Treatment Atlas, a free digital resource partially funded by the state, allows users to compare addiction treatment programs and see whether facilities use approaches supported by evidence. Advocates say the tool gives families in crisis clearer information at a moment when quick decisions can have life-or-death consequences.

David Sheff, the author of “Beautiful Boy: A Father’s Journey Through His Son’s Addiction” and “Clean: Overcoming Addiction and Ending America’s Greatest Tragedy,” has urged state leaders to preserve funding for the program. Sheff has written extensively about his son Nic’s addiction to methamphetamine, which began when Nic was 18, and the years his family spent trying to navigate a treatment system he has described as confusing and opaque.

Sheff said his family had advantages many others do not, including insurance, resources and the ability to seek another program when one did not work. Even with those advantages, he said, finding appropriate care was difficult. For families without reliable information or financial flexibility, the search for treatment can become a matter of chance.

Addiction is widely recognized as a medical condition, but many people who need treatment never receive it. Others enter programs that may not rely on proven methods of care. In California, nearly 10,000 people died of drug overdoses in a recent 12-month period, according to state public health data cited in the original commentary.

Supporters of Treatment Atlas say the platform helps address a longstanding problem in the addiction treatment system: the lack of clear, verifiable information about what services programs provide and whether those services align with established standards. The website presents information in plain language, making it easier for parents and other loved ones to evaluate options under pressure.

Sheff said that kind of transparency was not available when his family was searching for help. He argues that tools like Treatment Atlas can help reduce the guesswork that has long faced families trying to find treatment, especially as stigma and confusion continue to delay care for many people with substance use disorders.

The concern now is that funding for the platform could be vulnerable as state officials look for places to cut spending. Advocates warn that smaller programs can disappear during budget negotiations not because they lack value, but because they do not always attract public attention.

Newsom has repeatedly emphasized treating addiction as a health issue and has called for a more evidence-based behavioral health system. Sheff and other supporters say maintaining funding for Treatment Atlas would be a practical way for the state to follow through on that commitment.

Nearly 1 million families used Atlas last year, according to the commentary. For parents weighing where to send a child in crisis, supporters say, access to reliable information can mean the difference between an informed decision and another uncertain attempt at recovery.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Budget Cuts Threaten Digital Lifeline for Californians Seeking Addiction Care appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Becerra, a former California attorney general and former U.S. health secretary, had nearly 27% of the vote in the June 2 primary as of Friday afternoon, with roughly two-thirds of ballots counted. His campaign described the result as historic, noting that if elected in November, Becerra would become California’s first Latino governor in more than 100 years and the first Latino elected to the office.

His November opponent has not yet been determined. Republican Steve Hilton was close behind with more than 26% of the vote and appeared most likely to claim the second runoff spot. But Democrat Tom Steyer had not conceded, and nearly 3 million ballots remained uncounted. Because many Democratic voters returned ballots late, the remaining vote could lean more heavily toward Democratic candidates.

California’s primary system sends the top two vote-getters to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.

The makeup of the November race could dramatically change the campaign. If Hilton advances, Becerra would enter the fall contest with a major partisan advantage in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly two-to-one. Hilton also carries the endorsement of President Donald Trump, who remains deeply unpopular among many California voters.

If Steyer overtakes Hilton, the general election would become a Democrat-versus-Democrat fight between two very different factions of the party. Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, major Democratic donor and climate activist, has campaigned as a progressive and spent heavily from his own fortune during the primary. He drew support from allies of Bernie Sanders, while Becerra attracted more backing from the Democratic establishment, as well as important support and funding from labor and industry groups.

Becerra’s rise came after he had spent much of the campaign polling in single digits. His standing improved after the collapse of former frontrunner Eric Swalwell’s campaign, as many establishment Democrats moved toward Becerra over former Rep. Katie Porter and Steyer.

The shift marked a rapid turnaround for Becerra, who had earlier been among several lower-polling Democrats facing public pressure from state party chair Rusty Hicks to leave the race.

“Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight,” Becerra told supporters Tuesday night at an election night rally in Los Angeles, calling his strong showing “the everyday miracle of living in a state that regularly makes the improbable seem inevitable.”

The next governor will inherit a state facing major challenges, many of them felt sharply across Southern California and the Inland Empire. California residents continue to struggle with high housing and utility costs, elevated gas prices worsened by the war in Iran, wildfire danger that has disrupted the insurance market, a fragile state budget, expected federal cuts to the state’s health care system and an economy affected by immigration enforcement.

So far, Becerra has not outlined a sweeping break from Newsom’s policies. To address affordability, he has said he would declare a state of emergency to freeze utility and home insurance rates while examining why costs are rising. He also has said he would enforce existing housing laws to make sure local governments plan for new construction. Like other California Democrats, Becerra has indicated he is open to slowing parts of the state’s clean-energy transition and greenhouse gas reduction mandates if needed to keep fuel prices down.

Becerra, the son of Mexican immigrants, grew up in Sacramento and began his political career in the 1990s. As a young attorney, he won a Los Angeles-area seat in the state Legislature and was elected to Congress two years later. He served in the House for 24 years before Newsom appointed him California attorney general in 2017 during Trump’s first administration. He later joined President Joe Biden’s Cabinet as secretary of Health and Human Services.

During the primary, Becerra faced criticism over his time in the Biden administration. Some Democrats revived complaints about his leadership during the pandemic. Opponents also criticized his agency’s screening of homes for migrant children, some of whom were later found working in dangerous or exploitative jobs.

Steyer also attacked Becerra over a late surge of campaign support from corporations and special interests.

Hilton has tried to frame Becerra as a continuation of the Newsom era, tapping into Republican frustration over California’s cost of living and business regulations. Becerra has not offered major departures from Newsom’s agenda and said during one debate that he would give Newsom an “A for effort” on homelessness, even as homelessness has increased significantly during Newsom’s two terms.

Becerra has countered those attacks by emphasizing his decades in public office and his record of suing the Trump administration while serving as California attorney general.

“You can have all these great inflated promises,” Becerra said this week, referring to critics such as Steyer. “But delivery is more important.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Democrat Xavier Becerra Advances to November Race for California Governor appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The policy memo, issued shortly before Memorial Day, appeared to mark a major shift in how the federal government handles “adjustment of status,” the process that allows eligible immigrants in the U.S. to apply for lawful permanent residency without leaving the country. The directive suggested that many temporary visa holders and people with humanitarian permission to be in the U.S. would have to return to their home countries and wait there for green card approval, except in “extraordinary” circumstances.

That language alarmed immigrant families, attorneys and employers, because it departed from a practice that has been in place for decades. Days later, however, the administration began to soften its description of the policy. The Department of Homeland Security told The New York Times that the directive was not a blanket rule and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers have long had discretion in deciding such cases.

Immigration attorneys said the mixed messaging has done little to ease concern.

“That is damage control,” said Patrick Kolasinski, an immigration attorney based in Modesto. He said the administration appeared to be responding both to public criticism and to the likelihood of lawsuits, adding that changing the policy in the manner outlined by the memo would be “completely illegal.”

A DHS spokesperson, speaking anonymously to The New York Times, said people who may face greater scrutiny include those who have overstayed visas and applicants from countries whose citizens are considered more likely to rely on public benefits. DHS did not answer CalMatters’ questions about the apparent shift in how the policy was being described.

Legal experts say the directive fits a broader pattern by the Trump administration of tightening rules even for immigrants attempting to follow legal channels. Employers, including many in the technology industry, have criticized the move, warning it could disrupt business operations and push skilled workers out of the country.

The policy is expected to face legal challenges. In the meantime, attorneys say many applicants are unsure whether they should attend scheduled interviews, whether pending applications are at risk, and whether leaving the country could separate them from their families for years.

The people most likely to be affected include relatives of U.S. citizens, laid-off technology workers, international students and mixed-status families. The issue is especially significant in California, where 112,100 people obtained permanent residency through adjustment of status in 2023 — more than in any other state and nearly one-fifth of all such cases nationwide.

Family-based immigration makes up the largest share of green card cases. DHS data show that about 64% of new permanent residents in 2023 received green cards through a family relationship with a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

A central unanswered question is whether the Trump administration intends to apply the new interpretation to people whose applications are already pending. Lynn Damiano Pearson, director of legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, said immigration lawyers have already seen USCIS officers ask applicants why they are seeking permanent residency from inside the United States and whether anything prevents them from applying through a U.S. consulate abroad.

Those questions, she said, appear to come directly from the new memo and suggest the administration may be preparing to apply the policy to existing applicants.

DHS did not answer CalMatters’ question about whether pending cases would be affected. In a written statement, the department said the policy “will have no significant impact on high-skilled applicants and trained professionals who followed the law.” The spokesperson declined to be identified.

Adjustment of status was created by Congress in 1952 and has been used under Democratic and Republican administrations for more than seven decades. More than 500,000 people use the process each year. The Trump administration memo reframes the process as something that should be granted only in exceptional cases.

Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the memo “wrong,” “reprehensible” and “illegal,” and said he was confident it would end up in court.

Nina Sheridan, a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, said the state is watching closely.

“The Trump administration continues its campaign against legal immigration, putting up barriers and pushing out immigrants who are trying to follow the established process to obtain permanent residency,” Sheridan said. “We are monitoring the administration’s next steps with its latest attempt to ignore existing laws and policies, and we are evaluating our options.”

DHS told CalMatters the memo restates long-standing law and policy that it said were ignored by the Biden administration.

Attorneys say one of the greatest fears among applicants is that the policy could turn routine immigration appointments into removal risks. Many people seeking green cards have remained in the U.S. with government authorization while their cases moved through the system, sometimes waiting years because of backlogs. In some cases, their original visas expired while their adjustment applications were pending.

Lawyers worry the administration could use that against applicants, deny them at interviews and then move quickly to initiate deportation proceedings. Immigration attorneys have also pointed to recent cases in which people were detained during routine immigration appointments and held for months.

Damiano Pearson said it is too early to know how often that could happen under the new policy, but attorneys cannot rule out the possibility of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detaining people after interviews.

For many applicants, leaving the U.S. to complete the process at a consulate is not a simple matter. Consular processing can involve long waits, and State Department backlogs can stretch for months or years.

“This is not a matter of buying a plane ticket and waiting a little longer,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “For many people, consular processing is not realistic or safe, and for others it could mean months or years of separation from their U.S. citizen spouses, children, employers and communities.”

Visa processing has been suspended entirely in more than 70 countries. Immigrants who have overstayed visas could also face three- or 10-year bars from reentering the United States if they leave and try to apply from abroad.

Damiano Pearson said the memo does not make clear whether those consequences will be considered, adding that the uncertainty has caused fear among people who believed they were on a lawful path to permanent residency.

Kolasinski said some of his clients have green card interviews scheduled and are anxious about what could happen when they appear before immigration officers.

“You go in and you have no idea what type of officer you are going to encounter or what rules they believe they are operating under,” he said.

His advice to clients with upcoming interviews is direct: do not go alone.

“At this point, nobody should do anything immigration-related without a lawyer present,” Kolasinski said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Five Things to Know About the Trump Administration’s New Green Card Policy appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The order, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge James Simmons Jr. of the Southern District of California, requires the privately run detention center to permit an inspection of the 1,400-bed facility. The ruling could shape how counties across California use a new state law that gives local governments additional authority to inspect privately operated immigration detention centers.

San Diego County sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in March after two county supervisors and a health inspector were denied full access to the Otay Mesa facility, which is owned and operated by CoreCivic. The county was the first in California to attempt to use inspection powers granted under a 2024 state law.

Simmons indicated last month that the county was likely to prevail on its claim that it has authority under state law to conduct public health inspections at the facility.

In Wednesday’s order, the judge wrote that the inspection must be completed “as soon as possible” and no later than June 17, 2026. He also directed CoreCivic to provide a list of policies and procedures requested by the county.

“The county is responsible for the safety and health of anyone within its jurisdiction, including people detained in the facility,” County Counsel Damon Brown said at a news conference after a May hearing.

Otay Mesa is one of eight privately operated immigration detention centers in California. Together, those facilities hold about 5,300 people, up from roughly 3,100 shortly after President Trump took office in April 2025 and began a nationwide immigration enforcement campaign.

The judge also instructed county officials to work with the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CoreCivic to resolve details of the inspection. Those issues include who may participate, which parts of the facility may be reviewed, and how officials should obtain consent from detainees for interviews and medical record reviews.

During the court hearing, CoreCivic attorney Anne Orcutt said the Tennessee-based private prison company had filed a California Public Records Act request with San Diego County to determine whether county supervisors typically accompany health officials during public health inspections.

Speaking by Zoom, Orcutt described the county’s request to inspect the facility as unprecedented and discriminatory toward the federal government.

San Diego County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, who was denied access during the attempted inspection in February, dismissed that argument as a distraction.

“That is a clear red herring,” Lawson-Remer said. “The first people who arrived were a public health official and a nurse. They were not allowed access to any of the relevant documents and were removed from the facility. The public health inspection was denied with or without our presence.”

At a March news conference announcing the lawsuit, county supervisors said reporting by CalMatters had played an important role in prompting the inspection order. Supervisor Paloma Aguirre specifically cited the case of a deaf Mongolian man who spent more than four months in custody without access to a Mongolian sign language interpreter, a situation his attorney described as total isolation.

CoreCivic spokesman Ryan Gustin said the company’s top priority is “the safety, health and well-being of the individuals in our care.”

“We fully respect the judicial process and remain committed to working with both ICE and San Diego County to reach a mutually agreed-upon resolution to this matter,” Gustin said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Federal Judge Orders San Diego County Health Inspection at Immigration Detention Center appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

More than a decade later, the system has not consistently delivered that result.

The open primary, used for most state and congressional contests, allows all candidates to appear on the same ballot regardless of party. The two candidates with the most votes advance to November, even if they belong to the same party. In theory, that setup was meant to encourage broader campaigning and give independent and moderate voters more influence.

In practice, most statewide races still end up looking much like traditional partisan elections: one Democrat and one Republican advancing to the general election.

Andrew Sinclair, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said California’s political balance helps explain why. Although Democrats dominate statewide politics — no Republican has won statewide office in California since 2006 — the state is not so overwhelmingly Democratic that two Democrats routinely capture both runoff spots.

There are exceptions. In the current insurance commissioner’s race, two Democrats have been holding the top two positions as ballots continue to be counted. But those cases remain relatively uncommon in statewide contests.

Political analysts say voters also tend to approach the top-two primary much like an old-style partisan primary. Democrats often rally around the Democrat they see as most viable, while Republicans do the same on their side. That leaves less room for candidates trying to draw distinctions based on ideology rather than party label.

That dynamic can hurt candidates who are trying to run as moderates or outsiders. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat who entered the governor’s race with criticism of “extremism on both sides,” received about 4% of the vote. Progressive challengers without strong party or institutional support can face similar barriers.

Eric McGhee, a political researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, said many voters are not closely tracking the ideological differences among candidates from the same party.

“The evidence we have of how voters view these contests is that they don’t have a clue who the moderate or the liberal is,” McGhee said. “It’s always a good bet that voters are way, way, way less tapped into the nuances of what’s going on than you are if you’re interested in politics.”

The system also has created opportunities for strategic spending by campaigns and outside groups. In the 2024 U.S. Senate primary, a super PAC supporting Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff spent heavily to elevate Republican Steve Garvey, a move that helped shape the field and damaged former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter’s chances of advancing.

Critics describe that kind of tactic as evidence that the top-two primary can be manipulated by well-funded campaigns seeking the most favorable November opponent.

Democratic political consultant Steve Maviglio, among those calling for an overhaul, has filed a proposed ballot measure that would repeal the system. Opponents of the current model have suggested returning to partisan primaries or moving toward ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to list candidates in order of preference.

The debate is likely to continue as California reviews the results of its latest primary. For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the question is not just which candidates advance, but whether the primary system itself is producing the broader choices and more moderate politics its backers once promised.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Top-Two Primary Falls Short of Voters’ Expectations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The shift marks a major departure from the explosive growth that defined California after World War II. The state’s population rose from 6.9 million in 1940 to 19.9 million in 1970, fueled by people moving in from other states for jobs and by the postwar baby boom.

To accommodate that surge, California built much of the public infrastructure residents still rely on today: schools, colleges, highways, parks and water systems. Private development followed with large-scale investment in housing, shopping centers, factories and office buildings.

Growth began to slow in the 1970s as the baby boom faded and the state’s economy shifted away from manufacturing and toward technology and service industries. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown described the period as an “era of limits,” arguing that the state no longer needed the same level of major infrastructure expansion.

But the slowdown did not last. In the 1980s, California saw another sharp increase in population, driven by international immigration and a new wave of births. The state added roughly 6 million people during that decade, more than 5 million of them babies, increasing its population by more than 25%.

That growth was large enough, compared with the rest of the nation, that California gained seven additional seats in Congress after the 1990 census.

The political response to the 1980s growth differed sharply from the postwar era. In the 1990s, California saw a backlash over immigration, including laws aimed at denying public services to undocumented immigrants. Environmental groups also wrestled with internal disputes over the effect of immigration-driven growth on land use and natural resources.

Today, California is facing a very different demographic moment. Immigration has slowed, birth rates have fallen and many residents have moved away, with high housing and living costs widely cited as major reasons.

A recent study by Public Policy Institute of California researchers Hans Johnson, Julien LaFortune and Eric McGhee found that California’s total fertility rate dropped from 2.21 children per woman in 2007 to 1.48 in 2023. That is well below the 2.1 level demographers consider necessary for a population to replace itself over time.

The slowdown has already affected California’s political representation. The state lost a congressional seat after the 2020 census and could lose more after the 2030 count if current trends continue.

But the consequences go beyond politics. A smaller or stagnant population could ease pressure on housing demand, traffic congestion and the need for large new public works projects, the PPIC researchers noted. Declining school enrollment could also allow more money to be spent per student.

At the same time, fewer births could speed up enrollment declines in K-12 schools and create added pressure on the economy and safety-net programs as a smaller workforce supports a growing population of older Californians. Labor shortages could also limit future economic growth.

For Southern California and the Inland Empire, where daily life is closely tied to freeway congestion, housing affordability, school enrollment and water supply, the demographic shift raises practical questions about what the state should build, repair and prioritize.

California’s population is now about twice what it was in 1970, yet the state still depends heavily on infrastructure developed in the postwar era, including the State Water Plan and the freeway system that connects communities across the region.

A flat population may reduce the need for some new construction, but it does not eliminate the need to maintain and modernize existing systems. Water projects have stalled for years, and the state has largely moved away from building new highways, even as many existing systems face heavy demand.

Brown, who first spoke of limits in the 1970s, returned to the governor’s office in 2011 promising to get major projects done. California’s new demographic reality may lessen some pressures, but it also leaves state leaders with unresolved decisions about infrastructure, public services and how to support a changing population.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Population Growth Stalls as Immigration and Birth Rates Decline appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Democrat Xavier Becerra was running in second place behind Republican Steve Hilton in the most recent count, while progressive billionaire Tom Steyer trailed in third. That positioning would ensure at least one Democrat advances to November, averting what had been a politically alarming possibility for the party: two Republicans moving forward in one of the most Democratic states in the country.

But the way the race arrived at this point has renewed concerns about whether California’s primary system is producing healthy democratic outcomes.

For much of the campaign, Democrat Eric Swalwell had been a leading contender. He left the race after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct, including one allegation under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney. Whether the timing of those allegations was driven by political strategy or by the normal pace of reporting and corroboration, the result was unmistakable: the race was upended, the Democratic field shifted quickly, and the party narrowly avoided a disastrous general-election matchup.

That kind of volatility, critics argue, is not evidence of a strong system. It reflects a political structure shaped by low-turnout primaries, crowded fields and enormous campaign spending — conditions that can leave major decisions in the hands of a relatively small slice of the electorate.

The eventual first-place finisher in the primary may do so with roughly a quarter of the vote. In a state where primary turnout often includes only about 20% of eligible voters, that means a candidate can effectively lead the field with the active support of only a small fraction of Californians.

For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the consequences are not abstract. The state’s political system continues to struggle with issues that dominate daily life: housing costs, utility bills, school funding challenges and growing wildfire risk. Those problems persist not because policy options are unknown, but because the incentives facing elected officials often reward partisan loyalty, donor support and base turnout more than broad public problem-solving.

One proposed change is ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing only one. Supporters say it reduces the chance that a candidate wins with a narrow plurality after similar candidates split the vote.

Another model would allow the top five primary finishers to advance to the general election, where voters would then use ranked-choice ballots to determine the winner. Advocates say such a system would make it more likely that California elects a governor with broader majority support.

Alaska has adopted a version of this approach, sending the top four primary candidates to the general election and using ranked-choice voting to select the winner. Voters there approved the system six years ago and rejected an attempt to repeal it in 2024.

Still, election mechanics alone may not solve California’s deeper civic problem. A better ballot does not automatically persuade disengaged voters to participate. Many Californians skip primaries because they do not believe voting will produce visible results on the issues that matter to them.

That points to a larger challenge: the weakening of civic institutions that once connected residents to government. Unions, religious congregations, neighborhood groups, veterans’ organizations and other trusted local networks historically helped voters understand candidates, organize around shared concerns and hold officeholders accountable.

Rebuilding that kind of civic infrastructure may be as important as changing the ballot itself. Without stronger public engagement, California may continue to depend on luck, scandals or fragmented vote totals to avoid troubling political outcomes.

The latest governor’s race may have spared Democrats their worst-case scenario. But narrowly escaping a political crisis is not the same as fixing the system that made it possible.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Governor’s Race Raises Concerns About Democracy’s Resilience appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The measure, known as the Local Taxpayer Protection Act, has qualified for the November ballot with backing from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the group long associated with Proposition 13. If approved by voters, it would restrict local real estate transfer taxes and raise the voter-approval threshold for new local taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds.

Supporters of local housing funding say the measure is gaining momentum in part because of backlash against several high-profile city transfer taxes that were adopted with the goal of generating money for affordable housing but have produced unintended consequences.

In Los Angeles, Santa Monica and San Francisco, voters approved higher real estate transfer taxes aimed largely at expensive property sales. Those measures were often described as “mansion taxes,” but critics say the costs have fallen heavily on commercial and multi-family property transactions — the kinds of deals that can affect future housing production.

Real estate transfer taxes are charged when property changes hands, typically as a percentage of the sale price. Counties and general law cities in California are limited to a 0.11% transfer tax. Some charter cities, however, have adopted much higher rates.

Los Angeles’ Measure ULA applies to property sales above $5 million. Critics say the structure creates a sharp cutoff: a property sold for just under the threshold avoids the tax, while a larger apartment building above the line can face a major added cost. An affordable eight-unit apartment building, for example, could owe more than $200,000 in transfer taxes, while a luxury home sold for $4.9 million would owe nothing under ULA.

Housing advocates argue that the measure has slowed sales and discouraged new apartment development. A UCLA analysis cited by critics found that Measure ULA may be costing Los Angeles city and county governments more in lost property tax revenue than it is producing through the transfer tax. Unlike transfer taxes, which are collected only when a property is sold, property taxes generate revenue every year for cities, counties, schools, fire districts and other public agencies.

Santa Monica’s Measure GS has faced similar criticism. The measure charges $56 per $1,000 on sales of $8 million or more, one of the highest rates in California. In the year after it took effect, residential sales above that amount reportedly dropped by half, while commercial sales fell from 18 to five. Revenue came in at less than half of projections.

San Francisco’s Proposition I, which imposes rates of up to 6% on the largest property transactions, has also been blamed for reducing sales and slowing housing activity. City leaders there are now pursuing a proposal to cut the tax in half.

The November ballot measure would address those local taxes by limiting transfer taxes statewide to 0.11%. But opponents say it goes much further by making it far harder for local governments to raise new revenue for basic services and housing programs.

That provision could have broad consequences for cities, counties and special districts throughout California. In fast-growing and infrastructure-stressed regions such as the Inland Empire, local governments often rely on voter-approved revenue measures to help pay for transportation improvements, fire protection, schools, housing programs and other needs.

Housing advocates are urging state leaders to negotiate a compromise before the June 25 deadline, when proponents could still withdraw the measure from the ballot. They argue that lawmakers can correct what they view as poorly designed transfer taxes in a few cities without imposing sweeping new limits on local governments statewide.

The debate places state leaders in a difficult position: balancing concerns over taxes that may be discouraging housing development with the need to preserve local funding tools at a time when California remains under pressure to build more homes and maintain essential public services.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Anti-Tax Ballot Measure Could Drain Local Housing Funds, Prompting Calls for State Action appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In the governor’s race, speculation had circulated about the possibility of two Republicans, or perhaps two Democrats, advancing to the general election. Instead, voters may be looking at a more conventional contest between Xavier Becerra, the Democratic front-runner, and Republican Steve Hilton, the former Fox News host.

That kind of matchup is common under California’s top-two system, even though the rules allow the two highest vote-getters to advance regardless of party. In a state where Democrats have not lost a statewide race to a Republican since 2006 and where Democratic registration is nearly double that of Republicans, the result of many November contests can be easy to anticipate.

The question for critics and election analysts is why California does not more often produce two-Democrat general elections in statewide races.

Andrew Sinclair, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College who has studied the top-two system, said California is strongly Democratic — but not quite Democratic enough to routinely block Republicans from November ballots.

Democratic candidates often receive around 60% of the statewide vote, Sinclair said. That is enough to make many general election results predictable, but not always enough to allow two Democrats to finish first and second in a crowded primary field.

Once the Democratic share reaches roughly 60% to 65%, same-party Democratic contests become more likely, Sinclair said. California, he said, often sits in a political middle ground where Democrats dominate statewide elections but Republicans still have enough voters to secure one of the two November spots.

California adopted the top-two primary after voters approved the system in 2010. Under the rules, all candidates appear on the same primary ballot, and the top two finishers advance to the general election. Party affiliation does not determine who moves forward.

Supporters argued the system would force candidates to reach beyond their partisan bases. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who championed the measure, said at the time that it would help reduce gridlock and partisan fighting in Sacramento. Both major political parties opposed the change.

The reform was also intended to make elections more competitive in districts dominated by one party. Instead of a lopsided Democrat-versus-Republican race, voters in a heavily Democratic district might choose between two Democrats with different policy views. The same could happen in Republican areas.

That has occurred in some races. But if the current vote counts hold, with many ballots still to be counted, several marquee statewide contests this fall are not expected to be especially competitive.

In races for lieutenant governor, attorney general, controller and treasurer, prominent and well-funded Democrats appear likely to face Republicans with steep odds in November. In congressional districts in West Los Angeles and Napa Valley, progressive challengers to moderate Democratic incumbents appear to have fallen short, leaving veteran Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Mike Thompson on track to face Republican opponents.

There are exceptions. In the race for insurance commissioner, Democrats Jane Kim and Ben Allen currently hold the top two spots. The 2018 lieutenant governor’s race also featured two Democrats in November, and same-party matchups have occurred in some U.S. Senate races. Still, the more common result remains a traditional partisan contest.

Part of the reason is turnout. June primaries generally draw fewer voters, and those who participate are more likely to be strong partisans. Eric McGhee, a political researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, said voters often behave as though the top-two primary is still a party primary. Democrats tend to rally around the candidate they see as the strongest Democrat, while Republicans do the same.

There may be some independent or swing voters willing to cross party lines, but McGhee said they are not numerous enough in most June elections to reshape the results.

The governor’s race offered one example. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat, campaigned on concerns about extremism in both parties, focused on economic issues and pledged to rein in state spending by his own party. Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, a critic of the top-two system who voted for Mahan, said the mayor seemed like the sort of candidate the system was built to elevate.

Mahan received about 4% of the vote.

“At the end of the day,” Maviglio said, “voters are partisan.”

Same-party contests are more common at the legislative and congressional district level, where one party may dominate a particular region far more than it does statewide. In parts of the Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles and other liberal areas, two Democrats are on track to face each other in November.

Christian Grose, a political science professor at USC, said that over the past decade about one-third of legislative general elections in California have featured two candidates from the same party.

That can allow voters to weigh differences in policy, temperament or effectiveness rather than simply voting by party, Grose said. But it can also lead voters to make decisions based on factors less connected to governing, including race or gender.

In a 2020 paper, Grose found that candidates in top-two states have an incentive to move toward the political center, suggesting the system may have moderating effects even when it does not produce a same-party runoff.

The system may also make it easier for independents to compete. In a newly drawn swing district northeast of Sacramento, Rep. Kevin Kiley, described as a former Republican turned independent, appears to have finished first in his race. Running without major party backing can be more viable in a nonpartisan primary than in a traditional party primary.

Still, the top-two system has drawn criticism for creating opportunities for strategic maneuvering and unusual results.

Tom Charron, co-founder of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition, said the system can encourage candidates or outside groups to boost opponents they believe will be easier to defeat in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom used that strategy in 2018, signaling support to Republican voters for John Cox, whom he viewed as a more favorable general election opponent than Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. In 2024, a super PAC supporting Democratic U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff spent millions to elevate Republican Steve Garvey, hurting Democrat Katie Porter’s chances of advancing.

The system can also produce “shutouts,” where a party with substantial support fails to place any candidate in the general election because too many candidates split the vote.

That happened in 2012, when four Democrats ran in a San Bernardino congressional race and divided the left-leaning vote. Two Republicans advanced, even though Democrats had a modest registration advantage. A decade later, in a heavily conservative state Senate district east of Fresno, too many Republican candidates split the GOP vote and allowed two Democrats to move forward.

This year, some Democrats worried a similar dynamic could unfold in the governor’s race, where a crowded Democratic field raised the possibility that Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, could claim the top two spots.

That outcome did not materialize. Becerra and Democrat Tom Steyer were well ahead of Bianco in the vote count, which Sinclair said showed how unlikely a Democratic shutout was despite the crowded field.

Sinclair said several factors could have made such a result possible: a weak or divided Democratic field, the abrupt exit of Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell and the lack of an endorsement from the state party or major California Democratic figures. But the concern itself may have prompted some Democratic voters to act strategically and consolidate behind candidates they believed could avoid a shutout.

The renewed debate has already prompted efforts to change the system.

Maviglio has filed a proposed ballot measure to repeal the top-two primary and return California to partisan primaries. He argues same-party general elections leave voters without a true party choice in November.

Supporters of top-two say same-party races can still provide meaningful distinctions, such as a contest between a business-aligned moderate and a progressive. But McGhee said many voters struggle to identify those ideological differences.

Others want California to move in a different direction: ranked-choice voting.

Charron’s group supports a system similar to Alaska’s, where the top four or five primary candidates advance to a ranked-choice general election. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If their first choice is eliminated, their vote transfers to their next choice.

Several California cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, already use ranked-choice voting in mayoral elections.

Charron said ranked-choice voting could encourage a broader candidate field and reduce concerns about spoiler candidates dividing a party’s vote.

In May, the nonpartisan nonprofit Independent Voter Project launched an effort to bring ranked-choice voting to California through a constitutional amendment that could appear before voters in 2028.

For now, California’s primary system remains in place. But after another election cycle in which the top-two system produced more familiar partisan matchups than political surprises, the debate over whether it has fulfilled its promise is far from settled.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Did California’s Top-Two Primary Deliver on Its Promise to Reshape Politics? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The confusion stems from a May memo issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that appeared to instruct many temporary visa holders living in the United States to leave the country and wait abroad while their green card applications were processed. That would mark a sharp departure from long-standing federal practice, which generally allows eligible immigrants already in the country to apply for permanent residency through a process known as adjustment of status without leaving the U.S.

More than 500,000 people nationwide apply for green cards each year through adjustment of status while already living in the country. California accounted for nearly one in five green cards issued in the United States in 2023, underscoring the potential impact of any major policy shift on residents, businesses and families here.

Employers, especially in the technology sector, warned that requiring workers to depart while awaiting permanent residency could disrupt operations and push skilled employees to leave. Immigration advocates also said the change could affect relatives of U.S. citizens, mixed-status families and international students seeking to remain in the country legally.

After criticism from the public and immigration attorneys, the administration walked back the memo, saying it was not intended as a sweeping rule for all applicants. But federal officials have not clearly explained how the policy would be applied, who might be required to leave the country, or whether people with pending applications could be affected.

In a written statement to CalMatters, the Department of Homeland Security said the policy “will have no noticeable impact on highly qualified applicants and skilled professionals who have followed the law.”

Immigration attorneys say the lack of clarity has already caused anxiety among people waiting for green cards and among employers who depend on foreign-born workers.

Patrick Kolasinski, an immigration attorney based in Modesto, said the attempted policy shift has added to a broader sense of unpredictability in the immigration system. He argued that changing the rule in that manner would be unlawful and said immigrants can no longer count on a consistent process.

For California families and workers navigating the permanent residency process, the uncertainty has left many waiting for clearer guidance from the federal government before making life and career decisions that could be affected by the new rules.

Original source: CalMatters

The post New Green Card Rules Leave Californians Searching for Answers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.