The bill would have allowed victims of natural disasters, including fires, floods and hurricanes, to sue fossil fuel companies over harm to themselves or their property for damage totaling at least $10,000. Home insurers would also have been able to seek damages under the legislation. The proposal was announced weeks after the Los Angeles-area fires broke out in January, burning thousands of homes and killing at least 30 people.

The Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the bill late Tuesday, with several Democrats abstaining, but left open the possibility for it to be reconsidered later this year. Opponents also said it would threaten jobs in the energy industry by dealing a blow to business, and that it would be difficult to prove a specific company’s responsibility for a particular natural disaster.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco who authored the bill, rejected the argument that it would lead to higher gas prices. He said it was about holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for the impacts of climate change. The bill would have eased the burden on disaster survivors and insurance companies to cover damage costs, he said.

“Today’s vote is a setback for the victims of the Los Angeles wildfires and for the cost of living in California,” Wiener said in a statement. “Victims of the Eaton and Palisades Fire — and of all climate disasters — deserve accountability for the decades of Big Oil lies that devastated their communities.”

When fossil fuels such as oil and gas are burned for energy, carbon dioxide and other emissions enter the Earth’s atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. Climate change has made natural disasters more frequent and intense.

State Sen. Anna Caballero, a Democrat representing part of the Central Valley, said ahead of the vote that lawmakers’ decision not to support the bill shouldn’t be viewed as a move to deprioritize environmental policy. And she said it wouldn’t help people who lost their homes to recent fires rebuild.

“If this was going to actually result in building homes in the fire zones faster, better and with more efficiency, I would probably support it,” she said. “But from my view, this is more about lawyers. This is about litigation.”

Wiener said it was important for California to remain a climate leader, invoking President Donald Trump’s efforts to roll back environmental policies.

Trump signed an executive order Tuesday to identify state rules he said could hinder “America’s energy dominance.” He called out California’s cap-and-trade program, as well as other climate policies in New York and Vermont.

The California bill’s failure to advance comes after lawmakers in recent years blocked a proposal that would have made oil companies liable for the health problems of people who live close to oil wells.

California, a U.S. trendsetter on climate policies, has approved policies over the years to limit emissions from cars, lawn mowers, trucks and trains. But some of those measures have faced threats from the Trump administration. The state Air Resources Board pulled back its requests for federal approval to enforce rules curbing pollution from diesel-powered big rigs and trains ahead of Trump’s return to office.

Other major California rules are at risk. Congressional Republicans introduced proposals last week to block state policies approved by President Joe Biden’s administration that would ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, cut tailpipe emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and curb smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks.

The post California’s effort to hold oil companies liable for natural disaster damage stalls appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Neither the draw of making California the first state to pass such a law, nor the month-long hunger strike by supporters persuaded Gov. Gavin Newsom to add caste to the list of categories in the state’s housing, education and employment discrimination laws. In his veto message on Oct. 7, Newsom said the bill was “unnecessary.”

“In California, we believe everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter who they are, where they come from, who they love, or where they live,” he wrote. “That is why California already prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other characteristics, and state law specifies that these civil rights protections shall be liberally construed.”

Senate Bill 403, introduced by first-term Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Fremont Democrat, passed the Assembly by a 55-3 vote in late August, and the Senate 31-5 in September. To win support, she amended the bill several times, including listing caste as a subset of ancestry instead of a separate category. In a statement Tuesday, Wahab said: “The question of whether our laws are sufficient to account for incidents of caste discrimination is what prompted this legislation in the first place; through this process, we shined a light on a long-hidden form of discrimination that persists across multiple communities in California.”

“I believe our laws need to be more explicit especially in times when we see civil rights being eroded across the country. We cannot take anything for granted,” she said. “I’ll continue to fight to balance power and support vulnerable Californians.” Supporters started a liquid-only hunger strike near the state Capitol after the bill won final legislative approval on Sept. 5, but did not anticipate they would have to wait this long, said Thenmozhi Soundararajan. One supporter fainted on day 30 and had to go to the emergency room.

Sunita Viswanath, co-founder of Hindus for Human Rights, which supported the bill, said she was devastated that Newsom “let down…Americans who fought to #EndCasteDiscrimination in California.” “A dark day for justice in the United States,” she posted on X. “Rest assured that anti-caste Americans will dust ourselves off and continue the fight.”

Amar Shergill, former chairperson of the California Democratic Party’s progressive caucus, noted that past civil rights bills also took many tries, and many years, before they passed. “It is a testament to the righteous energy in this movement that we came so far, so fast,” he wrote on X. “Caste discrimination is a scourge which we have brought to the top of public consciousness and that new fact will spare many people from suffering.

I am confident that this issue will receive favorable outcomes when it is tested in Court because we have successfully educated the legal world and won them to our side.” Caste is a centuries-old social hierarchy system, where one’s employment and education opportunities are determined by birth.

It’s especially prevalent in South Asian countries such as India or Nepal, where people in the lowest social and religious class were long called “untouchables.” The issue rose to prominence in Silicon Valley, where there’s a significant number of South Asians employees at tech companies. In 2020, the state sued Cisco, the San Jose-based networking and cloud management company, after an employee who was Dalit — an “untouchable” in the caste system — alleged he received less pay and fewer opportunities and faced retaliation when he spoke out.

The lawsuit is ongoing. The bill was supported by dozens of civil rights, legal and South Asian groups, including the Sikh American Legal Defense Fund, which sent a letter to Newsom in early September, noting that caste discrimination can take the form of bullying, harassment, wage theft and housing discrimination. But opponents of the bill said it unfairly targets Hindus because caste is a part of their religion. “The fight over SB 403 has always been about the best solution for any intra-community discrimination, not whether such protections are needed,” Suhag Shukla, executive director of the Hindu American Foundation, one of the groups leading the opposition, said in a statement.

“We hope to move forward together, educating our community to live the values of our shared traditions that insist on equality based on teachings of oneness of all of existence.” Some of those concerns were prompted by fears that the state would determine or collect information on individuals’ caste though the bill did not do that. But some of the more organized opposition was influenced by the Hindu nationalist movement in India. And while in theory that means uniting all Hindus, some describe it as “a revolt of the upper castes.”

In the U.S., that movement has led to a campaign against “Hinduphobia,” which opponents said the bill would promote. Guha Krishnamurthi, an associate professor of law at the University of Maryland, noted in a paper that the bill’s language is careful not to disparage a religion, which makes it difficult to argue the law is unconstitutional. Still, those talking points were picked up by Republican lawmakers in a letter to Newsom earlier this week, calling for the bill to be vetoed. Sens. Brian Jones and Shannon Grove wrote that the bill would “put other California residents and businesses at risk and jeopardize our state’s innovative edge.”

“By adding the term ‘caste’ to the definition of ‘ancestry,’ this bill puts our state on track to add the first and only explicitly racially discriminatory term to California law, resulting in the denial of constitutional rights of equal protection and due process for South Asians, and Hindus in particular,” the letter said. After the veto, Jones said the bill was duplicative of current law. “Despite being unnecessarily divisive, SB 403 only received 8 ‘no’ votes in the Legislature,” he said in a statement to CalMatters. “Newsom did the right thing in listening to Californians and vetoing this unnecessary bill.”

An ordinance banning caste discrimination passed by the Fresno City Council last week showed that caste isn’t just an issue among Hindu Californians. The proposal was initiated by Sikh residents, but gained allies from community members of Oaxacan descent, who might experience the system of “casta,” in which those with darker skin or Indigenous heritage are looked down upon. Fresno follows Seattle, which in February became the first U.S. city to pass an ordinance banning caste discrimination. Tim Perry, an attorney, former adviser to Newsom and a former chief of staff at the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, said that while the governor’s veto statement makes it clear he believes casteism has no place in a “pluralist democracy like the United States,” it’s also fair to question whether legislation is the right tool.

“Would making caste a protected class truly reach any scenarios not already covered by California’s robust laws against discrimination? Here, the Governor answered ‘No,” Perry said in an email. “Overall you can see the veto as vindicating California’s commitment to civil rights in the sense that it acknowledges how expansive those rights already are.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Newsom blocks a bill to ban caste discrimination in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

As California lawmakers advance a bill that could ultimately punish oil companies for excessive profits, the state’s attorney general says that the legislative action will help hold oil companies accountable.

Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom convened a special session of the Legislature and tasked lawmakers with taking action to protect consumers after the state saw gas prices skyrocket over the summer.

While the original plan of taxing oil companies did not advance in the Legislature, lawmakers and the governor settled on a bill that would let a state commission determine whether to impose penalties on oil companies.

“We experienced over the last year gas prices bordering on $7, almost $3 more than the national average,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in an interview with Inside California Politics. “And we learned that $200 billion in profit went to oil companies and gas companies during that time.”

The bill, SB X1-2, authored by Senator Nancy Skinner, would authorize the California Energy Commission to set a “maximum gross gasoline refining margin” and to set penalties for exceeding it.

The bill also requires oil refiners to include more information in already-existing required reports they provide to the commission.

“This is…to make sure that we are holding oil companies accountable, that there is oversight, that there is transparency,” Bonta said. “[This is to make sure] that they are reporting to a regulator…information that exists but information that is not being shared that a regulator should know and understand to protect Californians.”

The bill passed the California Senate 30-8 on Thursday and the Assembly is expected to vote on it in the coming days.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California attorney general supports bill that would allow penalties against oil companies for high gas prices appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill Monday that directs the federal government to declassify as much intelligence as possible about the origins of COVID-19 more than three years after the start of the pandemic.

The legislation, which passed both the House and Senate without dissent, directs the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify intelligence related to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. It cites “potential links” between the research that was done there and the outbreak of COVID-19, which the World Health Organization declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The law allows for redactions to protect sensitive sources and methods.

U.S. intelligence agencies are divided over whether a lab leak or a spillover from animals is the likely source of the deadly virus. Experts say the true origin of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 1.1 million in the U.S. and millions more around the globe, may not be known for many years — if ever.

Biden, in a statement, said he was pleased to sign the legislation.

“My Administration will continue to review all classified information relating to COVID–19’s origins, including potential links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he said. “In implementing this legislation, my Administration will declassify and share as much of that information as possible, consistent with my constitutional authority to protect against the disclosure of information that would harm national security.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden signs bill on COVID origins declassification appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Among U.S. faith leaders and denominations, there are sharp differences over the bill advancing in the Senate that would protect same-sex and interracial marriages in federal law.

The measure, a high priority for congressional Democrats, won a key test vote Wednesday when 12 Senate Republicans joined all Democrats to forward the bill for a final vote in the coming days. At least 10 GOP senators were needed for that to happen.

On Tuesday, one of the most prominent conservative-leaning denominations — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — came out in favor of the legislation. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention remain opposed, saying the bill – even with a newly added amendment aimed at attracting Republican support – is a dire threat to religious liberty.

A paramount concern for these leaders of the country’s two largest denominations is that even the updated bill would not protect religious schools or faith-based nonprofits such as adoption and foster care providers.

The bill “is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage, based on dictates of faith in God,” leaders of the Missouri Baptist Convention, an SBC affiliate, said in a letter this week to U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican.

The letter failed to sway Blunt; he voted for the bill.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, chairman of the Catholic bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, dismissed the bipartisan amendment as failing even the “meager goal” of preserving the status quo in balancing religious freedom with the right to same-sex marriage.

“The bill will be a new arrow in the quiver of those who wish to deny religious organizations’ liberty to freely exercise their religious duties, strip them of their tax exemptions, or exclude them from full participation in the public arena,” Dolan said earlier this week.

Meanwhile, many left-of-center faith leaders are cheering the bill, including some who planned a Thursday morning rally at the U.S. Capitol. Rally sponsors include the Interfaith Alliance, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ Justice and Local Church Ministries and Hindus for Human Rights.

“This is common sense legislation which provides religious liberty for all and not just a few,” said Tarunjit Singh Butalia, executive director of Religions for Peace USA. “Faith communities need to work on living out the principles of marriage enshrined in their own faith without imposing their religious views on people of other faiths and no faith.”

The bill won approval in the House in July. A final Senate vote is expected soon, and the measure — if approved — would then return to the House for consideration of Senate changes.

The bill has gained steady momentum since the Supreme Court’s June decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and the federal right to abortion. An opinion at that time from Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that an earlier high court decision protecting same-sex marriage could also come under threat.

Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, noted the court opinions in her statement lauding Wednesday’s vote. She called the legislation a “vital step in our nation’s march toward freedom without favor and equality without exception.”

The legislation included a proposed Senate amendment, designed to bring more Republicans on board, clarifying that it does not affect rights of private individuals or businesses that are already enshrined in law. Another tweak would make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy.

However, numerous conservative faith leaders scoffed at the changes.

“The new amended Senate bill—the ‘commonsense’ bill that ‘protects Americans’ religious liberties’—actually does no such thing,” wrote the Rev. Al Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, in an opinion piece. “What is left wide open is the threat to ministries such as Christian orphanages and children’s care as well as adoption ministries and foster care.”

The head of the Southern Baptist’s public policy arm, Brent Leatherwood of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, faulted the bill’s Senate backers for pushing legislation “that will only divide us.”

“We oppose this bill because marriage is an institution created by God, one with a very specific design: A union between one man and one woman for life,” Leatherwood said via email.

Pastor Jack Hibbs who leads Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, an evangelical megachurch in Southern California, said the legislation “creates an atmosphere of great disrespect for marriage.”

“We have seen this in recent years, for example, regarding businesses that provide services for weddings, from wedding venues to bakeries and florists,” he said, adding that nonprofits could be sued “because of their personal and foundational convictions, which should be protected by the First Amendment.”

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the Catholic bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, said the bill provided inadequate religious protections.

“I object to language like exceptions, because it means that we’re allowed a pass to discriminate,” he said in an interview Wednesday. “But that’s not what we’re doing at all. We’re affirming that children need a mother and a father.”

He acknowledged that leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “seem to be moving in a different direction” regarding same-sex marriage. “But they’ve been very, very strong partners with us in trying to keep the focus on the the need to preserve the family.”

In its statement Tuesday, the Utah-based LDS said church doctrine would continue to consider same-sex relationships to be against God’s commandments, but that it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn’t infringe upon religious groups’ right to believe as they choose.

Among the faith leaders urging passage of the bill was the Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, an American Baptist pastor who is president of Interfaith Alliance and is part of a same-sex marriage.

”There is a misconception that faith and LGBTQ+ equality are fundamentally incompatible,” he wrote in an opinion piece carried Wednesday by Religion News Service.

“As a religious leader, I regard this historic legislation as an important contribution to America’s religious freedom,” he wrote. ”More immediately, I am not willing to leave the status of the marriages I’ve performed or my own to chance.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Faith groups split over bill to protect same-sex marriage appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.