ReportWire

Tag: Newsom

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Unions opposing Trump agenda pouring money into Proposition 50 campaign

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Lawyer reacts to federal immigration agents coming to Northern California

    [ad_1]

    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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Dakota Smith

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.”

    [ad_2]

    Clara Harter

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.”

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Miller, Melody Gutierrez, Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Julia Wick, Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Commentary: Did Kamala Harris just destroy her 2028 chances? Is Gavin Newsom glad she did?

    [ad_1]

    Democrats, despite their hypersensitive, bleeding-heart reputation, can be harsh. Ruthless, even.

    When it comes to picking their presidential nominee, it’s often one and done. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry were embraced and then, after leading their party to disappointing defeat, cast off like so many wads of wet tissue.

    Compare that with Republicans, who not only believe in second chances but, more often than not, seem to prefer their presidential candidates recycled. Over the last half century, all but a few of the GOP’s nominees have had at least one failed White House bid on their resume.

    The roster of retreads includes the current occupant of the Oval Office, who is only the second president in U.S. history to regain the perch after losing it four years prior.

    Why the difference? It would take a psychologist or geneticist to determine if there’s something in the minds or molecular makeup of party faithful, which could explain their varied treatment of those humbled and vanquished.

    Regardless, it suggests the blowback facing Kamala Harris and the campaign diary she published last week is happening right on cue.

    And it doesn’t portend well for another try at the White House in 2028, should the former vice president and U.S. senator from California pursue that path.

    The criticism has come in assorted flavors.

    Joe Biden loyalists — many of whom were never great fans of Harris — have bristled at her relatively mild criticisms of the obviously aged and physically declining president. (She leaves it to her husband, former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, to vent about the “impossible, s— jobs” Harris was given and, in spite of that, the failure of the president and first lady to defend Harris during her low points.)

    The notable lack of self-blame has rankled other Democrats. Aside from some couldas and shouldas, Harris largely ascribes her defeat to insufficient time to make her case to voters — just 107 days, the title of her book — which hardly sits well with those who feel Harris squandered the time she did have.

    More generally, some Democrats fault the former vice president for resurfacing, period, rather than slinking off and disappearing forever into some deep, dark hole. It’s a familiar gripe each time the party struggles to move past a presidential defeat; Hillary Clinton faced a similar backlash when she published her inside account after losing to Donald Trump in 2016.

    That critique assumes great masses of voters devour campaign memoirs with the same voracious appetite as those who surrender their Sundays to the Beltway chat shows, or mainline political news like a continuous IV drip.

    They do not.

    Let the record show Democrats won the White House in 2020 even though Clinton bobbed back up in 2017 and, for a short while, thwarted the party’s fervent desire to “turn the page.”

    But there are those avid consumers of campaigns and elections, and for the political fiends among us Harris offers plenty of fizz, much of it involving her party peers and prospective 2028 rivals.

    Pete Buttigieg, the meteoric star of the 2020 campaign, was her heartfelt choice for vice president, but Harris said she feared the combination of a Black woman and gay running mate would exceed the load-bearing capacity of the electorate. (News to me, Buttigieg said after Harris revealed her thinking, and an underestimation of the American people.)

    Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the runner-up to Harris’ ultimate vice presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, comes across as unseemly salivating and greedily lusting after the job. (He fired back by suggesting Harris has some splainin’ to do about what she knew of Biden’s infirmities and when she knew it.)

    Harris implies Govs. JB Pritzker and Gretchen Whitmer of Illinois and Michigan, respectively, were insufficiently gung-ho after Biden stepped aside and she became the Democratic nominee-in-waiting.

    But for California readers, the most toothsome morsel involves Harris’ longtime frenemy, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    The two, who rose to political power in the early 2000s on parallel tracks in San Francisco, have long had a complicated relationship, mixing mutual aid with jealousy and jostling.

    In her book, Harris recounts the hours after Biden’s sudden withdrawal, when she began telephoning top Democrats around the country to lock in their support. In contrast to the enthusiasm many displayed, Newsom responded tersely with a text message: “Hiking. Will call back.”

    He never did, Harris noted, pointedly, though Newsom did issue a full-throated endorsement within hours, which the former vice president failed to mention.

    It’s small-bore stuff. But the fact Harris chose to include that anecdote speaks to the tetchiness underlying the warmth and fuzziness that California’s two most prominent Democrats put on public display.

    Will the two face off in 2028?

    Riding the promotional circuit, Harris has repeatedly sidestepped the inevitable questions about another presidential bid.

    “That’s not my focus right now,” she told Rachel Maddow, in a standard-issue non-denial denial. For his part, Newsom is obviously running, though he won’t say so.

    There would be something operatic, or at least soap-operatic, about the two longtime competitors openly vying for the country’s ultimate political prize — though it’s hard to see Democrats, with their persistent hunger for novelty, turning to Harris or her left-coast political doppelganger as their savior.

    Meantime, the two are back on parallel tracks, though seemingly headed in opposite directions.

    While Newsom is looking to build Democratic bridges, Harris is burning hers down.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Supporters of redrawing California’s congressional districts raise tens of millions more than opponents

    [ad_1]

    Supporters of the November ballot measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts — an effort led by Gov. Gavin Newsom to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year — have far out-raised the opposition campaigns, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the state.

    The primary group backing Proposition 50 raked in $77.5 million and spent $28.1 million through Sept. 20, according to a campaign finance report that was filed with the secretary of state’s office on Thursday.

    The committee has $54.4 million in the bank for the final weeks of the campaign, so Californian should expect a blizzard of television ads, mailers, phone calls and other efforts to sway voters before the Nov. 4 special election.

    The two main groups opposing the ballot measure have raised $35.3 million, spent $27.4 million and have roughly $8.8 million in the bank combined, campaign finance reports show.

    Despite having an overwhelming financial advantage, the campaign supporting Proposition 50 has tried to portray itself as the underdog in a fight to raise money against opposition campaigns with ties to President Trump and his supporters.

    “MAGA donors keep pouring millions into the campaign to stop Prop. 50 in the hopes of pleasing their ‘Dear Leader,’” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the Yes on 50, the Election Rigging Response Act campaign. “We will not take our foot off the gas — Prop. 50 is America’s best chance to stop this reckless and dangerous president, and we will keep doing everything we can to ensure every Californian knows the stakes and is ready to vote yes on 50 this Nov. 4th.”

    A spokesperson for one of the anti-Proposition 50 campaigns, which was sending mailers to voters even before the Democratic-led California Legislature placed Proposition 50 on the November ballot, said their priority was to help Californians understand the inappropriateness of redrawing congressional boundaries that had been created by a voter-approved, state independent commission.

    “We started communicating with voters early about the consequences of having politicians draw their own lines,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for a coalition that opposes the ballot measure. “We are confident we’ll have the resources necessary to continue through election day.”

    A spokesperson for the other main anti-Proposition 50 group agreed.

    “When you’re selling a lemon, no amount of cash can change the taste. We’re confident in raising more than sufficient resources to expose Prop. 50 for the blatant political power grab that it is,” said Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the No on 50 – Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab campaign. Newsom “can’t change the fact that Prop. 50 is nothing more than a ploy for politicians to take the power of redistricting away from the voters and charge them for the privilege at a massive cost to taxpayers.”

    The special election is expected to cost the state and the counties $282 million, according to the secretary of state’s office and the state department of finance.

    If approved, Proposition 50 would have a major impact on California’s 2026 congressional elections, which will play a major role in determining whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda in the final two years of his tenure. The party that wins the White House frequently loses congressional seats two years later, and Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House.

    After Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress in next year’s midterm election, Newsom and other California Democrats responded by proposing a counter-effort to boost the ranks of their party in the legislative body.

    California’s congressional districts are drawn once every decade after the U.S. Census by a voter-approved independent redistricting commission. So Democrats’ proposal to replace the districts with new boundaries proposed by state lawmakers must be approved by voters. The state Legislature voted in August to put the measure before voters in a special election on Nov. 4.

    Polling about the proposition is not definitive. It’s an off-year election, which means turnout is likely to be low and the electorate is unpredictable. And relatively few Californians pay attention to redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts.

    There are more than 30 campaign committees associated with Proposition 50 registered with the secretary of state’s office, but only three have raised large amounts of money.

    Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 effort has received several large donations since its launch, including $10 million from billionaire financier George Soros, $7.6 million from House Majority PAC (the Democrats’ congressional political arm) and $4.5 million from various Service Employees International Union groups. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife have contributed $1 million to a separate committee supporting the proposition.

    The opposition groups had few small-dollar donors and were largely funded by two sources — $30 million in loans from Charles Munger Jr., who for years has been a major Republican donor in California, and a $5-million donation from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the GOP political arm of House Republicans.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Contributor: California Democrats aren’t just resisting; they’re governing

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom answering the Republican redistricting power-grab in Texas with a plan of his own is a powerful example of how Golden State Democrats are standing up to President Trump and firing up their base. But while the partisan fireworks draw attention, California Democrats are also quietly offering a different kind of model for the national party that may prove more meaningful in the long run. They’re not just resisting Trump; they’re actually governing.

    Forget what you think you know about California and its lefty Democrats. They’re inching to the center, meeting voters where they are, and it’s improving people’s lives.

    Just look at San Francisco, long seen as a dysfunctional emblem of failed progressive governance.

    The city’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, a nonprofit leader and philanthropist, has shaken off left-wing taboos and focused on delivering results. Instead of defunding the police, he’s hiring more officers and cracking down on shoplifting and drug crimes. Instead of demonizing the business community, he’s partnering with them. He’s also reforming zoning laws to make it easier to build more housing, which should ease the city’s affordability crunch and the homelessness crisis. Lurie has been in office less than a year, but already crime is plummeting and his approval rate has reached 73%.

    National Democrats can find a lesson here: Voters care about results, not just empathy and ideology.

    In Sacramento, Newsom and legislative Democrats are taking a similar tack, with a stubborn focus on affordability and the courage to stare down opposition, even in their own coalition. For example, the Legislature recently reformed the California Environmental Quality Act, a well-intentioned 50-year-old law that had been twisted to obstruct construction projects, clean energy development and public transportation. This angered some powerful environmental activists, but it will ultimately help bring down costs for housing and energy.

    CEQA reform is emblematic of California’s new, more balanced approach on some thorny issues, like energy and climate. The state recently announced that two-thirds of its power now comes from clean energy sources — a major achievement. At the same time, Newsom and the Legislature agreed to a package of bills that will increase oil drilling while extending the state’s cap-and-trade program. Together, the package can reduce energy costs for Californians and strengthen our state’s chances of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045. Some environmental justice advocates and climate purists oppose the deal, but it’s an example of how to make progress in the long term while addressing affordability in the short term.

    Immigration is another example: Newsom and other leading California Democrats continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s inhumane immigration policies, including suing to stop the deployment of troops to Los Angeles. But they also recently passed a budget that pulls back on costly plans to provide health insurance to all low-income undocumented immigrants.

    This reflects the new California model: principled resistance and pragmatic governance. The results speak for themselves. The Golden State recently surpassed Japan to become the fourth-largest economy in the world.

    Democratic leaders are making these moves because they are listening to voters who consistently say that the high cost of living is their top concern.

    In 2024, these concerns contributed to a surprising number of Californians abandoning Democrats, even with Kamala Harris, the state’s former U.S. senator and attorney general, on the ticket. Trump flipped 10 counties and boosted his support in 45. Since 2016, 72% of California counties have gotten redder, including many with heavy Latino populations.

    Democrats are paying attention and are wisely changing course. Being responsive to voter concerns doesn’t have to mean sacrificing core values, but it does require new approaches when the old ways aren’t working.

    Karen Skelton (whose father is a political columnist for the Los Angeles Times) is a political strategist, having worked in the White House under Presidents Clinton and Biden and at the United States Departments of Energy, Transportation and Justice.

    Insights

    L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

    Viewpoint
    This article generally aligns with a Center point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
    Perspectives

    The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

    Ideas expressed in the piece

    • California Democrats are demonstrating effective governance by moving toward the political center while maintaining their core values, offering a model for the national Democratic Party that goes beyond mere resistance to Trump’s policies.

    • San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie exemplifies this pragmatic approach by hiring more police officers, cracking down on shoplifting and drug crimes, and partnering with the business community rather than demonizing it, resulting in plummeting crime rates and a 73% approval rating.

    • Sacramento Democrats are prioritizing affordability and practical results over ideological purity, as demonstrated by their reform of the California Environmental Quality Act despite opposition from environmental activists, ultimately helping to reduce housing and energy costs.

    • The state’s balanced approach to energy and climate policy shows how Democrats can make long-term progress while addressing immediate affordability concerns, achieving two-thirds clean energy power while also increasing oil drilling through a cap-and-trade package.

    • On immigration, California Democrats maintain principled resistance to Trump’s policies while making pragmatic budget decisions, such as pulling back on costly plans to provide health insurance to all low-income undocumented immigrants.

    • This strategic shift reflects Democrats’ responsiveness to voter concerns about the high cost of living, which contributed to Trump gaining support in 10 counties and 45 others in 2024, with 72% of California counties becoming redder since 2016.

    Different views on the topic

    • Republican leaders view California’s redistricting response as a partisan power grab rather than principled governance, with some vowing to challenge the maps in court and arguing that the redistricting process violates the California Constitution by relying on outdated population data[1].

    • Environmental activists and climate advocates oppose California’s pragmatic approach to energy policy, particularly the package that increases oil drilling while extending cap-and-trade programs, viewing it as a betrayal of environmental justice principles.

    • Progressive organizations initially opposed California’s redistricting efforts, with Common Cause, a good governance group supporting independent redistricting, originally opposing the state’s partisan response before later reversing its stance[1].

    • Some Democratic constituencies argue that pulling back on progressive policies like universal healthcare for undocumented immigrants represents an abandonment of core Democratic values rather than pragmatic governance.

    • Critics contend that the centrist shift represents capitulation to conservative pressure rather than principled leadership, arguing that Democrats should maintain their progressive positions rather than moderating in response to political setbacks.

    [ad_2]

    Karen Skelton

    Source link

  • Harris seemed to touch a nerve with Newsom, but says he has ‘a great sense of humor’

    [ad_1]

    Kamala Harris picked her way through several sticky subjects in a Tuesday night TV interview, including her account of being ghosted by Gov. Gavin Newsom when she called for his support during her brief, unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign.

    On the eve of the public release of her book detailing that campaign, Harris spoke with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on her relationship with Newsom as well as the redistricting ballot measure Californians will vote on in November — and she also hailed “the power of the people” in getting Jimmy Kimmel back on ABC.

    Kimmel was indefinitely suspended last week by the Walt Disney Co. over remarks he made about the suspect in the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. After fierce protests, consumers announcing subscription cancellations, and hundreds of celebrities speaking out against government censorship, Disney announced Monday that Kimmel would return on ABC the following day.

    “Talk about the power being with the people and the people making that clear with their checkbooks,” Harris said of Kimmel’s return. “It spoke volumes, and it moved a decision in the right direction.”

    Harris was speaking with Maddow about her new book, “107 Days,” which details her short sprint of a presidential campaign in 2024 after then-President Biden decided not to seek reelection.

    The book discloses which Democrats immediately supported her to become the Democratic nominee, and which didn’t, notably Newsom. She wrote that, when she called, he texted her that he was hiking and would call her back but never did.

    After Maddow raised the anecdote in the opening of the show, Harris said she had known Newsom “forever.”

    “Gavin has a great sense of humor so, you know, he’s gonna be fine,” Harris said.

    Newsom was icier when asked by a reporter about the interaction — or lack thereof — on Friday.

    “You want to waste your time with this, we’ll do it,” Newsom said, adding that he was hiking when he received a call from an unknown number, even as he was trying to learn more about Biden’s decision not to run for reelection while also asking his team to craft a statement supporting Harris to be the Democratic nominee. “I assume that’s in the book as well — that, hours later, the endorsement came out.”

    Harris brought up Newsom when asked about Proposition 50, the redistricting ballot measure championed by the governor and other California Democrats that voters will decide in November. If approved, the state’s congressional districts will be redrawn in an effort to boost Democratic seats in the house to counter efforts by President Trump to increase the number of Republicans elected in GOP-led states.

    “Let me say about what [Newsom] is doing, redistricting, it is absolutely the right way to go. Part of what we’ve got to, I think, challenge ourselves to accept, is that we tend to play by the rules,” Harris said. “But I think this is a moment where you gotta fight fire with fire. And so what Gavin is doing, what the California Legislature is doing, what those who are supporting it are doing is to say, ‘You know what, you want to play, then let’s get in the field. Let’s get in the arena, and let’s do this.’ And I support that.”

    But Harris was more cautious when asked about other electoral contests, notably the New York City mayoral race. Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and has large leads in the polls over other candidates in the race, including former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.

    Asked whether she backed Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, Harris was measured.

    “Look, as far as I’m concerned, he’s the Democratic nominee, and he should be supported,” Harris said, prompting Maddow to ask whether she endorsed him.

    “I support the Democrat in the race, sure,” she replied. “But let me just say this, he’s not the only star. … I hope that we don’t so over-index on New York City that we lose sight of the stars throughout our country.”

    Harris, who announced this summer that she would not run for California governor next year, demurred when asked about whether she would run for president for a third time in 2028.

    “That’s not my focus right now,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • California Gov. Newsom signs bill aimed at banning law enforcement from using face coverings

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation that aims to make California the first state to ban most law enforcement from covering their faces while carrying out operations.Senate Bill 627, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, was in response to federal immigration raids where officers have been seen wearing masks. It would prohibit neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.(Earlier coverage in the video above.)Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were opposed to the bill, arguing it would make officers’ and agents’ job more dangerous. Immigration officials have cited the fear of agents and their families being doxed. It’s unclear if California will be able to enforce the measure. Newsom also signed several other bills that his office argued would counter “secret police tactics” by the president and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. It would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information. “Public safety depends on trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve — but Trump and Miller have shattered that trust and spread fear across America,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is putting an end to it and making sure schools and hospitals remain what they should be: places of care, not chaos.”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–The Associated Press contributed to this story.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation that aims to make California the first state to ban most law enforcement from covering their faces while carrying out operations.

    Senate Bill 627, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, was in response to federal immigration raids where officers have been seen wearing masks. It would prohibit neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.

    (Earlier coverage in the video above.)

    Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were opposed to the bill, arguing it would make officers’ and agents’ job more dangerous. Immigration officials have cited the fear of agents and their families being doxed.

    It’s unclear if California will be able to enforce the measure.

    Newsom also signed several other bills that his office argued would counter “secret police tactics” by the president and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

    The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.

    The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. It would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.

    “Public safety depends on trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve — but Trump and Miller have shattered that trust and spread fear across America,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is putting an end to it and making sure schools and hospitals remain what they should be: places of care, not chaos.”

    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

    –The Associated Press contributed to this story.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘We’re not North Korea.’ Newsom signs bills to limit immigration raids at schools and unmask federal agents

    [ad_1]

    In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

    He also signed a bill that bans federal agents from wearing masks. Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.

    “We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.

    Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.

    SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

    Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

    Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

    Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.

    Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.

    Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.

    “Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

    The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

    Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.

    “We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.

    The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.

    Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.

    “If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.

    California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.

    During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.

    “That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.

    Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.

    Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.

    The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

    “Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Ormseth, Dakota Smith, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • ‘It’s all at stake’: As Prop. 50 fight intensifies, Newsom, partisan influencers rally their bases

    [ad_1]

    The multimillion-dollar jousting over redrawing California’s congressional districts to boost Democrats and counter President Trump was on full display in recent days, as both sides courted voters less than a month before ballots begin arriving in mailboxes.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, national Democratic leaders including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a slew of political influencers held an hours-long virtual rally Tuesday afternoon, urging Californians to support Proposition 50 in the Nov. 4 special election. Speakers framed the stakes of the ballot measure as nothing short of existential — not just for Democratic interests, but also for democracy.

    “It’s all at stake. This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves and stand tall at this moment and stand guard to this republic and our democracy. I feel that in my bones,” Newsom said Tuesday afternoon.

    If passed, Proposition 50 would gerrymander the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats, bolstering the fates of several Democrats in vulnerable swing districts and potentially cost Republicans up to five House seats.

    California’s congressional districts are drawn by a voter-approved independent commission once a decade after the U.S. census. But Newsom and other state Democrats proposed a rare mid-decade redrawing of the districts to increase the number of Democrats in Congress in response to similar efforts in GOP-led states, notably Texas.

    Tuesday’s virtual rally, which was emceed by progressive influencer Brian Tyler Cohen, was a cross between an old-school money-raising telethon and new media streaming session. Popular podcasters and YouTubers such as Crooked Media’s Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor (alumni of former President Obama’s administration), Ben Meiselas of MeidasTouch and David Pakman shared the screen with political leaders, with an on-screen fundraising thermometer inching higher throughout.

    Cohen argued that people like him had been “begging” Democrats to fight Trump. And now elected officials had done their part by getting Proposition 50 on the ballot, he said, urging viewers to donate to support the effort.

    Warren argued that Trump was a “would-be king” — but if Democrats could retake control of either house of Congress, that would be stopped, she posited.

    “And if we have both houses under Democratic control,” Warren continued, “now we are truly back in the game in terms of making our Constitution work again.”

    The exhaustive list of speakers represented the spectrum of the modern left, with standard-bearers such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, alongside rising stars including Reps. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). A number of California delegates, including Sen. Alex Padilla and Reps. Ted. Lieu, Robert Garcia, Pete Aguilar, Jimmy Gomez and Sydney Kamlager-Dove, also spoke.

    The event had been scheduled to take place Sept. 10 but was postponed after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier that day.

    Jessica Millan Patterson, the former leader of the California Republican Party and chair of an anti-Proposition 50 committee, accused Newsom of “scrambling for out-of-touch messengers to sell his scheme.”

    “For Gavin Newsom, it’s all distraction and deflection. Instead of addressing the $283 million price tag taxpayers are stuck with for his partisan power grab, he’s hosting a cringeworthy webinar packed with DC politicians, out-of-state influencers, and irrelevant podcasters, all lining up to applaud his gerrymandered maps,” Millan Patterson said in a statement Tuesday.

    Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office and has campaigned to stop gerrymandering across the nation after his term ended, forcefully denounced Proposition 50 on Monday.

    “They are trying to fight for democracy by getting rid of the democratic principles of California,” Schwarzenegger told hundreds of students at an event celebrating democracy at the University of Southern California. “It is insane to let that happen.”

    The former governor, a Trump foe who has prioritized good governance at his institute at USC, said the effort to dismantle the independent commission’s congressional districts to counter Trump are anti-democratic.

    “They want to get rid of it under the auspices of we have to fight Trump,” Schwarzenegger said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me because we have to fight Trump, [yet] we become Trump.”

    And on the morning of Sept. 10, opponents of the ballot measure rallied in Orange County, speaking about how redrawing congressional districts would dilute the voice of communities around the state.

    “We’re here because Prop. 50 poses a serious threat to Orange County’s voice, to our communities and to our taxpayers. This measure is not about fairness. It’s about power grab,” said Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen during a rally at the Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, a Vietnamese hub in Westminster. “And it comes at the expense of our taxpayers, our small businesses and our minority communities.”

    She noted that Little Saigon would be grouped with Norwalk in Los Angeles County if the ballot measure passes.

    “Ask anybody in this area if they even know where Norwalk is,” Nguyen said.

    [ad_2]

    Julia Wick, Seema Mehta

    Source link