ReportWire

Tag: measure

  • Supreme Court urged to block California laws requiring companies to disclose climate impacts

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups urged the Supreme Court on Friday to block new California laws that will require thousands of companies to disclose their emissions and their impacts on climate change.

    One of the laws is due to take effect on Jan. 1, and the emergency appeal asks the court to put it on hold temporarily.

    Their lawyers argue the measures violate the 1st Amendment because the state would be forcing companies to speak on its preferred topic.

    “In less than eight weeks, California will compel thousands of companies across the nation to speak on the deeply controversial topic of climate change,” they said in an appeal that also spoke for the California Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

    They say the two new laws would require companies to disclose the “climate-related risks” they foresee and how their operations and emissions contribute to climate change.

    “Both laws are part of California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior,” they said. Their aim, according to their sponsors, is to “make sure that the public actually knows who’s green and who isn’t.”

    One law, Senate Bill 261, will require several thousand companies that do business in California to assess their “climate-related financial risk” and how they may reduce that risk. A second measure, SB 253, which applies to larger companies, requires them to assess and disclose their emissions and how their operations could affect the climate.

    The appeal argues these laws amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

    “No state may violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the Nation. Compelled-speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional — especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change,” they argue.

    Officials with the California Air Resources Board, whose chair Lauren Sanchez was named as defendant, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

    The first-in-the-nation carbon disclosure laws were widely celebrated by environmental advocates at the time of their passage, with the nonprofit California Environmental Voters describing them as a “game-changer not just for our state but for the entire world.”

    Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who authored SB 253, said at the time that the laws were “a simple but powerful tool in the fight to tackle climate change.”

    “When corporations are transparent about the full scope of their emissions, they have the tools and incentives to tackle them,” Wiener said.

    Michael Gerrard, a climate-change legal expert at Columbia University, described Friday’s motion as “the latest example of businesses and conservatives weaponizing the 1st Amendment.” He pointed to the Citizens United case, which said businesses have a free speech right to unlimited campaign contributions, as another example.

    “Exxon tried and failed to use this argument in 2022 when it attempted to block an investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General into whether it misled consumers and investors about the risks of climate change,” he said in an email. “Exxon claimed this investigation violated its First Amendment rights; the Massachusetts courts rejected this attempt.”

    Under the Biden administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted similar climate-change disclosure rules. Companies would have been required to disclose the impact of climate change on their business and what they intended to do to mitigate the risk.

    But the Chamber of Commerce sued and won a lower court ruling that blocked those rules.

    And in March, Trump appointees said the SEC would retreat and not defend the “costly and unnecessarily intrusive climate-change disclosure rules.”

    The emergency appeal challenging California’s disclosure laws was filed by Washington attorney Eugene Scalia, a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

    The companies have tried and failed to persuade judges in California to block the measures. Exxon Mobil filed a suit in Sacramento, while the Chamber of Commerce sued in Los Angeles.

    In August, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refused to block the laws on the grounds they “regulate commercial speech,” which gets less protection under the 1st Amendment. He said businesses are routinely required to disclose financial data and factual information on their operations.

    The business lawyers said they had appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for an injunction, but no action has been taken.

    Shortly after the chamber’s appeal was filed, state attorneys for Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states joined in support. They said they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California seeks to impose on companies.”

    The justices are likely to ask for a response next week from California’s state attorneys before acting on the appeal.

    Savage reported from Washington, D.C., Smith from Los Angeles.

    David G. Savage, Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • House is poised to approve measure to end longest government shutdown in U.S. history

    The longest government shutdown in U.S. history was poised to come to an end Wednesday as the House finalized a vote on a spending package that President Trump was ready to sign into law as soon as it reached his desk.

    “President Trump looks forward to finally ending this devastating Democrat shutdown with his signature, and we hope that signing will take place later tonight,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a press briefing earlier on Wednesday.

    The president’s signature will mark the end of a government shutdown that for 43 days left thousands of federal workers without pay, millions of low-income Americans uncertain on whether they would receive food assistance, and travelers facing delays at airports.

    The vote, which began Wednesday evening, also was a cap to a frenetic day in Capitol Hill in which lawmakers publicly released a trove of records from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate and welcomed the newest member of Congress, a Democrat from Arizona who was key in forcing a vote to demand the Justice Department release all the Epstein files.

    The spending package, when signed by the president, will fund the government through Jan. 30, 2026, and reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown. It will also guarantee backpay for federal employees who were furloughed or worked without pay during the budget impasse.

    The package does not include an extension to Affordable Care Act healthcare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year — a core demand Democrats tried to negotiate during the seven weeks the government was shut down.

    Ahead of the floor vote, House Democrats were steadfast in their opposition to a deal that did not address the lapsing healthcare subsidies.

    “We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of the American people,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.

    If the tax credits expire, premiums will more than double on average for more than 20 million Americans who use the healthcare marketplace, according to independent analysts at the research firm KFF.

    Another point of contention during the floor debate was a provision in the funding bill that will allow senators to sue the federal government if their phone records are obtained without them being notified.

    The provision, which is retroactive to 2022, appears to be tailored for eight Republican senators who last month found their phone records have been accessed as part of a Biden-era investigation into the attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.

    If they successfully sue, each violation would be worth at least $500,000, according to the bill language.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the senators whose phone records were accessed, said Wednesday he will “definitely” sue when the legal avenue once it becomes available.

    “If you think I’m going to settle this thing for a millions dollars? No. I want to make it so painful, no one ever does this again,” Graham told reporters.

    Several Democrats slammed the provision on the House floor. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said it was “unconscionable” to vote in favor of the spending bill with that language tucked in.

    “How is this even on the floor? How can we vote to enrich ourselves by stealing from the American people?” she said.

    Some House Republicans were caught off guard by the provision and said they disagreed with the provision. The concern was enough to get Speaker Mike Johnson to announced that House Republicans will plan to fast-track legislation to repeal the provision next week.

    Epstein files loomed large over vote

    The House began voting on the bill after Johnson swore Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) into office, after refusing to do so for seven weeks.

    When Grijalva walked into the House floor and was greeted with applause by colleagues cheering her name, she immediately called out Johnson for delaying her taking the oath of office.

    “One individual should not be able to unilaterally obstruct the swearing in of a dully elected member of Congress for political reasons,” Grijalva said, while equating the decision to “an abuse of power.”

    After finishing her remarks, the Democrat immediately signed a petition to force a House floor vote demanding the full release of the Justice Department’s files on Jeffrey Epstein.

    Her signature was the final action needed to force a floor vote. The move is sure to reignite a pressure campaign to release documents tied to Epstein, just hours after House Democrats and Republicans released a trove of records from the Epstein estate.

    The documents included emails from the late sex trafficker that said Trump had “spent hours” with a victim at his house and Trump “knew about the girls.”

    “Justice cannot wait another day,” Grijalva said.

    In a social media post Wednesday, Trump accused Democrats of trying to use the “Jeffrey Epstein Hoax” as a distraction from their failed negotiations during the government shutdown.

    “There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!” Trump wrote.

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Republicans take a victory lap as House gathers to end shutdown

    President Trump and Republican lawmakers took a victory lap on Tuesday after securing bipartisan support to reopen the government, ending the longest shutdown in U.S. history without ceding ground to any core Democratic demands.

    House members were converging on Washington for a final vote expected as early as Wednesday, after 60 senators — including seven Democrats and an independent — advanced the measure on Monday night. Most Democratic lawmakers in the House are expected to oppose the continuing resolution, which does not include an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits that had been a central demand during the shutdown negotiations.

    The result, according to independent analysts, is that premiums will more than double on average for more than 20 million Americans who use the healthcare marketplace, rising from an average of $888 to $1,904 for out-of-pocket payments annually, according to KFF.

    Democrats in the Senate who voted to reopen the government said they had secured a promise from Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, that they would get a vote on extending the tax credits next month.

    But the vote is likely to fail down party lines. And even if it earned some Republican support, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, has made no promises he would give the measure a vote in the lower chamber.

    An end to the shutdown comes at a crucial time for the U.S. aviation industry ahead of one of the busiest travel seasons around the Thanksgiving holiday. The prolonged closure of the federal government led federal employees in the sector to call out sick in large numbers, prompting an unprecedented directive from the Federation Aviation Administration that slowed operations at the nation’s biggest airports.

    Lawmakers are racing to vote before federal employees working in aviation safety miss yet another paycheck this week, potentially extending frustration within their ranks and causing further delays at airports entering the upcoming holiday week.

    It will be the first time the House conducts legislative work in over 50 days, a marathon stretch that has resulted in a backlog of work for lawmakers on a wide range of issues, from appropriations and stock trading regulations to a discharge petition calling for the release of files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

    “We look forward to the government reopening this week so Congress can get back to our regular legislative session,” Johnson told reporters Monday. “There will be long days and long nights here for the foreseeable future to make up for all this lost time that was imposed upon us.”

    To reopen the government, the spending package needs to pass the House, where Republicans hold a slim majority and Democrats have vowed to vote against a deal that does not address healthcare costs.

    Still, Trump and Republican leaders believe they have enough votes to push it through the chamber and reopen the government later in the week.

    Trump has called the spending package a “very good” deal and has indicated that he will sign it once it gets to his desk.

    At a Veterans Day event on Tuesday, Trump thanked Thune and Johnson for their work on their work to reopen the government. Johnson was in the crowd listening to Trump’s remarks.

    “Congratulations to you and to John and to everybody on a very big victory,” Trump said in a speech at Arlington National Cemetery. “We are opening back our country. It should’ve never been closed.”

    While Trump lauded the measure as a done deal, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the chamber, said his party would still try to delay or tank the legislation with whatever tools it had left.

    “House Democrats will strongly oppose any legislation that does not decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis,” Jeffries said in a CNN interview Tuesday morning.

    Just like in the Senate, California Democrats in the House are expected to vote against the shutdown deal because it does not address the expiring healthcare subsidies.

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi said the shutdown deal reached in the Senate “fails to meet the needs of America’s working families” and said she stood with House Democratic leaders in opposing the legislation.

    “We must continue to fight for a responsible, bipartisan path forward that reopens the government and keeps healthcare affordable for the American people,” Pelosi said in a social media post.

    California Republicans in the House, meanwhile, have criticized Democrats for trying to stop the funding agreement from passing.

    “These extremists only care about their radical base regardless of the impact to America,” Rep. Ken Calvert of Corona said in a social media post.

    Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) publicly called on Johnson to negotiate with Democrats on healthcare during the shutdown. He said in an interview last month that he thought there was “a lot of room” to address concerns on both sides of the aisle on how to address the rising costs of healthcare.

    Kiley said Monday that he was proposing legislation with Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-San José) that proposed extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits for another two years.

    He said the bill would “stop massive increase in healthcare costs for 22 million Americans whose premium tax credits are about to expire.”

    “Importantly, the extension is temporary and fully paid for, so it can’t increase the deficit,” Kiley said in reference to a frequent concern cited by Republicans that extending the credits would contribute to the national debt.

    Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • California officials push back on Trump claim that Prop. 50 vote is a ‘GIANT SCAM’

    As California voters went to the polls Tuesday to cast their ballot on a measure that could block President Trump’s national agenda, state officials ridiculed his unsubstantiated claims that voting in the largely Democratic state is “rigged.”

    “The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump said on Truth Social just minutes after polling stations opened Tuesday across California.

    The president provided no evidence for his allegations.

    “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review,” the GOP president wrote. “STAY TUNED!”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom dismissed the president’s claims on X as “the ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE.”

    His press office chimed in, too, calling Trump “a totally unserious person spreading false information in a desperate attempt to cope with his failures.”

    National tension is high as voters across California cast ballots on Proposition 50, a Democratic plan championed by Newsom to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2026 election to favor the Democratic Party. The measure is intended to offset GOP gerrymandering in red states after Trump pressed Texas to rejigger maps to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority.

    California’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, called Trump’s allegation “another baseless claim.”

    “The bottom line is California elections have been validated by the courts,” Weber said in a statement. “California voters will not be deceived by someone who consistently makes desperate, unsubstantiated attempts to dissuade Americans from participating in our democracy.”

    Weber noted that more than 7 million Californians have already voted and encouraged those who had yet to cast ballots to go to the polls.

    “California voters will not be sidelined from exercising their constitutional right to vote and should not let anyone deter them from exercising that right,” Weber said.

    Of the 7 million Californians who have voted, more than 4.6 million have done so by mail, according to the secretary of state’s office. Los Angeles residents alone have cast more than 788,000 mail-in ballots.

    Trump has long criticized mail-in voting. As more Democrats opted to vote by mail in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, the president repeatedly made unproven claims linking mail in voting with voter fraud. When Trump ultimately lost that election, he blamed expanded mail-in voting.

    Over the last month, the stakes in the California special election have ratcheted up as polls indicate Proposition 50 could pass. More than half of likely California voters said they planned to support the measure, which could allow Democrats to gain up to five House seats.

    Last month, the Justice Department appeared to single out California for particular national scrutiny: It announced it would send federal monitors to polling locations in counties in California as well as New Jersey, another traditionally Democratic state that is conducting nationally significant off-year elections.

    The monitors are set to go to five California counties: Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, Fresno and Orange.

    This story will be updated.

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Japan’s parliament elects Sanae Takaichi as nation’s first female prime minister

    Japan’s parliament elected ultraconservative Sanae Takaichi as the country’s first female prime minister Tuesday, a day after her struggling party struck a coalition deal with a new partner expected to pull her governing bloc further to the right.Takaichi replaces Shigeru Ishiba, ending a three-month political vacuum and wrangling since the Liberal Democratic Party’s disastrous election loss in July.Ishiba, who lasted only one year as prime minister, resigned with his Cabinet earlier in the day, paving the way for his successor.The LDP’s off-the-cuff alliance with the Osaka-based rightwing Japan Innovation Party, or Ishin no Kai, ensured her premiership because the opposition is not united. Takaichi’s untested alliance is still short of a majority in both houses of parliament and will need to court other opposition groups to pass any legislation – a risk that could make her government unstable and short-lived.“Political stability is essential right now,” Takaichi said at Monday’s signing ceremony with the JIP leader and Osaka Gov. Hirofumi Yoshimura. “Without stability, we cannot push measures for a strong economy or diplomacy.”The two parties signed a coalition agreement on policies underscoring Takaichi’s hawkish and nationalistic views.Their last-minute deal came after the Liberal Democrats lost its longtime partner, the Buddhist-backed Komeito, which has a more dovish and centrist stance. The breakup threatened a change of power for the LDP, which has governed Japan almost uninterrupted for decades.Later in the day, Takaichi, 64, will present a Cabinet with a number of allies of LDP’s most powerful kingmaker, Taro Aso, and others who backed her in the party leadership vote.JIP will not hold ministerial posts in Takaichi’s Cabinet until his party is confident about its partnership with the LDP, Yoshimura said.Takaichi is running on deadline — a major policy speech later this week, talks with U.S. President Donald Trump and regional summits. She needs to quickly tackle rising prices and compile economy-boosting measures by late December to address public frustration.While she is the first woman serving as Japan’s prime minister, she is in no rush to promote gender equality or diversity.Takaichi is among Japanese politicians who have stonewalled measures for women’s advancement. Takaichi supports the imperial family’s male-only succession and opposes same-sex marriage and allowing separate surnames for married couples.A protege of assassinated former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Takaichi is expected to emulate his policies including stronger military and economy, as well as revising Japan’s pacifist constitution. With a potentially weak grip on power, it’s unknown how much Takaichi would be able to achieve.When Komeito left the governing coalition, it cited the LDP’s lax response to slush fund scandals that led to their consecutive election defeats.The centrist party also raised concern about Takaichi’s revisionist view of Japan’s wartime past and her regular prayers at Yasukuni Shrine despite protests from Beijing and Seoul that see the visits as lack of remorse about Japanese aggression, as well as her recent xenophobic remarks.Takaichi has toned down her hawkish rhetorics. On Friday, she sent a religious ornament instead of going to Yasukuni.

    Japan’s parliament elected ultraconservative Sanae Takaichi as the country’s first female prime minister Tuesday, a day after her struggling party struck a coalition deal with a new partner expected to pull her governing bloc further to the right.

    Takaichi replaces Shigeru Ishiba, ending a three-month political vacuum and wrangling since the Liberal Democratic Party’s disastrous election loss in July.

    Ishiba, who lasted only one year as prime minister, resigned with his Cabinet earlier in the day, paving the way for his successor.

    The LDP’s off-the-cuff alliance with the Osaka-based rightwing Japan Innovation Party, or Ishin no Kai, ensured her premiership because the opposition is not united. Takaichi’s untested alliance is still short of a majority in both houses of parliament and will need to court other opposition groups to pass any legislation – a risk that could make her government unstable and short-lived.

    “Political stability is essential right now,” Takaichi said at Monday’s signing ceremony with the JIP leader and Osaka Gov. Hirofumi Yoshimura. “Without stability, we cannot push measures for a strong economy or diplomacy.”

    The two parties signed a coalition agreement on policies underscoring Takaichi’s hawkish and nationalistic views.

    Their last-minute deal came after the Liberal Democrats lost its longtime partner, the Buddhist-backed Komeito, which has a more dovish and centrist stance. The breakup threatened a change of power for the LDP, which has governed Japan almost uninterrupted for decades.

    Later in the day, Takaichi, 64, will present a Cabinet with a number of allies of LDP’s most powerful kingmaker, Taro Aso, and others who backed her in the party leadership vote.

    JIP will not hold ministerial posts in Takaichi’s Cabinet until his party is confident about its partnership with the LDP, Yoshimura said.

    Takaichi is running on deadline — a major policy speech later this week, talks with U.S. President Donald Trump and regional summits. She needs to quickly tackle rising prices and compile economy-boosting measures by late December to address public frustration.

    While she is the first woman serving as Japan’s prime minister, she is in no rush to promote gender equality or diversity.

    Takaichi is among Japanese politicians who have stonewalled measures for women’s advancement. Takaichi supports the imperial family’s male-only succession and opposes same-sex marriage and allowing separate surnames for married couples.

    A protege of assassinated former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Takaichi is expected to emulate his policies including stronger military and economy, as well as revising Japan’s pacifist constitution. With a potentially weak grip on power, it’s unknown how much Takaichi would be able to achieve.

    When Komeito left the governing coalition, it cited the LDP’s lax response to slush fund scandals that led to their consecutive election defeats.

    The centrist party also raised concern about Takaichi’s revisionist view of Japan’s wartime past and her regular prayers at Yasukuni Shrine despite protests from Beijing and Seoul that see the visits as lack of remorse about Japanese aggression, as well as her recent xenophobic remarks.

    Takaichi has toned down her hawkish rhetorics. On Friday, she sent a religious ornament instead of going to Yasukuni.

    Source link

  • Commentary: Who’s winning the redistricting fight? Here’s how to read the polls

    Proposition 50, the California-slaps-back initiative, is cruising to a comfortable victory on Nov. 4, a slam dunk for Gov. Gavin Newsom and efforts to get even with Texas.

    Or not.

    It’s actually a highly competitive contest between those wanting to offset the GOP’s shameless power grab and opponents of Democrats’ retaliatory gerrymander — with many voters valuing California’s independent redistricting commission and still making up their minds.

    Obviously, both things can’t be true, so which is it?

    That depends on which of the polls you choose to believe.

    Political junkies, and the news outlets that service their needs, abhor a vacuum. So there’s no lack of soundings that purport to show just where Californians’ heads are at a mere six weeks before election day — which, in truth, is not all that certain.

    Newsom’s pollster issued results showing Prop. 50 winning overwhelming approval. A UC Berkeley/L.A. Times survey showed a much closer contest, with support below the vital 50% mark. Others give the measure a solid lead.

    Not all polls are created equal.

    “It really matters how a poll is done,” said Scott Keeter, a senior survey advisor at the Pew Research Center, one of the country’s top-flight polling organizations. “That’s especially true today, when response rates are so low [and] it’s so difficult to reach people, especially by telephone. You really do have to consider how it’s done, where it comes from, who did it, what their motivation is.”

    Longtime readers of this space, if any exist, know how your friendly columnist feels about horse-race polls. Our best advice remains the same it’s always been: Ignore them.

    Take a hike. Read a book. Bake a batch of muffins. Better still, take some time to educate yourself on the pros and cons of the question facing California, then make an informed decision.

    Realizing, however, the sun will keep rising and setting, that tides will ebb and flow, that pollsters and pundits will continue issuing their prognostications to an eager and ardent audience, here are some suggestions for how to assay their output.

    The most important thing to remember is that polls are not gospel truth, flawless forecasts or destiny carved in implacable stone. Even the best survey is nothing more than an educated guess at what’s likely to happen.

    That said, there are ways to evaluate the quality of surveys and determine which are best consumed with a healthy shaker of salt and which should be dismissed altogether.

    Given the opportunity, take a look at the methodology — it’s usually there in the fine print — which includes the number of people surveyed, the duration of the poll and whether interviews were done in more than one language.

    Size matters.

    “When you’re trying to contact people at random, you’re getting certain segments of the public, rather than the general population,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the nonpartisan Berkeley IGS Poll and a collaborator with The Times. “So what needs to happen in order for a survey to be representative of the overall population … you need large samples.”

    Which are expensive and the reason some polls skimp on the number of people they interview.

    The most conscientious pollsters invest considerable time and effort figuring out how to model their voter samples — that is, how to best reflect the eventual composition of the electorate. Once they finish their interviews, they weight the result to see that it includes the proper share of men and women, young and old, and other criteria based on census data.

    Then pollsters might adjust those results to match the percentage of each group they believe will turn out for a given election.

    The more people a pollster interviews, the greater the likelihood of achieving a representative sample.

    That’s why the duration of a survey is also something to consider. The longer a poll is conducted — or out in the field, as they say in the business — the greater the chances of reflecting the eventual turnout.

    It’s also important in a polyglot state like California that a poll is not conducted solely in English. To do so risks under-weighting an important part of the electorate; a lack of English fluency shouldn’t be mistaken for a lack of political engagement.

    “There’s no requirement that a person be able to speak English in order to vote,” said Keeter, of the Pew Research Center. “And in the case of some populations, particularly immigrant groups, that have been in the United States for a long time, they may be very well-established voters but still not be proficient in English to the level of being comfortable taking a survey.”

    It’s also important to know how a poll question is phrased and, in the case of a ballot measure, how it describes the matter voters are being asked to decide. How closely does the survey track the ballot language? Are there any biases introduced into the poll? (“Would you support this measure knowing its proponents abuse small animals and promote gum disease?”)

    Something else to watch for: Was the poll conducted by a political party, or for a candidate or group pushing a particular agenda? If so, be very skeptical. They have every reason to issue selective or one-sided findings.

    Transparency is key. A good pollster will show his or her work, as they used to say in the classroom. If they won’t, there’s good reason to question their findings, and well you should.

    A sensible person wouldn’t put something in their body without being 100% certain of its content. Treat your brain with the same care.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • After insurance pullback, advocates demand a ‘bill of rights’ for California policyholders

    A leading consumer group is proposing a policyholder rights initiative that would require insurers to offer coverage to California homeowners who fireproof their homes — or lose the right to sell home or auto insurance in the state for five years.

    The Insurance Policyholder Bill of Rights was filed with state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office last week by Consumer Watchdog, the Los Angeles advocacy group whose founder Harvey Rosenfield authored Proposition 103, the 1988 initiative that governs California home and auto insurance law.

    The initiative for the November 2026 ballot also would give policyholders not renewed by their insurer 180 days to make home repairs and improvements necessary for renewal if they face unavoidable permit, construction and other delays.

    “The Insurance Policyholder Bill of Rights guarantees that people who invest in wildfire mitigation get coverage and prevents companies from canceling people simply because they file a claim,” Rosenfield said in a statement.

    Insurers can seek six-month waivers of the rule in certain geographic areas but would need to show they have an overconcentration of risk there.

    The proposed initiative comes after insurers began pulling back from the California market a few years ago after a spate of wildfires and began seeking double-digit rate increases. However, it is unclear whether the group will even start gathering the 500,000-plus signatures it would need to make the ballot.

    Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, said the measure was prompted by a separate initiative filed by a Roseville, Calif., insurance broker that would repeal core reforms of Proposition 103, which established an elected insurance commissioner with the right to review requests for rate hikes before they take effect.

    The proposed initiative — called the California Insurance Market Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2026 — was filed by Elizabeth Hammack, owner of Panorama Insurance Associates. It would allow insurer rate increases to take effect prior to any rate review, though they could be suspended later if the insurance commissioner determines the market is not “reasonably competitive.”

    Additionally, insurers would have to provide premium credits to policyholders who take steps to reduce fire dangers on their property, under the measure.

    The measure also would abolish another core element of Proposition 103, by banning payments to “intervenors” such as Consumer Watchdog, which insert themselves in the rate-review process and seek to block or reduce increases — a provision that has irked the industry since its inception.

    Hammack did not immediately respond Monday to requests for comment.

    In an earlier email exchange with The Times, she said: “I drafted up the initiative and filed it out of pure frustration about the horrible California insurance market dysfunction and the feeling of just needing to do something, anything, to make a difference.”

    Balber said it requires $5.5 million to gather the required signatures for an initiative. While the group is confident it could raise the funds, she said it would not proceed with its own measure unless Hammack raises money and moves forward beyond the filing stage — or if Consumer Watchdog is swamped by donations.

    “There are hundreds, if not thousands of Californians who are fed up with the insurance industry and after the Los Angeles fires, I can guarantee you that there are people out there who would be begging to fund a ballot measure that would finally hold the insurance industry accountable,” she said.

    Proposed ballot initiatives in California must be reviewed by the attorney general, who prepares a title and brief summary. After that, proponents have 180 days to gather signatures.

    The proposed dueling ballot measures come at a time when there is widespread anger not only over rate increases, but how some insurers have handled claims stemming from the Jan. 7 Los Angeles-area fires, which destroyed thousands of homes and killed at least 19 people.

    The Eaton Fire Survivors Network in Altadena and local politicians have demanded that Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara halt anymore rate increases for State Farm General, California’s largest home insurer, unless complaints over its claims handling are resolved.

    In addition to State Farm, the state’s insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, has come under attack for denying smoke-damage claims. That prompted Gov. Newsom to send a letter this month calling on the plan to handle the claims “expeditiously and fairly.”

    The plan has taken on hundreds of thousands of policyholders in recent years as insurers began pulling out of the state’s fire-plagued homeowners market. Hammack’s initiative seeks to have the plan establish a schedule to shrink its roles when more coverage from carriers becomes available.

    Her measure also would require the California insurance commissioners to have at least five years of insurance experience, either with a regulator, insurer or in other roles, such as actuarial science.

    Times staff writer Paige St. John contributed to this report.

    Laurence Darmiento

    Source link

  • In face of extreme heat, L.A. may require landlords to keep their rentals cool

    Los Angeles landlords may soon be required to keep rental units cool — or at least make it possible for tenants to do so.

    County supervisors last month passed a law requiring landlords in unincorporated areas to provide a way to keep their rental units at 82 degrees or below. A measure introduced Wednesday in the Los Angeles City Council directs officials to draft language conforming to the same standards.

    That comes as climate change ratchets up the frequency and intensity of heat waves. Extreme heat already kills more people in the United States each year than any other weather-related event, according to the National Weather Service.

    Sustained indoor heat above 82 degrees has been linked to increased emergency-room visits, hospitalizations and deaths, according to a news release from Councilmembers Bob Blumenfield and Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the measure along with Councilmember Adrin Nazarian.

    “It’s a health issue, first and foremost,” said Nazarian, who pointed out that the effects of extreme heat fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations like those who are chronically ill. Older residents are much more susceptible to dying from heat or related complications, he said. And poorer people are more likely to live in aging buildings without duct systems or air conditioning units. “It’s critical for us to take steps so that we’re protecting our residents.”

    The California Department of Housing and Community Development earlier this year urged lawmakers to adopt the 82-degree maximum temperature threshold statewide. State law already requires rental units to include equipment that can heat the unit to at least 70 degrees.

    “Why should cooling be any different?” asked Blumenfield, who represents the hottest part of the city — his 3rd District covers much of the southwestern San Fernando Valley. Last year Woodland Hills, where Blumenfield also lives, hit 121 degrees — the highest temperature ever recorded in Los Angeles. “We always have heat strokes go up and all sorts of health related issues happen when it gets really hot,” he said.

    The intention of the proposed measure is to hew as closely to the county regulations as possible, including provisions that provide flexibility to small landlords, Blumenfield said. For instance, the county rules allow landlords who own 10 or fewer units to meet the temperature requirement for just one room until 2032. And while the law took effect this month, it won’t be enforced until 2027.

    The measure will take some time to draft and be heard by various committees but could come up for a vote before the full council in a matter of months, Blumenfield said.

    If it passes, Los Angeles would join a growing list of cities that have adopted maximum temperature thresholds for rentals. In Phoenix, units with air conditioning must be able to maintain a temperature of 82 degrees or below. In Clark County, Nev., units must be able to stay at 85 degrees or cooler. In Palm Springs, units need to have air conditioning and be able to maintain 80 degrees. Dallas requires landlords to keep buildings at least 15 degrees cooler than the outside temperature but no higher than 85 degrees, and New Orleans requires units to be able to maintain a maximum temperature of 80 degrees in all bedrooms.

    The Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles was adamantly opposed to the measure, saying it would drive up the cost of housing and ultimately lead to higher rents.

    It’s difficult to maintain a unit at 82 degrees without using an air conditioner, which can be costly to both landlords — who may need to upgrade buildings’ electrical service — and tenants, who must pay for utility bills, according to Daniel Yukelson, the group’s chief executive and executive director.

    “Any cooling device will be ineffective if too expensive to operate because renters cannot afford the electricity,” he wrote in an email. “It’s like prescribing medication with a co-pay that is too high for a patient to refill.”

    Yukelson also questioned whether the electrical grid can accommodate the additional load, saying that customers are already subjected to blackouts and brownouts during the summer.

    Nazarian and Blumenfield both pointed out that the law does not require air conditioning, and said units could be kept cool with other interventions, including cool roof technology and window tinting. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power also offers rebates to help certain customers purchase air conditioners, Nazarian said.

    Grace Hut, assistant director of policy and advocacy for tenants’ rights group Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, said her organization has spoken with many renters whose landlords have actively prohibited them from installing air conditioner units. While she understands concerns about utility prices, tenants ultimately want to be able to choose for themselves whether or not to turn on an air conditioner and shoulder the higher electricity costs, she said.

    “On extreme heat days, access to air conditioning can be a matter of life and death, and they should have the option to use it,” she said.

    The city should also dedicate resources to enforcing the temperature-threshold rules and to helping tenants afford their utility bills to lessen the burden, she added.

    “Climate change is only going to continue to exacerbate this issue so it’s really important that we take action immediately,” she said.

    Last year was the warmest on record globally, and temperatures are projected to continue to rise. In 2022, a Times investigation revealed that heat probably caused about 3,900 deaths in California over the previous decade — six times the state’s official tally — and that the undercounting has contributed to a lack of urgency in confronting the crisis.

    Times staff writer Rebecca Ellis contributed to this report

    Alex Wigglesworth

    Source link

  • How Democrats plan to reshape California’s congressional delegation and thwart Trump

    A decade and a half after California voters stripped lawmakers of the ability to draw the boundaries of congressional districts, Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democrats are pushing to take that partisan power back.

    The redistricting plan taking shape in Sacramento and headed toward voters in November could shift the Golden State’s political landscape for at least six years, if not longer. The outcome could also sway which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections, which will be pivotal to the fate of President Trump’s political agenda.

    What Golden State voters choose to do will reverberate nationwide, killing some political careers and launching others, provoking other states to reconfigure their own congressional districts and boosting Newsom’s profile as a top Trump nemesis and leader of the nation’s Democratic resistance.

    The new maps, drawn by Democratic strategists and lawmakers behind closed doors, were submitted Friday to legislative leaders by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the group that works to elect House Democrats.

    The maps are expected to appear on a Nov. 4 special election ballot, along with a constitutional amendment that would override the state’s voter-approved, independent redistricting commission.

    The changes would ripple across more than 1,000 miles of California, from the forests near the Oregon state line through the deserts of Death Valley and Palm Springs to the U.S.-Mexico border, expanding Democrats’ grip on California and further isolating Republicans.

    The proposed map would concentrate Republican voters in a handful of deep-red districts and eliminate an Inland Empire congressional seat represented by the longest-serving member of California’s GOP delegation. For Democrats, the plans would boost the fortunes of up-and-coming politicians and shore up vulnerable incumbents, including two new lawmakers who won election by fewer than 1,000 votes last fall.

    Under the proposal, Democrats could pick up five seats currently held by Republicans while bolstering vulnerable Democratic incumbent Reps. Adam Gray, Josh Harder, George Whitesides, Derek Tran and Dave Min, which would save the party millions of dollars in costly reelection fights.

    In a letter to the state Legislature, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee director Julie Merz said the map “serves the best interest of California voters, while also attempting to push back against the corrupt scheme occurring in Texas and other Republican-majority states.”

    The National Republican Congressional Committee, the group that works to elect House Republicans, said they are “prepared to fight this illegal power grab in the courts and at the ballot box to stop Newsom in his tracks.”

    “This is the final declaration of political war between California and the Trump administration,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.

    How will the ballot measure work?

    For the state to reverse the independent redistricting process that the electorate approved in 2010, a majority of California voters would have to approve the measure, which backers are calling the “Election Rigging Response Act.”

    The state Legislature, where Democrats hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, will consider the ballot language next week when lawmakers return from summer recess. Both chambers would need to pass the ballot language by a two-thirds majority and get the bill to Newsom’s desk by Aug. 22, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed.

    Approving the new map would be up to the state’s electorate, which backed independent redistricting in 2010 by more than 61%. Registered Democrats outnumber Republican voters by almost a two-to-one margin in California.

    Newsom has said that the measure would include a “trigger,” meaning the state’s maps would only take effect if a Republican state — such as Texas, Florida or Indiana — approve new mid-decade maps.

    “There’s still an exit ramp,” Newsom said. “We’re hopeful they don’t move forward.”

    Explaining the esoteric concept of redistricting and getting voters to participate in an off-year election will require that Newsom and his allies, including organized labor, launch what is expected to be an expensive campaign very quickly.

    “It’s summer in California,” Kousser said. “People are not focused on this.”

    California has no limit on campaign contributions for ballot measures, and a measure that pits Democrats against Trump, and Republicans against Newsom, could become a high-stakes, high-cost national brawl.

    “It’s tens of millions of dollars, and it’s going to be determined on the basis of what an opposition looks like as well,” Newsom said Thursday. The fundraising effort, he said, is “not insignificant… considering the 90-day sprint.”

    The ballot measure’s campaign website mentions three major funding sources thus far: Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign, the main political action committee for House Democrats in Washington, and Manhattan Beach businessman Bill Bloomfield, a longtime donor to California Democrats.

    The opposition is also expected to be well-funded. A representative of a coalition fighting the effort said that Charles Munger Jr., who bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure that created the independent commission, is committed to defending the electoral reform.

    What’s at stake?

    Control of the U.S. House of Representatives hangs in the balance.

    The party that holds the White House tends to lose House seats during the midterm election. Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, and Democrats taking control of chamber in 2026 would stymie Trump’s controversial, right-wing agenda in his final two years in office.

    Redistricting typically only happens once a decade, after the U.S. Census. But Trump has been prodding Republican states, starting with Texas, to redraw their lines in the middle of the decade to boost the GOP’s chances in the midterms.

    At Trump’s encouragement, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas congressional map to favor five more Republicans. In response, Newsom and other California Democrats have called for their own maps that would favor five more Democrats.

    Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state to deny the legislature a quorum and stop the vote. They faced daily fines, death threats and calls to be removed from office. They agreed to return to Austin after the special session ended on Friday, with one condition being that California Democrats moved forward with their redistricting plan.

    The situation has the potential to spiral into an all-out redistricting arms race, with Trump leaning on Indiana, Florida, Ohio and Missouri to redraw their maps, while Newsom is asking the same of blue states including New York and Illinois.

    California Republicans in the crosshairs

    The California gerrymandering plan targets five of California’s nine Republican members of Congress: Reps. Kevin Kiley and Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Rep. David Valadao in the Central Valley, and Reps. Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa in Southern California.

    The map consolidates Republican voters into a smaller number of ruby-red districts known as “vote sinks.” Some conservative and rural areas would be shifted into districts where Republican voters would be diluted by high voter registration advantage for Democrats.

    The biggest change would be for Calvert, who would see his Inland Empire district eliminated.

    Calvert has been in Congress since 1992 and represents a sprawling Riverside County district that includes Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Palm Springs and his home base of Corona. Calvert, who oversees defense spending on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, comfortably won reelection last year despite a well-funded national campaign by Democrats.

    Under the proposed map, the Inland Empire district would be carved up and redistributed, parceled out to a district represented by Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills). Liberal Palm Springs would be shifted into the district represented by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), which would help tilt the district from Republican to a narrowly divided swing seat.

    Members of Congress are not required to live in their districts, but there would not be an obvious seat for Calvert to run for, unless he ran against Kim or Issa.

    Leaked screenshots of the map began to circulate Friday afternoon, prompting fierce and immediate pushback from California Republicans. The lines are “third-world dictator stuff,” Orange County GOP chair Will O’Neill said on X, and the “slicing and dicing of Orange County cities is obscene.”

    In Northern California, the boundaries of Kiley’s district would shrink and dogleg into the Sacramento suburbs to add registered Democrats. Kiley said in a post on X that he expected his district to stay the same because voters would “defeat Newsom’s sham initiative and vindicate the will of California voters.”

    LaMalfa’s district would shift south, away from the rural and conservative areas along the Oregon border, and pick up more liberal areas in parts of Sonoma County. Democrat Audrey Denney, who lost to LaMalfa in 2018 and 2020, said Friday that if voters approve the new map, she would run again.

    In Central California, boundaries would shift to shore up Harder and Gray, who won election last year by 187 votes, the narrowest margin in the country.

    Valadao, a perennial target for Democrats, would see the northern boundary of his district stretch into the bluer suburbs of Fresno. Democrats have tried for years to unseat Valadao, who represents a district that has a strong Democratic voter registration advantage on paper, but where turnout among blue voters is lackluster.

    Democrats eye open seats

    Eight of the state’s 52 congressional districts would be left unchanged under the new map, including the three historic Black districts in Los Angeles and Oakland. Three districts with the highest number of Asian American voters would be preserved, while a Latino lawmaker would likely be elected from a new Los Angeles-area seat.

    That new congressional seat in Los Angeles County that would stretch through the southeast cities of Downey, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier and Lakewood. An open seat in Congress is a rare opportunity for politicians, especially in deep-blue Los Angeles County, where incumbent lawmakers can keep their jobs for decades.

    Portions of that district were once represented by retired U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, the first Mexican American woman elected to Congress. That seat was eliminated in the 2021 redistricting cycle, when California lost a congressional seat for the first time in its history.

    Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis has told members of the California Congressional delegation that she is thinking about running for the new seat.

    Another possible contender, former Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon of Lakewood, launched a campaign for state superintendent of schools in late July and said he is not interested in vying to represent the new district.

    Other lawmakers who represent the area or areas nearby include State Sen. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), state Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and state Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier).

    In Northern California, the southern tip of LaMalfa’s district would stretch south into the Sonoma County cities of Santa Rosa and Healdsberg, home to Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire. McGuire will be termed out of the state Senate next year, and the new seat might present a prime opportunity for him to go to Washington.

    Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

    Laura J. Nelson, Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Newsom calls for special November election to block Trump from ‘rigging’ 2026 midterms

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic lawmakers and their allies on Thursday launched a special election campaign urging California voters to approve new congressional districts to shrink the state’s Republican delegation, a move that could determine control of Congress next year and stymie President Trump’s agenda.

    The special election effort is a response to Republican-led states, notably Texas, pushing at Trump’s behest to redraw their congressional maps to favor Republicans and reduce the number of Democrats in the narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives.

    • Share via

    Speaking to a fired-up partisan crowd at the Japanese American National Museum in downtown Los Angeles, Newsom described the effort by Republicans as a desperate effort by a failed president to hold on to power by keeping Congress under his control.

    “He doesn’t play by a different set of rules — he doesn’t believe in the rules,” Newsom said. “And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It’s not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we have got to meet fire with fire.”

    The governor was joined by California’s U.S. senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff; Southern California’s Democrats in Congress, and union leaders who would provide the funding and volunteers for the campaign.

    The ballot measure, the “Election Rigging Response Act,” would temporarily scrap the congressional districts enacted by the state’s voter-approved independent redistricting commission.

    “We are ready to do whatever it takes to stop this power grab and fight back against any and all attacks on our democracy, on our students and on public education,” said Erika Jones, secretary-treasurer of the California Teachers Assn., which represents 310,000 public school teachers.

    The gerrymandering plan in California could increase the Democratic Party’s dominance in the state by making five House districts more favorable to Democrats, according to a draft map reviewed by The Times. Those changes could reduce by more than half the number of Republicans representing California in Congress.

    Outside the rally, which took place on a historic site where Japanese American families boarded buses to incarceration camps during World War II, Border Patrol agents gathered and arrested at least one person. Newsom told the crowd inside that he doubted it was a coincidence.

    Republicans criticized Newsom’s effort as antidemocratic and a thinly veiled attempt to boost a future presidential campaign.

    The ballot measure, said Christian Martinez, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, is about “consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream.”

    For Newsom’s plan to work, the Democratic-led state Legislature must vote to place the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot. The final decision would be up to California voters.

    California should not “stoop to the same tactics as Texas,” said Amy Thoma, spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, which includes Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire who bankrolled the ballot measure that created the independent commission.

    “Two wrongs do not make a right, and California shouldn’t stoop to the same tactics as Texas. Instead, We should push other states to adopt our independent, nonpartisan commission model across the country,” Thoma said. She said Munger will vigorously oppose any proposal to circumvent the independent commission.

    Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed independent redistricting in California and around the country, “believes that the politicians in Texas are ripping off the people with their gerrymander and that California’s best way to respond is by standing with the people, not by stooping to their level and rigging our system against the voters,” said his spokesperson, Daniel Ketchell.

    Since voters approved independent congressional redistricting in 2010, California’s districts have been drawn once per decade, after the U.S. census, by a panel split between registered Democrats, registered Republicans and voters without a party preference.

    The commission is not allowed to consider the partisan makeup of the districts, nor protecting incumbents, but instead looks at “communities of interest,” logical geographical boundaries and the Voting Rights Act.

    The current map was drawn in 2021 and went into effect for the 2022 election.

    Newsom is pushing to suspend those district lines and put a new map tailored to favor Democrats in front of voters on Nov. 4. That plan, he has said, would have a “trigger,” meaning a redrawn map would not take effect unless Texas or another GOP-led state moved forward with its own.

    Sara Sadhwani, who served on the redistricting commission that approved the current congressional boundaries, said that while she is deeply proud of the work she and her colleagues completed, she approved of Newsom’s effort because of unprecedented threats to democracy.

    “Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures,” Sadhwani said, citing the immigration raids, the encouragement of political violence and the use of National Guard troops in American cities. “And if that wasn’t enough, we are watching executive overreach that no doubt is making our Founding Fathers turn in their graves. … These are the hallmarks of a democracy in peril.”

    If voters approved the ballot measure, the new maps would be in effect for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, until the independent commission redraws the congressional boundaries in 2031.

    To meet Newsom’s ambitious deadline, the Legislature would need to pass the ballot language by a two-thirds majority and send it to Newsom’s desk by Aug. 22. The governor’s office and legislative leaders are confident in their ability to meet this threshold in the state Assembly and Senate, where Democrats have a supermajority.

    Newsom first mentioned the idea in mid-July, meaning the whole process could be done in about five weeks. Generally, redrawing the state’s electoral lines and certifying a measure to appear before voters on the ballot are processes that take months, if not more than a year.

    In California, the gerrymandering plan taking shape behind closed doors would increase the Democratic Party’s dominance in the state by making five House districts more favorable to Democrats, according to a draft map reviewed by The Times.

    Those changes could reduce by more than half the number of Republicans representing California in Congress. California has the nation’s largest congressional delegation, with 52 members. Nine are Republicans.

    In the plans under discussion, a Northern California district represented by Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) could shift to the south, shedding rural, conservative voters near the Oregon border and picking up left-leaning cities in Sonoma County. Sacramento-area Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) would see his district shift toward the bluer center of the city.

    The plan would also add more Democrats to the Central Valley district represented by Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), who has been a perennial target for Democrats.

    Southern California would see some of the biggest changes: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) would see his safely Republican district in San Diego County become more purple through the addition of liberal Palm Springs. And Reps. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) and Ken Calvert (R-Corona) would be drawn into the same district, which could force the lawmakers to run against each other.

    The plan would also shore up Democrats who represent swing districts, such as Reps. Dave Min (D-Irvine) and Derek Tran (D-Orange).

    It could also add another district in southeast Los Angeles County, in the area that elected the first Latino member of Congress from California in modern history. A similar seat was eliminated during the 2021 redistricting.

    Trump’s prodding of Texas Republicans to redraw their maps has kicked off redistricting battles across the nation. That includes Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Missouri, where Republicans control the statehouse, and New York, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington, where Democrats are in power.

    Democratic lawmakers in Texas fled the state to block the Republican-led Legislature from approving a new map, preventing it from reaching the quorum necessary to approve the measure.

    A second special session is expected to begin Friday. The absent lawmakers are facing threats of fines, civil arrest warrants and calls for being removed from office.

    Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

    Seema Mehta, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • Powerful labor coalition backs redrawing California’s congressional map in fight with Texas and Trump

    One of California’s most influential labor organizations endorsed redrawing the state’s congressional maps to counter President Trump’s effort to push Republican states, notably Texas, to increase his party’s numbers in Congress in next year’s midterm election.

    The California Federation of Labor Unions voted unanimously Tuesday to support putting a measure on the ballot in November. The proposal, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and many of the state’s Democratic leaders, would ask voters to temporarily change congressional district boundaries that were drawn by an independent redistricting commission four years ago, with some conditions.

    Republicans could potentially lose up to a half dozen seats in California’s 52-member delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. After it returns for its summer recess on Aug. 18, the California Legislature is expected to vote to place the measure on the statewide ballot in a special election.

    “President Trump has said that Republicans are ‘entitled’ to five more congressional votes in Texas. Well, they aren’t entitled to steal the 2026 election. California’s unions refuse to stand by as democracy is tested,” Lorena Gonzalez, president of the federation, said in a statement. “California Labor is unified in our resolve to fight back against President Trump’s anti-worker agenda.”

    Redistricting — the esoteric redrawing of the nation’s 435 congressional districts — typically occurs once every decade after the U.S. census tallies the population across the nation. Population shifts can result in changes in a state’s allocation of congressional seats, such as when California lost a seat after the 2020 census the first time in the state’s history.

    The political redistricting process had long been crafted by elected officials to give their political parties an edge or to protect incumbents — sometimes in brazen, bizarrely shaped districts. Californians voted in 2010 to create an independent commission to draw congressional maps based on communities of interest, logical geography and ensuring representation of minority communities.

    The ballot measure being pushed by Newsom and others would allow state lawmakers to help determine district boundaries for the next three election cycles if Texas approves a pending measure to reconfigure districts to increase Republican-held congressional seats in that state. Line-drawing would return to the independent commission after the 2030 census.

    The California Federation of Labor is committed to spending several million dollars supporting a mid-decade redistricting ballot measure, on top of what it already planned to spend on competitive congressional races next year, according to a person familiar with the plans who asked for anonymity to speak candidly about the strategy.

    A spokesperson for several organizations devoted to fighting any effort to change the state’s redistricting process said that Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire, and who bankrolled the ballot measure to create the independent commission, is committed to making sure it is not weakened.

    “While Charles Munger has been out of politics since 2016, he has said he will vigorously defend the reforms he helped pass, including nonpartisan redistricting,” said Amy Thoma, spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition. “His previous success in passing ballot measures in California means he knows exactly what is needed to be successful. We will have the resources necessary to make our coalition heard.”

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Teens 16 and 17 get to vote in two Alameda County school board races

    Teens 16 and 17 get to vote in two Alameda County school board races

    Candidates seeking to lead the Oakland Unified School District faced a barrage of tough questions one recent evening — an interrogation led by an enthusiastic group of new voters suddenly endowed with political power: 16- and 17-year-old high school students.

    In a first for California, teens in two Alameda County school districts, Berkeley and Oakland, were granted suffrage in school board races for the first time this November.

    About 1,000 Oakland students had registered as of Oct. 22. And to court their newest and youngest constituents, several Oakland candidates assembled before a packed auditorium in East Oakland for a grilling.

    “What ideas do you bring to the table to improve school safety for the schools in your district?” Ojiugo Egeonu, 16, a junior at Oakland Technical High School, asked the candidates. There had already been “several school shootings in the last year” on high school campuses, she added. Fremont High School, the site of the Oct. 22 candidate forum, was placed on lockdown in 2023 after two people were shot near campus.

    The school board candidates tried to reassure the students, saying they were committed to improving safety, while also protecting students’ rights. The district’s newest voters listened carefully.

    In a district facing a massive budget crisis and often abysmal test scores, students also had questions about school funding, campus safety, mental health, and college and career preparation support.

    Many students said it was about time school board candidates played more heed to them.

    “We’re not at the kids’ table anymore,” Maximus Simmons, a junior at Oakland High, said. “This is the first time young people have had a real voice in school board elections in a major city. This is only the beginning.”

    Across the country, a few small cities have made it possible for young people to cast votes in local elections.

    The first place in California to authorize youth suffrage was Berkeley, where in 2016 more than 70% of voters approved a measure allowing students to have a voice in school board races.

    Voters in Oakland followed suit in 2020 with Measure QQ. But because it took several years to work out the mechanics, officials said, youth voting will happen for the first time in both cities this month.

    “This has never been done before in California, and we had to make sure that it was done properly,” Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis said in a statement.

    The push is expanding to more cities. In the Bay Area, voters in Albany will vote Tuesday on a measure to grant suffrage to 16- and 17-year-olds. In Southern California, Culver City voters narrowly defeated a similar measure in 2022, while San Francisco voters also shot down such measures in 2016 and 2020.

    Sixteen- and 17- year-olds must register to vote and are sent a ballot with only the school board candidates in their district, preventing them from voting in other races.

    At the candidates’ forum at Fremont High, school board candidates took notice of their newest constituency. Seven of the eight candidates running for four open seats in Oakland attended.

    “I’m here to listen to all of you, because that is what you deserve,” Ben Salop, 20, a 2022 graduate of Oakland Technical High School, told the students. “Let’s make Oakland a truly student-led district.”

    “It’s a big deal that 16- and 17-year-olds can vote in Oakland and Berkeley school board elections, as they now influence who represents their interests,” said Laura Wray-Lake, a professor of social welfare at UCLA, who has conducted research on youth civic engagement. She emphasized that these students see school inequities firsthand and will likely vote for candidates prioritizing equity and student support, and who will “listen to their views.”

    Oakland and Berkeley could set an example for other cities, she said, by showing young people can vote responsibly. As the largest, most diverse city with a lower voting age, she says that Oakland may inspire similar movements in other cities like Newark, N.J., and a youth-led movement in Minnesota aiming to lower the voting age for school board elections.

    The Oakland district, which enrolls about 34,000 students, many of whom live in poverty, has been plagued by troubles in recent years. It faces a $95-million budget gap, shrinking enrollment, and has closed campuses amid allegations that it is failing students. It has also struggled with low test scores, particularly among Black and Latino students.

    “We started this movement because we saw our school board directors making decisions without considering student perspectives,” said Natalie Gallegos Chavez, a sophomore at UC Berkeley who was a student at Oakland High School when she first became involved in the Oakland Youth Vote Coalition at its inception in 2019.

    Gallegos said that the movement to implement Measure QQ was inspired by the school program closures, which she viewed as against the interests of students. In 2019, the Oakland School Board cut $20.2 million from its budget, including 100 jobs and several schools.

    Many students said the chance to vote on school board races has made them more engaged in politics in general.

    “I became more interested once I knew we actually might have an opportunity to have our voices be heard,” said Anne Diby, 16, a junior at Skyline High School in Oakland. “It’s opened my eyes to how government decisions are being viewed by youth.”

    Diby’s classmate Autumn Weems, 16, added that the ability to vote has motivated her to become more informed about the issues affecting her school. “We basically are now put in a position to control our education, which is something we should have been able to do in the first place,” she said.

    Tommy Lemasney, center, and other students celebrate their ability to vote in school board elections.

    (Meg Tanaka / For The Times)

    Tommy Lemasney, 17, a senior at Skyline, said voting has made him more aware of the need for youth voices to be heard in politics.

    “I want students to have more of a say, not just adults who think they know everything,” Lemasney said. “Youth voices should be heard, especially when it comes to who represents us.”

    At the event at Fremont High, many candidates rushed to agree with the students on the value of youth voting.

    Candidate Dwayne Aikens Jr. told the students he had grown up in poverty and as a victim of gun violence in Oakland. He was running to improve schools, he said, and also to “put hope and aspiration on the ballot.”

    VanCedric Williams, who is running for reelection against Aikens, encouraged students to remain vocal and continue to push for student involvement in budgeting decisions.

    “We’re gonna need to hear your voice,” he said. In response, the students showered him with loud snaps of approval and applause.

    Tanaka is a special correspondent.

    Meg Tanaka

    Source link

  • Silicon Valley billionaires put plans for new California city on hold

    Silicon Valley billionaires put plans for new California city on hold

    The tech billionaires backing a proposal to raise a brand-new city on the rolling prairie northeast of San Francisco Bay have agreed to pull their measure off the November ballot and will first fund a full environmental review of the project, officials announced Monday.

    The pause — announced in a joint statement from a Solano County supervisor and the chief executive of California Forever, the group backing the development — marks a dramatic shift in what had been a relentless push to build a city from scratch in rural Solano County. Until recently, California Forever, whose roster includes tech giants such as LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, appeared set on taking the proposal directly to local voters this fall.

    In June, after the group spent millions of dollars on a signature-gathering campaign, the county registrar announced the measure had qualified for the November ballot, despite opposition from many local elected officials. At the time, Jan Sramek, the former Goldman Sachs trader who is leading the effort, said the measure was nothing less than “a referendum on what do we want the future of California to be.”

    Jan Sramek, chief executive of California Forever, stressed that his investment group remains committed to the project.

    (Janie Har / Associated Press)

    Then, on Monday morning, an about-face: California Forever announced it would withdraw the measure. Instead, the group will follow the normal county process for zoning changes for the nearly 18,000-acre swath of land proposed for development. That includes funding a full environmental impact review and reimbursing the county for staff time and consultants related to the venture, according to the joint statement issued by Sramek and Mitch Mashburn, chair of the Solano County Board of Supervisors.

    While “the need for more affordable housing and good paying jobs has merit, the timing has been unrealistic,” Mashburn said in the statement. California Forever’s rush to the ballot without an environmental review and negotiated development agreement “was a mistake,” he added. “This politicized the entire project, made it difficult for us and our staff to work with them, and forced everyone in our community to take sides.”

    In his portion of the statement, Sramek, chief executive of California Forever, stressed that his investment group remains committed to the project and feels an urgency to get it done. “For every year we delay, thousands of Solano parents miss more mornings, recitals and bedtime stories because they’re commuting two hours for work. They cannot get those magical moments back.”

    “We want to show that it’s possible to move faster in California,” Sramek said. “But we recognize now that it’s possible to reorder these steps without impacting our ambitious timeline.”

    He said his group would work with the county to complete an environmental review and development agreement over the next two years, then bring the package back to local voters for approval in 2026.

    In an interview with The Times, Sramek said the decision to pull the ballot measure was made after it became clear that Solano County residents wanted a thorough environmental review process. He said he was confident the decision to “invert the order of the steps” — putting the environmental review and development agreement before taking the question to voters — would lead to a better outcome.

    A farm building and RVs near Rio Vista, Calif.

    Proponents of the project used an LLC to buy up land from farmers in a vast swath of the county, stretching from Rio Vista (pictured) to the west, without telling anyone why.

    (Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)

    “It’s not going to affect the timeline,” he said. “In fact, it might accelerate it.”

    The shift also gives California Forever time to reset with local residents after the group’s rocky introduction to Solano County politics.

    The effort, launched under a cloak of secrecy, became ensnared in controversy last year amid unfounded speculation that the land buyers were foreign agents intent on espionage.

    That’s because for years before proponents revealed their plans, they used a limited liability company called Flannery Associates to buy up land from farmers in a vast swath of the county, stretching from Rio Vista west toward Travis Air Force Base, without telling anyone why. News of the mysterious land sales, in an area so close to a crucial military installation, led some people to speculate it might be part of an effort by foreign spies to gain military secrets.

    Last year, it was revealed instead as a bold plan to build a model city from the ground up and reinvent how housing is built in California.

    In January, Sramek unveiled blueprints of the new community that call for tens of thousands of homes surrounded by open space and trails. California Forever showcased the community’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area, vowing the project would convert unused farmland into “middle-class neighborhoods with homes we can afford.” The city would be walkable, socioeconomically integrated and fueled by clean energy.

    But the proposal garnered fierce early opposition from some local leaders, concerned the group was making an end run around the planning process, as well as environmental groups concerned about the loss of natural habitat.

    Mashburn said his agreement with Sramek came after tough conversations about how the process had gone so far.

    “We talked about Solano County, and we talked about the initiative, and we talked about the future, and the way things were going to look, and the processes that we would have to go through, and whether we wanted to do that amicably and have a county where neighbors weren’t fighting with neighbors,” Mashburn said.

    Cattle graze on a hillside near wind turbines.

    In an aerial photo, cattle graze near wind farms in rural Solano County.

    (Terry Chea / Associated Press)

    “Much to his credit and to their credit, they agreed with that. That’s not an easy thing to do, for a leader to admit that you may have been wrong about something.”

    The decision to pull the ballot measure came a day before the Board of Supervisors was scheduled to discuss a consultant’s report, commissioned by the county, on the potential fiscal impacts of the development and to vote on whether to put the initiative before voters in November.

    The report, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services in Walnut Creek, questioned the financial viability of the proposed new city and predicted construction challenges that could lead to hefty deficits for the county. It estimated the price tag for constructing schools, roads, sewer systems and other infrastructure to support the new community at tens of billions of dollars.

    In announcing the new timeline, Mashburn issued a challenge to the California Forever investors, calling on them to show how they would provide water, solve transportation challenges and navigate the “financial engineering that makes it possible to pay for billions of dollars of infrastructure” without increasing taxes.

    Asked if he believed Sramek and his backers would eventually build their dream city in his county, Mashburn said he was skeptical it would turn out exactly as the tech titans envisioned.

    “We’re starting over from scratch,” he said. “There are some incredible obstacles that have to be overcome.”

    Jessica Garrison, Hannah Wiley

    Source link

  • Lawsuit Seeks To Block Washington Parental Rights Law That Critics Call A ‘Forced Outing’ Measure – KXL

    Lawsuit Seeks To Block Washington Parental Rights Law That Critics Call A ‘Forced Outing’ Measure – KXL

    SEATTLE (AP) — A school district, a nurse, and civil rights and youth services organizations sued Thursday to block a new Washington state parental rights law that critics describe as a “forced outing” measure.

    A conservative megadonor backed the law, which is set to take effect in June. The Democratic-led Legislature overwhelmingly approved it, with progressive lawmakers wanting to keep it off the fall ballot while calculating that courts would likely block it.

    Known as Initiative 2081, the law requires schools to notify parents in advance of medical services offered to their child, except in emergencies, and of medical treatment arranged by the school resulting in follow-up care beyond normal hours. It grants parents the right to review their child’s medical and counseling records and expands cases where parents can opt their child out of sex education.

    That could jeopardize students who go to school clinics seeking access to birth control, referrals for reproductive services, counseling related to their gender identity or sexual orientation, or treatment or support for sexual assault or domestic violence without their parents knowing, critics say.

    The fight is the latest iteration of a long-running, nationwide battle over how much say parents have in the schooling of their children. Many parents have joined a conservative movement pushing states to give them more oversight of schools, including over library books and course material, transgender students’ use of school bathrooms, and the instruction of topics related to race, sexual orientation and gender identity.

    Most of the rights Initiative 2081 granted to parents were already covered by state or federal law, but in some cases it expanded them.

    Minors do not need parental permission to get an abortion in Washington, and state law gives those 14 and older the right to get tested or treated for sexually transmitted diseases without their parents’ consent. Those 13 and older have the right to outpatient behavioral health treatment.

    “Initiative 2081 is a forced outing law that will harm LGBTQ+ students if implemented in our schools,” Denise Diskin, an attorney for QLaw Foundation, said in a written statement. “LGBTQ+ students seek out safe and trusted school staff when they don’t have a supportive home, and the affirmation they receive can be life-saving.”

    Brian Heywood, a conservative hedge fund manager who finances the Let’s Go Washington political action committee, said the lawsuit seeks to “trample the rights of parents.” The measure, he said, isn’t designed to give parents veto power over their child’s decision to access counseling or medical treatment: “It’s just saying they have a right to know.”

    “The lawsuit is a frivolous but not surprising attempt to legislate through lawsuit rather than through the democratic process,” he said.

    He also noted that schools would not be required to turn over medical records to parents who are under investigation for child abuse or neglect.

    In Washington, citizen initiatives that garner enough signatures can be directed to the Legislature. Lawmakers can then pass them, let voters decide or offer voters an alternative measure. Heywood’s group pushed six initiatives this year, including ones that would overturn the state’s capital gains tax and its climate law, which established a “cap and invest” carbon market.

    Democrats in the Legislature passed three of Heywood’s measures, giving themselves a better chance to focus on defeating the three they considered most objectionable at the ballot box this fall.

    Those challenging the law object to it on the merits. But one of their attorneys, Adrien Leavitt of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, said the crux of the lawsuit rests on a procedural matter. The Washington Constitution requires that new laws not revise or revoke old laws without explicitly saying so, but Leavitt said this initiative does so in several cases.

    For example, state law ensures the privacy of medical records for young people authorized to receive care without parental consent. The measure would give parents the right to be notified before their child receives care and the ability to review school medical records, Leavitt said, but it does not specifically say that it amends the existing privacy law.

    One of the plaintiffs, the South Whidbey School District, on Whidbey Island north of Seattle, said in a resolution adopted by the school board Wednesday that the law “negatively affects the rights of youth in Washington state, including LGBTQ+ youth, youth of color, youth survivors of sexual and domestic violence, and youth seeking reproductive health care and gender affirming care.”

    Others who brought the lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court include an unnamed Seattle parent of a nonbinary child; Kari Lombard, a psychiatric nurse-practitioner and former West Seattle High School nurse; and several organizations dedicated to the rights of LGBTQ+ or young people.

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • The Narcissistic Culture of “Image” and Excessive Self-Monitoring

    The Narcissistic Culture of “Image” and Excessive Self-Monitoring

    In a world obsessed with public image and attention-seeking, learn about the cultural forces propelling society to become more narcissistic – and how this influences us to be in a constant state of self-scrutiny.



    The idea that our culture is becoming more narcissistic and self-centered is not new.

    Historian and social critic Christopher Lasch’s book The Culture of Narcissism was first published in 1979. By that time, the 1970s were already dubbed the “Me-generation.” Americans were increasingly shifting focus to concepts like “self-liberation,” “self-expression,” and “self-actualization,” while untethering themselves from past traditions and social responsibilities.

    Interestingly, Lasch traces the narcissistic roots in America back way further, starting with the early days of the Protestant work ethic and its singular focus on labor, money, and wealth-building, including the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mantra.

    This early thread of American hyper-individualism continues into the New Age movement at the turn of the 20th century with its focus on personal happiness and spiritual fulfillment, as well as the popularity of Ayn Rand’s “virtue of selfishness,” and the rise of celebrity-worship and fame-seeking that still characterizes much of American life today whether it be in politics, sports, art, or entertainment.

    Things appear to be getting worse. The book was written over 40 years ago, but a lot of the observations in it seem strangely prophetic when looking at the world today. Lasch accurately describes how narcissistic trends have evolved on a societal and cultural level, and you can perfectly extend his theories to explain our modern culture.

    Before you continue reading, remember this is a cultural analysis of narcissistic tendencies and it isn’t focused on clinical or psychological definitions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

    Many people act more narcissistic because that’s what our society rewards and that’s how people think they need to act to get ahead in today’s world.

    One can even look at certain narcissistic tendencies as a survival strategy in an otherwise competitive, atomized, isolated – “every man for himself” – world.

    Now let’s dive into how our modern culture amplifies and rewards narcissism.

    The narcissist craves an audience

    First, the most defining characteristic of a narcissist is that they depend on the attention and validation of others to feel good about themselves.

    Contrary to the popular myth that the narcissist suffers from excessive self-love, the truth is they are deeply insecure and lack true confidence and self-esteem. The main reason they brag, show off, or puff-up-their-chests is only to appear strong when deep down they feel weak.

    As a result the narcissist is obsessed with their image and appearance. They feel they need to “win people over” to be accepted and liked by others, and this requires a carefully manufactured persona they create for the public.

    This deeply rooted “need for attention” plays a central theme in Lasch’s analysis:

      “Narcissism represents a psychological dimension of dependence. Notwithstanding his occasional illusions of omnipotence, the narcissist depends on others to validate his self-esteem. He cannot live without an admiring audience. His apparent freedom from family ties and institutional constraints does not free him to stand alone or to glory in his individuality. On the contrary, it contributes to his insecurity, which he can overcome only by seeing his ‘grandiose self’ reflected in the attention of others, or by attaching himself to those who radiate celebrity, power, and charisma.”

    Without an audience to appreciate them, the narcissist struggles to find their self-worth. They don’t believe in themselves – they need “proof” they are a good or important person through the eyes of others.

    To the narcissist, any attention is better than none at all; even negative attention like gossip, drama, and criticism feeds into their egos by letting them know they are still front and center.

    In a society that rewards attention for the sake of attention (including fame and notoriety), the narcissist grows and thrives. Who knows, that next scandal with a famous celebrity may be their big breakthrough – whatever gets them into the limelight!

    Image-centrism: The society of the spectacle

    One major contributor to the rise of narcissistic tendencies is that our culture is becoming more image-centric.

    Popular ideas on what true “happiness,” “success,” “fame,” “beauty,” and “achievement” look like are based on outward images and appearances increasingly fed into our culture through photographs, movies, television, and advertising:

      “[One] influence is the mechanical reproduction of culture, the proliferation of visual and audial images in the ‘society of the spectacle.’ We live in a swirl of images and echoes that arrest experience and play it back in slow motion. Cameras and recording machines not only transcribe experience but alter its quality, giving to much of modern life the character of an enormous echo chamber, a hall of mirrors. Life presents itself as a succession of images or electronic signals, of impressions recorded and reproduced by means of photography, motion pictures, television, and sophisticated recording devices.”

    This book was written before the internet and social media which have only increased our “image-centrism” tenfold. Selfies, avatars, memes, filters, photoshop, and AI have all continued to add more layers to this hyper-reality between manipulated images and how we choose to present ourselves.

    This constant barrage of cultural images shapes our beliefs and map of reality. It subconsciously puts ideas in our heads about what “happiness,” “success,” and “beauty” are supposed to look like.

    Once these social images are set in our minds, we naturally feel the desire to live up to them.

    Narcissists can often be the most sensitive to these social images because they fear their true self isn’t good enough, so they take society’s picture of “success” and try to mirror that image back to others.

    On the surface, the narcissist is a crowd-pleaser. They don’t trust their own judgement, so if society says this is what “happiness” or “success” looks like, then they will try to mimic it the best they can.

    Everyone has an audience now

    Technology, internet, social media, cameras, and recording devices have created a world where everyone feels like they have an audience all-the-time.

    Family photo albums and home videos were early stages in turning “private moments” into “public consumption,” but now we have people over-sharing every meal, date, and shopping spree on their social media feeds.

    Lasch correctly identifies this trend back in the 1960s-70s, including a mention of the popular show Candid Camera, which was one of the first “hidden camera” TV shows:

      “Modern life is so thoroughly mediated by electronic images that we cannot help responding to others as if their actions – and our own – were being recorded and simultaneously transmitted to an unseen audience or stored up for close scrutiny at some later time. ‘Smile you’re on candid camera!’ The intrusion into everyday life of this all-seeing eye no longer takes us by surprise or catches us with our defenses down. We need no reminder to smile, a smile is permanently graven on our features, and we already know from which of several angles it photographs to best advantage.”

    Life is recorded and shared now more than ever before. Today everyone has an audience and many people can’t help but see themselves as the “main character” of their own carefully edited movie.

    Unfortunately, we have this audience whether we like it or not. Every time we are out in public, someone may whip out their phones, capture an embarrassing moment, and upload it to the internet for millions to watch. You never know when you may go “viral” for the wrong reasons. The rise of online shaming, doxing, and harassment puts people in a perpetual state of high alert.

    That’s a stressful thought, but it perfectly represents this state of hyper-surveillance we are all in, where there’s always a potential audience and you feel constant pressure to showcase the “best version of yourself” in every waking moment, because you never know who is watching.

    Self-image and excessive self-monitoring

    In a world that rewards people solely based on the “image” they present, we naturally become more self-conscious of the image we are projecting to others.

    This leads to a state of endless self-monitoring and self-surveillance. We see ourselves through the eyes of others and try to fit their image of what we are supposed to be. No matter what we choose to do with our lives, the most pressing questions become, “How will this make me look?” or “What will people think of me?”

    While people naturally want to present themselves in the best way possible and form strong first impressions, an excessive degree of self-filtering and self-management can cause us to lose our sense of identity for the sake of superficial acceptance, internet fame, or corporate climbing.

    At worst, we increasingly depend on this these manufactured images to understand ourselves and reality:

      “The proliferation of recorded images undermines our sense of reality. As Susan Sontag observes in her study of photography, ‘Reality has come to seem more and more like what we are shown by cameras.’ We distrust our perceptions until the camera verifies them. Photographic images provide us with the proof of our existence, without which we would find it difficult even to reconstruct a personal history…

      Among the ‘many narcissistic uses’ that Sontag attributes to the camera, ‘’self-surveillance’ ranks among the most important, not only because it provides the technical means of ceaseless self-scrutiny but because it renders the sense of selfhood dependent on the consumption of images of the self, at the same time calling into question the reality of the external world.”

    If you didn’t share your meal on social media, did you really eat it? If you didn’t update your relationship status online, are you really dating someone?

    For many people, the internet world has become “more real” than the real world. People don’t go out and do adventurous things to live their lives, but to “create content” for their following.

    Who looks like their living their best life? Who is experiencing the most FOMO on the internet? In a narcissistic world, we start seeing our “digital self” in competition with everyone else – and the only thing that matters is that it looks like we are having a good time.

    More and more, we consume and understand ourselves through these technologies and images. We depend on photo galleries, reel clips, and social media posts to chronicle our life story and present the best version of ourselves to the world. If the internet didn’t exist, then neither would we.

    In the sci-fi movie The Final Cut people have their entire lives recorded through their eyes; then after they die, their happy memories are spliced together to give a “final edit” of the person’s life. Many of us are perpetually scrutinizing and editing this “final cut” of our own lives.

    The invention of new insecurities

    Everything is being observed, recorded, and measured, so we have more tools than ever to compare ourselves against others.

    This leads to the invention of all types of new insecurities. We are more aware of the ways we’re different from others, whether it’s our jobs, homes, relationships, health, appearances, or lifestyles. We can always find new ways we don’t “measure up” to the ideal.

    New technologies create new ways to compare. Before you know it, you have people in heated competitions over who can do the most steps on their Fitbit, or consume the least amount of calories in a week, or receives the most likes on their gym posts. The internet becomes a never-ending competition.

    Of course, measuring your progress can be a valuable tool for motivation and reaching goals. The problem is when we use these numbers to measure up against others vs. measure up against our past self. Always remember that everyone is on a completely different path.

    It’s well-known that social comparison is one of the ultimate traps when it comes to happiness and well-being. You’ll always be able to find someone who has it better than you in some area of life, and with the internet that’s usually an easy search.

    These endless comparisons touch on all aspects of life and heighten self-scrutiny and self-criticism. Finding and dwelling on even “minor differences” can spiral into a cycle of self-pity and self-hate. If we don’t remove ourselves from these comparisons, then we have no choice but to try to live up to them and beat ourselves up when we fail.

    Conclusion

    The goal of this article was to describe some of the key forces that are making society more narcissistic and self-centered.

    Different cultural beliefs and attitudes incentive certain personality traits over others. Our current world seems to continue moving down a more narcissistic path, especially with the increased focus on “image” (or “personal brand”) that we build for ourselves through the internet and social media.

    Most of the ideas in this article are based on the book The Culture of Narcissism which, despite being written over 40 years, is an insightful look into how these social forces continue to grow and evolve.

    Do you feel like our current society is getting more narcissistic? How have these social forces influenced the way you live?


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • 'Repugnant': Federal judge blocks new California law that would bar guns in many public places

    'Repugnant': Federal judge blocks new California law that would bar guns in many public places

    A new California law that would bar licensed gun holders from carrying their firearms into an array of public places will not go into full effect on Jan. 1 as scheduled, after a federal judge blocked major parts of it as unconstitutional Wednesday.

    The law, Senate Bill 2, was part of a slate of new gun control measures passed this year by California Democrats in response to two things: a sweeping U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reined in gun control measures nationally last year, and several high-profile mass shootings in the state earlier this year — including in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park.

    In his decision to block the law Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote that the law’s “coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed the bill into law and has called for tougher gun restrictions in the state and at the national level, immediately swung back with his own statement in defense of the measure.

    “Defying common sense, this ruling outrageously calls California’s data-backed gun safety efforts ‘repugnant,’” Newsom said. “What is repugnant is this ruling, which greenlights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds — spaces which should be safe for all.”

    The law would have precluded licensed gun carriers from having their guns on public transportation, at public gatherings and special events, in parks and at playgrounds, in stadiums and arenas and casinos, in medical facilities, religious institutions or financial institutions, anywhere where liquor is sold and consumed, in all other private commercial spaces where the owner has not explicitly posted a sign to the contrary, and in many parking areas, among other places.

    Democrats had championed the law as a workaround to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen last year, which held that sweeping restrictions on licensed gun holders to carry their weapons in public were unconstitutional, in part because they stripped those people of their constitutional right to self-defense.

    The Bruen decision made certain exceptions, including for bans on guns in certain “sensitive places” that had historically been protected from gun holders — such as in schools and courtrooms. State Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) introduced SB2 as a means of extending the list of “sensitive places” under California law.

    The law was to apply to concealed-carry permit holders in major metropolitan centers such as Los Angeles but also to open-carry permit holders in rural, less populated parts of the country.

    In his ruling Wednesday, Carney, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the new law went too far — as the “sensitive places” exception cited by the Supreme Court had to do with relatively few, historically restricted places, not most public spaces in society.

    He said an injunction against the law taking effect as litigation in the case continues was warranted because those suing the state over the measure are likely to win their case and would suffer “irreparable harm” if they weren’t allowed to carry their firearms in the meantime.

    Carney also said that focusing new gun restrictions on people who have permits to carry guns in the state made little sense from his perspective.

    “Although the government may have some valid safety concerns, legislation regulating [concealed carry] permitholders — the most responsible of law abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights — seems an odd and misguided place to focus to address those safety concerns,” Carney wrote.

    “They have been through a vigorous vetting and training process following their application to carry a concealed handgun,” he wrote. “The challenged SB2 provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.”

    Carney’s order applies to the “sensitive places” restrictions of SB2 and does not apply to other parts of the new law that have to do with permitting rules.

    Chuck Michel, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued the state to block the measure, praised Carney’s ruling.

    “California anti-gun owner politicians refuse to accept the Supreme Court’s mandate from the Bruen case and are trying every creative ploy they can imagine to get around it,” he said in a statement. “This law was an attempt to make permits to carry a firearm to defend yourself or your family useless because permit holders wouldn’t be able to drive across town without passing through a prohibited area and breaking the law.”

    Michel said “we are all safer and criminals are deterred when law-abiding citizens can defend themselves.”

    Newsom in his statement said California “will keep fighting” for gun control measures because “the lives of our kids depend on it.”

    SB2 was passed along heavily partisan lines. Republicans denounced the measure as being in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen — and ripe for a legal challenge.

    The case is now part of a mountain of litigation over California’s gun laws and other gun laws all across the nation in the wake of Bruen. Also under legal threat of being toppled are California’s ban on assault weapons and its ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Deal struck to remove homeless hotel housing measure from L.A.’s March ballot

    Deal struck to remove homeless hotel housing measure from L.A.’s March ballot

    Los Angeles City Council President Paul Krekorian has struck a deal with the politically powerful hotel workers’ union to remove a measure from the March election ballot that would have required hotels to participate in a city program to put homeless residents in vacant hotel rooms.

    Under the agreement, the City Council would approve a new package of regulations on the development of new hotels, forcing such projects to go through a more extensive approval process. Hotel developers also would be required to replace any housing that is demolished to make way for their projects, by building new residential units or buying and renovating existing ones.

    In exchange, the union’s proposal for placing homeless residents in vacant hotel rooms would be explicitly listed as voluntary, a move that would cause it to resemble Inside Safe, the program created by Mayor Karen Bass to combat homelessness. Hotel owners are willing participants in that program.

    Unite Here Local 11, which represents 32,000 hospitality workers in Southern California and Arizona, praised the agreement, saying it would ensure that the city places a priority on the creation of housing, not luxury hotels. Many of Unite Here’s members have been unable to find decently priced homes near their jobs, forcing them to endure punishing commutes.

    “We have said all along that our contract campaign has been about two things: housing for our members where they work and a living wage,” Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president, said in a statement. “With this ordinance, we have done more to protect housing than any single contract demand would have done.”

    The proposal has already received signatures from five other council members — Hugo Soto-Martínez, John Lee, Katy Yaroslavsky, Nithya Raman and Traci Park — putting it two votes shy of passage. Park, who serves on the council’s trade and tourism committee, said she believes the original measure would have had “catastrophic consequences” for tourism locally had it won voter approval, by mandating that hotels take in homeless residents without accompanying social services.

    “The thought of putting individuals, many of whom have very serious mental health and substance abuse issues, [in hotel rooms] without on-site services is a recipe for disaster,” she said.

    Wednesday’s deal comes as Unite Here enters its fifth month of rolling strike actions as its members fight for higher wages and better working conditions. So far, four hotels across Southern California have reached salary agreements with the union.

    Unite Here also has been fighting a number of hotel projects that would result in the elimination of low-cost apartments, particularly those covered by the city’s rent stabilization law, which places a cap on yearly rent increases. Under the Krekorian proposal, the city would need to determine whether there is “sufficient market demand” for a new hotel project, while also identifying whether it would have an impact on demand for housing, childcare and other services.

    Unite Here has become a major force in L.A. politics, putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into a campaign to last year elect Soto-Martínez, a former Unite Here organizer himself. The union is also skilled at gathering signatures for ballot measures in and around L.A.

    Last year, Unite Here qualified a measure for the March ballot requiring the city’s Housing Department to create a new voucher program to serve the city’s unhoused population. Under that proposal, hotel managers would have been tasked with informing the city each day about the number of vacant rooms they had. Hotels also would have been required to accept temporary housing vouchers issued by the city under such a program.

    The hotel industry responded by launching a publicity campaign against the measure, warning that it would put hotel workers in danger. The campaign repeatedly pointed to problems in the city’s Project Roomkey program, which placed homeless residents in hotels after the outbreak of COVID-19.

    Project Roomkey, which is no longer in effect, generated a spate of internal City Hall reports about property damage, drug use and violence at hotels in downtown, Westlake and the San Fernando Valley.

    Heather Rozman, president and chief executive of the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles, said her organization is still studying the proposal but commended council members for being willing to “listen to all sides of the issue.”

    Inside Safe, the program launched by Bass to combat homelessness, already uses dozens of hotels and motels as temporary housing. Bass, looking to scale back room rental costs, is also working to purchase hotel and motel properties for that program.

    The proposed ordinance would also require that both hotels and hosts of short-term rentals on platforms such as Airbnb secure operating permits from the Los Angeles Police Department. Both Krekorian and the union said such a move would help neighborhoods fight back against short-term rental properties that have “nuisance” activities, such as drug sales or noisy parties.

    “Irresponsible hotel and short-term rental operators cannot be allowed to endanger the public safety or impair the quality of life in our neighborhoods,” Krekorian said.

    David Zahniser

    Source link

  • California Supreme Court ends Disneyland’s fight against Anaheim wage law

    California Supreme Court ends Disneyland’s fight against Anaheim wage law

    The California Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from Disney as to whether an Anaheim wage law applies to its lowest-paid theme park workers —setting the stage for the Disneyland resort to boost wages for many of its workers.

    Over the summer, the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal ordered up raises and back pay for “cast members,” as Disney calls its employees, in a class-action lawsuit filed on their behalf. The state Supreme Court’s decision to allow the appeal court’s order to stand represents a serious legal blow to the media giant.

    “Disney’s at the end of the road in terms of appeals,” said Sarah Grossman-Swenson, an attorney representing Disney workers. “The appellate decision is clear that Disney is required to comply with the law. The only issue left is the amount of damages.”

    The dispute between Disneyland workers and the park began in 2018 when voters passed a law prescribing a $15 minimum wage for companies in Anaheim’s resort area who enjoyed “tax rebate” agreements with the city. The measure approved by voters, known as Measure L, had been placed on the ballot thanks to petition drive, led by a coalition of Disney unions.

    In the lead up to the election, Disney asked the Anaheim City Council to shred a 45-year gate tax shield and a $267-million bed-tax break for a luxury hotel project that has since been abandoned.

    With those agreements canceled, Anaheim’s city attorney opined that the law wouldn’t apply to Disney.

    But a class-action lawsuit representing 25,000 theme park workers filed against Disney in Dec. 2019 begged to differ.

    An Orange County Superior Court judge originally sided with Disney before a three-judge panel overturned the ruling this summer, citing a provision in a 1996 Disney expansion deal passed by Anaheim in which the city agreed to repay the company if it had to cover bond payments.

    Disney filed an appeal with the state’s Supreme Court in August in which it claimed the appellate court redefined what a tax rebate is in a move that would “chill” public-private partnerships such as the ’96 expansion deal that brought Disney’s California Adventure, the Downtown Disney District and Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel into existence, going forward.

    It appears the legal fight ends with this week’s decision.

    “We are aware of the court’s decision and will be complying with the requirements of Measure L,” said Jessica Good, a Disneyland Resort spokesperson.

    Anaheim spokesman Mike Lyster said the city “will continue to monitor how the court’s ruling is implemented.”

    How many workers will be affected by the law’s implementation and the sum of back pay owed are unknown at this time.

    The pay scale under the law is set to rise to slightly less than $20 an hour next year after being adjusted for inflation.

    Grossman-Swenson called the raises and back pay owed a “big deal” for Disney workers.

    “We know that thousands of them were not paid a living wage for almost five years in compliance with the law,” she added. “This will mean that they are entitled to their money and that can make a big difference in their lives.”

    Gabriel San Román

    Source link

  • ‘Mansion tax’ prevails in court as judge dismisses lawsuit challenging Measure ULA

    ‘Mansion tax’ prevails in court as judge dismisses lawsuit challenging Measure ULA

    An L.A. County judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging L.A.’s “mansion tax” on Tuesday, marking the end of a months-long legal challenge from the luxury real estate community that looked to declare the measure unconstitutional.

    The transfer tax known as Measure ULA was passed in November and took effect April 1, bringing a 4% charge on all residential and commercial real estate sales in the city above $5 million and a 5.5% charge on sales above $10 million, pumping millions into housing and homelessness-prevention efforts.

    Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Barbara Scheper issued a tentative ruling dismissing the challenge on Monday after hearing arguments from both sides, and she officially dismissed the lawsuit on Tuesday, according to court documents.

    The ruling is a big win for housing activists, who say that L.A. desperately needs the money raised by the tax.

    “This is a great day for Los Angeles,” said Joe Donlin, who serves as director of the United to House LA coalition, which brought the measure onto the ballot in November. “The judge’s ruling confirms what we knew all along: ULA is the law of the land and it’s the will of the people. And it reminds us of the power of the people to shape our city’s future for the good.”

    Donlin said he was surprised the ruling came out so soon.

    “Before the hearing, we thought it might take weeks or months, but this was a positive sign that the judge didn’t feel compelled by the plaintiff’s arguments,” he said.

    Advocates for Measure ULA gather outside Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown L.A. on Monday. A judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the measure.

    (United to House LA)

    Greg Bonett, senior staff attorney for the Public Counsel who worked to defend the measure, applauded the decision, calling it “a resounding victory for the power of the people to initiate transformative solutions to address our city’s housing and homelessness crises.”

    The judge’s ruling is a blow for many in the luxury real estate community, who claim that the transfer tax has frozen the market and stifled development.

    Keith Fromm, an attorney for Newcastle Courtyards, one of two groups challenging the measure, said he plans to appeal the decision.

    “The order contains numerous errors of law which the appellate courts will hopefully recognize and correct,” Fromm said. “The ruling is simply one step in a very long journey to justice.”

    The legal battle — which was headed by two main groups: Newcastle and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. — became a national conversation, as other cities looked to L.A. to see how it would implement such a tax.

    Other cities such as San Francisco, New York City and Culver City have implemented transfer taxes, but L.A.’s is unique in scope and scale, not just taxing home sales but all property sales above $5 million.

    Voters approved the measure with a 57% majority in November, and the tax became a hot-button issue immediately after.

    Advocates argue that the tax is a way for luxury property owners to contribute to solving L.A.’s housing crisis, while opponents say it discourages development and pushes owners out of L.A. and into cities that don’t have the tax, such as Beverly Hills, West Hollywood or Santa Monica.

    “With Measure ULA, we are now going to lose billions of dollars every year in economic development and property tax revenue in order to raise less than $500 million through the tax,” said Jason Oppenheim, a real estate agent with the Oppenheim Group and star of Netflix’s “Selling Sunset.”

    The luxury real estate market froze in the months after the measure took effect, as many luxury homeowners looked to find loopholes to avoid paying the tax. Many hired accountants to find workarounds, such as dividing their homes into three parcels and selling them separately to stay under the $5-million threshold at which the tax kicks in.

    Many homeowners held off on selling their homes, hoping the lawsuit would overturn the tax. As a result, funds raised by the tax have fallen dramatically short of original projections since sales have slowed.

    In November, proponents of the tax estimated it would raise roughly $900 million a year. In March, a report from the city administrative officer lowered that number to $672 million. Then in April, Mayor Karen Bass’s first budget proposal, a $13.1-billion plan, included only $150 million in projected revenue from Measure ULA.

    The number was chosen out of caution, as the city wanted to funnel as much money as possible toward housing and homelessness issues but not so much that it wouldn’t be able to pay it back if the measure were ruled unconstitutional.

    But with the court’s latest ruling, spending will likely increase.

    On Wednesday, the L.A. City Council’s budget, finance and innovation Committee will meet to discuss the implementation process, and the ULA coalition will propose that $12 million be reallocated to short-term emergency assistance for renters.

    In August, the City Council passed a $150-million spending plan for funds raised by Measure ULA. It was the first time funds were specifically allocated since the tax was passed in November, and the plan sent money to six programs: short-term emergency rental assistance, eviction defense, tenant outreach and education, direct cash assistance for low-income seniors and people with disabilities, tenant protections and affordable housing production.

    Jack Flemming

    Source link