The survey of 986 likely voters, conducted earlier this month, found Becerra leading with 23% support, followed by Hilton at 20%. Democrat Tom Steyer was at 15%, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 13% and former Rep. Katie Porter at 12%.

The numbers are especially significant in California’s top-two primary system, where the two candidates with the most votes advance to the November election regardless of party. For months, the crowded Democratic field raised the possibility that two Republicans — Hilton and Bianco — could finish first and second, shutting Democrats out of the general election.

Becerra, a former California attorney general who later served as health secretary under President Joe Biden, has gained ground since U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell left the race amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

Jonathan Underland, a spokesperson for Becerra’s campaign, said the poll reflects growing support for the former Biden administration official.

“Becerra has built real momentum — strong poll numbers backed by working Californians who are energized and ready,” Underland said.

Steyer’s campaign disputed the PPIC survey’s findings in a written statement, arguing that the poll failed to capture recent gains for the liberal billionaire. The campaign pointed to its own internal tracking and to another poll conducted for Hilton.

The PPIC poll also offered a broader look at California voters’ mood ahead of the midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress during the final two years of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Three-quarters of likely voters said the country is moving in the wrong direction, the highest share recorded by PPIC in more than 20 years. While 92% of Democrats expressed that view, so did 50% of Republicans. The share of Republicans who said the country is headed in the right direction dropped from 64% in a February PPIC poll to 49% in the latest survey.

The poll also showed a strong advantage for Democrats in congressional races. If the midterm election were held today, 64% of likely voters said they would support the Democratic candidate in their local U.S. House race, compared with 35% who said they would vote for the Republican candidate. Those findings could signal trouble for Republicans as they try to keep control of the House of Representatives.

Younger voters are another group drawing attention in the election. Californians under 29 make up nearly one-fifth of the state’s eligible voters, and many cite concerns about inflation, health care and housing as they weigh their choices.

In a separate election-related development, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law Wednesday barring local police from seizing ballots from election officials.

The law was rushed through the Legislature after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is running for governor, seized more than 600,000 ballots from the county registrar of voters earlier this year. Bianco said the action was part of a “fact-finding mission” into election accuracy, though he did not present evidence that the ballots had been improperly cast.

The new law took effect immediately, ahead of the June 2 primary. It prevents county registrars from turning over ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement and reaffirms that the attorney general, secretary of state or county election officials can sue any person, business or entity that takes ballots from an election official’s custody.

“We have to step up, and we have to draw the line,” Newsom told reporters. “We have to clarify the rules of engagement. It’s a warning to the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration.”

California lawmakers also are considering a proposal aimed at helping young people affected by gun violence, including in San Bernardino County.

The bill would create a pilot program offering free mental health and counseling services to young people who were shot, witnessed a shooting or lost a family member to gun violence. The program would serve youth in Alameda, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Solano counties.

Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, an associate professor with the Centers for Violence Prevention at UC Davis, said young shooting survivors often receive treatment for physical injuries but are left without a clear path to continuing mental health care.

The Assembly advanced the bill to the Senate on Tuesday. However, the proposal does not yet include a funding source. A legislative analysis estimated the grants would cost about $7,800 per survivor each year.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Where the California Governor’s Race Stands Now appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Public Policy Institute of California survey found Becerra, a former congressman, California attorney general and Biden administration cabinet secretary, leading among likely voters with 23%. Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, follows at 20%.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in June advance to the general election regardless of party. If the poll reflects the final outcome, Becerra and Hilton would face each other in November.

The numbers also point to a difficult fall campaign for any Republican who makes the runoff. PPIC has repeatedly found Democrats with nearly twice the voter support of Republicans statewide, a trend that appears to favor Becerra if he secures a November spot.

The survey marks a dramatic turn in a race that for months lacked a clear front-runner. Becerra had not been a dominant presence early in the campaign, but his standing improved sharply after former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell ended his campaign amid sexual misconduct allegations that later led to his resignation from Congress.

Billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer remains in third place in the PPIC poll with 15%, despite spending nearly $200 million on advertising, including sharp attacks aimed at Becerra. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, is at 13%, followed by former Rep. Katie Porter at 12%.

Bianco’s standing is of particular interest in Inland Empire politics. Earlier in the campaign, some Democratic strategists worried that Hilton and Bianco could both finish ahead of the Democratic field, potentially shutting Democrats out of the November contest. Becerra’s rise has largely eased those concerns, though the possibility helped revive debate over California’s primary rules.

Some Democrats are now supporting an effort to repeal the top-two system and return to party primaries. Voters approved the current system in 2010 after then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislative leaders placed the measure on the ballot as part of a budget agreement. Supporters argued it would encourage candidates to appeal to a broader electorate and produce more moderate elected officials.

Party leaders have long been uneasy with the system, but PPIC’s latest findings show voters remain generally supportive. The institute reported that about six in 10 voters are satisfied with the choices in the governor’s race and believe the top-two primary has mostly benefited California since its adoption.

The primary began with an unusually crowded field, with 61 names on the ballot and roughly a dozen candidates considered serious contenders. Several prominent Democrats who might have entered the race — including former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis — did not run. Kounalakis initially filed for governor but later shifted to a campaign for state treasurer.

Swalwell had been viewed as an early leader before suspending his campaign in April after the San Francisco Chronicle reported allegations of sexual assault from women. Additional reports followed, and he later resigned from Congress.

Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan were also expected to be competitive, but neither has gained enough traction in the latest polling to break into the top tier. Steyer has stayed within striking distance through an aggressive advertising campaign, but the PPIC results suggest his spending has not pushed him into one of the top two spots. His campaign rejected the poll’s findings, describing the survey as an outdated snapshot of the race.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Poll Finds Becerra, Hilton Gaining Ground in California Governor’s Race appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The post The AI Hype Index: AI gets booed in graduation season appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The law makes it a crime to remove voted ballots from the custody of local election officials, a provision prompted in part by an incident earlier this year in Riverside County. Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is running for governor, seized more than 600,000 ballots from the county registrar of voters, saying his office was looking for evidence of fraudulent voting. No evidence has emerged showing that ballots were improperly cast.

Newsom said the state needed to make clear that election materials cannot be taken or handled outside established legal procedures.

“We have to step up, and we have to draw the line,” Newsom told reporters before signing the bill. He said the law is intended to clarify election rules and serve as a warning to those who might try to interfere with California’s voting process.

The measure, Senate Bill 73, was initially introduced by state lawmakers amid concerns about possible federal interference in California elections. Those concerns were heightened by tensions between the state and the Trump administration, as well as the national political stakes surrounding control of Congress.

But the Riverside County ballot seizure shifted the debate from a theoretical concern to an immediate one, prompting lawmakers to move quickly so the restrictions would be in place before voters cast ballots in the primary.

Under the new law, county registrars are prohibited from turning over ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement officers, including county sheriffs and deputies. If the law had been in effect at the time of the Riverside County incident, Registrar Art Tinoco would have been barred from allowing the sheriff’s department to take custody of the ballots, even with the search warrant deputies presented.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democratic coauthor of the bill and former Santa Cruz County registrar of voters, said voters must be able to trust that ballots remain secure.

“Voters should never wonder whether ballots were improperly handled,” Pellerin said. “And law enforcement powers should never be misused in ways that jeopardize the integrity of our democratic process.”

The law also confirms that the state attorney general, secretary of state or local election officials may sue any person, company or entity that takes a package containing ballots from an election official’s custody.

Voting rights advocates welcomed the swift action, calling the Riverside County seizure extraordinary.

Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation, said she was not aware of any similar ballot seizure occurring elsewhere in the country. The Legislature’s response, she said, signals to voters that state officials recognized the seriousness of what happened.

The law includes additional provisions allowing the attorney general and secretary of state, in certain circumstances, to override county election officials. Supporters say those safeguards are intended to prevent local officials from undermining statewide election rules, such as by allowing armed personnel to gather near voting sites.

Those provisions come amid scrutiny of election administration in Shasta County, where Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis has drawn attention for his ties to 2020 election deniers and public skepticism of voting machines. Curtis, who had no prior experience running elections before being appointed registrar in 2024, also reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the county. He has faced allegations of workplace violence and harassment, including claims that he threatened to drag employees from his office by their hair. Curtis has denied the accusations.

The new law also bars individuals from allowing law enforcement officers to access, disrupt, alter or take possession of voting technology without a court order.

Another section prevents election observers from challenging voter signatures. That issue gained attention last fall when the U.S. Justice Department, at the request of the California Republican Party, announced it would send election observers to California during the special election on Proposition 50. The move prompted concerns among Democrats and voting advocates that President Donald Trump was attempting to influence the outcome.

Alexander said the removal of ballots is only one potential threat to confidence in California elections. She also pointed to the state’s extended vote-counting timeline, which has become a frequent target of conspiracy theories and unsupported claims about election results.

Election advocates are urging Newsom to include roughly $55 million in the state budget for county election offices to purchase updated equipment and hire more staff, with the goal of speeding up ballot counting.

Newsom said Wednesday that budget discussions over election funding are progressing and that an agreement is expected soon.

Original source: CalMatters

The post New California Law Bars Law Enforcement From Interfering in State Elections appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But the party’s move to intervene in the Democratic primary has inflamed tensions among local activists and county party leaders, who say Washington leaders had promised to stay out of the race.

Two Democrats are competing for the chance to challenge Republican Rep. David Valadao, whose seat has become even more important to Democrats after court rulings complicated the party’s redistricting strategy. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently endorsed state Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a moderate Democrat from Delano, over Randy Villegas, a progressive college professor from Visalia.

The decision came after the DCCC had previously indicated it would not take sides in the primary unless there was a risk that two Republicans could advance to November. Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates with the most votes move on to the general election regardless of party.

“They lied to all of us,” said Christian Romo, chair of the Kern County Democratic Central Committee. Romo said DCCC staff repeatedly assured him the national organization would not get involved in the primary.

Romo and Democratic leaders in Tulare, Fresno and Kings counties have endorsed Villegas. They publicly criticized the DCCC’s decision to place Bains on its list of targeted, winnable races, saying the national party was overriding local Democrats and state party activists who had been unable to agree on an endorsement earlier this year.

“It is a slap in the face to the local parties,” Romo said.

The dispute reflects a broader fight within the Democratic Party over what kind of candidate is best positioned to win in a working-class, heavily Latino district that still leans conservative in many elections. The contest has become a local version of the national power struggle between centrist Democrats and progressive populists.

After redistricting, Democrats hold a narrow registration advantage in the district, with 42% of voters. Republicans make up 26%, while 22% are registered with no party preference, according to the California Target Book.

The DCCC’s involvement underscores the national party’s longstanding caution about backing candidates like Villegas, who has support from prominent progressives and organizations including the Working Families Party, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Bains’ supporters argue she is the stronger general election candidate, pointing to her background as a physician and the district’s reliance on Medicaid, which Valadao voted to cut. They also cite her willingness to break with Democratic leadership in Sacramento.

“Even though she is a Democrat, she is not afraid. She does not necessarily have to vote the party line,” said Mario Nunez, Delano’s interim mayor and an independent voter who supports Bains. “She will vote against the party line if that is what benefits her district.”

Bains has drawn support from major establishment forces in Sacramento and Washington, including SEIU California, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Democratic legislative leaders. Her addition to the DCCC’s list gives her campaign access to the committee’s fundraising network, polling and staff support.

“This race is too important” for the DCCC to sit out, committee chair Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington said in a recent interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” DelBene said the committee intervenes in primaries only when it believes one candidate is clearly the strongest choice for the general election.

A DCCC spokesperson declined CalMatters’ request for an interview with a committee representative.

Villegas’ campaign has seized on the national party’s involvement as evidence that Democratic elites are out of touch with working people and are using their power to protect establishment-backed candidates.

“What the ruling class is doing right now is a clear sign that they do not believe my opponent can win this race on her own, so they are trying to step in at the last minute to save her,” Villegas said in an interview with CalMatters.

Jesse Aguilar, a Villegas supporter and board member of the California Teachers Association, said he felt “betrayed” by the national party’s decision to intervene rather than allow voters in the 22nd District to choose the Democratic standard-bearer. The teachers association has endorsed Villegas.

The California Democratic Party, which is separate from the DCCC, did not endorse either candidate in the district at its February convention.

The two Democrats are nearly even in fundraising. Bains has raised about $700,000, while Villegas has raised $718,000, according to the latest federal filings. Villegas has pledged not to accept corporate PAC money and says he has outraised Bains in multiple quarters through grassroots donations. His recent major contributors include Jane Fonda’s Climate PAC and the Latino Victory Fund.

Bains’ recent donors include groups representing health care professionals, including political action committees for anesthesiologists and obstetricians and gynecologists. She also has received support from labor groups such as the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and the California Conference of Carpenters, as well as several California elected officials.

The race has divided major newspaper editorial boards in the district. The Fresno Bee endorsed Villegas, while The Bakersfield Californian urged readers to support Bains.

The advertising war has grown increasingly harsh.

The progressive Working Families Party has spent $150,000 on digital ads portraying Bains as tied to large corporations and highlighting donations from some of the same wealthy donors supporting Valadao.

“Bains took big money from Big Pharma and health care corporations, thousands from polluters, and skipped a vote to extend our health coverage,” one ad paid for by the Working Families Party PAC says.

Bains’ campaign declined a request to interview the assemblymember. In a statement, the campaign said she has “earned the trust of Valley families by delivering results” and has “deep support from people here who know and trust my record.”

A pro-Bains group, Democratic Majority for Israel, whose positions align with AIPAC, launched $500,000 in ads attacking Villegas. The ads accuse him of voting to cover up child sexual abuse while serving on the Visalia school board, an argument the Bains campaign encouraged outside donors to emphasize. The ad cites a Los Angeles Times investigation that found more than 750 lawsuits and settlements stemming from a state law that expanded the ability of school sexual abuse survivors to sue school districts.

Israel has become a dividing line in Democratic primaries in California and across the country, as progressive candidates such as Villegas distance themselves from AIPAC and aligned groups. Villegas has said that, if elected, he would vote against sending additional weapons or military aid to Israel. Bains, who is backed by Democratic Majority for Israel, appeared to privately describe the situation in Gaza as a “genocide,” but later walked back those remarks in a statement to Politico.

“I use the word genocide with caution and do not believe it applies to Israel,” she told Politico.

Villegas called the ads against him “disgusting and pathetic” and accused Bains’ supporters of exploiting the pain and trauma of survivors for political gain. He said he supports survivors’ right to seek justice and argued that confidential legal matters, including settlements in sexual abuse cases, would not be discussed or debated in open session at a school board meeting.

“Nothing in these settlements prevents these people from speaking out and sharing their stories,” Villegas said. “These settlements allow these people and their families to get justice on their own terms, and I will continue to fight every day for all of our students.”

Republican-aligned groups have also waded into competitive districts with advertising strategies aimed at shaping Democratic primaries. Federal filings show that the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Republican leadership, has spent nearly $72,000 on mailers attacking Villegas as a “left-wing progressive” and “too extreme for the Central Valley.”

The tactic, often used by both parties, can raise a candidate’s name recognition even through negative advertising, with the potential to energize progressive Democrats and Villegas supporters ahead of the primary.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Democrats Pledged Neutrality in California Race, Then Chose Sides appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Newsom has promoted his revised budget as a step toward restoring California’s fiscal footing before he leaves office, saying his administration has produced “a balanced budget structurally for 18 months.” The word “structurally” has become central to the debate because California has faced a continuing mismatch between spending commitments and ongoing revenue.

According to Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek, state budgets over the past four years have spent a combined $125 billion more than California actually brought in, after Newsom and the Legislature expanded programs based on revenue projections that proved too optimistic. Budget analysts commonly refer to that kind of ongoing imbalance as a structural deficit.

Newsom’s proposed $349.4 billion budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year, which begins July 1, estimates $226.5 billion in general fund tax revenue. But planned general fund spending would total $246.6 billion, leaving a roughly $20 billion gap. The shortfall is smaller than in some recent years, but it continues to raise questions about whether the state has truly solved its underlying budget problem.

The administration would close the gap through a combination of higher-than-expected short-term revenue, spending reductions, borrowing and other budget maneuvers. Still, the budget documents acknowledge that deficits are expected to continue in future years, though they may be smaller than earlier projections.

Petek has cautioned that the proposal still leaves California “ill-prepared” for even a modest downturn in revenue.

Newsom has defended the plan, saying, “We’re cutting deficits but not cutting corners.” But as the June 15 deadline approaches, advocates for schools, health care and social services are pressing legislators to reject cuts or funding delays affecting programs for low-income residents, children and people with disabilities.

At the Capitol, rallies and press events have become frequent as organizations seek to protect their funding. Education groups are especially critical of Newsom’s proposal because they say it withholds money that schools are entitled to receive under Proposition 98, the constitutional formula that sets minimum funding levels for K-12 schools and community colleges.

Last week, the California School Boards Association joined school unions and other education organizations at a rally outside the Capitol, calling on Newsom and legislators to provide the funding they say schools are owed.

Debra Schade, president of the school boards association, said Proposition 98 is “a matter of law, not a suggestion that can be discarded when it becomes inconvenient for policymakers.”

She criticized the administration for what she described as a third straight year of attempts to alter the minimum school funding guarantee. “Once we open the door to the idea that Proposition 98 can be manipulated whenever the state faces fiscal pressure, we fundamentally weaken the protections voters deliberately put in place for California students,” Schade said.

Health care advocates are also pushing back. Supporters of dental care for children in Medi-Cal released a report warning that more than 1.2 million low-income California children could lose access to dental services if Newsom’s proposed Medi-Cal dental reductions are approved.

Child care and early education advocates have objected as well, saying the governor’s plan would reduce all child care and pre-kindergarten programs by 2% in real spending. They argued that the proposal marks a reversal for a governor who has previously emphasized early childhood programs and family support.

The Legislature’s Democratic supermajority has historically supported many of the programs now at risk, and some lawmakers are expected to be sympathetic to advocates’ concerns. Raising taxes could be one way to avoid deeper reductions, but Newsom has shown little interest in ending his governorship with a major tax increase.

That sets up a difficult choice for Democratic legislators: accept reductions to programs they have championed, or challenge the governor’s budget framework in the final weeks of negotiations. The outcome will determine not only how the state closes its immediate deficit, but how much strain schools, health care providers and social service programs may face in the year ahead.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s unbalanced budget faces strong pushback for spending cuts. Will lawmakers back him? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Roughly 40% of California community college courses are now offered online, according to CalMatters. The format has become especially important for students balancing school with jobs, caregiving duties and other responsibilities — a reality familiar to many students across Southern California and the Inland Empire.

But educators say online learning can also leave students feeling disconnected. Classes that lack face-to-face interaction may be harder for some students to navigate, particularly when courses are asynchronous and require students to manage their time independently.

Di Xu, a professor at UC Irvine’s School of Education, said online courses demand strong “self-directed learning skills,” including a high level of time management. In traditional classrooms, she said, interaction tends to happen more naturally.

“In an in-person environment interaction happens naturally,” Xu said. “But in an online environment, especially asynchronous, that opportunity needs to be embedded. Otherwise, the student will feel very lonely.”

Despite those challenges, demand for online courses remains high. Students often prefer the flexibility, and colleges can generally offer online classes at a lower cost than in-person instruction.

Rebecca Ruan-O’Shaughnessy, director of program and strategy at the College Futures Foundation and a former executive with the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, said colleges must adjust to the needs of today’s students. Among the ideas she described as promising are shorter course formats and programs that better connect coursework with the work experience many adult students already have.

Some faculty members are also looking at specific subjects where online instruction may not provide enough preparation. Julia Simon, a French professor at UC Davis who chairs a university task force on languages, said students in online foreign language courses may not get enough speaking practice.

Simon said that can leave students underprepared once they arrive at UC Davis. Because the university cannot require students to repeat classes they have already completed, she said one possible solution would be to offer conversation courses as a form of additional support.

The effort reflects a broader challenge for California colleges: preserving the convenience and access of online education while improving student engagement, interaction and academic readiness.

Original source: CalMatters

The post CA colleges try to improve online classes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Four days before the celebration, the Palisades fire destroyed the house. The couple packed what they could, put their children in the car and left California for Tennessee, where they moved in with family because they had nowhere else to go.

Their home was gone. So was their older son’s preschool, along with the library, restaurants and everyday places that had anchored their family’s life. What remained was a mortgage on a property that no longer existed — and a rebuilding process they say experts have told them could take at least two to four years.

Jonas and Fagnani, who later co-founded Disaster Mortgage Relief, are now among the California fire survivors urging lawmakers to extend mortgage protections for homeowners whose properties were destroyed in major wildfires.

The couple’s advocacy centers on Assembly Bill 1847, a proposal that would expand and strengthen protections created under last year’s emergency fire mortgage relief law, AB 238. That earlier law gave homeowners whose properties burned up to 12 months of mortgage forbearance.

Jonas and Fagnani argue that one year is not enough for families trying to rebuild in areas such as Pacific Palisades and Altadena, where fire recovery has been slowed by debris removal, utility restoration, insurance disputes, permit approvals, contractor shortages and rising construction costs.

Through Disaster Mortgage Relief, the couple says they have heard from hundreds of families trying to understand what mortgage servicers are required to do, how forbearance affects credit and what happens when the relief period ends.

As those forbearance periods begin expiring, they say some homeowners who were current on their loans before the January 2025 fire are seeing steep drops in their credit scores. Others are facing the possibility of foreclosure or large balloon payments, in some cases exceeding $100,000, while they are still trying to finance construction.

The California Bankers Association has raised concerns that AB 1847 could restrict access to credit. Jonas and Fagnani say they understand lenders need stability and clear rules, but argue that the larger risk is a wave of borrower defaults, damaged credit and stalled rebuilding in fire-damaged neighborhoods.

Supporters of the measure say the bill would not erase mortgage debt or eliminate lender rights. Instead, it would allow payments to be deferred during the rebuilding period and moved to the end of the loan.

Jonas and Fagnani point to the federal CARES Act during the COVID-19 pandemic, which provided up to 360 days of relief for borrowers with federally backed mortgages, as an example of a large-scale forbearance system that was workable.

For families who lost homes, they say, the ability to redirect two or three years of principal and interest payments toward construction could determine whether they rebuild or leave their communities permanently.

The couple remains in Tennessee and says they are trying to save enough money to rebuild the home they lost.

Their message to lawmakers is that California’s mortgage and disaster recovery systems must reflect the reality of modern wildfires: entire neighborhoods can be destroyed at once, and families can be displaced for years before they are able to return.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Our house burned down but our mortgage didn’t. California fire survivors need time appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

So far, judges have used the technology mostly in civil matters. But records obtained by CalMatters show the tool could eventually be tested in criminal proceedings, where decisions can affect a person’s freedom and access to justice.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court began a pilot program in February using software developed by Learned Hand, a company founded by Shlomo Klapper. The Riverside County Superior Court also has a $10,000 agreement with the company to test the program, mostly for civil and probate research memos that assist judges in decision-making.

Learned Hand uses large language models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Google to function as a virtual AI assistant for judges. The company says it tests the technology for bias and accuracy, though it has not publicly released those results.

In Los Angeles County, the Superior Court’s contract is worth about $314,000 and includes a roadmap for possible testing in criminal, family and probate divisions. Court officials did not provide CalMatters with detailed criteria for deciding whether the tool could safely be expanded into criminal and family courts, where the stakes are often far higher than in routine civil disputes.

One Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who spoke to CalMatters on condition of anonymity because of judicial conduct rules, said the possibility of using the technology in sensitive criminal matters was alarming. The judge said colleagues discussed during a recent lunch that the tool could one day be used to help review appeals from people who argue that racial bias affected their conviction or sentence. California courts have seen a surge in such claims since lawmakers passed the Racial Justice Act in 2020.

“I find it outrageous,” the judge said. “AI cannot and will never replace human judgment when it comes to evaluating complex social dynamics. Ultimately, this will erode public confidence in the competence and fairness of the judiciary.”

Documents obtained through public records requests show most California superior courts now have policies governing generative AI. The state Judicial Council required courts to adopt such policies before using the technology. Of the 51 courts that responded to CalMatters, about a dozen said they use AI tools from companies including LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters and Microsoft Copilot.

The use of AI in courtrooms remains controversial because large language models can generate false citations, misleading summaries and overly confident conclusions. A 2025 MIT study found that models from major companies, including Google and Anthropic, can reduce critical thinking and brain activity.

AI-generated errors already have appeared in legal proceedings. Researcher Damien Charlotin has documented hundreds of instances in which litigants, attorneys and judges made mistakes after relying on AI, including nearly 90 cases in California-based state or federal courts since August 2024.

Last fall, a Los Angeles attorney was fined $10,000 for citing nonexistent cases. Earlier this month, The Sacramento Bee reported that AI use led to errors in four cases handled by prosecutors in Nevada County. Most documented examples involve attorneys or self-represented litigants, but UCLA law professors have warned that judges are likely to make more AI-related mistakes in the future. In recent months, the U.S. Senate examined apparent AI use by federal judges in Mississippi and New Jersey after rulings included significant factual errors.

Klapper, who previously worked as a law clerk for a federal appeals court and for the surveillance technology company Palantir, said courts need AI to reduce backlogs and operate more efficiently.

“Could we hire more staff?” he told CalMatters. “Maybe, but it won’t be enough to keep up with the exponential growth that is coming, or to adequately solve the current crisis. I think the only solution is to assign every judge and attorney their own AI assistant.”

Klapper said his goal is to combine the strengths of human judges with the capabilities of machines. He acknowledged that AI systems may contain bias but argued that models can be tested in ways humans cannot.

“I’m not saying all machines are free of bias,” he said. “I’m not even saying my machine is free of bias. What I’m saying is that we can test it, and people have tested it. That’s the advantage over humans.”

The generative AI policies for the Los Angeles and Riverside superior courts require disclosure only when a motion, ruling or other document is drafted entirely with generative AI.

Both courts declined to say whether litigants are being told that the tool is being tested in connection with their cases. A Los Angeles County Superior Court spokesperson told CalMatters the testing involves motions that have already been decided and is being done separately from active cases. However, the contract allows testing in live cases.

“Even with successful evaluation and extensive testing, the Court would still be several months, if not years, away from implementing this type of tool,” the spokesperson said.

The Los Angeles County contract permits the tool to be tested on two important types of criminal motions: suppression motions, which determine what evidence prosecutors may present at trial, and post-conviction relief motions, filed by people who have already been convicted and are seeking another chance at release.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said those provisions are his “biggest concern.” After reviewing the contract, he described the two categories as “incredibly important motions in the criminal justice system.”

“When you’re dealing with a person’s liberty — unlike the civil arena, which covers everything else — the stakes are of the highest importance,” Hochman said. “I don’t want to take the risk, especially in a criminal case, that AI gets it wrong. That someone’s constitutional rights are violated. That someone goes to prison wrongly or, on the other hand, that someone gets away with something.”

In Los Angeles, some judges learned more about the Learned Hand contract during a March presentation by Superior Court Judges Yvette Verastegui and Olivia Rosales, who oversee the criminal division. As part of an annual tour, the judges visit courthouses throughout the county to brief judges on court operations, caseloads and other issues. During a lunch, Verastegui and Rosales indicated the tool might someday be used to assist with Racial Justice Act petitions, according to a judge who attended.

The California Racial Justice Act allows people to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence if they believe racial bias played a role. People incarcerated in state prisons file petitions directly with the court. If a petition appears to have merit, the process can include appointment of counsel, legal briefing and evidentiary hearings before a judge decides whether to grant relief.

A tool such as Learned Hand could change that process. According to the judge who attended the lunch, Verastegui and Rosales said the software could generate proposed decisions for judges to consider when deciding whether to deny petitions or allow them to proceed to later stages.

“My concern, of course, is that courts will use that as an anchor and cling to that initial analysis,” the judge said. “It is an extremely dangerous path. Setting aside inaccuracy, which will be a major concern, it dehumanizes the entire process. It does not treat people as individuals with lived experiences. It essentially reimposes a one-size-fits-all model of justice.”

A second Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who also spoke anonymously, recalled the presentation and said they would not trust or use the tool to summarize a Racial Justice Act petition.

AI can reproduce or intensify patterns found in the data used to build a model, including human bias. Large language models have shown racial and gender bias. Previous reviews of predictive policing technology used by the Los Angeles Police Department found racial bias, and an analysis of the COMPAS risk assessment algorithm found it was more likely to label Black people as at risk of reoffending after incarceration than white people with similar records.

Public defenders who spoke with CalMatters shared those concerns.

Elizabeth Lashley-Haynes, a deputy public defender in the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, said it would be “extremely problematic and bordering on unethical” for a judge to use such a tool to review Racial Justice Act petitions, which she described as highly complex.

“They are unlike anything that has ever been done before in the legal system,” said Lashley-Haynes, who specializes in Racial Justice Act cases. “The words used in these cases, which have racial connotations or meanings, are far beyond the scope of anything artificial intelligence can do.”

In interviews with CalMatters, Klapper and Los Angeles County Superior Court Executive Officer David Slayton denied that the court has plans to use the tool for Racial Justice Act petitions. A court spokesperson later confirmed by email that the contract allows the tool to be used that way, but said that has not yet occurred.

Klapper said that if a Racial Justice Act module were developed, the tool would need to be evaluated for possible bias and built jointly with the court.

“The timing is very sensitive, right?” he said. “It’s a very delicate decision, I’m not going to lie. The stakes are high; I understand why people could be very concerned. Especially when it comes to criminal matters, I have even more hesitation and more caution than usual, because fundamental rights are at stake.”

In Los Angeles, six Superior Court judges and their research attorneys are using Learned Hand primarily for research, motion summaries and help drafting tentative rulings, according to Slayton. He said the tool will not be expanded beyond the civil division “until court leadership is comfortable.”

“The court is being very prudent and careful in its use of this type of technology,” Slayton said. “Until we evaluate it and determine that it is effective in those areas, we will not expand it to others.”

Slayton said the tool will be reviewed quarterly to determine how it might be used in the future, though he did not give specifics about the evaluation. A court spokesperson later told CalMatters by email that Learned Hand is judged by the same standards applied to law clerks and research attorneys: accurate legal research, sound analysis, neutral judicial writing and reliable work that supports judicial decision-making.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Samantha Jessner, who chairs the court’s Judicial Technology Advisory Committee, said she did not know until recently that the tool might be used outside the civil division. She said judges are not involved in contract negotiations because of ethical restrictions.

“I think we have a duty and an obligation to explore whether artificial intelligence has a place in our work as a judiciary, and that is exactly what this pilot program is for,” Jessner said.

The Riverside County Superior Court signed its agreement with Learned Hand in February. Emails obtained by CalMatters show Klapper suggested to Riverside court executives Jason Galkin and Sarah Hodgson that the court begin with a common civil motion, then expand quickly once the tool was established. He suggested Hodgson prepare a list of motions and workflows that create the most difficulty, citing the Racial Justice Act as an example.

About two weeks later, Hodgson described the most labor-intensive motions as those “trying to drive us into retirement,” including discovery motions and attorney fee motions. For criminal matters, the court suggested Klapper focus on document-heavy issues, including death penalty habeas corpus petitions and probation revocations.

Since Riverside’s pilot began, seven civil and probate attorneys have had access to the tool. Galkin, the court’s executive officer, said the court is evaluating the product to understand what it can do. He said the tool is not being used to draft tentative rulings.

“We don’t even know whether expansion is likely, so there are no established criteria for what that expansion would look like or thresholds for it,” Galkin said. “Right now, the fundamental question is: Does this help staff and assist them in achieving their professional goals?”

As courts continue testing AI, attorneys such as Hochman say its use may be inevitable, but should be limited to routine, repetitive and lower-level tasks.

“It’s the analysis of the case itself, along with the conclusions that would be reached, that makes me very distrustful of AI right now,” Hochman said. “A large part of that is because I don’t know all the data it is using to make its decision. The one thing I am completely certain of is that AI did not go to law school.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Judges Test AI Court Assistant Without Telling Litigants When It Reviews Their Cases appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The problem is not limited to one clinic or one state. Over the past year, reporters interviewed more than 20 patients, health care providers, privacy experts and advocates about the documents patients are expected to sign before receiving care. Again and again, they described the same experience: Patients are asked to acknowledge or accept privacy terms on electronic forms without being able to fully review them, decline them or immediately opt out of data sharing.

Paula Stannard, director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, described a similar experience during a major health industry conference in March. Stannard, one of the federal government’s top health privacy officials, said she was asked at an eye doctor’s appointment to sign a form acknowledging that she had received a notice explaining how the office would use her health information.

She had not received the notice, she said.

Stannard told the audience she did not identify herself or confront the office staff about the issue, but she wrote on the form that she had not received the notice and was not acknowledging receipt.

Such encounters matter because patient information is increasingly shared through health information exchanges, networks that allow hospitals, doctors and other providers to access medical records from different health care organizations. These systems can be useful, especially when a patient’s history is scattered across multiple providers. A doctor treating someone in an emergency, for example, may benefit from quick access to lab results, prescriptions or prior diagnoses.

But broader access also creates risks. Patients who seek abortion care in a state where it is legal may not want those records to follow them into a state where abortion is criminalized. Companies have been accused of improperly accessing health records under the claim of treatment and sending information to personal injury law firms. Researchers have also documented employees snooping in electronic medical records. Other risks include data breaches and misuse by abusers who may try to track a partner through a child’s pediatric records.

For patients, the main way to limit some of those risks is to opt out when providers offer that option. The investigation found that doing so can be far more difficult than the forms suggest.

Gale Oleson, a retired dermatologist in Missouri, recalled being handed a signature pad in an emergency room after injuring his hand. Staff told him he needed to sign before they could perform the procedure. Oleson said he asked to see what he was signing, joking that he did not know whether he was signing away his house, car or life insurance.

He said staff often will turn a screen toward him or print out a copy if asked, but that the process tends to be awkward and slow.

Experts describe some of these barriers as “dark patterns,” a term used for design choices that push people toward decisions they might not otherwise make. In this context, it may be easier for a patient to click a box saying they received a privacy notice, even if they did not, or to sign a digital pad without seeing the full document.

Pushing back can be intimidating. Patients interviewed for the investigation, including one lawyer who works as a privacy advocate, said they worry that questioning forms or rejecting certain terms could lead providers to view them as difficult and make it harder to get care.

The issue can be especially acute when treatment is imminent. In one case previously reported by The Markup, a parent whose toddler was about to undergo surgery asked for a copy of a consent form while the child was already on a movable bed and the surgeon was ready. A nurse said she could not provide the form and directed the parent elsewhere. The parent dropped the request in the moment to avoid delaying surgery and obtained the document only after repeated follow-up.

To better understand what patients face, a reporter registered for appointments with more than a dozen health care systems in Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia. One telehealth appointment with a women’s health clinic in Virginia showed how an electronic check-in system could require a patient to accept data sharing even while the privacy notice described a way to opt out.

During registration for the October 2025 appointment, the reporter was asked to sign a notice of privacy practices. The notice said the patient’s medical information could be shared through a health information exchange, allowing other providers to search for records such as lab results or medical history. It also stated that by signing the form, the patient agreed to have medical information shared.

The document described two alternatives: follow instructions on an opt-out form, though no link to that form was provided, or accept immediately and later begin the opt-out process by email.

At the end of the electronic notice, however, there was no visible way to decline. The only option was “I accept.” The patient then had to type a name to accept the policy, check a box acknowledging an electronic signature and click a button to continue.

When the reporter skipped the accept button and tried to proceed, the system displayed an error stating that the form was mandatory and had to be accepted before moving forward.

The reporter stopped the process and emailed the address listed in the notice. An employee replied the same day with an opt-out request form and confirmed that registration was required to opt in. The employee also said the company managing the consent process would handle the opt-out after the form was signed and processed.

That raised another concern: The notice said an opt-out would not affect health information already disclosed through a health information exchange before the opt-out took effect. The reporter asked how to ensure no information would be shared before the appointment.

The next day, the employee said the company would proactively opt the patient out of the information exchange, while still asking that the opt-out form be completed. The employee said the check-in could then be finished and that the setting would remain unchanged.

The reporter then returned to the form and clicked “I accept,” after being assured that the opt-out would remain in place. In the signature field, the reporter wrote that they were opting out of the health information exchange, followed by their initials.

When contacted about the process, a manager at the women’s clinic defended Privia Health’s procedure and said Privia is available to patients who want to opt out.

Lior Strahilevitz, a University of Chicago legal scholar who has studied privacy and dark patterns and teaches health law, said the registration process contained multiple dark patterns.

One, he said, is an “obstruction” pattern, in which the design makes it more difficult for patients to select anything other than the option preferred by the provider. Another is “visual interference,” where the structure of the screen creates an unreasonable burden. In this case, he said, patients had to go outside the registration interface — by sending an email and waiting for a response — to exercise the right the notice said they had.

Lucia Savage, former chief privacy officer at the federal Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, said such problems can arise when paper forms are copied into digital systems without meaningful redesign.

Legal experts said the situation is complicated. In Virginia, where the appointment occurred, health care providers may enroll patients in information exchange data sharing during registration and give them an option to opt out later. Sarah Jaromin, a health policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Virginia does not currently have a state policy with explicit opt-in or opt-out requirements.

State laws vary. Florida and New York require explicit patient consent before information can be shared or accessed through health information exchanges. Arizona and Maryland permit data sharing by default if patients are notified and given a way to opt out. Other states follow the federal baseline. Under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA, sharing patient data through a health information exchange is generally allowed for treatment and related purposes.

Craig Konnoth, a University of Virginia law professor who specializes in health and civil rights, reviewed the privacy notice used in the Virginia appointment. He said that if a provider tells patients their data will be used until they file opt-out paperwork, that approach is generally legally permissible.

But experts said another part of the process conflicts with the intent of health privacy rules: forcing patients to sign or accept the privacy notice before they can continue.

Stacey Tovino, a University of Oklahoma College of Law professor who teaches HIPAA privacy law, said HIPAA does not require a patient to sign a notice of privacy practices. Providers must ask patients to acknowledge receipt of the notice, but if they do not obtain a signature, they can document why they did not get one.

That is different from treatment consent forms or financial responsibility agreements, which patients are typically required to sign before receiving care. A notice of privacy practices is supposed to inform patients how their information may be used, not serve as a mandatory agreement to treatment.

Emily Hilliard, press secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, confirmed that HIPAA does not require providers to obtain a patient’s consent to a privacy notice. She also said HIPAA does not prohibit covered entities from requiring patients to acknowledge or agree to the terms of such a notice.

In practical terms, that means requiring a patient to accept a privacy notice before treatment is currently legal.

Adam Greene, a partner at the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine who focuses on health information, privacy and security, said that is likely because federal officials never anticipated that acknowledgment of a privacy notice would become a barrier to care. He said HHS has heard of widespread problems with the acknowledgment process causing confusion and interfering with patient care.

In 2021, HHS proposed a rule that would eliminate the requirement that direct treatment providers obtain written acknowledgment that patients received a notice of privacy practices. The rule was not finalized, but it is back on the federal agenda this year.

Stannard said HHS is working to finalize a rule that includes additional requirements related to privacy notices. The current proposal includes removing the requirement for providers to obtain written acknowledgment that a patient received the notice.

Some experts say regulators should go further and require that patients be able to opt out immediately when they are told they have that right.

Tovino said federal rules should prohibit health care organizations from placing undue burdens on people who try to opt out or forcing them to continue through registration in a way that effectively waives their ability to opt out at the earliest opportunity. She said that if a notice tells a patient they have the right to opt out, the next sentence should provide a working link to do so.

Savage said such a requirement could be a meaningful intervention and that the Office for Civil Rights at HHS could address it through regulation.

At the March conference where Stannard described her experience at the eye doctor, she was asked whether updating privacy rules to require a live link for patients who want to opt in or out of information sharing would help empower patients. Stannard said it was an interesting idea and something the agency could consider.

The registration process also revealed how difficult it can be to determine who is responsible for a patient-facing digital form. The telehealth appointment involved multiple companies.

The mobile check-in link came from Phreesia, a company that provides patient-facing software for tasks such as consent forms, screening surveys and payment. Phreesia has said its systems are used in one in six patient visits in the United States.

The clinic was part of Privia Health, which provides management services for nearly 5,000 providers in 15 states, affecting 5.2 million patients, according to a 2025 company press release. The privacy notice directed the patient to Privia’s medical records office to opt out, and Phreesia’s logo appeared on copies of forms sent by the clinic.

Six months later, for a second telehealth appointment, the clinic sent a link connected to another vendor, athenahealth. The clinic had replaced Phreesia with athenahealth.

Savage said smaller practices often do not have internal expertise to design these systems and instead buy available technology that is affordable and easy to implement.

When The Markup and CalMatters asked Privia, Phreesia and athenahealth who controlled the design of the patient registration interface, none provided a clear answer.

Privia said it is committed to protecting patient privacy and security and complying with regulatory requirements. Athenahealth said it provides technology that health care providers use to manage registration and clinical workflows, configured according to provider requirements and applicable law. Phreesia said the form belongs to the provider, which determines the content and interface options.

None of the companies answered detailed written questions about how much control clinics have over the interface.

Outside health care, regulators have increasingly scrutinized dark patterns. The Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, state attorneys general and other agencies have described such tactics as manipulative or abusive when they confuse consumers about privacy choices or make it difficult to cancel services.

California has been among the states taking aim at dark patterns in consumer privacy. But health privacy is governed mainly by HIPAA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, creating a regulatory gap. Strahilevitz said agencies such as the FTC and CFPB have limited ability to police patient privacy because that responsibility primarily falls to HHS.

Greene and Savage said the FTC can pursue dark patterns as unfair or deceptive practices when for-profit health care entities are involved. But HHS has broader authority over the health care sector, including nonprofit hospitals.

Strahilevitz said consumer finance rules offer one way to think about the issue. In that field, a practice may be considered unfair or deceptive when consumers cannot reasonably avoid harm. In health care, he said, complicated opt-out systems can force patients to give up data by default, creating privacy harms that may be difficult or impossible to reverse.

He cited the potential for health information exchanges to reveal abortion-related records in states where abortion is criminalized as an example of a serious privacy injury.

Savage said regulators also could encourage better practices by investing in open-source interface designs for health care forms or by creating competitions through the federal health IT office to improve the tools doctors and clinics buy.

If major technology vendors changed how their registration systems work, the impact could extend to millions of patients. State regulation could also play a role, especially as states such as California continue to examine unfair or deceptive digital design practices.

Strahilevitz said the broader goal should be “symmetry of choice” — making it as easy for patients to decline or opt out as it is to accept.

The reporting was based on interviews with more than 20 patients, health care providers, experts and advocates, as well as the reporter’s registration for multiple medical appointments and review of the paperwork provided. The article also drew on a small ethnographic study reviewed by an institutional review board, a committee that evaluates research involving people to help protect participants’ rights and welfare.

Original source: CalMatters

The post The form asked my permission to share my health data. Then it wouldn’t let me say no. appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.