ReportWire

Tag: california legislature

  • State fire marshal misses deadline for apartment building safety report, angering housing advocates

    [ad_1]

    In the fall of 2023, the California Legislature tasked the state’s fire safety regulators with writing a report that some housing affordability advocates say could make it easier to build bigger, airier and better-lit apartment buildings in California’s housing-strapped cities.

    The Office of the State Fire Marshal was given until Jan. 1 to come up with a report on single-stair apartment buildings — a type of midsized multifamily development legal in much of the world, but effectively banned across most of North America.

    More than a month later, single-stair advocates are still waiting on that report — though a draft version obtained by CalMatters hints that the office may be considering a modest change to the state building code.

    “They were given a deadline,” said Stephen Smith, founder of the Center for Building in North America, which advocates for cost-reducing changes to building regulations.

    That safety-minded code is meant to provide residents with multiple escape routes in a fire. But it has also become a focal point of criticism among a growing number of housing advocates, architects and urbanists, who say it raises the costs of multifamily construction, limits where apartments can be built, pushes developers toward darkened studios and away from family-sized apartments and provides limited health and safety benefits.

    “I know there’s been a real desire among politicians in California to change the state’s image as a slow-moving state, but in this case I don’t see it,” said Smith, who was also a member of the working group of fire service professionals, building-code experts and housing advocates tasked with writing the first draft of the report for the state fire marshal. The group’s last meeting was Nov. 4.

    “This report is still under review and we will publish the report as soon as it is approved for publication,” said Wes Maxey, Cal Fire’s assistant deputy director of legislation, in an email. He would not say when the report is expected to be released or what the holdup is about.

    The state Legislature regularly assigns research reports of this kind to various corners of the state bureaucracy — and, as CalMatters has reported before, the state bureaucracy regularly blows past its assigned deadlines.

    But the single-stair analysis has garnered considerable interest outside of Sacramento.

    Rules in California (with the one, recent exception of Culver City) require apartment buildings taller than three stories to have at least two staircases connected by a hallway.

    The Legislature was clearly interested in raising that height limit when it ordered the report in the first place.

    “Many European countries allow buildings with single staircases and have better records on fire safety than the United States,” said Assemblymember Alex Lee, a Milpitas Democrat, urging a “yes” vote on his bill in the summer of 2023. “I believe having the fire marshal conduct the study will start the conversation about leveraging existing fire and emergency response technologies and strategies to maximize housing projects.”

    Local fire marshals, fire chiefs and firefighting unions have, by and large, opposed easing staircase requirements in the building code wherever they’ve been proposed.

    The final report is likely to disappoint either those organized fire services — a politically powerful constituency — or “Yes In My Backyard” advocates that have found an ally in Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    A draft version of the report circulated among stakeholders in late October included a half-hearted endorsement of a change to the state building code. If the state fire marshal recommends new policy, the draft reads, the change should only be from a three-story maximum up to four. Any new four-story single-stair structures should also be restricted in size and abide by a number of other added safety-oriented restrictions, the report added.

    Culver City, west of downtown Los Angeles, passed a single-stair ordinance last year to nix the second-stair requirement in certain apartment buildings up to six stories. Six stories is also the cutoff in New York City, Seattle and Honolulu. In Georgia, Vermont, Puerto Rico and Portland, Ore., the maximum is four.

    The draft report, which is not final, also went out of its way to emphasize “the near unanimous feedback from California Fire Departments who are opposed to permitting single-exit stairway construction … greater than 3 stories.”

    Whenever it is finalized and published, the report won’t have the force of law. But should state legislators opt to take up the issue in the future, its final recommendations are likely to carry weight with undecided lawmakers.

    Ben Christopher writes for CalMatters.

    [ad_2]

    Ben Christopher

    Source link

  • What is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s role in the California Capitol Annex project?

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week. It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion. | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’ Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing. “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird. A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.” The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion. Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA. It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now. “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday. “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom. KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor. “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said. “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee. When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office. Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September. 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. —

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week.

    It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion.

    | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’

    Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing.

    “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.

    But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird.

    A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.”

    The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.

    All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion.

    Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA.

    It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now.

    “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday.

    “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom.

    KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor.

    “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said.

    “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee.

    When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”

    Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office.

    Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.

    The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September.

    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 just passed three bills to boost internet privacy

    [ad_1]

    California has passed three new bills designed to boost privacy for internet users, governor Gavin Newsom’s office announced. The biggest one, AB 566, builds on a 2018 law by requiring web browsers to let users universally opt-out of allowing third parties to sell their data.

    The original California Consumer Privacy Act from 2018 only let Californians opt out third-party data sharing one site at a time. However, AB 566 signed into law yesterday by Newsom requires web browsers like Chrome, Firefox and Safari to allow users to opt out of all third-party tracking with a single setting. “This law will help people protect their personal data by allowing them to simply switch a toggle that tells businesses they can’t sell or share it,” said Consumer Reports policy analyst Matt Schwartz.

    The bill was originally passed by the California legislature last month, but its signing by the governor wasn’t necessarily a done deal. Newsom vetoed a similar bill last year for being overly broad as it also applied to smartphone operating systems. He also said that major browsers already offer one-click opt out for third-party data sharing, though Consumer Watchdog said at the time that none offer a universal way to decline data sharing.

    Two other bills will also help internet users keep their data to themselves. SB 361 boosts the Data Broker Registration Law (Delete Act) signed into law in October 2023 by giving consumers more information about which personal information is collected by data brokers and who else might have it. AB 656, meanwhile, requires social media companies to make canceling an account straightforward and clear while it triggers full deletion of the user’s personal data.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Dent

    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

  • Trump Leads Charge Against California’s Redistricting With DOJ Action

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will pursue a lawsuit against California over its new congressional map.

    Trump declared in the Oval Office that the DOJ would file the lawsuit to challenge the California map, which would add five Democratic seats to the U.S. House if approved by voters in a special November election.

    “I think I’m going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon, and I think we’re going to be very successful in it,” said the President, per CNBC.

    “We’re going to be filing it through the Department of Justice. That’s going to happen.”

    Trump did not specify the grounds under which the DOJ would file the lawsuit.

    Newsom quickly responded to the potential lawsuit on social media, stating that California is prepared to take on the challenges.

     

    This redistricting effort in California follows numerous warnings from Gov. Gavin Newsom that the state would take action if Texas creates a new map, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.

    Under California law, an independent commission generally handles redistricting. Still, Newsom and the California legislature passed a bill to put a new measure on the November ballot, according to the National Review. The measure asks voters whether to temporarily suspend that commission until after the 2030 Census, allowing Democrats to redraw districts for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles.

    The ballot initiative has split public opinion, with a recent UC Berkeley poll showing 48% in favor, 36% opposed, and 20% undecided, per the National Review.

    This new map also directly counters Texas Republicans’ mid-decade gerrymandering efforts by enabling Democrats to try to regain an electoral edge in congressional representation.

    These changes in California come just days after the Texas legislature announced that a new congressional map had been approved by both the Texas Senate and House of Representatives, with the responsibility now falling upon Gov. Greg Abbott to approve the changes, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.

    The updated Texas map would give Republicans five additional U.S. House seats, which would be offset by the five seats gained by Democrats in the new California congressional map.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Republicans sue to block Congressional redistricting plan

    [ad_1]

    By Brad Brooks

    (Reuters) -California Republicans filed on Monday their second legal challenge against Governor Gavin Newsom’s redistricting plan, which aims to give Democrats five more Congressional seats amid a nationwide scramble for advantage in 2026 elections.

    The lawsuit filed by Republican lawmakers argues that the redistricting plan goes against the California constitution and requirements that political maps be drawn by an independent redistricting body.

    “This is an issue about good governance in the state of California,” said Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, at a press conference announcing the legal action. “Californians deserve to have the right to choose our legislators.”

    The effort by Newsom and Democrats in California’s legislature to rework the state’s Congressional maps was passed last week. It came in response to Texas Republicans pushing through new Congressional maps in that state that could give the GOP five more seats in Congress, as urged by President Donald Trump.

    Trump is asking several Republican-led states to redraw their Congressional maps ahead of next year’s midterm elections in an effort to retain control of the House.

    California Republicans had already filed one lawsuit to stop Newsom’s redistricting plan, but it was rejected by the state’s supreme court last week.

    On Monday, lawmakers filed an emergency petition before the top court against the California legislature and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

    “The Constitution’s guardrails on redistricting are essential to ensuring that Californians are spared from the political influence and inherent turbulence of perpetual map-drawing in the hands of the Legislature,” the lawsuit read.

    Weber’s office declined to comment.

    Hannah Milgrom, a spokeswoman for Newsom, said in a written statement that the Republican legal challenge would fail.

    “Trump’s toadies already got destroyed once in court. Now, they are trying again – to protect Trump’s power grab and prevent the voters from having their say … They will lose,” she said.

    Trump told reporters in Washington on Monday that his administration could challenge California’s redistricting with its own lawsuit. Newsom on X said, “bring it.”

    The Texas redistricting plan that passed the Senate early on Saturday is also the target of legal action.

    A group of 13 Texas residents filed a lawsuit against their Governor Greg Abbott over the weekend, arguing the redistricting plan was racially discriminatory.

    (Reporting by Brad Brooks in Colorado; editing by Donna Bryson and Nia Williams)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Supreme Court rejects Republicans’ efforts to halt redistricting proposals

    [ad_1]

    California’s Supreme Court on Wednesday evening rejected Republicans’ efforts to stall work on Democrats’ redistricting proposals.

    Republican legislators earlier this week asked the state’s Supreme Court to intervene and hit the brakes on redistricting efforts underway in the statehouse.

    They argued, in their petition to the court, that the proposed redistricting legislation must be published for 30 days before the legislature can hear or act on it. The filing alleged that rule was “circumvented” by the legislature by replacing two unrelated bills with the redistricting proposal, a move called “gut and amend” by those in Sacramento.

    They asked the court to halt any work on the legislative package until mid-September.

    But the court said, in its order on Wednesday, Aug. 20, that the petitioners “failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time” under the state’s constitution.

    The full legislature is set to vote Thursday on the redistricting package, which includes newly redrawn congressional maps and a call for a special election on Nov. 4, when voters would decide whether to implement those partisan maps for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.

    The effort has been touted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats as a way to counter plans in other, Republican-led states to enact mid-cycle gerrymandering ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

    California would only have a special election to change its congressional districts if other states also went through with partisan, mid-cycle redistricting.

    The Texas House earlier Wednesday approved new congressional maps meant to give Republicans a boost in 2026, at the behest of President Donald Trump.

    The California Republicans’ lawsuit was led by Sens. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, and Suzette Martinez Valladares, R-Santa Clarita, as well as Assemblymembers Kate Sanchez, R-Rancho Santa Margarita, and Tri Ta, R-Westminster.

    “Today’s Supreme Court decision is not the end of this fight,” the Republican legislators said in a statement. “Although the Court denied our petition, it did not explain the reason for its ruling. This means Gov. Newsom and the Democrats’ plan to gut the voter-created Citizens Redistricting Commission, silence public input, and stick taxpayers with a $200+ million bill will proceed. Polls show most Democrats, Republicans, and independents want to keep the commission, not give politicians the power to rig maps. We will continue to challenge this unconstitutional power grab in the courts and at the ballot box.”

    Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero signed Wednesday’s order.

    [ad_2]

    Kaitlyn Schallhorn

    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 bill requiring schools to limit student cellphone use awaits governor’s signature

    California bill requiring schools to limit student cellphone use awaits governor’s signature

    [ad_1]

    California would become the fifth state to require public schools to restrict or ban student smartphone use on school grounds under legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom has supported and is expected to sign.

    The bipartisan Phone-Free Schools Act — Assembly Bill 3216 — would require school districts to enact smartphone restrictions by July 1, 2026, and review policies every five years. If enacted, California would join Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio in passing statewide cellphone use restrictions on public school campuses.

    “Now is the time to require rather than just authorize all school districts to take measures to not only support student success by limiting or restricting smartphone use but to protect their teenage mental health,” said Democratic Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who co-authored the bill.

    Newsom, who has been very vocal about supporting cellphone restrictions on school grounds, previously approved legislation in 2019 — AB 272 — authorizing school districts to limit or prohibit students’ use of cell phones at school. In June, he said he planned to build on that law to further restrict students’ cell phone use, but did not offer details.

    The governor again emphasized the importance of smartphone restrictions earlier this month, when he urged educators in a statewide letter to immediately restrict cellphones on campus as students return to the classroom.

    The Phone-Free bill was authored by Muratsuchi of Torrance — who also authored AB 272 — along with Republican Assemblymember Josh Hoover of Folsom and Democratic Assemblymembers David Alvarez of Chula Vista and Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach.

    “We’re Democrats and Republicans, but what we all have in common is we’re all parents, and we’ve all seen this firsthand,” Hoover said. “I strongly believe that this is an area of statewide concern.”

    Muratsuchi said he introduced AB 272 not only as a state legislator, but as a father of a teenage daughter. Growing research shows a relationship between teenage smartphone use and anxiety, depression and suicide, he said, making the need for smartphone restrictions more important than ever.

    The governor’s letter to schools cited a Pew Research survey that found that 72% of high school and 33% of middle school teachers report cell phone distractions as a major problem and a Common Sense Media survey that found that 97% of students use their phones during the school day for a median of 43 minutes.

    Hoover said the key difference between AB 3216 and the existing 2019 legislation is that now, every school in the state will be required to pass policies limiting smartphone use during the school day and revise those policies every five years. He said there are no specific requirements for districts in the bill in order to allow flexibility for schools to choose how to restrict or ban cellphone use.

    The California School Boards Association, which represents the state’s public trustees, has strongly opposed the bill, which it says does not account for the substantial demographic and ideological differences between the state’s 940 school districts and 58 county offices of education.

    Troy Flint, the association’s chief communications officer, said proponents on both sides of the argument are “well-intentioned” and trying to do what is best for student’s safety and mental health.

    “We don’t object to cellphone bans in the abstract and we encourage districts to investigate whether that makes sense for them,” Flint said. “We do object to the blanket statewide policy.”

    Flint said the association disagrees with Hoover on whether the bill respects local control “to the necessary degree.”

    “We have a lot of different situations in California,” he explained. “Kids traveling on a bus an hour to school … Kids with disabilities … This is a rare issue where everyone is well-intentioned and trying in their own way to do what they think is best.”

    Hoover confirmed that the Phone-Free Schools Act does not remove any of the current exceptions to existing legislation — including cases of an emergency or when students have permission to use their phone in class.

    Existing law also states a student has the right to access their phone in response to a perceived threat of danger, like a school shooting or lockdown.

    The bill is supported by the Los Angeles Unified School District — which voted earlier this summer to ban students’ use of phones beginning in 2025 — and the California Teachers Association, one of the state’s major teacher unions.

    “Our union has supported improving school environments and restricting the use of smartphones on campuses,” said David Goldberg, the teacher’s association’s president.

    Bay Area schools have been split on the issue. Some schools have expressed support over smartphone restrictions, including San Mateo High School, which became a phone-free campus in 2019.

    Others, like Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and Palo Alto Unified School District, have said cellphones are necessary for many families and proposed bans don’t make sense in schools that rely on technology to support students’ learning.

    Muratsuchi said smartphones are still relatively new and society still is adjusting to its impacts.

    “We need to rethink this culture of constant access to smartphones,” Muratsuchi said, “given the growing evidence of the detrimental impact on student education as well as their mental health.”

    [ad_2]

    Molly Gibbs

    Source link

  • Newsom signs first-in-nation bill banning schools’ transgender notification policies

    Newsom signs first-in-nation bill banning schools’ transgender notification policies

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation Monday that will make California the first U.S. state to stop school districts from notifying parents if their child starts using different pronouns or identifies as a different gender than what’s on their school record.

    The governor’s office announced his signing of AB 1955 without comment among dozens of other bills signed and two he vetoed.

    California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman said Monday, “Today is a great day for California.”

    “The Governor’s signature on AB 1955, a first-in-the-nation policy, reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth everywhere,” Eggman said.

    The bill makes California the first state to explicitly prohibit what critics called “forced outing” policies that some school districts adopted, requiring that they notify parents when students request to use a different name or pronoun than what’s on their birth certificate or school records — regardless of the student’s consent.

    Critics decried the law as an infringement of parents’ rights.

    “To our governor & the CA LGBTQ Caucus: you don’t have the authority to strip parents of their rights,” Gays Against Groomers California, which opposed the law, posted Monday on X.

    According to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank and equality advocate, there are currently eight states — Idaho, North Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama — that have passed laws requiring school staff to forcibly “out” transgender students. Five other states — Montana, Utah, Arizona, Kentucky and Florida — have passed legislation promoting forced outing policies in schools.

    In January, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal alert to all California school districts warning them against such policies, which he said violate the California Constitution and state laws safeguarding students’ civil rights.

    Assembly member Chris Ward introduced AB 1955 — the “SAFETY Act” — at the beginning of this year. It prohibits school districts from implementing policies requiring teachers to disclose any information on a student’s gender identity, sexual orientation or gender expression to their parent or guardian without that student’s permission.

    “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family,” Ward said in a statement Monday.

    The bill will also provide additional resources for parents and students to discuss gender and identity and will protect teachers and school staff from retaliation for refusing to share a student’s gender and identity.

    Legislators sent bill AB 1955 to Newsom earlier this month after an intense, emotional hearing in the Assembly that saw several members lose their cool over the proposed bill.

    The bill has a range of supporters and opponents. Notable supporters include State Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond, the LGBTQ+ advocacy nonprofit The Trevor Project, the California School Employees Association and the California Teachers Association.

    “This historic legislation will strengthen existing protections against forced outing and allow educators to continue to create a safe learning environment where all students feel accepted, nurtured, and encouraged to pursue their dreams,” CTA President David Goldberg said.

    Opponents include Moms for Liberty Santa Clara County, Chino Valley Unified School District — which Bonta sued last year over its notification policies — and 16 Republican assembly members, including Bill Essayli, R-Corona, who proposed a bill last year that would have done the opposite of the SAFETY Act and required schools to notify parents if their child identifies as transgender.

    Following Ward’s announcement of the bill earlier this year, the Liberty Justice Center — which represented Chino Valley Unified School District in the Attorney General’s lawsuit — issued a statement condemning the bill.

    “Parents have a right to know what their own minor children are doing at school — and school officials have no right to keep secrets from parents,” the center’s president, Jacob Huebert, said in the statement. “That’s true now, and it will still be true if the state passes this bill. We will continue to stand with parents and the school districts that want to respect their rights — and we’ll continue to represent them free of charge, at no cost to taxpayers.”

    In the Bay Area, the bill won’t have much of an impact. San Francisco Unified School District already has a policy in place that prohibits teachers and school staff from disclosing a student’s gender or sexual identity without the student’s written consent.

    But across California, several school boards have discussed or voted on policies that would require schools to disclose students’ gender identity to their parents or guardians, regardless of the student’s consent.

    Along with Chino Valley Unified School District in San Bernardino County, Rocklin Unified School District in Placer County also faced backlash from the state over its parental notification policy, which passed in 2023.

    Temecula Valley Unified, Murrieta Valley Unified, Anderson Union High School District and Orange Unified School District all passed similar policies as well.

    Originally Published:

    [ad_2]

    Molly Gibbs

    Source link