal information – including information on race or ethnicity – from employees, students, residents, and others. Sometimes this information is necessary to provide the service or carry out the function that the agency was created to perform. Existing law requires state agencies to collect demographic data related to ancestry, race, and ethnicity to make the information publicly available in aggregate form, excluding personal identifying information, deemed confidential, that could link the demographic data to a particular individual.

3) What this bill would do. This bill requires state agencies that collect self-identified data on ethnicity to add “Jewish” to the list of options a person can select from. For example, under the Penal Code, CDCR is required to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, released, or paroled. Currently, that list includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Bangladeshi, Black, Cambodian, Chinese, Colombian, Cuban, Fijian, Filipino, Guamanian or Chamorro, Guatemalan, Native Hawaiian, Other Hispanic Not Listed, Hmong, Indian, Indonesian, Jamaican, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Malaysian, Mexican, Nicaraguan, Other, Other Asian Not Listed, Other Pacific Islander Not Listed, Pakistani, Puerto Rican, Salvadorian, Samoan, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, Thai, Tongan, Unknown, Vietnamese, and White. This bill would add “Jewish” to that list.

4) Analysis. The policy question of whether Jewishness should be considered an ethnicity for demographic purposes is outside of the purview of this Committee. That question was addressed by the Judiciary Committee, which heard the bill prior to this Committee. The question before this Committee is a narrow one: Does adding “Jewish” to the list of ethnicities for demographic reports present a privacy risk for Californians?

Staff finds that it does not negatively impact privacy rights any more than collecting any other demographic information for two main reasons. First, the collection of demographic information by state departments is both voluntary and self-selecting, allowing an individual to either refrain from identifying altogether or selecting one of the other options. Secondly, current state law requires that any personal information be stripped from demographic data prior to making it available to the public. Therefore, it does not appear to be a risk to individual privacy rights.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Jewish California, sponsors of the bill, representing over 40 organizations, writes in support:

Jewish identity is widely understood as encompassing ancestry, history, language, culture, community, and shared values – not solely religion. These are characteristics of an ethnicity. Yet California's data collection systems treat Jewish identity only as a religion, if at all. This results in the systematic undercounting, misclassification, and misunderstanding of Jewish Californians, undermining equitable policymaking and the accurate tracking of antisemitic hate crimes.

The data bears this out. According to Pew Research Center, a majority of American Jews say that religion is not central to their Jewish identity. 52% of U.S. Jews cite ancestry and 55% cite culture as central to their Jewish identity, while only 36% cite religion. Despite this reality, California demographic systems fail to capture how the majority of Jewish Californians engage with their identity. This gap has real and compounding consequences.

California relies on demographic data to identify disparities, conduct research, tailor services, and ensure compliance with civil rights protections. When Jewish ethnicity is absent from data systems, disparities affecting Jewish communities – whether in healthcare needs, educational outcomes, or discrimination – are less likely to be identified or addressed.

Furthermore, antisemitic hate crimes are frequently motivated by perceived ethnicity, ancestry, or peoplehood – not religious observance. When Jews are categorized only as a religion, hate crimes targeting Jews as an ethnic group may be mischaracterized, underreported, or analytically obscured. This weakens California's ability to accurately measure antisemitism, identify trends, allocate prevention resources, and evaluate the effectiveness of state interventions.

State law does not merely collect data – it signals to the public how communities are understood. When California recognizes Jews only as a religion, it reinforces a narrow and incomplete understanding of Jewish identity, encouraging the misconception that Jews are defined solely by belief or worship rather than by a rich and distinct culture, history, peoplehood, and shared experience. That misunderstanding leads to generalizations, creating fertile ground for bias and discrimination.

SB 1387 is consistent with a long-standing legislative principle that California has applied to many communities. Recognizing that good data informs good policy, California has enacted several recent laws requiring more detailed demographic data collection, including for Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups (AB 1088, 2011; AB 1726, 2016), Black subgroups (SB 189, 2022), LGBTQ+ communities (SB 957, 2024), and Middle Eastern and North African populations (AB 91, 2025). Extending the same recognition to Jewish Californians is both equitable and overdue.

The California Federation of Teachers writes in support:

The bill mandates California state agencies to specifically include Jewish ancestry in demographic data collections. This change involves new categorization in reports on ethnic origins starting January 1, 2027. It extends to various departments, including corrections and rehabilitation, requiring them to disaggregate Jewish identity in ethnicity self-identification data. The legislation aims to enhance understanding and representation of diverse communities, ensuring Jewish ancestry is systematically acknowledged in state data reports.

Good decisions rely on good data. As educators, we understand that matters of public policy require as much data as possible for honest deliberation, tailored proposals, and ultimately, having clear statutes and policies with clear goals. SB 1387 helps refine the data collected by the state to help identify issues where the Jewish members of our communities may stand out from broader data sets. If there are problems or successes with our public policies that impact the Jewish community more than others, having this information will help yield better policy results in the future.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, the Jewish Voice for Peace – Bay Area Chapter argues:

History offers a clear warning: when Jewish identity is officially distinguished from that of all other ethnic groups, the results have too often been catastrophic. From census records used to identify Jewish populations in occupied Europe to more recent examples of ethnic registries being weaponized against minorities, the bureaucratic marking of Jews as a distinct ethnic category has served persecution at least as often as it has served protection. The bill’s sponsors offer no evidence that data collection of this kind reduces antisemitism. We are aware of none.

We also oppose this bill on factual and legal grounds. Judaism is a religion, not a single ethnicity. To the degree that ethnicity is relevant, demographers already demarcate Ashkenazi, Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews as different ethnicities. Jews trace their origins to every region of the world — Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and beyond — and share the cultural practices of those places of origin alongside their Jewish identity. Every other ethnicity referenced in the statutes this bill would amend is defined by geographic origin, as are the federal Office of Management and Budget standards. Religion, unlike geographic origin, is something a person can adopt or leave. Treating one religion as an ethnicity — and only one — is legally inconsistent and factually wrong. The best way to count and analyze the Jewish population is through scientific polling done by professionals such as the Pew Research Center. This is the way it is currently done.

Importantly, SB 1387 does not remove or replace existing religious categorization. It simply adds the option for Jewish Californians to self-identify based on ethnicity – ensuring that our community is neither invisible nor misrepresented in the data systems that drive critical public health, education, and civil rights decisions.

The Jewish Voice for Peace – Sacramento Chapter states:

Many American Jews, and probably even more in California, are mostly secular, not religiously observant. If asked offhand, many of us might say we identify as culturally and/or ethnically Jewish. But we vehemently oppose SB 1387 for its wrong-headed oversimplification of identity, one that could well exacerbate antisemitism, among other unintended consequences.

In Sacramento Jewish Voice for Peace, our grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ families typically immigrated between 110 and 150 years ago from various parts of Eastern or Central Europe: Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Czech and Slovak lands, Hungary, Romania and Galicia, then a province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Others on this list were in the Russian or Prussian empires.

These ancestors left their longtime homelands to escape religiously based and racialized hatred amid the political and economic upheavals of the time.

They were Ashkenazi Jews, but even as so, differed considerably in their cultural-religious practices, the languages they spoke and the nature of their relations with neighbors. And they differed much more from Jews descended from the 1492 Spanish expulsion, many of whom landed in North Africa or the Balkans; or Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Jews in India, Africa or China, some after immigrating, others who became Jewish through conversion of their communities.

There are Jewish Californians descended from all these groups too. Our diversity is one reason that SB 1387, which would invite us to cram our Jewish identities into a single box labeled “ethnicity,” is so wrong.

Then there is the fact that large numbers of those who identify, at least in part, as Jews couldn’t fit in that box at all. They may have converted to Judaism for any number of reasons, been born of a mixed couple or adopted. Are they “ethnically” Jews?

Even in Israel, where all these different Jewish ethnic communities also exist, there’s no common view as to who is a Jew. Orthodox rabbis, who control family law matters, say you have to be born of a Jewish mother (a racial designation) or converted in the Orthodox tradition (a sectarian religious one). The state, fixated as it is on demographics, is more flexible because it seeks to maximize the numbers of those who accept superior social and political privileges it grants over non-Jews, especially indigenous Palestinians.

In America, being Jewish in the common understanding involves a broad range of practices and identities that share a roughly common religious/philosophical tradition, even among those who aren’t observant or who flout what we in Jewish Voice for Peace understand as “Jewish ethics”: solidarity among all oppressed peoples in pursuit of freedom, justice and dignity.

There are other such religion-based identities, but none of them are defined in official state or federal records as belonging to a single ethnicity.

Our identities have been and continue to be studied by numerous academic and communal institutions, which provide some useful data. We cannot see how singling out Jews for a faulty and misleading identification as a single “ethnicity” by use of a check box would be at all useful to us or to the rest of society. At worst, it could create flawed data about some Jews, correlating with false and dangerous assumptions about our social status.

The existing check boxes available to other groups are already complicated and problematic in many ways. Perhaps it’s time to rethink their purpose and come up with better ways to describe all our identities, to ensure that all are treated fairly and with equal respect.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Jewish California (formerly Jpac) (Sponsor)
30 Years After
Adat Shalom Los Angeles
Agudath Israel of California
Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism
Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education & Advocacy
Beverly Hills Synagogue
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
California Jewish Democrats
Cft – a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, Aft, Afl-cio
Chai Marin
Contra Costa Jewish Democrats
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist of America, INC.
Hillel of San Diego
Jcc/federation of San Luis Obispo
Jcrc Bay Area
Jcrc, Jewish Long Beach
Jewish Center for Justice
Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Jewish Family Service LA
Jewish Family Service of the Desert
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley
Jewish Federation Bay Area
Jewish Federation Los Angeles
Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara
Jewish Federation of Orange County
Jewish Federation of San Diego
Jewish Federation of the Desert
Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys
Jewish Federation of Ventura County
Jewish Silicon Valley
Jfcs East Bay
Northern California Jewish Labor Committee
Oakland Jewish Alliance
Palo Alto Jewish Alliance
Progressive Zionists of California
Sf Jews in School
The Jewish Coalition of Berkeley
Valley Beth Shalom

Opposition

1021 Jewish Workers for Justice
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action California
Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation
Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area
Jewish Voice for Peace, Orange County
Jewish Voice for Peace, Sacramento Chapter
Jswana Bay
National Campus Jewish Alliance California Chapter
Rad Jews of Orange County✶long Beach
Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights
Workers Circle/arbeter Ring of Northern California

Analysis Prepared by: Julie Salley / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

Date of Hearing: June 9, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1387

Author:(Stern) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 33-0

SUBJECT: State agencies: collection and reporting of demographic data: Jewish identity

SYNOPSIS

California state agencies regularly collect personal information – including information on race or ethnicity – from employees, students, residents, and others. Sometimes this information is necessary to provide the service or carry out the function that the agency was created to perform. More generally, according to the California Office of Data and Innovation, “collecting and analyzing data is essential to ensure California programs and policies serve all residents fairly and effectively.” Existing law requires state agencies to collect demographic data related to ancestry, race, and ethnicity to make the information publicly available in aggregate form, excluding personal identifying information, deemed confidential, that could link the demographic data to a particular individual.

This bill requires a state agency that collects demographic data on ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any form that offers respondents one or more ethnic or racial categories. The bill would also require the agency to include the data in aggregate form (that is, excluding personal identifying informatician) in any report published by the agency on or after January 1, 2027. The bill also requires the agency to make the aggregate data publicly available, including by posting it on the agency’s internet website. Finally, because these forms would constitute public records and the bill would limit access to personal identifying information reported on those forms, the bill makes constitutionally required findings as to the privacy interest that justify limiting access to the information.

According to the author and sponsor, this bill gives Jewish persons in California the ability to select an ethnic category that better aligns with their sense of Jewish identity and will provide the state with more accurate data, including more accurate data on instances of hate crimes. The bill is sponsored by the organization Jewish California and is supported by several other state and regional Jewish groups. The bill is opposed by several other Jewish organizations who argue that the bill inappropriately singles out and racializes Jewish people as a separate ethnic group, something that has endangered Jewish historically. Opponents also contend that the bill will create confusion by making demographic data collection in California inconsistent with federal data collection methods. Finally, opponents claim the bill will impose costs on government without any corresponding benefit. Should the bill be approved by this Committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection.

SUMMARY: Requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to ancestry or ethnic origin to include a separate category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity and makes corresponding changes in various code sections. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, requires a state agency to do both of the following with the demographic data collected:
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2027.
   2. Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including by publishing the data on its internet website.
3. Makes conforming changes to the Education, Penal, and Unemployment Insurance codes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and provides specified remedies when such rights or opportunities are denied. Defines “race or ethnicity” to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background. (Education Code Sections 200, 212.1.)
2. Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to the race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, released, or paroled. Requires CDCR, based on information collected, to prepare, publish, and otherwise make information publicly available, as specified, except for personally identifying information, which is deemed confidential. (Penal Code Section 2068.)
3. Requires the California Employment Development Department (EDD) to collect demographic data, including race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity data, for individuals who claim disability benefits, as specified. Requires EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that provides access to the demographic data, as specified. (Unemployment Insurance Code Section 2615.)
4. Requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for specified Asian groups and Pacific Islander groups. (Government Code Section 8310.5 (a).)
5. Requires state and local agencies, as defined, that collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups and to include that data in every demographic report published on or after January 1, 2029, and to make the aggregated data available to the public. (Government Code Section 8310.4.)
6. Requires the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to use additional separate collection categories and other tabulations for major Asian groups and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander groups. (Government Code Section 8310.7.)
7. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business and, as such, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies must be open to public scrutiny. Requires any statute that limits access to public writings to include specified findings that justify the limitation. (California Constitution, Article I, Section 3.)
8. Governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies. Provides, mindful of the individual right to privacy, that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. Defines “public records” as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Government Code Sections 7920 to 7922.530.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: According to the author:

California’s commitment to equity depends on accurate data. Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category. That misclassification has real consequences. It affects how hate crimes are recorded. It affects how disparities are identified. And it affects whether communities are visible in the policymaking process. SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities. Accurate data leads to better understanding and better policy. This bill is about precision, equity, and fairness.

The movement away from rigid racial and ethnic categories toward voluntary self-identification. From the late 18^th to the early 20^th centuries, “scientific experts” used the “Blumenthal” classification scheme to divide all the world’s people into one of three “races” – Negroid, Mongoloid, or Caucasoid – based on perceived differences in skin color, hair texture, or facial features. Modern genetics – as well as a greater appreciation of the “socially constructed” nature of the concept of race – has led to a wholesale rejection of this tripartite scheme, both because of its failure to capture the range of human diversity and its Eurocentric biases. Although “ancestry,” “race,” and “ethnicity” are sometimes lumped together and sometimes distinguished, one would be hard-pressed to find a contemporary scholar willing to define the terms without significant exceptions and qualifications. Modern dictionaries and biogenetic texts, however, tend to associate “ancestry” with an identifiable genetic lineage; understand “race” as a social construct based on arbitrary physical traits; and treat “ethnicity” as a matter of shared culture and geographical origins, rather than the physical traits associated with “race.”

An illustration of the socially constructed and historically fluid nature of race and ethnicity – and the resulting ambiguities – can be seen by tracking changes in the forms and categories that various government agencies have used to collect demographic data. According to historian Mae Ngai, immigration policies in the 1920s separated “race” from “nationality” while at the same time conflating “nationality” with “ethnicity.” For example, the Immigration Act of 1924 placed non-white immigrants (primarily from Asia or Africa) into fixed, uniform “racial” categories while dividing white immigrants into different “ethnicities” that were more or less equated with a European “nationality.” Persons from Latin America (primarily from Mexico in the 1920s) were considered “white” under the law and according to the U.S. Census Bureau, but in popular discourse were generally treated as non-white, as were many Southern and Eastern Europeans during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. In 1930 the U.S. Census designated “Mexican” as a “race” but then dropped it in the 1940 Census, indicating that Mexicans were considered white “unless definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race.” [Mae Ngai, “The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924, “Journal of American History (1999); Cecilia Nunez, et.al., Latino is Not a Race: Understanding Lived Experiences Through Street Race, UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute, August 2024.]

As late as 1950, the U.S. Census used the following fixed racial categories: “White, “Black or Negro,” “American Indian,” “Asian,” and “Pacific Islander,” with no option for “Hispanic” appearing until the 1970 census. Since 1977, federal agencies, including the U.S Census Bureau, adopted the definitions and standards set forth by the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 (SPD-15.) OMB updated SPD-15 in 1997 and then again most recently in 2024. The 1997 directive made “Hispanic or Latino” an “ethnic” category and required the next U.S. Census to list “ethnicity” and “race” as separate questions. Under the “ethnicity” question the respondent could only select “Hispanic or Latino” or “Not Hispanic or Latino.” Under the “race” question one could check one of the five following categories: (1) American Indian or Alaskan Native; (2) Asian; (3) Black or African American; (4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; or (5) White. The 1997 amendments also allowed the respondent to choose more than one category under the race question. The 2024 amendments – which will be adopted for the 2030 Census – combines race and ethnicity in a single question and adds “Middle Eastern and North African” as a new category. Finally, both the 1997 and 2024 amendments reiterate that the framework seeks to embody certain core principles, including (1) that racial and ethnic categories should not be interpreted primarily as biological or genetic, but as social and cultural; and (2) out of respect for individual dignity, that “respondent self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible” (See Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 10, October 30, 1997, pp. 58782-58790, quote at 58782; see also Nunez, supra, 11-14.)

According to the California Office of Data and Innovation, California adopts the definitions of the OMB’s SPD-15, with minor variations. For example, the “State Employee Race/Ethnicity Questionnaire” form used by the California Department of Human Services (CalHR 1070), consistent with SPD-15 principles, allows an employee to check “one or more boxes that describe your race or ethnicity.” As revised in November of 2023, the “Black or African American” category is broken down into three categories: (1) a descendant of a person or persons who were enslaved in the United States; (2) not a descendant of a person or persons who were enslaved in the United States, including African Black, Caribbean Black, or other Black; or (3) descendant status is unknown or choose not to identify. An employee can now choose from several “Asian” and “Pacific Islander” categories. The “Asian” category lists Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Vietnamese, or Other Asian. The “Pacific Islander” category lists Guamanian, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, or Other Pacific Islander.

While Blacks, Asians, and Pacific Islanders have several more refined options on the CalHR 1070 form, the “Hispanic or Latino” category is lumped together as a single choice on the employee questionnaire, even though Hispanics and Latinos include as many subgroups or “nationalities” as do the Asian and Pacific Islander categories. Although “Hispanic” and “Latino” may overlap and are often used interchangeably, they are not same thing; moreover, they are not necessarily indicators of “race or ethnicity” as traditionally understood. “Hispanic” is a linguistic or cultural category referring to groups who descend from Spanish-speaking peoples, while “Latino” typically refers to persons who trace their ancestry to a Latin American country. Thus, someone from Brazil (where Portuguese is the predominant language) would presumably be Latino but not Hispanic. Moreover, while “Hispanic or Latino” is listed as a “race or ethnicity” on state forms, people from the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin American could include a white Cuban, a Black Dominican, or an indigenous Guatemalan. In short, state and federal data collection has sometimes treated race and ethnicity as synonymous, and other times treated them as distinct, and almost always as confusing.

Perhaps because of inherent fuzziness and malleability of terms like “race” and “ethnicity,” recent decades have placed greater emphasis on allowing persons to self-identify. After all, given the seeming consensus that terms like race or ethnicity are socially constructed and historically malleable, one could argue that an individual’s subjective identity should prevail over a constructed category dictated by government, law, society, or even genetic composition. At the same time, however, government has a substantial interest in using consistent racial and ethnic categories of some sort to enforce anti-discrimination laws or monitor ethnic and racial disparities in education, health, or economic opportunity, so as to enact policies that eliminate those disparities. Self-identification may create certain inconsistencies, insofar as people with otherwise similar ancestry or genetics may select different identities, but this is the trade-off that federal and state agencies have made in order to honor the principle of self-identification.

Pew Research Center Report on Jewish Identity. “There is no one way that American Jews think about being Jewish,” according to a 2020 report by the Pew Research Center. When asked whether being Jewish is mainly a matter of religion, ancestry, or culture- some Jewish respondents picked one descriptor, some picked all of them, and some chose two of three. The Pew report, therefore, supports a central claim made by the author and sponsor: being Jewish is not a matter of religion alone. Indeed, only 11% of the Pew respondents stated that being Jewish was a matter of religion alone, and only 36% included “religion” in combination with other choices. Over one-half (52%) of the Pew respondents mentioned “ancestry,” either alone or in combination with other categories. A similar number (55%) associated being Jewish with “culture,” either alone or in combination with other categories. Even among Jews who identify as religious, just 44% mention religion as a primary facet of Jewish identity, although Orthodox Jews stand out in this regard: 40% say being Jewish is about only religion, and about 30% of Orthodox adults say it is some combination of religion, ancestry, and culture, or all three of these. The vast majority of Jews who do not identify as religious nonetheless still identify as Jewish. The self-identified “nonreligious” Jews reported that, for them, being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry (41%), culture (25%) or both (15%). (See Pew Research Center, Jewish Americans in 2020, available at www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020. See especially chapter 2, “Jewish Identity and Belief,” and chapter 9, “Race, Ethnicity, Heritage, and Immigration Among U.S. Jews.”)

The Pew study suggests, therefore, that many Jewish people, if given the option to select one or more categories under the “race and ethnicity” question on state forms would select “Jewish,” either alone or in combination with another option. This bill, therefore, is consistent with prior legislation enacted by the California Legislature that has followed the more modern understanding of race and ethnicity as a matter of self-identification rather than fixed or absolute categories that the law imposes on people.

Will this bill produce more accurate data, or merely allow people to self-identify? According to the author, California’s “commitment to equity depends on accurate data.” To be sure, as discussed above, the bill follows recent state and national trends favoring self-identification. However, whether self-identification results in more accurate data depends upon what one means by “accurate.” The revised forms required by this measure will provide a more accurate count of the number of people who self-identify as ethnically Jewish, but may not necessarily capture people who do not view their Jewishness as a form of ethnic or racial identity, but who nonetheless still consider themselves Jewish. Based on the data described above this may result in the omission of at least 10 percent of persons identifying as Jewish in some manner. No doubt some percentage of Jews will take advantage of the option to self-identify as “Jewish,” while other Jews may continue to identify as ethnically or racially white, Black, Asian, Latino, or any other category that fits their understanding. Nonetheless, the bill moves California further along the path of collecting demographic data in a manner consistent with modern principles of self-identification and will provide more accurate data on how Jews self-identify, but not necessarily a more accurate accounting of the number of Jewish Californians.

Relatedly, it is difficult to see how this bill will more accurately affect “how hate crimes are recorded.” For example, the bill adds “Jewish” to the list of racial and ethnic categories currently collected (by means of voluntary self-identification) by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in order to identify demographic trends in the prison population, including patterns of release and parole. However, if an imprisoned person is subjected to a hate crime – whether by staff or fellow prisoners – an anonymized check box may not be terribly helpful in identifying the rate of hate crimes in CDCR facilities. Indeed, whether a hate crime has been committed always depends upon the facts of a specific case and any evidence that the crime was committed because of the person’s identity. If a prisoner who selected “Jewish” as their ethnicity becomes a victim of a crime, a checkbox does not indicate the motive of the perpetrator. The victim may have identified as “Jewish” but was targeted for a hate crime because of their race or gender identity. Conversely, a Jewish prisoner may have checked “white” or “Black” or “Hispanic” category, and not appear in the record as Jewish, even if by the perpetrator targeted the person because they were, or were perceived to be, Jewish. Finally, given the nature of prison culture within CDCR facilities, a Jewish inmate also becomes the victim of a crime for reasons wholly unrelated to ancestorial or religious reasons.

What is true of the CDCR forms is equally true of other agency forms. The information on these forms will not tell us much about incidents of hate crimes unless the form asks about that issue. Whether a person has been a victim of a hate crime will depend upon facts and evidence suggesting that the crime was motivated by some real or perceived characteristic of the victim. Notwithstanding this measure, “hate crime” data will continue to come, as it does now, from law enforcement sources, private entities that collect reports of hate crimes, and the personal reports of victims.

In sum, if the purpose of the bill is to permit Jews to identify in a manner that is most meaningful to them, then that may be justification enough. But if the purpose is, as the author claims, to provide more accurate data, the bill standing on its own may not accomplish this, for the simple reason that a Jewish person who checks that they are racially or ethnically “white” (as 92% of U.S. Jews do now) instead of checking the “Jewish” box will not be recorded as Jewish. As noted by the opposition to this measure, Jews in the United States do not think monolithically about this issue, and thus it seems inevitable that some Jews will check “Jewish” and others will continue to check “white” or some other category. So while this measure, like prior legislation adding new options for demographic self-identification, may not give the state a more accurate count of Jewish persons in California, the bill will, however, tell us how many Jews think of their Jewish identity as a matter of race or ethnicity and, perhaps more important, it will allow Jews to make a choice more consistent with their understanding.

Opponents raise important, but not fatal, concerns. The opponents of this bill raise important questions both about the logic and merits of making “Jewish” as an option in ethnic or racial question. For example, the opponents correctly note that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sets forth rules for the collection of demographic data by the U.S. Census Bureau and other federal agencies. California, according to the Office of Data and Innovation, adopts the OMB’s definition of “race and ethnicity.” OMB does not permit someone to select “Jewish” under the newly combined “race and ethnicity” question. Opponents contend that, for purposes of consistency and making meaningful comparisons across different data sets, California should follow the framework used by the federal government and other private and public entities. However, while the opponents are no doubt correct that researchers using different data sets will need to take these differences into account, those differences do not eliminate the possibility of comparative analyses across different data sets. This is especially true given the current federal government’s clear preference for certain demographic groups over others and their potential inclination to meddle with federally collected demographic data.

In addition to practical problems that different categories could create for researchers, the opponents – who also represent Jewish groups – argue that this bill could “endanger Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of ‘race.’” Some opponents, for example, contend that creating “lists of Jews’ has troubling historical antecedents, and they fear that under reactionary political climates this information could be accessed by government entities or antisemitic groups that could use it to endanger the Jewish community. However, it should be stressed that this bill would not create, much less publicize, a “lists of Jews.” The data collected would only be published or posted in aggregate form, with the name and any other personal identifying information deemed confidential. Indeed, existing law already requires a state agency that collects demographic data to keep all personal identifying information confidential, which means not only that the information would not be posted but that it would be redacted from any public records request. (Government Code Section 8310.5.)

Finally, many of the opponents insist that there “is no Jewish ‘race’ or ‘ethnic’ group,” and point out that Jews can be of any race or ethnicity, adopt varying cultural practices, and trace their ancestry different geographical regions, as is evident in the major branches of Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews. Moreover, the opponents “vehemently reject any attempt to categorize Jews as [a race] . . . Jewish people in Europe, the US, and elsewhere have been historically and currently racialized . . . and subsequently been segregated, excluded, and murdered based on this false notion.” Though it is important to remember this history, it seems quite clear that the purpose of this bill is not to “racialize” all Jews. To the contrary, the bill appears rooted in the modern assumption that “race” and “ethnicity” are better understood as matters of self-identification, and not as fixed and timeless categories imposed by law or mandated by one’s DNA. The bill does not assume that Jews represent a single race or ethnicity; rather, it allows persons who understand their Jewish identity in terms of ethnicity to express that understanding on state forms.

The author may wish to consider a minor amendment to clarify the bill’s intent. As discussed above, the bill appropriately follows recent trends by allowing people to select an option that best conforms with their sense of ethnic or cultural identity. Given this emphasis on self-identification, it would appear that the intent of the bill is not for government to declare what ethnicity is. Yet, the proposed new language in the Education Code could be read as doing just that. Specifically, the author may wish to consider changing the proposed new subdivision (d) in Education Code Section 212.1, which currently reads: “Ethnicity” is inclusive of Jewish identity.” Should the bill move forward, the author may wish to consider changing this to:

“(d) Ethnic group identification” may include Jewish identity.

The reason for this proposed change is twofold:

• First, the definitions in (b) through (d) refer to the terms used in subdivision (a), and the term used is in (a) is “ethnic group identification,” not “ethnicity.”
• Relatedly, because the bill allows persons to self-identify as ethnically “Jewish,” “may include” seems more appropriate than “is inclusive.” In other words, the state is not declaring that Jewish is an ethnicity; it is saying that people may choose to identify as such.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Jewish California, the sponsor, citing the Pew Center study discussed in the analysis, stress that for most American Jews, “religion is not central to their Jewish identity.” Rather, Jews are more likely to associate their Jewishness with their ancestry, history, and cultural practices. Jewish California writes further:

California relies on demographic data to identify disparities, conduct research, tailor services, and ensure compliance with civil rights protections. When Jewish ethnicity is absent from data systems, disparities affecting Jewish communities – whether in healthcare needs, educational outcomes, or discrimination – are less likely to be identified or addressed.

Furthermore, antisemitic hate crimes are frequently motivated by perceived ethnicity, ancestry, or peoplehood – not religious observance. When Jews are categorized only as a religion, hate crimes targeting Jews as an ethnic group may be mischaracterized, underreported, or analytically obscured. This weakens California's ability to accurately measure antisemitism, identify trends, allocate prevention resources, and evaluate the effectiveness of state interventions.

State law does not merely collect data – it signals to the public how communities are understood. When California recognizes Jews only as a religion, it reinforces a narrow and incomplete understanding of Jewish identity, encouraging the misconception that Jews are defined solely by belief or worship rather than by a rich and distinct culture, history, peoplehood, and shared experience. That misunderstanding leads to generalizations, creating fertile ground for bias and discrimination.

SB 1387 is consistent with a long-standing legislative principle that California has applied to many communities. Recognizing that good data informs good policy, California has enacted several recent laws requiring more detailed demographic data collection, including for Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups (AB 1088, 2011; AB 1726, 2016), Black subgroups (SB 189, 2022), LGBTQ+ communities (SB 957, 2024), and Middle Eastern and North African populations (AB 91, 2025). Extending the same recognition to Jewish Californians is both equitable and overdue.

Importantly, SB 1387 does not remove or replace existing religious categorization. It simply adds the option for Jewish Californians to self-identify based on ethnicity – ensuring that our community is neither invisible nor misrepresented in the data systems that drive critical public health, education, and civil rights decisions.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) of Los Angeles opposes the bill because it “endangers Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of ‘race.’” In addition, JVP argues that the bill makes state demographic categories inconsistent with federal categories, thereby making comparison with other studies more problematic. Finally, JVP argues that this bill will impose considerable costs upon the state without any corresponding benefit. JVP explains further:

This bill. . . would require state agencies, boards, and commissions to include “Jewish” as an ethnic category in the collection and public reporting of demographic data. If enacted, this bill would endanger Jewish Californians by falsely and unnecessarily counting them using the false and harmful category of “race.” In addition, the bill would place undue burden on state data collection systems which currently do not collect data on religious identities.

There is no Jewish “race” or “ethnic” group, and we vehemently reject any attempt to categorize Jews as such. Jewish people in Europe, the US, and elsewhere have been historically and currently racialized (treated as a single “race” of people), and Jewish people have subsequently been segregated, excluded, and murdered based on this false notion. Although SB 1837 uses the term “ethnic,” in state data collection as well as in public discourse the terms “race” and “ethnic” are used interchangeably or in combination (“race/ethnic”), therefore any application of “ethnic” may be included under “race.” Notably, the California Department of Education reports data on “race/ethnicity.”

There is no single “Jewish” ethnic group. Jewish people come from all parts of the world, and while some have developed unique subcultures (e.g., Eastern European Jews, North African Jews, Ethiopian Jews, etc.), they also share cultural practices of their places of origins.

Federal race/ethnicity standards set by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are primarily based on place of origin and there are no religious identities included. For efficiency and to enable comparison and aggregation of datasets, state and private agencies generally follow the OMB standards. Recognizing that substantial numbers of people with origins in Southwest Asian and North Africa were being counted as “White” (which otherwise counts people of European origin), the OMB added Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) as a race/ethnic category. In 2025 California followed suit in passing AB 91, the MENA Inclusion Act.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Jewish California (sponsor)

30 Years After

Adat Shalom Los Angeles

Agudath Israel of California

Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism

Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education & Advocacy

Beverly Hills Synagogue

Board of Rabbis of Southern California

California Jewish Democrats

Chai Marin

Contra Costa Jewish Democrats

Hadassah, the Women's Zionist of America, INC.

Hillel of San Diego

JCC/Federation of San Luis Obispo

JCRC Bay Area

JCRC Long Beach

Jewish Center for Justice

Jewish Center of Berkeley

Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento

Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area

Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties

Jewish Family Service LA

Jewish Family Service of the Desert

Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley

Jewish Federation Bay Area

Jewish Federation Los Angeles

Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara

Jewish Federation of Orange County

Jewish Federation of San Diego

Jewish Federation of the Desert

Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys

Jewish Federation of Ventura County

Jewish Silicon Valley

JFCS East Bay

Northern California Jewish Labor Committee

Oakland Jewish Alliance

Palo Alto Jewish Alliance

Progressive Zionists of California

Sf Jews in School

Stand With Us

The Jewish Coalition of Berkeley

Valley Beth Shalom

Opposition

1021 Jewish Workers for Justice

Bend the Arc California

Bend the Arc: Jewish Action California

Beyt Tikkun: a Synagogue Without Walls

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation

Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area

Jewish Voice for Peace Santa Barbara

Jewish Voice for Peace, Los Angeles

National Campus Jewish Alliance California Chapter

Workers Circle/Arbeter Ring of Northern California

Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1387

Author: Stern (D), et al.

Introduced: 2/20/26

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 15-0, 4/14/26

AYES: Rubio, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Blakespear, Cervantes, Choi, Dahle, Hurtado, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wahab, Weber Pierson

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 4/21/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/4/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SUBJECT: State agencies: collection and reporting of demographic data: Jewish identity

SOURCE: Jewish California

DIGEST: This bill requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified, and requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published after January 1, 2027.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires a state agency, board, or commission to include data on specified collection categories and tabulations in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of California residents that it publishes or releases. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.
2. Requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for specified Asian Groups and Pacific Islander groups.
3. Requires a state or local agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern and North African groups, as specified.
4. Declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. For these purpose, existing law defines “race or ethnicity” to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
5. Requires the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to use additional separate collection categories and other tabulations for major Asian groups and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander groups.
6. Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, released, or paroled, including, but not limited, specified races and ethnic origins. CDCR is required, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic categories used by the department for the purposes of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the CDCR’s internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.
7. Requires the California Employment Development Department (EDD), in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis.
8. Provides that, in enacting the California Public Records Act, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every persons in this state. (Government Code Section 7921.000.)

This bill:

1. Requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Requires the state agency, except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, to do both of the following with the data:
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2027.
   2. Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including, but not limited to, by publishing the data on its internet website.
3. Defines ethnicity to include Jewish identity for purposes of existing law that declares that is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state.
4. Includes Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self identification for which CDCR is required to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins.
5. Requires the EDD to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity as part of a current requirement that requires EDD to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “California’s commitment to equity depends on accurate data. Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category. That misclassification has real consequences. It affects how hate crimes are recorded. It affects how disparities are identified. And it affects whether communities are visible in the policymaking process. SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities. Accurate date leads to better understanding and better policy. This bill is about precision, equity, and fairness.”

Jewish Population in California. The Jewish population in California is one of the largest in the United States. According to the World Population Review, most recent estimates put the population at about 1.2 to 1.3 million people, or roughly three percent of the state’s population. This makes California second only to New York in overall Jewish Population nationwide.

The community is heavily concentrated in major metropolitan areas, particularly the Los Angeles metropolitan area, which alone contains one of the largest populations outside of Israel, with more than 500,000 residents. Other significant centers include the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and parts of Orange County.

The Jewish population in California, like other communities, faces a range of social, economic, and security related challenges. One of the most significant concerns is the rise of antisemitism, including hate crimes, harassment, and vandalism targeting synagogues and community institutions. According to the Public Institute of California, while hate crimes against most racial and ethnic groups declined between 2020 and 2023, anti-Jewish crimes more than doubled between 2020 and 2023. Nearly two-third of hate crimes motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment in 2023 were property crimes.

Existing Data Collection for State Agencies. Existing law requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for the following:

1. Each major Asian group, including, but not limited to, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Laotian, and Cambodian.
2. Each major Pacific Islander group, including, but not limited to, Hawaiian, Guamanian, and Samoan.
3. Each major Middle Eastern group, including, but not limited to, Afghan, Bahraini, Emirati, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Omani, Palestinian, Qatari, Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Turkish, and Yemeni.
4. Each major North African group, including, but not limited to, Algerian, Djiboutian, Egyptian, Libyan, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Somali, Sudanese, and Tunisian.
5. Each major transnational Middle Eastern and North African group, including, but not limited to, Amazigh or Berber, Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Circassian, and Kurdish.

In addition to the aforementioned requirements, both the DIR and the DFEH are required to collect and tabulate data for the following:

1. Additional major Asian groups, including, but not limited to, Bangladeshi, Hmong, Indonesian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, and Thai.
2. Additional major Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.

This bill would require a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.

Additionally, current law requires CDCR to collect voluntary self-identification information regarding the race or ethnic origin of individuals admitted, in custody, or released and paroled. This includes specified races and ethnic origins. Based on this information, CDCR prepares and publishes monthly demographic reports reflecting the categories used for voluntary self-identification. This bill would expand those requirements by mandating that CDCR include Jewish as a distinct category in its demographic reporting.

Finally, under current law, EDD is required, in administering disability compensation programs, to collect demographic information for individuals claiming disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits. This includes data on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law also requires EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes demographic gata pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. This bill would expand on those requirements by mandating EDD include Jewish ancestry or ethnicity as a distinct category in its demographic reporting.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 91 (Harabedian, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025) required a state or local agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups, as specified.

SB 435 (Gonzalez of 2024) would have required the State Department of Social Services, in the course of collecting demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of California residents for any report on the CalFresh program, to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Latino group, Mesoamerican Indigenous nation, and Mesoamerican Indigenous language, as specified. (Vetoed by Governor Newsom)

AB 943 (Kalra, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2023) required CDCR to publish its monthly demographic data in a manner disaggregated by race and ethnicity, as specified.

AB 2763 (Essayli of 2024) would have required a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of California to use separate collections for the Middle Eastern and North African group, as specified. (Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File)

AB 1088 (Eng, Chapter 689, Statutes of 2011) required certain state agencies to collect and tabulate data for additional major Asian groups, as listed, in order to better reflect the diversity of Asian American, Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Communities in California.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/14/26)

Jewish California (Source)

30 Years After
Adat Shalom Los Angeles
Agudath Israel of California
Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism
Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education & Advocacy
Beverly Hills Synagogue
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
California Jewish Democrats
Chai Marin
Contra Costa Jewish Democrats
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist of America, INC.
Hillel of San Diego
JCC/federation of San Luis Obispo
JCRC, Jewish Long Beach
Jewish California
Jewish Center for Justice
Jewish Center of Berkeley
Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento
Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Jewish Family Service LA
Jewish Family Service of the Desert
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley
Jewish Federation Bay Area
Jewish Federation Los Angeles
Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara
Jewish Federation of Orange County
Jewish Federation of San Diego
Jewish Federation of the Desert
Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys
Jewish Federation of Ventura County
Jewish Silicon Valley
JFCS East Bay
Northern California Jewish Labor Committee
Oakland Jewish Alliance
Palo Alto Jewish Alliance
Progressive Zionists of California
SF Jews in School
Stand With Us
Valley Beth Shalom

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/14/26)

BUSD Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, SF Bay Area Chapter

Jewish Voice for Peace – Bay Area Chapter

Jewish Voice for Peace – Los Angeles Chapter

National Campus Jewish Alliance – California Chapter

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Jewish California, Jewish identity is widely understood as encompassing ancestry, history, language, culture, community, and shared values – not solely religion. These are characteristics of an ethnicity. Yet California's data collection systems treat Jewish identity only as a religion, if at all. This results in the systematic undercounting, misclassification, and misunderstanding of Jewish Californians, undermining equitable policymaking and the accurate tracking of antisemitic hate crimes. Importantly, SB 1387 does not remove or replace existing religious categorization. It simply adds the option

for Jewish Californians to self-identify based on ethnicity – ensuring that our community is neither invisible nor misrepresented in the data systems that drive critical public health, education, and civil rights decisions.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the National Campus Jewish Alliance – California Chapter, “SB 1387 specifies that ‘Jewish’ be added to demographic data collection by the Department of Education (DOE), Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR), and Employment Development Department (EDD). Currently none of these departments collect data on religious identities, and there is no reason for the state to treat Judaism differently than other religions. To do so is unequal and potentially illegal. In addition, history has shown creating ‘lists of Jews’ that could be accessed by government entities is potentially dangerous for Jewish communities. Furthermore, this bill would define ethnicity and race to include Jewish identity. This is wholly unnecessary. Any protection against discrimination afforded by California law already applies to Jews as a religious group.” 

Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530

5/16/26 11:24:52

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 1387 (Stern) - State agencies: collection and reporting of demographic data: Jewish identity

Bill Summary:

SB 1387 requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified, and requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published after January 1, 2027.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially significant costs for state agencies to collect additional demographic data. Actual costs will vary depending on agencies’ existing IT system infrastructure, their data collection methods, the flexibility for systems to incorporate a new collection category, and the scope of data collected (General Fund and various special funds). Fiscal impacts may range from absorbable to millions of dollars per entity.

Background:

Existing law requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for the following:

• Each major Asian group, including, but not limited to, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Laotian, and Cambodian.
• Each major Pacific Islander group, including, but not limited to, Hawaiian, Guamanian, and Samoan.
• Each major Middle Eastern group, including, but not limited to, Afghan, Bahraini, Emirati, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Omani, Palestinian, Qatari, Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Turkish, and Yemeni.
• Each major North African group, including, but not limited to, Algerian, Djiboutian, Egyptian, Libyan, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Somali, Sudanese, and Tunisian.
• Each major transnational Middle Eastern and North African group, including, but not limited to, Amazigh or Berber, Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Circassian, and Kurdish.

In addition to the aforementioned requirements, both the Department of Industrial Relations and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing are required to collect and tabulate data for the following:

• Additional major Asian groups, including, but not limited to, Bangladeshi, Hmong, Indonesian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, and Thai.
• Additional major Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.

Current law also requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to collect voluntary self-identification information regarding the race or ethnic origin of individuals admitted, in custody, or released and paroled. This includes specified races and ethnic origins. Based on this information, CDCR prepares and publishes monthly demographic reports reflecting the categories used for voluntary self-identification.

Finally, under current law, the Employment Development Department (EDD) is required, in administering disability compensation programs, to collect demographic information for individuals claiming disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits. This includes data on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law also requires EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes demographic gata pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis.

Proposed Law:

• Requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
• Requires the state agency, except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, to do both of the following with the data:
  • Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2027.
  • Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including, but not limited to, by publishing the data on its internet website.
• Defines ethnicity to include Jewish identity for purposes of existing law that declares that is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state.
• Includes Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self-identification for which CDCR is required to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins.
• Requires the EDD to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity as part of a current requirement that requires EDD to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed.

Related Legislation:

AB 91 (Harabedian, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025) requires a state or local agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups, as specified.

Staff Comments:

Costs for impacted agencies will vary, with one of the most significant factors being the constraints of their existing IT infrastructure. For comparison:

• EDD estimates one-time costs in the millions of dollars for IT changes to its Integrated Claims Management System, and ongoing annual costs of approximately $100,000 for maintenance (Disability Insurance Fund and General Fund). EDD notes that the January 1, 2027, operational date is not feasible and may impact the timeline and scope of EDDNext, the department’s ongoing IT modernization effort.
• The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) estimates total costs of $732,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027-28 and $883,000 in FY 2028-29 (General Fund and federal funds). This estimate includes one-time IT system implementation costs spread over two FYs and three limited-term staff (3.0 IT Specialist I) for data collection, integration, and reporting. DHCS notes the estimated timeline for completion for work in the California Statewide Automated Welfare System (CalSAWS), California Healthcare Eligibility, Enrollment, and Retention Systems (CalHEERS), and BenefitsCal would be 12 months after the final policy is published.
• The Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) estimates total one-time costs of $713,000 in FY 2026-27 (General Fund). This includes $300,000 for IT design updates and $413,000 for two limited-term staff (1.0 Research Scientist B and 1.0 IT Specialist I) to develop and support an additional collection category across its data programs. HCAI notes there may be additional but unknown ongoing costs associated with navigating a new reporting structure that diverges from federal requirements.
• The Office of Emergency Services and Department of Justice do not anticipate a significant fiscal impact.

While resource requirements will vary by agency, if even a few state entities share similar IT needs as EDD, DHCS, and HCAI, then the bill’s aggregate fiscal impact will reach into the millions to tens of millions of dollars.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 1387 (Author:Stern)

Version: February 20, 2026

Hearing Date: April 21, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

AMConsultant:

SUBJECT

State agencies: collection and reporting of demographic data: Jewish identity

DIGEST

This bill requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified, and requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published after January 1, 2027.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This bill provides protections for personally identifying demographic information, by ensuring that data collected is only released in the aggregate and personally identifying information is deemed confidential. The bill is sponsored by Jewish California and supported by numerous organizations, including many that represent the Jewish community. The Committee received no timely opposition to the bill. The bill passed the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on a vote of 15 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. For these purposes, existing law defines “race or ethnicity” to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background. (Ed. Code § 200 & 212.1.)
2. Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, released, or paroled, including, but not limited, specified races and ethnic origins. CDCR is required, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic categories used by the department for the purposes of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the CDCR’s internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard. (Pen. Code § 2068.)
3. Requires the California Employment Development Department (EDD), in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. (Unemp. Ins. Code § 2615.)
4. Requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for specified Asian groups and Pacific Islander groups. (Gov. Code § 8310.5(a).)
   1. Requires the data collected to be included in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of California residents that the agency, board, or commission publishes or releases. (Id. at (b).)
   2. Provides that the data is to be made be made available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential. (Ibid.)
5. Requires state and local agencies, as defined, that collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups, as specified, and, with certain exceptions, to include that data in every demographic report published on or after January 1, 2029, and to make the aggregated data available to the public. (Gov. Code § 8310.4.)
6. Requires the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to use additional separate collection categories and other tabulations for major Asian groups and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander groups. (Gov. Code § 8310.7.)
7. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies are required to be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
   1. Requires a statute to be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
   2. Requires a statute that limits the public’s right of access to be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
8. Governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies pursuant to the CPRA. (Gov. Code §§ 7920.000 et seq.)
   1. States that the Legislature, mindful of the individual right to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code § 7921.000.)
   2. Defines “public records” as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.)
   3. Provides that all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from public disclosure. (Gov. Code § 7922.530.)

This bill:

1. Requires a state agency that directly, or by contract, collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Requires the state agency to do both of the following with the data:
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2027; and
   2. make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including, but not limited to, by publishing the data on its internet website.
3. Provides that personally identifying information is deemed confidential.
4. Defines ethnicity to include Jewish identity for purposes of existing law described in 1 through 3), above.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

California’s commitment to equity depends on accurate data.

Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category.

That misclassification has real consequences. It affects how hate crimes are recorded. It affects how disparities are identified. And it affects whether communities are visible in the policymaking process.

SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities.

Accurate data leads to better understanding and better policy. This bill is about precision, equity, and fairness.

1. Limiting access to personal identifying information collected by state and local agencies appears consistent with the state’s right to privacy

Access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code § 7921.000.) In 2004, the right of public access was enshrined in the California Constitution with the passage of Proposition 59 (Nov. 3, 2004, statewide general election),^[1] which amended the California Constitution to specifically protect the right of the public to access and obtain government records: “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore . . . the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(1).) In 2014, voters approved Proposition 42 (Jun. 3, 2014, statewide direct primary election)^[2] to further increase public access to government records by requiring local agencies to comply with the CPRA and the Ralph M. Brown Act^[3], and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, as provided. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(7).)

Under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection by the public at all times during the office hours of the agency, unless they are exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Coed § 7922.525.) A public record is defined as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by any public agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.) There are several general categories of documents or information that are permissively exempt from disclosure under the CPRA essentially due to the character of the information. The exempt information can be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information, but it also may be disclosed if it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information. (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, at 652.). Additionally, some records are prohibited from disclosure or are specifically stated to not be public records. (see Gov. Code § 7924.110(a).)

California generally recognizes that public access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right.^[4] At the same time, the state recognizes that this right must be balanced against the right to privacy.^[5] The general right of access to public records may, therefore, be limited when records include personal information. In light of the stated need to protect the privacy of California residents, while also gathering and publicizing useful demographic data, the limitation on access to public records in this bill seems warranted.

1. Statements in support

A coalition of organizations representing the Jewish community, including Jewish California the sponsor of the bill, write in support stating:

[…] Jewish identity is widely understood as encompassing ancestry, history, language, culture, community, and shared values – not solely religion. These are

characteristics of an ethnicity. Yet California's data collection systems treat Jewish

identity only as a religion, if at all. This results in the systematic undercounting,

misclassification, and misunderstanding of Jewish Californians, undermining

equitable policymaking and the accurate tracking of antisemitic hate crimes.

The data bears this out. According to Pew Research Center, a majority of American

Jews say that religion is not central to their Jewish identity. 52% of U.S. Jews cite

ancestry and 55% cite culture as central to their Jewish identity, while only 36% cite

religion. Despite this reality, California demographic systems fail to capture how the

majority of Jewish Californians engage with their identity. This gap has real and

compounding consequences.

California relies on demographic data to identify disparities, conduct research, tailor

services, and ensure compliance with civil rights protections. When Jewish ethnicity

is absent from data systems, disparities affecting Jewish communities – whether in

healthcare needs, educational outcomes, or discrimination – are less likely to be

identified or addressed.

Furthermore, antisemitic hate crimes are frequently motivated by perceived

ethnicity, ancestry, or peoplehood – not religious observance. When Jews are

categorized only as a religion, hate crimes targeting Jews as an ethnic group may

be mischaracterized, underreported, or analytically obscured. This weakens California's ability to accurately measure antisemitism, identify trends, allocate prevention resources, and evaluate the effectiveness of state interventions.

State law does not merely collect data – it signals to the public how communities are understood. When California recognizes Jews only as a religion, it reinforces a narrow and incomplete understanding of Jewish identity, encouraging the misconception that Jews are defined solely by belief or worship rather than by a rich and distinct culture, history, peoplehood, and shared experience. That misunderstanding leads to generalizations, creating fertile ground for bias and discrimination. […]

SUPPORT

Jewish California (sponsor)

30 Years After

Adat Shalom Los Angeles

Agudath Israel of California

Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism

Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education & Advocacy

Beverly Hills Synagogue

Board of Rabbis of Southern California

California Jewish Democrats

Chai Marin

Contra Costa Jewish Democrats

Hadassah, the Women's Zionist of America, INC.

Hillel of San Diego

JCC/federation of San Luis Obispo

JCRC Bay Area

JCRC, Jewish Long Beach

Jewish Center for Justice

Jewish Center of Berkeley

Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento

Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area

Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties

Jewish Family Service LA

Jewish Family Service of the Desert

Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley

Jewish Federation Bay Area

Jewish Federation Los Angeles

Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara

Jewish Federation of Orange County

Jewish Federation of San Diego

Jewish Federation of the Desert

Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys

Jewish Federation of Ventura County

Jewish Silicon Valley

Northern California Jewish Labor Committee

Oakland Jewish Alliance

Palo Alto Jewish Alliance

Progressive Zionists of California

Sf Jews in School

StandWithUs

Valley Beth Shalom

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

SB 91 (Harabedian, Ch. 357, Stats. 2025) required a state or local agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations or languages, as specified.

SB 1016 (Gonzalez, Ch. 873, Stats. 2024) required DPH to use separate collection categories and tabulations for Hispanic or Latino groups and major Latino groups and Mesoamerican Indigenous groups, as specified, when collecting data under existing provisions of law.

SB 435 (Gonzalez, 2024) was substantially similar to SB 1016. SB 435 was vetoed by Governor Newsom stating: “implementing a different framework for data collection in California prior to the release of updated federal standards is premature.”

AB 1358 (Muratsuchi, 2022) would have expanded the requirement for certain state agencies to collect disaggregated ethnicity data and would have standardized the collection and tabulation of demographic information by local health officers and health care providers. AB 1358 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1726 (Bonta, Ch. 607, Stats. 2016) requires DPH to collect demographic data related to each major Asian and Pacific Islander group, as specified.

AB 176 (Bonta, 2015) would have added a requirement for the collection of demographic data by the state’s public segments of postsecondary education and the Department of Managed Health Care pertaining to the collection and tabulation categories for Native Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific Islander groups. This bill was vetoed by then Governor Brown who stated “[d]espite this utility, I am wary of the ever growing desire to stratify. Dividing people into ethnic or other subcategories may yield more information, but not necessarily greater wisdom about what actions should follow. To focus just on ethnic identity may not be enough…”

AB 1088 (Eng, Ch. 689, Stats. 2011) requires certain state agencies to collect and tabulate data for additional major Asian groups, as listed, in order to better reflect the diversity of Asian American, Hawaiian and Pacific islander Communities in California.

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Govenrmental Organziation Committee (15 Ayes, 0 Noes)

**************

1. Prop. 59 was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature. (SCA 1 (Burton, Ch. 1, Stats. 2004).) ↑

2. Prop. 42 was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature. (SCA 3 (Leno, Ch. 123, Stats. 2013).) ↑

3. The Ralph M. Brown Act is the open meetings laws that applies to local agencies. (Gov. Code §§ 59450 et. seq.) ↑

4. Cal. Const., art. I, § 3; Gov. Code, § 7921.000. ↑

5. Cal. Const., art. I, § 1. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

Senator Susan Rubio

Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/14/2026

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill requires a state agency that collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, as specified, and requires these state agencies to include the demographic data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency published after January 1, 2027.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires a state agency, board, or commission to include data on specified collection categories and tabulations in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of California residents that it publishes or releases. Existing law further requires these state agencies to make the collected data available to the public pursuant to state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which existing law deems confidential.
2. Requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for specified Asian Groups and Pacific Islander groups.
3. Requires a state or local agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern and North African groups, as specified.
4. Declares that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies. For these purpose, existing law defines “race or ethnicity” to include ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
5. Requires the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to use additional separate collection categories and other tabulations for major Asian groups and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander groups.
6. Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, released, or paroled, including, but not limited, specified races and ethnic origins. CDCR is required, based on that voluntary self-identification information, to prepare and publish monthly demographic categories used by the department for the purposes of voluntary self-identification information. Existing law requires the data, except for personally identifying information, which existing law deems confidential, to be publicly available on the CDCR’s internet website via the Offender Data Points dashboard.
7. Requires the California Employment Development Department (EDD), in the administration of existing law relating to disability compensation, to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law requires the EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes demographic data pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis.
8. Requires that a statute that limits the right to access to meetings of public bodies or the writing of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
9. Provides that, in enacting the California Public Records Act, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every persons in this state. (Government Code Section 7921.000.)

This bill:

1. Requires a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.
2. Requires the state agency, except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential, to do both of the following with the data :
   1. Include the data in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency that is published on or after January 1, 2027.
   2. Make the aggregated data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, including, but not limited to, by publishing the data on its internet website.
3. Defines ethnicity to include Jewish identity for purposes of existing law that declares that is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of specified characteristics, including race or ethnicity, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state.
4. Includes Jewish among those specified races and ethnic origins for self identification for which CDCR is required to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to race or ethnic origin of people admitted, in custody, and released and paroled, including, but not limited to, specified races and ethnic origins.
5. Requires the EDD to collect data on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity as part of a current requirement that requires EDD to collect demographic data for individuals who claim disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, as prescribed.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “California’s commitment to equity depends on accurate data. Jewish identity is not solely a religion – it is also a people, a culture, an ethnicity. Yet our statute, agencies, and data systems often treat Jewish Californians as if they exist only in a religious category. That misclassification has real consequences. It affects how hate crimes are recorded. It affects how disparities are identified. And it affects whether communities are visible in the policymaking process. SB 1387 does not create a new protected class. It does not remove religious recognition. It simply ensures that Jewish Californians can be accurately counted and understood in the same way California has recognized other ethnic communities. Accurate date leads to better understanding and better policy. This bill is about precision, equity, and fairness.”

Jewish Population in California. The Jewish population in California is one of the largest in the United States. According to the World Population Review, most recent estimates put the population at about 1.2 to 1.3 million people, or roughly three percent of the state’s population. This makes California second only to New York in overall Jewish Population nationwide.

The community is heavily concentrated in major metropolitan areas, particularly the Los Angeles metropolitan area, which alone contains one of the largest populations outside of Israel, with more than 500,000 residents. Other significant centers include the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and parts of Orange County.

The Jewish population in California, like other communities, faces a range of social, economic, and security related challenges. One of the most significant concerns is the rise of antisemitism, including hate crimes, harassment, and vandalism targeting synagogues and community institutions. According to the Public Institute of California, while hate crimes against most racial and ethnic groups declined between 2020 and 2023, anti-Jewish crimes more than doubled between 2020 and 2023. Nearly two-third of hate crimes motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment in 2023 were property crimes.

Existing Data Collection for State Agencies. Existing law requires a state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for the following:

1. Each major Asian group, including, but not limited to, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Laotian, and Cambodian.
2. Each major Pacific Islander group, including, but not limited to, Hawaiian, Guamanian, and Samoan.
3. Each major Middle Eastern group, including, but not limited to, Afghan, Bahraini, Emirati, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Omani, Palestinian, Qatari, Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Turkish, and Yemeni.
4. Each major North African group, including, but not limited to, Algerian, Djiboutian, Egyptian, Libyan, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Somali, Sudanese, and Tunisian.
5. Each major transnational Middle Eastern and North African group, including, but not limited to, Amazigh or Berber, Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Circassian, and Kurdish.

In addition to the aforementioned requirements, both the Department of Industrial Relations and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing are required to collect and tabulate data for the following:

1. Additional major Asian groups, including, but not limited to, Bangladeshi, Hmong, Indonesian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, and Thai.
2. Additional major Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.

This bill would require a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use a separate collection category and tabulation for Jewish ancestry or ethnicity in any provided form that offers respondents the option of selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.

Additionally, current law requires CDCR to collect voluntary self-identification information regarding the race or ethnic origin of individuals admitted, in custody, or released and paroled. This includes specified races and ethnic origins. Based on this information, CDCR prepares and publishes monthly demographic reports reflecting the categories used for voluntary self-identification. This bill would expand those requirements by mandating that CDCR include Jewish as a distinct category in its demographic reporting.

Finally, under current law, EDD is required, in administering disability compensation programs, to collect demographic information for individuals claiming disability benefits or family temporary disability insurance benefits. This includes data on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity data, as prescribed. Existing law also requires EDD to develop and make available online a public-facing dashboard that publishes demographic gata pertaining to program participation by individuals and is updated on at least a quarterly basis. This bill would expand on those requirements by mandating EDD include Jewish ancestry or ethnicity as a distinct category in its demographic reporting.

Data Disaggregation. Disaggregation of data refers to the breaking down of information into smaller units or variables for the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of trends and patterns. Proponents of data disaggregation argue that when data is disaggregated, it provides a “full picture” and enhances the understanding of a situation. In addition, proponents argue that policymakers are better equipped to understand the challenges and issues of particular communities and thus better able to respond to those challenges.

The importance of disaggregated data can span multiple sectors. In education, it can reveal achievement gaps between different student demographics. In public health, it helps tailor interventions for communities disproportionately affected by diseases or lacking access to care. In environmental justice, it can pinpoint which neighborhoods face the highest exposure to pollution or climate risks. Disaggregated data also enhances accountability and supports the development of policies that are responsive to the unique needs of diverse populations.

While data disaggregation can offer significant benefits, it also comes with some tradeoffs. Breaking data into smaller subgroups can often raise privacy concerns, particularly when sample sizes are small and individuals may be more easily identifiable. It can also introduce data reliability challenges, as limited observations within certain groups may produce unstable or misleading results. Additionally, excessive disaggregation can lead to over-fragmentation, making it harder to interpret trends or draw meaningful conclusions from the data.

Prior/Related Legislation

AB 91 (Harabedian, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2025) requires a state or local agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups, as specified.

SB 435 (Gonzalez, 2024) would have required the State Department of Social Services, in the course of collecting demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of California residents for any report on the CalFresh program, to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Latino group, Mesoamerican Indigenous nation, and Mesoamerican Indigenous language, as specified. (Vetoed by Governor Newsom)

AB 943 (Kalra, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2023) required CDCR to publish its monthly demographic data in a manner disaggregated by race and ethnicity, as specified.

AB 2089 (Holden, 2024) would have required a city or county to include additional tabulations for Black or African American groups when collecting demographic data about its employees, as specified. (Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File)

AB 2763 (Essayli, 2024) would have required a state agency that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of California to use separate collections for the Middle Eastern and North African group, as specified. (Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File)

H.R. 30 (Essayli, 2024) encouraged the federal Office of Management and Budget to include “Middle Eastern or North African” ancestry as a response option on all federal forms collecting demographic information.

AB 1358 (Muratsuchi, 2021) would have expanded the requirements on certain state agencies to collect disaggregated ethnicity data and standardize the collection and tabulation of demographic information by local health officers and health care providers. (Held in the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File)

AB 1088 (Eng, Chapter 689, Statutes of 2011) required certain state agencies to collect and tabulate data for additional major Asian groups, as listed, in order to better reflect the diversity of Asian American, Hawaiian and Pacific islander Communities in California.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT:

Jewish California (Source)

30 Years After
Adat Shalom Los Angeles
Agudath Israel of California
Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism
Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education & Advocacy
Beverly Hills Synagogue
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
California Jewish Democrats
Chai Marin
Contra Costa Jewish Democrats
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist of America, INC.
Hillel of San Diego
JCC/federation of San Luis Obispo
JCRC, Jewish Long Beach
Jewish California
Jewish Center for Justice
Jewish Center of Berkeley
Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento
Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Jewish Family Service LA
Jewish Family Service of the Desert
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley
Jewish Federation Bay Area
Jewish Federation Los Angeles
Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara
Jewish Federation of Orange County
Jewish Federation of San Diego
Jewish Federation of the Desert
Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys
Jewish Federation of Ventura County
Jewish Silicon Valley
JFCS East Bay
Northern California Jewish Labor Committee
Oakland Jewish Alliance
Palo Alto Jewish Alliance
Progressive Zionists of California
Sf Jews in School
Stand With Us
Valley Beth Shalom

OPPOSITION:

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Jewish California, Jewish identity is widely understood as encompassing ancestry, history, language, culture, community, and shared values – not solely religion. These are characteristics of an ethnicity. Yet California's data collection systems treat Jewish identity only as a religion, if at all. This results in the systematic undercounting, misclassification, and misunderstanding of Jewish Californians, undermining equitable policymaking and the accurate tracking of antisemitic hate crimes. Importantly, SB 1387 does not remove or replace existing religious categorization. It simply adds the option

for Jewish Californians to self-identify based on ethnicity – ensuring that our community is neither invisible nor misrepresented in the data systems that drive critical public health, education, and civil rights decisions.”

DUAL REFERRAL: Senate Governmental Organization Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee