Sacramento’s power dynamics appear headed for a reset as Governor-elect Xavier Becerra signals a notably different approach to working with the Legislature than his predecessor, Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was often criticized — even by fellow Democrats — for springing major policy decisions on lawmakers at the eleventh hour and using looming deadlines to push proposals through with little room for debate.
Becerra, appearing alongside top Democratic legislators at the state Capitol last week, struck a markedly more cooperative tone, suggesting he intends to bring lawmakers into the process earlier and more consistently once he takes office.
Legislative leaders welcomed the shift. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said he anticipates a fundamentally different working relationship than the one lawmakers endured over the past eight years, adding that he trusts Becerra’s commitment to avoid blindsiding the Legislature with unexpected proposals.
The governor-elect’s emphasis on partnership likely reflects his own background as a former state Assembly member and member of Congress, experience that gives him a legislator’s perspective on how collaboration — or the lack of it — can shape outcomes at the Capitol. Since clinching the Democratic nomination for governor, Becerra has met one-on-one with numerous lawmakers and addressed both the Senate and Assembly Democratic caucuses directly.
Still, exactly where Becerra will land on several pressing policy fights remains uncertain. He and lawmakers face a packed agenda heading into the new year, including how to respond to federal reductions to Medi-Cal funding, how to resolve long-running questions over utility liability for wildfire damage, how to regulate the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, and how to address California’s stubbornly high cost of living.
Becerra has so far resisted locking himself into specific commitments. When pressed on whether he would reverse Newsom’s decision to scale back health coverage for undocumented immigrants — a position he appeared sympathetic to in a recent interview with KQED — Becerra pushed back on reporters, accusing them of trying to pin him down prematurely. He said he did not win election by making snap commitments to reporters’ questions, signaling that policy specifics would come later, through the normal legislative process rather than off-the-cuff promises.
In other Capitol news, California voters have approved a significant change to how recall elections work in the state. Proposition 5 passed with 52% support, altering a process that previously asked voters simultaneously whether to remove an official and who should replace them. Under the new system, voters will first decide whether an official should be recalled; only if that effort succeeds will a second election be held to choose a replacement.
Democratic backers of the measure argued the previous system was costly and could produce results that didn’t reflect majority support, since replacement candidates could win with only a small share of the vote. They pointed to the 2021 campaign to recall Newsom, which cost California taxpayers roughly $200 million, with campaigns on both sides spending another $100 million combined. Republican opponents countered that the change was unnecessary and would actually increase costs by requiring two separate elections instead of one.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit out of Sonoma County is drawing attention to a real estate practice that critics say can quietly disadvantage homebuyers. Known as “dual agency,” the arrangement allows a single agent or brokerage to represent both the buyer and the seller in a transaction. While banned in several states, it remains legal in California provided both parties knowingly consent.
The lawsuit targets W Real Estate, one of Northern California’s largest brokerages, accusing the company of steering buyers in a Santa Rosa housing development into dual agency deals without giving them a genuine opportunity to opt for independent representation. The attorney behind the suit points to data from another W Real Estate development where dual agency wasn’t mandatory: buyers who had their own separate agent were four times more likely to receive price concessions or credits than those who didn’t.
Real estate experts say the practice raises inherent ethical concerns. Wayne Bell, a former commissioner with the California Department of Real Estate, noted that an agent cannot simultaneously work to secure the highest possible price for a seller while also negotiating the lowest possible price for a buyer — calling the dual role an unavoidable conflict of interest.
Original source: CalMatters
