ReportWire

Tag: Newsom

  • Pro-housing group sues Newsom over duplex ban in wildfire zones

    A pro-housing group sued Gov. Newsom on Wednesday over his decision to restrict SB 9, a housing law that allows owners to parcel up their properties, in the wake of the January fires.

    YIMBY Law, a San Francisco-based organization, alleges that Newsom’s executive order over the summer allowing cities to suspend SB 9 is a constitutional overreach and violates the California Emergency Services Act, which states that emergency powers can only be used to mitigate ongoing disasters, not potential ones.

    It’s the latest chapter in the fight over how much density should be allowed in the rebuilding of fire-stricken communities such as Altadena and Pacific Palisades.

    Proponents of SB 9, a 2021 state law that allows homeowners to split single-family lots into as many as four properties, claim it’s a valuable tool to address the housing crisis by adding density. They also claim it’s a resource for fire victims hoping to sell their properties, since land that can be subdivided is more valuable than a single-family lot.

    Critics claim that the density afforded by SB 9 would destroy the character of single-family neighborhoods, while also slowing down evacuations in fire-prone areas by packing in more homes and residents.

    Newsom sided with the critics in July, signing an executive order allowing L.A.-area governments to suspend SB 9. Many took him up on the offer immediately, including Mayor Bass, as well as officials in Pasadena, Malibu and L.A. County. All are named in the lawsuit along with Gov. Newsom.

    “SB 9 adds housing and flexibility,” said YIMBY Law executive director Sonja Trauss. “We want everyone to be able to rebuild, but suspending SB 9 devalues those properties.”

    Trauss said many fire victims are underinsured and currently deciding whether it’s financially possible to rebuild. For many, a helpful option would be to use SB 9 to divide the lot into two, then sell one and use the money to build on the other.

    She added that the move seemed out of step with Gov. Newsom’s other initiatives in the wake of the fires, including streamlining the permitting process for single-family homes and ADUs.

    “If you want to build a 3,000-square-foot house and a 700-square-foot ADU, it’s easier. But if you want to build two homes as a duplex, it’s harder,” Trauss said. “It’s baffling.”

    A spokesperson for Newsom defended the move in a statement.

    “We will not allow outside groups — even longstanding allies — to attack the Palisades, and communities in the highest fire risk areas throughout L.A. County, or undermine local flexibility after the horror of these fires,” said spokesperson Tara Gallegos. “Our obligation is to survivors, full stop. We will not negotiate that away. If defending them requires drawing firm lines, we will draw them.”

    The suit was originally supposed to be filed on Monday, Dec. 8, but was delayed after potential movement from Newsom’s office to restore SB 9 in fire areas, a spokesperson for YIMBY Law said.

    An agreement was never reached, and the suit was filed on Wednesday.

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • At Brazilian climate summit, Newsom positions California as a stand-in for the U.S.

    BELÉM, Brazil — The expansive halls of the Amazon’s newly built climate summit hub echoed with the hum of air conditioners and the footsteps of delegates from around the world — scientists, diplomats, Indigenous leaders and energy executives, all converging for two frenetic weeks of negotiations.

    Then Gov. Gavin Newsom rounded the corner, flanked by staff and security. They moved in tandem through the corridors on Tuesday as media swarmed and cellphone cameras rose into the air.

    “Hero!” one woman shouted. “Stay safe — we need you,” another attendee said. Others didn’t hide their confusion at who the man with slicked-back graying hair causing such a commotion was.

    “I’m here because I don’t want the United States of America to be a footnote at this conference,” Newsom said when he reached a packed news conference on his first day at the United Nations climate policy summit known as COP30.

    In less than a year, the United States has shifted from rallying nations on combating climate change to rejecting the science altogether under President Trump.

    Newsom has engineered his own evolution when coping with Trump — moving from sharp but reasoned criticism to name-calling and theatrical attacks on the president and his Republican allies. Newsom’s approach adds fire to America’s political spectacle — part governance, part made-for-TV drama.

    On Wednesday, Newsom’s trip collided with unwelcome headlines at home after his former chief of staff was arrested on federal charges alleging she siphoned $225,000 from a dormant campaign account and claimed business tax write-offs for $1 million in luxury handbags and private jet travel. Newsom had left COP30 before the indictment was revealed, which kept the focus during his whirlwind trip to Belém on his climate policies.

    California’s carbon market and zero-emission mandates have given the state outsize influence at summits such as COP30, where its policies are seen as both durable and exportable. The state has invested billions in renewables, battery storage and electrifying buildings and vehicles and has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 21% since 2000 — even as its economy grew 81%.

    “Absolutely,” he said when asked whether the state is in effect standing in for the United States at climate talks. “And I think the world sees us in that light, as a stable partner, a historic partner … in the absence of American leadership. And not just absence of leadership, the doubling down of stupid in terms of global leadership on clean energy.”

    Newsom has honed a combative presence online — trading barbs with Trump and leaning into satire, especially on social media, tactics that mirror the president’s. Critics have argued that it’s contributing to a lowering of the bar when it comes to political discourse, but Newsom said he doesn’t see it that way.

    “I’m trying to call that out,” Newsom said, adding that in a normal political climate, leaders should model civility and respect. “But right now, we have an invasive species — in the vernacular of climate — by the name of Donald Trump, and we got to call that out.”

    At home, Newsom recently scored a political win with Proposition 50, the ballot measure he championed to counter Trump’s effort to redraw congressional maps in Republican-led states. On his way to Brazil, he celebrated the victory with a swing through Houston, where a rally featuring Texas Democrats looked more like a presidential campaign stop than a policy event — one of several moments in recent months that have invited speculation about a White House run that he insists he hasn’t launched.

    Those questions followed him to Brazil. It was the first topic posed from a cluster of Brazilian journalists in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city and financial hub, where Newsom had flown to speak Monday with climate investors in what he conceded sounded more like a campaign speech.

    “I think it has to,” said Newsom, his talking points scribbled on yellow index cards still in his pocket from an earlier meeting. “I think people have to understand what’s going on, because otherwise you’re wasting everyone’s time.”

    In a low-lit luxury hotel adorned with Brazilian artwork and deep-seated chairs, Newsom showcased the well-practiced pivot of a politician avoiding questions about his future. His most direct answer about his presidential prospects came in a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning” in which he was asked whether he would give serious thought after the 2026 midterm elections to a White House bid. Newsom responded: “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise.”

    He laughed when asked by The Times how often he has fielded questions about his 2028 plans in recent days, and quickly deflected.

    “It’s not about me,” he said before fishing a malaria pill out of his suit pocket and chasing it with coffee from a nearby carafe. “It’s about this moment — and people’s anxiety and concern about this moment.”

    Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor, said Newsom’s appearance in Brazil is symbolically important as the federal government targets California’s decades-old authority to enforce its own environmental standards.

    “California has continued to signal that it will play a leadership role,” she said.

    The Trump administration confirmed to The Times that no high-level federal representative will attend COP30.

    “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said.

    For his part, Trump told world leaders at the United Nations in September that climate change is a “hoax” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

    Since Trump returned to office for a second term, he’s canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than those of the federal government. He’s also withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, a seminal treaty signed a decade ago in which world leaders established the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels and preferably below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That move is seen as pivotal in preventing the worst effects of climate change.

    Leaders from Chile and Colombia called Trump a liar for rejecting climate science, while Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva broadly warned that extremist forces are fabricating fake news and “condemning future generations to life on a planet altered forever by global warming.”

    Terry Tamminen, former California Environmental Protection Agency secretary under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, contended that with the Trump administration’s absence, Newsom’s attendance at COP30 thrusts an even brighter spotlight on the governor.

    “If the governor of Delaware goes, it may not matter,” Tamminen said. “But if our governor goes, it does. It sends a message to the world that we’re still in this.”

    The U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of state leaders, said three governors from the United States are attending COP30-related events in Brazil: Newsom, Wisconsin’s Tony Evers and New Mexico’s Michelle Lujan Grisham.

    Despite the warm reception Newsom has received in Belém, environmentalists in California have recently questioned his commitment.

    In September, Newsom signed a package of bills that extended the state’s signature cap-and-trade program through 2045. That program, rebranded as cap-and-invest, limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions of dollars for the state’s climate priorities. But, at the same time, he also gave final approval to a bill that will allow oil and gas companies to drill as many as 2,000 new wells per year through 2036 in Kern County. Environmentalists called that backsliding; Newsom called it realism, given the impending refinery closures in the state that threaten to drive up gas prices.

    “It’s not an ideological exercise,” he said. “It’s a very pragmatic one.”

    Leah Stokes, a UC Santa Barbara political scientist, called his record “pretty complex.”

    “In many ways, he is one of the leaders,” she said. “But some of the decisions that he’s made, especially recently, don’t move us in as good a direction on climate.”

    Newsom is expected to return to the climate summit Wednesday before traveling deeper into the Amazon, where he plans to visit reforestation projects. The governor said he wanted to see firsthand the region often referred to as “the lungs of the world.”

    “It’s not just to admire the absorption of carbon from the rainforest,” Newsom said. “But to absorb a deeper spiritual connection to this issue that connects all of us. … I think that really matters in a world that can use a little more of that.”

    Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Newsom appears onstage at Texas rally to celebrate Prop. 50 victory, take swipes at Trump

    Gov. Gavin Newsom strode onstage in Houston on Saturday to a cheering crowd of Texas Democrats, saying Proposition 50’s victory in California on election day was a win for the nation and a firm repudiation of President Trump.

    Newsom possessed the air of a politician running for president at the boisterous rally, a possibility the California governor says he is considering — and the location he chose was not happenstance.

    Newsom accused Trump of pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to rejigger the state’s congressional districts with the goal of sending more Republicans to Congress, an action that triggered California’s Proposition 50. Newsom successfully pushed for a special election on the ballot measure to counter the efforts in Texas, which the governor said wasan attempt by Trump and the Republicans to “rig” the 2026 midterm election.

    Cheers erupted from the friendly, union-hall crowd when Newsom belittled Trump as an “invasive species” and a “historically unpopular president.”

    “On every issue, on the economy, on terrorists, on immigration, on healthcare, [he’s a] historically unpopular president, and he knows it, and he knows it,” Newsom said. “Why else did he make that call to your governor? Why else did he feel the need to rig the election before even one vote was cast? That’s just weakness, weakness masquerading as strength. That’s Donald Trump, and he had a very bad night on Tuesday.”

    Newsom was the main political force behind Proposition 50, which California voters overwhelmingly approved in Tuesday’s special election. The statewide ballot measure was an attempt to counter Trump’s push to get Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. Newsom and California Democrats hope the change will net an additional five Democrats in California’s congressional delegation, canceling out any gains in Texas.

    Newsom thanked Texas Democrats for putting up a fight against the redistricting effort in their state, saying it inspired an uprising.

    “It’s dawning on people, all across the United States of America, what’s at stake,” Newsom told the crowd. “And you put a stake in the ground. People are showing up. I don’t believe in crowns, thrones. No kings.”

    Newsom’s trip to Texas comes as the former San Francisco mayor has been openly flirting with a 2028 run for president. In a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” after the 2026 midterms to a White House bid.

    “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

    In July, Newsom flew to South Carolina, a state that traditionally hosts the South’s first presidential primary. He said he wanted to help his party win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. But South Carolina is a solidly conservative state and did not appear to have a single competitive race.

    During that trip, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and renowned Democratic kingmaker, told The Times that Newsom would be “a hell of a candidate.” Newsom received similar praise — and encouragement — when he was introduced at the “Take It Back” rally in Houston.

    Newsom now heads to Belém, Brazil, where representatives from 200 nations are gathering to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit. For Newsom, it’s a golden opportunity to appear on a world stage and sell himself and California as the antidote to Trump and his attacks on climate change policy.

    The Trump administration this year canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

    Phil Willon

    Source link

  • California steps in as Trump skips global climate summit in Brazil

    Nearly 200 nations are gathering this week in Belém, Brazil, to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit, but there is one glaring exception: The Trump administration is not sending any high-ranking officials.

    California hopes it can fill in the gap. The state, as it usually does, is sending a large delegation to the Conference of the Parties, including first-time attendee Gov. Gavin Newsom and top officials from the California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Food and Agriculture, Air Resources Board, Public Utilities Commission and Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs.

    The state aims to build on its reputation as a global climate leader, sharing its experience with clean energy technology and job creation and showcasing its track record of climate agreements with other countries and regions.

    Newsom, who is positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run, told The Times he “absolutely” sees California as a proxy for the U.S. at this year’s conference, which is the main global venue for countries to strengthen their commitments to reducing greenhouse gases.

    “California has a responsibility, but also a unique opportunity at this moment, to remind the world that we’re here, that we believe these issues matter, and that there’s an opportunity here to reinforce existing alliances and develop new ones,” the governor said.

    California’s strong presence at COP also marks an escalation of Newsom’s ongoing battle with President Trump. The two have clashed over immigration and climate, with the president’s energy and environment agenda often targeting the state. The Trump administration this year canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

    But this year’s Nov. 10-21 gathering also comes at a critical moment for the world. It’s the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, a seminal treaty signed at the 2015 COP in which world leaders established the goal of limiting global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels, and preferably below 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C), in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

    Most experts and scientists agree that the 2.7 degree target is no longer within reach. The last 10 years have been Earth’s hottest on record, driven largely by greenhouse gas emissions that come from the burning of fossil fuels.

    “One thing is already clear: We will not be able to contain the global warming below 1.5 degrees [C] in the next few years,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said at a recent gathering of the World Meteorological Organization. “The overshooting is now inevitable.”

    The U.N.’s annual Emissions Gap report released in conjunction with the conference finds that without immediate and aggressive action, the world is on track to warm between 4.14 and 5.04 degrees (2.3 and 2.8 degrees Celsius) over this century.

    Yet Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on his first day back in office, a move he also made during his first term as president. In a January executive order he stated that the Paris Agreement and other international climate compacts pose an unfair burden on the U.S. and steer American dollars to other countries.

    The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is expected to add an additional 0.18 degree to the latest warming projections, in effect nullifying a small gain made since last year, the U.N. report says. It notes that every fraction of a degree of warming means more losses for people and ecosystems, higher costs to adapt, and more reliance on uncertain techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

    However, the report underscores that the technology to deliver big emissions cuts already exists, pointing to booming developments in wind and solar energy, much of which is occurring overseas.

    It’s a sector where California can lead, Newsom said, adding that the Trump administration has “doubled down on stupid” by ceding so much ground to China. The Golden State has invested heavily in renewables, battery energy storage and the electrification of buildings and vehicles. California has also set ambitious decarbonizaiton targets and reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 21% since 2000 while its economy has grown 81%.

    “We want to continue to tip the scales, and this is about economic growth, this is about jobs, and this is about addressing the other crisis of our time: affordability,” Newsom said. “When you talk about energy efficiency, you’re talking about affordability. When you talk about wind and solar, you’re talking about abundance and you’re talking about affordability.”

    California has already helped to spread a lot of real technology. The state’s aggressive emission rules were pivotal in pushing automakers toward electric vehicles, with Toyota largely developing its Prius for California’s market. The state was the first to mandate battery energy storage at its major utilities, helping jump-start the modern grid-battery market, while its cap-and-trade carbon market program has been emulated in places around the world.

    State leaders hope to highlight more than their progress at home. In recent years, California has also forged subnational agreements and partnerships with other regions and countries on issues such as delivering clean transportation, cutting pollution and developing hydrogen and renewables. Newsom is expected to sign additional agreements at COP this year, although his team declined to provide a preview of what they will entail.

    Among the state’s dozens of existing agreements are a memorandum with Mexico’s Baja California Energy Commission focused on clean ports, zero-emission transportation and grid reliability; and memorandums with several provinces in China on pollution reduction and offshore wind power. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection also has partnerships with several countries that are sharing resources and best practices for managing vegetation and combating wildfires.

    Focusing on these actions at the state and regional level has become a key part of COP conferences as the conversation gains urgency and shifts to deployment, according to Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

    “There is a whole other face of the United States — we have a lot of subnational actors, including leading states and cities and forward-looking businesses, who will be at COP showing the rest of the world that the United States does understand that it’s both in the interest of our country, as well as the global interest, to tackle climate change,” Cleetus said.

    California’s delegation in Brazil also includes Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, who represented the state at the Local Leaders Forum in Rio de Janeiro this week.

    “This year, our federal government is totally missing in action … and the rest of the world needs to understand that America is still in this fight, and we’re moving forward,” Crowfoot said in a briefing.

    Crowfoot highlighted California’s carbon market partnership with Quebec and one with Denmark that yielded groundwater monitoring technology that California uses today, among other examples of international efforts.

    This year’s COP conference, which is taking place near the Amazon River delta in northern Brazil, is heavily focused on forest restoration and nature-based solutions, which California also focuses on through its 30×30 program to conserve 30% of the state’s lands and coastal waters by 2030, Crowfoot said. The Golden State already has deep ties to the region stemming from its landmark 2019 Tropical Forest Standard program, which set guidelines on carbon credits awarded for reducing deforestation.

    Newsom said that at COP, he will highlight climate action as the defining economic opportunity of the 21st century. He is slated to speak at the Milken Institute’s Global Investors’ Symposium, a gathering of leading investors and business executives, about how California shows that clean energy investments create jobs and profit. Green jobs now outnumber fossil fuel jobs in the state, 7 to 1.

    “Were not just talking about this from the perspective of trying to be good citizens,” Newsom said. “We’re also trying to be competitive geopolitical players. We want to dominate in the next big global industry.”

    Still, there is much work to be done.

    Every five years, parties to the Paris Agreement are required to submit targets for their greenhouse gas emissions. The targets so far have “barely moved the needle,” according to the U.N. report, and the ones handed in this year aren’t nearly aggressive enough.

    “It’s devastating to see that now we are definitely going to breach the 1.5 C benchmark,” said Cleetus, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    “But world leaders still have the power to sharply cut these emissions,” she said.

    Hayley Smith, Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Trump said California election was rigged. That’s wrong

    As Californians voted Nov. 4 for a new congressional map, President Donald Trump falsely said the process was rigged.

    “The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump wrote Nov. 4 on Truth Social. 

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

    A reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for Trump’s evidence that the election was rigged. 

    “It is just a fact,” Leavitt said. “They have a universal mail in voting system, which we know is ripe for fraud. …Fraudulent ballots that are being mailed in, in the names of other people and the names of illegal aliens who shouldn’t be voting in American elections.”

    Democratic California state officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, challenged Trump’s assertion. “Where exactly is this fraud? Ramblings don’t equate with fact,” Weber said.  

    When PolitiFact contacted the White House, a spokesperson responded with several points, many of which had also been shared in an X post. These points criticized California’s voting system, but included only one case of a person charged with voter fraud. The White House also misrepresented the numbers on voter registration and voter removal to support its claims. 

    Trump has repeatedly spread falsehoods about “rigged” elections, including in California. Rigging a state election would require election officials across the state to work together to commit felonies. There is no evidence that happened.

    What did happen: The blue state overwhelmingly voted to redistrict the congressional map to increase the chance of adding five Democratic seats to negate added likely Republican seats in Texas.

    White House evidence does not prove the election was rigged

    Vote by mail system: Much of the White House’s evidence criticizes California’s system of mailing ballots to all active registered voters. It is one of eight states that conduct elections by such a system. Millions of ballots are sent to Californians and not returned, as the White House noted, but that doesn’t prove fraud. Election workers verify identity by matching signatures on the mail ballot envelopes with the registration records.

    Although voters are mailed ballots, they can choose to cast a ballot in person instead. Voters generally don’t have to provide an ID. Election workers can ask for an ID if the person is voting for the first time and didn’t provide an ID when registering to vote. 

    The White House cherry picked one sentence from a 2005 bipartisan report that said, “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Although the report generally communicated a dim view of absentee voting, it didn’t call for its elimination. It recommended ways to improve security and further study. 

    Noncitizen voters: The White House said, “San Francisco allows non-citizens to vote in local elections which creates a high risk of fraud in federal elections,” and acknowledged noncitizens aren’t allowed to vote in federal elections. The city allows noncitizens to vote only in school board elections.

    The Justice Department sued Orange County in June after it redacted personal identifying information when it provided records to the department about 17 noncitizens on the voter rolls. 

    Bob Page, the county registrar of voters, said the 17 people self-reported that they wanted to cancel their voter registrations, including eight who voted before they cancelled their voter registration.

    Duplicate registrations: “California reported 2,178,551 duplicate registrations in the 2024 election cycle — 15.6% of total registered voters,” the White House said. 

    The statement misleadingly gives the impression that those people appear on the voter rolls more than once. “Duplicate registrations” refer to the number of registration applications that California election officials received but didn’t process because they were identical to existing registrations. Duplicate registration can happen by accident; some people register and forget they did so, or submit registration both through the mail and online.

    The number the White House cited represents the number of times California election officials caught the mistake, not made one. 

    The number comes from a 2024 national survey on voting activity and election administration between 2022 and 2024 by the bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

    The national average for duplicate applications is 12.7%.

    Removing voters after death: The White House said, “California only removed 378,349 registered voters for death (11.9%), which was well below the national average,” between the 2022 and 2024 elections. 

    This figure is cherry picked. The White House cited voters removed because of death, which is just one reason for striking a voter from the rolls. 

    From 2022 to 2024, California removed more than 3.177 million voters from its rolls for all reasons, including death, according to the same election survey. That’s a 12.4% removal rate of all registered voters, compared with the national average of 9.1%. 

    California removed a larger proportion of voters for reasons other than death, such as moving or failure to return a confirmation notice.

    Voter fraud: The White House pointed to one woman charged with voter fraud.

    In September, authorities charged a woman from Costa Mesa, California, with five felonies for illegally registering her dog to vote. The dog’s vote was counted in the 2021 gubernatorial recall election, but rejected in the 2022 primary. The Orange County District Attorney’s office said the woman “self-reported that she had registered her dog to vote.” 

    Laura Lee Yourex, 62, said she wanted to prove a point about flaws in the state voting system, according to her lawyer. 

    The conservative Heritage Foundation’s voter fraud database shows 69 cases in California between 1982 and 2025. The database shows dozens of cases in red states such as Florida, which does not send a mail ballot to all voters. 

    Our ruling

    Trump said voting in California is “rigged.”

    The White House’s explanation misrepresented data about duplicate registrations, cherry-picked data about dead voter removals from registration rolls, pointed to one woman charged with voter fraud among about 23 million registered voters, and baselessly blamed San Francisco’s allowance for noncitizen voting in school board elections.

    The White House did not prove California voting is “rigged.” We rate Trump’s statement Pants on Fire!

    PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.

    RELATED: Trump’s actions could affect the 2026 midterm elections. What will it mean for voters?

    Source link

  • 4 takeaways after Proposition 50’s big win in California

    Proposition 50’s big win Tuesday night is a political earthquake that is being felt nationally.

    Here are four takeaways:

    1. Trump toxicity in California.

    Prop. 50 supporters tried to make the ballot measure a referendum on President Trump — and it clearly worked.

    California has been a blue state for decades, but Trump’s second term has been particularly trying for critics.

    Huntington Beach resident Miko Vaughn, 48, supported Proposition 50 and saw the battle as a proxy war between President Trump and Newsom. It’s just “against Trump,” she said. “I feel like there’s not much we can do individually, so it does feel good to do something.”

    Indeed, a CNN exit poll of California voters found that about half said their vote on Prop. 50 was a way of opposing Trump.

    “Trump is such a polarizing figure,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA. “He commands great loyalty from one group of people and great animosity from others.”

    2. End of an era

    Proposition 50, a ballot measure about redrawing the state’s congressional districts, was crafted by Democrats in response to Trump urging Texas and other GOP-majority states to modify their congressional maps to favor Republicans, a move that was designed to maintain Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    California has been somewhat of an outlier. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger created—and voters approved in 2010—an independent redistricting commission aimed at keeping politics out of the process of drawing congressional districts.

    The panel of 14 citizens works to create districts for state lawmakers and for members of Congress that are contiguous and roughly equal in population. The districts must also follow the federal Voting Rights Act and group together “communities of interest,” a wide-reaching term of art for people who share languages, cultures, backgrounds, interests, ways of life or other traits.

    Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, said the vote over Proposition 50 marks the end of an era for this process—and perhaps for the hope for fair politics.

    Many political scientists have long opposed political gerrymandering, applauding states like California for moving to an independent model where politicians aren’t determining boundaries. But not enough states joined California in that effort, Lesenyie said.

    “California probably should have done this—against my better judgment—a long time ago in acknowledging that our politics have become so extremely polarized and that we can’t in California hold that dam break back by ourselves,” he said.

    3. Big win for Newsom

    Newsom has emerged as a foil to Trump this year, challenging him on a variety of issues from environment to immigration and mocking him on X.

    Prop. 50 was a risk for Newsom, but it immediately became a rallying cry for Democrats looking for a way to fight back. Now, he can take his victory lap.

    “After poking the bear, this bear roared,” Newsom said Tuesday night.

    Newsom said he was proud of California for standing up to Trump and called on other states with Democrat-controlled legislatures to pass their own redistricting plans.

    “I hope it’s dawning on people, the sobriety of this moment,” he said.

    Newsom recently announced he is considering a run for president in 2028.

    4. More polarization

    The biggest loser from Tuesday night? California Republicans.

    California has 43 Democrats and nine Republicans in the House. Proposition 50 would shift five more House districts into competitive or easily winnable territory for Democrats.

    The new map would eliminate the Inland Empire district of Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona), the longest-serving member of California’s Republican delegation, and create a new seat in Los Angeles County that would skew heavily toward Democrats.

    The map would also dilute the number of GOP voters in the districts represented by Reps. Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Kevin Kiley in Greater Sacramento, David Valadao in the San Joaquin Valley and Darrell Issa near San Diego.

    The maps would apply to the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. After the 2030 U.S. Census, California would return to having its lines drawn by the independent redistricting panel.

    Prop. 50 opponents cried foul, saying they were disenfranchised. Trump has mused about cutting some funding to California. And a lot of GOP voters are angry.

    California Republicans on Wednesday filed a lawsuit arguing the redistricting maps are unconstitutional because they use voters race as a factor in drawing districts.

    Race engine builder and Republican Robert Jung, 69, said “the changes are politically motivated.”

    “It doesn’t seem right to do this just to gain five seats. I know they did it in Texas, but we don’t have to do it just because they did it,” the Torrance resident said.

    Disabled Army veteran Micah Corpe, 50, added Prop. 50 is the result of Newsom believing he can “do whatever he wants because he doesn’t like Trump.”

    Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Laura J. Nelson contributed to this report.

    Hannah Fry, Alex Wigglesworth, Connor Sheets, Jessica Garrison

    Source link

  • Gov. Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris rally Californians to vote on Prop. 50

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and a slew of other national and California Democrats on Saturday rallied supporters to stay fired up in seeking passage of a ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the midterm elections.

    While polling suggests Proposition 50 is likely to pass Tuesday, volunteers must continue knocking on doors, phone banking and motivating voters through Election Day, they said. Newsom told volunteers they ought to follow the model of sprinters, leaving it all on the field.

    “We cannot afford to run the 90-yard dash. You Angelenos, you’ve got the Olympics coming in 2028. They do not run the 90-yard dash. They run the 110-yard dash. We have got to be at peak on Election Day,” Newsom told hundreds of supporters at the Convention Center in downtown Los Angeles. “We cannot take anything for granted.”

    Hours earlier, Republicans spoke out against the ballot measure at John Wayne Park in Newport Beach, before sending teams into neighborhoods to drum up votes for their side.

    “What Proposition 50 will do is disenfranchise, meaning, disregard all Republicans in the state of California,” state Assembly member Diane Dixon (R-Newport Beach) said. “Ninety percent of 6 million [Californian Republicans] will be disenfranchised.”

    Prop. 50 would redraw California’s congressional districts in an attempt to boost the number of Democrats in Congress. The effort was proposed by Newsom and other California Democrats in hope of blunting President Trump’s push in Texas and other GOP-led states to increase the number of Republicans elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections. But even if voters approve the ballot measure that could flip five California districts currently represented by Republicans, it’s unclear whether that will be enough to shift control of the House unless there is a blue wave in the 2026 elections.

    The party that wins control of the House will shape Trump’s final two years in the White House and determine whether he is able to continue enacting his agenda or whether he faces a spate of investigations and possibly another impeachment attempt.

    The special election is among the costliest ballot measures in state history. More than $192 million has flowed into various campaign committees since state lawmakers voted in August to put the proposition on the ballot. Supporters of the redistricting effort raised exponentially more money than opponents, and polling shows the proposition is likely to pass.

    As of Friday, more than a quarter of the state’s 23 million registered voters had cast ballots, with Democrats outpacing Republicans.

    Newsom was joined Saturday by Harris, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, other Democrats and labor leaders.

    Harris, in a surprise appearance at the gathering, argued that the Trump administration is implementing long-sought GOP goals such as voter suppression.

    “This fight is not about sitting by and complaining, ‘Oh, they’re cheating,’” the former vice president said. “It’s about recognizing what they are up to. There is an agenda that we are witnessing which feels chaotic, I know, but in fact, we are witnessing a high-velocity event that is about the swift implementation of a plan that has been decades in the making.”

    Several speakers referred to the immigration raids that started in Los Angeles in June and deep cuts to federal safety nets, including the nutrition assistance program for low-income families and healthcare coverage for seniors and the disabled.

    “We know there’s so much on the line this Tuesday. And a reminder, Tuesday is not Election Day — it’s the last day to vote,” Padilla said. “Don’t wait till Tuesday. Get your ballots in, folks…. As good as the polls look, we need to run up the score on this because the eyes of the country are going to be on California on Tuesday. And we need to win and we need to win big.”

    Padilla, a typically staid legislator, then offered a modified riff of a lyric by rapper Ice Cube, who grew up in South Los Angeles.

    “Donald Trump — you better check yourself before you wreck America,” said Padilla, who is considering running for governor next year.

    Nearly 50 miles southeast, about 50 Republican canvassers fueled up on coffee and doughnuts, united over the brisk weather and annoyance about Newsom’s attempt to redraw California’s congressional districts.

    Will O’Neill, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, equated this final push against Prop. 50 as the California GOP’s Game 7 — a nod to Friday night’s World Series battle between the Dodgers and Toronto Blue Jays.

    “Orange County right now is the only county in Southern California that has a shot of having more Republicans than Democrats voting,” O’Neill said. “We expect that over the next three days, around 70% of everyone who votes is gonna vote no on 50. But we need them to vote.”

    Ariana Assenmacher, of California Young Republicans, center, organizes during a gathering of Republican Party members pressing to vote no on Proposition 50 in the upcoming California Statewide Special Election at John Wayne Park in Newport Beach on Saturday, November 1, 2025.

    (Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

    O’Neill labeled the measure a “hyper-partisan power grab.” If Prop. 50 passes, it will dilute Republican power in Orange County by splitting communities and roping some residents into districts represented by Los Angeles County politicians.

    Dixon also rallied volunteers — which included a handful of college students from across the state: “Be polite. Just say thank you very much. Just like Charlie Kirk would. Don’t [stimulate] an argument. Just be friendly.”

    “They’re squeezing out what very little representation Republicans have in the state,” said Kristen Nicole Valle, president of the Orange County Young Republicans.

    “We will not be hearing from 40% of Californians if Prop. 50 passes.”

    Randall Avila, executive director of the Orange County GOP, said the measure disenfranchises Latino GOP voters like himself.

    Nationally, Trump managed to gain 48% of the Latino vote, a Pew Research study showed, which proved crucial to his second presidential victory.

    “Obviously our community has kind of shown we’re willing to switch parties and go another direction if that elected official or that party isn’t serving us,” Avila said. “So it’s unfortunate that some of those voices are now gonna be silenced with a predetermined winner in their district.”

    Not all hope is lost for Republicans if Prop. 50 is approved, Avila said. A handful of seats could be snagged by Republicans, including the districts held by Reps. Dave Min (D-Irvine) and Derek Tran (D-Orange).

    “If the lines do change, that doesn’t mean we pack up and go home,” he said. “Just means we reorganize, we reconfigure things, and then we keep fighting.”

    Seema Mehta, Andrea Flores

    Source link

  • Voters in poll side with Newsom, Democrats on Prop. 50 — a potential blow to Trump and GOP

    A Nov. 4 statewide ballot measure pushed by California Democrats to help the party’s efforts to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives and stifle President Trump’s agenda has a substantial lead in a new poll released on Thursday.

    Six out of 10 likely voters support Proposition 50, the proposal by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies to redraw the state’s congressional districts to try to increase the number of Democrats in Congress, according to a survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by The Times. About 38% of likely voters oppose the ballot measure.

    Notable in an off-year special election about the arcane and complicated process of redistricting, 71% of likely voters said they had heard a significant amount of information about the ballot measure, according to the poll.

    “That’s extraordinary,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the IGS poll. “Even though it’s kind of an esoteric topic that doesn’t affect their daily lives, it’s something voters are paying attention to.”

    That may be because roughly $158 million has been donated in less than three months to the main campaign committees supporting and opposing the measure, according to campaign fundraising reports filed with the state last week. Voters in the state have been flooded with political ads.

    Californians watching Tuesday night’s World Series game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Toronto Blue Jays saw that firsthand.

    In the first minutes of the game, former President Obama, Newsom, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other prominent Democrats spoke in favor of Proposition 50 in an ad that probably cost at least $250,000 to air, according to a Democratic media buyer who is not associated with the campaign.

    According to the survey, the breakdown among voters was highly partisan, with more than 9 out of 10 Democrats supporting Proposition 50 and a similar proportion of Republicans opposing it. Among voters who belong to other parties, or identify as “no party preference,” 57% favored the ballot measure, while 39% opposed it.

    Only 2% of the likely voters surveyed said they were undecided, which DiCamillo said was highly unusual.

    Historically, undecided voters, particularly independents, often end up opposing ballot measures they are uncertain about, preferring to stick with the status quo, he said.

    “Usually there was always a rule — look at the undecideds in late-breaking polls, and assume most would vote no,” he said. “But this poll shows there are very few of them out there. Voters have a bead on this one.”

    In the voter-rich urban areas of Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay area, Proposition 50 led by wide margins, the poll found. Voters in Orange County, the Inland Empire and the Central Valley were pretty evenly divided.

    Redistricting battles are underway in states across the nation, but California’s Proposition 50 has received a major share of national attention and donations. The Newsom committee supporting Proposition 50 has raised far more money than the two main committees opposing it, so much so that the governor this week told supporters to stop sending checks.

    The U.S. House of Representatives is controlled by the GOP but is narrowly divided. The party that wins control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections will determine whether Trump can continue enacting his agenda or whether he is the subject of investigations and possibly another impeachment effort.

    California’s 52 congressional districts — the most of any state — currently are drawn by a voter-approved independent commission once every decade following the U.S. census.

    But after Trump urged GOP leaders in Texas this summer to redraw their districts to bolster the number of Republicans in Congress, Newsom and other California Democrats decided in August to ask voters to allow a rare mid-decade partisan redrawing of the state’s district boundaries. If passed, Proposition 50 could potentially add five more Democrats to the state’s congressional delegation.

    Supporters of Proposition 50 have painted their effort as a proxy fight against Trump and his policies that have overwhelmingly affected Californians, such as immigration raids and the deployment of the National Guard on the streets of Los Angeles.

    Opponents of the proposition have focused on the mechanics of redistricting, arguing the ballot measure subverts the will of California voters who enacted the independent redistricting commission more than a decade ago.

    “The results suggest that Democrats have succeeded in framing the debate surrounding the proposition around support or opposition to President Trump and national Republicans, rather than about voters’ more general preference for nonpartisan redistricting,” Eric Schickler, co-director of IGS, said in a statement.

    Early voting data suggest the pro-Proposition 50 message has been successful.

    As of Tuesday, nearly 5 million Californians — about 21% of the state’s 23 million registered voters — had cast ballots, according to trackers run by Democratic and Republican strategists.

    Democrats greatly outnumber Republicans among the state’s registered voters, and they have outpaced them in returning ballots, 52% to 27%. Voters who do not have a party preference or who support other political parties have returned 21% of the ballots.

    The Berkeley/L.A. Times poll findings mirrored recent surveys by the Public Policy Institute of California, CBS News/YouGov and Emerson College.

    Among voters surveyed by the Berkeley/L.A. Times poll, 67% of Californians who had already voted supported Proposition 50, while 33% said they had weighed in against the ballot measure.

    The proposition also had an edge among those who planned to vote but had not yet cast their ballots, with 57% saying they planned to support the effort and 40% saying they planned to oppose it.

    However, 70% of voters who plan to cast ballots in person on Nov. 4, election day, said they would vote against Proposition 50, according to the poll. Less than 3 in 10 who said they would vote at their local polling place said they would support the rare mid-decade redistricting.

    These numbers highlight a recent shift in how Americans vote. Historically, Republicans voted by mail early, while Democrats cast ballots on election day. But this dynamic was upended in recent years after Trump questioned the security of early voting and mail voting, including just recently when he criticized Proposition 50.

    “No mail-in or ‘Early’ Voting, Yes to Voter ID! Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is! Millions of Ballots being ‘shipped,’” Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social. “GET SMART REPUBLICANS, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!”

    GOP leaders across the state have pushed back at such messaging without calling out the president. Urging Republicans to vote early, they argue that waiting to cast ballots only gives Democrats a greater advantage in California elections.

    Among the arguments promoted by the campaigns, likely voters agreed with every one posited by the supporters of Proposition 50, notably that the ballot measure would help Democrats win control of the House, while standing up to Trump and his attempts to rig the 2026 election, according to the poll. But they also agreed that the ballot measure would further diminish the power of the GOP in California, and that they didn’t trust partisan state lawmakers to draw congressional districts.

    The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 8,141 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from Oct. 20 to 27. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Proponents of Nov. 4 redistricting ballot measure vastly outraise opponents

    Supporters of Proposition 50, California Democrats’ ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts to help the party’s effort to take power in the U.S. House of Representatives, raised more than four times the amount that rivals raised in recent weeks, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state by the three main committees campaigning about the measure.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s committee supporting the redistricting measure raised $36.8 million between Sept. 21 and Oct. 18, bringing its total to $114.3 million, according to the report filed with the secretary of state’s office on Thursday, which was not available until Monday. It had $37.1 million in the bank and available to spend before the Nov. 4 special election.

    “We have hit our budget goals and raised what we need in order to pass Proposition 50,” Newsom emailed supporters on Monday. “You can stop donating.”

    The two main opposition groups raised a total of $8.4 million during the 28 days covered by the fundraising period, bringing their total haul to $43.7 million. They had $2.3 million in cash on hand going into the final stretch of the campaign.

    “As Gavin Newsom likes to say, we are not running the 90-yard dash here. We’ve seen a groundswell of support from Californians who understand what’s at stake if we let [President] Trump steal two more years of unchecked power,” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the main pro-Proposition 50 campaign. “But we are not taking anything for granted nor taking our foot off the gas. If we want to hold this dangerous and reckless president accountable, we must pass Prop. 50.”

    Newsom and other California Democrats decided to ask voters to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries, which are currently drawn by a voter-approved independent commission, in a mid-decade redistricting after Trump urged GOP-led states to redraw their districts in an effort for Republicans to retain control of Congress in next year’s midterm election.

    The balance of power in the narrowly divided House will determine whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda during his final two years of office, or is the focus of investigations and possibly an impeachment effort.

    Major donors supporting Proposition 50 include billionaire financier George Soros; the House Majority PAC, the campaign arm of congressional Democrats; and labor unions.

    Among the opponents of Proposition 50, top contributors include longtime GOP donor Charles Munger Jr., the son of the investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett; and the Congressional Leadership Fund, Republicans’ political arm in the House.

    “While we are being outspent, we’re continuing to communicate with Californians the dangers of suspending California’s gold-standard redistricting process,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the committee funded by Munger. “With just ten days to go, we are encouraging all voters to make their voice heard and to vote.”

    Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the committee that received $5 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund, said the organization was committed to continuing to raise money to block Newsom’s redistricting effort in the days leading up to the election.

    “His costly power grab would silence millions of Californians and deny them fair representation in Congress, which is why grassroots opposition is gaining momentum,” Hockenbury said. “In the final push, our data-driven campaign is strategically targeting key voters with our message to ensure every resource helps us defeat Prop. 50.”

    There are several other committees not affiliated with these main campaign groups that are receiving funding. Those include one created by billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, who donated $12 million, and the California Republican Party, which received $8 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund.

    These reports come a little more than a week before the Nov. 4 special election. More than 4 million mail ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties returned 21% of the ballots that have been received.

    The turnout figures are alarming Republican leaders.

    “If Republicans do not get out and vote now, we will lose Prop 50 and Gavin Newsom will control our district lines until 2032,” Orange County GOP Chair Will O’Neill wrote to party members on Friday, urging them to cast ballots this past weekend and sharing the locations of early voting centers in the county.

    Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) was more blunt on social media.

    “Right now we’re losing the fight against Prop 50 in CA, but turnout is LOW,” he posted on the social media platform X on Friday. “If every Republican voter gets off their ass, returns their ballot and votes NO, we WIN. IT. IS. THAT. SIMPLE.”

    More than 18.9 million ballots are outstanding, though not all will be completed. Early voting centers opened on Saturday in 29 California counties.

    “Think of Election Day as the last day to vote — not the only day. Like we always do, California gives voters more days and more ways to participate,” Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in a statement. “Don’t Delay! Vote today!”

    The U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday that it plans on monitoring polling sites in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties at the request of the state GOP.

    “Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

    Newsom, in a post on X on Friday, said the Trump administration is sending election monitors to polling places in California as part of a broader effort to stifle the vote, particularly among Californians of color, in advance of next year’s midterm election.

    “This is about voter intimidation. This is about voter suppression,” Newsom said, predicting that masked border agents would probably be present at California polling places through the Nov. 4 election. “I hope people understand it’s a bridge that they’re trying to build the scaffolding for all across this country in next November’s election. They do not believe in fair and free elections. Our republic, our democracy, is on the line.”

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Unions opposing Trump agenda pouring money into Proposition 50 campaign

    With the fate of President’s Trump’s right-wing agenda at stake, the California ballot measure crafted to tilt Congress to Democratic control has turned into a fight among millionaires and billionaires, a former president, a past movie-star governor and the nation’s top partisans.

    Californians have been inundated with political ads popping up on every screen — no cellphone, computer or living-room television is spared — trying to sway them about Proposition 50, which will reconfigure the districts of the largest state congressional delegation in the union.

    Besides opposing pleas from former President Obama and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s powerful, left-leaning labor unions are another factor that may influence the outcome of the Nov. 4 special election.

    Unions representing California school teachers, carpenters, state workers and nurses have plowed more than $23 million into efforts to pass Proposition 50, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure reports about donations exceeding $100,000. That’s nearly one-third of the six-figure donations reported through Thursday.

    Not only do these groups have major interests in the state capitol, including charter school reform, minimum wage hikes and preserving government healthcare programs, they also are deeply aligned with efforts by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats to put their party in control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 election.
    “There are real issues here that are at stake,” said veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman, who has represented several unions that have contributed to Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50.

    “There’s always a risk when making sizable donations, that you’re putting yourself out there,” Kaufman said. “But the truth is on Proposition 50, I think it’s much less calculated than normal contributions. It really is about the issue, not about currying favor with members of the Legislature, or the congressional delegation, or the governor. Even though, of course, it benefits them if we win.”

    High stakes brings in big money from across the nation

    Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 committee has raised more than $116 million, according to campaign disclosure filings through Thursday afternoon, though that number is sure to increase once additional donations are disclosed in the latest fundraising reports that are due by midnight Thursday.

    The multimillion-dollar donations provide the best evidence of what’s at stake, and how Proposition 50 could determine control of the House during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If the Democrats take control of the House, not only could that derail major parts of Trumps agenda, it probably would lead to a slew of congressional hearings on Trump’s immigration crackdown, use of the military in American cities, accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from Qatari’s royal family, the cutting of research funding to universities and the president’s ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, among many others.

    The House Majority PAC — the Democrats’ congressional fundraising arm — has donated at least $15 million to the pro-Proposition 50 campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was in Los Angeles to campaign for the ballot measure last weekend. Obama joined Newsom on a livestream promoting the proposition Wednesday, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hosted a bilingual phone bank in Los Angeles on Thursday.

    “Make no mistake about what they’re trying to do and why it’s so important that we fight back,” Martin said. “We’re not going to be the only party with one hand tied behind our back. If they want a showdown, we’re going to give them a showdown and in just a little under two weeks it starts right here with Prop. 50 in California.”

    Billionaire financier George Soros — a generous donor to liberal causes and a bogeyman to Republicans — has contributed $10 million. Others have chosen to fund separate entities campaigning in favor of Proposition 50, notably billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who chipped in $12 million.

    On the opposition side, the largest donor is Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, who has contributed $32.8 million to one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50. The Congressional Leadership Fund — the GOP’s political arm in the House — has donated $5 million to the other main anti-Proposition 50 committee and $8 million to the California Republican Party.

    Although Republicans may control the White House and Congress, the California GOP wields no real power in Sacramento, so it’s not surprising that Republican efforts opposing Proposition 50 have not received major donations from entities with business before the state.

    The California Chamber of Commerce opted to remain neutral on Proposition 50. Chevron and the California Resources Corp., petroleum companies that have given to California Republicans in the past, also remain on the sidelines.

    In contrast, Democrats control every statewide office and hold supermajorities in both houses of the California Legislature. The pro-Proposition 50 campaign has been showered with donations from groups aligned with Sacramento’s legislative leaders — with labor organizations chief among them.

    Among the labor donors, the powerful carpenters unions have donated at least $4 million. Newsom hailed them in July when he signed legislation altering a landmark environmental law for urban apartment developments to boost the supply of housing. The California Conference of Carpenters union has become one of the most pro-housing voices in the state.

    “This is the third of the last four years we’ve been together signing landmark housing reforms, and it simply would not have happened without the Carpenters,” Newsom said at the time.

    Daniel M. Curtin, director of the California Conference of Carpenters, pointed to a letter he wrote to legislators in August urging them to put redistricting on the ballot because of the effect of Trump’s policies on the state’s workers.

    “These are not normal times, and this isn’t politics as usual. Not only has the Trump administration denied disaster assistance to victims of California’s devastating forest fires, he’s damaging our CA economy with mass arrests of law-abiding workers without warrants,” wrote Curtin, whose union has 70,000 members in the state. “The Trump administration is now unilaterally withdrawing from legally binding union collective bargaining agreements with federal workforce unions. The President has made it clear that this is just the beginning.”

    Proposition 50 was prompted by Trump urging Republican leaders in Texas to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of GOP members in the House and keep the party in control after the 2026 election. Newsom sought to counter the move by altering California’s congressional boundaries in a rare mid-decade redistricting.

    With 52 members in the House, the state has the largest congressional delegation in the nation. But unlike many states, California’s districts are drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010 in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

    The state’s districts would not have been redrawn until after the 2030 U.S. census, but the Legislature and Newsom agreed in August to put Proposition 50, which would give Democrats the potential to pick up five seats, on the November ballot.

    Money from California unions pours in

    Although much of the money supporting the efforts comes from wealth Democratic donors and partisan groups aimed at helping Democrats take control of Congress, a significant portion comes from labor unions.

    The Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 700,000 healthcare workers, social workers, in-home caregivers and school employees and other state and local government workers, has contributed more than $5.5 million to the committee.

    On Oct. 12, the union celebrated Newsom signing bills ensuring that workers, regardless of immigration status, are informed about their civil and labor rights under state and federal law as well as updating legal guidance to state and local agencies about protecting private information, such as court records and medical data, from being misused by federal authorities.

    “Thank you to Governor Newsom for … standing up to federal overreach and indiscriminate, violent attacks on our communities,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California, said in a statement.

    Huerta was arrested during the first day of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles in June and charged with a felony. But federal prosecutors are instead pursuing a misdemeanor case against him, according to a Friday court filing.

    An SEIU representative did not respond to requests for comment.

    The California Teachers Assn., another potent force in state politics, has contributed more than $3.3 million, along with millions more from other education unions such as the National Education Assn., the California Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers.

    CTA had a mixed record in this year’s legislative session.

    Newsom vetoed a bill to crack down on charter school fraud, Senate Bill 414. The CTA opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to target fraud in some of the schools, and had urged the governor to reject it.

    Newsom signed CTA-backed bills that placed strict limits on ICE agents’ access to school grounds. But he also vetoed union-backed bill that would have required the state Board of Education to adopt health education instructional materials by July 1, 2028.

    CTA President David Goldberg said their donations are driven not only by issues important to the union’s members, but also the students they serve who are dependent on federally funded assistance programs and impacted by policies such as immigration.

    “It’s about our livelihood but it really is about fundamental issues … for people who serve students who are just incredibly under attack right now,” Goldberg said.

    “The governor’s support for labor would be exactly the same with or without Proposition 50 on the ballot. But he would acknowledge this year is more urgent than ever for labor and working people,” said Newsom spokesperson Bob Salladay. “Trump is taking a wrecking ball to collective bargaining, to fair wages and safe working conditions. He would be backing them up under any circumstances, but especially now.”

    Critics of Proposition 50 argue that these contributions are among the reasons voters should oppose the ballot measure.

    “The independent redistricting commission exists to prevent conflicts of interest and money from influencing line drawing,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, the committee backed by Munger Jr., who bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure to create the independent commission. “That’s why we want to preserve its independence.”

    Other labor leaders argued that although they are not always in lockstep with Newsom, they need to support Proposition 50 because of the importance of Democrats winning the congressional majority next year.

    Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the powerful California Labor Federation, said the timing of the member unions’ donations of millions of dollars to Newsom’s ballot measure committee for an election taking place shortly after the bill-signing period was “unfortunate” and “weird.”

    “Because we have so many bills in front of him, we were gun-shy,” she said, noting that the federation has sparred with the governor over issues such as the effect of artificial intelligence in the workplace. “Never be too close to your elected officials. Because we see the good, the bad, the ugly.”

    Times staff writers Andrea Flores and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Lawyer reacts to federal immigration agents coming to Northern California

    Federal immigration agents are moving into the Bay Area, with more than a hundred headed to Coast Guard Base Alameda, marking a significant federal operation in the region. In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on “Fox News Sunday Morning Futures,” President Donald Trump said, “We’re going to go to San Francisco. The difference is, I think they want us in San Francisco.” This move comes as a precursor to Trump’s threat to deploy the National Guard to San Francisco. Coast Guard Base Alameda confirmed the federal operation, stating: “Coast Guard Base Alameda is preparing to support CBP agents beginning October 22 as a place of operations. This support of DHS agencies continues the Coast Guard’s operations to control, secure, and defend U.S. borders and maritime approaches.” This announcement follows similar operations in cities like Los Angeles and New York, with the spotlight now turning to the Bay Area.”As much as the state of California and its residents may not like it, federal authorities are allowed to enforce immigration law,” Local immigration attorney Hugo Vera of Vera & Vera PLC explained. Vera explained that the legal authority federal agencies have in sanctuary cities questions the 10th Amendment and the Posse Comitatus law, which requires separation between the federal government and the state government.Gov. Gavin Newsom responded on X, criticizing the federal actions as part of an “authoritarian playbook,” accusing the administration of lying about a city’s crime rate and creating stress with ICE and Border Patrol. Vera noted the proximity of the operation to the area. “I think on a national scale, Sacramento’s on the map, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the administration decides to highlight Sacramento is one of those cities that they will come after, quote unquote, like they’re doing in San Francisco and have done in the South,” said Vera.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    , Calif. —

    Federal immigration agents are moving into the Bay Area, with more than a hundred headed to Coast Guard Base Alameda, marking a significant federal operation in the region. In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on “Fox News Sunday Morning Futures,” President Donald Trump said, “We’re going to go to San Francisco. The difference is, I think they want us in San Francisco.”

    This move comes as a precursor to Trump’s threat to deploy the National Guard to San Francisco.

    Coast Guard Base Alameda confirmed the federal operation, stating:

    “Coast Guard Base Alameda is preparing to support CBP agents beginning October 22 as a place of operations. This support of DHS agencies continues the Coast Guard’s operations to control, secure, and defend U.S. borders and maritime approaches.”

    This announcement follows similar operations in cities like Los Angeles and New York, with the spotlight now turning to the Bay Area.

    “As much as the state of California and its residents may not like it, federal authorities are allowed to enforce immigration law,” Local immigration attorney Hugo Vera of Vera & Vera PLC explained.

    Vera explained that the legal authority federal agencies have in sanctuary cities questions the 10th Amendment and the Posse Comitatus law, which requires separation between the federal government and the state government.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom responded on X, criticizing the federal actions as part of an “authoritarian playbook,” accusing the administration of lying about a city’s crime rate and creating stress with ICE and Border Patrol.

    Vera noted the proximity of the operation to the area.

    “I think on a national scale, Sacramento’s on the map, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the administration decides to highlight Sacramento is one of those cities that they will come after, quote unquote, like they’re doing in San Francisco and have done in the South,” said Vera.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • Newsom warns Californians’ SNAP benefits could be delayed because of federal shutdown

    Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a stark warning Monday that food assistance benefits for millions of low-income Californians could be delayed starting Nov. 1 if the ongoing federal shutdown does not end by Thursday.

    The benefits, issued under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and formerly called food stamps, include federally funded benefits loaded onto CalFresh cards. They support some 5.5 million Californians.

    Newsom blamed the potential SNAP disruption — and the shutdown more broadly — on President Trump and slammed the timing of the potential cutoff just as the Thanksgiving holiday approaches.

    “Trump’s failure to open the federal government is now endangering people’s lives and making basic needs like food more expensive — just as the holidays arrive,” Newsom said. “It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to grow a spine, stand up to Trump, and deliver for the American people.”

    The White House responded by blaming the shutdown on Democrats, as it has done before.

    Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the “Democrats’ decision to shut down the government is hurting Americans across the country,” and that Democrats “can choose to reopen the government at any point” by voting for a continuing resolution to fund the government as budget negotiations continue, which she said they repeatedly did during the Biden administration.

    “Newscum should urge his Democrat pals to stop hurting the American people,” Jackson said, using a favorite Trump insult for Newsom. “The Trump Administration is working day and night to mitigate the pain Democrats are causing, and even that is upsetting the Left, with many Democrats criticizing the President’s effort to pay the troops and fund food assistance for women and children.”

    Congressional Republicans also have blamed the shutdown and resulting interruptions to federal programs on Democrats, who are refusing to vote for a Republican-backed funding measure based in large part on Republican decisions to eliminate subsidies for healthcare plans relied on by millions of Americans.

    Newsom’s warning about SNAP benefits followed similar alerts from other states on both sides of the political aisle, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned state agencies in an Oct. 10 letter that the shutdown may interrupt funding for the benefits.

    States have to take action to issue November benefits before the month ends, so the shutdown would have to end sooner than Nov. 1 for the benefits to be available in time.

    Newsom’s office said Californians could see their benefits interrupted or delayed if the shutdown is not ended by Thursday. The Texas Health and Human Services Department warned that SNAP benefits for November “won’t be issued if the federal government shutdown continues past Oct. 27.”

    Newsom’s office said a cutoff of funds would affect federally funded CalFresh benefits, but also some other state-funded benefits. More than 63% of SNAP recipients in California are children or elderly people, Newsom’s office said.

    In her own statement, First Partner of California Jennifer Siebel Newsom said, “Government should be measured by how we protect people’s lives, their health, and their well-being. Parents and caregivers should not be forced to choose between buying groceries or paying bills.”

    States were already gearing up for other changes to SNAP eligibility based on the Republican-passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” which set new limits on SNAP benefits, including for nonworking adults. Republicans have argued that such restrictions will encourage more able-bodied adults to get back into the workforce to support their families themselves.

    Many Democrats and advocacy organizations that work to protect low-income families and children have argued that restricting SNAP benefits has a disproportionately large effect on some of the most vulnerable people in the country, including poor children.

    According to the USDA, about 41.7 million Americans were served by SNAP benefits per month in fiscal 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion. The USDA has some contingency funding it can utilize to continue benefits in the short term, but does not have enough to cover all monthly benefits, advocates said.

    Andrew Cheyne, managing director of public policy at the advocacy group End Child Poverty California, urged the USDA to utilize its contingency funding and any other funding stream possible to prevent a disruption to SNAP benefits, which he said would be “disastrous.”

    “CalFresh is a lifeline for 5.5 million Californians who rely on the program to eat. That includes 2 million children. It is unconscionable that we are only days away from children and families not knowing where their next meal is going to come from,” Cheyne said.

    He said the science is clear that “even a brief period of food insecurity has long-term consequences for children’s growth and development.”

    Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said a disruption would be “horrific.”

    “We speak out for the needs of kids and families, and kids need food — basic support to live and function and go to school,” he said. “So this could be really devastating.”

    Times staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Cheap insulin pens will soon be available through state-backed deal, Newsom announces

    SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced a plan to offer $11 insulin pens through the state’s pharmaceutical venture.

    Beginning Jan. 1, consumers can purchase a five-pack of pens for a suggested price of $55, according to the governor’s office. The packs will be available to California pharmacies for $45.

    California is the first state in the nation to sell its own brand of generic prescription drugs as Newsom and other state leaders seek ways to drive down rising healthcare costs.

    Insulin users without health insurance today can pay $400 for a small vial.

    Newsom, in a statement Thursday, said that Californians shouldn’t “ration insulin or go into debt to stay alive.”

    “California didn’t wait for the pharmaceutical industry to do the right thing — we took matters into our own hands,” Newsom said.

    Officials hope the drug will lower costs across the board, not just for the consumers ultimately picking up the drug. Major drug companies have also cut prices on insulin, but critics contend those cost savings are passed on to other consumers.

    Earlier this week, Newsom signed legislation, Senate Bill 40, capping insulin co-pays at $35 for the first time in California.

    “This law ensures no family will be forced to choose between buying insulin and putting food on the table in California again,” the bill’s author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), said in a statement.

    Newsom, who vowed to be the “healthcare governor” during his campaign, in 2020 unveiled a proposal for California to make its own line of generic drugs.

    Three years later, he announced a $50-million contract with the nonprofit generic drugmaker Civica to produce insulin under the state’s own label.

    Earlier this year, the state began selling Naloxone, a medication that blocks the effects of opioids, at below market prices.

    Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • I-5 may be shut down due to concerns over live-fire military event at Camp Pendleton

    SACRAMENTO  — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office is weighing whether to close parts of Interstate 5 beginning Friday amid concerns over what it says is a White House-directed plan to use live ordnance during a military anniversary celebration off Camp Pendleton’s coast in San Diego County — where Navy ships are expected to fire over the freeway onto the base.

    Newsom’s office has received, but not confirmed, reports that live ordnance will be fired from offshore vessels during the event commemorating the Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary. The event is titled “Sea to Shore — A Review of Amphibious Strength” and will feature Vice President JD Vance.

    Newsom’s office said it has received little information about the event or safety plans. The military show of force coincides with No Kings rallies and marches across the state on Saturday that are expected to draw large crowds, demonstrations challenging Trump and what critics say is government overreach.

    “Donald Trump and JD Vance think that shutting down the I-5 to shoot out missiles from ships is how you respect the military,” Newsom posted on the social media site X Wednesday.

    A military media advisory said the celebration will include a live amphibious assault demonstration. The Times could not confirm whether live ordnance will be fired over the freeway. The White House and Marine Corps did not respond to questions from The Times.

    “California always honors our Marines — but this isn’t the right way to go about it,” said a Newsom spokesperson. “The White House should focus on paying their military, lowering grocery prices and honoring these soldiers for their service instead of pompous displays of power. The lack of coordination and communication from the federal government on this event — and the overall impact to our society and economy — is evident of the larger disarray that is the Trump Administration.”

    Freeway closures are being considered for a section of I-5 between Orange County to San Diego County from Friday to Saturday, which would cut off a major traffic artery that moves upward of 80,000 travelers a day. A closure with little notice would likely result in massive gridlock from Dana Point in the north to well past Del Mar in the south.

    Vance, the first Marine veteran to serve as vice president, is expected to attend the event Saturday along with 15,000 Marines, Sailors, veterans and their families, according to event’s media release. Along with Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to deliver remarks.

    Camp Pendleton advised nearby residents that there will be live-fire training with high explosive munitions through Sunday, which will result in some roads on base being closed.

    The Trump administration previously had plans for a major celebration next month for the 250th anniversary of the Navy and Marines, which would have included an air and sea show — with the Blue Angels and parading warships — attended by President Trump, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. Plans to host that show in San Diego have been called off, the paper reported.

    Camp Pendleton is a 125,000-acre base in northwestern San Diego County that has been critical in preparing soldiers for amphibious missions since World War II thanks to its miles of beach and coastal hills. The U.S. Department of Defense is considering making a portion of the base available for development or lease.

    Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Here’s how the 2025 legislative session closed: The lowdown on the environment

    Gov. Gavin Newsom wrapped up the 2025 legislative session with the usual flurry of activity, signing several important environmental, energy and climate bills and vetoing others ahead of Monday’s deadline.

    Among the newest laws in California are efforts to accelerate clean energy projects and advance the state’s position as a climate leader — but also decisions to ramp up oil drilling and reject the phase-out of forever chemicals.

    Here’s a look at what happened this year:

    In September, Newsom signed a blockbuster suite of bills including the reauthorization of California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and lets large polluters buy and sell emissions allowances at quarterly auctions. The Legislature extended the program by 15 years to 2045, rebranded it as “cap-and-invest” and specified how its revenues will be allocated for wildfire prevention efforts, high-speed rail and other projects.

    The greenhouse gas trading program is seen as essential for the state to meet its climate targets, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

    “California really needed to act this year to decisively try to put in policies to meet our climate goals [and support] the economy and different sectors,” said Susan Nedell, senior western advocate with the nonpartisan policy group E2. She called state legislative efforts especially important as the Trump administration aims to erode California’s authority on tailpipe emission standards, electric vehicle initiatives and renewable energy projects, among others.

    “This is the time for California to lead, and I really feel like they came through on it as a state,” Nedell said.

    WHAT ELSE BECAME LAW

    • One of the more controversial bills of the year was Senate Bill 237, which makes it easier to drill up to 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County. It’s a tradeoff that also makes it more difficult to drill new oil or gas wells offshore. Legislators said it will help address the volatility of gasoline prices following announcements from oil companies Phillips 66 and Valero that they are shutting down two big refineries in the state. Environmental groups were quick to condemn the bill.
    • Also controversial was Assembly Bill 825, which will expand California’s participation in a regional power market — enabling the state to buy and sell more clean power with other Western states. Opponents feared that it will cede some control of California’s power grid to out-of-state authorities, including the federal government. Supporters said it will improve grid reliability and save money for ratepayers.
    • January’s firestorm in L.A. led to a renewed focus on the state’s approach to fires, including Senate Bill 254, which contains various policies to address California’s aging electric infrastructure and wildfire prevention goals. It will secure about $18 billion to replenish the state’s wildfire fund — a state insurance policy for utilities — which officials say will help protect ratepayers from excessive utility liability costs. It also will establish a program to speed up the construction of power lines needed for clean energy projects.
    • Assembly Bill 39 requires cities and counties with at least 75,000 residents to plan for more electrification infrastructure by 2030, including electric vehicle charging and building upgrades. The measures must address the needs of low-income households and disadvantaged communities.
    • Senate Bill 80 will create a $5-million fund to accelerate research and development for fusion energy. Fusion creates energy by slamming two atoms together. The state hopes to launch the world’s first fusion energy pilot project by the 2040s. “Fusion energy has the immense potential to provide consistent, clean baseload power on demand that will help us meet our clean energy goals,” said Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), the bill’s author, in a statement.
    • Assembly Bill 888 creates a grant program to help low-income homeowners clear defensible space around their houses and install fire-safe roofs. It is “exactly the kind of proactive, people-first policy California needs,” said Eric Horne, California director for the nonprofit Megafire Action, which is geared to ending large wildfires.
    • Senate Bill 653 means that state agencies have to pay more attention to using native species in their fire prevention work and use science-based standards to avoid introducing invasive, fire-prone species.
    • Senate Bill 429 establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program at the California Department of Insurance, which will fund research into developing and deploying a public wildfire catastrophe model — a computer simulation that estimates property damage from large wildfires and helps communities better assess and prepare for risk.
    • Assembly Bill 462 streamlines approvals for accessory dwelling units on properties affected by the 2025 wildfires in the California Coastal Zone, requiring decisions on coastal permits within 60 days and eliminating some appeals.
    • Assembly Bill 818 accelerates local permitting for rebuilding homes and allows residents to place temporary homes, such as manufactured homes or ADUs, on private lots during reconstruction.
    • Assembly Bill 245 gives residents additional time to rebuild their homes or businesses in the wake of the 2025 wildfires without experiencing a property tax increase.
    • Senate Bill 614 will establish new regulations for the safe transport of carbon dioxide captured from large polluters or removed from the atmosphere. The legislation will authorize the development of dedicated pipelines to move CO2 to underground geological formations for permanent storage, and was described by Newsom as a vital next step for the state’s burgeoning carbon capture, removal and sequestration market.
    • Assembly Bill 14 expands the “Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies Program” statewide. The program encourages large vessels to voluntarily reduce their speed in designated areas in order to reduce air pollution and reduce the risk of fatal vessel strikes and harmful underwater acoustic impacts on whales.

    WHAT WAS VETOED

    • The governor vetoed Senate Bill 34, which would have required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to consider certain factors before implementing regulations at the region’s ports. Opponents, including health and environmental groups, said it would have ultimately weakened its authority and ability to meet clean air standards. In its place, the air district and the ports are pursuing a voluntary cooperative agreement that will include obligations for zero-emissions infrastructure and other clean-air efforts. “With the current federal administration directly undermining our state and local air and climate pollution reduction strategies, it is imperative that we maintain the tools we have,” Newsom wrote in his veto.
    • Assembly Bill 740 would have directed the state’s energy agencies to create an implementation plan for “virtual power plants” — networks of small energy resources such as smart thermostats, home batteries and rooftop solar panels that can help reduce strain on the grid. Newsom vetoed it earlier this month, stating that it would result in additional costs for the California Energy Commission’s already depleted operating fund. But Edson Perez, California lead at the nonprofit Advanced Energy United, called its veto a “costly mistake” and said the bill would have saved ratepayers more than $13 billion.
    • Newsom this week also vetoed Senate Bill 682, which would have phased out the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in consumer products such as nonstick cookwear and products for infants and children. The governor cited concerns about affordability in his veto.

    Earlier this year, the governor also signed the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, since it originally became law in 1970. Signed in June, Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 exempt a broad array of housing development and infrastructure projects from CEQA in an effort to ease new construction in the state. Supporters said it will help address the state’s housing crisis, while many environmental groups were outraged by the move.

    “While California was able to advance on grid regionalization, strengthen energy affordability, uphold local air quality protection, and protect endangered species, we’re frustrated by the Governor’s vetoes of measures that would have banned forever chemicals, prioritized cost effective energy consumption, expanded virtual power plants to lower electricity bills, and banned microplastics,” said Melissa Romero, policy advocacy director with the nonprofit California Environmental Voters.

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • Tech billionaire Marc Benioff says Trump should deploy National Guard to San Francisco

    Marc Benioff has become the latest Silicon Valley tech leader to signal his approval of President Trump, saying that the president is doing a great job and ought to deploy the National Guard to deal with crime in San Francisco.

    The Salesforce chief executive’s comments came as he headed to San Francisco to host his annual Dreamforce conference — an event for which he said he had to hire hundreds of off-duty police to provide security.

    “We don’t have enough cops, so if they [National Guard] can be cops, I’m all for it,” he told the New York Times from aboard his private plane.

    The National Guard is generally not allowed to perform domestic law enforcement duties when federalized by the president.

    Last month, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s use of National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act — which restricts use of the military for domestic law enforcement — and ordered that the troops not be used in law enforcement operations within California.

    Trump has also ordered the National Guard to deploy to cities such as Portland, Ore., and Chicago, citing the need to protect federal officers and assets in the face of ongoing immigration protests. Those efforts have been met with criticism from local leaders and are the subject of ongoing legal battles.

    President Trump has yet to direct troops to Northern California, but suggested in September that San Francisco could be a target for deployment. He has said that cities with Democratic political leadership such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles “are very unsafe places and we are going to straighten them out.”

    “I told [Defense Secretary] Pete [Hegseth] we should use some of these dangerous cities as training for our military, our national guard,” Trump said.

    Benioff’s call to send National Guard troops to San Francisco drew sharp rebukes from several of the region’s elected Democratic leaders.

    San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins said she “can’t be silent any longer” and threatened to prosecute any leaders or troops who harass residents in a fiery statement on X.

    “I am responsible for holding criminals accountable, and that includes holding government and law enforcement officials too, when they cross the bounds of the law,” she said. “If you come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents, use excessive force or cross any other boundaries that the law prescribes, I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day.”

    State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) also took to X to express indignation, saying, “we neither need nor want an illegal military occupation in San Francisco.”

    “Salesforce is a great San Francisco company that does so much good for our city,” he said. “Inviting Trump to send the National Guard here is not one of those good things. Quite the opposite.”

    San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office offered a more muted response, touting the mayor’s efforts to boost public safety in general, but declining to directly address Benioff’s remarks.

    Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the mayor, noted that the city is seeing net gains in both police officers and sheriff’s deputies for the first time in a decade. He also highlighted Lurie’s efforts to bring police staffing up to 2,000 officers.

    “Crime is down nearly 30% citywide and at its lowest point in decades,” Lutvak said. “We are moving in the right direction and will continue to prioritize safety and hiring while San Francisco law enforcement works every single day to keep our city safe.”

    When contacted by The Times on Friday night, the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who vociferously opposed the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, did not issue a comment in response to Benioff.

    Benioff and Newsom have long been considered friends, with a relationship dating back to when Newsom served as San Francisco’s mayor. Newsom even named Benioff as godfather to one of his children, according to the San Francisco Standard.

    Benioff has often referred to himself as an independent. He has donated to several liberal causes, including a $30-million donation to UC San Francisco to study homelessness, and has contributed to prior political campaigns of former President Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Hillary Clinton.

    However, he has also donated to the campaigns of former House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. John McCain, both Republicans, and supported tougher-on-crime policies and reducing government spending.

    Earlier this year, Benioff also praised the Elon Musk-led federal cost-cutting effort known as the Department of Government Efficiency.

    “I fully support the president,” Benioff told the New York Times this week. “I think he’s doing a great job.”

    Clara Harter

    Source link

  • New California law will guarantee Cal State admission to qualified high school graduates

    NEW LAW GRANTS AUTOMATIC ADMISSION INTO CAL STATE SCHOOLS FOR QUALIFIED HIGH SCHOOL GRADS. YEAH, A LOT OF STUDENTS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. GOVERNOR NEWSOM SIGNED THE BILL TO STREAMLINE THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS AND BOOST ENROLLMENT. KCRA 3’S DUNCAN CORTEZ SHOWS US WHAT THIS NEW LAW WILL DO. IT’S A NEW DOOR TO HIGHER EDUCATION, QUALIFIED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE MEETS, MINIMUM CAL STATE REQUIREMENTS, COLLEGE ACCEPTANCE. EASY ENOUGH. WHAT’S THE CATCH? SO WE’RE JUST CONNECTING THE TWO. AND SO IT DOESN’T COST ANYTHING BUT A POSTAGE STAMP. GOT IT. SO YEAH, TAXPAYERS DON’T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING. CORRECT. YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT. IT’S A NEW LAW FROM A PILOT PROGRAM THAT LAWMAKERS ARE HOPING WILL IMPROVE. SOME CAL STATE SCHOOLS SEEING LOW ENROLLMENT NUMBERS AND STREAMLINE THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS. WE ALREADY KNOW WHO IS COMPLETED THE COURSES WITH A 2.5 GPA. LIKE, WHERE DO YOU KNOW THAT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES THAT MEET THE MINIMUM CSU REQUIREMENTS OF A 2.5 GPA OR C GRADE AVERAGE WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ADMITTED INTO 16 CSU SCHOOLS THAT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE THEM IN, BYPASSING THE APPLICATION PROCESS. YOU’LL GET YOUR LETTER IN SEPTEMBER, WHICH MEANS THAT THEN YOU CAN THEN YOU CAN STILL DECIDE, HEY, I MIGHT. I DIDN’T KNOW I WAS A UNIVERSITY OF MATERIAL. THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SHARING A STATEMENT WITH KCRA 3 SAYING BY FORMALIZING AND EXPANDING THIS PROVEN MODEL STATEWIDE, SB 640 WILL CREATE A MORE STREAMLINED, DATA DRIVEN PATHWAY FROM CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS TO ITS PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES. IT’S SOMETHING FRESHMAN MECHANICAL ENGINEER AHMED DAVIS SAYS COULD BE USEFUL, AS HE JUST WENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS MONTHS AGO. A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO GO TO COLLEGE. SO A STATE UNIVERSITY AND THEY REALLY LIKE HELP WITH THAT FOR THE MOST PART. COULD THIS POTENTIALLY DILUTE ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS IF STUDENTS JUST HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN AUTOMATICALLY GET INTO COLLEGE? NO. SO SO I MEAN, WE’RE VERY WE MADE SURE IT’S GOT TO BE RIGOROUS. IT’S THE SAME EXACT ADMISSION STANDARDS THAT APPLY TODAY IN SCHOOLS WILL BE USING TRANSCRIPT DATA FROM THE CALIFORNIA COLLEGES EDU WEBSITE TO DETERMINE STUDENT ELIGIBILITY, ALL FOR A MORE STREAMLINED APPROACH. IN SACRAMENTO STATE, DENNIS CORTEZ KCRA THREE NEWS. THIS NEW LAW WILL START WITH 43 SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACROSS CALIFORNIA, AND IT WILL EXPAND

    New California law will guarantee Cal State admission to qualified high school graduates

    Gov. Newsom signs SB 640, expanding statewide admissions program

    Updated: 8:09 PM PDT Oct 10, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    The California State University Direct Admissions Program has been expanded statewide with the signing of Senate Bill 640 by Gov. Gavin Newsom this week, aiming to increase access to higher education amid post-pandemic enrollment declines.Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, District 3, who authored the bill, said it drew broad bipartisan support and emphasized that the new law does not use taxpayer dollars.“The only cost — a postage stamp to students letting them know they are accepted in,” Cabaldon said.Sixteen CSU campuses, including Sacramento State, will participate in the program. Six campuses are currently too full to take part: San Jose State, San Diego State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Long Beach. Students can still apply to those campuses through the traditional admissions process.Lawmakers hope the new law will make it easier for students to pursue higher education, particularly at campuses such as Sonoma State, which has seen the largest decline, nearly 4,000 students.SB 640 builds on CSU’s first systemwide direct admissions program, launched last year as a pilot with the Riverside County Office of Education. It also expands CSU’s existing Dual Admission Program, known as the Transfer Success Pathway, to ensure more students — especially those who might not have otherwise applied — see a clear and supported route to earning a CSU degree.The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2026, with full statewide participation beginning for fall 2027 applicants. For students applying now for fall 2026, the priority application period runs from Oct. 1 through Dec. 1. CSU’s existing direct admissions program — which includes the Riverside County Office of Education’s 23 districts and 20 additional districts statewide — will remain in effect, and eligible students in those districts have begun receiving notifications.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    , Calif. —

    The California State University Direct Admissions Program has been expanded statewide with the signing of Senate Bill 640 by Gov. Gavin Newsom this week, aiming to increase access to higher education amid post-pandemic enrollment declines.

    Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, District 3, who authored the bill, said it drew broad bipartisan support and emphasized that the new law does not use taxpayer dollars.

    “The only cost — a postage stamp to students letting them know they are accepted in,” Cabaldon said.

    Sixteen CSU campuses, including Sacramento State, will participate in the program. Six campuses are currently too full to take part: San Jose State, San Diego State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Long Beach. Students can still apply to those campuses through the traditional admissions process.

    Lawmakers hope the new law will make it easier for students to pursue higher education, particularly at campuses such as Sonoma State, which has seen the largest decline, nearly 4,000 students.

    SB 640 builds on CSU’s first systemwide direct admissions program, launched last year as a pilot with the Riverside County Office of Education. It also expands CSU’s existing Dual Admission Program, known as the Transfer Success Pathway, to ensure more students — especially those who might not have otherwise applied — see a clear and supported route to earning a CSU degree.

    The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2026, with full statewide participation beginning for fall 2027 applicants. For students applying now for fall 2026, the priority application period runs from Oct. 1 through Dec. 1.

    CSU’s existing direct admissions program — which includes the Riverside County Office of Education’s 23 districts and 20 additional districts statewide — will remain in effect, and eligible students in those districts have begun receiving notifications.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • President Trump is sending 300 Cal Guard to Oregon and Newsom says he’ll sue

    Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement in response to the Trump Administration deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Portland, Oregon, after a federal district court blocked the attempted federalization of Oregon’s National Guard:“In response to a federal court order that blocked his attempt to federalize the Oregon National Guard, President Trump is deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Oregon. They are on their way there now. This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power. The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.This isn’t about public safety, it’s about power. The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens. We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.” —Governor Gavin NewsomTrump illegally sends California troops to OregonDespite a federal court order finding no legal basis to deploy state National Guard troops to the streets of Portland and ordering that control of the Oregon National Guard be returned to state command, the Trump Administration is now sending 300 federally controlled members of the California National Guard to Portland to take their place. The troops had originally been federalized months ago in response to unrest in Los Angeles — conditions that never necessitated their deployment in the first place, and have long since subsided anyway. Courts rebuke Trump’s lawlessnessIn its ruling yesterday, the federal judge appointed by President Trump rejected the Trump Administration’s justification for deploying federalized troops, writing in its order: “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”The court found that the President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guard were not “conceived in good faith” and were “simply untethered to the facts.”

    Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement in response to the Trump Administration deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Portland, Oregon, after a federal district court blocked the attempted federalization of Oregon’s National Guard:

    “In response to a federal court order that blocked his attempt to federalize the Oregon National Guard, President Trump is deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Oregon. They are on their way there now. This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power. The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.

    This isn’t about public safety, it’s about power. The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens. We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.” —Governor Gavin Newsom

    Trump illegally sends California troops to Oregon

    Despite a federal court order finding no legal basis to deploy state National Guard troops to the streets of Portland and ordering that control of the Oregon National Guard be returned to state command, the Trump Administration is now sending 300 federally controlled members of the California National Guard to Portland to take their place. The troops had originally been federalized months ago in response to unrest in Los Angeles — conditions that never necessitated their deployment in the first place, and have long since subsided anyway.

    Courts rebuke Trump’s lawlessness

    In its ruling yesterday, the federal judge appointed by President Trump rejected the Trump Administration’s justification for deploying federalized troops, writing in its order:

    “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”

    The court found that the President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guard were not “conceived in good faith” and were “simply untethered to the facts.”

    Source link

  • Newsom chides USC to ‘do the right thing’ for academic freedom and resist Trump compact

    Gov. Newsom on Friday waded further into the controversy surrounding a higher education compact President Trump has presented to nine universities including USC, chiding campus leadership to “do the right thing” and reject the offer.

    The compact, sent Wednesday to the University of Southern California and other campuses nationwide, has roiled higher education with its demands for rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.

    On Thursday, Newsom swung back at the Trump proposal and threatened to cut “billions” of dollars in state funding to any California university that agrees to it.

    Newsom offered fiery remarks during a bill signing at UC Berkeley on Friday, escalating the stakes in the high-pressure decision confronting USC.

    “Do the right thing,” he said. “What’s the point of the system? What’s the point of the university? What’s the point of all of this if we don’t have academic freedom? … It’s not a choice, and the fact that I felt I needed to even send that message is rather shocking, because some people think it is.”

    Newsom scoffed at the notion that USC, a private institution, even has to deliberate over the Trump offer — calling it a “false choice.”

    The compact’s conservative goals

    The White House offer to USC and a small group of prominent universities — among them the University of Arizona, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas and Brown University — calls on campuses to follow Trump’s views on admissions, diversity and free speech, among other areas. In exchange, they would get more favorable access to federal research grants and additional funding, in addition to other benefits.

    Universities would also have to accept the government’s definition of gender and would not be allowed to recognize transgender people’s gender identities. Foreign student enrollment would be restricted. In regards to free speech, schools would have to commit to promoting a wide range of views on campus — and change or abolish “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” according to the compact.

    In a campus letter Friday, USC interim President Beong-Soo Kim said the White House offer “covers a number of issues that I believe are important to study and discuss.”

    “I have already heard from several members of our community, and in the weeks ahead, I will be consulting with the Board of Trustees; the deans and leadership team; and members of the Academic Senate, the Academic Freedom Task Force, the President’s Faculty Advisory Committee, and other stakeholder groups to hear their wide-ranging perspectives,” Kim said. “These conversations can take time, but they are essential to building trust and community.”

    He said it was his responsibility to “advance USC’s mission and uphold our core values.”

    Speaking at the Berkeley event, Newsom said USC is among California’s “great universities” that are “all in this together” as campuses face an uncertain and rocky future amid the Trump presidency.

    A day earlier the governor threatened to withhold Cal Grants, the state’s largest financial aid program to California public and private universities that sign onto Trump’s deal. The grants are awarded based on income, and students become eligible through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid or California Dream Act Application.

    In 2024-25, $2.5 billion in Cal Grants were doled out statewide. USC received Cal Grants worth about $28 million during that academic year.

    UC negotiations ongoing

    In response to a question about the proposal to USC and whether Newsom would issue the same threat of removing state funding to UCLA — the subject of ongoing negotiations over a sprawling U.S. Department of Justice antisemitism investigation — the governor said he was “not concerned” about the UC system.

    “I’m not concerned about their capacity to organize a strategy that’s thoughtful and deliberative that maintains our values … without resorting to the kind of expressed concerns that I have about the university in question that was on that list,” Newsom said.

    As UCLA continues to negotiate with the Trump administration, Newsom said he has confidence in the university system, whose leaders have been working “collaboratively for weeks” to come to a resolution.

    The governor’s more tempered remarks were a shift from his comments in August and September, when he said UC should “sue” Trump and should not “bend the knee,” a reference to his belief that the deals made by Brown and Columbia universities with the White House were bad moves that empowered the government to target more campuses.

    “Governor Newsom, [UC] President [James B.] Milliken and the board of regents are fully aligned in protecting the values, integrity and unparalleled quality of the University of California system,” UC Board of Regents Chair Janet Reilly said Friday in a statement to The Times following Newsom’s comments.

    In a Friday letter, Milliken said the Trump compact was also a subject of talks among system leaders.

    “Just within the last few days, the administration has announced a plan to impose a myriad of new requirements on universities seeking federal funding, which we will discuss soon with faculty leadership,” said Milliken, without elaborating on the matter.

    The Trump proposal has not been sent to UC. A White House official said the initial campuses on its list were the first group in potentially many more colleges to receive the terms.

    After the Justice Department found in July that UCLA violated Jewish students’ rights amid its response to spring 2024 pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Trump administration sought a nearly $1.2-billion penalty from the school. The government is also seeking changes over admissions, foreign student enrollment, diversity programs and other GOP priorities in higher education.

    While praising UC’s handling of federal negotiations, Newsom was less supportive of recent actions by UC Berkeley to release the personal information of 160 employees to Department of Education as part of a federal investigation into alleged campus antisemitism.

    UC officials said they strive to protect employee privacy and were required to share information with the department because it enforces civil rights law on campuses. Faculty have criticized the move, with some likening it to anti-free speech practices during the McCarthy era.

    Newsom said he “requested an independent review” of the data release in order to “make a judgment as to whether or not it was appropriate, whether or not it was consistent with past practices or whether or not it should be adjusted in terms of policy.”

    USC ‘between a rock and a hard place’

    Rick Hess, an education analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said Newsom’s remarks “seemed not inappropriate.”

    “If a [Kamala] Harris administration had tried something like this, I think Republican governors would be equally livid,” said Hess, director of the institute’s education policy studies.

    “USC is between a rock and a hard place,” Hess added. “If they say no, what does any of this mean? What does it mean to not be prioritized for federal research funds? Does that mean the tap will be shut off? On the other hand, once you’ve signed … will the administration abide by the promises it has made? Part of the problem is, it is not entirely clear what it means to say yes and what it means to say no.”

    Newsom blasted institutions that have already “sold out” by signing Trump’s compact. The University of Texas has suggested it could agree to the terms. Leaders of the Texas system were “honored” that the Austin campus was chosen to be a part of the compact and its “potential funding advantages,” according to a Thursday statement from Kevin Eltife, chair of the board of regents.

    “In this state, our state of mind must be resolute,” said Newsom. “I don’t mean to put pressure on people. I need to put pressure on this moment and pressure test where we are in U.S. history, not just California history. And so forgive me for being so firm. This is it. We are losing this country.”

    Daniel Miller, Melody Gutierrez, Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • Four takeaways from California’s first gubernatorial debate since Kamala Harris said she wasn’t running

    In a darkened airport hotel ballroom room, a bevy of California Democrats sought to distinguish themselves from the crowded field running for governor in 2026.

    It was not an easy task, given that the lineup of current and former elected officials sharing the stage at the Sunday morning forum agreed on almost all the issues, with any differences largely playing out in the margins.

    They pledged to take on President Trump, make the state more affordable, safeguard immigrants and provide them with Medi-Cal healthcare benefits, and keep the state’s over-budget bullet train project intact.

    There is not yet any clear front-runner in the race to run the nation’s most populous state, though former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter has had a small edge in recent polling.

    Aside from a opaque dig from former state Controller Betty Yee, Porter was not attacked during the debate.

    They were joined onstage by former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. State Sen. Toni Atkins, who was supposed to participate, dropped out due to illness. Wealthy first-time political candidate Stephen J. Cloobeck withdrew due to a scheduling conflict.

    The forum was sponsored by the National Union of Healthcare Workers, in partnership with the Los Angeles Times and Spectrum News. It was held in Los Angeles and moderated by Associated Press national planning editor Lisa Matthews, with L.A. Times California politics editor Phil Willon, Spectrum News 1 news anchor Amrit Singh and Politico senior political reporter Melanie Mason asking the questions.

    Sen. Alex Padilla and businessman Rick Caruso have also both publicly flirted with a bid for the state’s top office, but have yet to make a decision.

    Two major GOP candidates, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, are also running for California governor, but neither were invited to the debate because they did not complete an endorsement questionnaire from the union.

    With Prop. 50 in the forefront, a lack of attention on the race

    California’s June 2 gubernatorial primary is just eight months away, but the horde hoping to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom has been competing for attention against an extraordinarily crowded landscape, with an unexpected special election this November pulling both dollars and attention away from the race for governor. To say nothing of the fact that the race had been somewhat frozen in place for months until the end of July, when former Vice President Kamala Harris finally announced she would not be running.

    The candidates reiterated their support for Proposition 50, the Newsom-led November ballot measure to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year by redrawing California congressional districts. Newsom pushed for the measure to counter efforts by Republican-led states to reconfigure their congressional districts to ensure the GOP keeps control of Congress.

    “This is not a fight we actually wanted to have,” Yee said. “This is in response to a clear attempt to mute our representation in Washington. And so we have to fight back.”

    A focus on immigrant backgrounds, and appeals to Latino voters

    The candidates repeatedly focused on their families’ origins as well as their efforts to protect immigrants while serving in elected office.

    Thurmond raised his upbringing in his opening remarks.

    “I know what it is to struggle. You know that my grandparents were immigrants who came here from Colombia, from Jamaica? You know that I am the descendant of slaves who settled in Detroit, Mich.?” he said.

    Becerra highlighted his support for undocumented people to have access to state healthcare coverage as well as his successful lawsuit protecting undocumented immigrants brought to this nation as young children that reached the Supreme Court.

    “As the son of immigrants, I know what happens when you feel like you’re excluded,” he said.

    Becerra and Thurmond addressed the diverse audience in Spanish.

    Yee, who spoke about sharing a room with her immigrant parents and siblings. also raised her background during a lightning-round question about what the candidates planned to dress up as on Halloween.

    “My authentic self as a daughter of immigrants,” she said.

    Differing opinions on criminal justice approaches and healthcare

    The debate was overwhelmingly cordial. But there was some dissent when the topic turned to Proposition 36, a 2024 anti-crime ballot measure that imposed stricter penalties for repeat theft and crimes involving fentanyl.

    The ballot measure — which undid key parts of the 2014 criminal justice reform ballot measure Proposition 47 — sowed division among California Democrats, with Newsom and groups including the ACLU strongly opposing it. Its passage marked a turning of the tide in Californians’ attitudes about criminal justice reform and response to crime, following years of support for progressive policies that leaned away from punitive prison sentences for lower-level crimes.

    First, Villaraigosa contended that he was the only candidate on stage who had supported Proposition 36, though Porter and Becerra quickly jumped in to say that they too had supported it.

    But Porter also contended that, despite her support, there were “very real problems with it and very real shortcomings.” The measure should have also focused on prevention and incarcerating people for drug offenses doesn’t make anyone safer, she said.

    Thurmond strayed sharply from the pack on the issue, saying he voted “no” on Proposition 36 and citing his career as a social worker.

    “Prop. 36, by design, was set up to say that if you have a substance abuse issue, that you will get treatment in jail,” Thurmond contended, suggesting that the amount of drugs present in the prison system would make that outcome difficult.

    As governor, he would more money into treatment for substance abuse programs and diversion programs for those who commit minor crimes, he said.

    When the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they supported a single-payer healthcare system, Porter and Villaraigosa did not, while Becerra, Yee and Thurmond did.

    The need to build more housing

    Issues of affordability are top of mind for most Californians, particularly when it comes to housing.

    Thurmond said he would build two million housing units on surplus land on school sites around the state and provide a tax break for working and middle class Californians.

    Villaraigosa also focused on the need to build more housing, criticizing bureaucratic red tape and slow permitting processes.

    Villaraigosa also twice critiqued CEQA — notable because the landmark California Environmental Quality Act was once held seemingly above reproach by California Democrats. But the law’s flaws have become increasingly accepted in recent years as the state’s housing crisis worsened, with Newsom signing two bills to overhaul the the law and ease new construction earlier this year.

    Porter said that if she were governor, she would sign SB 79, a landmark housing bill that overrides local zoning laws to expand high-density housing near transit hubs. The controversial bill — which would potentially remake single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops — is awaiting Newsom’s signature or veto.

    Julia Wick, Seema Mehta

    Source link