ReportWire

Tag: bill

  • ‘We’re not North Korea.’ Newsom signs bills to limit immigration raids at schools and unmask federal agents

    [ad_1]

    In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

    He also signed a bill that bans federal agents from wearing masks. Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.

    “We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.

    Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.

    SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

    Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

    Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

    Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.

    Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.

    Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.

    “Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

    The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

    Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.

    “We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.

    The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.

    Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.

    “If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.

    California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.

    During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.

    “That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.

    Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.

    Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.

    The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

    “Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Ormseth, Dakota Smith, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • California lawmakers approve bill to make it a crime for them to sign NDAs when negotiating state laws

    [ad_1]

    The California Legislature this week approved a bill that would ban state lawmakers from signing non-disclosure agreements when they decide how to use taxpayer dollars or create state laws. Non-disclosure agreements are legally binding contracts that force people to keep information secret. The California Assembly unanimously passed the measure in its final legislative vote Wednesday and sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide whether it becomes state law. The legislation is a direct result of KCRA 3’s reporting on how California’s government has either used them or allowed special interest groups to use them on a major public project and state laws.The bill, AB 1370, would make it a crime for California lawmakers to sign or force anyone to sign the secrecy agreements as they craft legislation. It would be enforced by local law enforcement and give prosecutors the power to charge lawmakers with either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. “I think us as legislators and the governor should not be signing away the public’s right to know the deliberations of important things that will impact their lives,” said Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, who wrote the proposal. “This is one step to bringing more transparency but more trust in the government, more trust in the work we do here in the legislature.” No Democratic lawmakers have spoken publicly about the proposal this year. KCRA 3 was the first to report the use of NDAs in the California Legislature’s construction of a new $1.1 billion office building for state lawmakers. The Legislature directed 2,000 people, including five state lawmakers and dozens of government workers, to sign NDAs to keep broad information about the project secret. Democratic leaders haven’t given an update on the project in years.KCRA 3 also first reported last year that state lawmakers were entirely left out of the negotiations of California’s fast-food minimum wage law, which raised pay to $20 an hour for fast-food workers across the state but provided a mysterious exemption for bakeries that sell and bake their own bread.Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office oversaw the negotiations and allowed NDAs to cover the secret talks at the insistence of a major labor organization, SEIU California. Newsom’s office has said neither the governor nor his staff signed them. Since then, no one has been able to explain the bakery exemption, but multiple sources have told KCRA 3 it was for one of the governor’s billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee.Joseph Bryant, an SEIU official who is also a member of California’s Fast-Food Council, which is meant to set the wages and working conditions for the workers across the state, would not confirm or deny that he signed the NDA.Republican lawmakers twice last year tried to introduce legislation that would have broadly restricted the use of NDAs by lawmakers, staff, other government officials and lobbyists when crafting public policy. Democrats in the Assembly claimed the measure was too broad.California Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier this year would not confirm or deny if he would try to enforce the existing NDAs on the fast-food law and Capitol Annex project if anyone were to violate them. Gov. Newsom has until mid-October to sign or veto legislation. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    The California Legislature this week approved a bill that would ban state lawmakers from signing non-disclosure agreements when they decide how to use taxpayer dollars or create state laws.

    Non-disclosure agreements are legally binding contracts that force people to keep information secret.

    The California Assembly unanimously passed the measure in its final legislative vote Wednesday and sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide whether it becomes state law.

    The legislation is a direct result of KCRA 3’s reporting on how California’s government has either used them or allowed special interest groups to use them on a major public project and state laws.

    The bill, AB 1370, would make it a crime for California lawmakers to sign or force anyone to sign the secrecy agreements as they craft legislation. It would be enforced by local law enforcement and give prosecutors the power to charge lawmakers with either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances.

    “I think us as legislators and the governor should not be signing away the public’s right to know the deliberations of important things that will impact their lives,” said Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, who wrote the proposal. “This is one step to bringing more transparency but more trust in the government, more trust in the work we do here in the legislature.”

    No Democratic lawmakers have spoken publicly about the proposal this year.

    KCRA 3 was the first to report the use of NDAs in the California Legislature’s construction of a new $1.1 billion office building for state lawmakers. The Legislature directed 2,000 people, including five state lawmakers and dozens of government workers, to sign NDAs to keep broad information about the project secret. Democratic leaders haven’t given an update on the project in years.

    KCRA 3 also first reported last year that state lawmakers were entirely left out of the negotiations of California’s fast-food minimum wage law, which raised pay to $20 an hour for fast-food workers across the state but provided a mysterious exemption for bakeries that sell and bake their own bread.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office oversaw the negotiations and allowed NDAs to cover the secret talks at the insistence of a major labor organization, SEIU California. Newsom’s office has said neither the governor nor his staff signed them. Since then, no one has been able to explain the bakery exemption, but multiple sources have told KCRA 3 it was for one of the governor’s billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee.

    Joseph Bryant, an SEIU official who is also a member of California’s Fast-Food Council, which is meant to set the wages and working conditions for the workers across the state, would not confirm or deny that he signed the NDA.

    Republican lawmakers twice last year tried to introduce legislation that would have broadly restricted the use of NDAs by lawmakers, staff, other government officials and lobbyists when crafting public policy. Democrats in the Assembly claimed the measure was too broad.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier this year would not confirm or deny if he would try to enforce the existing NDAs on the fast-food law and Capitol Annex project if anyone were to violate them.

    Gov. Newsom has until mid-October to sign or veto legislation.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas Senate tightens, passes bill that shields some police complaints

    [ad_1]

    A bill that would let law enforcement agencies across the state keep numerous records including unsubstantiated complaints against officers private has been approved by the Texas Senate, after its lawmakers re-tightened restrictions on public access.

    Late last month, the Texas House cleared House Bill 15 after adopting two additional exemptions, including one that would allow parents of Uvalde school shooting victims to see records related to law enforcement’s botched response.

    On Tuesday, a Senate panel pushed forward a version of the legislation without these carve-outs. Hours later, the full chamber voted 18-9 to pass the updated bill and send it back to the House for consideration of the changes.

    HB 15, authored by Republican state Rep. Cole Hefner of Mt. Pleasant, would require law enforcement agencies to create a confidential department file — also called a “G-file” — for numerous files including any unsubstantiated allegations against an officer as well as complaints that did not result in disciplinary actions.

    Substantiated misconduct complaints, commendations, awards or periodic evaluations would remain in the officer’s personnel file, which would still be publicly accessible through the state’s open records law. Any “letter, memorandum or document” not related to those records would go into the G-file.

    The bill’s backers said it is about standardizing law enforcement agencies’ public disclosure policy. They have also said disclosure of unsubstantiated complaints could defame officers.

    Critics, however, have said the bill would hinder police accountability, including by incentivizing officers to improperly examine allegations. Some are also concerned about how it would affect the release of records related to the Uvalde shooting, as the Texas Department of Public Safety is still fighting a judge’s order to release hundreds of videos and investigative files.

    The House voted 90-41 on Aug. 28 to approve HB 15 after adopting two amendments.

    The first one, brought by Democratic State Rep. Joe Moody of El Paso, ensures that the bill wouldn’t reopen the dead suspects loophole. The state Legislature closed the loophole — which law enforcement agencies once used to withhold information when suspects die in police custody or at the hands of officers before the suspects could receive a conviction or deferred adjudication — in 2023.

    The second one, introduced by Republic state Rep. Don McLaughlin of Uvalde, would allow the victim of alleged police misconduct — or their immediate family if they are dead — to view documents in the officer’s G-files related to the case following its investigation. But they would not be able to duplicate these records.

    “This amendment is for my hometown of Uvalde and for the Robb families, who are still waiting for answers,” said McLaughlin, who was mayor during the 2022 school shooting that killed 19 students and two teachers. He has also been vocal about the need for DPS to release its records. “Three and a half years and they still don’t have answers.”

    Hefner initially opposed the proposal, saying that HB 15 would not hide Uvalde records. But the motion to table McLaughlin’s amendment failed, and Hefner then accepted it.

    The Aug. 28 vote also followed Moody’s successful point-of-order — a parliamentary procedure that aims to delay or kill legislation on a technicality — against a similar proposal, Senate Bill 15, on Aug. 25. A day later, Gov. Greg Abbott updated the wording of his second special session’s agenda to address the error.

    But as a Senate committee considered HB 15 on Tuesday, its sponsor, state Sen. Phil King of Weatherford, offered a substitute that stripped away both of Moody’s and McLaughlin’s carve-outs.

    “House sent over two amendments,” he said. “We have removed those amendments, and this is the same bill that we have passed out three previous times.”

    During the Senate floor debate, state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, grilled King about the removal of McLaughlin’s amendment. The Weatherford Republican responded that the bill would not change anything regarding the evidence and documents related to the Uvalde shooting.

    “It also has the same effect on this bill as if … the amendment had said, ‘Strike everything below the enactment clause,’” King added. “It completely terminates this bill.”

    McLaughlin said the removal of the House amendments was disappointing.

    “This is not the first time the Senate has disregarded House priorities and removed carefully considered changes without even consulting us,” he said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “That pattern continued here, and it leaves families and communities without the transparency they deserve.”

    Moody didn’t immediately respond to a comment request.

    The updated version of HB 15 will now go back to the House, where lawmakers can either accept the changes or find a compromise.

    The proposal came after a 2023 state review of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which requires that the agency “standardizes what documentation needs to be included in a license holder’s personnel file.”

    If adopted, the bill would extend the use of G-files to every law enforcement agency across Texas, which has under 110,000 peace officers and jailers, according to TCOLE.

    Such files already apply to around 26,000 peace officers, according to Jennifer Szimanski, deputy executive editor of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas. These include officers in dozens of cities that have opted into the state framework for police and firefighters’ civil service, including major ones such as Houston and San Antonio.

    The bill doesn’t cover certain materials, such as body-worn camera footage. It also would not affect Austin’s Police Oversight Act, which unseals G-files despite the city having civil service rules. In addition, the proposal would not stop disclosures for criminal investigations and court processes as required under the Sandra Bland and Michael Morton acts.

    More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year’s lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of “CNN NewsNight”; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today!

    TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Republicans push Democrats on transparency, timeline for redistricting

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — California’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort.

    California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.

    The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress.

    In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort.

    In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature.

    The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as “gut and amend,” where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal.

    The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the state could enact “significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,” according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon.

    Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters.

    “When I go to a restaurant, I don’t need to meet the chef,” said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz).

    Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission’s work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday.

    If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4.

    On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges.

    After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis).

    “I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,” Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours.

    Tangipa and the committee’s vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort.

    Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation.

    “That’s insanity, and that’s heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,” Tangipa said. “How can you say you actually care about the people of California?

    Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long.

    In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented.

    Tom Willis, Newsom’s campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was “publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.”

    But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn’t answer, because he “wasn’t a part of that process.”

    In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt.

    “This is a partisan gerrymander,” she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. “That’s what we’re talking about here.”

    Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, “It made me salivate.”

    California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state’s independent redistricting rules because they would not “call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.”

    But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill.

    “it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,” the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. “These changes to the Elections Code … would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom issues executive order aimed at lowering electric bills

    Gov. Newsom issues executive order aimed at lowering electric bills

    [ad_1]

    With Californians angry about their skyrocketing electric bills, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order on Wednesday aimed at giving them some relief.

    The governor’s order directs the state Public Utilities and Energy commissions to find ways to try to lower power bills in the future, or at the minimum to stop them from rising so quickly.

    Among the actions he asks for is a closer review of how utilities are spending money to stop transmission lines from sparking wildfires. State officials say those wildfire mitigation costs now make up about 13% of customers’ monthly electric bills.

    “We’re taking action to address rising electricity costs and save consumers money on their bills,” Newsom said. “California is proving that we can address affordability concerns as we continue our world-leading efforts to combat the climate crisis.”

    The governor issued the executive order days before Tuesday’s election, in which kitchen-table economics is a top concern.

    California now has the second-highest electric rates in the country after Hawaii. Residential customer bills have risen by as much as 110% in the last decade.

    In just the past three years, bills for customers of the three biggest for-profit utilities — Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric — have increased by 20% to 50%. Those most recent rate increases were reviewed and approved by Newsom appointees at the state public utilities commission.

    The executive order is just one of Newsom’s recent moves aimed at reducing soaring energy costs. In August, he and Democratic lawmakers released a suite of energy-related bills just days before the legislative session ended. That same month the governor ordered lawmakers to return to Sacramento for a special session to debate a bill that would require oil refineries to increase gasoline reserves in an attempt to prevent price spikes at the pump.

    The governor’s staff say Newsom is committed to the state’s ambitious climate goals, which include having 100% clean electricity by 2045. But he has become concerned as electric rates have risen to cover the cost of the state’s fast construction of solar farms and other renewable power, they say.

    Newsom’s executive order asks his administration to look for “underperforming or underutilized programs” that are paid for by electric customers that could be ended. It says any unused money in those programs should be returned to customers.

    In addition, the order asks the state’s Air Resources Board to determine how the California Climate Credit could be increased. Most Californians’ get the credit twice a year on their electric and gas bills. The credit is funded by the state’s cap-and-trade program, which attempts to reduce harmful emissions.

    The order also directs the state Public Utilities Commission to pursue all federal funding opportunities that could reduce electric costs.

    An early plan by Newsom’s office for the executive order that was reviewed by The Times asked the public utilities commission to look into alternative ways of financing the building of electrical lines and other infrastructure. Currently, building infrastructure is a key way for utilities to boost their profits because they bill the cost back to ratepayers over many years, tacking on annual interest that is typically 10.5%.

    Consumer groups say that lowering this rate could result in significant savings for customers.

    The governor’s executive order released Wednesday didn’t include that provision. His staff said the directive to find other ways of financing infrastructure wasn’t included in the executive order because it would require legislative statutes to be changed.

    In August, Newsom backed away from an earlier plan he had to lower the infrastructure interest rate after criticism from the big utilities and electrical workers’ union, according to a report by the Sacramento Bee.

    [ad_2]

    Melody Petersen

    Source link

  • Newsom quashed bill. Now lawsuit aims to open UC jobs to undocumented students

    Newsom quashed bill. Now lawsuit aims to open UC jobs to undocumented students

    [ad_1]

    After Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed undocumented students to be hired on public universities, a legal effort has been launched to force open this doorway.

    On Tuesday, a UCLA alumnus and a lecturer filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against students based on their immigration status. They are seeking a court order requiring the system to consider undocumented students for on-campus jobs.

    “As an undocumented undergraduate student at the University of California, I experienced firsthand the pain and difficulty of being denied the right to on-campus employment,” said petitioner and UCLA alumnus Jeffry Umaña Muñoz on Tuesday. “Losing these opportunities forced me to extremely precarious and dangerous living situations, always moments from housing and food insecurity.”

    The suit argues that federal law barring the hiring of undocumented people does not apply to public universities. A UC spokesperson said on Tuesday afternoon that the university system had yet to be served with the filing but will respond as appropriate when served.

    The suit is being coordinated by the Opportunity4All campaign, which led the charge behind Assembly Bill 2486, or the Opportunity for All Act, this year.

    When vetoing the bill in September, Newsom cited concerns that state employees could be found in violation of federal laws for hiring undocumented people.

    “Given the gravity of the potential consequences of this bill, which include potential criminal and civil liability for state employees, it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding,” he said in his veto message.

    UC regents, for their part, share Newsom’s fear that offering jobs to undocumented students may run afoul of federal law.

    In January, they shelved a plan to open jobs to students who lack legal work authorization, saying UC could be subject to civil fines, criminal penalties and the potential loss of billions of dollars in federal funding. The university system receives more than $12 billion in annual federal funding for research, student financial aid and healthcare.

    The lawsuit, however, argues that although the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 bars the hiring of people without legal status, this federal law does not apply to government employers such as the University of California.

    “No court has ever interpreted IRCA the way the [UC] regents do,” Jessica Bansal, counsel for the petitioner, said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit Tuesday. “To the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that federal laws regulating hiring do not apply to state employers unless they clearly and unambiguously state they do.”

    Bansal said the UC hiring policy also violates California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which prohibits state employers from discriminating in hiring based on immigration status.

    Although the lawsuit is directed at the UC system, counsel Ahilan Arulanantham said he hoped a favorable ruling would prompt California State University to also open employment to such immigrant students.

    California is home to one-fifth of the nation’s immigrant college students who are in the U.S. illegally, an estimated 55,500 of whom attend public colleges and universities.

    “It’s imperative for these students to have the opportunity to work and pursue career advancement,” petitioner and UCLA lecturer Iliana Perez said Tuesday. “By unlocking their potential and enabling them to contribute fully, we can rectify the missed economic opportunity and create a more inclusive and prosperous society.”

    [ad_2]

    Clara Harter

    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

    Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

    [ad_1]

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, M&Ms and other items made with certain synthetic food dyes will be expelled from California public schools, charter schools and state special schools under a bill signed into law Saturday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Assembly Bill 2316, which will go into effect starting Dec. 31, 2027, spells the end for snack foods that contain the dyes known as blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. All are common industry staples that can give foods unnaturally vibrant colors in an effort to make them more appealing.

    “Our health is inextricably tied to the food we eat,” Newsom said in a statement. “Today, we are refusing to accept the status quo, and making it possible for everyone, including school kids, to access nutritious, delicious food without harmful, and often addictive additives.”

    The chemicals have been linked to developmental and behavioral harms in children, according to the bill’s authors, who cited a 2021 report from the California Environmental Protection Agency. They expressed hope that the new law can have ripple effects beyond the Golden State.

    “California is once again leading the nation when it comes to protecting our kids from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who introduced the legislation.

    The new law “sends a strong message to manufacturers to stop using these harmful additives,” he added in a statement.

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos contain three of the six newly forbidden chemicals: red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. The ingredient list for M&Ms includes those three dyes as well as blue 1 and blue 2.

    Other food items that could disappear from cafeterias and school vending machines as a result of this law include Cheetos, Doritos, sports drinks and sugary breakfast cereals such as Froot Loops and Cap’n Crunch.

    For Gabriel, the bill is personal. He told The Times in March that he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child. His son also has the neurodevelopmental disorder.

    Last year, Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation ban on food additives found in popular cereals, candy, sodas and drinks, including brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and red dye No. 3. That law will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, and impose fines of up to $10,000 for violations.

    California lawmakers hope the bans will prompt manufacturers to reformulate their recipes.

    AB 2316 faced opposition from the American Beverage Assn., the California Chamber of Commerce and the National Confectioners Assn.

    The groups said food additives should be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, not evaluated on a state-by-state basis.

    But how or when the FDA will take action on the issue remains to be seen, said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at Environmental Working Group, which co-sponsored the law.

    “The FDA should certainly also take action on these dyes, but that’s no reason to wait to make sure that kids in California are safe,” Benesh said after the bill passed the Legislature.

    “There are plenty of alternatives to these chemicals,” Benesh said. “I think it’s on industry to find a way to reformulate and market their foods without using chemicals that may hurt our kids.”

    In addition to the ban on food dyes, Newsom also signed a bill that aims to standardize information about the expiration dates on food products. AB 660 is designed to give consumers more clear and consistent information about the freshness of their food in the hope that it will reduce food waste.

    “Having to wonder whether our food is still good is an issue that we all have struggled with,” the bill’s author, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), said in a statement. The enactment of this bill is a “monumental step to keep money in the pockets of consumers while helping the environment and the planet.”

    Erica Parker, a policy associate with Californians Against Waste, which co-sponsored the bill, said the legislation will get rid of the confusion consumers face when examining products that have the words “sell by,” “expires on” or “freshest before” printed on their packaging.

    The result of that confusion “is a staggering amount of food waste. Californians throw away 6 million tons of food waste each year — and confusion over date labels is a leading cause,” she said in a statement when the bill was sent to Newsom’s desk.

    [ad_2]

    Nathan Solis, Susanne Rust

    Source link

  • Newsom vetoes bill aiming to increase protections for farmworkers overcome by heat

    Newsom vetoes bill aiming to increase protections for farmworkers overcome by heat

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that aimed to make it easier for farmworkers to make a workers’ compensation claim for heat illness.

    SB 1299 would have changed the burden of proof in workers’ compensation claims when a farmworker develops a heat-related injury after laboring outdoors for an employer who fails to comply with the state’s heat safety standards. Instead of the farmworker having to prove the injury occurred on the job, as is typical in workers’ compensation cases, it would have been the employer’s responsibility to prove the illness was not work-related.

    Under the bill’s provisions, if an employer failed to comply with the rules, any resulting heat-related injury to an employee would be “presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment.” It would have created a “rebuttable presumption,” which is more commonly used for law enforcement officers and firefighters who develop certain injuries that could arise from the risks inherent to their jobs.

    In a veto message issued Saturday, Newsom said there is “no doubt” that California farmworkers need strong protections from the risk of heat-related illness, especially as climate change drives an increase in extreme temperatures.

    “However, the creation of a heat-illness presumption in the workers’ compensation system is not an effective way to accomplish this goal,” he said. Newsom said heat safety rules are currently enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, which is better equipped to enforce those worker protections.

    Newsom also noted that Cal/OSHA is establishing an agricultural unit that specializes in worker protections and hazards found at agricultural worksites, and opening new district office locations in Fresno, Santa Barbara and Riverside.

    “This dedicated unit will increase Cal/OSHA’s reach to farmworker communities throughout the Central Valley, where the largest number of farmworkers and their families reside,” Newsom said.

    The legislation came as many farmworkers continue to labor in unsafe conditions and Cal/OSHA confronts a severe staffing shortage that is hampering its ability to enforce heat regulations for outdoor workers.

    First enacted in 2005, the state’s heat illness prevention rules require employers to provide outdoor workers with fresh water, access to shade at 80 degrees and warmer, and cool-down breaks whenever a worker requests one. Employers must also maintain a heat illness prevention plan with effective training for supervisors to recognize the signs and symptoms of heat illness.

    But nearly two decades after the rules were first enacted, ensuring compliance has remained challenging.

    In 2009 and 2012, the United Farm Workers sued Cal/OSHA, accusing the agency of failing to enforce the regulations.

    A 2022 study by the UC Merced Community and Labor Center found many farmworkers were still laboring without the protections. Of more than 1,200 workers surveyed, 43% reported their employers had not provided a heat illness prevention plan and 15% said they had not received heat illness prevention training.

    The bill’s author, Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), previously described SB 1299 as a “creative work-around” that was “taking the tools that we do have available and trying to cobble together an approach that will hopefully spur greater compliance.”

    “The employers hate the workers’ comp presumptions so much that it makes me feel like it might actually work,” Cortese previously told The Times. “The avoidance factor is so high with them that they’ll say, ‘My God, it’s actually easier for us to provide shade and water than to have to deal with a proliferation of expedited workers’ comp claims.’”

    “We’re trying to take something that they view as kind of a thorn in their side and use it as a disincentive for the kind of behavior we’re seeing,” he said.

    The UFW backed SB 1299.

    “Despite the Governor’s veto of SB 1299, the UFW will continue to work to save farm worker lives,” UFW President Teresa Romero said in a statement Saturday.

    Opponents of the bill, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Farm Bureau, acknowledged the importance of protecting farmworkers from heat illness, but had argued the issue should not be addressed through the workers’ compensation system.

    This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

    [ad_2]

    Rebecca Plevin

    Source link

  • Newsom to sign California bill to limit ‘addictive’ social media feeds for kids

    Newsom to sign California bill to limit ‘addictive’ social media feeds for kids

    [ad_1]

    California will take a major step in its fight to protect children from the ills of social media with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature on a bill to limit the ability of companies to provide “addictive feeds” to minors.

    The governor’s office said Newsom on Friday will sign Senate Bill 976, named the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act and introduced by state Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley). The bill was supported by state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and groups such as the Assn. of California School Administrators, Common Sense Media and the California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    Newsom’s wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, is also outspoken about the links between social media consumption and low self-esteem, depression and anxiety among youth.

    The legislation attracted an unusual collection of opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union of California, Equality California and associations representing giants in the industry that own TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. The California Chamber of Commerce argued that the legislation “unconstitutionally burdens” access to lawful content, setting up the potential for another lawsuit in an ongoing court battle between the state and social media companies over use of the platforms by children.

    “Every parent knows the harm social media addiction can inflict on their children — isolation from human contact, stress and anxiety, and endless hours wasted late into the night,” Newsom said. “With this bill, California is helping protect children and teenagers from purposely designed features that feed these destructive habits.”

    The bill, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, with Newsom’s signature, prohibits internet service and applications from providing “addictive feeds,” defined as media curated based on information gathered on or provided by the user, to minors without parental consent. SB 976 also bans companies from sending notifications to users identified as minors between midnight and 6 a.m. or during the school day from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. unless parents give the OK.

    The bill will effectively require companies to make posts from people children know and follow appear in chronological order on their social media feeds instead of in an arrangement to maximize engagement. Proponents of the bill point to warnings from U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and others about a mental health crisis among youths, which studies show is exacerbated by the use of social media.

    “As a mother, I’m proud of California’s continued leadership in holding technology companies accountable for their products and ensuring those products are not harmful to children. Thank you to the Governor and Senator Skinner for taking a critical step in protecting children and ensuring their safety is prioritized over companies’ profits,” Siebel Newsom said.

    The industry has argued that it’s false to assume that feeds curated by an algorithm are harmful but that a chronological feed is safe. The ACLU also argued that age verification creates potential privacy concerns because it could require the collection of additional user data that could be at risk in a security breach and because it could threaten the 1st Amendment rights of people who cannot verify their age.

    Several groups advocating for LGBTQ+ youths suggested the bill could limit youths’ ability to engage on platforms that offer emotional support for their identities, particularly for kids who live in communities that might be hostile to their identity. Giving more control to parents could also potentially result in parents choosing settings that share sensitive information about the child, the groups said.

    The bill marks the latest action in a battle between state government and social media companies taking place in the California Legislature and the court system over the use of platforms by children.

    In October, Bonta’s office filed a lawsuit with 32 other states against Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, alleging that the company designed apps specifically to addict young users while misleading the public about the adverse effects.

    A bill that failed last year in the California Legislature would have made social media companies liable for up to $250,000 in damages if they knowingly promoted features that could harm children. Portions of a 2022 law that sought to require companies to provide privacy protections for children have also been held up in court.

    [ad_2]

    Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • In an effort to create more affordable homes, Gov. Newsom signs package of housing bills

    In an effort to create more affordable homes, Gov. Newsom signs package of housing bills

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom Thursday signed a package of bills designed to alleviate the state’s housing affordability crisis.

    The new laws aim to boost the availability of housing in a variety of ways, including streamlining the approval process for certain projects and requiring that local municipalities create plans to house the most vulnerable Californians.

    “The original sin in this state is affordability,” Newsom said at news conference. “That is the challenge we are trying to address.”

    The bill signings Thursday follow a number of actions lawmakers have taken in recent years to make housing more affordable.

    There have been big ticket items like eliminating most single-family only zones to allow duplexes and so-called accessory dwelling units, as well as more under-the-radar efforts that have boosted ADU construction and chipped away at the ability local governments have to block housing developments.

    One of those lesser known laws is Assembly Bill 2011, a law from Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) that streamlined the approval process for housing projects on certain types of commercial land if developers reserve some units for lower-income residents.

    On Wednesday, developer Thrive Living and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass celebrated the groundbreaking of what was billed as the first AB 2011 project to move forward in the city. The Baldwin Village development will consist of 800 apartments on top of a ground-floor Costco store. Just over 180 of those units will be for low-income households.

    In his news conference Thursday, Newsom said the total housing package includes 32 bills and he signed seven at the event that tweak a number of existing rules to try to spur more housing.

    One measure from Wicks, AB 2243, amends the law that Thrive Living used in Los Angeles. Under the new rules, developers will be able to receive the streamlined approval in more areas than they do now, including regional malls and land closer to freeways.

    Another bill, AB 3093 from Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), requires that local municipalities plan for housing that will be available to households making up to 15% and up to 30% of the area‘s median income.

    Currently, the lowest income bracket communities must plan for is less than 50% of area median income, meaning in theory that cities could fulfill those goals by building housing just for people making 49% of local income.

    Officials say that by adding the new, lower income categories it will help create more housing for people who are homeless or at greatest risk of losing their homes.

    Local municipalities will also face stricter penalties if they reject housing projects in ways that state law does not allow them to do.

    Under Senate Bill 1037, from State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), communities will face civil penalties up to $50,000 a month for as long as a violation persists. The money will be deposited into a state fund and used to develop income-restricted housing in that community.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Khouri

    Source link

  • ‘Night Shift’ With Bill Simmons and Chris Ryan

    ‘Night Shift’ With Bill Simmons and Chris Ryan

    [ad_1]

    Major Studio Partners

    Bill and Chris revisit the 1982 comedy starring Henry Winkler, Michael Keaton, and Shelley Long

    The Ringer’s Bill Simmons and Chris Ryan are just a couple of ideas men trying to rewatch the 1982 comedy Night Shift, starring Henry Winkler, Michael Keaton, and Shelley Long and directed by Ron Howard.

    Producer: Craig Horlbeck

    Subscribe: Spotify / Apple Podcasts / Stitcher / RSS

    [ad_2]

    Bill Simmons

    Source link

  • Newsom calls Legislature into special session after lawmakers reject his latest salvo at Big Oil

    Newsom calls Legislature into special session after lawmakers reject his latest salvo at Big Oil

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — 

    Gov. Gavin Newsom called California lawmakers into a special session Saturday after Assembly Democrats pushed back on his request to approve new requirements on oil refineries in the final days of the regular legislative session that ends Saturday night.

    The unusual maneuver effectively pushes the Legislature into overtime to address the complex and politically sensitive issue of energy affordability just as campaign season heats up in advance of the Nov. 5 election.

    Newsom’s order requires that lawmakers formally open a special session immediately, but it’s unclear when they plan to hold hearings to consider the bills or how long the session will go. Lawmakers were scheduled to leave Sacramento this weekend for four months in their home districts.

    “It should be common sense for gas refineries to plan ahead and backfill supplies when they go down for maintenance to avoid price spikes. But these price spikes are actually profit spikes for Big Oil, and they’re using the same old scare tactics to maintain the status quo,” Newsom said in a statement.

    “Calling the session now allows the Legislature to begin that work immediately so that the state can resolve this important matter to establish the necessary rules to prevent price spikes next year and beyond.”

    It’s the second time in two years that Newsom has called a special session focused on the economics of the oil industry, an issue that divides Democrats as they navigate a desire to fight climate change with ambitions to lower prices at the pump. Newsom has blamed high gas prices on the industry, which he accused of gouging consumers. Oil companies point to the state’s climate change and tax policies as drivers of higher prices.

    Two weeks ago, Newsom announced a proposal to require that petroleum refiners maintain a stable inventory in order to prevent fuel shortages and price spikes when refinery equipment is taken offline for maintenance.

    As the oil industry lobbied heavily against the proposal, Democrats in the Assembly and Senate squabbled over how to move forward. Lawmakers said they were frustrated with Newsom’s attempt to push the plan through the Capitol at the last minute.

    In a statement Friday, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said his caucus agreed with the governor about the need to urgently address affordability and would deliver results if a special session was called. But he refused to take up the bills for a floor vote by Saturday’s deadline.

    “What I’m not going to do is push through bills that haven’t been sufficiently vetted with public hearings,” Rivas said. “Doing so could lead to unintended consequences on Californians’ pocketbooks.”

    Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said he wouldn’t rush Newsom’s energy proposal through the Legislature.

    (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

    Newsom’s office began talking with the Senate and Assembly earlier this summer about legislation that would allow his administration to require that petroleum refiners maintain a stable inventory in order to prevent fuel shortages in California.

    After gathering more insight about pricing from laws passed in a previous special session on oil that ended last year, state regulators had reported that charges at the pump increase when the oil companies do not maintain enough refined gasoline to backfill production shortfalls or protect against the impact of unplanned maintenance.

    Western States Petroleum Assn. leaders said the governor’s refinery proposal will drive up fuel costs in California and reduce supplies in Arizona and Nevada. The argument raised a potent political concern that the state policy could become a national headache for Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats in a critical election year.

    “It’s noteworthy that legislators are considering such radical energy policies at a time when the nation is closely examining how the ‘California model’ will impact their families and pocketbooks,” Catherine Reheis-Boyd, CEO of the Western States Petroleum Assn., said in a statement this week.

    The warning from WSPA, Chevron and other industry players spooked Assembly Democrats, who were also irked by the late introduction of the proposal.

    In an effort to reach an agreement with Democratic lawmakers, the proposal was tied together with other bills in the Senate and Assembly during negotiations with leaders of both houses. But environmentalists opposed some of those proposals, leaving Democrats with a suite of bills that angered both ends of the environmental policy spectrum.

    One of the Assembly bills, which would cut energy and climate programs that fund HVAC improvements in schools, installation of energy storage and generation technologies in vulnerable communities and solar energy systems on multifamily affordable housing to achieve a meager one-time customer credit on electricity and gas bills, drew sweeping opposition from a coalition of environmental, education, housing and energy groups. Another bill, which ratepayer advocates supported, would have required the Public Utilities Commission to develop a framework for analyzing total annual energy costs for residential households.

    The bills didn’t offer enough incentive for Assembly Democrats to slam the plan through this week. They also soured on efforts by Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) to leverage the moment to pass Senate bills that would accelerate environmental reviews for clean energy and hydrogen projects, save ratepayers money by lowering requirements for utility wildfire mitigation plans and make it harder for companies to terminate utility service to customers.

    McGuire, who earlier this week said the Senate did not support a special session and urged the Assembly to take action on the bills, stuck to that position on Saturday.

    “The Senate always had the votes and was ready to get these important measures across the finish line this legislative year and deliver the relief Californians need at the pump and on their electricity bills,” McGuire said in a statement.

    “We won’t be convening a special session this fall, but we look forward to continuing conversations with the Governor and Speaker about this critical issue in the days and weeks to come.”

    It was unclear Saturday night how Newsom would respond or whether the Senate leader has the legal authority to refuse the governor’s call for a special session.

    The drama marked another effort by a governor on the cusp of the final two years of his second term to push last-minute bills through a Legislature guided by two new leaders. Earlier this summer lawmakers similarly balked on passing a bill that would have placed his measure targeting retail crime on the ballot.

    Newsom’s decision to call for a special session also marks the second time he’s sought to toughen California’s oil laws outside the typical two-year process to hear bills, which runs from January through August or mid-September each year.

    The governor called a special session two years ago to penalize oil companies for excessive profits as gasoline prices spiked. But lawmakers were ultimately reluctant to adopt a penalty and Newsom refined his request to instead demand more transparency from the industry.

    Instead of enacting a cap and penalty on oil refinery profits, Newsom and lawmakers gave state regulators the ability to do so in the future. Consumer advocates and the governor celebrated the resulting law as a groundbreaking tool that could keep gas prices from escalating.

    But Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo of Nevada joined the industry and his party in May when he sent Newsom a letter warning a cap could “further raise gas prices for both of our constituencies” because his state’s gas largely comes from refineries in California.

    On Friday, Andy Walz, president of Americas products for Chevron, sent a letter to the California Energy Commission saying that Newsom’s new refinery proposal “risks the safety of refinery operations, the orderly functioning of markets and would leave industry and labor experts without a voice in key policies.”

    “The physical, operational and cost burdens to sustain unnecessary inventory are also a concern,” he wrote. “Building just one new storage tank can take a decade and cost $35 million. These costs would likely be passed onto the consumer. And given the current regulatory regime, with constraints on permits and a gasoline vehicle sales ban, there is no opportunity to recover capital invested to build additional tanks, which could be the ‘last straw’ for the state’s energy market investors.”

    The timing of a second special session on oil regulations could work in Newsom’s favor if lawmakers immediately get to work.

    Newsom will finish signing the bills on his desk by Sept. 30, which means he could have the political upper hand if the special session begins before that period concludes. If the special session begins after bill signing, the governor could lose some of that leverage.

    But when, and, if, they ultimately pass new mandates on the oil industry or lower electricity bills could also affect the election.

    Legislation that saves consumers money could give them something to tout to their constituents. Laws that potentially raise gas prices could be weaponized in California races or national contests.

    [ad_2]

    Taryn Luna, Laurel Rosenhall

    Source link

  • California is racing to combat deepfakes ahead of the election

    California is racing to combat deepfakes ahead of the election

    [ad_1]

    Days after Vice President Kamala Harris launched her presidential bid, a video — created with the help of artificial intelligence — went viral.

    “I … am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate,” a voice that sounded like Harris’ said in the fake audio track used to alter one of her campaign ads. “I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire.”

    Billionaire Elon Musk — who has endorsed Harris’ Republican opponent, former President Trump— shared the video on X, then clarified two days later that it was actually meant as a parody. His initial tweet had 136 million views. The follow-up calling the video a parody garnered 26 million views.

    To Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the incident was no laughing matter, fueling calls for more regulation to combat AI-generated videos with political messages and a fresh debate over the appropriate role for government in trying to contain emerging technology.

    On Friday, California lawmakers gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit the distribution of deceptive campaign ads or “election communication” within 120 days of an election. Assembly Bill 2839 targets manipulated content that would harm a candidate’s reputation or electoral prospects along with confidence in an election’s outcome. It’s meant to address videos like the one Musk shared of Harris, though it includes an exception for parody and satire.

    “We’re looking at California entering its first-ever election during which disinformation that’s powered by generative AI is going to pollute our information ecosystems like never before and millions of voters are not going to know what images, audio or video they can trust,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). “So we have to do something.”

    Newsom has signaled he will sign the bill, which would take effect immediately, in time for the November election.

    The legislation updates a California law that bars people from distributing deceptive audio or visual media that intends to harm a candidate’s reputation or deceive a voter within 60 days of an election. State lawmakers say the law needs to be strengthened during an election cycle in which people are already flooding social media with digitally altered videos and photos known as deepfakes.

    The use of deepfakes to spread misinformation has concerned lawmakers and regulators during previous election cycles. These fears increased after the release of new AI-powered tools, such as chatbots that can rapidly generate images and videos. From fake robocalls to bogus celebrity endorsement of candidates, AI-generated content is testing tech platforms and lawmakers.

    Under AB 2839, a candidate, election committee or elections official could seek a court order to get deepfakes pulled down. They could also sue the person who distributed or republished the deceptive material for damages.

    The legislation also applies to deceptive media posted 60 days after the election, including content that falsely portrays a voting machine, ballot, voting site or other election-related property in a way that is likely to undermine the confidence in the outcome of elections.

    It doesn’t apply to satire or parody that’s labeled as such, or to broadcast stations if they inform viewers that what is depicted doesn’t accurately represent a speech or event.

    Tech industry groups oppose AB 2839, along with other bills that target online platforms for not properly moderating deceptive election content or labeling AI-generated content.

    “It will result in the chilling and blocking of constitutionally protected free speech,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel for NetChoice. The group’s members include Google, X and Snap as well as Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and other tech giants.

    Online platforms have their own rules about manipulated media and political ads, but their policies can differ.

    Unlike Meta and X, TikTok doesn’t allow political ads and says it may remove even labeled AI-generated content if it depicts a public figure such as a celebrity “when used for political or commercial endorsements.” Truth Social, a platform created by Trump, doesn’t address manipulated media in its rules about what’s not allowed on its platform.

    Federal and state regulators are already cracking down on AI-generated content.

    The Federal Communications Commission in May proposed a $6-million fine against Steve Kramer, a Democratic political consultant behind a robocall that used AI to impersonate President Biden’s voice. The fake call discouraged participation in New Hampshire’s Democratic presidential primary in January. Kramer, who told NBC News he planned the call to bring attention to the dangers of AI in politics, also faces criminal charges of felony voter suppression and misdemeanor impersonation of a candidate.

    Szabo said current laws are enough to address concerns about election deepfakes. NetChoice has sued various states to stop some laws aimed at protecting children on social media, alleging they violate free speech protections under the 1st Amendment.

    “Just creating a new law doesn’t do anything to stop the bad behavior, you actually need to enforce laws,” Szabo said.

    More than two dozen states, including Washington, Arizona and Oregon, have enacted, passed or are working on legislation to regulate deepfakes, according to the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen.

    In 2019, California instituted a law aimed at combating manipulated media after a video that made it appear as if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was drunk went viral on social media. Enforcing that law has been a challenge.

    “We did have to water it down,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who authored the bill. “It attracted a lot of attention to the potential risks of this technology, but I was worried that it really, at the end of the day, didn’t do a lot.”

    Rather than take legal action, said Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, political candidates might choose to debunk a deepfake or even ignore it to limit its spread. By the time they could go through the court system, the content might already have gone viral.

    “These laws are important because of the message they send. They teach us something,” she said, adding that they inform people who share deepfakes that there are costs.

    This year, lawmakers worked with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of the nonprofit California Common Cause, on several bills to address political deepfakes.

    Some target online platforms that have been shielded under federal law from being held liable for content posted by users.

    Berman introduced a bill that requires an online platform with at least 1 million California users to remove or label certain deceptive election-related content within 120 days of an election. The platforms would have to take action no later than 72 hours after a user reports the post. Under AB 2655, which passed the Legislature Wednesday, the platforms would also need procedures for identifying, removing and labeling fake content. It also doesn’t apply to parody or satire or news outlets that meet certain requirements.

    Another bill, co-authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), requires online platforms to label AI-generated content. While NetChoice and TechNet, another industry group, oppose the bill, ChatGPT maker OpenAI is supporting AB 3211, Reuters reported.

    The two bills, though, wouldn’t take effect until after the election, underscoring the challenges with passing new laws as technology advances rapidly.

    “Part of my hope with introducing the bill is the attention that it creates, and hopefully the pressure that it puts on the social media platforms to behave right now,” Berman said.

    [ad_2]

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom signs bills to make it easier to provide shelter beds, build more ADUs

    Gov. Newsom signs bills to make it easier to provide shelter beds, build more ADUs

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed two bills that tweak existing shelter and ADU laws in an attempt to boost supply and make a dent in the state’s housing and homelessness crisis.

    One of the bills, Assembly Bill 3057, focuses on something called junior ADUs — units created within existing houses that can be up to 500 square feet and don’t need their own bathroom.

    Under the new law, junior ADUs — like larger ADUs — will be exempt from requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act that can add time and cost to projects.

    The bill’s author, Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City), called the exemption a “a small but significant technical change that offers Californians more accessible and efficient options to build affordable housing solutions.”

    The second bill, Assembly Bill 2835, was authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino). It makes permanent a set of temporary rules that have made it easier to house homeless individuals in privately owned hotels and motels for longer than 30 days.

    Local governments, including Los Angeles, have increasingly turned to that strategy to get people off the streets, at times relying on state funding.

    “The homelessness crisis demands immediate and innovative action, not the status quo,” Newsom said in a statement. “With these new laws, local governments have even more tools to provide housing. I urge them to fully utilize the state’s unprecedented resources to address homelessness.”

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Khouri

    Source link

  • ‘Purple Rain’ With Bill Simmons and Wesley Morris

    ‘Purple Rain’ With Bill Simmons and Wesley Morris

    [ad_1]

    Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to rewatch a movie called Purple Rain. The Ringer’s Bill Simmons and Wesley Morris dive deep into Prince’s 1984 acting debut, starring Prince, Apollonia, and Morris Day.

    Producer: Craig Horlbeck

    Subscribe: Spotify / Apple Podcasts / Stitcher / RSS

    [ad_2]

    Bill Simmons

    Source link

  • ‘Rudy’ With Bill Simmons and Kyle Brandt

    ‘Rudy’ With Bill Simmons and Kyle Brandt

    [ad_1]

    Bill and Kyle are gonna go, go, go, go, go, go, and they’re not gonna stop until they get across that goal line as they rewatch the classic 1993 sports film

    Share this story

    [ad_2]

    Bill Simmons

    Source link

  • This controversial California AI bill was amended to quell Silicon Valley fears. Here’s what changed

    This controversial California AI bill was amended to quell Silicon Valley fears. Here’s what changed

    [ad_1]

    A controversial bill that seeks to protect Californians from artificial intelligence-driven catastrophes has caused uproar in the tech industry. This week, the legislation passed a key committee but with amendments to make it more palatable to Silicon Valley.

    SB 1047, from state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), is set to go to the state Assembly floor later this month. If it passes the Legislature, Gov. Gavin Newsom will have to decide whether to sign or veto the groundbreaking legislation.

    The bill’s backers say it will create guardrails to prevent rapidly advancing AI models from causing disastrous incidents, such as shutting down the power grid without warning. They worry that the technology is developing faster than its human creators can control.

    Lawmakers aim to incentive developers to handle the technology responsibly and empower the state’s attorney general to impose penalties in the event of imminent threat or harm. The legislation also requires developers to be able to turn off the AI models they control directly if things go awry.

    But some tech companies, such as Facebook owner Meta Platforms, and politicians including influential U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), say the bill would stifle innovation. Some critics say it focuses on apocalyptic, far-off scenarios, rather than the more immediate concerns such as privacy and misinformation, though there are other bills that address these matters.

    SB 1047 is one of roughly 50 AI-related bills that have been brought up in the state Legislature, as worries have grown about the technology’s effects on jobs, disinformation and public safety. As politicians work to create new laws to put guardrails on the fast-growing industry, some companies and talent are suing AI companies in hopes that courts can set ground rules.

    Wiener, who represents San Francisco — the home of AI startups OpenAI and Anthropic — has been in the middle of the debate.

    On Thursday, he made significant changes to his bill that some believe weaken the legislation while making it more likely for the Assembly to pass.

    The amendments removed a perjury penalty from the bill and changed the legal standard for developers regarding the safety of their advanced AI models.

    Additionally, a plan to create a new government entity, which would have been called the Frontier Model Division, is no longer in the works. Under the original text, the bill would have required developers to submit their safety measures to the newly created division. In the new version, developers would submit those safety measures to the attorney general.

    “I do think some of those changes might make it more likely to pass,” said Christian Grose, a USC political science and public policy professor.

    Some tech players support the bill, including the Center for AI Safety and Geoffrey Hinton, who is considered a “godfather of AI.” Others, though, worry that it could damage a booming California industry.

    Eight California House members — Khanna, Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park), Scott Peters (D-San Diego), Tony Cárdenas (D-Pacoima), Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove), Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-San Pedro) and Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) — wrote a letter to Newsom on Thursday encouraging him to veto the bill if it passes the state Assembly.

    “[Wiener] really is cross pressured in San Francisco between people who are experts in this area, who have been telling him and others in California that AI can be dangerous if we don’t regulate it and then those whose paychecks, their cutting edge research, is from AI,” Grose said. “This could be a real flash point for him, both pro and con, for his career.”

    Some tech giants say they are open to regulation but disagree with Wiener’s approach.

    “We are aligned with the way (Wiener) describes the bill and the goals that he has, but we remain concerned about the impact of the bill on AI innovation, particularly in California, and particularly on open source innovation,” Kevin McKinley, Meta’s state policy manager, said in a meeting with L.A. Times editorial board members last week.

    Meta is one of the companies with a collection of open source AI models called Llama, which allows developers to build on top of it for their own products. Meta released Llama 3 in April and there have already been 20 million downloads, the tech giant said.

    Meta declined to discuss the new amendments. Last week, McKinley said SB 1047 is “actually a really hard bill to red line and fix.”

    A spokesperson for Newsom said his office does not typically comment on pending legislation.

    “The Governor will evaluate this bill on its merits should it reach his desk,” spokesperson Izzy Gardon wrote in an email.

    San Francisco AI startup Anthropic, which is known for its AI assistant Claude, signaled it could support the bill if it was amended. In a July 23 letter to Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), Anthropic’s state and local policy lead Hank Dempsey proposed changes including shifting the bill to focus on holding companies responsible for causing catastrophes rather than pre-harm enforcement.

    Wiener said the amendments took Anthropic’s concerns into account.

    “We can advance both innovation and safety,” Wiener said in a statement. “The two are not mutually exclusive.”

    It is unclear whether the amendments will change Anthropic’s position on the bill. On Thursday, Anthropic said in a statement that it would review the new “bill language as it becomes available.”

    Russell Wald, deputy director at Stanford University’s HAI, which aims to advance AI research and policy, said he still opposes the bill.

    “Recent amendments appear to be more about optics than substance,” Wald said in a statement. “It looks less controversial to appease a couple of leading AI companies but does little to address real concerns from academic institutions and open-source communities.”

    It is a fine balance for lawmakers that are trying to weigh concerns about AI while also supporting the state’s tech sector.

    “What a lot of us are trying to do is figure out a regulatory environment that allows for some of those guardrails to exist while not stifling innovation and the economic growth that comes with AI,” Wicks said after Thursday’s committee meeting.

    Times staff writer Anabel Sosa contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Wendy Lee

    Source link

  • First Teaser For The Last Of Us Season Two Puts Joel In Therapy

    First Teaser For The Last Of Us Season Two Puts Joel In Therapy

    [ad_1]

    Screenshot: HBO / Kotaku

    HBO has released the first footage of the second season of The Last of Us, and it implies that things for Pedro Pascal’s Joel may be a little bit different than they are in the game. No, not that different, but it seems like he might be going to therapy.

    Kotaku’s Hopes For Spyro The Dragon’s (Reported) Comeback

    The brief, 24-second teaser shows a few familiar scenes originating from The Last of Us Part II. These include the dance scene in which Bella Ramsey’s Ellie kisses Dina, flashes of characters like Jeffrey Wright’s Isaac who leads the militaristic Washington Liberation Front, and a few glimpses of the Seraphites, the Seattle cult which also occupies the city. But one character seems to be someone entirely new. This person, played by Schitt’s Creek and Home Alone actor Catherine O’Hara, seems to be Joel’s therapist. She is shown asking if he hurt Ellie, which he denies. Instead, he insists he saved her.

    This seems like a new take on the opening scene of The Last of Us Part II, in which Joel recounts the violent events of the first game’s finale to his brother Tommy. He finishes his story with the same line: “I saved her.” So it seems Joel might be confessing his murder of the Fireflies to someone other than family in the show when it premieres on Max in 2025. The first season played things pretty close to the original, but it did make some big changes to Bill and Frank’s relationship, and added entirely new characters of its own, like Melanie Lynskey’s Kathleen.

    Given that HBO plans to cover the events of Part II across multiple seasons of the show, it wouldn’t be surprising if it used all that extra time to riff on more plot points and character threads. The first season put a big focus on Joel’s anxiety, something which the games only hinted at, so the sad dad finally getting professional help seems in line with how the show’s been handling that side of him.

    Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey will lead season two, but HBO has announced several new cast members that will play characters from The Last of Us Part II. Most notably, Kaitlyn Dever will play Abby, the co-protagonist of the sequel.

    .

    [ad_2]

    Kenneth Shepard

    Source link

  • $10-billion climate bond will go before voters in November

    $10-billion climate bond will go before voters in November

    [ad_1]

    California voters will get to decide in November if they want the state to borrow $10 billion to pay for climate and environmental projects — including some that were axed from the budget because of an unprecedented deficit.

    The 28-page bill to put the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024on the ballot was approved by both the Senate and Assembly late Wednesday.

    This was the last day lawmakers had to approve the climate bond proposal to get the measure on the Nov. 5 ballot.

    Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) was acting as governor Wednesday because Gov. Gavin Newsom was in Washington. McGuire is a supporter of the proposed climate bond and was expected to sign the legislation Wednesday night.

    “Ensuring that our communities have the resources to protect themselves from wildfires, drought and floods is critical to the long-term success of the Golden State,” McGuire said in a press release Monday.

    The language of the bill had been negotiated in secret over the last several months but did not become public until 9:57 p.m. Saturday.

    California taxpayers would pay the bond back with interest. An analyst for the Assembly estimated that the $10 billion bond would cost the state $650 million a year for the next 30 years or more than $19 billion.

    Scott Kaufman, legislative director at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said the cost could be much higher if the interest rate on the bonds turns out to be higher than the 5% rate the analyst used.

    “These bonds will be paid by people decades from now that didn’t even get to vote for their authorization,” Kaufman wrote to the bill’s author in a letter opposing the measure.

    Earlier this year, Sacramento legislators had proposals to place tens of billions of dollars of bonds on the November ballot for efforts as varied as stopping fentanyl overdoses and building affordable housing.

    But those plans were deflated in March when a $6.4-billion bond measure promoted by Newsom to help homeless and mentally ill people got 50.18% of the vote, barely enough to win approval.

    In a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, 64% of likely voters said it was a “bad time” for the state to issue bonds to pay for state projects and programs.

    Dozens of environmental groups, renewable energy companies, labor unions, water agencies and social justice advocates have been lobbying state lawmakers to place the climate bond on the ballot.

    The lobbying intensified after Newsom proposed spending $54 billion on climate efforts in 2022 but then cut that funding to close recent massive budget deficits.

    According to the bill, $3.8 billion would be allocated to water projects, including those that provide safe drinking water, recycle wastewater, store groundwater and control floods.

    An additional $1.5 billion would be spent on wildfire protection, while $1.2 billion would go toward protecting the coast from sea level rise.

    Other money would be used to create parks, protect wildlife and habitats and address extreme heat events.

    The language requires that at least 40% of the money go to projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged communities, defined as populations where the median household income is less than 80% of the area average or less than 80% of the statewide median.

    Some legislators pulled their support of the bond, saying this provision had recently been weakened so that more money would go to people who were not financially disadvantaged.

    Jasmeet Bains (D-Delano) said before the Assembly vote that the definition of vulnerable populations had been diluted. “It’s fundamentally unjust,” she said.

    Hundreds of millions of dollars from the bond would benefit private industry. For example, it would provide $850 million to clean energy projects, including the proposed offshore wind farms. Those planned wind projects are already benefiting from subsidies in President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

    Governments often take out long-term debt to pay for infrastructure projects that are expensive to build but will last for decades. Yet some of the planned climate bond spending would go to operate programs that could long be over by the time the bonds are paid off. For instance, a portion will go to “workforce development” or the training of workers.

    And up to 7% of the money or $700 million can go to administration costs.

    “We are already seeing the devastating effects of climate change — more extreme heat waves, catastrophic fires and floods, coastal erosion, and severe droughts,” Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) said in a press release. “Every part of our state is affected, and unless we take action now, the cost to address these impacts will become increasingly overwhelming.”

    [ad_2]

    Melody Petersen

    Source link

  • ‘Big Daddy’ With Bill Simmons, Joe House, and Sean Fennessey

    ‘Big Daddy’ With Bill Simmons, Joe House, and Sean Fennessey

    [ad_1]

    Filed under:

    Bill Simmons, Joe House, and Sean Fennessey join the Scuba Squad as they rewatch the 1999 hit comedy ‘Big Daddy’

    By

    Bill Simmons, Joe House, and Sean Fennessey




    [ad_2]

    Bill Simmons

    Source link