Several bills addressing various issues of interest to prisoners were sent to Gov. Davis in October 2001. A few were signed; most were vetoed.

Those signed were:

SB 799 (Sen. Karnette) which will allow battered women/survivors of domestic violence convicted before 1992, to file a writ of habeas so they can get back to court to present evidence of the abuse they suffered (Evidence Code § 1107 took effect in January 1992, allowing evidence of abuse to be brought in at trial). SB 799, will be codified as Penal Code 1473.5. It applies to women who meet the following criteria: (1) women who were convicted of a homicide prior to 1992, and (2) those women who entered a plea before January 1, 1992, OR whose trial started before January 1, 1992. The new statute will be in effect until January 1, 2005, unless it is extended.

SB 83 (Sen. Burton) allows an indigent prisoner to request a court-appointed attorney for a post conviction DNA investigation. This law will become effective January 2002.

The majority of prisoner-related bills were vetoed, those include:

SB 396 would have required the CDC to provide a report to the Legislature on the total revenues and costs of the $5 co-pay and would have established new guidelines for MTAs. Vetoed because it would result in General Fund costs not already budgeted in the 2001 Budget Act.

AB 675 would have amended Penal Code § 1170(e) [compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners] by providing that family members would be notified when a prisoner was eligible for compassionate release and that a terminally ill prisoner could pursue a compassionate release if s/he had a prognosis of less than one year to live (rather than the present six months)–vetoed due to budgetary concerns and because, "this measure could result in the release of violent offenders resulting in risk to public."

AB 1149 would have exempted "whistleblower employees" at a prison from sanctions against removing personal CDC employee information from the prison. Davis vetoed this bill because the whistleblower exception was "too broad" and would encourage the unauthorized removal of sensitive confidential documents; a "whistleblower should not be encourage to violate administrative rules or statute in reporting improper governmental activities."