SACRAMENTO, CA – Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Senate Bill 485, legislation authored by Senator Eloise Reyes that would have protected chief public defenders across California from being fired without cause.
The bill, known as the Public Defender Job Security and Integrity Act, sought to give appointed public defenders the same due process protections already afforded to county counsels and other department heads.
In his veto message, Newsom wrote that while he supports the intent of the measure, “it would inappropriately limit the authority of counties to manage their appointed department heads.”
He said that decisions about the hiring and removal of department heads “are best made locally, based on the unique needs and governance structures of each county.”
The veto drew immediate criticism from public defense leaders and justice reform advocates who argued the bill was a long-overdue safeguard against political retaliation.
They said the measure would have ensured that public defenders could advocate for clients—often in ways that challenge local law enforcement or political powers—without fear of losing their jobs.
Under current law, county boards of supervisors may remove appointed public defenders “at will,” meaning they can be dismissed at any time and for any reason. SB 485 would have changed that by requiring a three-fifths vote of the board and limiting removal to cases involving “neglect of duty, malfeasance, misconduct, or other justifiable causes.”
Supporters said the bill would have strengthened the independence of public defenders, whose work often brings them into conflict with elected officials and law enforcement agencies.
According to the Senate Floor Analysis, “Chief Public Defenders play a crucial role in ensuring a fair and equitable justice system. They uphold the Constitution by guaranteeing access to competent legal counsel for all, regardless of financial status.”
The analysis noted that current employment structures create “a challenging environment as public defenders can be fired without cause by a county board of supervisors, creating a disincentive to fulfill their duties out of fear of retaliation.”
The legislation was sponsored by the California Public Defenders Association and backed by several advocacy groups, including ACLU California Action, Smart Justice California, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and Initiate Justice.
The groups said the bill would have eliminated a chilling effect that discourages public defenders from speaking out against systemic injustices, such as racial bias in the courts or immigration enforcement in courthouses.
Opposition came primarily from county government organizations, including the California State Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, and Urban Counties of California. These groups argued the bill would undermine local control and limit flexibility in managing appointed department heads.
Despite bipartisan legislative support—the measure passed the Senate unanimously and cleared the Assembly by a 46–9 vote—Newsom’s veto leaves the state’s 33 appointed chief public defenders without new legal protection from political influence.
Following the veto, Alameda County Public Defender Brendan Woods criticized the governor’s decision, saying it contradicted his public commitment to standing up for justice and equality.
“Newsom recently said, ‘It’s time for all of us to stand up.’ But apparently that doesn’t apply to Public Defenders,” Woods said. “Sometimes advocating for our clients and communities requires taking positions that put our jobs in jeopardy.”
Supporters of the bill called the veto a missed opportunity to ensure fairness and integrity in California’s criminal legal system, arguing that public defenders must be able to do their work free from political interference.
