The next time you grab a ride with Uber or Lyft, a California lawmaker wants to make sure a registered sex offender isn’t behind the wheel — something the ride-hailing companies say they already go the extra-mile to prevent.

Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton, recently introduced a bill that would ban ride-hailing companies from using any driver who is required by law to register as a sex offender.

Lyft, Uber and other smartphone-based ride-hailing companies already use private background checks on potential drivers. But there’s no California law explicitly banning sex offenders from driving for the companies.

“At a minimum, registered sex offenders should not be a part of this industry,” said Trent Hager, Galgiani’s chief of staff, told CalWatchdog.com on Tuesday.

Reports of alleged assaults by ride-hailing drivers on their passengers have surfaced in recent years. Galgiani’s bill was not sparked by any such incident in California, but instead seeks to prevent one from happening, Hager said.

In a written statement, a spokesman for Uber said the company’s “policy already prohibits publicly registered sex offenders from partnering with Uber as drivers on the platform.”

The company added that all Uber drivers “are required to undergo an extensive background check, which is performed on our behalf by Accurate and/or Checkr. Both are accredited by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners.”

On its website, Lyft states “We also do not allow individuals to drive who are registered on the National Sex Offender Registry and DOJ50-State Sex Offender Registry at the time our background check is conducted, regardless of how long ago the individual was put on that registry.”

The industry’s growing popularity has exposed it to extra scrutiny in California, where state officials say ride-hailing firms should be regulated like taxi companies.

In the taxi industry, driver applicants must pass criminal background checks administered by local agencies, including police and sheriff departments.

Rick Wright, of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department’s licensing division, which performs background checks on taxi driver applicants in the San Diego region, said being a registered sex offender would disqualify a potential taxi driver.

Galgiani’s bill was introduced July 8 as a “gut-and-amend” replacing a bill she previously introduced on an unrelated topic.

It is expected to be heard in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee in August, after lawmakers return from a summer recess.

To become law, it must be approved by the Senate, Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Last Thursday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee held in committee legislation that was strongly opposed by ride-sharing companies, drivers and customers. Assembly Bill 24, which was introduced by Asssemblyman Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks, would have required ride-share drivers to undergo random drug and alcohol testing and comply with new background check requirements.

Critics said that the bill was an effort to regulate transportation network companies (TNC) out of business and force Californians back into taxi cabs.

Appropriations Committee holds AB24

As part of the normal legislative process, bills that are expected to cost the state money are sent to the Appropriations Committee. Any bill with an annual cost of more than $150,000 is automatically sent to the committee’s Suspense File. After the state budget is presented, lawmakers take up the Suspense File and consider which bills to advance based on available funds.

Nazarian’s legislation, according to an analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, was expected to cost taxpayers nearly three-quarters of a million dollars, as a result of new review processes by the Department of Motor Vehicles and state Public Utilities Commission.

“Given the significant number of current, and probably future TNC drivers, the PUC’s workload will expand considerably,” the Appropriations Committee concluded. “PUC staff currently process by hand vehicle registration information provided by CPCs.”

The new requirement was estimated to cost $680,000 for an IT consultant and new positions to review thousands of initial applications. That cost was enough to prevent the bill from making the Appropriations Committee’s cut.

In addition to costs to the state, ride-sharing companies argued that Nazarian’s proposal for mandatory drug testing was a costly burden on their drivers, a majority of whom are part-time workers. According to Lyft, 78 percent of its drivers work fewer than 15 hours per week. Meanwhile, the average Uber driver logs between 15 and 20 hours per month.

“The California Legislature should embrace companies like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, who are not only changing the future of transportation, but are driving economic growth and job creation in cities all around the state,” said Robert Callahan, the state executive director for the Internet Association. “A primary reason for the wide-scale adoption of ridesharing by consumers is the enhanced safety experience.”

Uber embraces DMV Pull Notice

Instead of Nazarian’s bill, state lawmakers embraced a plan supported by industry that would enhance safety without undercutting ride-sharing services. Assembly Bill 1422, authored by Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, would require companies, such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, to use the DMV’s Employer Pull Notice Program. That system notifies companies when a driver gets into an accident or is convicted of driving under the influence, among other notifications.

“The DMV Pull Notice program helps businesses and government agencies ensure that unsafe drivers are taken off the road quickly,” said Cooper, who spent 30 years with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. “AB1422 would improve safety on our roads, particularly for passengers utilizing Uber and other similar transportation services.”

The bill is supported by Uber because it would automate the driver review process for ride-sharing companies. According to Cooper’s office, ride-sharing companies “must manually access DMV records on a quarterly basis to review driving records – a process that is both inefficient and slow to catch such things as DUIs, accidents or license suspensions.” With Uber’s backing, the bill has received unanimous support throughout the legislative process.

Unanimous approval for bill to allow ride-share carpooling

In addition to embracing the DMV’s Pull Notice Program, ride-sharing companies are working with state lawmakers to pave the way for ride-share carpooling.

Last month, the California State Assembly passed legislation authored by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, that will allow companies to split fares between passengers.

“With climate change accelerating, we must take a hard look at transportation because it is the largest single source of emissions,” Ting said in a press release. “We have long encouraged public transit and carpooling to reduce traffic and air pollution. Extending the environmental mindset to ridesharing requires changing a 50-year-old law. That’s what this is all about.”

Last fall, after ride-sharing companies announced new carpooling services, state regulators sent the companies threatening letters and warned that such programs violate state law, according to CNET.

“In less than a year, thousands of California residents have helped get cars off the road, lessen congestion and improve our environment,” Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend told the LA Times earlier this year. “Now the California Legislature has the opportunity to embrace this innovation by codifying this service and adopting AB1360.”

Last year, the legislature approved Assembly Bill 2293, which forced ride-sharing companies to abide by new statewide regulations. That law requires companies to carry at least $1 million in commercial-grade insurance and set new minimum levels of additional insurance to be carried by drivers. The bill also ordered the state’s Public Utilities Commission and Department of Insurance to produce a study on transportation network companies before December 31, 2017 – to see how well the new law is working.

Determining data control

Assembly Bill 886, authored by Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, “would force Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing companies to follow stricter privacy rules,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “AB886 specifies that the smartphone-ordered ride services cannot disclose any data on passengers except to combat fraud or other crimes. It also says the companies must destroy all personal information when customers cancel their accounts.”

Uber has had an easier time pushing back against AB24, a bill focused around ensuring Uber drivers face the same security checks and guarantees as cab and livery drivers. Last year, an early version of the bill, authored by Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, D-Los Angeles, died in committee, the Chronicle noted. Uber and other rideshare services succeeded in lobbying hard enough to keep it from a vote. But now, the regulatory push has returned. Much like the old, Nazarian’s new bill would “compel ride-hailing companies like Lyft, Uber and Sidecar to obtain fingerprint background checks similar to those used for taxi, limo and bus drivers. It also would require the companies to institute random drug and alcohol testing of drivers, and to receive immediate notifications from the Department of Motor Vehicles when drivers are arrested or convicted for driving under the influence, reckless driving or other serious violations.”

Uber has restarted its campaign against the would-be measure, but the challenge has come at a difficult time. Litigation driving at the heart of the company’s business has begun to pile up.

Employees or drivers?

Uber has been drawn deeper into two more rounds of potentially painful litigation. Uber has come under fire not only for denying that its drivers are employees, but for failing to provide adequate services for the blind.

In Douglas O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the plaintiffs claimed “that drivers are employees of Uber, as opposed to its independent contractors, and thus are eligible for various statutory protections for employees codified in the California Labor Code § 351.”

“But it also claims that Uber has a requirement under the California Labor Code as an employer to pass on the entire amount of any gratuity ‘that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron.’ The lawsuit not only implies that Uber denied drivers proper wages and reimbursements for driving expenses by misclassifying them as contractors, but also that Uber’s app charges are the 100 percent of tips that are owed to the drivers.”

The ramifications of the suit could be sweeping. Since its creation, Uber’s business model has hinged on its classification of its drivers as non-employees. By avoiding the cost of providing drivers employee benefits, Uber has been able to obtain a multi-billion-dollar valuation and expand at a rapid rate. As Fusion Senior Editor Felix Salmon has observed, “just because Uber is making huge amounts of money from its drivers doesn’t mean that it’s ripping them off.” That intuitive argument, however, may not sway the courts.

Driving the blind

Simultaneously, Uber was dealt a separate defeat in litigation over its obligations under federal disability law. As Reuters reported, “U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins in San Jose, California, said the plaintiffs could pursue a claim that Uber is a ‘travel service’ subject to potential liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

“The judge rejected Uber’s arguments that the plaintiffs, including the National Federation of the Blind of California, lacked standing to sue under the ADA and state laws protecting the disabled.”

Uber, Reuters noted, has just days to respond.

Today, the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee is scheduled to consider legislation by Asm. Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks, that, some say, is intended to put ride-sharing companies out of business and force Californians back under the thumb of the taxi cab cartel.

Assembly Bill 24 would force transportation network companies, more commonly known as ride-sharing companies, to register with the Public Utilities Commission, display an identifying decal on all ride-share vehicles, and go through extensive bureaucratic red-tape for all their drivers.

“Nazarian’s bill is a blatantly anti-competitive example of regulatory capture at its very worst that will only serve to pile on bureaucratic redundancy and red tape while choking innovation,” argues CALinnovates, a tech group that lobbies in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

Nazarian seeks end to “high-tech hitchhiking”

Nazarian makes no secret of his intention to run the ride-sharing industry out of California. His latest bill was introduced on December 1 – one month before last year’s compromise measure became law.

“Ridesharing is simply high-tech hitchhiking,” Nazarian said in a March press release announcing his latest proposal for new ride-sharing regulations. “Consumers are being blindly picked-up by complete strangers and entrusting them with their safety.”

Of course, Nazarian’s statements about naive consumers are hyperbole. Last year, he voted for Assembly Bill 2293, which forced ride-sharing companies to abide by new statewide regulations. That law requires companies to carry at least $1 million in commercial-grade insurance and set new minimum levels of additional insurance to be carried by drivers.

The bill also ordered the state’s Public Utilities Commission and Department of Insurance to produce a study on transportation network companies before December 31, 2017 – to see how well the new law is working.

But, before there’s any data on the new law, Nazarian is seeking to add more requirements to the books.

AB24 violates 2014 ride-sharing compromise

Nazarian’s latest proposal would make your next ride home more expensive by forcing ride-sharing companies to put all their drivers through a Department of Motor Vehicle Employer Pull Notice, a Department of Justice Fingerprint Background Check, and random drug and alcohol testing.

Critics of this year’s proposal say that Nazarian is resurrecting bad bills that were previously sponsored by their competitors, the taxi cab industry.

“If the vast majority of AB24 looks familiar; that’s because it is,” Alex M. Leupp, the West Coast public policy lead for Uber, wrote in his opposition letter. “Last year, the state Legislature twice rejected nearly identical bills, AB612 (Nazarian), and AB2068 (Nazarian).”

Both of those bills were sponsored by the Taxicab Paratransit Association of California, a trade group that represents the taxi cab industry. Rather than embrace government-controlled monopolies, business groups believe the state should support innovative technologies.

“The California Legislature should embrace companies like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar, who are not only changing the future of transportation, but are driving economic growth and job creation in cities all around the State,” said Robert Callahan, the state executive director for the Internet Association. “A primary reason for the wide-scale adoption of ridesharing by consumers is the enhanced safety experience.”

Serious safety concerns with taxis

Consumer safety, Nazarian says, is exactly why more government mandates are needed.

“As a public servant, I want to ensure your driver gets you home safely through the enactment of common sense safety measures,” he said. “Who would be against making sure your driver is not a convicted felon or a reckless driver?”

Yet, if safety is his top concern, Nazarian may want to turn his attention to taxi cabs. Los Angeles taxi drivers have been cited more than 10,000 times in the past five years, according to a review of citation data from the city of Los Angeles. In some cases, taxi drivers were caught drinking on the job, aiding in prostitution and driving without a license.

Unlike popular ride-sharing companies that allow passengers to rate their drivers, the information supplied by the city of Los Angeles redacted all driver information from the citation database.

Meanwhile, Uber is ready to respond at a moment’s notice to complaints against more than 70,000 drivers in California.

“Uber has resources available 24/7 to respond to any allegations from riders or drivers, and can within minutes suspend access to the TNC platform in real time while it performs a thorough investigation with the rider, driver, trip data and third party resources,” Leupp, a representative of Uber, wrote to lawmakers.

On the safety front, Uber and Lyft have also received high-profile support from advocacy groups that see ride-sharing as a way to reduce the number of drunk drivers. As CalWatchdog.com reported last year, Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposed efforts to regulate ride-sharing.

“MADD supports new ridesharing platforms like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar as well as traditional taxi services that are enabling more options to provide safe rides in communities across the country,” J.T. Griffin, MADD’s chief government affairs officer, wrote in an open letter to state lawmakers.

The Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee is scheduled to debate the bill at 3 p.m. You can listen live here.

On Monday, just a few days after the controversial unveiling of his official gubernatorial portrait in Sacramento, the former California governor traveled halfway around the world to Chennai, India.

During Arnold’s second trip to India in two years, the star of the movie “Twins” sat down with his Indian twin, superstar actress-turned-populist politician, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, pictured at right.

The parallels between the two politicians are uncanny. Both former superstar actors, commonly known by one name, they’re independent-minded politicians who were elected chief executives of their country’s most prominent states.

Schwarzenegger, who was in Chennai to promote the audio launch of the highly-anticipated Indian film “I,” was beaming following his meeting with the South Indian chief minister, who is locked in contentious by-elections for local posts. He kept fans all over the world apprised of his trip with frequent updates on Twitter and Instagram.

“It was fantastic to sit down with Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa before our event tonight and talk about her state’s success and challenges,” a grateful Schwarzenegger posted on Twitter and Instagram, along with photos of his meeting. “That’s the advantage of being an actor who was also a Governor!!”

Arnold requested meeting

For all his faults as a politician, Schwarzenegger the media strategist can spot trends and positions himself to take advantage of the next big thing.

Jayalalithaa has Indian star power. The Indian politician has starred in four times as many films as Schwarzenegger.  It’s easy to see how Jayalalithaa took her party from a regional player to South Indian heavyweight. You can’t go more than a few hundred meters in Chennai, the capitol of Tamil Nadu, without seeing a poster or billboard emblazoned with the image of the state’s chief minister.

“Under Chief Minister Ms. Jayalalithaa’s regime, AIADMK has spread out beyond Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and state units have been established in the states of Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh,” the party’s history states.

In February, loyal members of her centrist All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) ate food off the floor as part of the traditional “Mann Sor” ritual to offer Jayalalithaa blessings on her birthday.

And as further proof of the Tamil politician’s rising global prominence, Arnold requested the meeting with her.

“Arnold has been the governor of California and has heard about the TN CM. So, he is keen to meet her while he is here in Chennai,” Indian film producer Aascar Ravichandran told the Times of India. “Arnold’s team has sent a request to the chief minister’s office regarding the same.”

India quickly catching up to California

In a way, Schwarzenegger’s globe-trotting subtly acknowledges the reality that California is no longer king. As evidence, here’s a fact that might surprise you: Hollywood, California’s most iconic export, produces fewer films than India’s thriving film industry.

“I always thought that United States is known for having them make the most movies,” Schwarzenegger told CNN-IBN’s Rajeev Masand in an interview during his visit. “But, then I found that India makes many more movies than the United States.”

According to figures from India’s Central Board of Film Certification, the country produced 1,602 films in 2012, with Tamil surpassing Mumbai’s Bollywood for the number one spot within India.

And it isn’t just film. The burgeoning ride-sharing industry is making a play for India’s transportation market. Earlier this week, Uber launched its popular UberX cab service in Mumbai, Chennai and Pune. The company began competing in India last August, starting in India’s tech-center, Bangalore. Those four cities have a population of 28.7 million people, roughly three-quarters of California’s total population.

To be sure, Californians still have bigger paychecks and more disposable income, but Uber’s competitive edge, a low-overhead business model, also allows it to compete in India’s transport market. Uber, which operates in 10 Indian cities, has roughly 30 employees in India, due to a policy of hiring only three employees for each city it serves.

Ryan Graves, head of global operations at Uber, told the Times of India, “UberX is accessible to a much larger population because it’s affordable.”

California politicians should take notice of that changing economic reality. After all, California’s first response to ride-sharing was an attempt to regulate the companies out of existence.

If California continues its hostility toward innovative companies, there’s every incentive to shift corporate headquarters out of the Golden State. Arnold’s certainly not going to dissuade them.

“I’ve come to India before and it’s fun being here,” he told CNN-IBN.

MADD has entered California’s heated debate over new regulations of the state’s burgeoning ridesharing industry, arguing that the service cuts down on drunk driving. The national group, which combats drunk driving and underage drinking, specifically takes issue with two bills working their way through the Legislature that would hurt ridesharing services, such as Lyft, SideCar and Uber.

In its letter of opposition to Assembly Bill 2293 and Assembly Bill 612, MADD wrote that the bills “could have dramatic consequences for the future of ridesharing in the state.”

“MADD supports new ridesharing platforms like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar as well as traditional taxi services that are enabling more options to provide safe rides in communities across the country,” J.T. Griffin, MADD’s chief government affairs officer, wrote in an open letter to state lawmakers.

MADD about AB612 and AB2293

Assembly Bill 2293 would force ridesharing services to have more insurance coverage than is currently carried by most taxi companies. That proposed regulation would make ridesharing drivers among the most insured cars on the road. If it passes, it’d even force drivers to carry commercial grade insurance during the period when no rider is in the car and no commercial activity is taking place.

“AB2293 would require a massive increase in insurance even when the rideshare drivers are not participating in the program and are in effect driving as private citizens,” MADD stated in its opposition letter. “Such an increase in insurance costs could stifle a new industry and have the unintended consequence of raising rates which these rideshare services must charge.”

According to a legislative analysis, ridesharing companies would be required to carry $1 million in uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage “from the moment a passenger enters the vehicle of a participating driver until the passenger exits the vehicle.”

AB612: “End of the ride-share industry”

Assembly Bill 612 by Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, D-Van Nuys, would require ridesharing companies to abide by extensive new regulations, including the requirement of background checks, monitoring driving records and drug and alcohol testing. The companies already rate their drivers and review driving records, which leads many to speculate that the regulations are intended as a punitive effort to snuff out the industry.

Earlier this month, in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, Sidecar CEO Sunil Paul said that the bill could mean the end of the industry. Paul told the Mercury News that the bill was “a burdensome approach that is backed by the taxicab lobby, really, to try and shut us down. If it passes, it is a disaster — it would literally spell the end of the ride-share industry.”

Uber echoed the sentiment and is urging its customers to fight back.

“Other states, like Colorado, have found legislative solutions that help advance technologies like Uber and protect consumers and drivers,” Uber wrote in its letter urging customers to oppose the bills. “But supporters of AB612 would altogether ignore the vibrant new ridesharing ecosystem and try to make it impossible for companies like Uber to operate.”

National data show drop in DUIs

National data overwhelmingly support MADD’s position that ridesharing lowers the number of drunk drivers on the road.

Blogger and ridesharing fan Nate Good analyzed DUI arrest data in the city of Philadelphia. His analysis showed that, as ridesharing has increased in popularity, there’s been a drop in DUI arrests. And the data show a cultural shift in attitudes: the biggest drop has occurred among people under 30.

“After all ride sharing services were in effect (April 2013 through the end of 2013), the average number of DUIs per month dropped across the board by 11 percent, with those under 30 being mostly responsible for the drop,” Good wrote in his detailed analysis.

In addition to Philadelphia, the Washington Post conducted an analysis of DUI data from San Francisco and reached similar conclusions. In May, Uber produced its own analysis of DUI data from Seattle, which showed a more than 10 percent drop in DUI arrests.

“We estimate that the entrance of Uber in Seattle caused the number of arrests for DUI to decrease by more than 10 percent. These results are robust and statistically significant,” Uber wrote on the company’s website. “While there is plenty of room to explore this topic in future studies, the data confirm the intuitive claim, backed up by countless anecdotes, that potential drunk drivers will choose other options, like rides with Uber, when they are convenient, affordable, and readily available.”

Mothers Against Drunk Driving stresses that, while ridesharing companies are helpful in the fight against drunk driving, tough drunk driving laws and increased enforcement are also needed.

“While the best way to stop drunk driving is to couple strong drunk driving laws with strong DUI enforcement and educating the public on the consequences of breaking these laws, it is also important for those over the age of 21 to have a safe ride should they go out to consume alcoholic beverages,” MADD wrote in its letter.

“Remember when tech startups like Lyft, Sidecar and Uber fought California regulators and won, getting designated as a new class of transportation that was deemed legal?

“Turns out Uber didn’t like that. It filed today a petition for rehearing with the California Public Utilities Commission, saying the transportation regulator shouldn’t have jurisdiction over technology companies.

“What’s going on here is that Uber is trying to play the long game. The previous decision may have been harmless enough, but Uber being Uber, it doesn’t want the CPUC to get the idea that it can tell Uber what to do.

“More specifically, in September the CPUC established a new category called “transportation network companies,” where drivers use their personal vehicles to provide rides for pay.

“That applied to the peer-to-peer businesses of Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo, and to Uber’s own competitor in that space, UberX. It was a highly important decision that helps legitimize the larger idea of a sharing economy, where non-professionals share their resources and time for a fee. And it was hailed as such by the peer-to-peer companies. 'We made history today!' tweeted Sidecar CEO Sunil Paul. …

“What Uber is clearly concerned about is the CPUC extending its regulatory interest deeper into the Uber business — for instance, saying Uber needs to register as a 'transportation charter party,' or TCP, which covers the commercial license for black cars and limos. That hasn’t happened yet, but it’s possible that it’s on the table.

Here's hoping Uber gets its way. As the Reason folks have pointed out for decades — here's a recent iteration — licensing and regulation have long been used not for safety reasons but to protect entrenched business interests from competition.

If Uber and similar firms wipe out taxis, so be it. Survival of the fittest, and no more ripoff $33 fares for four-mile drives to and from the airport.

“The new wave of online-enabled ride- and car-sharing services that threaten to disrupt the taxi and limousine industries should be regulated, but in a way that doesn’t stifle innovation, the state Public Utilities Commission said Tuesday.

“The commission proposed rules that would force companies like Lyft, Uber and SideCar to obtain state permits to operate legally. And they would have to carry insurance coverage that exceeds what’s now required of limousines, establish driver training and criminal background checks, and have zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policies.

“Sunil Paul, SideCar’s chief executive officer, said he is happy with the decision, saying the commission “has come down on the side of safety and innovation.”

“Lyft CEO John Zimmer was still reading through the 59-page document when reached for comment, but said he is pleased that the commission focused on safety regulations. “The list is exhaustive, which I think is good,” he said.

“The proposed rules, which could become final Sept. 5, come after months of public hearings and community debate.”

I’ll believe it when I see it. It’s the government which makes car rentals and taxis so expensive it the first place. And the government transportation monopolies won’t like this any more than do the private taxi oligopolies.

I recently rented a car at SFO and the taxes, fees and whatnot cost more than the car rental. The city of San Francisco also mandates that only “green” cars be used as taxis, which raises the price.

And I recently took a cab in Orange County that cost me $16 to go 2 miles.

If ride-sharing systems can cut that cost, that’s a great advance. But I always expect government to crash a good thing. It’s called experience.