ReportWire

Tag: Julie Watts Investigates

  • They didn’t just ignore audit warnings — California lawmakers quietly killed dozens of audit-backed bills

    For decades, California lawmakers requested state audits, Californians have paid for those audits, and the State Auditor provided detailed recommendations on how to fix waste, fraud, and oversight failures across state government.

    In most cases, CBS News California found lawmakers did not act on those recommendations.

    CLICK TO EXPLORE: California Lawmaker Audit Accountability Tracker

    When they did act, former majority party leaders quietly killed dozens of audit-backed bills in committee. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed at least a dozen more.

    A CBS News California investigation found lawmakers failed to enact roughly three out of every four state audit recommendations directed at the Legislature, leaving more than 300 outstanding statutory fixes unresolved.

    Now, lawmakers from both parties — and both state houses — say it’s time to address the backlog.

    The new Legislative Audit Chair, Democrat Assemblymember John Harabedian, called the findings a “wake-up call” and said the Legislature has an opportunity to tackle long-standing issues with a new class of members this session and a new state leadership next year.

    “I think that there is a great opportunity with a new class in the Legislature, a new governor, to really tackle these things head-on,” Harabedian said.

    Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones agreed the numbers are concerning.

    “Three out of four is ridiculous that that’s not being addressed,” Jones said.

    Both lawmakers emphasized that the audit process itself is nonpartisan.

    “It’s nonpartisan. It’s not even bipartisan — it’s nonpartisan,” Jones said. “When the auditor takes that issue up, they come at this with no bias.”

    Agencies comply. Lawmakers don’t.

    Under the Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006, the State Auditor must issue annual reports identifying agency recommendations not implemented after one year. Agencies are required to publicly explain why they have not acted or when they intend to comply.

    Agencies implement roughly three out of every four recommendations. By comparison, lawmakers fail to enact three out of every four recommendations directed to them.

    For lawmakers, there is:

    • No required annual summary of unfinished legislative recommendations
    • No formal explanation requirement when lawmakers fail to act
    • No centralized tracking once bills die or are vetoed

    Why fixes stalled

    A deeper dive into legislative records revealed multiple reasons proposed audit-backed reforms failed.

    More than 60 bills were drafted or introduced based on audit findings, but later died. Some stalled due to internal political disagreements. Others faced resistance from state agencies.

    Some were quietly held in committee or on the suspense file without a public vote, often an indication that Democratic supermajority leadership did not support the bill.

    At least another dozen audit-related bills passed the legislature only to be vetoed by Gov. Newsom.

    In several veto messages, the governor argued that additional oversight was unnecessary or that the proposed changes were too costly.

    A shift in “tone”

    For years, former State Auditor Elaine Howle voluntarily issued annual reports summarizing outstanding recommendations directed specifically to the legislature.

    Those reports:

    • Listed every unresolved legislative recommendation
    • Identified which policy committee was responsible
    • Documented whether related bills were introduced, stalled, passed, or vetoed

    They functioned as a centralized accountability framework, essentially a legislative checklist of unfinished business.

    That reporting ended in 2022 after Howle retired and Gov. Newsom appointed a new state auditor, Grant Parks.

    CBS News California identified at least a dozen audit-recommended bills that Governor Newsom vetoed during his first term, while Howle was auditor. Based on publicly available records, it does not appear he has vetoed any audit-related bills since appointing Parks. 

    At his first Joint Legislative Audit Committee hearing, where the lawmakers decide which audit requests to approve, Parks signaled a shift in tone. 

    Before introducing Parks, the newly appointed JLAC Chair David Alvarez acknowledged that, in the past, audits had sometimes created “an adversarial relationship between the Legislature and the Administration.”

    In response, Parks emphasized the importance of maintaining a “balanced tone” and “working with the Administration,” adding, “We’re not looking out to get people or gain media attention,” Parks clarified.  

    A change in reporting

    The auditor’s office told CBS News California the decision to discontinue producing the special legislative reports detailing outstanding recommendations and audit-related vetoes was made to “optimize the use of auditor resources.”

    In a statement, spokesperson Dana Simas said redirecting efforts toward core audit work would improve timeliness for statutory and legislatively approved audits. She added that recommendations remain publicly accessible on the auditor’s website, “which we upgraded in January 2024 to offer a significantly improved user experience that now offers detailed search capabilities of recommendations by issue or policy area, agency, and the year the audit was published.”

    However, the updated site does not provide a dedicated search for “Recommendations to the Legislature.”

    Using public safety as an example, the site’s current search function returns just four public safety audit reports, with only two visible legislative recommendations, overlooking dozens of additional outstanding legislative recommendations in other public safety audits issued over the past five years.

    To identify those recommendations, users must manually search the archive, reviewing hundreds of individual audit reports to identify the dozens of outstanding legislative recommendations issued since 2021 alone.

    In practice, lawmakers relying solely on the current search tools would not see the full scope of unfinished legislative recommendations.

    Lawmakers say that gap matters.

    The legislature trusts the auditor’s findings so much that they passed a law requiring state agencies to either implement audit recommendations or publicly explain why they have not. 

    That public accountability has proven effective. Agencies implement more than 80% of audit recommendations. No comparable framework exists for the legislature.

    So CBS News California built one.

    Using public records, we scraped and consolidated legislative recommendations across audit reports to create the Audit Accountability Tracker — a database focused specifically on recommendations directed at elected lawmakers.

    Rebuilding the accountability framework

    The CBS News California | Legislative Audit Accountability Tracker is intended to serve both lawmakers and the public.

    The database compiles a decade of legislative audit recommendations and tracks:

    • Which bills were introduced
    • Which stalled
    • Which passed
    • Which were vetoed
    • Which remain unresolved
        

    Nearly half of the California Legislature is new this session. Many outstanding recommendations were issued before current members took office.

    “When these reports come back to the legislature, it’s our job to take that information and legislate intelligently,” said Jones, who acknowledged they need to educate new lawmakers on the importance of state audits.

    Harabedian says he intends to work across committees and across party lines to address the backlog.

    “I’m hoping by the end of this year we tackle some of it, by the next year we tackle more, and we just keep going,” he said. “We owe it to the people to do that.”

    CBS News California Lawmaker Audit Accountability Tracker

    CLICK TO EXPLORE: California Lawmaker Audit Accountability Tracker

    For years, the warnings were written and the solutions were identified. Now, lawmakers say they’re ready to move forward.

    CBS News California will continue tracking whether those promises become law. 

    John Kelly

    contributed to this report.

    In:

    Source link

  • California lawmakers ignore most state audit warnings, costing billions

    For more than a decade, the California State Auditor has issued warnings to lawmakers about government waste, fraud, cost overruns, and broken oversight systems across state government. Again and again, audits called for changes in state law meant to fix those problems.

    In many cases, those fixes did not happen.

    CBS News California Investigates recently exposed how lawmakers ignored years of warnings from the California State Auditor about hidden traffic violation fees.

    That raised a broader question: What other audit warnings have lawmakers been ignoring, and at what cost?

    An exclusive CBS News California analysis of state audit recommendations dating back to 2015 found lawmakers failed to enact three out of every four recommendations that required legislative action. 

    The unresolved warnings span some of California’s most expensive and urgent problems, including unemployment fraud, homelessness spending oversight, public safety funding accountability, wildfire risk, and drinking water safety, just to name a few.

    These are audits the Legislature asked for. Audits Californians paid for. Audits with recommendations that remain unresolved, while California continues to lose money to potential waste and fraud. 

    California’s Unfinished Business

    CBS News California analyzed state audit recommendations dating back to 2015 and found the following.

    • California lawmakers failed to act on three out of every four state audit recommendations
    • There are more than 300 outstanding recommendations to the legislature
    • The outstanding recommendations impacted more than 100 different issues and agencies
    • Two out of three state audits include recommendations on which the auditor notes that lawmakers have taken “no action”
      at all. 

    CBS News California Investigates is now building a publicly searchable “Audit Accountability Tracker” to help viewers and voters track what lawmakers have not done and what that inaction costs Californians. 

    The database is not yet public, but the early findings reveal a series of patterns the Auditor has documented for years: the same problems, the same risks, the same inaction.

    Billions lost to fraud and broken oversight

    The analysis reveals that some of California’s most costly cases of fraud or untracked spending were the subjects of numerous prior audits. According to the auditor, state losses may have been mitigated if lawmakers had acted on earlier recommendations.

    “There would still be issues, but not as serious as we are now,” former California State Auditor Elaine Howle told CBS News California in 2021 while discussing two audits related to pandemic unemployment fraud.

    Prior audits warned lawmakers that the state’s Employment Development Department (EDD) left Californians vulnerable to fraud, but by the time lawmakers acted, it was too late.  

    It’s estimated that California lost more than $20 billion to pandemic unemployment fraud when EDD issued billions in fraudulent payments to criminals while out-of-work Californians struggled to get an EDD rep on the phone, let alone get paid. 

    Years later, new audits reveal that EDD fraud continues, along with outstanding recommendations to lawmakers.

    Homelessness spending offers another example of state audit warnings that lawmakers ignored. The Auditor repeatedly warned lawmakers that California lacks a statewide plan, outcome tracking and accountability for homelessness program spending. 

    The state spent more than $20 billion without uniform standards to measure effectiveness. Meanwhile, audit after audit repeated the same core warnings while the recommendations to the legislature appear to have stalled. 

    In many cases, recommended legislation died behind closed doors without a public vote revealing who killed it or why. 

    It is not just about money

    Outstanding audit recommendations also involve risks to public safety and public health that may have been mitigated if lawmakers acted sooner.

    For instance, the auditor found that water districts were failing to tell people that their drinking water was unsafe. It’s an issue CBS News California has been covering for years.

    The auditor pushed for more disclosure, and lawmakers failed to act.

    As wildfires continue to destroy communities, lawmakers take “no action” on auditor-recommended oversight laws and ignore other recommendations related to law enforcement,  courts, healthcare for pregnant women, hate crimes, untested rape kits,  affordable housing solutions and more. 

    Lawmakers even failed to act on polices that, according to the auditor, put child abuse victims at risk.

    In all, CBS News California identified more than 300 outstanding audit recommendations.

    New lawmakers, old warnings

    CBS News California Investigates shared some of our findings with Assemblymember John Harabedian, the new chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC). The JLAC committee decides which issues the auditor investigates.

    “When I hear that there are many audits and recommendations that haven’t been addressed, I think that’s a wake-up call, Harabedian said.”

    Harabedian is part of a large new class of lawmakers, many of whom were not in office when the recommendations were written.

    “I think that being new to the Legislature and now being the chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, I am keenly focused on oversight,” he said. “I do think investigative journalism, what you’re doing, is important. It keeps everyone accountable and highlights issues that might not be on my radar or (my colleagues’) radar.” 

    What comes next

    CBS News California Investigates is building an Audit Accountability Tracker, a public database designed to show in one place:

    • What the State Auditor told lawmakers to fix
    • Which recommendations required changes in state law
    • Which ones remain unresolved
    • Why they matter to Californians

    We are also waiting for additional financial records from the California State Auditor’s office to quantify the potential cost of inaction and potential future savings if lawmakers act. 

    The tracker will serve voters and viewers as well as the more than 30 new lawmakers who were not in office when many of these audits were issued.

    The warnings are written, solutions identified.

    The question is, will the new class of lawmakers finish what their predecessors started?

    In:

    Source link

  • “Sephora Kids” Investigation: California lawmakers kill bill targeting anti-aging skincare sales to minors

    “Strawberry smoothie!, I found it!” shrieks a high-pitched 10-year-old voice.

    “I need the Baby Face serum,” says another 5th-grade girl.

    “It’s right here,” says a third. “Oh, it’s actually kind of cute,” she adds, referring to the baby pink packaging.

    That’s just some of the audio recorded when CBS News California Investigates Correspondent Julie Watts sent her 5th-grade daughter and some classmates (with parents’ permission) undercover shopping for skincare products to see what would happen when the kids tried to buy products that, according to dermatologists, contain anti-aging ingredients that could harm their young skin. 

    From bubblegum cleansers to Sephora Barbie to kid-fluencers promoting viral brands, the skincare industry is cashing in on the so-called “Sephora kids” trend, named after one of the trendy cosmetic stores that sells the viral skincare brands, though Sephora didn’t create the trend. 

    Nielsen data show Gen Alpha (kids under 12) households spend billions of dollars a year on skincare and makeup. However, dermatologists warn that many viral products, which are sold in brightly-colored packaging and appear to be marketed to kids, often contain hidden anti-aging ingredients that can harm young skin. 

    The industry says it doesn’t market adult skincare to kids, but most shoppers wouldn’t know that by looking at the shelf or even the fine print on the fruit-shaped and brightly colored packaging with product names like “strawberry smooth” and “baby facial.”

    “Do you think it smells like blackberries?” one girl asked when selecting a retinol product in a blackberry-shaped bottle that comes in a fruit-covered box. “Probably,” another girl responded.

    In a recent interview with Fortune Magazine, Sephora’s CEO insisted that the company does not market to kids. “It is incumbent on us, it is incumbent on our over 250, 300 brands, that we’re talking to the right audience at the right time about the right thing.”

    Meanwhile, we found Sephora sale promotions on Instagram featuring Sephora Barbie, Sephora stickers, and cartoons.  

    In response to criticism, popular brand Drunk Elephant posted this list on social media with products that it says are safe for kids. We found another list of products that kids should avoid in their online FAQs under the “Younger Fans” section.

    Take a look at the shelf. Can you tell the difference?

    Green checks indicate products intended for kids, according to the skincare brand. A red “X” indicates products not intended for kids, according to the brand.

    side-by-side-products.jpg

    Green checks indicate products intended for kids, according to the skincare brand. A red “X” indicates products not intended for kids, according to the brand.

    Our undercover shoppers couldn’t, and no one at Sephora or competitor Ulta Beauty seemed concerned when the undercover tweens bought only products intended for older skin.

    (And this is what can happen when you accidentally put adult anti-aging ingredients on young skin.)

    The “Sephora kids” bill

    Enter the so-called Sephora kids bill, which, according to the author, Democratic Assemblymember Alex Lee, was intended to target the industry that some say is cashing in on the “Sephora kids” craze. 

    Assembly Bill 728 would trigger an age verification flag at the register when clerks scan “anti-aging” products with certain ingredients like retinol and harsh acids. Kids would need to be with someone over 18 in order to buy those products in-store, and there’d be a pop-up similar to this one for vapes when purchasing the products online.

    Opponents, including the retail industry, the skincare industry and dermatologists, called the bill misguided. They blame social media, not the skincare industry, and argue that the age restrictions would be too difficult to implement.  

    As it turns out, social media marketing is so effective that the skincare industry also used it to try to kill the bill.

    CBS News Confirmed found that the Personal Care Product Council, which represents the skincare industry, spent thousands of dollars targeting lawmakers with misleading Facebook and Instagram ads claiming the bill would require an ID “to buy cosmetics.” 

    But who better to investigate the proposed solution than the kids it aims to protect? So, Watts teamed up with her daughter’s fifth-grade class. 

    Watts took the kids to the California State Capitol, where they interviewed lawmakers and lobbyists and attended the bill’s first hearing, where they heard from supporters and opponents. 

    “A lot of doctors prescribe or just recommend retinoids and retinols for kids and teens. So what do you think about that?” one of the children asked Asm. Lee, who happens to be California’s youngest legislator.

    “That’s a good question,” Lee responded. “So in a prescription setting, it makes a lot more sense, right? But the products that we’re talking about, you buy Sephora or Ulta, you don’t have to ever see a doctor about these things.”

    He explained that a warning at the register, rather than fine print on the box, would be harder to miss and it would ensure that an adult is aware that the product is not intended for young skin. 

    When asked by a student why this bill was so important to him, Lee answered:

    “Lots and lots of big companies, corporations that profit, that make a lot of money off things we don’t feel good about… and I think it’s really bad that companies make money off of children.”

    The first time Lee introduced this bill, it only restricted products for kids under 13, which the industry said it could not enforce. So he told the kids he raised the age limit when reintroducing it to simplify the age-verification process.

    After interviewing Lee, the fifth-grade class attended the bill’s first committee hearing and heard from both supporters and opponents of the bill.

    “One of the worst things I used was a face mask that looked like a kitty cat,” said an 11-year-old girl named Scarlett who testified in support of the bill.  “I didn’t know it had retinol in it. I didn’t even know what retinol was. She explained, “for about two weeks… it was really painful and I had a hard time sleeping. Years later, I still have bumps on my cheeks.“

    “This bill falsely singles out retinol-based products as uniquely dangerous,” argued Dr. Jason Castillo, who testified against the bill on behalf of the California Dermatology lobby. “That is not supported by dermatologic evidence-based science.”

    “We are opposed to AB 728 because it’s virtually impossible for us to comply with,” added Margaret Gladstein on behalf of retailers.

    Then, committee members, including Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, shared their thoughts. 

    “I don’t know that I’ve seen, living in the world of teen girls, this to be a huge problem,” Bauer-Kahan said. 

    Notably, she was one of at least two committee members who missed the first half of the bill hearing, including the arguments in support. 

    “She didn’t get to experience Scarlet’s story and her testimony and how it affected her, said one student.

    “I don’t think that it’s fair for people to be late,” another student added, “because then they might only hear one side of it.”

    “I’m just a bill.”

    As previously reported by CBS News California Investigates, it is not uncommon for California lawmakers to miss significant portions of committee hearings. In some cases, they may be assigned to two committees that meet at the same time, or they may have to leave to testify on behalf of one of their own bills in another committee. 

    Bauer-Kahan ultimately declined to vote on the bill, which is also a common practice in California’s legislature. Not voting has the same impact as voting no, but without leaving a record of a vote against the bill. 

    Bauer-Kahan’s staff said she did not have time to meet with the 5th graders to answer questions.

    The students thought Bauer-Kahan made a good point later in the hearing when she suggested that Lee should clarify, “what is anti-aging and what is not, because the ingredients are often overlapping.”

    “I think Assemblyman Lee would need to define what an anti-aging product is,” one student said, agreeing with Bauer-Kahan. “Because the company can just be like, ‘OK, that’s not an anti-aging product.’”

    The bill passed the committee with a 4/2 vote, but was quietly killed by Democratic leadership before Lee got the chance to propose amendments.

    Assembly Appropriations Chair Buffy Wicks ultimately decided to hold the bill in the so-called suspense file, meaning it can’t move forward, and other lawmakers will never get the chance to vote. 

    Generally speaking, the suspense file is reserved for bills that are anticipated to cost the state a lot of money. 

    “A lot of good but expensive bills will not move out of committee today,” Asm. Wicks explained before killing 231 bills on Friday by holding them in the suspense file.

    Except that AB 728 is not projected to cost the state a lot of money. In fact, the “Sephora kids” bill was never supposed to be sent to appropriations to begin with. 

    Capitol sources told CBS News California that the Appropriations Committee specifically requested this bill even though the nonpartisan legislative council designated AB 728 as “Non-Fiscal” and “Non-Appropriations.” It was the only bill to die in the suspense file that had both those designations, indicating that it was not a costly bill.

    The 5th graders were scheduled to meet with Asm. Wicks the day of the hearing, but she canceled due to a conflicting meeting.  Since that day, staff for Wicks and the Appropriations Committee have failed to respond to several emails from CBS News California.

    We’ve repeatedly asked:

    • Why did Asm. Wicks and her staff request that this bill be sent to appropriations?
    • Why did they refer it to the suspense file if it is not a fiscal bill and is not expected to impact the budget? 

      We’re still waiting for a response. 

    Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

    In its defense, the industry says it has its own solution. The Personal Care Products Council, the lobby for the skincare industry, says brands are using social media to combat the Sephora kids trend. It cites examples like Dove’s The Face of 10 campaign, which encourages kids to be kids. 

    “I’m not sure that this advertising campaign is going to have the intended effect,” said Drew Cingel, Ph.D. The U.C. Davis professor studies the intersection of adolescents, psychology, and social media marketing.

    He notes that telling kids to act their age is more likely to have the opposite effect. When Watts showed some of the ads to the 5th graders, several agreed.  

    “They’re probably going to make me want to go buy (the products),” one of the fifth-graders said, looking at these ads, because, like, that girl definitely doesn’t look like 10. She looks like six or seven.”  

    “A 10-year-old certainly doesn’t want to be any younger than they already are,” Cingel noted. “These are not the people that they look up to. It’s the people older than them and what they are doing.”

    And when we asked the kids about influencer marketing, many had no idea the influencers got free products or were paid for their posts.

    “We know that developmentally, they don’t recognize ads at the same level that adults do,” Cingel said. “And it becomes much more blurred in a social media environment.”

    Critics and fans alike point to social media kid-fluencer marketing for the rise of the so-called Sephora kids craze. Get-ready-with-me videos saturate social media feeds, targeting young girls with multi-step skincare routines where popular brands partner with kid-fluencers to create viral skincare products.

    Popular brands often ship boxes of free products to young influencers and create fun skincare games, skincare-inspired slimes and even cleansers that resemble bubble gum, while claiming the industry does not market to kids.

    CBS News Confirmed analyzed more than a dozen top kid-fluencers who partner with skincare brands and found that post after post appeared to target kids, advertising skin care products with ingredients intended for older skin.

    Despite FTC requirements, CBS News Confirmed found that only 6% of recent skincare posts from a dozen top kid-fluencers were clearly tagged as promotional content.

    Where are the parents?

    Dr. Smita Awasthi, the director of pediatric dermatology at UC Davis Health, said younger kids appear to be the target audience for many of the viral skincare products. She’s seen the adverse reactions firsthand.

    “These sorts of products are meant for peeling the skin, and you know mature skin could use that,” she said.

    But Dr. Awasthi says removing the outer layer of a child’s skin can lead to painful rashes and sunburns. 

    While she does prescribe retinoids for acne treatment, “Retinol is over the counter and typically used in anti-aging products… If a 12-year-old has acne that needs medical treatment, then I would hope they would seek out a dermatologist rather than getting it on their own,” she said.

    Over-the-counter retinoids for acne come with clear warnings on packaging that is more strictly regulated than cosmetic retinols. 

    Before you put all the blame on the parents, you might want to try researching some of these products yourself. 

    “Even myself, as a dermatologist, if I’m not paying very close attention, I might miss an ingredient just because there are different names for things,” Dr. Awashti said.

    Source link

  • California 2026 governor candidates discuss transgender athletes in school sports

    As California voters prepare to choose their next governor in 2026, the question of whether transgender students should be allowed to play on school sports teams based on their gender identity has emerged as one of the gubernatorial race’s most contentious issues.

    Over several weeks in September, CBS News California Investigates correspondent Julie Watts sat down with candidates in the race to discuss their views on a variety of policy questions, including California’s law that guarantees transgender students the right to participate on the team that aligns with their gender identity.

    In this segment, we examine how candidates interpret that law, whether they believe it should stand, and where they would draw the line when it comes to fairness, inclusion, or state authority.


    California governor candidates on transgender athletes in school sports | Side-by-side comparison by
    CBS News Sacramento on
    YouTube

    Current California law requires public schools to allow students to participate in sex-segregated sports teams and use facilities based on their gender identity, regardless of what is listed on school records.  

    According to an April 2025 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, 65% of Californians and 71% of public school parents supported a Trump administration executive order that required students to participate on sports teams that matched the sex that they were assigned at birth.

    The eleven candidates we interviewed — Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, Ian Calderon, Stephen J. Cloobeck, Steve Hilton, Katie Porter, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, Butch Ware, Betty Yee and Leo Zacky — offered sharply different perspectives.

    Their answers generally fell into a range of responses, including those who oppose participation based on gender identity, those who support some level of inclusion with limits, those who support current California law, and those who say these decisions shouldn’t involve politicians at all.

    Where do you stand on transgender athletes participating in school sports?

    Some of the strongest positions came from candidates who believe transgender girls should not compete in girls’ sports.

    Hilton, a Republican candidate, argued the issue is about protecting girls’ opportunities:

    “It’s not fair. It’s not fair for girls who’ve worked so hard,” he said.

    Hilton also vowed to overturn California’s existing law. He said his legal team believes the current law violates two parts of the California Constitution: Section 28, which he described as guaranteeing “safe schools,” and Section 31, which he said “bans gender discrimination.”

    “I think the legislation has ended up creating tension and division, which shouldn’t be there,” Hilton said. “And so, I’d like to repeal that legislation.”

    Bianco, a Republican and Riverside County sheriff, also tied his stance to safety and fairness.

    “Boys should not be competing against girls. As a coach, I absolutely know that boys have no place in girls’ sports,” he said.

    Bianco later added that, if he were elected governor, “There will never be an 18-year-old boy walking through a 14-year-old girl’s locker room naked.”

    Zacky, who is running as a Republican, said the current California law is “another man-made decision” that the people “have the power to change.”

    “You’re born a boy, you’re born a girl. That’s it,” Zacky said. “Boys play with boys, girls play with girls.”

    Like Hilton and Zacky, Democratic candidate Clooback said that if he were elected governor, he would ask California citizens to reconsider the law. Cloobeck then emphasized biology.

    “I have a degree in neurobiopsychology, and I took biology and genetics,” Cloobeck said. “And I do know that XX is XX and XY is XY, and I don’t know of any way possibly to mutate those or change that. I think I’m going to sit with science.”

    Democratic candidate Calderon, a former state assemblymember, said he believes there is an athletic advantage with transgender girl athletes playing in girls’ sports and said, “I don’t support it.”

    However, he stressed that his views could shift.

    “I’m always willing to take in more information and have my opinion evolve over time, but as I stand now and what I’ve seen now, I do believe that there’s an advantage,” Calderon said.

    Calderon also highlighted the importance of compassion.

    “These are also kids… we really have to be compassionate and careful about how we talk about this and not demonizing them and making them feel like they’re not wanted, making them feel like they don’t matter because they do matter,” he said.

    Multiple candidates argued that while they oppose discrimination, they believe the governor and the legislature shouldn’t be making decisions about who plays on what team.

    “The governing bodies of sports should make those decisions… Why would I, as the governor, be involved in a conversation about who gets to play which sport? There are people whose job that is,” Ware said.

    While Porter said she is supportive of the current state law, she agreed with Ware.

    “These are rules that can and should be set by the governing bodies, and so in the case of California school sports, the California Interscholastic Federation should be making this decision at every level of sports competition,” she said.

    Like Ware and Porter, Becerra said governing bodies in sports “should decide who plays in the sport.”

    However, like Porter and Ware, Becerra was seemingly unaware that California already requires schools to allow participation based on gender identity.

    “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that you are entitled to play a sport,” he said.

    Watts read the current law to Becerra, who ultimately supported the state law.

    “I’m not interested as governor in having someone be bullied or someone discriminated because of who they are, simply for that reason,” Becerra said. “And if the rules allow an individual to play in that sport, those are the rules and you should abide by them.”

    Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public instruction who is also running as a Democrat, strongly defended transgender students’ right to participate on a team that aligns with their gender identity.

    “We are a state that can accept diversity, and we will make sure that we follow the law and protect the rights of transgender athletes to participate and to be able to do so safely,” he said.

    Some candidates said they support transgender students’ rights but believe competitive sports present different considerations.

    Villaraigosa, a Democrat and former Los Angeles mayor, made a distinction based on puberty.

    “Men who have gone through puberty and are now transgender women, should they play other women? No, I don’t believe they should,” he said.

    But he emphasized that he opposes discrimination.

    “I will never support discrimination in any way. I believe in gender-affirming care, but I don’t believe those [trans] athletes should be playing women,” he said.

    Democratic former State Controller Yee spoke about how this topic is something she is still learning about.

    “This is something I’m going to say I’m still learning about, and where I’ve been getting a lot of my information or becoming aware of the issue more is from parents of transgender children who are in high school and college,” she said.

    Yee then said there are ways transgender athletes could be integrated into school sports, “like developing a separate league,” but she stressed that she would never want to “discourage their participation in athletics.”

    “To the extent that we’re still trying to really understand what this means for everyone in athletics, I would say just I want to learn more about what’s possible, but I also don’t want to have opportunities cut off for anybody,” she said.

    CLICK TO WATCH: 2026 California Governor Candidates | Accountability Interview Series

    This ongoing political accountability series lets viewers compare the top-polling candidates for California governor side by side through a variety of issue-specific segments. CBS News California Investigates sat down with the 12 top-polling candidates to discuss more than a dozen issues that matter to voters.

    The topic-specific segments allow viewers to select the issues that matter most to them individually. The accountability-focused format pushes beyond campaign talking points to reveal how candidates respond to nuanced follow-up questions and opposing viewpoints.

    The first issue-specific segment, where candidates discussed California’s controversial Prop 50 redistricting measure, led to a viral Katie Porter interview clip and impacted the trajectory of the governor’s race. Porter’s response stood out not just because of what she said, but also because the unique interview format revealed how it dramatically differed from those of the other candidates.

    The “One Question” segments introduce voters to each candidate and provide unique insight into how they might govern, as they explain what they think the current governor and legislature did right, and what they would have done differently. 

    The “side-by-side” issue-specific segments allow viewers to compare the candidates’ differing viewpoints and plans, focusing specifically on the issues that matter most to them. The initial topics include redistricting, reaching voters across the aisle, principle vs. politics, sanctuary state polices, health care for undocumented immigrants, and transgender athletes in school sports. 

    cont-covg.png

    Upcoming segments will feature issues related to crime & criminal justice reform, the impact of environmental laws on California gas prices, homelessness, housing affordability, high-speed rail, and more.  

    Watch the full series on this CBS News California Investigates YouTube playlist.  

    Source link

  • California bill targeting loud streaming ads signed into law by Gov. Newsom

    Believe it or not, an 8-month-old’s sleep schedule is what led to a face-off between California lawmakers and the entertainment industry over loud commercials on streaming services.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 576 into law this week. The bill, introduced by state Senator Tom Umberg, prohibits Netflix, Prime Video, and other streamers from blasting commercial volume way above the level of whatever show or movie you’re watching in California.

    This mission began when Zach and Rachel Keller were doing what new parents do: settling in to watch TV after finally getting their daughter, Samantha, down for the night.

    That is when a blaring commercial abruptly ended their moment of peace, waking Samantha again.

    “A lot of times, we have the volume so low that we just have subtitles running and still, the commercial ad volumes are so ear-piercing that it wakes her up,” Rachel Keller said.

    Federal law already prohibits regular TV broadcasters from running commercials that are way louder than the program you’re watching. However, streaming services weren’t around when lawmakers passed the federal Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act back in 2010. So it doesn’t apply to them.

    Zach Keller works for Senator Umberg and approached him about closing that loophole.

    “I thought, ‘I’ve got three kids, eight grandchildren. That’s a good idea,’ Umberg told CBS News California in August before Newsom signed the bill. “I think it’s one of the most popular bills in the legislature, but it’s not popular with everyone.”

    The bill was unanimously passed by the state Senate and sailed through its Assembly committee, but it stalled before its final vote as the powerful Motion Picture Association fought hard to kill the bill, arguing it could hurt small independent streaming services.

    Unlike the broadcasting cable networks, streaming ads come from several different sources and cannot necessarily or practically be controlled by streaming platforms.

    “‘Are you kidding?’ That’s my response [to that]. They know which hand I use to basically control the remote. They can basically figure out how to make them within a normal range,” Umberg said in August.

    None of the streaming services responded to our emails, and the Motion Picture Association declined an interview.

    As for Samantha and her very tired parents, they hope this ultimately helps babies across the country sleep a little more soundly.

    “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,” Newsom’s office said in a statement after the bill was signed into law.

    The Kellers weren’t the only ones who had been frustrated. Forum and forum, and review after review, people across the country have complained about loud streaming commercials and ads.

    SB 576 demonstrates the power of the California lawmakers to do something the federal government can’t.

    In a state this big, companies generally don’t create one policy or product for California and another for everyone else. So as goes California, goes the nation.  

    Now signed by Newsom, the commercial volume restrictions for streaming services will go into effect on July 1, 2026.

    Source link

  • California’s redistricting plan sparks fierce debate in 2026 governor’s race

    California’s controversial plan to redraw its congressional maps mid-decade is among the most pressing issues discussed by candidates in the 2026 gubernatorial race.

    Proposition 50, placed on the ballot by the state legislature for a November special election, would authorize California lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional districts before the 2030 Census.

    The redistricting effort, backed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, would shift five of the state’s U.S. House seats to be more favorable to Democrats in next year’s midterm elections. California Democrats call it a countermeasure to Texas’ recent redistricting, which favors Republicans in the midterms. 

    Unlike in Texas, California voters took the power to draw these maps away from lawmakers in 2020 and established an independent redistricting commission. Proposition 50 would give that power back to lawmakers for the next five years.

    Over several weeks in September, CBS News California Investigates sat down with each candidate to ask questions on a variety of issues that matter to voters, including Proposition 50. 

    While Democratic candidates generally backed Proposition 50 along party lines, some admitted unease when pressed on the details. Republican and Green Party opponents defended their opposition as they responded to arguments in favor of the measure.


    Candidates for California governor talk congressional redistricting, Proposition 50 by
    CBS News Sacramento on
    YouTube

    What do you think of the governor’s plan?

    Candidates shared their views with CBS California Investigates on Governor Newsom’s Prop 50 redistricting proposal. At the time of the interviews, Democratic leaders framed it as a plan to “Stop Trump’s Power Grab.

    Former Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who served as Health and Human Services Secretary in the Biden administration, defended the plan as necessary to protect California’s voice in Washington, saying it would “make sure that Donald Trump doesn’t put his thumb on the scale on the votes in Congress.”

    Republican candidate Steve Hilton condemned the plan, saying outright that it is “totally corrupt and it’s unconstitutional and it is illegal.”

    “Politicians shouldn’t draw their own maps,” Hilton said. “I mean, that’s obviously wrong and corrupt. Common sense tells you that.”

    Former state Assemblymember Ian Calderon, also a Democrat, said he supports the plan and emphasized California’s position as a donor state.

    “At the end of the day, if we’re going to have hope of any type of leverage throughout the next couple of years during Donald Trump’s presidency, it would be really helpful if Democrats controlled Congress, so that we could fight back and secure the money that is coming to California,” Calderon said.

    Republican candidate Leo Zacky called the proposal “unconstitutional,” criticizing the avenue the state has taken to redraw its districts.

    “The way that it’s set up is that we, the people, are supposed to figure out how the districts are supposed to be drawn,” he said. “[Newsom is] violating the Constitution. He’s spending a ton of money doing it. It’s trash. It’s a waste.”

    Green Party candidate Butch Ware accused Democrats of consolidating power under the guise of fighting Republican overreach.

    “In the state of California, are y’all feeling that this has been a state that has been well-run and for your best interest? So you’re going to essentially hand them the keys to make sure that they own every district in the state? You imagine thinking that you can fight fascism with fascism,” Ware said.

    While Democratic former State Controller Betty Yee called the redistricting effort “essential” to prevent the manipulation of elections, “as the president has asked the state of Texas to do.”

    “We have a process for this. It’s after every decennial census… And just the idea that there is manipulation that is being directed from the top, that’s going to affect California’s representation, our proportionate representation,” Yee said. “We have to fight that.”

    Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is running as a Democrat, said the redistricting effort is California’s opportunity to counter “gerrymandering coming out of states like Texas.”

    “Not only will it give voters something better and the chance to gain five new Democratic seats. We’re doing it in a way that is transparent,” he said. “We’re going to do it in a way that lets the voters decide.”

    Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, also a Democrat, said the redistricting effort is a necessary response to Republican attempts to rig elections elsewhere.

    “Let the people decide, and I’m for it. I think people have a right to challenge what’s going on, this rigged election that they’re trying to do,” Villaraigosa said.

    Businessman Steve Cloobeck, a Democrat, supported the plan and said “we have to preserve Democracy.” Another Democrat, Katie Porter, who’s a law professor and former member of Congress, said she is in “support of the governor’s plan.”

    Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County expressed opposition.

    “It’s like saying murder is not acceptable, so I’m going to go murder you,” Bianco said. “Let me tell you how broken something is by telling you I’m going to break it more.”

    Message to Californians who voted for Trump

    redistricting-thumbnail-2-40-trump-voters.png

    The Democratic candidates also explained their message to the roughly 40% of California voters who supported Donald Trump in 2020, voters whose political representation could be diminished under the new district maps.

    The Republican and Green Party Proposition 50 opponents also defended their opposition to pro-redistricting arguments.

    Becerra said he would talk to them “straight out” and emphasized his intention to win every vote. Becerra also emphasized that now is the time to stand up for the rule of law and Democracy.

    “No one should do power grabs. No one is a king. No one has a right to deny you your vote,” he said.

    Like Becerra, Calderon said his campaign would focus on listening to all voters, not just talking at them.

    “There are a lot of Republicans in the state who don’t necessarily love everything Trump is doing,” Calderon said. “They just want to be heard.”

    Thurmond echoed similar arguments, saying that many of Mr. Trump’s voters may not support all of the president’s policies.

    “Most Americans do not support attacks on the immigrant communities or education cuts,” he said. “Just because they voted for Trump doesn’t mean they agree with everything.”

    Yee acknowledged that some voters, particularly in rural Republican districts, may feel disenfranchised.

    “What I will say to them also is, look, these are areas of the state that actually want to become vital economies. These are areas that actually have probably disproportionate rates of people on Medicaid. These are parts of the states where people are relying on food assistance more than probably other parts,” Yee said. “I would just say, who’s going to best represent those interests when those cuts are upon you?”

    Businessman Steve Cloobeck emphasized loyalty to California’s interests rather than party politics.

    “I would look at the polls of the state right now. The polls say protect California. Whatever the California customers want, I will be their leader and represent them,” Cloobeck said.

    Villaraigosa said he expects to alienate some voters on both sides, but believes many are still looking for leadership that bridges divides.

    “I know there are Democrats that I might alienate in the course of this race, and there will be Republicans I alienate. There will also be Democrats and some Republicans that want a leader who’s a uniter who wants to work with both sides, who wants the focus on common sense. So you win a few, you lose a few.”

    Porter, who has represented a swing district in Orange County, was the only candidate not to directly answer the question, taking issue with the premise that she might need republican voters to win.

    “How would I need them in order to win?” Porter asked. “If it is me versus a Republican, I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump.”

    As several of her opponents noted, in California’s top-two open primary system, Republican voters could help put a Democratic candidate over the top.  

    Porter then threatened to call off the interview, taking issue with too many follow-up questions. She ultimately stayed and continued answering questions. 

    Do two wrongs make a right?

    redistricting-thumbnail-3-two-wrongs.png

    The candidates also confronted the ethical dilemma that even some Prop 50 supporters acknowledge: Does fighting one partisan maneuver with another set the wrong precedent? In other words, do two wrongs make right? 

    “It’s let me tell you how broken something is by telling you I’m going to break it more,” Bianco said.

    Becerra defended the plan as necessary to protect California’s voice in Washington.

    “Donald Trump is afraid he’s going to lose his slim majority of Republicans come 2026,” Becerra said. “So he’s trying to rig the process to give himself more Republicans. That is not a Democratic process. We’re going to fight as we need to make sure our votes count.”

    Calderon offered a conflicted view, calling it “kind of a sh—- choice” but emphasizing the political stakes.

    “If we’re going to have hope of any type of leverage during Donald Trump’s presidency, it would be really helpful if Democrats controlled Congress.”

    Ware warned voters not to fall for partisan manipulation.

    “This doesn’t serve the voters of California. It serves the DNC. It does not help us. It helps them,” Ware said. “They are using Californians essentially as a prop in their battle between Democrats and Republicans.”

    Porter said it’s not two wrongs, highlighting the nature in which Texas approached its redistricting.

    “What Texas is doing is acting out of the course of the census, not following new census data… They’re doing it because Donald Trump instructed them to do it,” she said.

    Villaraigosa said he’s for letting the people decide on the matter to challenge corruption.

    “I think people have a right to challenge what’s going on, this rigged election that they’re trying to do,” he said.

    Thurmond called the special election on Proposition 50 “an important moment for voters to decide.”

    Yee reaffirmed her stance on California’s move to counter Texas’ redistricting effort.

    “Just the idea that there’s manipulation that is being directed from the top that’s going to affect California’s proportionate representation, we have to fight back,” she said.

    Cloobeck also highlighted California’s position as a donor state.

    “Donald Trump’s actions have been such that he wants to just attack California. He has not shown us any gratitude for all the billions of dollars of tax dollars the federal government gets from California,” he said.

    Hilton described the difficulty California faces in properly redrawing its congressional districts mid-decade rather than after the federal census every 10 years.

    “By drawing these maps in the middle, they don’t know who lives where,” he said. “Millions of people have left California. In Los Angeles, whole communities have burned down. Who knows who lives there? There’s no way that they can honor that constitutional requirement.”

    Hilton stressed that even before Newsom’s redistricting effort, California already had “a massively distorted political map.”

    Acknowledging that Republicans make up about 40% of the vote in California but have just 17% of the congressional seats, Hilton said, “With this new plan that they’ve got, it would be down to 6%.”

    Hilton argued that those voters are being pushed out of representation altogether, saying that the plan would unfairly increase the weight of Democratic votes by as much as eight times compared to Republican ones.

    “We’re completely violating the principle of equal protection, the whole idea,” Hilton said.

    While candidates differ sharply on Proposition 50, voters will have the final say. The redistricting plan will go before voters in a special election on November 4. If approved, the new congressional maps would remain intact through the 2030 election.

    fs-all-ca-candidates.jpg

    Hear more from the candidates on the issues that matter to you on our CBS News California Investigates YouTube playlist: 2026 California Governor Candidates

    Subscribe to our CBS News California YouTube channels and follow us on social media to hear from each candidate on the issues that matter most to you.

    SUBSCRIBE & FOLLOW

    Julie Watts, CBS News California Investigates: @JulieWattsTV INSTAGRAM, TIKTOK, YOUTUBE

    CBS News Sacramento: @CBSSacramento INSTAGRAM, TIKTOK, YOUTUBE

    CBS News San Francisco: @KPIXTV INSTAGRAM, TIKTOK, YOUTUBE

    CBS News Los Angeles: @KCALNews INSTAGRAM, TIKTOK, YOUTUBE

    Julie Watts

    Julie Watts is a national-award-winning investigative correspondent for CBS News, covering California. Her investigations, Capitol accountability reports, and solutions-oriented journalism air weekly on CBS stations across California.

    Source link

  • We asked the candidates for California governor: What has Newsom and the Legislature done well, and what would they do differently?

    What has the California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom done well, and what could be done differently?

    CBS News California Investigates correspondent Julie Watts asked each of the candidates running for California governor.

    Read on to see what each candidate thinks Newsom has done right and to learn what they’d do differently.

    Toni Atkins

    Former California State Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins is one of the high-profile Democrats running to replace Gov. Newsom when he terms out in 2026. The San Diego resident praised Newsom’s effort to go “toe-to-toe” with the Trump administration and Texas by redrawing California’s congressional districts. Atkins also said that, if elected, one of her biggest priorities would be addressing health care.  Watch Atkins’ response here.

    Xavier Becerra

    2-beccerra-still.png

    Need a brief description and a link here.

    Xavier Becerra, a former California attorney general who served as Health and Human Services secretary in the Biden administration, is another Democrat looking to replace Gov. Newsom in 2026. Becerra said Newsom deserves more credit for strengthening the state’s economy and explained why California’s redistricting effort is necessary. On what he’d do differently, Becerra said he would have acted more quickly than Newsom on addressing issues like with California’s high-speed rail project and the statewide housing crisis. Watch Becerra’s response here.

    Chad Bianco

    3-bianco-still.png

    Need a brief description and a link here.

    Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County is one of the Republicans running for California governor in 2026. Bianco said the only thing he believes Newsom has done well is “acting like a Republican” in what he says is the governor’s bid for the White House. Bianco added that he couldn’t think of a single thing the state Legislature has done right during his seven years as sheriff. Watch Bianco’s response here.

    Stephen J. Cloobeck

    4-cloobeck-still.png

    Need a brief description and a link here.

    Another Democrat looking to replace Gov. Newsom in 2026 is business executive Stephen J. Cloobeck. Cloobeck said what he believes Newsom has done well as governor is be active in the public and communities. On why he’s in the gubernatorial race, Cloobeck said he’s “sick and tired” of the Trump administration “making us look silly.” Watch Cloobeck’s full response here.

    Steve Hilton

    5-hilton-still.png

    Need a brief description and a link here.

    Public policy expert Steve Hilton is one of the Republicans running for California governor. Hilton said the thing he most agrees with Newsom on is limiting smartphone use in schools. If elected, Hilton said he would work to improve California’s rising housing costs, which he said he believes is the top reason why residents are leaving the state. Watch Hilton’s response here.

    Katie Porter

    6-porter-still.png

    Need a brief description and a link here.

    Consumer protection attorney and law professor Katie Porter is among the long list of Democrats running to replace Gov. Newsom next year. Porter praised Newsom for making school lunches free through the governor’s universal meals program. Porter said, if she were governor, she would work to bring down housing costs statewide. Watch Porter’s response here.

    Tony Thurmond

    7-thurmond-still.png

    Need a brief description and a link here.

    California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said he is running for governor because “California is at a critical inflection point” that could lead to prosperity or further decline. Thurmond, a Democrat, lauded Gov. Newsom for being a creative thinker and for his investments in public education. Thurmond said, if elected, he would work to improve California’s insurance crisis and create more affordable housing. Watch Thurmond’s response here.

    Antonio Villaraigosa

    8-villaragiosa-still.png

    Need a brief description and a link to video here.

    Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, said he is running for California governor to give the state a leader who is “a proven problem solver.” Villaraigosa criticized Newsom’s decision to keep kids out of schools for as long as he did during the COVID-19 pandemic. Villaraigosa said two things Newsom and the state Legislature got right were health care and child care. Watch Villaraigosa’s response here.

    Butch Ware

    9-ware-still.png

    Brief description and link to video here

    The only Green Party candidate running for governor is University of California professor Butch Ware. Ware said two of his biggest critiques of the Newsom administration are the governor’s response to immigration raids across the state and his failure to address the homeless crisis. Ware said he doesn’t agree with Newsom’s use of social media to challenge the Trump administration, but appreciated the governor’s effort to fight back. Watch Ware’s response here.

    Betty Yee

    10-yee-still.png

    Need brief description and a link to video here.

    Former State Controller Betty Yee is another Democrat running for California governor. Yee commended Gov. Newsom’s ability to be present during key issues like the COVID-19 pandemic. On how she would improve upon Newsom’s time as governor, Yee said she would improve California’s fiscal accountability. Watch Yee’s response here.

    Leo Zacky

    11-zacky-still.png

    Need brief description and link to video here

    Business owner Leo Zacky is one of the few Republicans in California’s gubernatorial race. Zacky said he’s running for governor to “bring common sense solutions to save my home state.” Zacy said there hasn’t been a single thing Gov. Newsom or the state Legislature has done well over the last seven years. Zacky specifically criticized California for raising the minimum wage for fast food workers. Watch Zacky’s response here.

    Julie Watts

    Julie Watts is a national-award-winning investigative correspondent for CBS News, covering California. Her investigations, Capitol accountability reports, and solutions-oriented journalism air weekly on CBS stations across California.

    Source link

  • Ahead of Proposition 36 vote, state data show California retail theft suspects aren’t tracked after arrest

    Ahead of Proposition 36 vote, state data show California retail theft suspects aren’t tracked after arrest

    Ahead of Proposition 36 vote, state data show most arrested for retail theft are cited and released


    Ahead of Proposition 36 vote, state data show most arrested for retail theft are cited and released

    04:28

    SACRAMENTO — Governor Gavin Newsom announced last month that California’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force (ORCT) had made more than 1,000 arrests in 2024. For more than a month, CBS News California has been trying to find out what happened to those people after their arrests.

    No one – not the Governor’s Office, the attorney general, nor the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which runs California’s task force  – could tell us how many of the people arrested for retail theft were sentenced, let alone how many showed up to court, went to jail, received treatment, or re-offended. None of the agencies could even provide the names of those 1000+ people, so we could not independently track them down.

    The CHP did provide arrest statistics, which reveal that out of the 1,126 arrests made by the Organized Retail Crime Task Force as of early October, more than half (684) were cite-and-releases, which means those offenders received the equivalent of the ticket and a notice to appear in court. District Attorneys say many of those people never show up in court. 

    RELATED: 

    A week before California voters decide on the tougher-on-crime Proposition 36, Gov. Newsom held a virtual news conference Monday to announce that more than 10,000 arrests over the past year by local law enforcement agencies statewide. These arrests were for various crimes, but he attributed them to the hundreds of millions of dollars California invested in cracking down on organized retail theft (ORT) last year. 

    Newsom awarded approximately $267 million worth of grants to 55 California cities and counties in October 2023. The governor said that money “has generated 10,128 arrests and counting just from the local law enforcement efforts.” Of those arrests there were “nearly 8,000 for organized retail theft,” according to the governor’s office.

    However, what the governor couldn’t quantify for reporters on Monday is what happened after those arrests were made. CBS News California has learned that no one is keeping track. 

    What happens to the retail theft offenders? 

    “They come out with this big press release, they announce all these arrests, and then, poof, you don’t know what happens,” former Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said in response to the Governor’s press release. 

    Schubert is the co-chair of the Yes on Proposition 36 campaign, a ballot measure that would strengthen penalties for certain theft and drug crimes. She has been critical of the state’s attempt to crack down on retail crime and points to the CHP data, which show more than 60% of people arrested by the retail crime task force were cited and released. 

    “When they’re given a ticket, 50-75% of them never even show up [to court],” Schubert said. She pointed to statistics cited by the Sacramento County Sheriff and District Attorney’s offices, which show the county currently has more than 30,000 bench warrants for people who don’t show up. 

    “That tells you 30,000 people have never come to court,” she explained. “If you took that number and expanded it statewide, we’re probably talking hundreds of thousands.” 

    “They spend all this money and get no consequences,” Schubert said, referring to the state money spent on these investigations and arrests.      

    “Crime does pay”

    In some cases, people are arrested, especially for large-scale organized retail theft crimes that can take years to investigate. 

    The infamous California Girls case quickly went viral earlier this year after Attorney General Rob Bonta publicized the story of a retail crime ringleader who was also a suburban mother of three. 

    Michelle Mack ran a 21-county, multi-million dollar retail crime ring out of her San Diego mansion. She paid women to steal high-end cosmetics and handbags from stores like Sephora and Ulta, which she then sold on Amazon. 

    Mack and her husband, Kenneth Mack, were among the thousands of arrests publicized by Newsom. 

    Both of the Macks pleaded guilty and faced up to five years in prison. The judge ordered the Macks to pay more than $3 million in restitution and stay away from Ulta and Sephora stores. 

    However, Michelle received a suspended sentence so she could stay home with her teenage daughters while Kenneth served his sentence, which he served in county jail, not prison. Jail records show that Kenneth Mack was booked in June and is set to be released in December. 

    It’s still not clear how much of Michelle’s suspended sentence she will ultimately serve, but she is expected to receive the same sentence as her husband.  It appears he’ll only serve six months of his five-year sentence.  

    CHP says the agency spent years and hundreds of man-hours investigating the crimes. 

    “Crime is paying for these folks, and they know it,” Schubert said. “You have to hold them accountable because if not, then guess what? Crime does pay.”

    However, Captain Jonathan Staricka, a CHP special operations commander, argues that there is value in the arrest alone. 

    “What we can’t see and what we can’t measure is how much did we prevent by making that arrest,” Staricka said. “Do you feel that there’s a success rate when we arrest this many individuals? Or was it better when we didn’t?“

    Schubert agreed with Staricka on that point. 

    “I give credit to CHP for the work that they’re doing,” Schubert stressed. “But if we’re going to spend these resources… [the state has] to follow through.”

    Schubert pointed to Lawrence Fountain, the alleged ring leader in a string of violent robberies terrorizing Target and Walmart employees.

    Fountain had two prior violent convictions and, according to state prison records, would have still been in prison on the date of his latest arrest if he’d served his full sentence for his previous crimes. However, he was released from prison with credits more than two years early under California’s prison crediting system.   

    He had several other new pending cases when the Attorney General’s office charged Fountain with 29 counts last year, including charges for violent felonies and organized retail theft. The Attorney General then dismissed all but one of those charges, including the charge of Organized Retail Theft.   

    We reached out to Bonta’s office to ask about his decision to dismiss the 28 charges. A spokesperson for the attorney general explained that several factors are weighed in prosecutorial decisions, including the public safety risk a defendant would pose, what the available evidence is, the interests of the victim, and any risk associated with probation or incarceration in a plea bargain. 

    “Based on all these factors, this state prison sentence was an appropriate disposition,” the spokesperson concluded. 

    Fountain pled guilty to just one robbery charge and received a six-year prison sentence, but it’s not clear how much time he’ll serve. 

    Records show Fountain is currently serving one year in county jail for a separate case prosecuted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney. When he is transferred to state prison at the end of that sentence, he’ll arrive with an eight-month credit for time served. Then, he’ll likely receive an additional one-third to one-half sentence reduction based on California’s current prison crediting system under Proposition 57, which was passed by voters in 2016.   

    “To give him one count and dismiss the rest is not only outrageous. That individual deserves probably no less than 20 years in state prison. He’s a dangerous human being, Schubert said, adding, “Crime is paying for these folks, and they know it.”

    Organize Retail Theft

    Many district attorneys argue that California’s Organized Retail Theft (ORT) statute, amended by California lawmakers in 2021, is not an effective tool to charge offenders because it’s too complicated to prove.

    Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig called it a “junk statute,” explaining that it requires evidence of multiple complex elements that are rarely established by investigations and simply do not exist in the vast majority of retail crimes. 

    Data provided by the California District Attorneys Association indicates that most California counties had zero felony ORT convictions in 2023. Even large counties like Sacramento, San Bernadino, Santa Clara, and Ventura show single-digit ORT convictions. 

    Notably, in the Fountain case, the Attorney General’s office dismissed the one ORT charge.

    Of 36 recent organized retail theft defendants publicized by California Attorney General Rob Bonta in press releases from his office, CBS News California identified sentencing information for roughly half. 

    A CBS News California analysis found that roughly a quarter of those who were sentenced received probation without jail time. Sentences for the remaining defendants ranged from two days to 10 years. However, the one 10-year sentence was based on multiple carjacking and other violent convictions, not the organized retail theft conviction. 

    What happened to the others arrested this year for retail crime?

    Fountain and the Macks are just a few of the recent organized retail theft ring leaders who were arrested for their crimes. In most cases, tracking down the sentencing information is a complicated multi-agency process. 

    CBS News California spent weeks cross-referencing records through multiple agencies and sources to find out what happened to the three suspects featured in this story. Even officials at the agencies we worked with had difficulty finding accurate information. 

    So, what happened to the other 1000+ people arrested by California’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force? 

    CHP Captain Jonathan Staricka said that is “a complicated question.” 

    Staricka explained that after task force officers make an arrest, they hand the case off to prosecutors, and if there’s a conviction, the case is then tracked by the state prison system, county jails, or the probation department, depending on the sentence. Centralizing that data would be challenging, he noted. 

    Proposition 36 “is a separate conversation”

    Strengthening penalties for retail theft and cracking down on repeat offenders are part of what supporters of Proposition 36 hope the ballot measure will accomplish. 

    Specifically, they argue that increased penalties under Prop 36 will result in fewer people being cited and released and more people actually being arraigned for alleged crimes. 

    However, despite being questioned repeatedly Monday about the initiative, Newsom stressed that Proposition 36 “is a separate conversation” from organized retail theft and the statistics from the CHP task force. 

    “I hope you’ll take a good look at progress,” Newsom continued. “We hope that will continue again, separate and above anything that happens with that initiative.” 

    We wanted to ask the governor what it would take for him to direct one of his state agencies to publically track what happens to the thousands of people arrested for retail theft in California, including how many show up to court, are sentenced, receive treatment, or re-offend. However, his team did not select us to ask a question.

    “Why is it so difficult to get this information out of our attorney general or out of our governor, who’s taking this very proactive role saying that we’re cracking down on organized retail theft?” Schubert questioned. “Why is it so hard?” 

    Gov. Newsom’s office did not respond to our request for comment or to our repeated requests for an interview.

    Julie Watts


    julie-serious.png

    Julie Watts is a national-award-winning investigative correspondent for CBS News, covering California. Her investigations, Capitol accountability reports, and solutions-oriented journalism air weekly on CBS stations across California.

    Source link

  • Fact-checking claims about California’s Proposition 36: What it means for drug arrests

    Fact-checking claims about California’s Proposition 36: What it means for drug arrests

    Fact-checking claims about California’s Proposition 36: What it means for drug arrests


    Fact-checking claims about California’s Proposition 36: What it means for drug arrests

    04:46

    Proposition 36 — also known as The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act — aims to revive drug court participation and increase penalties for certain theft and drug offenses in California. 

    Supporters of Proposition 36 say it will force people into treatment and get them off the street. Opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue that it will fill up jails and mark a return to the 1980s war on drugs. 

    CBS News California took a closer look at the drug component of the high-profile ballot measure to fact-check those claims and analyze the concerns. 

    Will Proposition 36 revive drug treatment courts?

    To understand this debate, you must go back ten years to November 2014 when California voters passed a different ballot measure: Proposition 47. 

    Proposition 47 made hard drug possession a misdemeanor instead of a felony and, along with other reforms like Assembly Bill 109 and Proposition 57, helped reduce the state’s prison population. End-of-year data from the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation show that from December 2014 to December 2023, California’s prison population dropped by more than 40,000. 

    However, court data suggests there were also unintended consequences. CBS News California analyzed county data from across the state and found a consistent drop in drug court participation after Proposition 47 was approved. 

    For instance, Sacramento County saw more than an 80% drop in drug court participation between 2015 and 2023. However, much of that drop came after the pandemic. 

    Yolo County’s drug court caseload dropped from 270 cases in 2015 to just three in 2023. 

    In Santa Clara County, drug court participation dropped so low that the county stopped tracking drug court cases and merged its drug court and mental health court. 

    While there is no reliable statewide drug court data, a 2020 survey from the Center for Court Innovation examined 67 drug courts in California. The average participation rate across those drug courts dropped from 51% to 39%. 

    Research cited by the California court system suggests drug courts ultimately save money and do lead to fewer arrests. The National Institute of Justice said one study found that felony re-arrest rates among people participating in drug courts dropped 28% in one U.S. county and 15% in another county. 

    Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan are among a growing number of high-profile elected Democrats going against Newsom to support the new treatment-mandated felonies for hard drug possession under Proposition 36. 

    Mahan and Ho say that when California slashed sentences for drug possession, it also reduced the incentive for people to choose court-supervised treatment instead of jail time. 

    “If you get arrested, it’s a cite-and-release for possession of drugs. It’s a misdemeanor,” Ho said. “And when the judge tells you, ‘You can get two or three days in jail or you can go to a treatment program that’s going to be a year long,’ what are you going to take?” 

    Under Proposition 36, the first two convictions for drug possession would still be misdemeanors. The third is a treatment-mandated felony, which means the charges would be dismissed if treatment is completed. 

    With a fourth conviction, a judge could issue a maximum three-year sentence, but only if someone is not eligible for treatment. 

    “It focuses on repeat offenders, and it allows a judge to give someone a choice between engaging in treatment or detoxing in jail,” Mahan said. 

    However, opponents like the governor and former San Francisco prosecutor Cristine Soto DeBerry — who wrote the opposition argument to Proposition 36 — say that there simply aren’t enough treatment beds. 

    “No county in the state has enough treatment to deal with the people that are struggling with addiction issues,” Soto DeBerry said.  “None. Not one.” 

    A Rand Corporation study of five California counties — Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced and Santa Clara — earlier this year found that the availability of treatment beds varies and, in some cases, facilities with available beds don’t accept people with criminal records. 

    In a statement sent to CBS News California, the No on Proposition 36 campaign claimed that “22 counties have no residential treatment facilities,” echoing a statement made by Newsom in August. 

    We reached out to the Governor’s Office for clarification on what 22 counties he was talking about. They could not tell us, and instead, we received a link to California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) webinar slides from January 2022, based on information collected during the pandemic, which, according to the state, referenced 22 counties not participating in a specific drug delivery program. 

    The DHCS said it can confirm that “all but 15 counties (Alpine, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity)” currently have state-licensed residential treatment facilities, and in those counties, “clinics, health facilities, community and residential care facilities, jails and prisons can also offer these services.” 

    “I also think the voters need to hold the state and county accountable for building the treatment capacity we need,” Mahan said. 

    The DHCS also said that every county except Madera offers state-certified outpatient services, but representatives for Madera County say it does offer outpatient services and makes referrals to nearby inpatient services when needed. 

    Soto DeBerry’s criticisms of Proposition 36 include that there is no funding attached to the ballot measure or a mandate to create sufficient treatment options. 

    Supporters of Proposition 36 point to a variety of funding sources ranging from Proposition 1’s mental health bonds to opioid settlement funds, but critics say that still won’t be enough. 

    Soto DeBerry also said that it often takes multiple attempts to successfully get an offender treatment, claiming that “under Prop 36, they won’t get a second chance; they’ll be sent to prison.” 

    Supporters of Proposition 36 say that is false and note that the proposition specifically states: 

    “A person shall not be sentenced to jail or prison pursuant to this section unless a court determines that the person is not eligible or suitable for treatment…” 

    That brings us back to the governor’s argument that Proposition 36 is about mass incarceration. 

    The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that under Proposition 36, the “prison population could increase by around a few thousand people.” 

    For context, there are currently around 90,000 people in state prisons. At its peak in 2006, there were over 170,000 people incarcerated, according to CDCR data. 

    Getting arrested saved his life 

    On graduation day in Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Larry Brown’s mental health court, Cesar, whose last name we are omitting, had plenty to smile about. 

    Cesar was arrested in Sacramento County, which has a robust system of “Collaborative Courts”  — including drug court and mental health court — and related treatment programs. While in treatment, his case worker helped find him housing and work. 

    “I was homeless,” he said. “Nothing would stop me from getting high.” 

    Cesar attended all of his court-mandated treatment appointments. Completing his program resulted in his conviction being erased. 

    “I got a second chance in life,” he said. 

    Cesar’s story is a powerful example of the potential of California’s treatment courts. 

    “I didn’t know another life until I got arrested,” Cesar said. “And I quit cold turkey. Now, I’m sober. Now, I see how a real man feels.” 

    Proposition 36 supporters point to stories like Cesar’s in their argument that it will result in more people receiving treatment and getting off the streets. 

    “Being arrested saved my life,” Cesar said.

    Julie Watts


    julie-serious.png

    Julie Watts is a national-award-winning investigative correspondent for CBS News, covering California. Her investigations, Capitol accountability reports, and solutions-oriented journalism air weekly on CBS stations across California.

    Source link

  • Doctor who drove family off cliff fuels legal debate: Should attempted-murder defendants get treatment instead of trial?

    Doctor who drove family off cliff fuels legal debate: Should attempted-murder defendants get treatment instead of trial?

    He’s accused of trying to kill his family by driving their Tesla off a cliff. If convicted on attempted murder charges, he could have faced life in prison. Instead, he’ll skip the trial altogether and get two years of mental health treatment at home.  

    Dr. Dharmesh Patel is the first high-profile defendant charged with *attempted-murder* to get Mental Health Diversion under California’s recently revised law. His case is fueling a legal debate and raising questions at the capitol.

    The unthinkable captured the country’s attention

    A Tesla plunged more than 250ft off a cliff at Devil’s Slide on a winding stretch of Highway 1 in Northern California. The story initially captured the country’s attention because the family of four inside survived. First responders said it was “nothing short of a miracle.”

    Extraordinary footage captured by rescuers showed what appeared to be Patel sticking his head out from the sheared-off top of the family Tesla as rescuers worked to free his wife and trapped children, a four-year-old boy and nine-year-old girl. 

    They used ropes to pull the two children up the cliff, and helicopters hoisted the parents out. 

    Then, the news broke that police were charging Dr. Patel with attempted murder and child abuse. 

    Prosecutors say he later admitted to intentionally trying to kill his family the day he drove his wife and two young children off the cliff. Therapists testified that Dr. Dharmesh Patel was having paranoid delusions about Jeffrey Epstein, the fentanyl crisis, and he feared that his kids could be sex trafficked. They said he told them he wanted to protect his family from a worse fate. 

    Treatment instead of trial

    If any one of them had died that day, Dr. Patel would be standing trial for murder.

    Because they survived against all odds, he’s facing attempted murder charges instead – and that makes him eligible for Mental Health Diversion under California law. 

    Instead of facing seven years to life in prison, the Pasadena doctor will get two years of mental health treatment while living at home with his parents in the Bay Area suburb of Belmont.

    If he completes a two-year program, Dr. Patel’s record will be wiped clean. Legally, it will be as if the crash never happened. 

    Should attempted murder defendants be eligible for diversion?

    “Doctor Patel did everything he could to carry out a murder,” argued San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “It was just that they survived the crash of the car.”

    Wagstaffe said he supports diversion in many cases but not for people charged with attempted murder. He opposed Mental Health Diversion for Dr. Patel.

    “I’m more than happy to take that gamble when you’re dealing with low-level type of offenses,” Wagstaffe said. “We don’t think for a crime like attempted murder, that diversion out of the system, meaning no accountability, no punishment should exist.”

    A newly revised law makes more Californians eligible for diversion. Defendants no longer have to prove a diagnosed mental illness was a “significant factor” causing them to commit the crime. 

    Judges must now presume nearly any one of these hundreds of listed mental disorders was responsible for nearly any crime.

    The list of eligible “mental disorders” ranges from Patel’s diagnosis – major depressive disorder – to ADHD, erectile disorder, anorexia, substance use disorder, and intoxication.

    “Diversion programs have been proven over and over again to have much better outcomes than traditional prosecutions when it comes to (preventing) new crimes,” said Mona Sahaf, a prosecution reform advocate.

    Sahaf is the director of the Reshaping Prosecution Initiative at the Vera Institute of Justice, which often advocates for criminal justice reform. 

    She points to national studies that show prosecutor-led diversion greatly reduced recidivism and the rate of rearrests after completing diversion.

    However, our recent CBS News California investigation found a lack of reliable data examining the success rates of California’s diversion programs under the recently revised laws. The state removed its success-rate data from the public portal following that report.

    “Really, the headline here is that a person’s getting the treatment they need to make sure that they can be a safe, thriving member of their community. And that this is aligning with the wishes of the survivors of this crime,” Sahaf said.

    She points to emotional testimony from Dr. Patel’s wife asking for diversion instead of trial.

    “I really miss my best friend … my partner in life,” Mrs. Patel said.  

    Mrs. Patel described how much her kids miss their father and she noted that her husband never had an episode like that before. She argued, “(His) mental health treatment … will not only restore him back to himself but … will restore the health and well-being of (their) entire family.”

    By all accounts, Dr. Patel was a loving father and upstanding doctor before his sudden mental illness prompted him to drive his family off a cliff.

    Doctors say, if properly medicated, he could go back to that life.

    “A diversion program might be the absolute best antidote to making sure that this person never commits a crime again,” Sahaf said.  

    The two-year Mental Health Diversion program

    “I would also disagree that you’re not being held accountable in diversion,” Sahaf said. “You have to go through a very rigorous program with lots of requirements, many, many more requirements indeed than being charged and put into jail,”  

    In Patel’s case, he must wear an ankle monitor and stay confined to his parent’s house except for weekly visits to court, doctors, and therapists. He’ll be tested to ensure he’s not using recreational drugs or alcohol and that he is taking his prescribed medication.

    He turned over his driver’s license and passport and, for now, he can’t see his wife and kids, practice medicine, or own a gun.

    “What do you say to the argument that he’s exactly the type of person that should get mental health diversion?” we asked Wagstaffe.

    “Nobody saw it coming. So how are we going to know in the future whether it’s coming?” he said. “How do we know he’s going to stay on medication after two years?”

    Wagstaffe also worries that Patel was misdiagnosed.

    He’s being treated for major depression disorder, but doctors for the prosecution argued he has Schizoaffective disorder – which requires a different treatment that they say Patel opposed.

    “You have to have the right medication,” Wagstaffe said.  “That’s why we think that the court should only take the chance, gamble, in cases where you’re a minimal danger to the public.”

    What happens after two years?

    Wagstaffe notes mental health diversion programs run a maximum of two years.

    “If mental health diversion were for 20 years, 30 years, that would be a different consideration. The maximum – the court has no discretion – is two years. That’s nowhere near enough to determine whether somebody has really changed,” Wagstaffe added.

    In Patel’s case, the medical board could attempt to revoke his license. But, legally, in two years, Patel can return to practicing medicine, driving, and even owning a gun.   

    “He will be the same as you, me, and every other law-abiding citizen out there in our community,” Wagstaffe said.  “At the end of two years, Mr. Patel can go out, on day one, and purchase a gun.”

    Wagstaffe’s office sponsored a bill, which is now state law, that prohibits gun possession during the two-year mental health diversion period.

    “Originally it was a lifetime ban that we proposed,” Wagstaffe said. “They would not even let it get to a vote in the committee unless we agreed to water it down … We decided to take that because that’s better than nothing.”

    Wagstaffe points to a dichotomy under California law.

    “If somebody has a mental illness and commits an attempted murder, at the end of the two years, we’re going to let them buy a gun,” Wagstaffe said. 

    That’s because at the end of diversion, the charges are dropped. There’s no felony and no record of a crime.

    “But if it’s somebody who has no mental health issues – [and] they stole $1,500 worth of goods, a felony – they are prohibited from possessing the gun the rest of their life. There’s no logic.”

    Questions at the Capitol

    The DA is among many who argue Mental Health Diversion should not be allowed in cases of attempted murder. 

    At the state capitol earlier this year, a bipartisan bill with widespread support within the legislature would have added attempted murder to the short list of charges – murder and sex crimes – that are not eligible for diversion.

    Defense attorneys and reform advocates opposed the bill, arguing that it is bad policy to categorically exclude one type of offense. “We want the best option to be available in every single case, no matter what the charges,” explained Shahf. 

    Still, the bill had 17 bipartisan co-authors and unanimously passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee, which is known for killing tough-on-crime legislation.

    “It is extraordinarily hard to get, pro-criminal justice bills out of the public safety. And this one flew through,” Wagstaffe said.

    But the rest of the Assembly never got the chance to vote because the Appropriations Committee killed the bill by holding it the so-called “suspense file.“

    “I find that as anti-democratic, and I don’t think the public if they knew it, would find that acceptable,” Wagstaffe said.

    The suspense file is where even popular bills can go to die without a public vote.

    In this case, the committee analysis suggested the bill was too expensive – highlighting how much it would cost the state annually ($133k) to send someone to prison for attempted murder instead of diversion.

    Except, their analysis fails to mention how much it currently costs ($123k+) to put the same person through diversion for a year.

    Our CBS News analysis of state data found that last year alone, California spent an estimated $67 million on people who failed to complete Mental Health Diversion programs and had charges reinstated anyway.

    In the first quarter of 2024 year, state data indicated the failure rate jumped to more than 50%. 

    Neither the Appropriations Committee Chair, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, nor her committee staff responded to repeated requests for comment.

    “Poster child” for both sides of the diversion debate

    Patel is the first high-profile attempted murder defendant to get Mental Health Diversion since the bill died.

    “For us, he’s the poster child. We will use him in our efforts to try and bring that bill back,” Wagstaffe said.

    But Patel is also the so-called “poster child” for the other side.

    “Unfortunately, so many people believe that punishment is the way to make sure people don’t commit any crimes. But that’s not what the evidence shows,” Sahaf said. 

    Dr. Patel’s defense attorney declined an interview, but they hope Patel will be the model for how mental health diversion is supposed to work — even for those charged with attempted murder.   

    Source link