ReportWire

Tag: Newsom

  • ‘Disgusting, vile’: Leaders across the political spectrum react to fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk

    [ad_1]

    Politicians and leaders are reacting to the fatal shooting of political activist Charlie Kirk during a speaking event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday.Kirk, the 31-year-old co-founder and CEO of the youth organization Turning Point USA, is the latest victim of political violence across the United States.”The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie,” President Donald Trump posted on social media platform Truth Social. “He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us. Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family. Charlie, we love you!”On X, Vice President JD Vance posted a screenshot of Trump’s post and added, “Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord.”Former President Barack Obama responded on X as well, saying, “We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.”Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said on X that he was being briefed. He later posted a tribute to Kirk, saying, “This murder was a cowardly act of violence, an attack on champions of freedom like Charlie, the students who gathered for civil debate, and all Americans who peacefully strive to save our nation.””The terrorists will not win. Charlie will,” he added.During a press conference at 6:30 p.m., he called it a “political assassination,” saying it is a “tragic day for our nation.”In Washington, Utah Sen. John Curtis told reporters, “This is my backyard. This is very, very personal because of that, and leaves a scar.”Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote on social media, “Once again, a bullet has silenced the most eloquent truth teller of an era.” He called Kirk a “relentless and courageous crusader for free speech.”Democratic politicians reactAfter the shooting but before Kirk’s death was confirmed, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X, “The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form.”On the same platform, Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker wrote that political violence “should never become the norm.” Also among the leaders reacting was Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker whose husband was seriously injured at their California home in 2022 by a man wielding a hammer, who authorities said was a believer in conspiracy theories.Pelosi, a Democrat, posted that “the horrific shooting today at Utah Valley University is reprehensible. Political violence has absolutely no place in our nation.”Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat and potential national candidate, has firsthand experience with political violence. He and his family were evacuated from the governor’s mansion earlier this year after a man broke into the building and set a fire that caused significant damage.“We must speak with moral clarity,” Shapiro wrote on X. “The attack on Charlie Kirk is horrifying and this growing type of unconscionable violence cannot be allowed in our society.”Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey wrote on X, “Violence has no place in our politics — ever. What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms. The growth of political violence in our country must be stopped.”State politicians across the country have condemned the killing and the rise of political violence.The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Politicians and leaders are reacting to the fatal shooting of political activist Charlie Kirk during a speaking event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday.

    Kirk, the 31-year-old co-founder and CEO of the youth organization Turning Point USA, is the latest victim of political violence across the United States.

    “The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie,” President Donald Trump posted on social media platform Truth Social. “He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us. Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family. Charlie, we love you!”

    On X, Vice President JD Vance posted a screenshot of Trump’s post and added, “Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord.”

    Former President Barack Obama responded on X as well, saying, “We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.”

    Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said on X that he was being briefed. He later posted a tribute to Kirk, saying, “This murder was a cowardly act of violence, an attack on champions of freedom like Charlie, the students who gathered for civil debate, and all Americans who peacefully strive to save our nation.”

    “The terrorists will not win. Charlie will,” he added.

    During a press conference at 6:30 p.m., he called it a “political assassination,” saying it is a “tragic day for our nation.”

    In Washington, Utah Sen. John Curtis told reporters, “This is my backyard. This is very, very personal because of that, and leaves a scar.”

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote on social media, “Once again, a bullet has silenced the most eloquent truth teller of an era.” He called Kirk a “relentless and courageous crusader for free speech.”

    Democratic politicians react

    After the shooting but before Kirk’s death was confirmed, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X, “The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form.”

    On the same platform, Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker wrote that political violence “should never become the norm.”

    Also among the leaders reacting was Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker whose husband was seriously injured at their California home in 2022 by a man wielding a hammer, who authorities said was a believer in conspiracy theories.

    Pelosi, a Democrat, posted that “the horrific shooting today at Utah Valley University is reprehensible. Political violence has absolutely no place in our nation.”

    Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat and potential national candidate, has firsthand experience with political violence. He and his family were evacuated from the governor’s mansion earlier this year after a man broke into the building and set a fire that caused significant damage.

    “We must speak with moral clarity,” Shapiro wrote on X. “The attack on Charlie Kirk is horrifying and this growing type of unconscionable violence cannot be allowed in our society.”

    Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey wrote on X, “Violence has no place in our politics — ever. What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms. The growth of political violence in our country must be stopped.”

    State politicians across the country have condemned the killing and the rise of political violence.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What is Trump’s approval rating in NH? St. Anselm poll finds Democratic gains

    [ad_1]

    After early gains, President Donald Trump’s favorability has fallen back down, a new poll from St. Anselm reveals.

    While his favorability had climbed to 45% favorable, 53% unfavorable after the inauguration, the New Hampshire Institute of Politics poll released Sept. 5 found that it had reverted to 43%-57%, which is in line with historical levels.

    “President Donald Trump’s post-election bump has dissipated, setting up early leads for Democratic candidates in the upcoming federal office races,” said Neil Levesque, the Executive Director of the NHIOP, in a statement.

    U.S. President Donald Trump speaks, flanked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 26, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

    The declining favorability for Trump is contrasted by a rising favorability for Democrats: on the general ballot in New Hampshire, the poll found that they lead by six points (50%-44%). It’s a “significant improvement” since March, said the poll, when the party held a lead over Republicans of just one point (47%-46%). Driven by Democrats, “elections and democracy” has surpassed the economy as voters’ top concern.

    The poll also took an early look at the 2028 presidential race, New Hampshire federal races and Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s favorability. It surveyed 1,776 New Hampshire registered voters through online surveys from August 26-27 and has a margin of error of 2.3%.

    Newsom and Buttigieg lead early 2028 presidential race

    Potential presidential candidates, like Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, have already been stopping by New Hampshire to test the waters for a 2028 run.

    If the 2028 presidential election was held today, the poll found that former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom lead a field of potential candidates, each garnering the support of23% of Democratic voters. Trailing are Ptritzker (9%), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY,(7%) and former Vice President Kamala Harris (6%).

    “Buttigieg looks to build on his strong showing in the last primary, while Newsom has been successful thus far in introducing himself to Granite State voters,” said Levesque.

    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, both of whom have also visited the Granite State this year, garnered 4% and 3% support respectively.

    On the Republican side, Vance is the clear favorite with 56% of New Hampshire voters choosing him as their first choice. Way behind are Florida Gov. Ron Desantis (8%) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (7%).

    However, polls are just a snapshot in time: the presidential election is still three years away and much could change.

    Pappas, Goodlander: Who is leading in New Hampshire’s federal races?

    In 2026, New Hampshire will see races in both congressional districts and an open Senate seat.

    In the Senate, current Rep. Chris Pappas, D-NH is running to succeed retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH. According to the poll, he currently leads both his declared Republican challengers, former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown and state Sen. Dan Innis, by double digits. Brown leads Innis among Republicans, 48%-13%.

    Rep. Chris Pappas, D-NH (left), and former Sen. Scott Brown, R-MA (right), will face off in the race to represent New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate.

    Rep. Chris Pappas, D-NH (left), and former Sen. Scott Brown, R-MA (right), will face off in the race to represent New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate.

    Former Sen. John E. Sununu has said he is considering joining the race but has not yet declared.

    In the First Congressional District, former Portsmouth City Councilor Stefany Shaheen leads the Democratic field, beating out Maura Sullivan 23%-9%. On the Republican side, repeat candidate Chris Bright has the most support (8%) but 85% of voters remain uncommitted.

    In the Second Congressional District, first term Democratic Rep. Maggie Goodlander leads 2024 Republican nominee Lily Tang Williams (49%-31%).

    What is Kelly Ayotte’s approval rating?

    Ayotte remains relatively popular despite a highly polarized environment, the poll says.

    49% of voters have a favorable view of Ayotte, while 46% have an unfavorable view. These numbers are slightly better than a recent University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll, which found her approval at 47%-46%.

    This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: New NH poll shows Trump approval rating, 2028 presidential race leaders

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Republicans energized by their opposition to Newsom’s redistricting special election

    [ad_1]

    Generally speaking, it’s a grand time to be a Republican in the nation’s capital.

    President Trump is redecorating the White House in his gold-plated image. The GOP controls both houses of Congress. Two-thirds of the Supreme Court was appointed by Republican presidents.

    In California, the outlook for the GOP is far bleaker. The party hasn’t elected a statewide candidate in almost two decades; Democrats hold a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration edge and have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature.

    That’s long been the story for a state party stuck in the shadows in a deep-blue coastal state.

    Will O’Neill, chairman, Republican Party of Orange County, Mark Mueser, Dhillon Law Group, Shawn Steel, RNC National Committeeman, Garrett Fahy, chair, Republican National Lawyers Association, and California State Assembly member David Tangipa during the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove on Saturday.

    (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    However, amid a sea of “Trump 2028” T-shirts, red MAGA hats and sequined Americana-themed accessories, California Republicans had a brief reprieve from minority status this weekend at their fall convention in Orange County.

    Members of the California GOP — often a fractious horde — were energized and united by their opposition to Proposition 50, the ballot measure crafted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders to redraw the state’s congressional districts to counter gerrymandering efforts in GOP-led states. Newsom accused Republicans of trying to “rig” the 2026 election at Trump’s behest to keep control of Congress.

    Voters will decide its fate in a Nov. 4 special election and receive mail ballots roughly four weeks prior.

    “Only one thing really matters. We’ve gotten people in the same room on this issue that hated each other for 20 years, probably for good reasons, based on ego,” said Shawn Steel, one of California’s three members of the Republican National Committee and the chairman of the party’s anti-Proposition 50 campaign, on Saturday. “But those days are over, at least for the next 58 days. … This is more than just unity. It’s survival.”

    If approved, Proposition 50 could cost Republicans five seats in the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives and determine control of Congress during Trump’s final two years in office.

    More than $40 million has already poured into campaigns supporting and opposing the effort, according to reports of large donations filed with the secretary of state’s office through Saturday.

    Spending has been evident as glossy pamphlets opposing the effort landed in voters’ mailboxes even before lawmakers voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot. This weekend, ads supporting the measure aired during the football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Oklahoma.

    At the state GOP convention, which drew 1,143 registered delegates, alternates and guests to the Hyatt Regency in Garden Grove, this priority was evident.

    Republican candidates running for governor next year would normally be focused on building support among donors and activists less than a year before the primary. But they foregrounded their opposition to Proposition 50 during the convention.

    “I’m supposed to say every time I start talking, the No. 1 most important thing that we can talk about right now is ‘No on 50,’” Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a GOP gubernatorial candidate, said Saturday as he addressed the Log Cabin Republicans meeting. “So every conversation that you have with people has to begin with ‘No on 50.’ So you say, ‘No on 50. Oh, how are you doing?’”

    Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton are the two most prominent Republican candidates in the crowded race to succeed Newsom, who will be termed out in 2026.

    The walls of the convention hotel were lined with posters opposing the redistricting ballot measure, alongside typical campaign fliers, rhinestone MAGA broaches and pro-Trump merchandise such as T-shirts bearing his visage that read “Daddy’s Back!” and calling for his election to an unconstitutional third term in 2028.

    Though California Republicans last elected statewide candidates in 2006, they have had greater success on ballot measures. Since 2010, the party has been victorious in more than 60% of the propositions it took a position on, according to data compiled by the state GOP.

    “We need you to be involved. This is a dire situation,” state Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Fresno) told a packed ballroom of party activists.

    The California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

    The California GOP Convention in Garden Grove, CA on Saturday, September 6, 2025. (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    Attendees of the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove .

    Attendees of the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove. (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    Tangipa urged the crowd to reach out to their friends and neighbors with a simple message that is not centered on redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts that typically occurs once every decade following the U.S. census to account for population shifts.

    “It’s too hard to talk about redistricting. You know, most people want to get a beer, hang out with their family, go to work, spend time,” he said. “You need to talk to the Republicans [and ask] one question: Does Gov. Newsom and the legislative body in Sacramento deserve more power?”

    “No!” the crowd roared.

    Should the measure pass, lawyers would challenge the new lines in federal court the next day, attorney and former GOP candidate Mark Meuser said during a separate redistricting panel.

    But rather than rely on the courts, panelists hoped to defeat the measure at the ballot box, outlining various messaging strategies for attendees to adopt. Voter outreach trainings took place during the convention, and similar virtual classes were scheduled to begin Monday.

    Even with the heavy focus on the redistricting ballot measure, gubernatorial candidates were also skittering around the convention, speaking to various caucuses, greeting delegates in the hallways and holding private meetings.

    More than 80 people have signaled their intent to run for governor next year, according to the secretary of state’s office, though some have since dropped out.

    Despite being rivals who both hope to win one of the top two spots in the June primary and move on to the November 2026 general election, Bianco and Hilton amicably chatted, a two-man show throughout some of the convention.

    Hilton, after posing alongside Bianco at the California MAGA gathering on Friday, argued that the number of Californians who supported Trump in the 2024 election shows that there is a pathway for a Republican to be elected governor next year.

    Pointing to glittery gold block letters that spelled MAGA, he said he wanted to swap the first A for a U, so that the acronym stood for “the most useless governor in America, Gavin Newsom.”

    “The worst record of any state, the highest unemployment, the highest poverty, the highest taxes, the highest gas prices,” Hilton said. “If we can’t rip these people apart, then we don’t deserve to be here. They’re going to be asking for another four years. They don’t deserve another four minutes.”

    California gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco speaks while standing near people seated at a table.

    California gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco speaks at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

    (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    At a Saturday gathering of roughly 60 delegates from the conservative northern swath of California, Bianco said he would never say a bad word about his Republican opponents. But, he argued, he was the only candidate who could win the election because of his ability to siphon off Democratic votes because of his law enforcement bona fides.

    “Democrats want their kids safe. They want their businesses safe. They want their neighborhoods safe. And they can say, ‘I’ll vote for public safety.’ They’re not even going to say I’m voting for a Republican,” Bianco promised.

    As he raised his hands to the crowd with a grin, Bianco’s closely cropped high-and-tight haircut and handlebar mustache instantly telegraphed his law enforcement background, even though his badge and holstered pistol were hidden beneath a gray blazer.

    Later, after Bianco addressed a crowd of Central Coast delegates sporting more cowboy hats and fewer button-down shirts, Hilton walked to the front of the room and spoke in his clipped British accent about how another attendee had promised to take him pig hunting.

    A man in a suit and a man in a cowboy hat sit next to each other at a table.

    California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

    (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    “We weren’t talking about police officers, I want to make that clear!” a man yelled from the crowd.

    “Exactly,” Hilton continued, explaining how his family had a salami business in Hungary and he had gotten his hands plenty dirty in the past, “doing every aspect of making sausage, including killing the pigs.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Julia Wick

    Source link

  • News Analysis: ‘The party is in shambles.’ But some Democrats see reasons for optimism

    [ad_1]

    The Democratic Party’s standing in public opinion polls has sunk to its lowest point in more than 30 years. Many of the party’s own voters think their leaders aren’t fighting hard enough against President Trump. In one survey, the words they used most often were “weak” and “tepid.”

    “The party is in shambles,” said James Carville, the political strategist who helped Bill Clinton win the White House after a similar bout of disarray a generation ago.

    And yet, in recent weeks, the beleaguered party has begun to exhibit signs of life.

    Its brand is still unpopular, but its chances of winning next year’s congressional elections appear to be growing; in recent polls, the share of voters saying they plan to vote Democratic has reached a roughly 5% lead over the GOP. Potential presidential candidates, led by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, are competing noisily for the title of fiercest Trump-fighter. And they have an ace in the hole: As unloved as the Democratic Party is, Trump is increasingly unpopular, too, with an approval rating sagging to 40% or below in some polls.

    “There’s no requirement that people love the Democratic Party in order to vote for it,” Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini said last week. “In an era of negative partisanship, people are motivated to vote more by dislike of the other party than by love for their own.”

    So Carville, despite his diagnosis of “shambles,” thinks things are looking up in the long run.

    “The Democratic Party’s present looks pretty bad, but I think its future looks pretty good,” he said. “I think we’re going to be fine.”

    He cited several straws in the wind: the Democrats’ new energy as they campaign against Trump; the encouraging poll numbers on next year’s congressional elections; and an impressive bench of up-and-coming leaders.

    “The talent level in the current Democratic Party is the highest I’ve ever seen,” he said. “Whoever comes out on top of that competition is going to be a pretty strong candidate.”

    But that nomination is three years away — and meanwhile, Democrats face daunting hurdles. For one, Trump has pressed Texas and other Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps to cement GOP control of the House of Representatives — an effort that could succeed despite Newsom’s attempt to counter it in California.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing a measure to redraw California’s congressional map to aid Democrats.

    (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

    The Democrats, by comparison, remain leaderless and divided — arguing over the lessons of their 2024 defeat and debating how to regain their lost support among working-class and minority voters.

    In a historical sense, the party is going through a familiar ordeal: the struggle a party normally faces after losing an election.

    So Carville and other strategists have sketched out variations of what you might call a three-step recovery plan: First, get out of Washington and rally public opposition to Trump. Second, focus their message on “kitchen table issues,” mainly voters’ concerns over rising prices and a seemingly sluggish economy. Third, organize to win House and Senate elections next year.

    “We have to do well in 2026 to demonstrate we’re not so toxic that people won’t vote for us anymore,” said Doug Sosnik, another former Clinton aide.

    They’re arguing over the lessons of defeat and debating how to regain lost support among working-class and minority voters.

    In battling Trump, they say they’ve found a starting point.

    “We’ve found our footing. We’ve gone on the offensive,” argued Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), who spent most of the summer campaigning across the country. “Trump’s cuts to Medicaid and tax breaks for billionaires have given us a message we can unite around.”

    They still have plenty of differences over specific policies — but a spirited debate, some say, is exactly what the party needs.

    “The most important task of the Democratic Party is to organize … the most robust debate Democrats have had in a generation,” said William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution, a former Clinton aide who argues that the party needs to move to the center.

    Here’s what most Democratic leaders agree on: They’ve heard their voters’ demands for a more vigorous fight against Trump. They agree that they need to reconnect with working-class voters who don’t believe the party really cares about them. They need to cast themselves as a party of change, not the status quo. And they need to begin by regaining control of the House of Representatives next year.

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) says the Democrats have "found our footing."

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) says the Democrats have “found our footing.”

    (Sue Ogrocki / Associated Press)

    Most Democrats also agree that they need to focus on a positive message on economic issues such as the cost of living — to use this year’s buzzword, “affordability.”

    But they differ on the specifics.

    Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have focused on “fighting oligarchy,” including higher taxes on the wealthy and government-run health insurance.

    Khanna, a Silicon Valley progressive, is campaigning for a program he calls “economic patriotism” — essentially, industrial policies to spur investments in strategic sectors.

    Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a blunt-spoken populist, wants to make capitalism do more for ordinary workers. “Every Latino man wants a big-ass truck,” he said in an interview with the New York Times. “We’re afraid of saying, like, ‘Hey, let’s help you get a job so you can become rich.’”

    And from the party’s centrist wing, former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel describes his program as “build, baby, build,” arguing that Democrats should focus on making housing affordable and expanding technical and vocational education.

    A sharper debate has opened over social and cultural issues: Should Democrats break with the identity politics — the stuff Republicans deride as “woke” — that animates much of their progressive wing? Moderate Democrats argue that “wokeness” has alienated voters in the center and made it impossible to win presidential elections.

    “I think there’s a perception that Democrats became so focused on identity that we no longer had a message that could actually speak to people across the board,” former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told NPR last month.

    The controversy over transgender women and girls in women’s sports has become an early test. Newsom, Buttigieg and Emanuel have broken with the left, arguing that there’s a case for barring transgender women from competition. “It is an issue of fairness,” Newsom said on his podcast in March.

    Their statements prompted fierce backlash from LGBTQ+ rights advocates. “I’m now going to go into a witness protection plan,” Emanuel joked in an interview with conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly in July.

    Other Democrats have tread more cautiously. “We need to make a compelling economic vision … our first, second and third priority,” Khanna said. Meanwhile, be said, “we can stay true to our values.”

    Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin was blunter. “We have to stand up for every LGBTQ kid and their family who want to play sports like any other kid,” he said last week.

    Those battles will play out over the long campaign, already in its first stirrings, for the next presidential nomination — the traditional way American political parties settle on a single message.

    “It takes time for a party to get up off the mat,” acknowledged Sosnik, the former Clinton strategist. “We didn’t get here overnight. We’re not going to get out of it overnight.”

    [ad_2]

    Doyle McManus

    Source link

  • Commentary: Newsom’s cops vs. Trump’s troops: A new showdown on America’s streets

    [ad_1]

    Just how unsafe are American streets?

    To hear President Trump tell it, killers lurk in every shadow not already filled by rapists and thieves.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom isn’t nearly as dire, pointing out that crime numbers are down.

    But “numbers mean little to people,” Newsom lamented during a press gaggle in his office Thursday, where he ruthlessly trolled Trump with a flags-and-all setup that appeared to mock the president’s marathon Cabinet meeting earlier in the week.

    Yes, folks, midterm elections are coming and crime is high — in our consciousness if not in reality. Although violent crime and some property crimes have declined in most California cities (and in many major cities across the country), the perils of city living remain stubbornly stuck in our collective psyches.

    This angst has augured in another get-tough era of crime suppression, culminating with the fulfillment of Trump’s authoritarian fantasy of National Guard troops patrolling in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and potentially more cities to come.

    Newsom is now offering up what many have framed as a counterpunch to Trump’s military intervention: A surge of California Highway Patrol officers in strategic locations across the state, basically Newsom-controlled cop boots on the ground to mirror Trump’s troops.

    But looking at Newsom’s deployment of more CHP officers as no more than a reaction to Trump misses a larger debate on what really makes our communities safer. Understanding what makes cops different from soldiers — and Newsom’s move different from Trump’s — is ultimately understanding the difference between repression and public safety, force and finesse.

    Newsom has been using the CHP to supplement local police departments for years. In 2023, when the Tenderloin area of San Francisco was plagued by open drug use, making it the favorite right-wing example of a failed Democratic-run city, Newsom sent this state force in to help clean it up (though that work continues). The next year, he sent it into Oakland and Bakersfield, both places where auto theft, retail crime and side shows were rampant.

    Now, he’s expanding the CHP’s role in local policing to include Los Angeles, San Diego, the Inland Empire and some Central Valley cities including Fresno and Sacramento.

    In each of those places, mobile teams of around a dozen officers, all of whom will volunteer for the job, will target specific crimes, criminals or problem areas. These officers won’t just be patrolling or responding to calls like the local force, but hitting targets identified by data or intelligence, or making their presence known in high-crime neighborhoods.

    Here’s where Trump’s military approach has an overlap with Newsom’s — and where the two men might agree: It is true that a visible show of armed authority deters crime. Whether it’s the National Guard or the Highway Patrol, criminals, both petty and violent, tend to avoid them.

    “We go in and saturate an area with high visibility and view patrol,” said Sean Duryee, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, standing at Newsom’s side. “The people that have a problem with that are the criminal community.”

    The approach seems to be working. I can throw the numbers at you — 400 firearms seized in San Bernardino, Bakersfield, Oakland; 4,000 stolen vehicles recovered in Oakland; more than 9,000 arrests statewide.

    But numbers really don’t matter. It genuinely is how a community feels about its safety. Across California, many if not the majority of small and mid-sized law enforcement departments are understaffed. Even big departments such as Los Angeles struggle to hire and retain officers. There are simply not enough cops — or resources such as helicopters or K9 teams — to do the work in too many places, and citizens feel it.

    Using these small strike teams of CHP officers fills the gap of both manpower and expertise. And by aiming that usage precisely at troubled spots, it can make underserved communities feel safer, and crime-ridden communities actually be safer.

    Tinisch Hollins is the head of Californians for Safety and Justice, an advocacy group that works to end over-incarceration and promote public safety beyond just making arrests. She is “obviously not a huge proponent of sending law enforcement into communities like that,” she said.

    But she lived in San Francisco when homicides topped 100 per year, and now lives in the Bay Area city of Vallejo, where the local police have been so understaffed and plagued by scandal that local leaders declared a state of emergency.

    She has seen how the CHP has “made an impact” in the Bay Area.

    “There are some very effective things happening,” Hollins said.

    That buy-in from community, especially skeptical community, is a massive departure from the militarization of Trump, and also hints at the deeper difference between troops and cops.

    California has been on the cutting-edge of law enforcement reform for years, though it is a conversation that has fallen from favor and headlines in the Trump era.

    In the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, California outlawed controversial carotid restraints that can cut off breathing. The state put in place a method for decertifying officers found guilty of serious misconduct. It increased age and education standards for becoming a peace officer, increased transparency requirements and put more oversight on the use of military equipment by civilian forces, just to name a few reforms.

    Most significantly, Newsom is championing a new vision of incarceration and rehabilitation modeled after successful efforts in Norway and other places that centers on the simple truth that arresting people does not end crime.

    Most people who are convicted and incarcerated will return to our streets after a few years at most, and if the state does not change their outlook and opportunities, they will also likely return to crime — making us no safer than the day they were first put into cuffs.

    But for a time, it seemed to some as if these reforms with their focus away from enforcement and toward alternatives to incarceration had gone too far. Images of marauding groups of retail thieves invading stores filled the news, and reasonably caused anxiety — leading to Californians passing the still-unfunded, tough-on-crime Proposition 36 that sought to create stiffer penalties for some drug and property crimes, along with mandated treatment for addiction, but which could also take money from rehabilitation programs.

    As much as Trump, Newsom’s use of the CHP is the response to that pushback on reform, an acknowledgment that enforcement remains a key piece of the crime-stopping dilemma.

    But Hollins points out that the rehabilitation aspect, the most innovative and arguably important aspect of California’s approach to crime, is getting lost in the current political climate.

    “It’s not just arresting people that brings crime down,” she said. “The [penal] system isn’t going to deal with the drivers of the crime.”

    This is where Newsom needs to do better, both on the ground and in his explanations. It may not be popular to talk about rehabilitation, and certainly Trump will seize on it as weak, but it is what works, and what makes the California method different from the MAGA view of crime.

    For Trump, the be-all and end-all is the arrest, and the subsequent cruel glee of punishment. He has called for harsher and longer penalties for even minor crimes, and recently demanded the blanket use of the death penalty in all murder cases charged in Washington, D.C. His is the authoritarian view that fear and repression will make us safer.

    “We lost grip with reality, the idea that the military can be out there in every street corner the United States of America,” Newsom said Thursday.

    Or should be.

    Soldiers on our streets just make even law-abiding citizens less free, and ultimately does little to fix the problems of poverty and opportunity that often start the cycles of crime.

    This is the showdown happening right now on American streets, and ultimately the showdown between the Democratic view of crime prevention and Trump’s — soldiers or cops, the easy spectacle of compliance induced by the barrel of a gun or a complicated and imperfect system of community and law enforcement working together.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Padilla sidesteps questions about a possible run for governor, says he is focused on redistricting

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Wednesday brushed aside questions about whether he might jump into California’s 2026 governor’s race but declined to rule out the idea.

    Padilla instead said he was wholly focused on promoting the special election in November when voters will be asked to redraw California’s congressional districts to counter efforts by President Trump and other GOP leaders to keep Republicans in control of Congress.

    “I’m focused and I’d encourage everybody to focus on this Nov. 4 special election,” Padilla said during an interview at a political summit in Sacramento sponsored by Politico.

    The 52-year-old added that the effort to redraw congressional districts, championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to similar efforts in GOP-led states, is not solely about the arcane process known as redistricting.

    “My Republican colleagues and especially the White House know how unpopular and damaging what they’re doing is, from gutting Medicare, nutrition assistance programs, really all these other areas of budget cuts to underwrite tax breaks for billionaires,” Padilla said. “So their only hope of staying in power beyond next November is to rig the system.”

    In recent days, Padilla’s name has emerged as a possible candidate to replace Newsom, who cannot run for another term. The field is unsettled, with independent polling conducted after former Vice President Kamala Harris opted not to run for governor showing large numbers of voters are undecided and with no clear front-runner.

    Padilla pointed to his more than quarter-century history of serving Californians at every level of government when asked what might be appealing about the job.

    “I love California, right?” he said. “And I’ve had the privilege and the honor of serving in so many different capacities.”

    In 1999, the then-26-year-old was elected to the Los Angeles City Council. At the time, the MIT grad still lived with his parents — a Mexican-born housekeeper and a short-order cook — in Pacoima.

    Padilla continued his steady climb through the state’s political ranks in the decades that followed, serving in the state Senate and as California secretary of state. Newsom appointed him to fill Harris’ Senate seat in 2020, making him the first Latino to represent California in the Senate, and Padilla was elected to fill a full term in 2022. His current Senate term doesn’t end until 2029, meaning he wouldn’t have to risk his seat to run for governor.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Julia Wick

    Source link

  • Trump Leads Charge Against California’s Redistricting With DOJ Action

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will pursue a lawsuit against California over its new congressional map.

    Trump declared in the Oval Office that the DOJ would file the lawsuit to challenge the California map, which would add five Democratic seats to the U.S. House if approved by voters in a special November election.

    “I think I’m going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon, and I think we’re going to be very successful in it,” said the President, per CNBC.

    “We’re going to be filing it through the Department of Justice. That’s going to happen.”

    Trump did not specify the grounds under which the DOJ would file the lawsuit.

    Newsom quickly responded to the potential lawsuit on social media, stating that California is prepared to take on the challenges.

     

    This redistricting effort in California follows numerous warnings from Gov. Gavin Newsom that the state would take action if Texas creates a new map, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.

    Under California law, an independent commission generally handles redistricting. Still, Newsom and the California legislature passed a bill to put a new measure on the November ballot, according to the National Review. The measure asks voters whether to temporarily suspend that commission until after the 2030 Census, allowing Democrats to redraw districts for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles.

    The ballot initiative has split public opinion, with a recent UC Berkeley poll showing 48% in favor, 36% opposed, and 20% undecided, per the National Review.

    This new map also directly counters Texas Republicans’ mid-decade gerrymandering efforts by enabling Democrats to try to regain an electoral edge in congressional representation.

    These changes in California come just days after the Texas legislature announced that a new congressional map had been approved by both the Texas Senate and House of Representatives, with the responsibility now falling upon Gov. Greg Abbott to approve the changes, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.

    The updated Texas map would give Republicans five additional U.S. House seats, which would be offset by the five seats gained by Democrats in the new California congressional map.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California voters undecided in 2026 governor’s race, but prefer Newsom over Harris for president in 2028

    [ad_1]

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris’ decision to forgo a run for California governor has created a wide-open race in next year’s election to run the nation’s most populous state, according to a poll released Tuesday by UC Berkeley and the Los Angeles Times.

    Nearly 4 in 10 registered voters surveyed said they are uncertain about whom they will support in the 2026 contest to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    “It’s very unsettled. Most of the voters, the plurality in this poll, are undecided,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll, which was conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times. “They don’t really know much about the candidates.”

    • Share via

    Among those who had a preference, former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine had a small edge as the top choice, with the backing of 17%. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, was the only other candidate who received double-digit support, winning the backing of 10% of respondents.

    DiCamillo said Porter’s unsuccessful 2024 U.S. Senate campaign boosted her recognition among California voters, but cautioned that she had a small, early lead more than nine months before the June 2 primary. Bianco’s support was driven by voters focused on crime and public safety, taxes and the budget deficit, perennial concerns among GOP voters, according to the survey.

    Other top candidates for governor — former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state legislative leader Toni Atkins, current California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck and conservative commentator Steve Hilton — received single-digit support as voters’ first choice in the poll. A few potential candidates also had single-digit support, including billionaire Los Angeles businessman Rick Caruso, former Trump administration official Ric Grenell and former GOP state Sen. Brian Dahle.

    The survey is among the first independent public polls since Harris announced in late July that she would not run for governor in 2026, dramatically reshuffling the calculus in a crowded race that the former vice president was widely expected to dominate if she mounted a campaign. The poll also took place after Lt. Gov Eleni Kounalakis dropped out of the contest this month to run for state treasurer instead.

    “It’s pretty wide-open,” DiCamillo said. “And when you look at the second-choice preference, first and second together, it’s bunched together.”

    When voters were asked to rank their top two choices, Porter received 22% as the first or second choice, Becerra got 18%, Bianco notched 15% and Hilton won 12%, according to the poll.

    None of the politicians running are well known by Californians compared with the state’s last three governors: Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco and lieutenant governor, who during his two terms as governor has positioned himself as a foil to President Trump ; former two-term Gov. Jerry Brown, who along with his father left an indelible imprimatur on California’s history; and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a global celebrity who returned to the Hollywood limelight after he left office, along with launching efforts to fight climate change and support independent redistricting nationwide.

    A pressing question is whether anyone else enters the race, notably Caruso, who has the ability to self-fund a campaign. The deadline to file to run for the seat is March 6.

    Whoever is elected as California’s next governor will face the difficult task of contending with a hostile Trump administration and an electorate looking to the state’s next leader to address its most pressing concerns.

    Economic issues are top of mind among all registered voters, with 36% saying the cost of living is their greatest concern and 25% focusing on the affordability of housing, according to the poll. But there were sharp partisan disparities about other issues. Democrats were more concerned about the state of democracy, climate change and healthcare, while Republicans prioritized crime, taxes and immigration.

    Two of California’s most prominent Democrats, Newsom and Harris, are longtime friends grounded in their Bay Area roots and both viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates.

    As a potential White House hopeful, Newsom has an edge over Harris among Californians overall as well as the state’s Democrats, according to the poll.

    Roughly 45% of the state’s registered voters said they were very or somewhat enthusiastic about Newsom running, compared with 36% who expressed a similar sentiment about Harris. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of registered voters and 51% of Democrats said Harris should not run for president again after two unsuccessful White House bids — in the primary in 2020 and in the general election in 2024.

    “She lost, which is always a negative when you’re trying to run again,” DiCamillo said. “It’s interesting that even after Harris bowed out of the governor’s race, most Californians don’t really think she should run for president.”

    While he described Newsom’s support as a “mixed bag” among the state’s registered voters, DiCamillo pointed to his strength among Democrats. Nearly 7 of 10 registered Democratic voters in the state said they are very or somewhat enthusiastic about Newsom running for president, compared with 54% who expressed similar feelings about Harris.

    The poll took place during a tumultuous period as Trump’s far-right policies begin to hit their stride.

    Drastic cuts to healthcare, nutrition, reproductive rights and other federal safety-net programs are expected to disproportionately affect Californians. The Trump administration‘s aggressive immigration raids in Los Angeles and across the state and country have caused the nation’s partisan divide to widen, driven by the president’s decision to deploy the military and target all undocumented immigrants, including law-abiding workers. Higher-education institutions across the nation have been targeted by the Trump administration, including UCLA, which is being threatened with a $1-billion fine.

    Californians were surveyed shortly before Democratic state lawmakers, trying to fight the Trump administration’s agenda, voted Thursday to call a special election in November to redraw the state’s congressional districts. The action was taken to counter gerrymandering efforts in Texas and other GOP-led states as both parties fight for control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

    The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 4,950 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from Aug. 11 to 17. 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

  • Obama applauds Newsom’s California redistricting plan as ‘responsible’ as Texas GOP pushes new maps

    [ad_1]

    Former President Barack Obama has waded into states’ efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to alter his state’s congressional maps, in the wake of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans’ position in next year’s elections. “I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. “We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”While noting that “political gerrymandering” is not his “preference,” Obama said that, if Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.”According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama’s attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared.The former president’s comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business.Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors, including Newsom, have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party’s position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures.In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state’s dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight for control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation’s most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43.A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval.Newsom and Democratic leaders say they’ll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline.”And we’re going to do it in a temporary basis because we’re keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,” Obama said, referencing Newsom’s take on the California plan. “I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.”___Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAPSee 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

    Former President Barack Obama has waded into states’ efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to alter his state’s congressional maps, in the wake of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans’ position in next year’s elections.

    “I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. “We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”

    While noting that “political gerrymandering” is not his “preference,” Obama said that, if Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.”

    This content is imported from Twitter.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama’s attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared.

    The former president’s comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business.

    Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors, including Newsom, have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party’s position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures.

    In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state’s dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight for control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation’s most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43.

    A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval.

    Newsom and Democratic leaders say they’ll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline.

    “And we’re going to do it in a temporary basis because we’re keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,” Obama said, referencing Newsom’s take on the California plan. “I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.”

    ___

    Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP

    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

  • Commentary: Newsom’s redistricting move isn’t pretty. California GOP leaders are uglier

    [ad_1]

    King Gavin is at it again!

    That’s the cry coming from Republicans across California as Newsom pushes the state Legislature to approve a November special election like none this state has ever seen. Voters would have the chance to approve a congressional map drawn by Democrats hoping to wipe out GOP-held seats and counter Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s Trump-driven redistricting.

    The president “doesn’t play by a different set of rules — he doesn’t believe in the rules,” the governor told a roaring crowd packed with Democratic heavyweights last week at the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. “And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It’s not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. … We have got to meet fire with fire.”

    California Republicans are responding to this the way a kid reacts if you take away their Pikachu.

    “An absolutely ridiculous gerrymander!” whined Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents the state’s rural northeast corner, on social media. Under the Democratic plan, his district would swing all the way down to ultra-liberal Marin County.

    The California Republican Party deemed the new maps a “MASTERCLASS IN CORRUPTION” (Trumpian caps in the original). National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said “Newscum” was giving “a giant middle finger to every Californian.”

    Intelligent minds can disagree on whether countering an extreme political move with an extreme political move is the right thing. The new maps would supersede the ones devised just four years ago by an independent redistricting commission established to keep politics out of the process, which typically occurs once a decade after the latest census.

    Good government types, from the League of Women Voters to Charles Munger Jr. — the billionaire who bankrolled the 2010 proposition that created independent redistricting for California congressional races — have criticized Newsom’s so-called Election Rigging Response Act. So has former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fierce Trump critic who posted a photo of himself on social media working out in a T-shirt that read, “F*** the Politicians / Terminate Gerrymandering.”

    I’m not fully convinced that Newsom’s plan is the MAGA killer he thinks it is. If the economy somehow rebounds next year, Republicans would most likely keep Congress anyway, and Newsom would have upended California politics for nothing.

    I also don’t discount the moderate streak in California voters that pops up from time to time to quash what seem like liberal gimmes, like the failed attempt via ballot measure to repeal affirmative action in 2020 and the passage last year of Proposition 36, which increased penalties for theft and drug crimes. Nearly two-thirds of California voters want to keep redistricting away from the Legislature, according to a POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll released last week.

    If Californians reject Newsom’s plan, that would torpedo his presidential ambitions and leave egg on the face of state Democratic leaders for years, if not a generation.

    For now, though, I’m going to enjoy all the tears that California Republicans are shedding. As they face the prospect of even fewer congressional seats than the paltry nine they now hold, they suddenly care about rescuing American democracy?

    In this image from video, Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa speaks at the U.S. Capitol in 2020.

    (House Television via Associated Press)

    Where were they during Trump’s fusillade of lawsuits and threats against California? When he sent the National Guard and Marines to occupy parts of Los Angeles this summer after protests against his deportation deluge? When his underlings spew hate about the Golden State on Fox News and social media?

    Now they care about political decency? What about when LaMalfa and fellow California GOP House members Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa — whose seats the Newsom maps would also eliminate — voted against certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 victory? When the state Republican Party backed a ridiculous recall against Newsom that cost taxpayers $200 million? Or when the Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted to pass Trump’s Big Bloated Bill, even though it’s expected to gut healthcare and food programs for millions of Californians in red counties? Or even when Trump first pushed Abbott to pursue the very gerrymandering Newsom is now emulating?

    We’re supposed to believe them when they proclaim Newsom is a pompadoured potentate who threatens all Californians, just because he wants to redo congressional maps?

    Pot, meet black hole.

    If these GOPers had even an iota of decency or genuine care for the Golden State, they would back a bill by one of their own that I actually support. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose seat is also targeted for elimination by the Newsom maps, wants to ban all mid-decade congressional redistricting. He stated via a press release that this would “stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.”

    That’s an effort that any believer in liberty can and should back. But Kiley’s bill has no co-sponsors so far. And Kevin: Why can’t you say that your man Trump created this fiasco in the first place?

    We live in scary times for our democracy. If you don’t believe it, consider that a bunch of masked Border Patrol agents just happened to show up outside the Japanese American National Museum — situated on a historic site where citizens of Japanese ancestry boarded buses to incarceration camps during World War II — at the same time Newsom was delivering his redistricting remarks. Sector Chief Gregory Bovino was there, migra cameramen documenting his every smirk, including when he told a reporter that his agents were there to make “Los Angeles a safer place, since we won’t have politicians that’ll do that, we do that ourselves.”

    The show of force was so obviously an authoritarian flex that Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to know who authorized what and why. Meanwhile, referring to Trump, he described the action on X as “an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea.”

    Newsom is not everyone’s cup of horchata, myself included. Whether you support it or not, watching him rip up the California Constitution’s redistricting section and assuring us it’s OK, because he’s the one doing it, is discomfiting.

    But you know what’s worse? Trump anything. And even worse? The California GOP leaders who have loudly cheered him on, damn the consequences to the state they supposedly love.

    History will castigate their cultish devotion to Trump far worse than any of Newsom’s attempts to counter that scourge.

    [ad_2]

    Gustavo Arellano

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How will the ballot measure work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What’s at stake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    California Republicans in the crosshairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Democrats eye open seats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Laura J. Nelson, Seema Mehta

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

    • Share via

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • Newsom welcomes Texas Democrats who fled to foil Trump’s redistricting plan

    [ad_1]

    California became center stage for the national political fight over House seats Friday when Gov. Gavin Newsom welcomed Democratic lawmakers from Texas who fled their home state to foil President Trump’s plans to redraw congressional districts.

    California lawmakers plan to respond with their own plan to gerrymander districts to favor Democrats and neutralize any Republican seats gained in Texas in 2026, with a proposed map expected to become public next week, Newsom said at a news conference after meeting with the lawmakers.

    “Make no mistake, California is moving forward,” the governor said. “We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what’s happening in Texas, and we will nullify what happens in Texas.”

    • Share via

    He noted that while Democrats still support the state’s independent redistricting commission, they must counter Trump’s plan in GOP-led states to give their party a better chance in next year’s midterm election.

    “They drew first blood,” he later added of Republicans.

    Asked about the gathering, a Trump administration spokesperson said Newsom was seeking the limelight to further his political ambitions.

    “Gavin Newsom is a loser of the highest order and he will never be president, no matter how hard he prostitutes himself to the press,” said the spokesperson, Steven Cheung.

    Friday marked the second time in two weeks that Texas Democrats have stood next to Newsom at the California governor’s mansion and warned that Republican efforts to draw a new map in their state would dilute the power of Black and brown voters.

    The Texas Democrats hoped that their departure would leave the state Legislature with too few members present to change the map in a special session. They face $500 fines for each day of absence, as well as threats of arrest and removal from office by Gov. Greg Abbott and other Texas GOP officials. Some of the Democratic lawmakers were evacuated from a Chicago hotel where they were staying after a bomb threat Wednesday.

    “We are now facing threats — the threat that we’re going to lose our jobs, the threat of financial ruin, the threat that we will be hunted down as our colleagues sit on their hands and remain silent, as we all get personal threats to our lives,” said Texas state Rep. Ann Johnson, one of six Texas Democrats at the news conference, who was among those evacuated from the Chicago hotel. “We as Democrats are standing up to ensure that the voices of every voter is lifted up in this next election, and that the next election is not stolen from them.”

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco); Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San José), chair of the California Democratic congressional delegation; California Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg); state Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and other elected officials joined the meeting in a show of unity as California Democrats attempt to convince their own state’s voters to fight back.

    Pelosi noted that the state’s congressional delegation is united in backing the redistricting proposal to counter Trump.

    “The president has paved over the Rose Garden. He’s paved over freedom of speech. He’s paved over freedom of education, [an] independent judiciary, the rule of law,” Pelosi said. “He’s gone too far. We will not let him pave over free and fair elections in our country, starting with what he’s trying to do in Texas.”

    She countered an argument some have made — that two wrongs don’t make a right.

    “This is self-defense for our democracy,” she said.

    The California plan calls for the state Legislature to approve a constitutional amendment establishing new congressional voting districts crafted to make GOP members vulnerable.

    Passage of the bill would result in a special election on Nov. 4, with California voters deciding whether the state should temporarily pause the congressional boundaries created by an independent redistricting commission in 2021 and adopt new maps for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.

    If approved by voters, the measure would include a “trigger” specifying that it would take effect only if Texas or other Republican-led states follow through with redrawing their maps to boost GOP seats before the midterm election. California would revert to its existing redistricting law after the next census and before the 2032 election.

    At least so far, California voters appear uncertain about whether they want to swap Newsom’s plan for the independent redistricting system they previously adopted at the ballot box.

    An Emerson College poll found support for redrawing California’s congressional map at 33% and opposition at 25%. The survey of 1,000 registered voters, conducted Aug. 4 and 5, found that 42% were undecided.

    Newsom has expressed confidence that California voters will back his plan, which he is casting as a rebuttal to Trump’s efforts to “rig” the midterm elections.

    “I’m confident we’ll get it when people know what it is and what it’s not, and I think, at the end of the day, they understand what’s at stake,” Newsom said Thursday.

    Newsom argues that California’s process is more transparent than Trump’s because voters here will see the map and decide whether the state should go forward with it.

    To fulfill Trump’s request for five additional seats, Abbott is attempting to redraw House districts in Texas through a state legislative process that does not require voter approval. It’s unclear what will happen in Austin, with Democrats determined to block the effort and the governor and other Texas Republicans insisting they will keep pressing it.

    The current special session ends Aug. 19. But in an interview with NBC News on Thursday evening, Abbott vowed “to call special session after special session after special session with the same agenda items on there.”

    In addition to arrest on civil warrants, the Democrats are facing threats of being removed from office. Direct-deposit payments to the legislators have been curtailed, forcing them to pick up their checks in person at the state capitol in Austin or go without the money.

    The redistricting fight has strengthened Newsom’s national platform as a potential 2028 presidential contender and bolstered his reputation as a Democrat willing to take the fight to Trump and his allies.

    Since Trump took office in January, Newsom had been walking a fine line between calling out the president and working with him in hopes of being able to join together to rebuild from the California wildfires.

    But Newsom took a hard line after Trump deployed the National Guard during federal immigration raids in Los Angeles in June, prompting the governor and his administration to much more aggressively resist the president’s agenda.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Trump seeks $1-billion fine against UCLA. Newsom says ‘we’ll sue,’ calling it extortion

    [ad_1]

    Hours after the Trump administration demanded that the University of California pay a $1-billion fine to settle federal accusations of antisemitism in exchange for restoring frozen grant funding to UCLA, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the proposal “extortion” and said the state will go to court to protect the nation’s premier university system.

    “We’ll sue,” Newsom said during a news conference with Texas legislators over California’s effort to counter a contentious Republican redistricting plan in that state.

    President Trump is “trying to silence academic freedom” by “attacking one of the most important public institutions in the United States of America,” Newsom said, adding that he would “stand tall and push back against that, and I believe every member of California Legislature feels the same way.”

    The federal government on Friday said UC should pay the billion-dollar fine in installments and contribute $172 million to a fund for Jewish students and other individuals affected by alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The statute covers illegal discrimination related to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, including Jewish and Israeli identity.

    • Share via

    In addition, the Trump administration demanded sweeping campus changes encompassing protests, admissions, gender identity in sports and housing, the abolition of scholarships for racial or ethnic groups, and submission to an outside monitor over the agreement, according to four UC senior officials who have reviewed the proposal.

    “He has threatened us through extortion with a billion-dollar fine, unless we do his bidding,” Newsom said.

    “We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom on this extraordinary public institution. We are not like some of those other institutions,” he said.

    The governor appeared to be referring to controversial and costly deals the Trump administration secured from Columbia and Brown universities over charges similar to those facing UCLA, deals Newsom criticized a day earlier in public remarks.

    In a statement Friday that UC was “reviewing” the terms, UC President James B. Milliken, who oversees the 10-campus system that includes UCLA, also seemed to rebuff the demand.

    “As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians,” Milliken said. “Americans across this great nation rely on the vital work of UCLA and the UC system for technologies and medical therapies that save lives, grow the U.S. economy, and protect our national security.”

    UC Regents Chair Janet Reilly told The Times the university was still willing to negotiate with the Trump administration but not on “unacceptable” terms.

    “Demand for a $1 billion payment from UCLA, coupled with conditions that contradict the university’s values, is unacceptable,” Reilly said, describing it as a “financial burden” that would be “catastrophic for our students, research, our patients and the people of California.

    “The university remains willing to engage in a constructive and good faith dialogue with the federal government but the University of California will always stand firm in protecting the integrity and values of our institution,” Reilly said.

    A spokesperson for UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk referred The Times to Milliken’s statement. Federal negotiations are being handled on a UC-wide level.

    UC is grappling with how to restore $584 million in frozen medical and science grant funds to UCLA. If the deal was accepted, it would be the largest settlement between a university and the Trump administration, far surpassing a $221-million agreement that Columbia University announced last month. Harvard is also reportedly considering a settlement involving a hefty fine.

    “We would never agree to this,” said one of the UC officials who is involved in the deliberations with the Trump administration. “It is more money than was frozen at UCLA. So how does that make sense?”

    But another senior UC official said the figure was understandable if it resolved all federal investigations across the system, even if UC may not ultimately agree to it. The federal proposal focuses on UCLA only, not all campuses.

    Any payment would be a political liability for the university and state leaders in deep-blue California, where Trump’s policies are highly unpopular. A billion dollars would be a financial burden for a university system that is already facing a hiring freeze, budget squeezes, deferred state funding and scattered layoffs.

    UC and individual campuses are under multiple federal investigations into alleged use of race in admissions, employment discrimination against Jews, civil rights complaints from Jewish students and improper reporting of foreign donations.

    UCLA has faced the most charges from the government of any UC or public university, many of them tied to a 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment.

    The encampment, which unsuccessfully demanded the university divest from weapons companies tied to Israel’s war in Gaza, was targeted in a violent overnight attack last spring and was later the subject of federal lawsuit by pro-Israel Jewish students. The students, along with a professor, accused UCLA of enabling antisemitism by not shutting down the encampment, which plaintiffs said blocked pro-Israel Jews from campus pathways. UCLA settled the suit for $6.45 million, including more than $2 million in donations to Jewish nonprofits.

    The Trump administration’s Friday offer follows a similar playbook to agreements it reached with Columbia and Brown universities to restore federal funding and resolve allegations of civil rights violations against Jewish and Israeli students.

    Trump wants to remake universities, which he has called “Marxist” hotbeds of liberalism and anti-Israel sentiment. During his second term, federal agencies have suspended or canceled billions in federal medical and science grants related to gender, LGBTQ+ issues or in response to campuses it accuses of being antisemitic. The White House has also attacked campus diversity programs and admissions practices as being illegal discrimination against white and Asian Americans.

    University leaders have challenged the notion that cutting medical research helps protect Jewish people. “This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” Frenk, the UCLA chancellor, said in a campus letter this week.

    At UCLA, Trump’s demands include an end to scholarships that focus on race or ethnicity, the sharing of admissions data with the government and changes to campus protest rules. The Trump administration is also proposing that UCLA Health and the medical school cease gender-affirming care for transgender people.

    UC has already overhauled practices in some areas called for by the Trump administration — including a ban on protest encampments and the abolition of diversity statements in hiring.

    The Trump administration is also saying it wants an outside monitor to oversee the agreement.

    The proposal came one day after Newsom said UC should not bend “on their knees” to Trump. Newsom, a Democrat, has fashioned himself as a national anti-Trump figure and is considering a presidential run in 2028.

    The university system, run by Milliken — who assumed his role only last week — and the Board of Regents, is independent under the state Constitution. But the governor can exercise political sway over the regents, whose members he appoints. Newsom also holds an ex-officio seat on the board.

    Kaleem reported from Los Angeles and Wilner from Washington. Times staff Writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento and Seema Mehta in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem, Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Commentary: Newsom vows Texas will be ‘neutered’ by California. Will voters let him do it?

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom made a ballsy threat this week to Texas legislators who are trying to gerrymander voting maps in favor of Republicans.

    “Whatever they are doing will be neutered here in the state of California, and they will pay that price,” Newsom said. “They’ve triggered this response. And we’re not going to roll over, and we’re going to fight fire with fire.”

    The “we” in that sentence is you, California voters, who may soon be asked to fix the Texas menace via the ballot box. If Newsom has his way, voters in November would face some version of an if/then question: “If Texas cheats on their voting maps, then (and only then) should California cheat on ours?”

    In these days of creeping authoritarianism, it’s a fair query, but also one rife with personal interests and risks large enough to remake American democracy, or even inadvertently crush it.

    But such is the state of our union that even those determined to preserve it are ready to throw out its basic tenets — myself included, sort of — and cause a national kerfuffle by considering remaking voting maps to supposedly benefit, if not a party, democracy as a whole.

    “This is something that we have just never seen before, right?” Mindy Romero told me Tuesday. She’s an assistant professor and the founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.

    Romero is against gerrymandering, but also agrees that we are in “unprecedented times,” a phrase that doesn’t seem to do justice to the daily trampling of democratic safeguards by our president.

    Most of you are aware by now that the Texas Legislature, allegedly after pressure from President Trump, is contemplating redrawing its voting maps in the hopes of scooping up more seats for Republicans in Congress during the 2026 midterms — the very election that Democrats are praying will deliver them control of at least one chamber.

    With the possibility that this Texas two-step could hand Trump an even more solidly compliant Congress, Newsom has come up with a plan to gerrymander our own maps. But to make it (hopefully) legal, he needs voters to go along with it because this ain’t Texas, and we don’t ignore rules. We bend them.

    Whoever thought redistricting could be this exciting? But stay calm, redistricting nerds: It remains boring to the majority of voters, which is both the problem and the brilliance of the plan — you have to engage voters, but also not so much that they think too deeply.

    The difference between Texas and California is our ballot initiative process, which would ultimately make voters responsible for any gerrymandering here. In Texas, it’s backroom stuff.

    But will voters go for it? For many, it will come down to simple choices that miss the complexity of what is being asked: California vs. Texas, Newsom vs. Trump, democracy vs. authoritarianism.

    Romero warns that once you smash a norm, even for a virtuous reason, it’s hard to get it back. She worries that despite Newsom’s claim that the rigged maps would disappear in 2030, the gerrymandering might remain.

    California has one of the best systems in the country right now for nonpartisan redistricting, with an independent commission that draws lines without regard to party.

    It was put in place because decades of gerrymandering left voters disenchanted.

    In the 1980s, political icon Phillip Burton allegedly wrangled an infamous gerrymander that still shows just how bad things could be. He did it in part to protect the seat of his brother, John Burton ( a colorful fellow who served in both the state Legislature and Congress before becoming chair of the California Democratic Party) creating a district that wound around the Bay Area in a nonsensical fashion to scrape up the necessary votes.

    “Oh, it’s gorgeous,” Phillip Burton described that questionable territory to the Washington Post at the time. “It curls in and out like a snake.”

    That was just the way business was done before our redistricting commission was put in place in 2008, with a hefty push by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who remains a vocal critic of gerrymandering and who has vowed to fight Newsom’s plan.

    But that nonpartisan system was hard won, and in reality, neither party really loved the idea.

    “We’ve gone through this and in cooler times,” Romero pointed out. “The Democrats and the Republicans in California did not want independent redistricting. Let’s make that clear. But a lot of people came together and worked towards this.”

    So while any upcoming ballot measure will likely focus on the righteousness of fighting fire with fire, it’s also true that the Democratic party and some Democratic politicians would hope to reap personal gain from such a vote.

    As much as this might be about saving democracy, politics is always about personal and party gain. Some California state legislators would surely desire to win a newly drawn seat in Congress. And, of course, there are Newsom’s political ambitions.

    “It’s really difficult to disentangle people that may be sincerely scared for our democracy” from those “that may be jumping on this, seeing it as a political opportunity. And I think we have to be really honest about that,” Romero said.

    That’s the choice that voters will ultimately be asked to make.

    But we also can’t ignore the precarious nature of the times, and the reality that our checks and balances are disintegrating. Do we save election integrity and maybe risk democracy, or try to save democracy and risk election integrity?

    Two paths lead into the dark. Do voters follow Newsom or Trump?

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom issues executive order aimed at lowering electric bills

    Gov. Newsom issues executive order aimed at lowering electric bills

    [ad_1]

    With Californians angry about their skyrocketing electric bills, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order on Wednesday aimed at giving them some relief.

    The governor’s order directs the state Public Utilities and Energy commissions to find ways to try to lower power bills in the future, or at the minimum to stop them from rising so quickly.

    Among the actions he asks for is a closer review of how utilities are spending money to stop transmission lines from sparking wildfires. State officials say those wildfire mitigation costs now make up about 13% of customers’ monthly electric bills.

    “We’re taking action to address rising electricity costs and save consumers money on their bills,” Newsom said. “California is proving that we can address affordability concerns as we continue our world-leading efforts to combat the climate crisis.”

    The governor issued the executive order days before Tuesday’s election, in which kitchen-table economics is a top concern.

    California now has the second-highest electric rates in the country after Hawaii. Residential customer bills have risen by as much as 110% in the last decade.

    In just the past three years, bills for customers of the three biggest for-profit utilities — Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric — have increased by 20% to 50%. Those most recent rate increases were reviewed and approved by Newsom appointees at the state public utilities commission.

    The executive order is just one of Newsom’s recent moves aimed at reducing soaring energy costs. In August, he and Democratic lawmakers released a suite of energy-related bills just days before the legislative session ended. That same month the governor ordered lawmakers to return to Sacramento for a special session to debate a bill that would require oil refineries to increase gasoline reserves in an attempt to prevent price spikes at the pump.

    The governor’s staff say Newsom is committed to the state’s ambitious climate goals, which include having 100% clean electricity by 2045. But he has become concerned as electric rates have risen to cover the cost of the state’s fast construction of solar farms and other renewable power, they say.

    Newsom’s executive order asks his administration to look for “underperforming or underutilized programs” that are paid for by electric customers that could be ended. It says any unused money in those programs should be returned to customers.

    In addition, the order asks the state’s Air Resources Board to determine how the California Climate Credit could be increased. Most Californians’ get the credit twice a year on their electric and gas bills. The credit is funded by the state’s cap-and-trade program, which attempts to reduce harmful emissions.

    The order also directs the state Public Utilities Commission to pursue all federal funding opportunities that could reduce electric costs.

    An early plan by Newsom’s office for the executive order that was reviewed by The Times asked the public utilities commission to look into alternative ways of financing the building of electrical lines and other infrastructure. Currently, building infrastructure is a key way for utilities to boost their profits because they bill the cost back to ratepayers over many years, tacking on annual interest that is typically 10.5%.

    Consumer groups say that lowering this rate could result in significant savings for customers.

    The governor’s executive order released Wednesday didn’t include that provision. His staff said the directive to find other ways of financing infrastructure wasn’t included in the executive order because it would require legislative statutes to be changed.

    In August, Newsom backed away from an earlier plan he had to lower the infrastructure interest rate after criticism from the big utilities and electrical workers’ union, according to a report by the Sacramento Bee.

    [ad_2]

    Melody Petersen

    Source link

  • Newsom quashed bill. Now lawsuit aims to open UC jobs to undocumented students

    Newsom quashed bill. Now lawsuit aims to open UC jobs to undocumented students

    [ad_1]

    After Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed undocumented students to be hired on public universities, a legal effort has been launched to force open this doorway.

    On Tuesday, a UCLA alumnus and a lecturer filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against students based on their immigration status. They are seeking a court order requiring the system to consider undocumented students for on-campus jobs.

    “As an undocumented undergraduate student at the University of California, I experienced firsthand the pain and difficulty of being denied the right to on-campus employment,” said petitioner and UCLA alumnus Jeffry Umaña Muñoz on Tuesday. “Losing these opportunities forced me to extremely precarious and dangerous living situations, always moments from housing and food insecurity.”

    The suit argues that federal law barring the hiring of undocumented people does not apply to public universities. A UC spokesperson said on Tuesday afternoon that the university system had yet to be served with the filing but will respond as appropriate when served.

    The suit is being coordinated by the Opportunity4All campaign, which led the charge behind Assembly Bill 2486, or the Opportunity for All Act, this year.

    When vetoing the bill in September, Newsom cited concerns that state employees could be found in violation of federal laws for hiring undocumented people.

    “Given the gravity of the potential consequences of this bill, which include potential criminal and civil liability for state employees, it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding,” he said in his veto message.

    UC regents, for their part, share Newsom’s fear that offering jobs to undocumented students may run afoul of federal law.

    In January, they shelved a plan to open jobs to students who lack legal work authorization, saying UC could be subject to civil fines, criminal penalties and the potential loss of billions of dollars in federal funding. The university system receives more than $12 billion in annual federal funding for research, student financial aid and healthcare.

    The lawsuit, however, argues that although the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 bars the hiring of people without legal status, this federal law does not apply to government employers such as the University of California.

    “No court has ever interpreted IRCA the way the [UC] regents do,” Jessica Bansal, counsel for the petitioner, said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit Tuesday. “To the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that federal laws regulating hiring do not apply to state employers unless they clearly and unambiguously state they do.”

    Bansal said the UC hiring policy also violates California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which prohibits state employers from discriminating in hiring based on immigration status.

    Although the lawsuit is directed at the UC system, counsel Ahilan Arulanantham said he hoped a favorable ruling would prompt California State University to also open employment to such immigrant students.

    California is home to one-fifth of the nation’s immigrant college students who are in the U.S. illegally, an estimated 55,500 of whom attend public colleges and universities.

    “It’s imperative for these students to have the opportunity to work and pursue career advancement,” petitioner and UCLA lecturer Iliana Perez said Tuesday. “By unlocking their potential and enabling them to contribute fully, we can rectify the missed economic opportunity and create a more inclusive and prosperous society.”

    [ad_2]

    Clara Harter

    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

    Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

    [ad_1]

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, M&Ms and other items made with certain synthetic food dyes will be expelled from California public schools, charter schools and state special schools under a bill signed into law Saturday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Assembly Bill 2316, which will go into effect starting Dec. 31, 2027, spells the end for snack foods that contain the dyes known as blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. All are common industry staples that can give foods unnaturally vibrant colors in an effort to make them more appealing.

    “Our health is inextricably tied to the food we eat,” Newsom said in a statement. “Today, we are refusing to accept the status quo, and making it possible for everyone, including school kids, to access nutritious, delicious food without harmful, and often addictive additives.”

    The chemicals have been linked to developmental and behavioral harms in children, according to the bill’s authors, who cited a 2021 report from the California Environmental Protection Agency. They expressed hope that the new law can have ripple effects beyond the Golden State.

    “California is once again leading the nation when it comes to protecting our kids from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who introduced the legislation.

    The new law “sends a strong message to manufacturers to stop using these harmful additives,” he added in a statement.

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos contain three of the six newly forbidden chemicals: red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. The ingredient list for M&Ms includes those three dyes as well as blue 1 and blue 2.

    Other food items that could disappear from cafeterias and school vending machines as a result of this law include Cheetos, Doritos, sports drinks and sugary breakfast cereals such as Froot Loops and Cap’n Crunch.

    For Gabriel, the bill is personal. He told The Times in March that he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child. His son also has the neurodevelopmental disorder.

    Last year, Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation ban on food additives found in popular cereals, candy, sodas and drinks, including brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and red dye No. 3. That law will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, and impose fines of up to $10,000 for violations.

    California lawmakers hope the bans will prompt manufacturers to reformulate their recipes.

    AB 2316 faced opposition from the American Beverage Assn., the California Chamber of Commerce and the National Confectioners Assn.

    The groups said food additives should be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, not evaluated on a state-by-state basis.

    But how or when the FDA will take action on the issue remains to be seen, said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at Environmental Working Group, which co-sponsored the law.

    “The FDA should certainly also take action on these dyes, but that’s no reason to wait to make sure that kids in California are safe,” Benesh said after the bill passed the Legislature.

    “There are plenty of alternatives to these chemicals,” Benesh said. “I think it’s on industry to find a way to reformulate and market their foods without using chemicals that may hurt our kids.”

    In addition to the ban on food dyes, Newsom also signed a bill that aims to standardize information about the expiration dates on food products. AB 660 is designed to give consumers more clear and consistent information about the freshness of their food in the hope that it will reduce food waste.

    “Having to wonder whether our food is still good is an issue that we all have struggled with,” the bill’s author, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), said in a statement. The enactment of this bill is a “monumental step to keep money in the pockets of consumers while helping the environment and the planet.”

    Erica Parker, a policy associate with Californians Against Waste, which co-sponsored the bill, said the legislation will get rid of the confusion consumers face when examining products that have the words “sell by,” “expires on” or “freshest before” printed on their packaging.

    The result of that confusion “is a staggering amount of food waste. Californians throw away 6 million tons of food waste each year — and confusion over date labels is a leading cause,” she said in a statement when the bill was sent to Newsom’s desk.

    [ad_2]

    Nathan Solis, Susanne Rust

    Source link

  • Newsom vetoes bill aiming to increase protections for farmworkers overcome by heat

    Newsom vetoes bill aiming to increase protections for farmworkers overcome by heat

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that aimed to make it easier for farmworkers to make a workers’ compensation claim for heat illness.

    SB 1299 would have changed the burden of proof in workers’ compensation claims when a farmworker develops a heat-related injury after laboring outdoors for an employer who fails to comply with the state’s heat safety standards. Instead of the farmworker having to prove the injury occurred on the job, as is typical in workers’ compensation cases, it would have been the employer’s responsibility to prove the illness was not work-related.

    Under the bill’s provisions, if an employer failed to comply with the rules, any resulting heat-related injury to an employee would be “presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment.” It would have created a “rebuttable presumption,” which is more commonly used for law enforcement officers and firefighters who develop certain injuries that could arise from the risks inherent to their jobs.

    In a veto message issued Saturday, Newsom said there is “no doubt” that California farmworkers need strong protections from the risk of heat-related illness, especially as climate change drives an increase in extreme temperatures.

    “However, the creation of a heat-illness presumption in the workers’ compensation system is not an effective way to accomplish this goal,” he said. Newsom said heat safety rules are currently enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, which is better equipped to enforce those worker protections.

    Newsom also noted that Cal/OSHA is establishing an agricultural unit that specializes in worker protections and hazards found at agricultural worksites, and opening new district office locations in Fresno, Santa Barbara and Riverside.

    “This dedicated unit will increase Cal/OSHA’s reach to farmworker communities throughout the Central Valley, where the largest number of farmworkers and their families reside,” Newsom said.

    The legislation came as many farmworkers continue to labor in unsafe conditions and Cal/OSHA confronts a severe staffing shortage that is hampering its ability to enforce heat regulations for outdoor workers.

    First enacted in 2005, the state’s heat illness prevention rules require employers to provide outdoor workers with fresh water, access to shade at 80 degrees and warmer, and cool-down breaks whenever a worker requests one. Employers must also maintain a heat illness prevention plan with effective training for supervisors to recognize the signs and symptoms of heat illness.

    But nearly two decades after the rules were first enacted, ensuring compliance has remained challenging.

    In 2009 and 2012, the United Farm Workers sued Cal/OSHA, accusing the agency of failing to enforce the regulations.

    A 2022 study by the UC Merced Community and Labor Center found many farmworkers were still laboring without the protections. Of more than 1,200 workers surveyed, 43% reported their employers had not provided a heat illness prevention plan and 15% said they had not received heat illness prevention training.

    The bill’s author, Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), previously described SB 1299 as a “creative work-around” that was “taking the tools that we do have available and trying to cobble together an approach that will hopefully spur greater compliance.”

    “The employers hate the workers’ comp presumptions so much that it makes me feel like it might actually work,” Cortese previously told The Times. “The avoidance factor is so high with them that they’ll say, ‘My God, it’s actually easier for us to provide shade and water than to have to deal with a proliferation of expedited workers’ comp claims.’”

    “We’re trying to take something that they view as kind of a thorn in their side and use it as a disincentive for the kind of behavior we’re seeing,” he said.

    The UFW backed SB 1299.

    “Despite the Governor’s veto of SB 1299, the UFW will continue to work to save farm worker lives,” UFW President Teresa Romero said in a statement Saturday.

    Opponents of the bill, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Farm Bureau, acknowledged the importance of protecting farmworkers from heat illness, but had argued the issue should not be addressed through the workers’ compensation system.

    This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

    [ad_2]

    Rebecca Plevin

    Source link

  • Newsom signs formal apology for California’s role in slavery

    Newsom signs formal apology for California’s role in slavery

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a formal apology for California’s role in slavery and legacy of racism against Black people as part of a series of reparations bills he approved Thursday.

    “The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities,” Newsom said in a statement. “Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past — and making amends for the harms caused.”

    Though California banned slavery in its 1849 Constitution, the state had no laws that made it a crime to keep someone enslaved or require that they be freed, which allowed slavery to continue. A disproportionate representation of white Southerners with pro-slavery views also held office in the Legislature, state court system and in its congressional delegation.

    Assembly Bill 3089, which requires the state to issue a formal apology, also mandates that the California install a plaque memorializing the apology in the state Capitol. Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who introduced the bill, called it a “monumental achievement.”

    “Healing can only begin with an apology,” Jones-Sawyer said in a statement. “The State of California acknowledges its past actions and is taking this bold step to correct them, recognizing its role in hindering the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for Black individuals through racially motivated punitive laws.”

    Despite the bill signings, advocates for reparations have criticized the governor and Democratic lawmakers for making meager progress on its “first in the nation” effort to study, propose and adopt remedies to atone for slavery that began in 2020.

    After a state task force spent two years developing recommendations for the Legislature, the California Legislative Black Caucus announced a package of priority bills in January focused largely on enacting policy changes in education, healthcare and criminal justice, while omitting cash payments in light of the state’s financial troubles.

    Advocates for reparations have criticized Newsom and Democratic lawmakers for making meager progress on the issue.

    (Laurel Rosenhall / Los Angeles Times)

    Newsom also signed bills to provide new oversight of book bans in California prisons, require that grocery stores and pharmacies give written notice at least 45 days before closing, expand a state law prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyle to include youth sports and to try to increase and track participation in career training education among Black and low-income students, among other legislation.

    But the governor took heat when the Legislature refused to take up other bills for a vote that would have created a California American Freedmen Affairs Agency and established a Fund for Reparations and Reparative Justice to pay for and carry out reparations policies approved by lawmakers.

    A day before signing the legislation issuing a formal apology, Newsom vetoed two other reparations bills. One sought to begin the process of reversing racially motivated land and property seizures under the Freedman Affairs agency that lawmakers declined to approve. The other would have expanded Medi-Cal coverage, pending federal approval, to include benefits for medically supported food and nutrition.

    “This bill would result in significant and ongoing general fund costs for the Medi-Cal program that are not included in the budget,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement.

    [ad_2]

    Taryn Luna

    Source link