ReportWire

Tag: gavin newsom

  • The five California Republicans who could lose their seats in Congress if Prop 50 passes

    [ad_1]

    Voters around the country will be watching the results on Nov. 4 of Proposition 50, a measure put on California’s statewide ballot by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sacramento Democrats. If it passes, it would redraw House districts in California to benefit Democrats in the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections. Supporters say it is needed to offset President Trump’s push to redraw House districts in Texas and other Republican states heading into the 2026 elections, when control of Congress will be up for grabs. Currently only 12 of California’s 52 House members are Republicans. If Prop 50 passes, five will see their districts redrawn in ways that will include more registered Democrats, putting their re-elections at grave risk next November. The most at-risk Republicans are:

    Darrell Issa

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, left, takes a photo with Rep. Darrell Issa, a San Diego County Republican, during the first session of the 119th Congress ahead of the speaker vote in the House chamber of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 3, 2025. (ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP) 

    Issa, 71, currently represents California’s 48th congressional district in eastern San Diego County. A Cleveland native who dropped out of high school to join the Army, in the 1980s he co-founded a car alarm company and made millions. He moved to Southern California and ran for office in 1998, losing the Republican primary to Matt Fong to take on then-Sen. Barbara Boxer. He was first elected to Congress in 2000, and after expanding his investments into real estate, now is one of the richest members of Congress with a net worth estimated at $460 million.

    Issa is a strong supporter of President Trump. He is anti-abortion, has favored lowering taxes on business and voted to overturn the Affordable Care Act. In 2021, after Trump supporters broke into the U.S. Capitol building, Issa voted to reject the certification of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. In 2003, he donated $1.6 million to the successful campaign to recall Gov. Gray Davis, and was considered as a potential candidate for governor. But after Arnold Schwarzenegger entered the race he did not enter.

    Doug LaMalfa

    Rep. Doug LaMalfa answers a question during a town hall meeting on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Chico, California. (Hector Amezcua/The Sacramento Bee/TNS)
    Rep. Doug LaMalfa answers a question during a town hall meeting on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Chico, California. (Hector Amezcua/The Sacramento Bee/TNS) 

    LaMalfa, 65, is a classic rural California Republican. Since 2012 he has represented the 1st congressional district, which includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, and Yuba counties in northern and northeast California. A fourth-generation rice farmer, he grew up in Oroville, and won seats in the state Assembly and state Senate between 2002 and 2012.

    LaMalfa has been a strong supporter of farmers and ranchers, calling for fewer environmental regulations, more water projects, and opposing the reintroduction of wolves in Northern California. He has said the Book of Genesis disproves climate change. LaMalfa also has voted to loosen gun laws, and opposes abortion and same sex marriage. He has advocated posting the Ten Commandments in public schools. A strong supporter of President Trump, in 2021, he voted to reject the certification of Arizona’s and Pennsylvania’s electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election.

    David Valadao

    Rep. David Valadao photographed on Oct. 21, 2022, in Hanford, California. Valadao, a dairy farmer, says he is running for reelection so he can continue to fight for water and resources for the Central Valley. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times/TNS)
    Rep. David Valadao photographed on Oct. 21, 2022, in Hanford, California. Valadao, a dairy farmer, says he is running for reelection so he can continue to fight for water and resources for the Central Valley. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times/TNS) 

    Valadao, 48, has vexed Democrats for years. A Central Valley dairy farmer from Hanford, he represents California’s 22nd congressional district, which stretches across Kings, Kern and Tulare counties, including parts of Bakersfield. The areas he represents have elected Democrats to Congress and have voted for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton for president.

    But since his first victory in 2012, Valadao has continued to win re-election with his low-key style. He angered many Republicans when he was one of only 10 GOP House members to vote to impeach President Trump in 2021 after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Despite Democrats spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat him, he has only lost re-election once, in 2018, to Democrat T.J. Cox, but he was re-elected in 2020.

    A moderate on many issues, Valadao has supported same-sex marriage, increasing veterans benefits and immigration reform, including granting citizenship to children whose parents brought them in the country illegally. He is fluent in Spanish and Portuguese.

    Kevin Kiley

    Kevin Kiley answers a question during the California Recall Debate at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda on Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2021. (Photo by Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register/SCNG)
    Kevin Kiley answers a question during the California Recall Debate at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda on Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2021. (Photo by Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register/SCNG) 

    Kiley, 40, is the youngest California Republican in Congress. A graduate of Harvard University and Yale Law School, he won election to the state Assembly in 2016 and to the 3rd congressional district in 2022. His scenic district includes Lake Tahoe, Mammoth Lakes, Death Valley and other natural features in eastern California.

    Kiley, a strong supporter of charter schools, ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2021 when opponents of Gov. Gavin Newsom attempted a recall. He has been a critic of Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, most recently urging him without success to bring the House back in session to negotiate a solution to the government shutdown, and to pass legislation barring the redrawing of districts in all states except during the usual Census-driven process every 10 years.

    Ken Calvert

    At least eight Democrats have pulled papers to run against Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, in 2026. While it's a sign of Democratic enthusiasm heading into the midterm elections, Calvert hasn't lost reelection since arriving on Capitol Hill during the Clinton administration. (Jose Luis Magana, AP file photo)
    At least eight Democrats have pulled papers to run against Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, in 2026. While it’s a sign of Democratic enthusiasm heading into the midterm elections, Calvert hasn’t lost reelection since arriving on Capitol Hill during the Clinton administration. (Jose Luis Magana, AP file photo) 

    Calvert, 72, is the senior Republican in California’s House delegation, having served in Congress since 1993. A former small business owner, he represents the 41st congressional district, which includes much of Coachella Valley and the Palm Springs area.

    Like Valadao, Calvert has fended off strong Democratic challenges in recent elections. He is anti-abortion, supports same-sex marriage, and has championed tax cuts for businesses and the e-Verify system to check the immigration status of workers. In 2021, Calvert voted to reject the certification of Arizona’s and Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. Most recently, he has worked with Gov. Gavin Newsom to try and secure federal disaster funding after the January Southern California wildfires.

     

    [ad_2]

    Paul Rogers

    Source link

  • Justice Department to send election monitors to California, New Jersey following requests from state GOPs

    [ad_1]

    The Department of Justice is preparing to send federal election observers to California and New Jersey next month, targeting two Democratic states holding off-year elections following requests from state Republican parties.

    The department announced Friday that it is planning to monitor polling sites in Passaic County, New Jersey, and five counties in southern and central California: Los Angeles, Orange, Kern, Riverside and Fresno. The goal, according to the DOJ, is “to ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law.”

    “Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

    Election monitoring is a routine function of the Justice Department, but the focus on California and New Jersey comes as both states are set to hold closely watched elections with national consequences on Nov. 4. New Jersey has an open seat for governor that has attracted major spending by both parties and California is holding a special election aimed at redrawing the state’s congressional map to counter Republican gerrymandering efforts elsewhere ahead of the 2026 midterms.

    The DOJ’s efforts are also the latest salvo in the GOP’s preoccupation with election integrity after President Trump spent years refusing to accept the results of the 2020 election and falsely railing against mail-in voting as rife with fraud. Democrats fear the new administration will attempt to gain an upper hand in next year’s midterms with similarly unfounded allegations of fraud.

    The announcement comes days after the Republican parties in both states wrote letters to the Justice Department requesting their assistance. Some leading Democrats in the states blasted the decision.

    New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin called the move “highly inappropriate” and said the department “has not even attempted to identify a legitimate basis for its actions.”

    Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, said in a statement that “No amount of election interference by the California Republican Party is going to silence the voices of California voters.”

    The letter from the California GOP, sent Monday and obtained by the Associated Press, asked Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, to provide monitors to observe the election in the five counties.

    “In recent elections, we have received reports of irregularities in these counties that we fear will undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election,” wrote GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin.

    The state is set to vote Nov. 4 on a redistricting proposition that would dramatically redraw California’s congressional lines to add as many as five additional Democratic seats to its U.S. House delegation.

    Each of the counties named, they alleged, has experienced recent voting issues, such as sending incorrect or duplicate ballots to voters. They also take issue with how Los Angeles and Orange counties maintain their voter rolls.

    California is one of at least eight states the Justice Department has sued as part of a wide-ranging request for detailed voter roll information involving at least half the states. The department has not said why it wants the data.

    Election integrity efforts were a focus of Dhillon’s California law practice before she joined the Justice Department. Her practice sued over the state’s election laws in the past, including a 2020 lawsuit on behalf of the California Republican Party challenging ballot collection efforts amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Brandon Richards, a spokesman for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said the DOJ has no standing to “interfere” with California’s election because the ballot contains only a state-specific initiative and has no federal races.

    “Deploying these federal forces appears to be an intimidation tactic meant for one thing: suppress the vote,” he said in an email.

    Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page said he welcomes anyone who wants to watch the county’s election operations and said it’s common to have local, state, federal and even international observers. He described Orange County’s elections as “accessible, accurate, fair, secure, and transparent.”

    Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan said election observers are standard practice across the country and that the county, with 5.8 million registered voters, is continuously updating and verifying its voter records.

    “Voters can have confidence their ballot is handled securely and counted accurately,” he said.

    Most Californians vote using mail ballots returned through the postal service, drop boxes or at local voting centers, which typically leaves polling places relatively quiet on Election Day. But in pursuit of accuracy and counting every vote, the nation’s most populous state has gained a reputation for tallies that can drag on for weeks — and sometimes longer.

    In 2024, it took until early December to declare Democrat Adam Gray the winner in his Central Valley district, the final congressional race to be decided in the nation last year.

    California’s request echoed a similar letter sent by New Jersey Republicans asking the DOJ to dispatch election monitors to “oversee the receipt and processing of vote-by-mail ballots” and “monitor access to the Board of Elections around the clock” in suburban Passaic County ahead of the state’s governor’s race.

    The New Jersey Republican State Committee told Dhillon that federal intervention was necessary to ensure an accurate vote count in the heavily Latino county that was once a Democratic stronghold, but shifted to Mr. Trump’s column in last year’s presidential race.

    The county could be critical to GOP gubernatorial nominee Jack Ciattarelli’s hopes against Democrat Mikie Sherrill. But the letter cited previous voter fraud cases in the county and alleged a “long and sordid history” of vote-by-mail shenanigans.

    In 2020, a judge ordered a new election for a city council seat in Paterson — the largest city in Passaic County — after the apparent winner and others were charged with voter fraud.

    Platkin said the state is committed to ensuring its elections are fair and secure. With the DOJ’s announcement, he said the attorney general’s office is “considering all of our options to prevent any effort to intimidate voters or interfere with our elections.”

    Local election offices and polling places around the country already have observers from both political parties to ensure rules are followed. The DOJ also has a long history of sending observers to jurisdictions that have histories of voting rights violations to ensure compliance with federal civil rights laws.

    Last year, when the Biden administration was still in power, some Republican-led states said they would not allow federal monitors to access voting locations on Election Day.

    Mr. Trump has for years railed against mail voting as part of his repeated false claims that former President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 was rigged. He alleges it is riddled with fraud, even though numerous studies have found no evidence of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.

    Earlier this year, Mr. Trump pledged to ban vote-by-mail across the country, something he has no power to do under the U.S. Constitution.

    The DOJ’s effort will be overseen by Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division, which will deploy personnel in coordination with U.S. attorney’s offices and work closely with state and local officials, the department said. The department is also soliciting further requests for monitoring in other jurisdictions.

    David Becker, a CBS News election law expert and political contributor who has served as an election monitor and trained them, said the work is typically done by department lawyers who are prohibited from interfering at polling places.

    But Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Integrity & Research, said local jurisdictions normally agree to the monitors’ presence.

    If the administration tried to send monitors without a clear legal rationale to a place where local officials didn’t want them, “That could result in chaos,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom on Trump’s “laughable” National Guard suggestion: “Nothing happening” in San Francisco

    [ad_1]

    California Governor Gavin Newsom called President Trump’s plan to send National Guard troops to San Francisco “laughable,” suggesting the president had to reverse course for “obvious reasons” because “there’s nothing happening” in the city.

    “He couldn’t even make up a pretense for this,” Newsom told Robert Costa in an interview airing on “CBS Sunday Morning” this weekend. He cast the city as an urban area that is confronting crime and not ignoring the issue. He highlighted that San Francisco is on track to achieve a 70-year low homicide rate and there’s been an overall decline in violent crimes year over year, according to the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

    Newsom vowed to swiftly block any future attempts to send in military forces to the city.

    “Lawsuit’s ready to go,” said Newsom, adding that the “second he does it, we’ll be in court.” Newsom noted the state has already filed 43 lawsuits against the Trump administration in the nearly 40 weeks since he returned to office.

    Mr. Trump said Thursday that he called off his plan to deploy federal agents to the city after speaking with local tech leaders and Mayor Daniel Lurie, who he says asked for “a chance to see if he can turn it around.” Lurie said in a separate statement that he reiterated to Mr. Trump that San Francisco “is on the rise,” and the president agreed to call off the plans.

    Newsom also touted the city being the global tech capital and said business is booming.

    “I mean, we’re the center of the universe in terms of artificial intelligence. Quite literally the center of the universe in startups and innovation, entrepreneurial. This city’s coming back in a big, big way,” Newsom said.

    During the interview, Newsom also discussed such topics as California’s redistricting proposal, which is coming up before voters Nov. 4; Newsom’s social media mocking of the president, and the Democratic Party’s response to Mr. Trump; and what he calls Mr. Trump’s threat of an “imperial presidency.” He also discussed his political future and whether he would consider a 2028 presidential bid.

    Watch more of Robert Costa’s interview with California Gov. Gavin Newsom on “CBS Sunday Morning” Sunday, Oct. 26 at 9:00 a.m. ET, and streaming on Paramount+. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Poll shows how California voters feel about Prop 50 redistricting effort

    [ad_1]



    Poll shows how California voters feel about Prop 50 redistricting effort – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    Democrats in California want to add more of their party’s seats to Congress, but they need voters’ approval first. CBS News’ Anthony Salvanto has the data on how voters are feeling about the redistricting effort.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Shrapnel struck CHP vehicle during live-fire exercise over I-5, agency says

    [ad_1]

    An explosive ordnance detonated prematurely over the I-5 Freeway causing a piece of metal shrapnel to strike and damage a CHP patrol vehicle, the agency announced Sunday.

    The live ammunition training exercise Saturday was part of the Marine Corps 250th anniversary celebration at Camp Pendleton, which was attended by both Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

    CHP says that the incident occurred at 1:46 p.m. while officers were supporting a traffic break along the I-5. The image shared by CHP shows that the shrapnel struck the patrol vehicle on the I-5 near the Las Pulgas Road intersection.

    The CHP vehicle struck by the shrapnel was part of Vice President Vance’s protective detail, according to the agency.

    “We are aware of the report of a possible airborne detonation of a 155mm artillery round outside the designated impact area during the U.S. Marine Corps Amphibious Capabilities Demonstration at Camp Pendleton, CA, Oct. 18,” wrote the U.S. Marine Corps in a statement to NBC4.

    Map shared by the California Highway Patrol showing where the live ammunition was fired on Saturday afternoon, and where it struck and injured a CHP patrol car on the I-5 near Las Pulgas Road. Courtesy of CHP.

    No injuries were reported, according to CHP.

    However, the agency says that the Marine Corps was immediately notified and that no additional live ordnance was fired over the freeway following the incident.

    In their communication, CHP said that an internal report has been filed with the “recommendation to conduct an additional after-action review into the planning, communication, and coordination between federal, state, and local government around the event on Saturday, October 18, to strengthen protocols for future demonstrations and training events near public roadways.” 

    The I-5 was closed to the public by CHP in an early morning decision on Saturday from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. during the live ammunition training exercise.

    In response to Sunday’s news, Governor Gavin Newsom who on Saturday criticized the live ammunition training exercise over the I-5 Freeway as a public safety risk, shared the following statement on X: “We love our Marines and owe a debt of gratitude to Camp Pendleton, but next time, the Vice President and the White House shouldn’t be so reckless with people’s lives for their vanity projects.”

    The Marine Corps says that an investigation has been initiated to determine the incident’s root cause.

    [ad_2]

    Natanya Faitelson

    Source link

  • ‘Real Time’: Arnold Schwarzenegger Slams Prop 50 As “A Big Scam,” Says Dems Should Win “Because Of Their Performance”

    [ad_1]

    As California voters weigh Prop 50 ahead of the crucial upcoming midterm elections, Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher to campaign against the bill.

    Following Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s ‘Election Rigging Response Act‘, sparked by recent Texas redistricting efforts the benefit Republicans, Schwarzenegger told Maher he thinks “that Prop 50 is a big scam,” noting that “there’s gerrymandering going on all over.”

    “Do you know who I want to win? The people,” he said. “The people have to win. See, I’m a Republican, but I’m not a Republican hack. I’m not a political hack. I don’t serve the party, I always serve the people. The people are first.”

    Related Stories

    Schwarzenegger continued. “We cannot undo something and rip away the power that the people in California have and give it back to the politicians. We fought that for too long. Let’s not do that. Let’s be a good example. Let the Democrats outperform the Republicans, and therefore, because of their performance, win and get the House back.”

    Maher quipped, “I don’t think that’s very realistic.”

    The former governor went on to champion the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission that was formed in 2010 with support from Schwarzenegger.

    Newsom previously trolled the Twins (1988) actor on social media in August when his co-star Danny DeVito contributed a $1,000 donation to the Yes on 50 campaign.

    [ad_2]

    Glenn Garner

    Source link

  • California Gov. Newsom signs law to protect kids from the risks of AI chatbots

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed legislation to regulate artificial intelligence chatbots and protect children and teens from the potential dangers of the technology. The law requires platforms to remind users they are interacting with a chatbot and not a human. The notification would pop up every three hours for users who are minors. Companies will also have to maintain a protocol to prevent self-harm content and refer users to crisis service providers if they expressed suicidal ideation.Newsom, who has four children under 18, said California has a responsibility to protect kids and teens who are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for everything from homework help to emotional support and personal advice.”Emerging technology like chatbots and social media can inspire, educate, and connect – but without real guardrails, technology can also exploit, mislead, and endanger our kids,” the Democrat said. “We’ve seen some truly horrific and tragic examples of young people harmed by unregulated tech, and we won’t stand by while companies continue without necessary limits and accountability.”California is among several states that tried this year to address concerns surrounding chatbots used by kids for companionship. Safety concerns around the technology exploded following reports and lawsuits saying chatbots made by Meta, OpenAI and others engaged with young users in highly sexualized conversations and, in some cases, coached them to take their own lives. The legislation was among a slew of AI bills introduced by California lawmakers this year to rein in the homegrown industry that is rapidly evolving with little oversight. Tech companies and their coalitions, in response, spent at least $2.5 million in the first six months of the session lobbying against the measures, according to advocacy group Tech Oversight California. Tech companies and leaders in recent months also announced they are launching pro-AI super PACs to fight state and federal oversight. California Attorney General Rob Bonta in September told OpenAI he has “serious concerns” with its flagship chatbot, OpenAI, for children and teens. The Federal Trade Commission also launched an inquiry last month into several AI companies about the potential risks for children when they use chatbots as companions. Research by a watchdog group says chatbots have been shown to give kids dangerous advice about topics such as drugs, alcohol and eating disorders. The mother of a teenage boy in Florida who died by suicide after developing what she described as an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship with a chatbot has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Character.AI. And the parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine recently sued OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that ChatGPT coached the California boy in planning and taking his own life earlier this year.OpenAI and Meta last month announced changes to how their chatbots respond to teenagers asking questions about suicide or showing signs of mental and emotional distress. OpenAI said it is rolling out new controls enabling parents to link their accounts to their teen’s account.Meta said it is now blocking its chatbots from talking with teens about self-harm, suicide, disordered eating and inappropriate romantic conversations, and instead directs them to expert resources. Meta already offers parental controls on teen accounts.EDITOR’S NOTE: This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988.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

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed legislation to regulate artificial intelligence chatbots and protect children and teens from the potential dangers of the technology.

    The law requires platforms to remind users they are interacting with a chatbot and not a human. The notification would pop up every three hours for users who are minors. Companies will also have to maintain a protocol to prevent self-harm content and refer users to crisis service providers if they expressed suicidal ideation.

    Newsom, who has four children under 18, said California has a responsibility to protect kids and teens who are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for everything from homework help to emotional support and personal advice.

    “Emerging technology like chatbots and social media can inspire, educate, and connect – but without real guardrails, technology can also exploit, mislead, and endanger our kids,” the Democrat said. “We’ve seen some truly horrific and tragic examples of young people harmed by unregulated tech, and we won’t stand by while companies continue without necessary limits and accountability.”

    California is among several states that tried this year to address concerns surrounding chatbots used by kids for companionship. Safety concerns around the technology exploded following reports and lawsuits saying chatbots made by Meta, OpenAI and others engaged with young users in highly sexualized conversations and, in some cases, coached them to take their own lives.

    The legislation was among a slew of AI bills introduced by California lawmakers this year to rein in the homegrown industry that is rapidly evolving with little oversight. Tech companies and their coalitions, in response, spent at least $2.5 million in the first six months of the session lobbying against the measures, according to advocacy group Tech Oversight California. Tech companies and leaders in recent months also announced they are launching pro-AI super PACs to fight state and federal oversight.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta in September told OpenAI he has “serious concerns” with its flagship chatbot, OpenAI, for children and teens. The Federal Trade Commission also launched an inquiry last month into several AI companies about the potential risks for children when they use chatbots as companions.

    Research by a watchdog group says chatbots have been shown to give kids dangerous advice about topics such as drugs, alcohol and eating disorders. The mother of a teenage boy in Florida who died by suicide after developing what she described as an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship with a chatbot has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Character.AI. And the parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine recently sued OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that ChatGPT coached the California boy in planning and taking his own life earlier this year.

    OpenAI and Meta last month announced changes to how their chatbots respond to teenagers asking questions about suicide or showing signs of mental and emotional distress. OpenAI said it is rolling out new controls enabling parents to link their accounts to their teen’s account.

    Meta said it is now blocking its chatbots from talking with teens about self-harm, suicide, disordered eating and inappropriate romantic conversations, and instead directs them to expert resources. Meta already offers parental controls on teen accounts.

    EDITOR’S NOTE: This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988.


    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 enacts age-gate law for app stores

    [ad_1]

    California has become the latest state to age-gate app stores and operating systems. AB 1043 is one of several internet regulation bills that Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on Monday, including ones related to social media warning labels, chatbots and deepfake pornography. 

    The State Assembly passed AB 1043 with a 58-0 vote in September. The legislation received backing from notable tech companies such as Google, OpenAI, Meta, Snap and Pinterest. The companies claimed the bill offered a more balanced approach to age verification, with more privacy protection, than laws passed in other states.

    Unlike with legislation in Utah and Texas, children will still be able to download apps without their parents’ consent. The law doesn’t require people to upload photo IDs either. Instead, the idea is that a parent will enter their child’s age while setting up a device for them — so it’s more of an age gate than age verification. The operating system and/or app store will place the user into one of four age categories (under 13, 13-16, 16-18 or adult) and make that information available to app developers. 

    Enacting AB 1043 means that California is joining the likes of Utah, Texas and Louisiana in mandating that app stores carry out age verification (the UK has a broad age verification law in place too). Apple has detailed how it plans to comply with the Texas law, which takes effect on January 1, 2026. The California legislation takes effect one year later.

    AB 56, another bill Newsom signed Monday, will force social media services to display warning labels that inform kids and teens about the risks of using such platforms. These messages will appear the first time the user opens an app each day, then after three hours of total use and once an hour thereafter. This law will take effect on January 1, 2027 as well.

    Elsewhere, California will require AI chatbots to have guardrails in place to prevent self-harm content from appearing and direct users who express suicidal ideation to crisis services. Platforms will need to inform the Department of Public Health about how they’re addressing self-harm and to share details on how often they display crisis center prevention notifications.

    The legislation is coming into force after lawsuits were filed against OpenAI and Character AI in relation to teen suicides. OpenAI last month announced plans to automatically identify teen ChatGPT users and restrict their usage of the chatbot.

    In addition, SB 243 prohibits chatbots from being marketed as health care professionals. Chatbots will need to make it clear to users that they aren’t interacting with a person when they’re using such services, and instead they’re receiving artificially generated responses. Chatbot providers will need to remind minors of this at least every three hours. 

    Newsom also signed a bill concerning deepfake pornography into law. AB 621 includes steeper potential penalties for “third parties who knowingly facilitate or aid in the distribution of nonconsensual sexually explicit material.” The legislation allows victims to seek up to $250,000 per “malicious violation” of the law.

    In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255 or you can simply dial 988. Crisis Text Line can be reached by texting HOME to 741741 (US), CONNECT to 686868 (Canada) or SHOUT to 85258 (UK). Wikipedia maintains a list of crisis lines for people outside of those countries.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Katie Porter rival on her “anger” issues and Newsom’s Trump takedowns

    [ad_1]

    Ethan Agarwal, a California Democrat gubernatorial candidate challenging former Representative Katie Porter for the state’s top job, told Newsweek on Thursday that Porter’s recent viral moments reveal “anger control issues.”

    In contrast, the gubernatorial hopeful applauded Governor Gavin Newsom’s social media tactics, calling him “probably the best and most effective counterbalance to [President Donald] Trump.”

    Newsweek has reached out to Porter’s and Newsom’s press team for comment via email on Friday evening.

    Why It Matters

    Porter, a three-term Democrat who left office in January and is considered a front-runner in California’s governor’s race, has been in the political spotlight this week after two videos circulated online, one showing her berating a staffer for being in her video frame and another capturing her cutting short a tense interview with CBS News California Investigates correspondent Julie Watts.

    California is America’s most populous state and, by itself, the world’s fourth-largest economy, making the governorship a high-profile job. Newsom, now term-limited, has climbed into the national spotlight with public clashes with the Trump administration, prompting frequent speculation about his presidential ambitions.

    What To Know

    Agarwal, 40, who described himself as a “pro-capitalism” Democrat at a Thursday night event in Manhattan, sat down with Newsweek to discuss the state’s leadership and what’s going on in the Democratic race.

    Outlining his platform’s top three policies as housing, making “crime illegal again,” and bolstering California’s energy sector, Agarwal then turned to one of the top Democratic contenders, Porter, who he called a “smart lady,” but has been in the news over her interactions with staff and media.

    In response to the viral clips of Porter, Agarwal said, “[Californians] are feeling betrayed a little bit, I think they’re feeling frustrated,” by her temperament displayed in the videos. “I think people are allowed to have a bad day, everyone has a bad day. It’s hard to be on camera all the time,” he noted. “But that’s not what that was, that was clear evidence of someone that has anger control issues.”

    He added that her actions in the videos relay to him that “she is not able to deal with someone challenging her. If you can’t deal with someone challenging you, how are you going to run the fourth largest economy in the world?”

    “I think it’s a temperament issue, I like fiery people, I like passionate people…but you still treat people as human beings,” Agarwal said, adding that “if you can’t control these little, tiny microcosm situations, how are you going to deal with running the state of California?”

    Porter said in a statement about the video of her berating a staffer, “It’s no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard, and that was especially true as a member of Congress. I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work.”

    The fallout of the situation extends beyond public perception of Porter, Agarwal said, noting that she’s going “to lose the best people,” because the “best staffers, advisers, pollsters, campaign strategists are not going to work for Katie Porter anymore, and that’s where she’s going to lose.”

    An Emerson College poll of 1,000 Californian voters conducted between August 4 and 5 found Porter leading with 18 percent, followed by Republican political commentator Steve Hilton at 12 percent, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 7 percent, and former Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at 5 percent. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Agarwal had not yet announced his run when the poll was conducted.

    Turning to the current governor, Agarwal said the state’s top Democrat is “probably the best and most effective counterbalance to Trump, and I got to give him credit for that” highlighting Newsom’s “all caps tweets,” which are a riff off the president’s. Over the summer, the governor’s social media team changed the style and tone of their posts to mimic Trump’s including a stream of all-caps threats and pop culture parodies, aimed at mocking Trump in a snarky tone while countering Republican initiatives in substance.

    “I don’t see any other Democrats stepping up and fighting Trump as aggressively as Newsom is,” he told Newsweek. “With that said, I don’t think the Democratic Party’s platform should be let’s just fight Trump, which is all it is these days—it’s like how can we be against Trump as opposed to being for something? So, I would like us to be for things as opposed to just being anti-Trump.”

    What People Are Saying

    Political strategist Mike Madrid, co-founder of The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump political action committee, told Newsweek for another story about Porter on Friday: “You can get away with that in a big media market like Orange County, but once you’re running for governor, that video plays very differently…[however] The field is still very wide open. It’s a long time until June, and a lot of people are going to have second thoughts.”

    Porter’s campaign spokesperson Peter Opitz said in a statement, as reported by Politico: “Californians are hungry for a governor who they trust can fight for them against Trump. They know from her work taking on powerful interests in Washington that Katie is never going to be shy about calling out bullshit, and that is why every poll shows Katie firmly in the lead.”

    Governor Newsom’s press office wrote in an October 10 X post: “HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, MANY SAY AMERICA’S MOST LOVED, MOST HANDSOME, AND POSSIBLY MOST IMPORTANT GOVERNOR!! MY BIRTHDAY WISH LIST (THE BEST LIST): NO TROOPS IN OUR BEAUTIFUL CITIES! NO TRUMP ELECTION RIGGING — NONE! BEAUTIFUL, PERFECT, FAIR MAPS FOR EVERYONE! RESPECT FOR OUR SACRED CONSTITUTION! AND MOST IMPORTANT AND A VERY HUMBLE ASK, A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE (PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE BEGGING ME TO ACCEPT IT!) THANK YOU TO THE AMAZING, TALENTED, HIGHLY ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA. I LOVE YOU!!! HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! — GCN”

    Former California State Controller Betty Yee, who is running for governor, said in an October 8 X post: “Katie Porter is a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California. The stakes are simply too high for her to stay in this race. It’s time for her to drop out of this race.”

    Political analyst Nate Silver said in an X post about Porter’s interview: “TV is a really unnatural medium especially in a studio setting like this. Of course you’re supposed to stay more on script if you’re running for office but it’s a very human reaction.”

    Political commentator Megyn Kelly said in an October 7 X post: “Are there other terrible interviews with Katie Porter? This is the most entertaining, unifying thing since tiger king!”

    What Happens Next?

    The gubernatorial race is still far away. The primaries are scheduled for June 2026, while the gubernatorial election is scheduled to take place on November 3, 2026.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill allowing for more homes near transit to help address California housing costs

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom is signing a bill that would allow for more homes to be built near transit stations, in an effort to address California’s high housing costs.

    In a statement Friday, the governor said he is signing Senate Bill 79, a measure sponsored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

    “For too long, California has poured billions into transit without building the housing density needed for those systems to reach their potential,” Newsom said.

    The governor said having more homes near transit would provide multiple benefits, including boosting ridership, cutting traffic and pollution, lowering housing costs and expanding access to jobs, schools and services.

    Newsom added, “The world looks to California for leadership — it’s time to build modern, connected communities that fulfill California’s promise, meeting the needs of today and the next generation.”

    The signing of Senate Bill 79 is the latest attempt to increase homebuilding to tackle the state’s housing costs, which remain among the highest in the country. Earlier this year, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, which reforms the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to speed up the building of housing and infrastructure.  

    Years in the making

    In a separate statement, Wiener, said, “In California we talk a lot about where we don’t want to build homes, but rarely about where we do — until now. SB 79 unwinds decades of overly restrictive land use policies that have driven housing costs to astronomical levels, forcing millions of people to move far away from jobs and transit, to face massive commutes, or to leave California entirely.” 

    Wiener, who was first elected to the State Senate in 2016, has proposed multiple zoning reform bills aiming to boost the number of homes near transit, including Senate Bill 827 in 2018 and Senate Bill 50 in 2020. Both attempts failed to gain passage in the legislature.

    Senate Bill 79 passed the legislature last month with a 43-19 vote in the Assembly and a 21-8 vote in the State Senate.

    Where does SB79 apply?

    According to supporters, SB79 sets standards for allowable housing development within a half mile of train stops and bus rapid transit stops that meet specific criteria. The measure applies only to a handful of counties designated as an “urban transit county” in California, including Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

    For qualifying “Tier 1” stops, which includes stops along BART, Caltrain and LA Metro’s B & D lines, housing up to 9 stories can be built adjacent to a transit stop, up to 7 stories will be allowed within a ¼ mile and up to 6 stories will be allowed between a ¼ and ½ mile of a stop.

    Qualifying stops in “Tier 2”, which include some light rail lines such as Sac RT and San Francisco Muni, some stations on Metrolink and some rapid bus transit lines, housing up to 8 stories would be allowed next to the station, 6 stories within a ¼ mile and 5 stories within ¼ and ½ mile.

    In his signing statement, Newsom also pushed back on claims that the bill impacts any efforts to rebuild homes that were damaged in the Palisades and Eaton fires that devastated Southern California in January, saying there are no transit stops that qualify for the measure in the burn scars of either fire and that the measure has additional safeguards for fire-prone areas. 

    A map provided by the Los Angeles Planning Department showed where the measure could apply in the state’s most populous city, showing no transit stops in Pacific Palisades were covered.

    What people are saying about the bill

    Supporters called it a long-overdue step to boost housing supply and reduce costs. Opponents, however, warned that it could lead to overdevelopment and diminish the voices of local communities. 

    “It’s got the kind of quaint charm of an older city, a hometown vibe,” said Xander Pisano, who moved to San Francisco’s Glen Park neighborhood about eight months ago. “It’s also got the kind of edginess of a city on the outskirts.” 

    Pisano said he loves his neighborhood but worries how it might change if high-rise apartment buildings are built around the nearby Glen Park BART Station. Still, he understands the need to make housing more affordable.

    “If it can lower the rent, that’s always a good thing,” he said. “But with that, there are pluses and negatives as well.”

    One of the main supporters, the non-profit California YIMBY organization, spent eight years pushing for the bill before the governor signed it into law.

    “It’s a moment of validation. It’s a moment of celebration,” said Matthew Lewis, communications director for California YIMBY. “And really, it’s a moment for the work to get started in actually implementing these laws.”

    “The affordability part of it is the big scam,” said Susan Kirsch, founder and director of Catalyst for Local Control, a group that opposed the legislation. “[These buildings] have no assurances, no promises of meeting the needs for those people who are living on minimum wages.” 

    Supporters like California YIMBY disagreed, arguing that the law addresses the state’s long-standing housing shortage through basic economics of increasing supply to help bring down prices. 

    Office-to-home conversions, ADU building bills also approved

    In addition to SB79, Newsom announced the signing of several other measures to boost home construction, including Assembly Bill 507 by Asm. Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), which would streamline the conversion of office towers into housing.

    “Across California, commercial real estate is taking a hit. Offices are losing tenants, property values are falling, and cities are bracing for a financial crunch. AB 507 offers a solution: turn unused office space into desperately needed housing,” said a statement from Haney’s office.

    Newsom also signed Senate Bill 543 by state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton), which seeks to streamline the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), small homes also known as backyard cottages or casitas.

    “California needs to build housing to help make our state more affordable. And one of the most effective ways to address our housing affordability crisis is to accelerate the construction of low-cost housing, like ADUs and junior ADUs,” McNerney said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Tim Fang

    Source link

  • California GOP Chair Rankin’s Redistricting Trial by Fire | RealClearPolitics

    [ad_1]

    Just a few months ago, newly elected California GOP Chair Corrin Rankin was focused on upping her party’s game in the deep-blue state to make inroads in the 2026 midterms and prevent Democrats from forging a path to the House majority through her state.

    Now Rankin is staring down the prospect of losing four to six Congressional GOP seats in one fell special-election swoop in early November. That’s when all the ballots will be counted in the special election California Gov. Gavin Newsom designed to gerrymander Republican House members out of their seats, decimating the current nine-seat California GOP delegation.

    Language in the ballot initiative pledges that it will only redraw the lines temporarily, but opponents are more than skeptical that Democrats will relinquish that control once they have it.

    The state’s nearly 6 million registered Republicans and the GOP House delegation are now looking to Rankin, along with several other state GOP leaders and billionaires, to stop Newsom’s power grab in his tracks and prevent the Republican bloodletting.

    Clearly focused on a 2028 White House run, Newsom is trying to elevate his standing among his fellow Democrats by countering a brazen Texas mid-decade plan designed to help Republicans maintain their narrow majority in the House.

    The Texas redistricting is an unabashed effort to insulate the House Republicans from losing majority control and prevent Trump from being impeached in 2027. In Texas, unlike California, however, pursuing these new congressional lines has the added benefit of complying with state law.

    State law and previous voter-approved measures appear to be of little concern to Newsom. The governor, with the backing of several of the state’s largest unions, came up with a plan to “fight fire with fire” and further gerrymander California’s congressional maps and throw Republican representation into oblivion. In doing so, he convinced the super-majority Democratic-controlled state legislature to ignore the state Constitution language banning mid-decade redistricting to put the issue to voters in a special election, which is costing the state – already tens of billions of dollars in the red – $300 million.

    Newsom’s Nov. 4 ballot initiative, known as Prop 50, would also wrest control of the map-drawing process from an independent Citizens’ Redistricting Commission and place it back in the hands of the Democratic state legislature – even though voters in California in 2008 and again in 2010 voted to de-politicize the issue by taking that power away from politicians.

    “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently lectured, after previously calling Newsom’s gerrymander efforts “insane.” The aging former bodybuilder turned blockbuster Hollywood star led the effort to create the Citizen Redistricting Committee in his final years as governor and is vocally opposed to Newsom’s effort to dismantle it.

    “Whatever happens in Texas, we cannot save democracy by destroying it in California,” Rev. Mac Shorty, a civil rights leader, who is also vehemently opposed, recently remarked.

    Newsom, however, has money and the state’s political power brokers on his side. The California GOP, and other opposition forces, including Schwarzenegger, are being grossly outspent.

    In just a matter of weeks, the Prop 50 referendum has become the second-most expensive ballot measure in California state history with both sides contributing more than $220 million so far in the intense, compressed high-stakes battle. Special elections are usually low-turnout affairs, and without a good GOP GOTV strategy, registered Democrats, who outnumber Republicans nearly two to one in California, would have a natural edge. 

    National and California teachers unions, along with the California Nurses’ Association, are pouring millions into the pro-gerrymandering side. And Newsom, eager to nationalize the issue into a drive to stand up to Trump, has enlisted Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, two far-left progressives, to help sell the idea to California voters.

    MoveOn.org, a liberal grassroots organization, cut a check for $6.9 million, while the House Majority PAC, a super PAC focused on electing Democrats to Congress, has added $10 million; and George Soros’ Fund for Policy Reform, which purportedly focuses on drug policy and electoral reforms, according to IRS filings, has ponied up another $10 million.

    Opposing forces have managed to collect close to $83 million at last count, with the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC controlled by Republican leaders in Congress, providing $47 million so far, and billionaire Charles Munger Jr., who backed the original ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission, doling out another $33 million.

    Thomas Siebel, a Bay Area businessman who is related to Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, donated $1 million, while former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy transferred another $1 million from his campaign account, far less than the $100 million he vowed to raise a few weeks ago.

    Newsom’s decision to throw in with Soros, a Hungarian-American dual citizen and multi-billionaire who has donated billions to liberal dark-money causes, demonstrates his willingness to win at any cost even if it undermines recent attempts to moderate his image and reach out to right-wing figures on his podcast.

    Rankin, the first black California GOP leader, who previously served as a national surrogate for Trump in 2016 and 2024, took over her father’s bail bond business that had operated for decades in Menlo Park since the late 1960s. And she’s no stranger to beating back deep-pocketed Soros-backed drives.

    In 2014, a Soros-backed organization tried to abolish bail in California as part of a campaign to overhaul the state’s criminal justice system to a far more lenient approach. Rankin, as president of the California Bail Agents Association, teamed up with former prosecutor Harmeet Dhillon, who now serves as the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, to defend the state’s bail system when then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris bowed to Democratic pressure and declined to do so.

    Though they lost their legal fight to protect many aspects of California’s cash bail system, Rankin’s grassroots organizational and advocacy efforts ultimately paid off when California voters in 2020 rejected Proposition 25, a ballot initiative that would have ended the state’s bail system for all but the most serious offenses. The bail system remains in place while court decisions, state laws, and local reforms have winnowed away at the practice.

    During her time leading the Bail Agents Association, she launched its legal committee with Dhillon and also chaired the legislative committee and hired lobbyists to help wage the fight in the state Capitol. Although Rankin left the bail bonds business in 2017, she said the infrastructure she built there remains.

    “I started it, and they carried it through, and ultimately [our side] prevailed,” Rankin, who previously served as the party’s vice chair and Central Valley Republican vice chair, told RealClearPolitics.

    Similar to that bail-bond fight, the first attempts to block Newsom’s plan to redraw congressional districts failed. The California Supreme Court in late August rejected an attempt by Republican state lawmakers to temporarily block the redistricting efforts.

    Rankin points to several legal scholars who believe the law is legally vulnerable even if voters approve it in November. (Laura Halgran, a retired San Diego Superior Court judge, has identified multiple legal issues with Proposition 50 and anticipates several constitutional challenges if the measure passes.)

    Meanwhile, Steve Hilton, a GOP candidate for governor who was polling second behind Democrat Katie Porter before Porter’s embarrassing viral spat with a local CBS reporter, has filed suit against several officials involved in getting Prop 50 placed on the ballot. In early October, he asked for a preliminary injunction to try to halt the ballot initiative before the election concludes. U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato set the hearing for Nov. 6, two days after the election wraps up, although California’s all-mail-in system may delay ballot-counting past that date. 

    In Democrat-controlled California, Rankin knows she can’t rely on the courts as a backstop and must fight the ballot initiative with as big a funding arsenal as she can muster. Some Republicans across the state have privately griped about the California GOP’s decision to charge $30 per “No on Prop 50” yard sign as a way to raise some additional cash. But the real concern among the party faithful is a dearth of outreach to the GOP base so far – something Rankin vows to quickly change with a new infusion of cash from Republicans back in Washington.

    Reliable Republicans who regularly turn out for elections haven’t been the primary focus for many groups opposed to Prop 50, including the Munger-funded Protect Voters First, which has reportedly aimed its messaging at the persuadables – independents and ambivalent Democrats. Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab, a group run by former California GOP Chair Jessica Millan Patterson, has also said it’s trying to drill down on “who we can persuade,” arguing that extreme gerrymandering is not a partisan but a good-government issue.

    Rankin acknowledges that her new job has switched into high gear much faster than she anticipated, but says she’s up for the challenge.

    “It’s unprecedented for any brand-new [party] chair to have this major proposition come within the first six months of their chairmanship,” she said. “But I believe we’re ready for it.”

    Within her first weeks on the job, the Republicans across the state successfully beat back an effort by Democrats to exclude older teenagers from an existing law that increases penalties on people who solicit minors for sex. Ultimately, Newsom sided with Republicans on the issue, but only after the California GOP engaged in an aggressive and unprecedented social media campaign.

    “We were able to do that right out of the gate, and we saw a lot of success in that,” Rankin said. “So, when Proposition 50 came along, we decided to use that same playbook.”

    With voters receiving their mail-in ballots this week, Rankin is focused on waging a voter education and outreach battle. The party, she said, is committed to responding to a well-financed television and digital ad onslaught in favor of Prop 50 with her own October blitz of digital, direct mail, and expanded field work. Party officials also said they plan to provide extensive in-person canvassing, phone banking drives, and text messaging.

    Meanwhile, county GOP initiatives are micro-targeting voters they need to turn out in order to win. Thirty-seven out of 58 of the state’s county sheriffs, including those from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, last week announced they would oppose Prop 50. In addition, numerous GOP-controlled city councils across the state are locking arms to pass resolutions opposing Newsom’s gerrymandering plan.

    Over the last week, the Congressional Leadership Fund helped the California GOP cause by donating $5 million to further those efforts, and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s American Renewal Leadership PAC contributed another $869,000 on Thursday. The funding follows Rankin’s commitment to spend up to $500,000 in existing party funds for targeted digital video ads.

    The California Republican Party has rolled out a different video each day for the last two weeks on X.com starring Rankin; former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who chairs the party’s fundraising efforts; and former Congresswoman Michelle Steel, who narrowly lost her seat to Derek Tran in Orange County last year.

    “Californians have already voted twice to keep redistricting with the people, not Sacramento insiders,” Rankin said. “Prop 50 tried to take that back. It’s a power grab, plain and simple. It says one thing and does another. Our October blitz is about cutting through the noise with daily videos and targeted outreach, so voters get the facts and vote no.”

    A spate of recent polls indicates that supporters of Proposition 50 are gaining ground. In mid-August, a Politico-Citrin-Center-Possibility Lab survey found that just 36% of respondents backed returning congressional redistricting authority to California lawmakers. But early this week, a survey from the firm co/efficient found that a majority of California voters now back Proposition 50.

    But the poll showed some serious cracks in the idea of re-politicizing the map-making process. Only 12% said they trust the legislature most to redistrict while 35% said they trust the existing commission the most.

    Opponents of Prop 50 also point to the same poll’s findings that 49% of California voters have yet to commit to a “yes” or “no” position on the initiative, underscoring the importance of late voter contact.

    That’s a bit of good news for nervous Republicans worried that the opposition message has yet to penetrate while voters are getting hit with a barrage of union and Soros-funded ads.

    “The California Republican Party is putting these dollars to work where they matter most: persuading undecided voters and turning out our supporters,” said Shawn Steel, chairman of the party’s Redistricting Committee, who has helped lead the recent fundraising push. “This October blitz is about clarity and reach. Californians deserve a clear explanation of what Prop. 50 would do to their voice in government, and they’re going to hear it from us, one conversation, one ad, and one door knock at a time.”

    For Rankin, the crux of the issue is Democrats’ willingness to throw out the citizen-led redistricting commission and California constitutional law preventing the redrawing of congressional lines mid-decade just to oppose Trump at the national level.

    “California voters overwhelmingly voted in 2010 for an independent, citizen-led redistricting commission to redraw the maps every 10 years, following the census,” Rankin said. “And when we start giving up our constitutional laws and protections, they start falling by the wayside, little by little.”

    “You give up one, then you’re asked to give up another, and then another and another,” Rankin added. “I stand firmly in the belief that we’ve earned every single one of our constitutional laws and rights, and we should be fighting to protect every one of them.”

    Rankin also pointed out Democrats’ selective citing of the Voting Rights Act, making minority-rights arguments to oppose gerrymandering efforts in Texas while ignoring those same principles in California’s drive.  

    “You can’t say, ‘I respect your rights, but I’m going to take them away temporarily. But don’t worry, you’re going to get them back later,’” Rankin asserted. “That’s not the way it works. It’s blatant hypocrisy.”

    Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ national political correspondent.

    [ad_2]

    Susan Crabtree, RCP

    Source link

  • California Lets Residents Opt-Out of a Ton of Data Collection on the Web

    [ad_1]

    This week, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law new legislation that will give Californians the ability to easily opt out of digital data collection with a simple portal that should apply to all websites in their browser. The move promises to make the state’s digital privacy protections that much easier to take advantage of, and could set a new precedent for future privacy regulations.

    In a press release shared this week, Newsom’s office announced the passage of two new laws, SB 361 and AB 566, that will strengthen the state’s landmark California Consumer Privacy Act. The CCPA, created in 2018, notably gave state residents the ability to request that companies share with them—but also delete—information that had been collected about them as part of their business practices.

    The passage of the CCPA was a big deal, but, as is often the case with landmark legislation, its execution has left something to be desired. While the CCPA did, indeed, force companies—for the first time—to give web users a certain amount of control over their data, the mechanisms by which that control can be exerted have always been quite imperfect.

    In other words, loopholes in the law have created a situation in which every single time a web user visits a website, they are forced to go through the annoying process of selecting their privacy preferences. In some cases, companies have capitalized on this process by making it confusing or difficult to navigate, thus tilting the scales in their favor.

    Now, however, due to the passage of AB 566, Californians should—theoretically—be able to opt out of all data collection via a simple portal made available through their web browser. The legislation “helps consumers exercise their opt-out rights” under the CCPA by “requiring browsers to include a setting to send websites an opt-out preference signal to enable Californians to opt out of third-party sales of their data at one time instead of on each individual website,” Newsom’s press release states.

    This is a great step towards giving web users more control over their data, although—given that the bill was just passed into law—it’s not yet clear how the regulation will manifest for consumers. Hopefully, it will be as easy as checking a box in your browser.

    The legislation puts California miles ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to digital privacy enforcement. In recent years, the state has also taken strides towards improving its ability to police and punish companies for infringing upon this law. Currently, enforcement is operated through the state Attorney General’s office. This year, a number of companies—including a tractor company and a health information publisher—were fined upwards of a million dollars for alleged CCPA violations. However, in 2020, the state also approved the creation of a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (or CPPA—which has been dubbed the nation’s first “privacy police”), which is tasked with administering and implementing the CCPA.

    Also signed into law this week was SB 361, which is designed to strengthen California’s already existing data broker registry. The law will give consumers “more information about the personal information collected by data brokers and who may have access to consumers’ data,” Newsom’s office said.

    [ad_2]

    Lucas Ropek

    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

  • Katie Porter Should Have Something to Say to Trump Voters

    [ad_1]

    Photo: YouTube/@CBSSacramento

    There are two big things going on in California politics right now. We are in the opening phase of what could be the most unpredictable gubernatorial election in ages, with a huge and changing field of candidates eager to succeed term-limited Gavin Newsom. Meanwhile, the governor is spearheading a loud and expensive ballot-initiative campaign to shift the state’s congressional map crucially toward Democrats, in an explicit response to Donald Trump’s efforts to grab midterm wins for Republicans via redistricting measures in states his party controls (most notably Texas).

    Unsurprisingly, when CBS News reporter Julie Watts decided to interview gubernatorial candidates, she wanted very clear answers on how they felt about the ballot fight. And for the Democratic candidates, she also wanted to know if the intense anti-Trump messaging of the “Yes on 50” campaign would make it hard for them to appeal to Trump voters in 2026. It’s not a particularly rich line of inquiry, but it’s entirely legitimate.

    So it got a lot of attention when Watts’s interview with former Democratic representative Katie Porter, who is leading the field in most of the early gubernatorial polling, went way off the rails:

    Porter objected to a question that included the premise that she might need Trump voters to win the governorship. After wrinkling her brow, Porter asked, “How would I need them to win, ma’am?” Watts responded, “You think everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote for you?” Porter affirmed, “In a general election, yes … If it’s me against a Republican, I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump.”

    Watts then asked, “What if it is you against another Democrat?” And Porter replied, “I do not intend that to be the case.”

    At this point, non-Californians may be confused. In a 2010 ballot initiative, Golden State voters abolished party primaries and inaugurated a so-called top-two system in which all candidates compete in an open primary, with the top two candidates — regardless of party — advancing to the general election. So it’s entirely possible that two Democrats (or in an alternative universe, two Republicans) could compete for the ultimate prize. It happened in the U.S. Senate elections of 2016 (in which Kamala Harris defeated Democratic representative Loretta Sanchez) and 2018 (when Dianne Feinstein defeated Democratic state-senate leader Kevin DeLeon). How Republican voters would deal with an all-Democratic general-election choice was of great interest in both races, though many Republicans chose to give the race a pass. In the most recent competitive statewide race, the Senate contest of 2024, Democrat Adam Schiff spent a lot of money attacking Republican Steve Garvey during the primary campaign. The goal was to herd angry Republicans into his column and make him Schiff’s general-election opponent, in the accurate expectation that Schiff would win that contest handily. And who was the third-place Democrat who was pushed out of the general election by the Schiff-Garvey squeeze play? Katie Porter. So she’s very familiar with this sort of scenario.

    With that as background, maybe that’s why Porter bristled when Watts asked, “How do you intend this (a Democrat-on-Democrat general election) not to be the case? Are you going to ask them not to run?” After a brief digression in which Porter touted her ability to win in a “purple” House district earlier in her career, she challenged Watts to restate her question, which she did, and then soon thereafter Porter announced, “I’m not doing this anymore; I’m going to call it.”

    To put it mildly, this did not go over well. Multiple Democratic rivals soon scolded Porter for losing her cool, as The Hill noted:

    Former California State Controller Betty Yee (D), who is also running for governor, said in a post on X that it is clear Porter does not have the temperament to be governor. 

    “As a candidate, I welcome the hard questions — the next governor must be accessible and transparent,” Yee wrote on X. “No place for temper tantrums. No place for dodging the public’s right to know.”

    There were plenty of safe answers Porter could have given to Watts’s hypothetical about needing Trump voters in a Democrat-on-Democrat general election. She could have pointed out that a goodly number of 2024 Trump voters were experiencing buyer’s remorse. She could have suggested that some Trump voters might appreciate the need for a counterbalance in Congress to the president’s power. And, of course, she could have said Republican voters choosing between two Democrats might appreciate her personal qualities, her drive and independence, and her determination to represent everyone. The reality is that nobody really knows what the dynamics will be surrounding a general election that’s 13 months away, so she could have answered with the equivalent of “I’ll cross that bridge when I reach it” and maybe even laughed.

    The bottom line is that this was a predictable question Porter should have been able to answer or deflect, instead of giving the impression she’s writing off 40 percent of her state’s electorate and rejecting media questions that don’t simply invite her to repeat her message.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Governors Plunged Into Constitutional Crisis | RealClearPolitics

    [ad_1]

    State power brokers step up as a paralyzed Congress bows out.

    [ad_2]

    Gabrielle Gurley, American Prospect

    Source link

  • California bans loud commercials on streaming platforms

    [ad_1]

    California has passed a law to like Netflix and Hulu.

    This is great news for people who don’t want to wake the neighborhood up when a streaming show suddenly turns into an aggressively loud ad for migraine medication.

    Governor Gavin Newsom just signed the law and the ban goes into effect on July 1, 2026. On that date, streaming services won’t be allowed to “transmit the audio of commercial advertisements louder than the video content the advertisements accompany.”

    Newsom said that California is “dialing down this inconvenience across streaming platforms, which had previously not been subject to commercial volume regulations passed by Congress in 2010.” He’s referring to the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, which barred the audio of TV commercials from being broadcast . California’s new law makes streaming platforms comply with those same volume regulations.

    The bill was authored by State Senator Tom Umberg, who said it was inspired by “every exhausted parent who’s finally gotten a baby to sleep, only to have a blaring streaming ad undo all that hard work.” The full text of the bill is .

    California holds some major sway in the entertainment industry, so here’s hoping that this type of legislation will come to other states. Americans don’t agree on much, but everyone hates loud ads.

    [ad_2]

    Lawrence Bonk

    Source link

  • California Turns Down the Volume on Netflix and Other Streaming Platforms

    [ad_1]

    We’ve all been there, completely absorbed in a movie or maybe your favorite comfort TV show is lulling you to sleep, when suddenly an ad blasts in like a jump scare at what sounds like double the volume and yanks you out of the moment.

    Despite advertisers turning to cheap tricks to get your attention, a new California law aims to put an end to this annoying practice.

    California Governor Gavin Newsom signed on Monday state legislation that bans loud commercials on video streaming platforms, including Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Max.

    The law aims to close a loophole in the 2010 Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, which banned blaring commercials on broadcast, cable, and satellite TV. But because streaming wasn’t yet mainstream, those platforms were left out at the time. Today, about 83% of U.S. adults use streaming services.

    The new law also comes as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has said it’s been hearing from more viewers complaining about deafening ads. Back in February, the agency announced it was revisiting its decades-old rules from the CALM Act and seeking public comment on how to better protect consumers from excessively loud commercials. The FCC said complaints dropped after the rules first took effect, but in recent years they’ve started climbing up again with a “troubling jump” just last year.

    Now, the California bill requires that streamers “not transmit the audio of commercial advertisements louder than the video content they accompany.”

    “We heard Californians loud and clear, and what’s clear is that they don’t want commercials at a volume any louder than the level at which they were previously enjoying a program,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement.

    The bill was written by State Senator Tom Umberg, who said the idea came from one of his staffers struggling to put their baby, Samantha, to sleep because of loud commercials.

    “This bill was inspired by baby Samantha and every exhausted parent who’s finally gotten a baby to sleep, only to have a blaring streaming ad undo all that hard work,” said Umberg.

    The law faced some pushback from entertainment industry groups, which argued that streaming ads come from multiple sources, making them too difficult to control, and that the industry was already working on a fix.

    Melissa Patack, a representative of the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents companies like Netflix, Paramount, and Disney, testified during a committee hearing in June.

    “Unlike in the broadcasting cable network environment, where advertisers sell their ads directly to the networks, streaming ads come from several different sources and cannot necessarily or practically be controlled by streaming platforms,” Patack said at the time.

    Set to take effect in July 2026, the law could influence national standards, given California’s size and close connections to the entertainment industry.

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Gil

    Source link

  • What Is Happening With Trump’s National Guard Takeovers?

    [ad_1]

    Federal agents, including members of the Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol, and the police, attempt to keep protesters back outside a downtown U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon, on October 5.
    Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

    Donald Trump has made exerting federal power over the states a hallmark of his second term, attempting a takeover of Washington, D.C., and vowing to deploy the National Guard into the streets of American cities as he sees fit. But the president took another unprecedented move over the weekend as he green-lit the deployment of guardsmen from other states to Illinois and Oregon in stark defiance of their leaders and a court order.

    Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker announced on Sunday that Trump had ordered 400 members of the Texas National Guard to Illinois, Oregon, and other locations in what he deemed “Trump’s Invasion.” The Democratic governor noted on social media that no government officials called him directly to discuss the deployment. “I call on Governor Abbott to immediately withdraw any support for this decision and refuse to coordinate. There is no reason a President should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation,” he wrote.

    Texas governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, confirmed that he gave his full authorization to the Trump administration to call up his state’s guardsmen to “ensure safety for federal officials.” But his state was not the only one.

    The Trump administration moved to send 300 members of the California National Guard to Portland, Oregon, prompting a legal challenge from California governor Gavin Newsom. “We’re suing Donald Trump. His deployment of the California National Guard to Oregon isn’t about crime. It’s about power. He is using our military as political pawns to build up his own ego. It’s appalling. It’s un-American. And it must stop,” he wrote on social media.

    The president’s move to utilize troops from California and Texas appeared to be an attempt to circumvent a decision from a federal judge on Saturday that temporarily blocked Trump from deploying the National Guard in Portland, a city that he has described as “war ravaged” and “under siege” from domestic terrorists. Per the Associated Press, Trump intended to federalize 200 Oregon National Guardsmen to protect federal buildings in the city following consistent protests at the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. But U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, determined that conditions in the city did not justify such a deployment. “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” she wrote in her decision, per the AP.

    Trump’s attempt to involve other states over the weekend prompted an emergency hearing from Immergut late on Sunday evening. The New York Times reports that the judge declared that the president’s move to utilize the California and Texas National Guards was “ in direct contravention” of her initial order. Immergut expanded her initial ruling to bar the “relocation, federalization or deployment of members of the National Guard of any state or the District of Columbia in the state of Oregon.”

    The Trump administration had already filed an appeal against Immergut’s Saturday ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But federal officials have denounced the judge’s decision in vitriolic terms, signaling a likely prolonged fight on this issue. “Today’s judicial ruling is one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen — and is yet the latest example of unceasing efforts to nullify the 2024 election by fiat,” deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller posted online.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt denounced Immergut’s rulings during a Monday briefing, calling them”untethered in reality and in the law.” When pressed by reporters who said Portland officials have pushed back on Trump’s characterization of the city’s conditions, Leavitt suggested they must have spoken to “partisan Democrat officials.”

    As the White House continues to defend its actions, another challenge to the federal government’s tactics emerged on Monday. The Illinois attorney general’s office, in conjunction with the city of Chicago, filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s deployment of the Texas guardsmen as well as the attempted federalization of the Illinois National Guard in the city. “The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the filing read. A hearing in the matter has been scheduled for Monday afternoon.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Nia Prater

    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Trump’s National Guard deployment to Portland amid constitutional challenge

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops into Portland in a late-night decision on Sunday.

    U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled the action was unlawful and unconstitutional, issuing an emergency temporary restraining order to halt the deployment of California’s National Guard. The order also bars the use of troops from any other state or Washington, D.C. in Oregon.

    Immergut’s ruling says that the Trump administration’s action violates federal statute 10 U.S.C. §12406 and the Tenth Amendment.

    “It appears to violate both 10 U.S.C. §12406 and the Tenth Amendment,” Immergut said during the proceeding, according to reporting from Adam Klasfeld of AllRise News.

    NEWSOM SUES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT ORDER TO OREGON

    U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, ruling the action unconstitutional. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Immergut also pressed Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton on why the DOJ continued to pursue troop movements.

    “How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention of the TRO that I issued yesterday?” she asked.
    “You’re an officer of the court. Aren’t defendants circumventing my order?”

    Hamilton went on to deny any wrongdoing but did offer a defense to which Immergut pushed back.

    “You have to have a colorable claim that Oregon conditions warrant deploying the National Guard — you don’t.”

    TRUMP’S ‘WAR-RAVAGED PORTLAND’ NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT HALTED BY FEDERAL JUDGE OVER AUTHORITY CONCERNS

    Law enforcement stand in front of tear gas cloud

    Law enforcement officers stand in tear gas outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility during a protest on Saturday, Oct. 4, 2025, in Portland, Oregon. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

    Oregon’s Scott Kennedy said it felt like “a game of rhetorical Whac-A-Mole” and referenced reports that Trump may be considering sending Texas National Guard troops to Chicago.

    DOJ representatives requested a stay, but Immergut denied both the stay and the administrative delay, saying it was an “emergency” and there were no new facts to justify the request to change her previous ruling.

    “I’m handling this on an emergency basis with limited briefing,” she said. “No new information has been provided about any new issues in Portland.”

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks

    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard.  (Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) immediately took to X to boast.

    “BREAKING: We just won in court — again. A federal judge BLOCKED Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to DEPLOY 300 OF OUR NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS TO PORTLAND. The court granted our request for a Temporary Restraining Order — HALTING ANY FEDERALIZATION, RELOCATION, OR DEPLOYMENT of ANY GUARD MEMBERS TO OREGON FROM ANY STATE. Trump’s abuse of power won’t stand,” the post stated.

    The Justice Department has made indications that it will be appealing the ruling with arguments that the president retains authority under federal law to deploy National Guard forces in cases of “domestic unrest.”

    Fox News’ Lee Ross contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Uber and Lyft drivers in California are able to unionize under new law

    [ad_1]

    California governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation on Friday that grants rideshare drivers in the state the right to unionize. It’s the second state to grant organizing rights to rideshare drivers, who are independent contractors, following the passage of a similar law in Massachusetts in 2024. There are over 800,000 rideshare drivers in California, and the bill that was just signed into law “establishes a clear legal framework for union certification, bargaining processes and enforcement,” according to a press release from the office of Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

    This means drivers working for companies like Uber and Lyft will be able to collectively bargain for better pay, benefits and working conditions. Under the terms of the law, driver organizations will be able to apply for union recognition starting in May 2026 as long as they have support from at least 10 percent of active rideshare drivers in the state. The organization would then need support from at least 30 percent of active drivers to begin bargaining on their behalf. 

    As part of a deal made in September, Newsom also signed a measure that reduces the insurance coverage requirements for Uber and Lyft in the case of accidents caused by uninsured drivers, Associated Press reports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link