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 debate, broadcast on CNN, was one of their last chances to pitch themselves to voters and stand out from the pack in their primary election bids to succeed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who terms out in January. Mail voting is already underway, and voters have until June 2 to cast their ballots. The top-two vote getters will advance to the general election in November, regardless of party.

Though California hasn’t had a Republican governor in more than a decade, the specter hangs over the race as the field is still crowded with less than a month to go.

Candidates who took part in the debate include Democrats Xavier Becerra, a former health secretary for the Biden administration; Katie Porter, a former congresswoman; Tom Steyer, a billionaire climate activist; Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose; and Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles; as well as Republicans Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator; and Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff.

Here’s how they responded on some of the key issues:

Universal healthcare

The candidates sparred over whether they’d eliminate private health insurance in favor of a state-run system, an idea that has failed repeatedly in Sacramento.

Porter, who backs a government-run healthcare system, pressed Becerra on his stance since he’s wavered on the issue recently.

“Do you support CalCare — California having its own state-run, single-payer system, yes or no?” Porter asked.

Becerra gave a vague answer.

“The most important thing about having a Medicare for All plan is that it includes everyone,” he said. “What we have to do is get to the point where we are covering everyone with something like Medicare for All.”

Mahan, who opposes a state-run system, later chimed in and said Becerra “was unable to clearly answer the most important question on healthcare.”

Becerra contested: “I did answer that question.”

Steyer joined Porter in saying he’d support it, while Bianco, Hilton, and Villaraigosa said it wasn’t practical or would cost too much.

When the debate turned to healthcare access for immigrants, the candidates were divided.

Steyer, Porter and Becerra said they supported state-funded healthcare coverage for low-income immigrants without legal status, which Newsom passed then pared back. Bianco called the policy “ridiculous.”

Immigration

Other arguments about immigration fell largely along party lines.

The Democrats sharply rebuked the Trump administration’s immigration raids.

Steyer said the state should prosecute federal agents and immigration enforcement leaders who racially profile or use violence against Californians. Mahan said business owners in San Jose have lost customers because many immigrants are afraid to leave their house.

But Bianco said he supported Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, saying agents were enforcing the law and working to deport people he referred to as “criminals” in the country illegally.

Hilton, who’s from England, pointed out that he was the only immigrant on stage. The candidates shouldn’t conflate legal and illegal immigration, he said.

“Although it is the federal government’s responsibility to determine and implement immigration policy, I think it’s important that all the laws are peacefully enforced,” Hilton said. “As governor, I would make sure that we work with the federal government to enforce our laws.”

President Donald Trump

The Democrats each emphasized they would fight Trump on immigration policy in particular.

Neither Hilton, whom Trump has endorsed, nor Bianco, invoked him much except to say that Democrats unfairly blame him for the state’s woes.

Becerra mentioned Trump the most, noting he sued the administration many times while serving as state attorney general from 2017 to 2021, when he was appointed health secretary under then-President Joe Biden.

“I’m going to repeat Donald Trump as often as I have because he’s the menace,” Becerra declared.

When Villaraigosa pressed Hilton to acknowledge Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, Hilton refused to answer.

“Endlessly going on about Donald Trump doesn’t serve the needs of the struggling families and small businesses,” Hilton said.

Mahan sought to find middle ground. He said Becerra was wrong to blame high gas prices solely on Trump, but also noted that San Jose has sued the Trump administration over immigration policy. He said it was disqualifying for the Republican candidates to support Trump’s “cruel and ineffective policies.”

Porter, meanwhile, put it simply: “Donald Trump sucks.”

Gas tax and proposed billionaires tax

Steyer was the only candidate on stage to say he’d vote for a proposed billionaires tax expected to appear before voters in November. The one-time tax proposal aims to backfill funding cuts signed into law by Trump that reduced healthcare access for low-income people.

Porter also supports some increased taxes on California’s ultrawealthy but called the proposed tax a temporary fix to a long-term problem.

Meanwhile Mahan said he would suspend the gas tax because it unfairly burdens working families.

Hilton would make people’s first $100,000 free of income tax.

Mahan and Steyer said they’d tax artificial intelligence companies and use the money to support workers, for example through workforce development training.

“The answer is to tax these companies, not to regulate them to the point that they simply go to other places,” Mahan said.

The post California governor candidates clash on taxes, Trump and healthcare in lively debate appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom again seized the national spotlight this year as he signed some of the most ambitious laws in the country to raise worker wages and to force companies to disclose a wide range of climate emissions, efforts that further cement the state’s — and the governor’s — status as a leader on a host of liberal causes.

But the Democrat disappointed some progressive advocates as he vetoed high-profile bills to give unemployment benefits to striking workers, require courts to weigh a parent’s support of their child’s gender identity in custody proceedings and decriminalize some psychedelic drugs. He also supported a controversial bill to force more people into mental health or addiction treatment, a proposal aimed at addressing the state’s persistent homelessness crisis.

His actions on more than 1,000 pieces of legislation — nearly 15% of which he vetoed — showcase how Newsom plans to govern in his second and final term as leader of the nation’s most populous state. Newsom’s moves are increasingly seen through the lens of a possible presidential bid beyond 2024, though he insists he does not plan to run.

Some observers say his moves are largely consistent with both the views of California voters and the political tone that Newsom struck in his first term.

While Newsom delighted labor advocates with many of his signatures, he also angered them with some vetoes. He even won praise from Republicans for signing a bill to increase penalties for child sex trafficking after criticizing some Democratic lawmakers for initially opposing the bill.

Political consultant Elizabeth Ashford, who advises Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and has worked for former governors Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, is skeptical of the idea that Newsom’s actions are about appealing to a national audience. If he’s taking more moderate stances on some issues, including crime and homelessness, it’s likely in response to what California voters want, she said.

Indeed, California’s unabated homelessness crisis and the proliferation of fentanyl on the streets have been among the most visible and stubborn issues during Newsom’s tenure.

“I think that it’s very much how you see both Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger move into a more middle posture,” Ashford said. “It’s because that’s what Californians want their governor to be.”

Newsom’s actions reflect that he is “a consistently left-of-center Democratic governor,” said Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at California State University, Sacramento. “I think maybe he draws the line where it’s going to cost the state a lot more money.”

Newsom justified many of his vetoes — such as on a bill to make free condoms available to public high school students — by saying there was not enough money in the state budget to cover the cost. It came after he worked with lawmakers this year to try to close a projected $31.5 billion budget deficit.

Californians typically rank the economy and jobs as the most important issues in the state, said Mark Baldassare, the statewide survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California, and Newsom signed key legislation aimed at boosting workers. Health care workers will gradually receive a minimum hourly wage of $25, fast-food workers will be paid at least $20 an hour, workers will get more paid sick leave and lower-level legislative staffers will be able to unionize.

But in a year when hotel workers, Hollywood actors and writers, and health care workers went on strike, Newsom also vetoed a bill that would have given unemployment benefits to striking workers.

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, who heads the California Labor Federation, said “it’s almost cruel” that workers who go on strike aren’t guaranteed insurance benefits.

“We have workers who are putting everything on the line right now by going on strike,” she said. “They’re doing this because, quite honestly, this economy has failed them.”

Newsom also vetoed a bill that would have protected domestic workers who get injured or sick on the job and a proposal to save driver jobs while automated semi-trucks are tested for their safety on public roads.

In recent years, Californians have had to cope with wildfires, intense heat waves, and violent winds and rain. So it’s not surprising that many of them also say the environment is one of the state’s most pressing issues, Baldassare said.

Newsom started the year off by pushing a proposal to punish oil companies for profiting from high gas prices. The idea evolved from a tax on oil company profits to a law that makes regulators decide whether to penalize oil companies for price gouging. So far no penalties have been placed on oil companies, and Republicans still fault Newsom for failing to tackle the state’s sky-high gas prices.

He also signed two climate proposals that are the most aggressive mandates of their kind in the country: One to require companies making more than $1 billion annually to disclose their direct and indirect emissions, and another to require companies making more than $500 million annually to disclose how climate change poses a risk to them financially.

“He cares about climate, he cares about being a national leader on climate, and this is how he does it,” said Melissa Romero, deputy legislative director at advocacy group California Environmental Voters.

Homelessness also remains top of mind for voters in the state with the highest unhoused population in the country. Newsom sent two measures to voters aimed at transforming the state’s mental health system and addressing the homelessness crisis. He also signed a law to force more people into treatment if they have untreated mental illness or addiction issues and are unable to provide themselves with basic needs like food and shelter. The policies are controversial and reflect Newsom’s desire to tackle an issue that’s often the subject of national criticism.

Assemblymember Chris Ward, a Democrat and vice chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, said it was a “very successful year” for laws strengthening protections for LGBTQ+ people in the state. Newsom signed legislation to make sure LGBTQ+ foster youth are placed with families able to support their well-being, train school staff to better support LGBTQ+ students and seal legal gender-change petition documents for minors.

Still, Newsom surprised some when he vetoed a bill that would have required courts to weigh a parent’s affirmation of their child’s gender identity in custody and visitation cases. He said he vetoed it in part because he was concerned about lawmakers using their power to dictate “in prescriptive terms” how judges make decisions and warned such an approach could be alternatively used to “to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.” Ward disagreed with that reasoning, saying judges regularly rely on language from laws passed by the Legislature to help inform their decisions.

Something else out-of-the-ordinary happened in California politics this year: Newsom took the unusual step of publicly opposing a move by lawmakers in his party to block a bill authored by a Republican. The dispute revolved around legislation to increase penalties for child traffickers. Democrats in the Assembly Public Safety Committee later reversed course, and Newsom signed the bill into law last month.

State Sen. Shannon Grove, who introduced the bill, does not remember something like that happening since she first arrived at the Legislature in 2010. Newsom spoke with her after the bill was initially blocked, she said.

“He just said that ‘I’m disappointed in what happened in public safety,’” Grove said. “And I said, ‘Me too.’”

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

The post In big year for labor, California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivers both wins and surprises appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a bill on Sunday that would have made free condoms available all public high school students, arguing it was too expensive for a state with a budget deficit of more than $30 billion.

California had about 1.9 million high school students enrolled in more than 4,000 schools last year, according to the California Department of Education.

“This bill would create an unfunded mandate to public schools that should be considered in the annual budget process,” Newsom wrote in a message explaining why he vetoed the bill, known as Senate bill 541.

The bill is one of hundreds passed by California’s Democratic-dominated state Legislature before lawmakers adjourned last month. Newsom has been signing and vetoing legislation since then, including rejecting bills on Saturday to ban caste-based discrimination, limit the price of insulin and decriminalize possession and use of some hallucinogens.

The bill would have required all public schools that have grades nine through 12 to make condoms available for free to all students. It would have required public schools with grades seven through 12 to allow condoms to be made available as part of educational or public health programs.

And it would have made it illegal for retailers to refuse to sell condoms to youth.

State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat from Los Angeles and the author of the bill, had argued the bill would have helped “youth who decide to become sexually active to protect themselves and their partners from (sexually transmitted infections), while also removing barriers that potentially shame them and lead to unsafe sex.”

Newsom said programs increasing access to condoms are “important to supporting improved adolescent sexual health.” But he said this bill was one of several measures lawmakers passed this year that, when added together, would add $19 billion in costs to the state budget.

“With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure,” Newsom said.

Also on Sunday, Newsom signed a law aimed a electrifying the state’s fleet of school buses. Starting in 2035, the law will require any new bus purchased or contracted by school districts to be zero-emission.

California’s public school districts that provide their own transportation own about 15,800 school buses, of which 10,800 are powered by diesel fuel, according to a 2022 report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The law is part of California’s plan to phase out the use of fossil fuels. State regulations will ban the sale of new gas-powered cars in California by 2035.

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

The post California governor vetoes bill to make free condoms available for high school students, citing cost appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California will ban people from carrying firearms in most public places while doubling the taxes on guns and ammunition sold in the state under two new laws Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Tuesday that will test the limits of the U.S. Supreme Court’s new standard for interpreting the Second Amendment.

The federal government already taxes the sale of guns and ammunition at either 10% or 11%, depending on the type of gun. The law Newsom signed adds another 11% tax on top of that — making California the only state with a separate tax on guns and ammunition, according to the gun control advocacy group Brady.

The money will pay for security improvements at public schools and a variety of gun violence prevention programs, including those geared toward young people in gangs. The money from the federal tax, which has been in place for more than 100 years, pays for wildlife conservation and hunter education programs. The laws were some of nearly two dozen gun control measures Newsom signed on Tuesday. But he acknowledged many of these laws might not survive legal challenges now that the U.S. Supreme Court has imposed a new standard on interpreting the nation’s gun laws.

Just last week, a federal judge struck down a California law banning guns with detachable magazines that carry more than 10 rounds — one of three major pending cases challenging California’s gun restrictions. “It may mean nothing if the federal courts are throwing them out,” Newsom said. “We feel very strongly that these bills meet the (new standard), and they were drafted accordingly. But I’m not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda.” The California Rifle and Pistol Association has already sued to block one new law Newsom signed on Tuesday that bans people from carrying guns in most public places.

The law overhauls the state’s rules for concealed carry permits in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. It specifically bans people from carrying guns in 26 places, including public parks and playgrounds, public demonstrations and gatherings, amusement parks, churches, banks, zoos and “any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public” unless the owner puts up a sign saying guns are allowed. “These laws will not make us safer.

They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals’ right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family,” said Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. “They are being challenged, and the second they are signed, the clock starts ticking towards a judgment striking them down.” Newsom — a potential Democratic candidate for president beyond 2024 — has a reputation as one of the country’s most liberal governors.

But he has often refused to raise taxes, even for causes he supports like combating climate change. However, Newsom said he viewed this tax differently than the other general increases he tends to oppose. He argued that gun violence already costs taxpayers a lot of money in health impacts and in the criminal justice system. “I think this is a pretty modest investment in prevention and reducing those costs, ultimately,” he said, later adding, “The carnage, it’s too much. We can’t normalize it, we can’t accept it. This is a small price to pay.” California has some of the lowest gun death rates in the country, ranking 43rd out of 50 states with 9 deaths for every 100,000 people, according to 2021 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But violent crimes have increased recently.

The violent crime rate increased by 6.1% in 2022, according to the California Department of Justice. No other state has a special tax just for guns and ammunition, although some local governments do. Tennessee once had a 10-cent tax on shotgun shells, but that tax was repealed in 2019. Pennsylvania collects a $3 surcharge on gun sales to pay for background checks. Fees on California gun purchases currently total more than $37, with most of that money paying for background checks. “Taxing firearm sales to fund violence intervention programs is essential to interrupting the cycle of violence and stopping gun violence before it begins, and we encourage other states to follow suit,” said Kris Brown, president of Brady.

The tax has some exceptions. It would not apply to police officers and it would not apply to businesses with sales of less than $5,000 over a three-month period. State officials estimate it would generate about $159 million annually. The law says the first $75 million of that money must go to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program. The program has funded projects targeting young people in gangs, including sports programs, life coaching and tattoo removal. The next $50 million would go to the State Department of Education to boost security at public schools.

That includes things like physical security improvements, safety assessments, after-school programs for at-risk students and mental and behavioral health services for students, teachers and other school employees. That brought comfort to state Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from San Diego, who said she was on the Senate floor earlier this year when she got a text message from her ninth-grader saying they were hiding under their desk. No one was injured. “I know that there are thousands of families that are going through this and normalizing the hardening of our schools,” she said. “The reality that we have to protect people by doing things like that is something that we don’t want in this state and in this country.”

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

The post California governor signs law raising taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for school safety appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will double the taxes on guns and ammunition and use the money to pay for more security at public schools and various violence prevention programs under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Tuesday.

The federal government already taxes the sale of guns and ammunition at either 10% or 11%, depending on the type of gun. The law Newsom signed adds another 11% tax on top of that — making it the only state with its own tax on guns and ammunition, according to the gun control advocacy group Brady.

Newsom — a potential Democratic candidate for president beyond 2024 — has a reputation as one of the country’s most liberal governors. But he has often refused to raise taxes, even for causes he supports like combating climate change.

But it would have been difficult for Newsom to veto this tax increase, given his outspoken support for gun restrictions at the state and national level. Newsom is in the middle of a national campaign to amend the U.S. Constitution to restrict gun sales to people over 21, require extensive background checks, impose a waiting period for purchases and ban the sale of assault-style weapons. Restrictions like that are in place in some states, but not in the Constitution.

That campaign is unlikely to succeed, given the political makeup of the other state Legislatures Newsom needs to convince. But it has put him at the forefront of an issue at the top of many Democratic voters’ lists.

Newsom said he viewed the tax as different than other general tax increases that he tends to oppose. He argued that gun violence already costs taxpayers a lot of money in health impacts and in the criminal justice system.

“I think this is a pretty modest investment in prevention and reducing those costs ultimately … The carnage, it’s too much. We can’t normalize it, we can’t accept it. This is a small price to pay,” he said.

Also on Tuesday, Newsom signed a law overhauling the state’s rules for carrying concealed weapons. The new rules are a reaction to a new standard for interpreting the nation’s gun laws that the U.S. Supreme Court issued last year. California’s new law bans people from carrying guns in nearly all public places — including public parks and playgrounds — public demonstrations and gatherings, amusement parks, churches, banks and any place where alcohol is sold.

Newsom also signed a law that, starting July 1, 2028, would require all semiautomatic pistols sold in California to have microstamping technology. That means each bullet would have a unique marking making it easier for law enforcement to trace the gun it was fired from back to its owner.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, criticized the new laws — calling them unconstitutional.

“These laws will not make us safer. They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals’ right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family,” he said. “They are being challenged, and the second they are signed, the clock starts ticking towards a judgment striking them down.”

No other state has a special tax just for guns and ammunition, though some local governments do. Tennessee once had a 10-cent tax on shotgun shells, but that tax was repealed in 2019. Pennsylvania collects a $3 surcharge on gun sales to pay for background checks. Fees on California gun purchases currently total more than $37, with most of that money paying for background checks.

“Taxing firearm sales to fund violence intervention programs is essential to interrupting the cycle of violence and stopping gun violence before it begins, and we encourage other states to follow suit,” said Kris Brown, president of Brady.

The federal tax on guns has been in place since 1918 and has survived multiple lawsuits. The money from that tax goes to the states, who use it to pay for wildlife conservation and hunter safety programs.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association has promised to challenge California’s new tax in court. A legislative analysis of the law Newsom signed on Tuesday said it is now an “open question” whether a lawsuit challenging the tax would be successful.

The tax has some exceptions. It would not apply to police officers and it would not apply to businesses with sales of less than $5,000 over a three-month period. State officials estimate it would generate about $159 million annually.

The law says the first $75 million of that money must go to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program. The program has funded projects targeting young people in gangs, including sports programs, life coaching and tattoo removal.

The next $50 million would go to the State Department of Education to boost security at public schools. That includes things like physical security improvements, safety assessments, after-school programs for at-risk students and mental and behavioral health services for students, teachers and other school employees.

California has some of the lowest gun death rates in the country, ranking 43rd out of 50 states with 9 deaths for every 100,000 people, according to 2021 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

The post California governor signs law raising taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for school safety appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said that he would sign a landmark climate bill that passed the state’s legislature last week requiring major companies to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, a move with national and global repercussions.

The new law will require about 5,000 companies to report the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that is directly emitted by their operations and also the amount of indirect emissions like employee travel, waste disposal and supply chains. Climate policy advocates have long argued that such disclosures are an essential first step in efforts to harness financial markets to rein in planet-warming pollution. For example, when investors are made aware of the climate-warming impacts of a company, they may choose to steer their money elsewhere.

The law would apply to public and private businesses that make more than $1 billion annually and operate in California. But because the state is the world’s fifth-largest economy, California often sets the trend for the nation, and many of the affected businesses are global corporations. There had been some question as to whether Mr. Newsom, a Democrat who has pushed for some of the nation’s most ambitious policies to fight climate change, would sign the legislation.

The California Chamber of Commerce lobbied against it, and the governor’s own state finance department was opposed, saying the measure would result in new costs that are not currently in the state spending plan. After the bill cleared the State Senate last week and was sent to Mr. Newsom’s desk, his office declined to say what he would do.

But asked at a Climate Week event at the Times Center on Sunday if he would sign the bill, Mr. Newsom responded first by detailing California’s history of vanguard climate policies, including his own administration’s requirement that every new car in the state be all-electric by 2035. “Would I cede that leadership by having a response that is anything but, Of course I will sign that bill?” he said in response to a question from David Gelles, a New York Times reporter who interviewed the governor before an audience. “No, I will not.” Mr. Newsom said that his signature came with “a modest caveat” that his office wanted “some cleanup on some little language” in the legislation.

But he did not clarify the changes that he wished to make, and a spokesman for his office did not respond to a voice mail message or text message seeking an answer. Many of the affected businesses would include oil and gas giants like Chevron, major financial institutions like Wells Fargo and global brands like Apple. The companies would be required to disclose all their emissions starting in 2027. The new measure would be paired with another new law that requires companies with revenue over $500 million to report their climate-related risks, although they would not have to disclose their specific emissions.

The California legislation goes beyond a measure proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would require only publicly-traded companies to disclose their emissions. That proposal, which has yet to be finalized, is facing strong opposition from conservatives and business groups. “The fact that a single state like California would do this is both potentially troubling and potentially promising,” Robert Stavins, director of the Environmental Economics program at Harvard, said. “It could be the case that a company that is valued at $1 billion has $35 of activity in California but is nevertheless affected.

But it’s potentially promising because we have such a long history in the U.S. of California being out front on environmental regulation and other states following and the federal government eventually catching up.” Climate policy advocates praised the move. “These two first-in-the-nation bills will provide unprecedented insight into corporate climate emissions and financial climate risk,” said Mindy S. Lubber, chief executive and president of Ceres, a nonprofit group that works with investors and companies on environmental issues. Opponents said that compliance would be expensive and onerous, particularly the requirement that businesses accurately track and measure all emissions.

For example, clothing manufacturers worry that they would have to report the emissions associated with growing, weaving and transporting textiles, in addition to reporting the direct emissions from their garment manufacturing plants. The California Chamber of Commerce last week called the legislation “a costly mandate that will negatively impact businesses of all sizes in California and will not directly reduce emissions,” said Denise Davis, an executive vice president at the California Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Davis said on Sunday that her organization was disappointed by Mr. Newsom’s decision but was hopeful that further “cleanup” legislation next year could mitigate the impact of the new law.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various author’s articles on this Opinion piece or elsewhere online or in the newspaper where we have articles with the header “COLUMN/EDITORIAL & OPINION” do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints or official policies of the Publisher, Editor, Reporters or anybody else in the Staff of the Hemet and San Jacinto Chronicle Newspaper.

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

The post California Governor to sign landmark climate disclosure Bill appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has proposed an end to public disclosure of investigations of abusive and corrupt police officers, handing the responsibility instead to local agencies in an effort to help cover an estimated $31.5 billion budget deficit.

The proposal, part of the governor’s budget package that he is still negotiating with the Legislature, has prompted strong criticism from a coalition of criminal justice and press freedom groups, which spent years pushing for the disclosure rules that were part of a landmark law Newsom signed in 2021.

The law allows the state Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to investigate and decertify police officers for misconduct, such as use of excessive force, sexual assault and dishonesty. It requires the commission to make public the records of decertification cases. The Newsom administration now wants to get rid of that transparency element. The commission says the public could still get the records from police departments.

But advocates say local police departments often resist releasing that information. A number of states with a police decertification process, including Republican-led ones such as Tennessee and Georgia, require state agencies to divulge records of police misconduct. In Tennessee, records made available through the requirement provided a slew of new details on police officers’ actions when they brutally beat Tyre Nichols, a Black man, during a traffic stop earlier this year.

Those details, released by the state police certification commission, were not previously made public by the local police department. “It’s a slap in the face to the family members who have had their loved ones stolen from them that … a key provision of the decertification process is not being honored,” J Vasquez, of social justice group Communities United For Restorative Justice, said at a news conference last week. Removing the transparency element from the 2021 law would continue eroding public trust, Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker said.

The city, 45 miles (72 kilometers) east of San Francisco, was shaken after a federal investigation found more than half of the officers in the Antioch police force were in a group text where some officers freely used racial slurs and bragged about fabricating evidence and beating suspects. “To say, ‘go to the very people who commit the crimes against your community and ask them to reveal themselves to you so that you can hold them accountable,’ I don’t think that’s a fair process,” Torres-Walker said.

The coalition of more than 20 groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, also accused the Democratic governor of abusing the budget process to push through his proposal introduced in April. Carmen-Nicole Cox, director of government affairs for ACLU California Action, said Newsom’s proposal should have gone through the traditional legislative process, instead of being put into the budget.

Democratic Sen. Steven Bradford, who authored the 2021 landmark bill, declined to comment on the proposed change. The governor’s office referred questions to the commission, whose spokesperson said the proposed change is a cost-saving measure that would still allow the public to access information on decertification cases from local police departments. California is facing a nearly $32 billion budget deficit this year after enjoying several years of record-breaking surpluses and the proposal is one of many of Newsom’s cost-cutting measures.

Neither the governor’s office nor the commission shared how much money the state could save under the proposal. According to a May budget request, the commission estimated it will handle up to 3,500 decertification cases each year. That’s about 4% of all officers in California.

The commission, which has suspended or decertified 44 police officers so far this year, requested an additional $6 million to handle the large number of complaints. “Because of the substantial fiscal implications, as well as the need to urgently implement these cost-saving measures into law, the budget process is the most appropriate avenue for this,” commission spokesperson Meagan Poulos said in a statement. For decades, police officers in California have enjoyed layers of legal protections helping shield most of law enforcement misconduct records from public scrutiny, First Amendment Coalition Legal Director David Loy said.

In 2018, things began to shift after the Legislature passed a bill requiring the disclosure of records pertaining to police misconduct including use of excessive force, sexual assault and dishonesty. That law was expanded in 2021 to include the release of investigations into police racist or biased behavior, unlawful searches or arrests and use of unreasonable force. The 2021 decertification law was hailed as another mechanism to hold law enforcement accountable. “California has always been a black hole for police transparency,” said Loy, whose group is part of the coalition opposing the change. “The last thing California should be doing is taking any step backward on police transparency.”

The state Legislature passed its own version of the state budget Thursday to meet its deadline without including Newsom’s proposed change to the decertification process. Legislative leaders and the governor’s office will continue negotiations to finalize the budget by the end of the month.

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

The post California governor proposes rolling back access to police misconduct records appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gavin Newsom will almost certainly win reelection as governor of California in November, with a little-known Republican state senator the only thing between him and a second term leading the nation’s most populous state.

That’s why Newsom’s campaign is more about his political future and overhauling the Democratic Party ahead of the 2024 presidential election — the success of which is much harder to predict.

It’s been just two years since Democrats retook the White House by lining up behind Joe Biden, an old-school elected official who came of age before social media amplified the worst parts of politics and changed what it takes to win.

Now, many in the Democratic Party worry whether Biden can win in 2024, especially in a rematch with former President Donald Trump who, despite his legal troubles, could still be a formidable opponent. If Biden doesn’t run, Newsom has been floated as a potential replacement for him on the ballot.

Newsom’s actions of late have done nothing but reinforce that idea. His campaign has paid for ads in Florida and Texas, home to Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott, the country’s two most outspoken Republican governors and potential 2024 GOP candidates for president.

He has moved quickly to build support among the party’s base of liberal voters and donors, ordering state regulators to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars and signing more than a dozen laws to make California a sanctuary for women in other states seeking abortions now that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade.

“He doesn’t want to talk about his race in California, he wants to talk about him running for president. Because, again, it’s all about him,” said Brian Dahle, the Republican state senator challenging Newsom on the ballot this fall.

Newsom insists he isn’t running for president, saying he supports Biden and, if Biden doesn’t run, Vice President Kamala Harris — who came up in politics at the same time and place as Newsom, with the pair even sharing political advisers.

While Newsom’s focus on national Republicans infuriates the California GOP, it’s the best strategy for him right now, said Eric Schickler, a political science professor at the University of California-Berkeley.

“Yes, he could attack California Republicans,” Schickler said. “But it seems probably more California Democrats know who Ron DeSantis is than Brian Dahle.”

Instead, Newsom says he is tackling perhaps an even bigger project: a complete overhaul of Democratic Party messaging ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Democrats, in Newsom’s view, are too soft. He says Democrats are always defending and never attacking, a strategy that lets Republicans control the political narrative on cable news and social media.

He’s careful to praise the party’s leaders, including Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But in a recent interview, Newsom made it clear the party’s strategy of trying to bridge the gap between the country’s left and right wings won’t work.

“I think the president’s learned it the hard way,” Newsom told MSNBC during a campaign trip to Texas. “I mean, he’s hardwired for a different world, and that’s gone.”

Instead of appealing to a broad base of voters, Newsom’s TV ads in Florida told residents that “freedom is under attack in your state” and urged them to move to California. In Texas, Newsom took out a full page newspaper ad featuring a quote from Abbott about children losing their lives to abortion, editing it to say “gun violence” instead.

And in seven conservative states that have banned or severely restricted abortion, Newsom has paid for billboards urging women there to come to California for the procedure — including a link to a website that will show them how California taxpayers will help pay for their travel expenses.

“I’m optimistic about (Democrats’) ability to turn this around — if we go on the offensive,” Newsom, who declined an interview request with The Associated Press, told MSNBC. “That’s why I’m doing the billboards. That’s why I’m doing these ads.”

Newsom’s aggressive critique of the Democratic Party is “rubbing some people the wrong way,” said Steven Maviglio, a Democratic political operative in California who has clashed with Newsom on a statewide ballot initiative that would raise taxes on the wealthy.

If Newsom really wanted to help the party, Maviglio said, he would be spending his time and resources to help California Democrats win and retain their U.S. House seats, which could determine which political party controls Congress for the final two years of Biden’s term.

“Here’s a popular governor who should be paying attention to tight races not only in his home state but across the country instead of this vanity campaign,” Maviglio said. “Every national Democrat would agree that it’s more helpful to raise money and campaign for candidates in tight races than it is promoting yourself two months before the midterm.”

Newsom campaign spokesperson Nathan Click said the governor is supporting all of California’s congressional Democratic candidates by either hosting fundraisers for them or raising money on their behalf through email.

“He has one of the best email lists in the country — we often raise more (with) a single email than a traditional event,” Click said.

Click also said Newsom is raising money for Democrats running for governor of other states, including Katie Hobbs in Arizona, Charlie Crist in Florida, Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Chris Jones in Arkansas and Beto O’Rourke in Texas.

Newsom’s campaign says he is also the second-largest financial contributor backing Proposition 1, a ballot measure that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the California Constitution. Last month, Newsom’s campaign donated more than $876,000 to the campaign.

“He’s helping the entire party elevate their national message in ways that people who are in competitive races and in smaller states maybe can’t do,” said Matt Barreto, a UCLA political science professor and a senior adviser to Building Back Better, a nonprofit that launched to support the Biden administration’s agenda. “I don’t see him as taking any spotlight away from anyone.”

Newsom is overshadowing Dahle, his Republican opponent. Dahle is a farmer from the far northeast corner of the state and is little known outside his district. He doesn’t have enough money to run statewide TV ads, so he’s been traveling a lot and promoting himself on social media.

Dahle’s one chance against Newsom will be during a debate on Sunday, broadcast live on the radio on a Sunday afternoon during the NFL season.

“I’ve been an underdog my whole life,” Dahle said. “I believe I can win.”

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

The post Newsom’s campaign for California governor looks to future appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

DON THOMPSON | Associated Press

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed a nation-leading measure giving more than a half-million fast food workers more power and protections, despite the objections of restaurant owners who warned it would drive up consumers’ costs.

The landmark law creates a 10-member Fast Food Council with equal numbers of workers’ delegates and employers’ representatives, along with two state officials, empowered to set minimum standards for wages, hours and working conditions in California.

Newsom said he was proud to sign the measure into law on Labor Day.

“California is committed to ensuring that the men and women who have helped build our world-class economy are able to share in the state’s prosperity,” he said in a statement. “Today’s action gives hardworking fast food workers a stronger voice and seat at the table to set fair wages and critical health and safety standards across the industry.”

The law caps minimum wage increases for fast food workers at chains with more than 100 restaurants at $22 an hour next year, compared to the statewide minimum of $15.50 an hour, with cost of living increases thereafter.

The state legislature approved the measure on Aug. 29. Debate split along party lines, with Republicans opposed.

Sen. Brian Dahle, the Republican nominee for governor in November, had called it “a steppingstone to unionize all these workers.”

Supporters had said they hoped the measure would inspire similar efforts elsewhere.

The measure’s author, Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, said it would “a new way to ensure marginalized workers have a voice in the workplace.”

Restaurant owners and franchisers opposed the law, citing an analysis they commissioned by the UC Riverside Center for Economic Forecast and Development saying that the legislation would increase consumers’ costs.

The International Franchise Association called it a “fork in the eye” of people who run restaurant franchises and said it could raise consumer prices as much as 20%.

“This bill has been built on a lie, and now small business owners, their employees, and their customers will have to pay the price,” IFA President and CEO Matthew Haller said in a statement. “Franchises already pay higher wages and offer more opportunity for advancement than their independent counterparts, and this bill unfairly targets one of the greatest models for achieving the American Dream and the millions of people it supports.”

However, Holden urged opponents to give the law a chance.

“Speaking as a former franchise owner, I would have welcomed this inclusive process, that in reality benefits not only the the worker but franchisee as well,” he said in a statement.

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

The post California governor signs landmark law for fast food workers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.