California governors veto 15-17% of bills, a much higher rate than the U.S. President. This dynamic, combined with a compressed nine-month legislative session, compels lawmakers to work closely with the governor's administration from the start to ensure their bills survive, creating a different power structure than in Washington.
The 2024 veto of California's first major AI bill was not an anti-regulation move. The governor's veto letter explicitly stated the problem needed solving, but the proposed solutions were premature. This signaled to lawmakers and the tech industry that a more refined, evidence-based bill (which became SB 53) was expected.
The breakthrough for passing SB 53 came after its controversial predecessor was vetoed. A research-based report from Drs. Fei-Fei Li, Tino Cuellar, and Jennifer Chase provided a credible, non-political foundation for the new bill, allowing policymakers to navigate complex tradeoffs and overcome political gridlock.
The tech industry's shift from strong opposition to neutrality on California's AI bill was a strategic calculation. They preferred negotiating one workable law that could serve as a national model, viewing it as better than fighting 50 different, potentially worse, legislative battles across the country.
California's AI law contains a novel provision that empowers state agencies to defer to federal requirements if a comparable system is ever created. This statutory tool turns political rhetoric into law, effectively daring the federal government to act while allowing the state to proceed in the interim.
Effective AI regulation isn't monolithic. Frontier model safety is a federal national security issue. Kids' online safety is a state-level consumer protection issue. Data center placement is a municipal land-use issue. Lumping them all together as "AI policy" ignores the distinct regulatory competencies required for each.
While the tech industry may complain about yearly changes to AI laws, policymakers see it as essential. With major AI labs releasing new models with novel capabilities every 3-6 months, a slower legislative pace would be a dereliction of duty, failing to keep up with the technology's deployment velocity.
States like California can serve as policy innovators, but the model's success depends on replicating discoveries. If the federal government actively obstructs other states from adopting successful policies—for example, by threatening to withhold funds—the "laboratory" concept breaks down and valuable policy learnings are lost.
California's SB 813 creates a framework for Independent Verification Organizations (IVOs) without yet requiring companies to use them. This is a strategic move to build the necessary substructure and ecosystem first. It establishes the "how" (verification standards) before a future law mandates the "what" (required third-party audits).