Protests in Indonesia sparked by economic hardship have elicited a heavy-handed response from police, triggering concerns that the Southeast Asian nation could be returning to its authoritarian past.
As police trucks have been spray-painted with anti-law enforcement slogans, President Prabowo Subianto has denounced the demonstrations as “treason and terrorism” while seeking to assuage wide-ranging discontent.
Thousands have taken to the streets in major cities in the last week, joined at times by rioters setting fire to government buildings and looters ransacking the homes of politicians. At least 10 people have died and hundreds have been injured in the ensuing unrest.
On Wednesday, a coalition of student unions met with lawmakers and demanded an independent investigation into the police violence, portending further protests.
Frustrations in the world’s third-largest democracy have been building since Prabowo, a former military general and businessman, took power last year, implementing austerity measures that have cut billions from public services such as healthcare and education.
Many ordinary Indonesians criticize the government for primarily serving the interests of the wealthy elite even as youth unemployment soars and wages stagnate.
The initial wave of demonstrations began Aug. 25, with thousands gathering outside the country’s parliament to decry one stark example of such inequality: a $3,000 housing allowance for lawmakers that was nearly 10 times the minimum wage in Jakarta.
The discontent escalated into violence when a 21-year-old motorcycle taxi driver was fatally struck by an armored police vehicle speeding through the crowd.
Prabowo and his police chief have apologized for the incident, and one of the officers involved in the crash has been fired.
At a televised news conference, Prabowo stressed that the right to peaceful assembly should be protected but that “the state must step in to protect its citizens.”
Neither these measures, nor the president’s promise to scale back the lawmakers’ perks, have quelled the outpouring of public anger, which has been met with a police response that human rights groups have decried as excessive.
“Nobody should die while exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” said Montse Ferrer, Amnesty International’s regional research director for East and Southeast Asia.
On Monday, the United Nations called for an investigation into the “alleged use of unnecessary or disproportionate force by security forces.”
Since the demonstrations began, Indonesian police have used tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets against protesters, some of whom have lobbed back Molotov cocktails and rocks. Authorities have arrested over 3,000 people.
Two deaths have been attributed to the police crackdown: a pedicab driver in the city of Solo who died last week while being treated for tear gas exposure, and a college student who died Sunday after apparently being beaten by police.
Such incidents have resurfaced the Indonesian public’s festering distrust of the police force, said Jacqui Baker, a scholar of Indonesian security and policing at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia.
“Ordinary people have long repeated a saying ‘report a chicken, lose a buffalo,’ meaning if you engage the police in routine law enforcement … you are likely to suffer more material loss than the original theft,” she said.
In recent years, civic groups have accused police of dozens of extrajudicial killings and torture.
Many of the country’s policing problems stem from a three-decade-long period of authoritarian rule under then-President Suharto that ended in 1998.
With the police remaining wedded to political interests even after the country’s democratization, Baker said, the “historical sense of entitlement has generated a deeply corrupt, violent and predatory force that is widely hated by ordinary people.”
President Prabowo himself is accused of human rights abuses, such as the abduction of dissidents, under Suharto’s rule. Critics say he is now pulling the country back into authoritarianism by expanding the military’s involvement in civilian institutions. Prabowo denies these claims.
Survivors, lawmakers demand release of all Jeffrey Epstein files
Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and a bipartisan group of lawmakers are pushing for a discharge petition, forcing a House floor vote to release nearly everything related to the case.
Demanding transparency, truth and their own healing, survivors of sexual abuse, along with bipartisan lawmakers, called for the release of all documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Survivors accuse Epstein of abusing and trafficking countless underage girls for decades before his death in a New York jail cell in 2019. Survivors, including some speaking out for the first time, joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers, pushing for a discharge petition that would force a House floor vote on releasing nearly everything related to the Epstein case. “I am no longer weak, I am no longer powerless and I am no longer alone,” Anouska De Georgiou, a survivor, said before reporters on Wednesday. “With your vote, neither will the next generation be.”On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released more than 30,000 pages on the case, which some say were heavily redacted and revealed too little new information. The petition’s supporters want all investigation files released, emphasizing that the issue should be non-partisan.”The American people deserve to see everything,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said. “When you sign this discharge petition, it should mean nothing should be off limits.””The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we are demanding come out,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said.But the petition is already facing some roadblocks. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says he believes the House Oversight Committee should be responsible for carefully handling the documents, while President Trump dismissed the effort Wednesday, calling it “a Democrat hoax.”Related video below: Speaker Johnson on meeting with Epstein victimsSurvivors responded directly to President Trump’s dismissal, with one registered Republican calling on him to meet her at the Capitol to share her story and explain why the issue is not a hoax. Others pleaded that he recognize the abuse as real and humanize them.Lawmakers leading the petition are close to a House floor vote, needing only two more signatures to reach the required 218. So far, the petition includes all Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans, including Greene and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.Lawmakers emphasized the rare coalition of bipartisanship, signifying the growing issue. If the petition passes the House, it still needs to pass the Senate before heading to Trump’s desk.Regardless of the petition’s outcome, survivors are planning their own action for justice by compiling a list of those involved in Epstein’s network of abuse, though they did not specify if or when they would release it. In Wednesday’s press conference, the victims said they aim to hold the powerful accountable and help their healing, despite concerns about retaliation from Epstein’s circle.
WASHINGTON —
Demanding transparency, truth and their own healing, survivors of sexual abuse, along with bipartisan lawmakers, called for the release of all documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Survivors accuse Epstein of abusing and trafficking countless underage girls for decades before his death in a New York jail cell in 2019.
Survivors, including some speaking out for the first time, joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers, pushing for a discharge petition that would force a House floor vote on releasing nearly everything related to the Epstein case.
“I am no longer weak, I am no longer powerless and I am no longer alone,” Anouska De Georgiou, a survivor, said before reporters on Wednesday. “With your vote, neither will the next generation be.”
On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released more than 30,000 pages on the case, which some say were heavily redacted and revealed too little new information. The petition’s supporters want all investigation files released, emphasizing that the issue should be non-partisan.
“The American people deserve to see everything,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said. “When you sign this discharge petition, it should mean nothing should be off limits.”
“The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we are demanding come out,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said.
But the petition is already facing some roadblocks. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says he believes the House Oversight Committee should be responsible for carefully handling the documents, while President Trump dismissed the effort Wednesday, calling it “a Democrat hoax.”
Related video below: Speaker Johnson on meeting with Epstein victims
Survivors responded directly to President Trump’s dismissal, with one registered Republican calling on him to meet her at the Capitol to share her story and explain why the issue is not a hoax. Others pleaded that he recognize the abuse as real and humanize them.
Lawmakers leading the petition are close to a House floor vote, needing only two more signatures to reach the required 218. So far, the petition includes all Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans, including Greene and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.
Lawmakers emphasized the rare coalition of bipartisanship, signifying the growing issue.
If the petition passes the House, it still needs to pass the Senate before heading to Trump’s desk.
Regardless of the petition’s outcome, survivors are planning their own action for justice by compiling a list of those involved in Epstein’s network of abuse, though they did not specify if or when they would release it. In Wednesday’s press conference, the victims said they aim to hold the powerful accountable and help their healing, despite concerns about retaliation from Epstein’s circle.
SACRAMENTO — California’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort.
California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.
The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress.
In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort.
In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature.
The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as “gut and amend,” where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal.
The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the state could enact “significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,” according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon.
Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters.
“When I go to a restaurant, I don’t need to meet the chef,” said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz).
Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission’s work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday.
If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4.
On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges.
After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis).
“I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,” Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours.
Tangipa and the committee’s vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort.
Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation.
“That’s insanity, and that’s heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,” Tangipa said. “How can you say you actually care about the people of California?
Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long.
In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented.
Tom Willis, Newsom’s campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was “publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.”
But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn’t answer, because he “wasn’t a part of that process.”
In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt.
“This is a partisan gerrymander,” she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. “That’s what we’re talking about here.”
Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, “It made me salivate.”
California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state’s independent redistricting rules because they would not “call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.”
But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill.
“it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,” the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. “These changes to the Elections Code … would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom called California lawmakers into a special session Saturday after Assembly Democrats pushed back on his request to approve new requirements on oil refineries in the final days of the regular legislative session that ends Saturday night.
The unusual maneuver effectively pushes the Legislature into overtime to address the complex and politically sensitive issue of energy affordability just as campaign season heats up in advance of the Nov. 5 election.
Newsom’s order requires that lawmakers formally open a special session immediately, but it’s unclear when they plan to hold hearings to consider the bills or how long the session will go. Lawmakers were scheduled to leave Sacramento this weekend for four months in their home districts.
“It should be common sense for gas refineries to plan ahead and backfill supplies when they go down for maintenance to avoid price spikes. But these price spikes are actually profit spikes for Big Oil, and they’re using the same old scare tactics to maintain the status quo,” Newsom said in a statement.
“Calling the session now allows the Legislature to begin that work immediately so that the state can resolve this important matter to establish the necessary rules to prevent price spikes next year and beyond.”
It’s the second time in two years that Newsom has called a special session focused on the economics of the oil industry, an issue that divides Democrats as they navigate a desire to fight climate change with ambitions to lower prices at the pump. Newsom has blamed high gas prices on the industry, which he accused of gouging consumers. Oil companies point to the state’s climate change and tax policies as drivers of higher prices.
Two weeks ago, Newsom announced a proposal to require that petroleum refiners maintain a stable inventory in order to prevent fuel shortages and price spikes when refinery equipment is taken offline for maintenance.
As the oil industry lobbied heavily against the proposal, Democrats in the Assembly and Senate squabbled over how to move forward. Lawmakers said they were frustrated with Newsom’s attempt to push the plan through the Capitol at the last minute.
In a statement Friday, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said his caucus agreed with the governor about the need to urgently address affordability and would deliver results if a special session was called. But he refused to take up the bills for a floor vote by Saturday’s deadline.
“What I’m not going to do is push through bills that haven’t been sufficiently vetted with public hearings,” Rivas said. “Doing so could lead to unintended consequences on Californians’ pocketbooks.”
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said he wouldn’t rush Newsom’s energy proposal through the Legislature.
(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
Newsom’s office began talking with the Senate and Assembly earlier this summer about legislation that would allow his administration to require that petroleum refiners maintain a stable inventory in order to prevent fuel shortages in California.
After gathering more insight about pricing from laws passed in a previous special session on oil that ended last year, state regulators had reported that charges at the pump increase when the oil companies do not maintain enough refined gasoline to backfill production shortfalls or protect against the impact of unplanned maintenance.
Western States Petroleum Assn. leaders said the governor’s refinery proposal will drive up fuel costs in California and reduce supplies in Arizona and Nevada. The argument raised a potent political concern that the state policy could become a national headache for Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats in a critical election year.
“It’s noteworthy that legislators are considering such radical energy policies at a time when the nation is closely examining how the ‘California model’ will impact their families and pocketbooks,” Catherine Reheis-Boyd, CEO of the Western States Petroleum Assn., said in a statement this week.
The warning from WSPA, Chevron and other industry players spooked Assembly Democrats, who were also irked by the late introduction of the proposal.
In an effort to reach an agreement with Democratic lawmakers, the proposal was tied together with other bills in the Senate and Assembly during negotiations with leaders of both houses. But environmentalists opposed some of those proposals, leaving Democrats with a suite of bills that angered both ends of the environmental policy spectrum.
One of the Assembly bills, which would cut energy and climate programs that fund HVAC improvements in schools, installation of energy storage and generation technologies in vulnerable communities and solar energy systems on multifamily affordable housing to achieve a meager one-time customer credit on electricity and gas bills, drew sweeping opposition from a coalition of environmental, education, housing and energy groups. Another bill, which ratepayer advocates supported, would have required the Public Utilities Commission to develop a framework for analyzing total annual energy costs for residential households.
The bills didn’t offer enough incentive for Assembly Democrats to slam the plan through this week. They also soured on efforts by Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) to leverage the moment to pass Senate bills that would accelerate environmental reviews for clean energy and hydrogen projects, save ratepayers money by lowering requirements for utility wildfire mitigation plans and make it harder for companies to terminate utility service to customers.
McGuire, who earlier this week said the Senate did not support a special session and urged the Assembly to take action on the bills, stuck to that position on Saturday.
“The Senate always had the votes and was ready to get these important measures across the finish line this legislative year and deliver the relief Californians need at the pump and on their electricity bills,” McGuire said in a statement.
“We won’t be convening a special session this fall, but we look forward to continuing conversations with the Governor and Speaker about this critical issue in the days and weeks to come.”
It was unclear Saturday night how Newsom would respond or whether the Senate leader has the legal authority to refuse the governor’s call for a special session.
The drama marked another effort by a governor on the cusp of the final two years of his second term to push last-minute bills through a Legislature guided by two new leaders. Earlier this summer lawmakers similarly balked on passing a bill that would have placed his measure targeting retail crime on the ballot.
Newsom’s decision to call for a special session also marks the second time he’s sought to toughen California’s oil laws outside the typical two-year process to hear bills, which runs from January through August or mid-September each year.
The governor called a special session two years ago to penalize oil companies for excessive profits as gasoline prices spiked. But lawmakers were ultimately reluctant to adopt a penalty and Newsom refined his request to instead demand more transparency from the industry.
Instead of enacting a cap and penalty on oil refinery profits, Newsom and lawmakers gave state regulators the ability to do so in the future. Consumer advocates and the governor celebrated the resulting law as a groundbreaking tool that could keep gas prices from escalating.
But Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo of Nevada joined the industry and his party in May when he sent Newsom a letter warning a cap could “further raise gas prices for both of our constituencies” because his state’s gas largely comes from refineries in California.
On Friday, Andy Walz, president of Americas products for Chevron, sent a letter to the California Energy Commission saying that Newsom’s new refinery proposal “risks the safety of refinery operations, the orderly functioning of markets and would leave industry and labor experts without a voice in key policies.”
“The physical, operational and cost burdens to sustain unnecessary inventory are also a concern,” he wrote. “Building just one new storage tank can take a decade and cost $35 million. These costs would likely be passed onto the consumer. And given the current regulatory regime, with constraints on permits and a gasoline vehicle sales ban, there is no opportunity to recover capital invested to build additional tanks, which could be the ‘last straw’ for the state’s energy market investors.”
The timing of a second special session on oil regulations could work in Newsom’s favor if lawmakers immediately get to work.
Newsom will finish signing the bills on his desk by Sept. 30, which means he could have the political upper hand if the special session begins before that period concludes. If the special session begins after bill signing, the governor could lose some of that leverage.
But when, and, if, they ultimately pass new mandates on the oil industry or lower electricity bills could also affect the election.
Legislation that saves consumers money could give them something to tout to their constituents. Laws that potentially raise gas prices could be weaponized in California races or national contests.
On the day California lawmakers returned to Sacramento for the new year, hundreds of protesters convened at the state Capitol on Wednesday and shut down the Assembly with calls for Israel to stop its war against Hamas.
Legislators filed out of the Assembly chamber as at least 250 demonstrators chanted, “Cease fire now.” Filling the Capitol rotunda, protesters unfurled a banner stating “No U.S. Funding for Israel’s Genocide in Palestine” and made paper flowers representing more than 22,000 Palestinians killed in the war that began after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing about 1,200 people and taking 240 others hostage.
“We hear them, we support them, however we have to make sure that the legislative business is done for the entire state of California,” Assemblyman Mike Gipson (D-Carson) said as the demonstrators’ chants echoed throughout the halls.
“This just stopped what we needed to do,” he said.
On the other end of the state Capitol, the Senate continued with business as usual above the din of shouting protesters outside the chamber. Gov. Gavin Newsom was in Los Angeles for the day to promote his ballot measure to fund mental health care and a new research center at UCLA.
Hundreds of Jewish organizers calling for a cease-fire in Gaza assembled in the California Capitol in Sacramento on Wednesday, interrupting the first week of the legislative session.
(Mackenzie Mays / Los Angeles Times)
Wednesday’s protests thrust the complicated politics of the war into the California Capitol, which has been quiet while the Legislature was on recess for the fall. The U.S. response to the war has triggered a generational divide in the California electorate and a schism among Democrats, while polling shows California Republicans largely want the U.S. to support Israel.
Also on Wednesday, Assembly Republicans introduced a resolution condemning Hamas and the Legislature’s Jewish Caucus sent a seven-page letter to lawmakers describing a searing sense of fear among Jewish Californians amid an “explosion of hate directed at our community.”
The letter asked legislative leaders to form a special committee on antisemitism in California. It also called on lawmakers to address “the toxic anti-Jewish environment” on some public university campuses, proposed legislation enshrining Holocaust education in public schools and proposed expanding a grant program that helps institutions at risk of hate crimes pay for security upgrades.
“I think there’s a lot of people in our community that feel trapped between the far right and the far left,” said Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), a co-chair of the caucus.
“Though the far right and the far left in America view each other as existential threats to everything that they hold dear and holy, the one thing that they seem to agree on is that Jews are uniquely evil, and that Jews are responsible for the world’s problems,” Gabriel said.
While Gabriel and Jewish caucus co-chair Sen. Scott Wiener addressed reporters in a Capitol hallway, protesters in the rotunda chanted, “Scott Wiener, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.”
“That’s disgusting and false,” Wiener said. “Apparently supporting Israel’s existence is enough for them to say that we’re supporting genocide, and that is really problematic.”
The protest was organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network. Organizers said the demonstration included about 400 to 500 people, about half of whom are Jewish.
Jennifer Esteen, a nurse who is running for the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, took part in the protest, calling on state lawmakers to issue a resolution to demand a cease-fire.
“These decisions that we can make here in California will absolutely change federal policy,” Esteen said as organizers chanted, “Free Palestine.”
“California leads the way … when the Legislature of the fourth-largest economy of the world pays attention and makes a statement, it will lead this country.”
The demonstration ended peacefully after about two hours. Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (Yuba City), released a statement criticizing “pro-Hamas radicals” for “shouting down government proceedings and bullying people into silence.”
“We must stand up to this extremism,” Gallagher said. “People have a right to protest, but they don’t have the right to prevent elected representatives from doing the people’s business.”
State officials have revived a popular grant program to help lower-income California homeowners build accessory dwelling units by covering some of the upfront costs. But funding is limited, so demand for aid may soon outstrip the supply of dollars.
The California Housing Finance Agency’s ADU Grant Program offers up to $40,000 to qualified homeowners to cover pre-construction costs of an ADU, including planning and permit fees for the structure. The program exhausted its initial $100 million months ago, causing the agency to stop taking applications; now, $25 million more is available for homeowners seeking help.
Obtaining a grant is not as simple as filling out a form online, however. For starters, applicants have to meet the program’s new income limits. Household income must be less than 80% of the area median income, which translates in Los Angeles County to $84,160. That’s down from 150% of the area median income in the initial round of grants.
Typically, homeowners must obtain a construction loan for an ADU from a participating lender before seeking an ADU grant. The loan will cover the costs that the grants will reimburse, including architectural designs, permits, soil tests, impact fees, property surveys, energy reports and utility hookups, the agency says. These expenses can make up a sizable portion of the cost of a new ADU, especially one built by converting a garage or other existing structure.
If you haven’t started work on an ADU yet, let alone obtained a loan, you can still get in line for a state grant. Neighborhood Housing Services, which provides construction loans for ADUs, says it will try to reserve a potential grant for anyone who emails it two pieces of information: a current mortgage statement and one month’s worth of pay stubs or other proof of income. The information, which should be sent to admin@nhslacounty.org, should also include the person’s legal name, address and Social Security number.
A homeowner who meets the income limits but can build an ADU without a loan can still apply for a grant through NHSLA. But the agency’s construction team would have to manage the project and the grant funds, said Iris Cruz of Neighborhood Housing Services.
Grant applicants will have to sign and submit an affidavit to CalHFA attesting to several things about themselves and their plans, including that they are a U.S. citizen or legal resident; they own and have their primary residence on the property where the ADU is being built; they will use the ADU for permanent housing or long-term rentals; and the ADU will conform to local building and zoning codes. If any of those statements prove to be false, the applicant could face a prison term and a fine of up to $10,000.
The lender, meanwhile, will have to attest that the grant applicant meets the program’s income limits.
For the first time in 30 years, the California prison system plans to nearly double most hourly wages for incarcerated workers, a proposal that comes amid a broader debate over prison labor and a push by progressive activists to prohibit forced labor as a form of criminal punishment.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s proposal calls for eliminating all unpaid work assignments and reducing hours for most prison workers from full-time jobs to half time. Prison officials argue that higher wages will have several benefits, including making it easier for inmates to pay back the money they owe for damage from their crimes. Fifty-five percent of inmates’ wages go toward restitution costs, according to the Department of Corrections.
“Increased pay will provide a stronger incentive for incarcerated people to accept and retain jobs,” department spokesperson Tessa Outhyse said in an email. “New wages will also help workers meet restitution payments for crime victims and save more money in preparation for release.”
Approximately 40% of California’s 96,000 prisoners have jobs while they serve out their sentences, according to the department spokesperson, doing laundry and janitorial work, as well as clerking and construction. Their wages generally range from 8 cents an hour to 37 cents an hour, depending on the skill level required for the job. The proposal calls for doubling the wage range, from 16 cents an hour to 74 cents an hour.
Although prison reform advocates have long argued that wages for incarcerated workers are insufficient, some are dubious about the proposed pay increase. They say the changes will only boost hourly wages by a few nickels and dimes, and the overall daily pay by just a few dollars.
“We are not asking for a liveable wage, we are asking for a respectable wage,” said state Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena).
“It has made it increasingly difficult for incarcerated people just to provide for their basic needs in prison, be it deodorant or toothpaste, to help pay down their restitution that is owed to victims, helping their families or even staying in contact with their families using the phone.”
Prison officials did not respond to questions about whether the proposal to increase wages is related to the discussion about removing involuntary servitude from the constitution. But their concerns helped kill an earlier effort to pass a constitutional ban on involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. In 2022, the Corrections Department told lawmakers that it would cost billions of dollars to pay prisoners minimum wage.
The cost to taxpayers was one reason state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda) voted against the measure last year.
“I was concerned about eliminating the word ‘slavery’ in the constitution without any detail on how it would be implemented in our prisons and would take power from legislatures to courts,” Glazer said in an interview.
He said he supports raising wages for prison workers. “But at the heart of it, it’s a budget priority choice issue,” Glazer said.
Budget projections show California is likely to face a shortfall of at least several billion dollars each of the next three years. The Corrections Department’s current plan to raise wages would not require additional funding from the state budget, spokesperson Outhyse said, because hours would be reduced while wages are increased. She said the budget allocates approximately $10 million a year for incarcerated wages and the proposed regulations “will maximize utilization of that fund.”
State Sen. Steven Bradford is on the California Reparations Task Force, which recommended paying fair market value for prison labor and eliminating forced labor as a criminal punishment from the California Constitution.
(Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)
Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) said he plans to push the state to consider even higher wages when lawmakers return to Sacramento in January.
“It always sounds dramatic when you say something is being doubled,” Kalra said. “But going from 8 cents to 16 cents doesn’t really move the needle or give incarcerated workers the dignity they deserve.”
He plans to reviveAssembly Bill 1516, which stalled last year. It calls for the state to study the socioeconomic benefits of ending wages below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for incarcerated workers.
“To simply raise the wages a few pennies, certainly acknowledges the fact that there is an agreement that incarcerated workers are being grossly underpaid,” Kalra added. “But I think there is a long way to go.”
A portion of inmates who work infire crews — and are based in separate conservation camps that provide intensive wildfire training — would see the greatest income hike under the prison system’s proposal, with some going from earning $3.34 per day to $6.68 per day and others from $5.12 to $10.24 per day.
One category of workers would not receive a pay increase under the plan: About 5,700 inmates hired by the California Prison Industry Authority, a separate employer within CDCR, who are paid on a different wage scale. They work manufacturing jobs that create products such as eyeglasses, office furniture, shoes and license plates that are then sold to state departments. At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these workers churned out face masks for the general population.
At a news conference Nov. 16, hosted by the Living Wage for All Coalition — a nonprofit group focused on ending sub-minimum wages — advocates and lawmakers criticized the Corrections Department’s wage increases, arguing that the changes are “unethical” and “unjust” because they do not meet rising inflation or ensure living wages.
Shone Robinson, who was incarcerated for 22 years, said at the news conference that paying restitution while incarcerated was “a large hurdle.” Robinson was convicted in Riverside County of second-degree murder and testified that she acted in self-defense, the Press-Enterprise reported in 1997. Released from prison in 2017, she now works as a life coach at the Anti-Recidivism Coalition.
“Not only did I pay restitution, but I also had to start my life beyond prison walls. Being locked up at a very young age did not prepare me for what I had to face,” Robinson said.
The wage increase was proposed as a new regulation of the state prison system and can be approved after a period of public review that ended last week.
Jeronimo Aguilar, a policy analyst for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, told The Times that he questions whether inmates will just earn the same amount, or even less, as a result of the changes from full-time to half-time work. He also speculates that the state might end up saving money.
Ultimately, however, he said he doesn’t want to “just blindly oppose this new regulation.”
“We don’t want folks inside to think we’re opposing it because we want more,” he said. “We might kill an opportunity for them. Going from 8 cents to 16 cents may not be a lot for us, but for an indigent [worker] that’s huge.”
It’s the job of a governor to play adult supervisor and not give adolescent state legislators all the spending money they’d like. Otherwise, they’d break the family bank.
All modern California governors have performed this role, often in different ways and frequently with relish.
Many, especially Republicans, have loved to use their “blue pencil,” striking individual spending items from the annual state budget before signing it. That’s a potent power California governors enjoy that U.S. presidents don’t even have.
Gov. Ronald Reagan cherished the “line item veto” and often lamented not possessing the tool as president.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, however, hardly ever picks up his blue pencil. He barely touches a spending plan before signing what he’s sent by the Democratic-controlled Legislature. That’s because he and legislative leaders already have negotiated the final version of the budget before lawmakers pass it.
It’s in legislators’ DNA to try to squeeze more dollars out of the state kitty after there’s already a spending plan in place for the year.
“They’re always asking for more,” Brown once said. “There’s no natural limit. There’s no predator for this species of budgetary activity except the governor.”
Lawmakers — Democrats, anyway — counter that it’s their constitutional right to keep dipping into the pot.
“Many of my colleagues have important issues they’re trying to tackle on behalf of their constituents and they have costs,” Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) told me. “Just as the governor has the right to veto bills, it is the Legislature’s right to send him bills as part of our democratic process.”
But Newsom’s admonition to legislators — implanted in veto messages on dozens of spending bills he recently rejected — is that if they want to tap into the state vault, they’d better follow a protocol. They need to seek approval through the annual budget process that’s supposed to end on June 30.
Otherwise, spending veers out of control.
This was Newsom’s basic boilerplate lecture that he tucked into spending vetoes:
“We enacted a budget that closed a shortfall of more than $30 billion through balanced solutions that avoided deep program cuts…
“This year, however, the Legislature sent me bills outside of this budget process that, if all enacted, would add nearly $19 billion of unaccounted costs in the budget…
“With our state facing continuing economic risks and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined.”
It was a strong message. But a little humor now and then wouldn’t have hurt. Previous governors showed some occasional wit in their bill signing or veto messages.
In inking a bill to legalize the stuffing and display of dead mountain lions, Brown wrote: “This presumably important bill earned overwhelming support by both Republicans and Democrats. If only that same energetic bipartisan spirit could be applied to creating clean energy jobs and ending tax laws that send jobs out of state.”
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger used a vulgar acrostic to veto a bill by an assemblyman who had heckled the Republican governor when he crashed a Democratic fundraiser. The second line of the message began with the letter “F” and lines six through eight started with the letters “y,” “o” and “u.”
Gov. Pete Wilson enjoyed vetoing a bill that called for a state study of how best to dispose of discarded fluorescent light tubes. “Question: How many new legislative bills does it take to study the disposal of light bulbs?” Wilson wrote. “Answer: One less than you think.”
Newsom recently signed 890 bills and vetoed 156 — a mediocre veto rate of 15%.
In 2008, Schwarzenegger vetoed a record 35% of the bills lawmakers sent him, calling it collateral damage for them being 85 days late passing a budget. That was when budgets required a two-thirds legislative vote. In 2011, it was lowered to a simple majority.
That year, tightwad Brown vetoed the entire budget. He complained it added billions of dollars in new debt to already red ink spending. It’s the only time an entire spending plan has been vetoed.
Regardless of Newsom’s tough veto message — and his restriction on when spending can be approved — he’s hardly a piker.
In his less than five years as governor, state spending has jumped by 53% — more than $100 billion, from the $203-billion budget Brown left him to $311 billion currently.
The governor’s office would not provide a total amount of spending that Newsom vetoed. His boilerplate language was used in 64 vetoes.
Neither would his spokespeople elaborate on the governor’s veto messages. Was it just about saving money? Or was that sometimes merely a cover for blocking policy he disliked?.
“Just about every bill that is on the governor’s desk has some cost to it,” says Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Philip Ting (D-San Francisco). “Most of the time the governor has a reason other than the spending [for a veto]. Sometimes he gives the budget excuse.”
One example: He vetoed a bill requiring high schools to provide free condoms for students. Was that just because of the “unfunded mandate” he cited? Or does the father of four children also question the policy?
Another: He vetoed a measure that would have provided unemployment insurance benefits for striking union members. He said the unemployment fund was already $20 billion in debt. But did he also think it was nuts to subsidize strikers who voluntarily walk off their jobs?
He vetoed a lot of spending bills that amounted to pocket change. And he was right.
Once there’s an agreed-upon budget, lawmakers shouldn’t squeeze taxpayers for more money except in a dire emergency.
