From the breezy dandelion painted in an alleyway near 19th Street in Midtown to the graceful ballerina striking a pose on the side of the 17 Central apartment building, Sacramento might be called the City of Murals. The capital has long been a sanctuary for public art, with plenty of vocal support from residents and frequent city-driven projects, including the collaborative “paint by numbers” murals of 2023, where community members came together for a painting block party to fill in numbered segments with small cups of paint.

Following the success of that program, which was funded by the Clean California initiative, the city was set to fund eight more community murals in 2025 — but when they received word about a legal snag muralists across the state were running into, they, along with many other cities, paused mural funding until a solution could be found. The issue? A more than 50-year-old law that, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, had never been widely enforced.

Under the Business and Professions Code established in the 1970s, California muralists were grouped in with house painters and sign painters as general painting contractors, requiring them to hold the same license — a C-33 contractor’s license — that other types of commercial painters are held to for legal operation.

But before 2023, most muralists throughout the state of California were operating without a contractor’s license — in fact, many of them only became aware of the requirement when they, along with developers and public arts programs throughout the state, began to receive letters from the Contractors State License Board informing them of the violation. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding across the state were paused, and some projects were even halted midway through. It was a tough fact for artists throughout the state to digest.

“Having this understanding that, ‘Oh, everything I’ve been doing over the past several years has been illegal,’ that was heavy,” Sacramento muralist Jaya King says.

So why did the overlooked detail come to light now, after so many decades? Public arts workers throughout the state aren’t entirely sure, but say their best guess is that the large share of public funding that went toward murals as part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Clean California initiative — the same initiative that funded several community murals in Sacramento — resulted in more attention and scrutiny being given to public arts projects. Regardless, once the rule was out in the open, it couldn’t be ignored. So instead, a team of people formed with the goal of pursuing legal change.

“At the end of the day, you shouldn’t feel like you should have to hide in doing your art,” says Donald Gensler, the art in public places manager for the Sacramento Office of Arts and Culture. “You might know the law is getting it wrong, but my advice to artists is to always follow the law, and if the law is not working, then find a way to change it.”

There is legal precedent, Gensler says, for the separation of muralists from other kinds of painters. Under the federal Copyright Act of 1976, as well as the California Art Preservation Act, muralists who create fine art are distinguished from ordinary wall painters. The former are given “moral rights” to their work, protections separate from copyright that include the right to be credited (or remain anonymous) and the right to object to changes that would impact the artist’s reputation.

Using a similar argument, Gensler’s plan, developed with California for the Arts CEO Julie Baker, was to carve out an exemption for muralists to exempt them from needing a C-33 license.

But Gensler and others argued that mentorship tends to happen in a more organic manner when it comes to artists and that annual licensing fees are an undue burden for muralists who might only paint one mural a year.

“The idea that they would have to pay to have a commercial painter’s license just to do that one project is unreasonable and really creates a chilling effect for the art form,” Gensler says.

Gensler and Baker approached District 8 state Sen. Angelique Ashby, asking her to champion a bill creating the exemption. They also recruited King to provide testimony representing muralists. Both Ashby and King agreed.

“Donald called me, and I remember pacing up and down in my living room,” King says. “He said, ‘This is what’s happening, this is what we’re planning on doing, and this is what it is going to look like’ — you know, testimony and people in suits and big government buildings. And I’m like, I’m 100 percent all in. I’m ready to do this to make sure that we can keep painting murals.”

Over the next year, they met with committees and councils, and waited for the bill, now named SB 456 or “The Mural Bill,” to move through the lengthy legislative process. They also heard from people about how much murals meant to them.

“With each committee it was a trip, because there was no opposition from any of the lawmakers,” King says. “Whenever they would comment, it was positive, and they would share about the public art in their cities and how important it is to have public art and to have artists do their thing, and how that uplifts their communities.”

There was initially some opposition to the bill from non-legislative entities, including the CSLB and the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, mainly centered around safety and insurance concerns for muralists. However, the licensing board never filed a formal letter of opposition, and a point of agreement was eventually reached. Part of what quashed safety concerns is that muralists working on a project over $1,000 in value have to follow Cal/OSHA safety requirements, and anyone using a scissor lift for a mural is also required to obtain that safety certification.

The bill ultimately passed with unanimous, bipartisan support and went into effect Jan. 1, 2026.

“Every single person who voted on this voted for it,” King says. “That was how much support this bill had. It just showed how important murals are to our communities. The unanimous win in this political climate felt very special.”

As King put it, the new law didn’t eliminate licensure, and there are likely still some muralists for whom getting a C-33 license could be useful for their business model. But they don’t have to, and they are distinguished from other wall painters with a clear definition. King says going on this journey helped her feel empowered to engage in the legislative process going forward.

“I hope that this was something where artists could see that they can help to shape the systems that they work in,” King says.

Funding has officially reopened for mural projects, and it’s safe to say that artists in Sacramento are getting back in the swing of things. Gensler says plans to continue the community murals project are officially back in action, currently set for 2027. And King said that she’s seen a significant increase in art calls throughout the state. As Gensler put it, the support behind this legislation was Sacramentans and Californians at large saying that public art is a priority and something they want funded.

“Great cities and great cultures throughout history have always had a collection of art, have found value in art and have put money towards it,” Gensler says. His hope is that Sacramento will continue to do the same.

In the meantime, if you want to explore the murals that currently decorate the city’s walls, there are several online maps and tools to help you learn more about the stories behind the art, including the recently announced Midtown Mural Trail, a self-guided mural and public art walk through Midtown with information about each mural along the way. Otherwise, you can just start walking and keep your eyes peeled — there could be a work of art just around the corner.

–

Never miss a story: Get Comstock’s weekly newsletter delivered to your inbox.