A Concerted Effort to Confront Dangerous Roads, but No Point 05… Yet?
View the California Alcohol Legislation Tracker
In terms of California’s public health policy, the 2026 legislative session was defined early on by an attention to bills that tried to curb driving under the influence (DUI). Spurred on by in-depth reporting from political news site CalMatters on the failures of the criminal justice system to stop repeat dangerous drivers, legislator introduced a dozen bills that would attempt to reform the process and create safer roads. The efforts ran the gamut of impact from relatively toothless defendant education requirements, to mandatory sentencing and sentence enhancement requirements, to novel approaches to prevent re-offense.
Yet few of these answered the pressing question of how effective deterrence through legislation should look. Although effective and certain penalties are necessary elements of effective enforcement, the rampant recidivism that CalMatters documented was not just a case of statutory leniency—it stemmed from overwhelmed courts, poorly regulated diversion programs, and an unchecked industry placing the entire onus for prevention on consumers.
Still, Alcohol Justice and the California Alcohol Policy Alliance (CAPA) strongly supported some of this year’s legislative efforts, and share the communal frustration that despite all this effort to reduce dangerous driving, so little made it to the Governor’s desk. Still, that frustration can be converted into action. Perhaps 2027 will be the year that California finally joins the rest of North America and Europe in embracing the fact that Point 05 Saves Lives.
Key DUI bills from this year’s session are summarized below, along with other significant legislation that Alcohol Justice took positions on.
AB 1830 – Ignition Interlock Devices – SUPPORT. Ignition interlock devices (IIDs) are the breathalyzers that are installed under the steering wheel, and which make the car inoperable if the driver does not first blow into them and register no alcohol in their system. In many states and countries, they are fixture of early DUI offense penalties. The central intent of AB 1830 would be to bring California in line with those common policies. In California, judges have the option to mandate their installation Research shows that they are associated with a large drop in repeat offense—though only while they remain installed. As of August deliberations, the bill remains alive, though proponents expressed some concerns over amendments that would offer alternate punishments that would dilute the impact of the bill.
Supported Bills
AB 1605 – Alcohol Purchase Ban for Repeat DUI Offenders – SUPPORT. One of the most innovative proposals pushed in response to DUI concerns, AB 1605 would allow the DMV to issue licenses and ID cards that are flagged to forbid sales of alcohol to the bearer. Utah granted its DMV the ability to issue such “interdicted” licenses last year, and two lawmakers in California proposed similar measures this year. Both were consolidated in AB 1605. The purchase restrictions could helpgive an alternative to prison for repeat offenders, while also functioning as a bit of environmental prevention. The latter comes from slowing down the process of acquiring alcohol, since the it is not illegal for the bearer to drink, just to purchase. That could provide some offenders with enough friction to adopt a more intentional relationship with drinking. But AB 1605 does not stop there, as necessitates a subtle but powerful overhaul of the state alcohol code. Currently, retailers are sanctioned for completing an illegal sale (generally but not exclusively to a minor), but they are not actually required to check an ID. But this does not work for the “interdicted” license, which can be granted to anyone, of any age. As such, AB 1605 would require license checks upon sale, which would not only allow for the license flagging to function as a legal impediment, but also end sloppy carding practices that could result in underage access to alcohol. Still, civil rights advocates raised concerns that the visible indication of conviction on the ID could stigmatize the bearer in unrelated aspects of their lives, and the bill has been held in committee.
Other bills supported: AB 2502 (DUI Liability In Self-Driving Cars), AB 1982 (Drink-Spiking Prevention Extension), AB 1814 (Law-Enforcement Training for DUI Stops), AB 1748 (Mandatory License Revocation for Repeat DUI)
Opposed Bills
AB 1991 – Market Research Reforms – OPPOSE. Currently, alcohol industries are banned from conducting taste-testing and similar market research in any way which allows the participants to know who produces the product. The reasoning is simple and obvious: bring people over to an alcohol production facility and giving them ample booze and cash sounds a lot like attempted bribery. As such, market research must generally be conducted by a third party who blinds the origin of the samples. But AB 1991 seeks to uproot that guideline entirely, creating new allowance for research to be done on the producer’s premises, unblinded, and paid up to $500. Missing, however, is any requirement that the participants be unaffiliated with wholesalers, retailers, regulatory bodies, law enforcement, legislators, or any of the many other people for whom a trip to luxury distillery campus, some shots, and five crisp $100 bills should be considered criminal bribery. The bill seems likely to pass on to the Governor’s desk.
SB 1995 – Alcohol Marketing Deals at Community Venues – OPPOSE. Year after year, Alcohol Justice finds itself attempting to convince the legislature that alcohol industry marketing creates more problems that the money the industry forks over will solve. And year after year, the legislature finds another bright line to cross. This year, it is this special exemption allowing nearly a dozen community-owned venues throughout Southern California to strike sponsorship deals with alcohol industry. Not only do these deals increase the overall exposure to outdoor exposure, particularly among youth, but they target the one category of entertainment venue that, under responsible civic custodianship, should have no reason to argue the necessity of alcohol industry money. Add to this the fact that these venues host events like Kidz Bop Live, Comic Con, Prom Day, and Hot Wheels Monster Trucks Live, and its clear that this bill will give the industry an astonishing and unforgivable level of access to kids. Although the bill continues to be amended to strike venues from the list, it seems likely to reach the Governor’s desk.
What’s Next for Alcohol Legislation in California?
With limited exceptions, the legislature must have held all votes before August 31. At that point, any bill not already signed into law will be presented to the Governor. This provides one last opportunity to advocate for protective policy, as the Governor’s veto has sometimes stopped the worst ideas from becoming law. By the beginning of October, the fate of all bills will be known. For those that can cause harm, the fight moves to the local level. For those that failed that could have brought positive change, 2027 ushers in new legislators and a whole new two-year legislative cycle. Alcohol Justice and the California Alcohol Policy Alliance will be in Sacramento from day one of that cycle to speak for public health, public safety, and community power. We hope you will continue to add your voices to ours.