ReportWire

Tag: california lawmaker

  • California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing to transit hubs

    [ad_1]

    California lawmakers just paved the way for a whole lot more housing in the Golden State.

    In the waning hours of the 2025 legislative session, the state Senate voted 21 to 8 to approve Senate Bill 79, a landmark housing bill that overrides local zoning laws to expand high-density housing near transit hubs. The controversial bill received a final concurrence vote from the Senate on Friday, a day after passing in the California assembly with a vote of 41 to 17.

    The bill had already squeaked through the state Senate by a narrow margin earlier this year, but since it was amended in the following months, it required a second approval. It will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk in October.

    One of the more ambitious state-imposed efforts to increase housing density in recent years, the bill was introduced in March by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who stresses that the state needs to take immediate action to address California’s housing shortage. It opens the door for taller, denser housing near transit corridors such as bus stops and train stations: up to nine stories for buildings adjacent to certain transit stops, seven stories for buildings within a quarter-mile, and six stories for buildings within a half-mile.

    Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be subject to the new zoning rules.

    Height limits are based on tiers. Tier 1 zoning, which includes heavy rail lines such as the L.A. Metro B and D lines, allows for six- to nine-story buildings, depending on proximity to the transit hub. Tier 2 zoning — which includes light rail lines such as the A, C, E and K lines, as well as bus routes with dedicated lanes — allows for five- to eight-story buildings.

    An amateur map released by a cartographer and fact-checked by YIMBY Action, a housing non-profit that helped push the bill through, gives an idea of the areas around L.A. that would be eligible for development under SB 79. Tier 1 zones include hubs along Wilshire Blvd., Vermont Ave., and Hollywood Blvd., as well as a handful of spots in Downtown L.A. and the San Fernando Valley.

    Tier 2 zones are more spread out, dotting Exposition Blvd. along the E line, stretching toward Inglewood along the K line, and running from Long Beach into the San Gabriel Valley along the A line.

    Assembly members debated the bill for around 40 minutes on Thursday evening and cheered after it was passed.

    “Over the last five years, housing affordability and homelessness have consistently been among the top priorities in California. The smartest place to build new housing is within existing communities, near the state’s major transit investments that connect people to jobs, schools and essential services,” said Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Orange County) in support of the bill.

    Other assembly members, including Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale) and Josh Hoover (R-Folsom) voiced their support.

    Proponents say drastic measures are necessary given the state’s affordability crisis.

    “SB 79 is what we’ve been working towards for a decade – new housing next to our most frequently used train stations. This bill has the potential to unlock hundreds of thousands of new multi-family homes,” said YIMBY Action California director Leora Tanjuatco Ross.

    Critics claim the blanket mandate is an overreach, stripping local authorities of their ability to promote responsible growth.

    Assemblymember Rick Zbur (D-West Hollywood) argued against the bill, claiming it will affect lower-priced neighborhoods more than wealthy ones since land prices are cheaper for housing developers.

    The vote came a few weeks after the Los Angeles City Council came out against the bill, voting 8 to 5 on a resolution opposing it.

    Councilmember Traci Park, who co-authored the resolution with Councilmember John Lee, called SB 79 a “one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento.” Lee called it “chaos.”

    The resolution called for L.A. to be exempt from the upzoning since it already has a state-approved housing plan.

    The bill has spurred multiple protests in Southern California communities, including Pacific Palisades and San Diego. Residents fear the zoning changes would alter single-family communities and force residents into competition with developers, who would be incentivized under the new rules to purchase properties near transit corridors.

    However, support for SB 79 surged in recent days after the State Building and Construction Trades Council, a powerful labor group that represents union construction workers, agreed to reverse their opposition in exchange for amendments that add union hiring to certain projects.

    In a statement after the deal was struck, the trades council president Chris Hannan said the amendments would provide good jobs and training to California’s skilled construction workforce.

    Wiener, who has unsuccessfully tried to pass similar legislation twice before, said the deal boosted the bill’s chances.

    [ad_2]

    Jack Flemming

    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

  • California lawmakers seek flood protection funding amid Hurricane Katrina anniversary

    [ad_1]

    As the nation reflects on the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, California lawmakers are raising concerns about the state’s flood preparedness and advocating for increased federal funding for essential flood protection projects.The Army Corps of Engineers is actively working along the Sacramento River to double the size of a weir, one of many flood protection projects deemed vital by officials. “The city of Sacramento is one of the most at-risk regions in the entire nation for catastrophic flooding,” said Greg Trible from the Army Corps of Engineers. It’s one of several projects that experts say is part of a large network of flood protection measures in the state. Despite the ongoing work, federal funding for four other projects is at risk.Representative Josh Harder and other Democratic California Representatives are pushing for $126 million to be reinstated in the President’s latest construction budget, warning that without it, construction updates necessary to protect Stockton, Lodi, and Manteca could halt.”We’re going to see hammers stop mid-stroke, we’re going to see money taken away from some of the needed construction updates to keep Stockton and Lodi and Manteca safe,” Harder said, attributing the situation to political games.RELATED | Do you live near an unsafe dam? See interactive mapHarder, along with other members of Congress, signed a letter in June urging the House to increase what they called “seriously insufficient” funding. Among the proposed cuts are repairs to levees in West Sacramento and Natomas, as well as increased flood protection in Watsonville and the San Joaquin River Basin. “San Joaquin County is one of the most densely populated floodplains anywhere in the United States,” Harder said, emphasizing the need for flood protection.Todd Bernardy from the California Department of Water Resources highlighted the state’s perspective, saying, “We need to improve and create better resiliency for our infrastructure.” He noted that 300 miles of levee improvements are needed in the Central Valley, equating to about $12 billion total. Trible stressed the importance of proactive measures. “It’s about protecting our people, our friends, and neighbors here in Sacramento families. That’s why we’re doing the work that we’re doing,” he said. Harder echoed this sentiment. “It’s so much cheaper to build a levee to prevent a flood than to rebuild after a natural disaster,” he said.Bernardy also acknowledged the ongoing risk. “You’re never going to get your risk down to zero,” he said. “There’s always going to be residual risk, and the infrastructure is part of reducing that risk.”The Trump administration’s budget requested approximately $1.5 billion for construction, with the House-passed version adding substantial funding, including for California projects. The Senate has yet to release its version, but the situation continues to be closely monitored.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. —

    As the nation reflects on the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, California lawmakers are raising concerns about the state’s flood preparedness and advocating for increased federal funding for essential flood protection projects.

    The Army Corps of Engineers is actively working along the Sacramento River to double the size of a weir, one of many flood protection projects deemed vital by officials.

    “The city of Sacramento is one of the most at-risk regions in the entire nation for catastrophic flooding,” said Greg Trible from the Army Corps of Engineers.

    It’s one of several projects that experts say is part of a large network of flood protection measures in the state. Despite the ongoing work, federal funding for four other projects is at risk.

    Representative Josh Harder and other Democratic California Representatives are pushing for $126 million to be reinstated in the President’s latest construction budget, warning that without it, construction updates necessary to protect Stockton, Lodi, and Manteca could halt.

    “We’re going to see hammers stop mid-stroke, we’re going to see money taken away from some of the needed construction updates to keep Stockton and Lodi and Manteca safe,” Harder said, attributing the situation to political games.

    RELATED | Do you live near an unsafe dam? See interactive map

    Harder, along with other members of Congress, signed a letter in June urging the House to increase what they called “seriously insufficient” funding. Among the proposed cuts are repairs to levees in West Sacramento and Natomas, as well as increased flood protection in Watsonville and the San Joaquin River Basin.

    “San Joaquin County is one of the most densely populated floodplains anywhere in the United States,” Harder said, emphasizing the need for flood protection.

    Todd Bernardy from the California Department of Water Resources highlighted the state’s perspective, saying, “We need to improve and create better resiliency for our infrastructure.”

    He noted that 300 miles of levee improvements are needed in the Central Valley, equating to about $12 billion total.

    Trible stressed the importance of proactive measures.

    “It’s about protecting our people, our friends, and neighbors here in Sacramento families. That’s why we’re doing the work that we’re doing,” he said.

    Harder echoed this sentiment.

    “It’s so much cheaper to build a levee to prevent a flood than to rebuild after a natural disaster,” he said.

    Bernardy also acknowledged the ongoing risk.

    “You’re never going to get your risk down to zero,” he said. “There’s always going to be residual risk, and the infrastructure is part of reducing that risk.”

    The Trump administration’s budget requested approximately $1.5 billion for construction, with the House-passed version adding substantial funding, including for California projects. The Senate has yet to release its version, but the situation continues to be closely monitored.

    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

  • To counter Texas, California lawmakers take up plan to redraw congressional districts

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — California Democrats on Monday kicked off the process to redraw the state’s congressional districts, an extraordinary action they said was necessary to neutralize efforts by President Trump and Texas Republicans to increase the number of GOP lawmakers in Congress.

    If approved by state lawmakers this week, Californians will vote on the ballot measure, labeled Proposition 50, in a special election in November.

    At a news conference unveiling the legislation, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said they agreed with Gov. Gavin Newsom that California must respond to Trump’s efforts to “rig” the 2026 midterms by working to reduced by half the number of Republicans in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

    They said doing so is essential to stymieing the president’s far-right agenda.

    “I want to make one thing very clear, I’m not happy to be here. We didn’t choose this fight. We don’t want this fight,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park). “But with our democracy on the line, we cannot run away from this fight, and when the dust settles on election day, we will win.”

    Republicans accused Democrats of trying to subvert the will of the voters, who passed independent redistricting 15 years ago, for their own partisan goals.

    “The citizens seized back control of the power from the politicians in 2010,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), flanked by GOP legislators and signs in the Capitol rotunda that said, “Rigged map” and “Defend fair elections.”

    “Let me be very clear,” DeMaio said. “Gavin Newsom and other politicians have been lying in wait, with emphasis on lying … to seize back control.”

    After Trump urged Texas to redraw its congressional districts to add five new GOP members to Congress, Newsom and California Democrats began calling to temporarily reconfigure the current congressional district boundaries, which were drawn by the voter-approved independent redistricting commission in 2021.

    Other states are also now considering redrawing their congressional districts, escalating the political battle over control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressional districts are typically reconfigured once every decade after the U.S. census.

    Newsom, other Democratic lawmakers and labor leaders launched a campaign supporting the redrawing of California’s congressional districts on Thursday, and proposed maps were sent to state legislative leaders on Friday.

    The measures that lawmakers will take up this week would:

    • Give Californians the power to amend the state Constitution and approve new maps, drawn by Democrats, that would be in place for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 congressional elections, if any GOP-led states approve their own maps.
    • Provide funding for the November special election.
    • Return the state to a voter-approved independent redistricting commission to redraw congressional districts after the 2030 census.

    Whereas Texas and several other GOP-led states are considering an unusual mid-decade redistricting to keep the Republican Party’s hold on Congress, Ohio is an anomaly. If its congressional districts are not approved on a bipartisan basis, they are valid for only two general elections and can then be redrawn.

    McGuire said California would go forward if Ohio does.

    “The state of Ohio has made it clear that they are wanting to be able to proceed. They’re one of the few states in the United States of America that actually allow for … mid-decade redistricting,” he said. “We firmly believe that they should cool it, pull back, because if they do, so will California.”

    Republicans responded by calling for a federal investigation into the California Democratic redistricting plan, and vowed to file multiple lawsuits in state and federal court, including two this week.

    “We’re going to litigate this every step of the way, but we believe that this will also be rejected at the ballot box, in the court of public opinion,” DeMaio said.

    He also called for a 10-year ban on holding elected office for state legislators who vote in support of calling the special election, although he did not say how he would try to do that.

    McGuire dismissed the criticism and threats of legal action, saying the Republicans were more concerned about political self-preservation than the will of California voters or the rule of law.

    “California Republicans are now clutching their pearls because of self-interest. Not one California Republican spoke up in the Legislature, in the House, when Texas made the decision to be able to eliminate five historically Black and brown congressional districts. Not one,” he said. “What I would say: Spend more time on the problem. The problem is Donald Trump.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Laura J. Nelson

    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

  • California lawmakers revive debate over bill requiring tech platforms to pay for news

    California lawmakers revive debate over bill requiring tech platforms to pay for news

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — 

    California lawmakers have revived legislation to charge online platforms for the news articles they publish, a proposal that stalled last year amid divisions within the journalism industry and intense opposition from Google and other tech companies.

    New amendments published Monday to Assembly Bill 886 are meant to address concerns from small publishers and make the plan more similar to the way Canada charges platforms for distributing news content.

    The bill, also known as the “California Journalism Preservation Act,” requires digital advertising giants to pay news outlets a fee when they sell advertising alongside news content. Publishers would have to use 70% of those funds to pay journalists in California.

    The changes call for calculating payments based on the number of journalists a news outlet employs, similar to Canada’s model, rather than on how many impressions an article generates, as originally proposed. And they call for creating a fund that platforms pay into, which would distribute the money to news outlets. Google is paying $74 million annually into a fund for the news industry under the law that took effect last year in Canada.

    “What we learned with the Canada version is that it’s possible, and that news is of value, it’s critical,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland). “And that we should be doing everything we can to ensure that our publishers are compensated for the work that they’re providing.”

    New amendments in Wicks’ bill also would give an additional boost to small publishers by making them eligible for funding beyond the per-journalist payout and allowing them more flexibility in how they spend the money they would receive under the program by dropping the portion they must spend paying journalists to 50%.

    The bill is sponsored by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member. Publishers argue that online search and social media platforms are harming the journalism business by gobbling up advertising revenue while publishing content they don’t pay for.

    The changes to the bill mark a key development since the bill was put on pause last year in the face of massive opposition from Google and other companies. Google argued the legislation would upend its business model and wrote in an April blog post that the bill “undermines news in California.” The search giant flexed its muscle against the bill earlier this year by removing links to California news sites from its search results for some users.

    Google did not respond to an email seeking comment on the latest changes to the bill.

    But the amendments are unlikely to be the final modifications. Lawmakers often ramp up negotiations on difficult issues as they approach the end of the legislative session in August. The bill is scheduled for a hearing on June 25 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, its next big hurdle.

    State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), who chairs that committee, said he expects further changes as negotiations continue. He said he would like to see the bill pass but wants to make sure it strikes the right balance between what the news industry needs and what the tech platforms can pay for.

    “I believe that we could screw this up so that we make it so expensive that the platforms don’t carry [journalism] content,” Umberg said. “That would be catastrophic. So I don’t know where we hit that sweet spot.”

    A separate bill seeking to aid the journalism industry would impose a new tax on Amazon, Meta and Google for the data they take from users and pump the money from this “data extraction mitigation fee” into news organizations by giving them a tax credit for employing full-time journalists.

    As a tax measure, Senate Bill 1327 would require approval from two-thirds of the Legislature and presents a political challenge in an election year. Nonetheless, state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda) said his bill is compatible with Wicks’ legislation, and he remains hopeful lawmakers can find a way to help the journalism industry.

    “I continue to have many conversations with her and others about how we have to solve the problem,” Glazer said. “There’s lots of ways to try to go at it.”

    [ad_2]

    Laurel Rosenhall

    Source link

  • California lawmakers can’t take lobbyist donations — unless they’re running for Congress

    California lawmakers can’t take lobbyist donations — unless they’re running for Congress

    [ad_1]

    State Sen. Susan Rubio has a powerful position in Sacramento. As chair of the Insurance Committee, the Baldwin Park Democrat can help pass or kill any legislation affecting that industry.

    Due to a law meant to prevent corruption, Rubio can’t accept campaign donations from insurance lobbyists — or any other lobbyists — as she raises money for her 2026 reelection to the Legislature. State law forbids California lobbyists from donating to the campaigns of state lawmakers.

    But there are no such restrictions on lobbyists donating to campaigns for federal office, even when the candidate is a state lawmaker. So as Rubio runs for Congress this year, she can take donations for her federal campaign from lobbyists who may seek to influence her votes in Sacramento.

    And she is.

    Rubio has received nearly $43,300 in contributions from registered state lobbyists in her campaign to replace retiring Rep. Grace F. Napolitano in California’s 31st Congressional District. It’s a sliver of her overall fundraising as of Feb. 14, but the most lobbyist money of any California lawmaker who is running for federal office. Many of those who donated to Rubio’s congressional campaign represent companies that lobby bills that are heard before committees she sits on as a state legislator, including the Insurance Committee and those that oversee policy related to healthcare, alcohol regulations and energy and utilities.

    Eight state legislators are running for Congress this year. Six have received lobbyist donations, in amounts that vary widely, adding up to $96,090.

    The donations are legal and make up a small portion of the candidates’ overall fundraising. Still, some watchdogs say they should be prohibited because of the risk that lobbyists’ money could shape lawmakers’ decisions in the work they are doing at the state level.

    “It doesn’t mean they’ll vote in their favor, but the possibility that could happen exists,” said Sean McMorris, a program manager at the government watchdog group Common Cause.

    His organization was part of the coalition that 50 years ago introduced California’s Political Reform Act, the law that bans lobbyist donations to state lawmakers.

    Bob Stern, co-author of the law, said the state prohibition was put in place because “legislators were receiving huge amounts from people who were lobbying them, and we thought there should be a disconnect between lobbying and campaign contributions.”

    In practice, Stern said, the prohibition’s impacts were limited, since the companies hiring lobbyists could still give directly to candidates, as can affiliated political action committees.

    But there was “symbolism” to the separation, he said.

    Rubio’s campaign manager, Giovanni Ruiz, said all contributions she had received from individuals were “solely based on mutually respectful relationships,” and she had opposed issues that donors lobbied for in the past.

    Ruiz also noted that Rubio was being massively outspent by her opponent Gil Cisneros, who has put $4 million of his own money into his campaign.

    Silicon Valley congressional candidate Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) received $21,650 from lobbyists, making up 2% of his fundraising. He joined the late-breaking race to replace retiring Rep. Anna G. Eshoo in early December, just months before the March primary.

    State Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who is running to replace Rep. Katie Porter in an Orange County seat, received about $16,500 in lobbyist donations, accounting for 1% of total fundraising since he launched his campaign at the beginning of 2023.

    Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who is vying to replace Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Los Angeles), received $4,000, and her opponent state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) received $6,500 from lobbyists. Those totals account for less than 1% of each of their fundraising.

    Portantino and Friedman have both been running for the Los Angeles congressional seat for more than a year.

    Central Valley congressional candidate State Sen. Melissa Hurtado (D-Sanger) received about $4,000 from lobbyists — a sum that accounted for 6.1% of her fundraising since she launched her campaign in August 2023.

    Hurtado told The Times that lawmakers should be able to receive those donations but acknowledged that “money has the ability to corrupt people, it’s plain and simple.”

    Since August, Hurtado has raised less than $100,000; she said she is in debt from putting her own money into the race. The only money she doesn’t accept is from the cannabis industry, she told The Times.

    Friedman went further, saying she sees the potential issues would support a law that prevents federal campaigns from accepting money from state lobbyists.

    Friedman noted that her campaign was turning down all corporate PAC money and described that as a far more salient issue in races like hers. She characterized the lobbyist contributions she and her colleagues had received as small compared with the “avalanche of money out there” from clients of the lobbyists.

    Portantino, Low and Min did not respond to requests for comment.

    Two state legislators running for Congress have not received any lobbyist donations: Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera), who is also running for Napolitano’s San Gabriel Valley seat and launched his campaign last summer, and Assemblymember Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), who is running for former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s vacant Bakersfield seat. Fong launched his campaign in December.

    Because of the limited disclosures required by the state, lobbyists are not required to publicly report which lawmakers they have attempted to influence on various bills, making it difficult to draw direct lines between their lobbying efforts and their donations. But campaign finance and lobbying records show that several of the candidates have received donations from lobbyists who work with companies seeking to influence policy in the areas in which they have power, based on committee positions.

    Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) is one of several state lawmakers running for Congress this year

    (Robert Gourley/Los Angeles Times)

    Sacramento lobbyist Mandy Lee gave $3,300, the maximum allowable donation, to Rubio. Her firm represents the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., a major trade group for home, auto and business insurers. The association lobbied on bills heard in the Rubio-chaired Senate Insurance Committee. Lee also donated $500 to Min.

    Rubio’s spokesperson noted that the senator’s relationship with Lee long predated her election to the Legislature.

    Rubio also received $2,000 from lobbyist Paul Gladfelty, whose firm represents the Travelers insurance company.

    “It is not uncommon for state lobbyists to make personal contributions to congressional candidates we know and believe in, which state law allows. Prior to the Senator running for Legislative office, I had the opportunity to establish a personal friendship,” Gladfelty said by text message, adding that his friendship with Rubio “exists regardless of her committee assignments.”

    Lobbyists Soyla Fernández and Kirk Kimmelshue, owners of Fernández Jensen Kimmelshue Government Affairs, both donated to the campaigns of Min and Rubio. Their firm’s client list includes the Regional Water Authority and Northern California Water Association, which both lobbied on bills that were heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water that Min chairs.

    Their firm also represents Southern California Edison, which routinely lobbies on bills in the Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee that Min and Rubio both sit on; the Anheuser-Busch beer company that lobbies the committee that regulates alcohol, of which Rubio is a member ; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which lobbies the health committee that Rubio sits on.

    Lobbyist RJ Cervantes, whose clients include trade associations for cryptocurrency and electronic payment companies, gave $3,300 to Low, who serves as co-chair of the Legislative Technology & Innovation Caucus, a group of lawmakers who want to foster a tech-friendly climate in California.

    Cervantes, Kimmelshue, Fernández and Lee did not respond to requests for comment.

    Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, saw the situation as less clear cut than Common Cause’s McMorris.

    She didn’t think it was unethical for state lawmakers to accept lobbyist donations to their congressional campaigns, since there was “a very real opening in the law” that allows such donations to federal campaigns.

    “It’s up to the voters to determine if this is something that bothers them,” Levinson said. “My guess is that for most voters, it’s pretty far down on the list.”

    [ad_2]

    Julia Wick, Anabel Sosa, Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee

    Source link

  • California lawmakers unveiled 14 reparations bills. None of them call for cash payments

    California lawmakers unveiled 14 reparations bills. None of them call for cash payments

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — 

    The California Legislative Black Caucus on Wednesday outlined the first set of reparations for the descendants of African Americans who were enslaved in the United States, with proposals that include a call for the state to issue a formal apology, to prohibit involuntary servitude in prisons and to return property seized by governments under race-based eminent domain.

    The caucus is not yet calling for cash payments in a list of 14 reparations bills it hopes to pass this year that would enact wide-ranging reforms in education, civil rights, criminal justice, health and business.

    The package of legislation is based on recommendations issued by California’s Reparations Task Force at the conclusion of a two-year historic process to study the effects of slavery and suggest policy changes to state lawmakers.

    Assemblywoman Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City), chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, said the apology is the first priority on the list of bills that she hopes will begin the conversation at the Capitol about reparations as she and her colleagues launch a campaign to educate the public about the state’s legacy of racism.

    The decision to forgo an immediate call for cash payments comes as Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers struggle to offset a budget shortfall of at least $37.9 billion. Newsom has proposed dipping into the state’s rainy-day reserves, cutting $8.5 billion from climate change initiatives and reducing more than $1.2 billion for housing programs as means to reduce spending to account for lower than expected tax revenue.

    “We started realizing with the budget environment we were going to have to do more systemic policy change to address systemic racism versus big budget asks because there just wasn’t the budget for it,” Wilson said. “Our priorities centered around policy changes or creating opportunities.”

    Newsom has echoed statements from the task force and Black lawmakers that reparations are about more than cash payments. In a recent interview, he said he finished reading through the task force’s report at the end of the year and his office is working on a detailed 30-page analysis of the recommendations that examines the work the state has already done and what more can be done.

    When asked why his budget didn’t include reparations proposals, he said he knew the Black Caucus planned to share its own list of priorities and he didn’t want to get ahead of the group’s process.

    “So we wanted to engage them,” Newsom said. “Remember, this was initiated by the Legislature. This is a partnership, and they recognize that there are a lot of things in that report they recommended that we’ve already done and that we’re doing. This gave us time to assess all that. So, it’s been actively worked on.”

    Cash payments, in particular, have struggled to earn support among California voters, according to recent opinion polls. Newsom disregarded the idea that reparations could be tough to pass in an election year.

    “That’s not been part of my thinking,” Newsom said. “My thinking is just accountability to be honest and responsible and to take seriously the recommendations.”

    Wilson described the legislative package as the first phase of a multi-year effort to pass reparations. She said she hopes educating the public about California’s role in slavery and the harm caused by racist policies will help her colleagues and Californians understand the need for the state to atone.

    The list of proposed bills the California Legislature Black Caucus wants to pass this year would do the following:

    • ACA 7 — Amend the California Constitution to permit the state to fund programs for specific groups of people that help to increase life expectancy, improve educational outcomes and lift them out of poverty.
    • ACA 8 — Amend the California Constitution to prohibit involuntary servitude for incarcerated people.
    • ACR 135 — Formally recognize and accept the state’s responsibility for the harms and atrocities of state representatives who promoted, facilitated, enforced and permitted slavery.
    • AB 1815 — Prohibit discrimination based on natural and protective hairstyles in all competitive sports within California.
    • AB 1929 — Offer competitive grants to increase enrollment of African American descendants in STEM-related career technical education.
    • AB 1975 — Offer medically supportive food and nutritional interventions as permanent Medi-Cal benefits in California.
    • AB 1986 — End the California prison system’s practice of banning books without oversight and review.

    Proposals that the caucus intends to introduce in the next two weeks would seek to:

    • Offer career education financial aid to redlined communities.
    • Restore property taken under race-based eminent domain or offer other remedies to the original owner.
    • Issue a formal apology for human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants.
    • Restrict solitary confinement in correctional detention facilities.
    • Offer state-funded grants for African American communities to decrease violence.
    • Require notification to community stakeholders before the closure of a grocery store in an underserved community.
    • Eliminate barriers to occupational licenses for people with criminal records.

    [ad_2]

    Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Judges put new California law barring guns in many public places on hold again

    Judges put new California law barring guns in many public places on hold again

    [ad_1]

    A new California law barring licensed gun holders from carrying their firearms in many public places has once again been blocked — meaning it cannot be enforced — as legal challenges proceed in federal court.

    The law bars concealed-carry permit holders and those with open-carry permits in more rural parts of the state from carrying their firearms into spaces that California lawmakers deemed “sensitive.”

    The prohibited places include anywhere that sells and serves liquor; on public transportation and in many parking lots; at public gatherings, special events, parks, playgrounds, stadiums, arenas, casinos, medical facilities, religious and financial institutions; and in any other private commercial spaces where the owners have not explicitly posted a sign allowing guns.

    Challengers to the law argue the list is so long that it essentially precludes them from leaving their homes with their weapons and makes their permits worthless — and diminishes their ability to defend themselves in public, a right that they say is guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. (People without permits, who are not party to the lawsuit, generally cannot carry firearms anywhere in public in California.)

    A federal district judge halted major portions of the law from taking effect last month, calling it “repugnant” and unconstitutional. An administrative panel of judges in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then stayed that judge’s ruling on Dec. 30, letting the law, known as Senate Bill 2, take effect as planned on Jan. 1.

    However, on Saturday, another 9th Circuit appellate panel issued its own order reversing the administrative panel and restoring the lower court’s judgment while the proceedings continue.

    The latest order, issued by a court clerk without the names of the judges listed, puts the state law on ice once more as the case proceeds. The 9th Circuit appellate panel will be considering the state’s appeal, including during arguments in April.

    A spokesperson in the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom called the latest decision “dangerous” in a statement, saying it “puts the lives of Californians on the line.”

    “We won’t stop working to defend our decades of progress on gun safety in our state,” the spokesperson said.

    Chuck Michel, an attorney for the gun holders suing the state over the law, applauded the ruling and said it preserves “the status quo” for responsible gun owners.

    “Had this new law taken effect, it would reverse decades of allowing vetted and licensed [concealed-carry weapon] holders (but not the general public) to carry in places where the need for self-defense can be most acute,” Michel wrote in a statement.

    “So the politicians’ ploy to get around the 2nd Amendment has been stopped for now,” he said. “Now we will focus on stopping it for good.”

    The legal battle is one of many playing out in courts across the country in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen in 2022.

    In Bruen, the high court held that strict limits on concealed-carry permits in states such as New York and California amounted to unconstitutional restraints on people’s 2nd Amendment right to self-defense.

    The court also held that gun laws that aren’t deeply rooted in American history, or analogous to some historical law, are generally unconstitutional. Some gun laws — like those that have traditionally barred guns in sensitive places such as schools and courtrooms — remained valid, the court noted.

    Last year, California lawmakers passed SB 2 in response to the Bruen decision and several mass shootings, including in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park. Lawmakers argued that the bill, sponsored by state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank), was permissible under the Bruen decision because it simply extended the list of places deemed sensitive under California law.

    Gun holders sued in response, and won a victory on Dec. 20 when U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an injunction.

    Carney, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote that SB 2’s “coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” He said SB 2 clearly clashed with the Bruen decision, and an injunction blocking it was warranted because the gun holders were likely to win their case against the state and would suffer “irreparable harm” if they weren’t allowed to carry their firearms in the meantime.

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office appealed and asked for a stay to allow the state’s law to go into effect while the court case continued. An administrative panel of the 9th Circuit granted that stay, but now, with Saturday’s order, the law is once more blocked while the case proceeds.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • California lawmakers want to curb retail theft, but say it's not as easy as it sounds

    California lawmakers want to curb retail theft, but say it's not as easy as it sounds

    [ad_1]

    While California lawmakers feel pressure to address concerns about crime, the murky and sometimes contradictory evidence of an increase in lawlessness has put legislators in a bind.

    Recent studies show that retail theft has increased in some of California’s big cities — with shoplifting rates jumping nearly 50% in San Francisco since 2019 — while some rural and suburban areas of the state have seen a drop in those crimes.

    Adding to the confusion, the National Retail Federation retracted a claim in an April report that said organized retail crime was responsible for $94.5 billion in missing merchandise nationwide in 2021. In reality, that number was discovered to be much lower.

    Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who sits on a recently formed special committee to address retail theft, said the inconsistent information makes it difficult to assess the issue as lawmakers prepare to reconvene in January and draft proposed laws to combat the rash of highly publicized thefts.

    “I am concerned the way social media is not fully representing the extent of the incidences of crime we are experiencing or the root cause of that crime,” Bonta said.

    Some California prosecutors and business leaders blame the state’s “toothless” laws against nonviolent retail theft, saying the problem has grown worse because of the lack of serious consequences for offenders.

    They want to see changes made to the decade-old ballot measure, known as Proposition 47, that classified as misdemeanors certain drug possession offenses and nonviolent property crimes that do not exceed $950 in value.

    But civil rights advocates are skeptical about returning to a tough-on-crime approach.

    “I think it’s difficult. The reality is public safety issues are easy issues to get quickly driven by hyperbole and fear,” said Lenore Anderson, co-founder and president of Alliance for Safety and Justice and co-author of Proposition 47. “That’s part of the reason we’ve struggled as a state.”

    There have already been two hearings this month to address this issue in Sacramento, one held by the bipartisan retail theft committee and the other by the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency that was asked by the Legislature to examine these issues. Some lawmakers expressed frustration about how to move forward without clear data.

    “For people in my district, the one bill people know is Prop. 47. But there is a lot of misinformation around that,” said Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth), a member of the newly convened 11-member committee, which met for the first time in December to address these issues.

    The criminal penalty for nonviolent retail theft that does not exceed $950 of merchandise is typically up to six months of jail time and no state prison time, but opponents assert that few serve their full sentences and some don’t show up to court. Critics also say that the measure doesn’t target repeat offenders.

    Since 2019, shoplifting in San Mateo and San Francisco counties has increased 53% and 43%, respectively, the highest out of California’s 15 largest counties, according to Magnus Lofstrom, a policy director at the Public Policy Institute of California who detailed his report at a hearing this month before the Assembly Select Committee on Retail Theft.

    A 2018 report from the PPIC found that recidivism rates decreased after Proposition 47 and that violent crime did not increase as a result of the measure.

    But one leading organization of state prosecutors says that has changed since the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic distress caused by job losses and government shutdowns.

    Social media posts and news coverage showing brazen shoplifters smashing windows and grabbing whatever items they can have fueled fears that the more lax punishments under Proposition 47 opened the door to more crime.

    Rachel Michelin, the president of California’s Retail Assn. and a panelist at a hearing last week, supports revising Proposition 47 in a November ballot measure, saying “it’s not about putting people in jail.”

    “Our goal is to stop people from stealing [and] to deter the behavior,” she said. “Right now, the perception is you can go into a store, pack your bag up with stuff and there won’t be a consequence.”

    Jeff Kreshek, a senior vice president at Federal Realty Investment Trust, which he said owns 102 shopping centers nationally and across California, said the problem is more pervasive and pronounced in the Golden State “than any other place we have property.”

    But when asked to provide data by lawmakers at last week’s hearing, he came up empty-handed.

    “I asked 15 retailers for data [before this] and they couldn’t provide it. I realize it makes your job harder,” he told the committee. “My data is stores closing, retailers not being able to hire. Consumers telling us they don’t feel safe going out.”

    Many speculate that data collection on these crimes is so scattered because not every incident is being reported and there are inconsistencies in how police agencies categorize the incidents.

    Lynn Melillo, who sits on the board of the California Grocers Assn., said at the hearing held by the Little Hoover Commission this month that their “biggest” spending goes to security guards.

    “It feels like there [are no consequences],” she said. “We feel we stand alone because we do call the police […] they’re not always responsive.”

    Several lawmakers on the committee agreed that these crimes could be prevented once there are restrictions on selling stolen goods online.

    A bill from Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) addressed this issue and went into effect this year. The law requires online marketplaces to request certain tax, payment and contact information from high-volume third-party sellers to limit the sale of stolen goods. It also authorizes the attorney general to penalize any sellers or platforms that violate the bill’s requirements.

    The newly appointed Labor and Employment Committee chair, Liz Ortega (D-San Leandro), said there “are still loopholes” in that law that need to be addressed.

    “[That] is an area I really want to work on,” she said.

    Kreshek of Federal Realty said regulating the sale of goods on platforms such as Amazon and Facebook Marketplace is “no small task.”

    “But is that a part of a solution? Absolutely,” he said. “You need to take away the vehicle through which merchandise is sold. If you don’t make it harder to sell, you don’t resolve the problem.”

    [ad_2]

    Anabel Sosa

    Source link