The settlement, announced Monday, put an end to a standoff that had grown increasingly tense in recent months. Bonta, joined by attorneys general from 11 other states, had sued to block the merger on antitrust grounds. In response, Paramount executives floated the idea of relocating the company out of California altogether. According to a report in the New York Times, Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison told senior staff during an August meeting that “clearly we’re not wanted here.”

The dispute became the latest flashpoint in a decades-long struggle over the future of the entertainment industry in the state that built it. California’s political leaders — including its last three governors — have repeatedly stepped in to try to keep production dollars and jobs from migrating to states offering cheaper deals and richer tax breaks.

That effort dates back to 2009, when then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California’s first Film and Television Production Tax Credit, a response to other states beginning to lure productions away with financial incentives of their own. The original program set aside $100 million annually for qualifying film and TV projects through 2017.

Five years later, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1839, more than tripling that funding to $330 million a year through 2020. Brown extended the program again in 2018, pushing it out to 2025. When the pandemic brought Hollywood productions to a standstill, Gov. Gavin Newsom temporarily raised the annual credit to $420 million to help the industry recover.

But the challenges kept mounting. Hollywood faced what many in the industry called a “quadruple whammy” — COVID-19, a prolonged writers strike, devastating wildfires, and aggressive recruitment from other states offering more generous incentives. In 2025, state lawmakers responded by boosting the tax credit substantially, to $750 million annually through 2030. Newsom threw his support behind the increase, describing the industry at the time as being “on life support.”

This year, lawmakers took additional steps to protect the industry, exempting independent film producers from a newly created cap on corporate tax breaks after the film credit conflicted with that initiative. In July, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas of Salinas formed a new Select Committee on Growing and Retaining the Creative Economy in California, aimed specifically at preventing further production flight. And on Saturday, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2319, authored by Burbank Democrat Nick Schultz, establishing a new tax credit for post-production work such as editing and visual effects.

Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, a Democrat who represents Hollywood and chairs the new Assembly select committee, said he was relieved that Paramount and the state reached an agreement, but cautioned that California cannot afford to rest on its laurels.

“Now that other states are realizing what important, family-sustaining jobs these are, they’re competing very aggressively for these jobs,” Zbur said.

He added that the committee plans to examine additional incentives when it convenes for the first time, likely in October in Los Angeles, as California continues its effort to hold on to the industry that gave the region its identity.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Decades-Long Battle to Keep Hollywood From Leaving: A Timeline appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 13 measures, signed Saturday, take direct aim at scenarios that have alarmed state officials in recent months — from federal agents showing up at polling places to local law enforcement seizing ballots before an election is certified.

“Trump won’t stop until he can exert dictatorial control over your free vote and disenfranchise millions of people this November,” Newsom said in a statement announcing the signings. “California will stop him at every opportunity.”

The Trump administration has long maintained that its election policies are meant to root out fraud and keep noncitizens from casting ballots, even though voter fraud remains statistically rare. Opponents, however, say the practical effect of many of these federal actions is to make voting harder for people who are legally entitled to cast a ballot.

One of the new state laws makes it a felony for anyone — including law enforcement — to seize ballots, voting equipment or election records before results are certified. That legislation traces directly back to an incident in Riverside County this past March, when Sheriff Chad Bianco confiscated more than 600,000 ballots as part of what he called a “fact-finding mission.” Two local Democratic officials and the California attorney general challenged the seizure in court, and the case is now before the state Supreme Court.

Another new law criminalizes interference with the delivery or return of mail ballots, a response that comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision rejecting the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict mail voting through new U.S. Postal Service rules.

Newsom also signed legislation prohibiting police from making arrests within 200 feet of a polling place on Election Day, with exceptions for crimes against people or property or offenses tied to obstructing someone’s right to vote. The bill reflects growing concern among Democratic lawmakers that federal agents could be sent to polling sites to intimidate voters.

Not everyone welcomed the changes. Sheriff Bianco argued that one of the new laws could put officers at risk of felony charges even when they’re simply carrying out a judicial warrant. The First Amendment Coalition objected to a separate measure banning deceptive, digitally altered political ads, citing free speech concerns. The California State Sheriffs’ Association also opposed one of the bills, saying it hands too much authority to the state attorney general.

In other Sacramento news, Newsom issued an executive order directing state agencies to draft artificial intelligence safety guidelines by Nov. 16. Some of what’s being proposed — including requiring a “kill switch” that developers could use to shut down AI systems — mirrors provisions from a bill Newsom vetoed two years ago. The shift comes amid rising public anxiety about AI’s potential dangers. Candidates running for governor have also signaled they support tighter AI oversight, though few have offered specifics on what that would look like.

Elsewhere in California policy news, digital privacy advocates have renewed scrutiny of data brokers, the companies that quietly gather and sell enormous amounts of personal information — from income and address to speculative details like whether someone might need a mammogram. A joint investigation by CalMatters and Consumer Reports identified more than 100 companies purchasing Californians’ data, including major retailers and financial firms.

On the infrastructure front, open internet advocates are pressing Newsom to turn down a $1.4 billion federal broadband grant meant to expand internet access to more than 270,000 residents in underserved communities. The catch: the Trump administration is requiring California to stop enforcing its net neutrality protections in exchange for the funding, a trade-off state regulators are still weighing.

Meanwhile, a fire last week at the Moss Landing battery storage facility in Monterey County has reignited safety concerns about the type of large-scale battery installations California is counting on to meet its clean energy targets. The same facility experienced one of the largest battery storage fires on record in January 2025, and investigators still haven’t determined the cause — a delay that has frustrated local officials.

In another decision this week, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed individual state departments to craft their own telework policies. The veto keeps his current four-day in-office requirement in place, even as the state’s largest public employee union — which backed the bill — is polling members on a possible strike.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Signs New Voting Protections Amid Concerns Over Trump Interference appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The bill, which had cleared the Legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support, would have lowered the retirement age for public safety workers and expanded pension formulas — changes labor groups argued were long overdue given the physical demands of the job.

In his veto message, Newsom said the measure would have unwound key parts of a 2012 pension reform law championed by former Gov. Jerry Brown, one enacted at a time when California’s major retirement systems were reeling from Great Recession losses.

“I still recall — before PEPRA’s passage in 2012 — the alarming forecasts, the fierce criticism of public employees, and the growing pressure to eliminate defined benefit plans all together,” Newsom wrote, referring to the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act. “This is an era of California history I do not wish to repeat.”

Brown’s law reshaped retirement rules for public safety workers statewide, pushing the retirement age from 50 to 57 and trimming the annual pension accrual rate from 3% to 2.7%. It also required employees to contribute more from their own paychecks toward their retirement.

Assembly Bill 1383, authored by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, D-Inglewood, sought to roll back some of those changes. It would have dropped the retirement age to 55, raised pension earning caps and given unions more room to negotiate accrual rates as high as 3% per year of service.

Supporters argued the physical toll of policing and firefighting justifies an earlier retirement. “AB 1383 gives us something important: Two more years with our families,” said Darrell Roberts, president of California Professional Firefighters, speaking last week at a rally on the Capitol steps that drew hundreds of public safety workers.

But the price tag worried city and county governments across the state, including in the Inland Empire. According to estimates from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the bill’s provisions would have added hundreds of millions of dollars annually in costs to local governments responsible for funding these pensions.

“It represents the greatest long-term financial threat to the sustainability of cities in years,” La Verne City Manager Ken Domer told CalMatters in a recent interview.

A coalition representing cities, counties and special districts praised Newsom’s decision to reject the bill. “At a time of severe fiscal uncertainty and growing demand for services, it is more important than ever for state leaders to help control costs,” the group said in a statement.

The bill’s legislative support had been striking — it passed the Senate 33-0 and cleared the Assembly 69-2. At last week’s rally, lawmakers stood alongside firefighters and police officers holding signs reading “Firefighters deserve a safe retirement” and “Keep California safe. Recruit. Retain. Sign AB 1383.”

Assemblywoman Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove, told the crowd the fight would continue regardless of the outcome. “This is just the beginning. After we get this signed, we will do more. We will fight for more to show you that we appreciate you,” she said.

Following the veto, Roberts said the firefighters union was “deeply disappointed” but vowed to keep pushing for change. “To every CPF member, this fight is not over. I made a commitment to you all; we will keep fighting for retirement security, and we will stand together,” he said in a statement Sunday.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Vetoes Bill to Boost Police, Firefighter Pensions, Citing Fiscal Concerns appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assembly Bill 1267, authored by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz, cleared the Legislature in August with overwhelming bipartisan support. It now sits on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, awaiting his signature before a Sept. 30 deadline. If signed, California would join the vast majority of states that have already set a minimum marriage age, leaving only New Mexico and Mississippi without one.

The bill’s path to passage was anything but straightforward. For years, efforts to ban child marriage in California have collapsed under opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood — two organizations with deep ties to Democratic politics and significant sway at the Capitol.

Both groups have historically argued that restricting marriage for minors would infringe on young people’s rights to make their own decisions, including about reproductive health and bodily autonomy. The ACLU has contended that marriage offers minors a legal path to emancipation, while Planned Parenthood has framed the issue as one of personal choice.

Critics, however, say those arguments ignore the reality facing thousands of California children. According to Unchained at Last, a nonprofit that tracks and campaigns against child marriage, roughly 9,000 minors marry in California each year, the overwhelming majority of them girls wed to adult men. Because the state’s age of consent is 18, advocates argue that these marriages effectively legalize relationships that would otherwise be considered statutory rape.

This year, lawmakers took an unusual route to get the bill moving. Pellerin used a legislative maneuver known as a “gut and amend,” stripping the language from an unrelated bill and replacing it with the child marriage ban after the normal bill-introduction deadline had passed. Advocates say the timing was deliberate — an effort to keep the proposal off Planned Parenthood’s radar until it was too late for the organization to mount effective opposition.

The strategy appears to have worked. While the ACLU again registered its opposition, no lobbyist showed up to defend minors’ right to marry during this year’s committee hearings. Planned Parenthood, meanwhile, took a “neutral” stance, declining to formally support or oppose the measure.

“We need to be clear that girls, no matter how mature they may seem, are still girls,” Pellerin said in an interview. “Girls don’t have freedom without protection.”

Neither organization agreed to make anyone available for an interview with CalMatters. In a June letter outlining its opposition, the ACLU wrote that “prohibiting marriage for all minors would represent a departure from California’s longstanding commitment to respecting minors’ ability to make important personal decisions for themselves, particularly in matters of reproductive autonomy.” The ACLU’s press office declined to answer further questions about its position.

Planned Parenthood spokesperson Shelby McMichael said in an emailed statement that the organization evaluates legislation on a bill-by-bill basis each session. “Given the funding cuts to Planned Parenthood health centers last year, we chose to prioritize issues related to the Trump administration and the ongoing attacks from congressional Republicans on health care,” she wrote.

Planned Parenthood’s influence in Sacramento is substantial. The organization has donated at least $2.7 million to Democratic lawmakers since 2002, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, and it operates more than 100 clinics statewide. The group also publishes an annual legislative scorecard tracking how often lawmakers vote in line with its positions — in 2025, nearly every Democrat scored 100%.

That influence became even more pronounced after President Donald Trump moved to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood clinics, pushing the organization to rely more heavily on state support. In February, California lawmakers approved $140 million in emergency funding to help offset those federal losses.

The current fight echoes a similar battle two years ago, when Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, D-Irvine, introduced a nearly identical measure, Assembly Bill 2924. That bill never received a hearing. Assemblymember Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, who chairs the Assembly Judiciary Committee, told advocates at the time that Planned Parenthood needed to drop its opposition before he would allow a vote. Kalra said he was also concerned the bill could jeopardize minors’ abortion rights, even though California voters had already enshrined abortion rights into the state constitution in 2022 — two years before that bill was introduced.

“I think that was certainly one of the factors,” Kalra said of Planned Parenthood’s opposition and the bill’s failure to advance. “Planned Parenthood’s voice matters on this issue, and on other matters that come before us at the Capitol.”

The pattern dates back further. In 2017, then-state Sen. Jerry Hill introduced similar legislation after learning that a 13-year-old girl in his district had been engaged to a 38-year-old man from another country. “I thought, who could possibly oppose this? Who could say this is wrong?” Hill recalled. Instead, his proposal ran into fierce debate over cultural differences, adolescent autonomy and bodily rights.

Then-Assemblymember Lorena González, a labor-aligned Democrat who chaired the Assembly Appropriations Committee at the time, told Hill she would block the bill unless it were amended to lower the marriage age to 16 or 17 rather than banning marriage for minors outright. The legislation was eventually watered down into the law still in effect today, which allows minors to marry with parental and judicial consent but sets no minimum age.

Hill blames special interest groups for repeatedly derailing reform efforts. “These interest groups in Sacramento are very powerful. They have a lot of influence over what passes in the Legislature,” he said. “Politics trumps policy about 80% of the time.”

González remembers it differently. While she acknowledges blocking an outright ban, she said she doesn’t recall Planned Parenthood weighing in or factoring into her decision. Instead, she said her hesitation stemmed from experiences in her own district, where some Latino families encouraged pregnant teenage girls to marry the child’s father if he was close to their age. “I had girls tell me this was the best option for them,” González said, adding that the age gap between spouses seemed to matter more than the marriage itself. At the time, she said, an outright ban felt “classist.”

For survivors like Sara Tasneem, the state’s decades of inaction carried lasting consequences. Tasneem said she was forced into marriage at 15 with a 28-year-old man as part of arrangements made within a Northern California Sufi group her father belonged to. After her father learned she was dating a classmate, he arranged the marriage instead. “I was handed off to a complete stranger I had just met,” she said. She left school, was repeatedly raped, and said she felt trapped because, as a minor, she could not hire a divorce attorney. Tasneem said she had two children with her abuser before leaving him in 2003 at age 23, taking her children with her. She later became an advocate for ending child marriage nationwide.

Momentum for reform grew last November after a New York Times opinion piece singled out the ACLU and Planned Parenthood for helping block anti-child-marriage legislation in California, even as Republican-led states such as Arkansas and Louisiana enacted stricter age requirements.

Fraidy Reiss, executive director of Unchained at Last, was herself forced into marriage at 19 within an Orthodox Jewish community in New York. She said California’s long delay in addressing the issue is frustrating, but progress is still progress.

“Should this have happened a decade ago? Yes, it should have,” Reiss said. “But at least we’re here now.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Bill Would Ban Child Marriage, but Some Civil Rights Groups Are Pushing Back appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For years, efforts to ban child marriage in California have stalled in Sacramento — not because of resistance from conservative lawmakers, but because of pushback from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, organizations closely aligned with the Democratic supermajority that controls the Legislature. Now, after nearly a decade of failed attempts, a bill banning marriage before age 18 sits on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk, awaiting his signature or veto by September 30.

Under current California law, a minor can marry with the consent of a parent and a judge, regardless of age. Only two other states, New Mexico and Mississippi, similarly have no minimum marriage age. According to the advocacy group Unchained at Last, roughly 9,000 children are married in California each year, the overwhelming majority of them girls wedding adult men. Because the state’s age of consent for sexual activity is 18, critics argue these marriages effectively legalize relationships that would otherwise be considered statutory rape.

The path to this year’s bill, Assembly Bill 1267, began quietly in March, when a group of Democratic lawmakers started laying the groundwork to finally push a ban through — this time working to keep Planned Parenthood from blocking it before it even reached a hearing.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin of Santa Cruz introduced the measure using a legislative maneuver known as a “gut-and-amend,” swapping the language of an unrelated bill after the normal bill-introduction deadline had passed. Advocates say the timing was intentional — an effort to sidestep the kind of early opposition that has doomed similar bills in the past.

This time, the strategy worked. While the ACLU again formally opposed the bill, no lobbyists showed up to argue against it during summer committee hearings, and Planned Parenthood declined to take a position, staying neutral. The bill passed with near-unanimous support in August.

“We need to make it clear that girls, despite their perceived maturity, are children,” Pellerin said. “Children don’t have unprotected freedom.”

The ACLU has argued for years that restricting marriage among minors would strip young people of an important form of legal independence, including access to emancipation and reproductive health decisions made without parental involvement. In a letter opposing the bill in June, the organization wrote that banning marriage for all minors “is a departure from California’s longstanding commitment to honoring minors’ ability to make important personal decisions for themselves, particularly in the realm of reproductive autonomy.”

An ACLU spokesperson declined to answer further questions or make anyone available for an interview.

Planned Parenthood, for its part, said it evaluates legislation on a case-by-case basis each session. A spokesperson said that given ongoing threats to defund Planned Parenthood health centers under the Trump administration, the organization chose to focus its political capital elsewhere this year rather than fight the marriage bill.

Planned Parenthood’s influence in California politics is substantial. The organization has donated more than $2.7 million to state lawmakers since 2002, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, and nearly every Democrat in the Legislature earned a 100% rating on the group’s 2025 legislative scorecard.

That influence proved decisive two years ago, when Irvine Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris introduced a similar ban. Assemblymember Ash Kalra, who chairs the Assembly Judiciary Committee, told advocates at the time that Planned Parenthood’s opposition needed to be resolved before the bill could even get a hearing. Kalra said he was concerned that banning marriage for minors could complicate their access to abortion services, and he ultimately never scheduled the bill for a vote.

“Planned Parenthood’s voice matters in that, and in other issues that come before us in the Capitol,” Kalra said in a recent interview, acknowledging the group’s opposition played a role in his decision.

The pattern dates back further. In 2017, then-state Senator Jerry Hill introduced a bill to ban child marriage outright after learning that a 13-year-old girl in his district had become engaged to a 38-year-old man. Hill said he was stunned when the proposal drew opposition rather than broad support.

“I thought, ‘Who could oppose that? Who could say that it was wrong?'” Hill recalled. Instead, the bill became entangled in a larger debate over cultural norms, youth autonomy and reproductive rights. Then-Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, who chaired the Appropriations Committee, refused to advance an outright ban, insisting instead on amendments that preserved marriage rights for 16- and 17-year-olds. That compromise became the law still in effect today.

Gonzalez, now removed from the Legislature, disputes that Planned Parenthood factored into her decision. She said her reluctance stemmed from cases she saw in her own district, where pregnant teenage girls sometimes chose to marry partners close to their own age rather than face other pressures. To her, an outright ban felt like it unfairly targeted families making difficult personal choices.

For survivors like Sara Tasneem, the state’s decades-long inaction had lasting consequences. Tasneem said she was forced into marriage at 15 to a 28-year-old man as part of an arrangement orchestrated by her father, who she said belonged to a Northern California religious group. She said she endured years of abuse and could not seek legal help to leave the marriage until she turned 18, since minors cannot retain an attorney on their own. She eventually left the marriage in 2003, at age 23, taking her two children with her.

Tasneem has since become an advocate for ending child marriage nationwide, work she says stems directly from feeling powerless as a teenager with no legal recourse.

National scrutiny of California’s law intensified last November, when a New York Times opinion piece singled out the ACLU and Planned Parenthood for their roles in blocking similar legislation, noting that even Republican-led states like Arkansas and Louisiana had already tightened their marriage laws.

Fraidy Reiss, executive director of Unchained at Last and herself a survivor of forced marriage at 19 in a New York Orthodox Jewish community, said she is hopeful Newsom will sign the bill despite the long delay in getting it this far.

“Should it have happened a decade earlier? Yes, it should have,” Reiss said. “But at least we’re here now.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Seeks to Ban Child Marriage, But Faces Pushback From Civil Rights Groups appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The findings arrive years after a contentious legislative battle over whether Sacramento should dictate school bell schedules or leave such decisions to individual districts and parents.

The debate had simmered for years among educators, researchers and lawmakers. Nearly everyone agreed that children and teens needed more sleep — the disagreement was over whether the state should force the issue through a mandate or trust local communities to figure it out on their own.

Critics warned that shifting start times later would disrupt sports schedules, after-school programs and the routines of working parents who depend on early drop-offs before heading to their jobs. Former Orange County schools superintendent Al Mijares was among those voicing concern, arguing in a 2019 op-ed for CalMatters that a blanket start-time requirement would hit low-income families the hardest, adding another obstacle for students already facing economic disadvantages.

But supporters pointed to a growing body of research backing later start times. A legislative analysis at the time noted that groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had all flagged the health risks tied to sleep-deprived teenagers attending classes that begin too early. The same analysis noted that pushing back the school day tended to boost both attendance and academic performance.

Lawmakers first approved the change in 2018, only to see it vetoed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, who argued that a one-size-fits-all state mandate wasn’t the right approach, especially since some schools had already adjusted their schedules voluntarily while others preferred to keep earlier start times. He called it a decision better left to local school boards.

The following governor, Gavin Newsom — a father of four — took a different view. When the same legislation landed on his desk in 2019, he signed it, setting in motion a requirement that middle schools begin no earlier than 8 a.m. and high schools no earlier than 8:30 a.m., starting with the 2022-23 academic year.

Even after the law passed, questions lingered about how the shift would actually play out once schools and families adapted to the new schedules. Now, several years in, a newly released study offers some clarity — and the results appear to support the change.

The stakes are notable given that California continues to trail many other states in student achievement.

A team of four researchers analyzed outcomes from 2022 through 2025 and published their findings in May through the National Bureau of Economic Research. Their conclusion: students statewide are sleeping longer, reporting fewer mental health struggles, and showing measurable gains in math and English performance.

The improvements were seen across demographic groups, the study found, but were particularly pronounced among boys and Latino students.

“Rest and sleep are incredibly important in the function of schools,” said Osea Giuntella, one of the study’s authors, in comments to the Los Angeles Times.

For a policy debate that dragged on for years — and divided lawmakers, educators and parents alike — the new data may finally provide the kind of clear-cut answer that was missing when the fight began.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s School Start Time Law Wins Praise for Boosting Student Sleep appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Senate Bill 960, authored by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694, authored by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista, both passed with strong support this week. But the versions that emerged look markedly different from what community college advocates originally championed, prompting statewide college leaders to withdraw their backing in the final stretch.

Newsom has rejected similar proposals in the past, vetoing earlier attempts to expand bachelor’s degree offerings at community colleges. This time, though, his office was involved in shaping the legislation, according to Cabaldon, who told his Senate colleagues this week that it marked a rare moment of cooperation between the Legislature and the governor’s office.

“This is the first time we’ve been able to have a productive conversation between the houses and the executive branch,” Cabaldon said during floor remarks.

Together, the two bills create a new framework for deciding when — and how many — bachelor’s degrees community colleges can offer. Starting in 2028, colleges could add anywhere from two to twelve new degree programs, with the number tied to performance metrics such as certificate completion, degree attainment and transfer rates. No single district could roll out more than three new degrees in a given year, and each proposal would need to demonstrate a clear regional workforce need.

That workforce justification could face a challenge from the California State University system, which has frequently sparred with community colleges over similar proposals. Under the new rules, if Cal State objects, the state’s labor secretary would be brought in to settle the dispute.

The new restrictions would only apply to degrees created after 2028; existing bachelor’s degree programs at community colleges would not be affected. Currently, 49 community colleges statewide offer or are preparing to offer a combined 66 bachelor’s degree programs.

Cabaldon described the legislation as a long-overdue framework that would finally bring clarity to a contentious issue.

“This will bring us peace,” he said in an interview. “That doesn’t mean everyone will agree all the time, but it does mean the endless warfare, the disputes, the fighting and the growing pile of bills will come to an end.”

Community college leaders, however, say the amendments were rushed, confusing and overly complicated — even as they acknowledge lawmakers were attempting to tackle a genuinely difficult problem.

“We’re being asked to… support a process that isn’t fully understood and was revised at the last minute, and that’s not good policymaking,” said Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, which represents college presidents and trustees throughout the state.

Why bachelor’s degrees have become such a flashpoint

The sudden reversal by community college advocates adds another chapter to a debate that has simmered for years.

Community colleges and Cal State have long clashed over which bachelor’s degrees community colleges should be allowed to offer. A 2021 state law was supposed to settle the matter, but disagreements persisted — largely over what counts as program “duplication.” Under that law, community colleges were barred from creating degree programs that already existed at any Cal State or University of California campus, even if that campus was hundreds of miles away.

Critics, including several lawmakers, argued the rule was unfair to community college students who often cannot relocate to attend a distant university. In some cases, community colleges moved forward with new degree programs anyway, despite objections from Cal State, according to reporting by EdSource.

Supporters and opponents of expanding bachelor’s degree access at community colleges continue to cite conflicting data to bolster their arguments.

One recent study found that 29 of California’s 116 community colleges are located at least 25 miles from the nearest public university, effectively isolating roughly 157,000 students who cannot easily relocate or commute to pursue a four-year degree elsewhere.

Some students argue that their local community colleges need the ability to offer bachelor’s degrees because area employers require them — certificates and associate degrees alone often aren’t enough. Yet under current law, those colleges can be blocked from offering such programs simply because a Cal State campus 500 miles away already offers something similar.

At the same time, community colleges statewide continue to post low transfer rates. Only 21% of students who intend to transfer to a four-year university actually do so within four years, according to the state auditor. Some see this as evidence of a broken transfer pipeline that could be fixed by allowing more bachelor’s degree programs. Others argue it shows community colleges aren’t yet equipped to expand their academic offerings, especially since many also struggle with low completion rates for certificates and associate degrees.

How the bills tackle degree duplication

In response to years of gridlock, Alvarez and Cabaldon each introduced comprehensive legislation this year aimed at letting community colleges create bachelor’s degree programs even when similar degrees exist at nearby Cal State campuses. Community colleges initially backed these versions, while Cal State pushed back, favoring streamlined transfer pathways instead — a solution some within the university system saw as protecting enrollment and tuition revenue at a time when several Cal State campuses are already grappling with declining student numbers.

The revised, combined legislation now allows community colleges to propose new bachelor’s degrees even if a nearby Cal State campus offers something similar — but only if that Cal State program has accepted less than 75% of applicants from the neighboring community college for three consecutive years. Colleges would still need to submit workforce need reports and stay within the newly imposed degree caps. That workforce justification could stem from employers struggling to fill positions that require a four-year degree, according to the bill language.

Unlike current law, which offers no formal process for resolving disputes between community colleges and Cal State over duplication, the new system gives the state labor secretary authority to settle disagreements. If the labor secretary sides with the community college, Cal State’s objection is overridden. But there are consequences for losing that fight: if the labor secretary sides with Cal State, the community college district is barred from proposing a similar program for five years.

Community colleges remain fully barred from duplicating degree programs offered at any UC campus unless they receive written consent from the university.

Why community colleges are now pushing back

The newly imposed caps on how many degrees a district may offer have become a major sticking point. Under the bills, districts would be evaluated based on completion rates and how those rates compare to the statewide average.

The legislation “would make a district’s eligibility partly dependent on how it compares to every other district in the state,” according to a letter of opposition sent to Cabaldon and signed by Sonya Christian, chancellor of the California Community Colleges system. A district could improve its own outcomes and still face the same restrictions “or even see its eligibility shift simply because the statewide average changed,” she wrote.

Galizio, of the Community College League, also objects to the proposed caps on new degree creation. He noted in an interview that campuses with lower graduation rates often serve larger populations of low-income students — the very students who stand to benefit most from expanded access to bachelor’s degree programs.

Not every community college leader views the legislation as harmful, however. Jose Fierro, president and superintendent of the Cerritos Community College District, said that based on his college’s completion rates, he expects to be authorized to add six to eight new bachelor’s degree programs beginning in 2028. That, he said, is plenty for now. Cerritos currently offers two bachelor’s degrees and plans to roll out additional programs in 2027.

“We’re not trying to become a university. That’s not our mission. We’re trying to align with industry and provide pathways to social and economic mobility for our students,” Fierro said in an interview.

Still, he acknowledged that what works for his campus may not work system-wide.

“For some of us, this is workable,” he said. “For other colleges, this is going to create some real additional challenges.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Community Colleges Suddenly Balk at Plan to Expand Bachelor’s Degree Offerings appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Despite the opposition, Senate Bill 960, authored by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694, authored by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista, both cleared the Legislature this week with strong support and now await Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature.

Newsom has previously rejected similar proposals to broaden community colleges’ bachelor’s degree offerings. This time, though, his office reportedly helped shape the final language. Cabaldon told fellow senators Monday that the process marked a shift in tone.

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to engage in productive conversation between the houses and the executive branch,” he said during floor remarks.

Together, the two bills would establish a new framework for deciding which community college districts can create bachelor’s programs and how many they’re allowed to offer. Beginning in 2028, colleges could add anywhere from two to 12 new bachelor’s degrees, with the exact number tied to how well their students perform on measures such as certificate completion, degree attainment and transfer rates. No single district could roll out more than three new degrees in a given year, and each proposed program would need to demonstrate a genuine regional workforce demand — a claim the California State University system could challenge. If that happens, the state’s labor secretary would step in to resolve the dispute, a role meant to end the recurring clashes between the two systems over academic turf.

Any new restrictions would only apply to degrees created after 2028. Programs already up and running would be unaffected. Currently, 49 community colleges either offer or are preparing to launch a combined 66 bachelor’s degree programs statewide.

Cabaldon described the legislation as a long-overdue resolution to years of policy gridlock.

“This will give us peace,” he said in an interview. “That doesn’t mean everybody’s going to agree all of the time, but it does mean the endless war and bickering and fighting and more and more legislation will come to an end.”

Yet many community college administrators say the process moved too quickly, leaving key details unclear. Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, which represents college trustees and administrators statewide, said the last-minute nature of the changes undermines confidence in the outcome.

“We’re being asked to support a process that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute, and so that’s just not great policymaking,” Galizio said.

A long-running turf battle

The community college system’s reversal is the latest chapter in a debate that has simmered for years. Historically, the biggest sticking point between community colleges and Cal State has been what’s known as “degree duplication.” A 2021 law barred community colleges from offering a bachelor’s degree if any Cal State or University of California campus already provided a similar program — regardless of how far away that campus might be.

Critics argued the rule was unfair to students who can’t easily relocate for a four-year degree. Some community colleges moved forward with new programs anyway, defying Cal State’s objections, according to reporting by EdSource.

Supporters and opponents of expanding community college bachelor’s programs often cite conflicting evidence to make their case. One recent study found that 29 of California’s 116 community colleges are located at least 25 miles from the nearest public university, effectively leaving roughly 157,000 students without convenient access to a four-year institution.

Some students say that without local bachelor’s degree options, they’re stuck — even though regional employers are asking for degrees beyond an associate’s or certificate. Yet critics point to the community college system’s low transfer rate — only about 21% of students intending to transfer actually do so within four years, according to the California State Auditor. That statistic, some argue, suggests the system needs to fix its transfer pipeline before adding more four-year programs, especially given that many colleges also struggle with low completion rates for existing certificates and associate degrees.

New rules on duplication

To address the standoff, Alvarez and Cabaldon initially crafted broader bills that would have let community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees even when similar ones exist at nearby Cal State campuses. Community college leaders backed those early versions, while Cal State pushed back, favoring smoother transfer pathways into its own bachelor’s programs instead. Some within the Cal State system worry that community college expansion could pull away students and tuition dollars at a time when several campuses are already facing enrollment drops.

The compromise legislation allows community colleges to propose a bachelor’s degree that overlaps with a Cal State program only if that Cal State campus has accepted fewer than 75% of transfer applicants from the community college in question over three consecutive years. Colleges would still need to document workforce demand and stay within the newly created degree caps. Acceptable justification could include local employers struggling to fill jobs that require a bachelor’s degree.

Unlike current law, which offers no formal way to break a deadlock between the two systems, the new bills give the state labor secretary authority to make a final call. If the labor secretary sides with the community college, Cal State’s objection is overridden. But if the ruling favors Cal State, the community college district would be barred from proposing a similar program for five years. Community colleges would generally still be prohibited from duplicating any UC program unless the university system gives written permission.

Pushback over new limits

The biggest objection from community college leaders centers on the newly imposed caps tied to student outcome data. Under the bills, a district’s eligibility to add new degrees would depend in part on how its completion rates stack up against the statewide average — a moving target that could shift even if a district’s own performance improves.

In a letter opposing the legislation, California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian warned that the formula could penalize districts unfairly. “A district could improve its own student outcomes” and still be capped, she wrote, “or even see its eligibility change simply because the statewide average changed.”

Galizio raised a similar concern, noting that colleges with lower completion rates often serve larger populations of low-income students — the same students who could benefit most from access to a four-year degree closer to home.

Not every community college leader views the legislation as a setback. Jose Fierro, president and superintendent of the Cerritos Community College District, expects his district’s completion rates would allow it to add six to eight new bachelor’s programs once the rules take effect in 2028 — more than enough for his college’s immediate plans. Cerritos currently offers two bachelor’s degrees and is preparing to add more by 2027.

“We are not trying to become a university. It’s not our mission,” Fierro said. “We’re trying to align with industry and provide pathways for social and economic mobility for our students.”

Still, he acknowledged that what works for his district may not work everywhere.

“For some of us this is workable,” he said. “For other colleges, this is going to bring some additional challenges.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Community Colleges Reverse Course, Push Back on Plan to Expand Bachelor’s Degree Offerings appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For Gytahnna Loffgren, whose family runs a small solar panel installation business, the letter that arrived in May felt like a nightmare. Her company was being sued for more than $35,000 over claims that its website violated California privacy law.

“We were completely blindsided,” Loffgren told CalMatters. “I’ve never been sued before… you instantly feel like you’ve done something terribly wrong.”

Loffgren’s case is one of thousands filed under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, a decades-old wiretapping law originally written to stop people from tapping telephone lines. Today, it’s being used against small businesses across the state over how their websites track visitors.

The California Legislature passed a bill Friday aimed at curbing these lawsuits, sending it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. Senate Bill 690 is being pitched as relief for beleaguered small-business owners who say they’ve been targeted by opportunistic lawyers. But critics say the legislation is something else entirely: a carefully engineered effort by Silicon Valley to escape accountability, dressed up as a favor to Main Street.

Backing the bill is a lineup of major tech companies, including Meta, Amazon, Google and X. Opposing it are some of the country’s most prominent privacy watchdogs, including the ACLU, the Tech Oversight Project and the National Consumer Law Center.

Those opponents argue that SB 690 is a Trojan horse, built on real frustration from small-business owners but shaped by tech industry lobbyists to serve a much larger purpose — eliminating the ability of everyday consumers to sue tech companies over data tracking violations. In its final form, the bill would strip individuals of the right to sue over these issues, leaving enforcement solely to the state attorney general’s office. It also includes a retroactivity provision that critics warn could unravel major ongoing privacy lawsuits against tech giants.

A spokesperson for the bill’s author, Sen. Anna Caballero, a Merced Democrat, said the goal has always been to stop what she considers frivolous lawsuits.

“Our bill accomplishes what we were able to achieve this year and reflects where we could come to a consensus,” the spokesperson said. “We recognize there is more work to do, and the Legislature will likely need to revisit this issue in a future session to address the remaining concerns.”

How a 1967 wiretapping law became a modern legal weapon

The California Invasion of Privacy Act dates back to 1967, when it was designed to prevent illegal phone-line eavesdropping. A 2015 amendment expanded the law to bar unauthorized use of devices that log routing or signaling information — a provision written with old-school “pen registers” and “trap and trace” devices in mind.

That update inadvertently opened the door for a wave of modern litigation. Attorneys have argued that everyday website tools — cookies, analytics trackers, even the Meta Pixel — function like digital pen registers because they log visitor information such as IP addresses. Over the past four years, lawyers representing targeted businesses estimate more than 4,000 lawsuits have been filed, with thousands more warning letters sent to business owners across the state.

“This is modern ambulance chasing, but it’s worse because at least with ambulance chasing, someone was harmed,” said Jim Monagle, an attorney with Mullen Coughlin who has defended healthcare clients against these claims. “Nobody’s really screaming out about the fact that a portion of their IP address was turned into a different unique ID… It doesn’t affect anyone.”

What makes the law so costly is its built-in penalty: $5,000 per violation, regardless of whether any real harm occurred. For small businesses running standard tools like Google Analytics, that can add up fast, often pressuring owners into costly settlements just to make the lawsuits go away.

Larger companies aren’t immune either. Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times settled a similar class-action case for $3.85 million. Amazon and Meta are both fighting ongoing CIPA-related lawsuits tied to online tracking.

Even federal judges have criticized how the law is being applied. In an October 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria — who oversees cases in the Bay Area — called the 1967 statute a “total mess” when stretched to cover modern internet technology, urging state lawmakers to rewrite the law from scratch.

Supporters of SB 690 say it answers that call, arguing that California’s existing privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, already offers sufficient protection. But legislative analysts have pushed back on that claim. A report prepared for the Assembly Public Safety Committee found that the 2018 consumer privacy law doesn’t allow individuals to sue over routine tracking at all, leaving enforcement to an attorney general’s office that doesn’t have the staffing to monitor every website in the state.

Behind the scenes: a campaign built to look grassroots

Tracing the money behind SB 690 isn’t easy. California’s lobbying disclosure rules require organizations to report quarterly spending, but not how much goes toward any single bill — making it difficult to see exactly who is funding what.

One exception is the Alliance for Legal Fairness, a group created in 2024 specifically to push for changes to the wiretapping law and, eventually, to get SB 690 passed. It was founded by Andrew Kingman, a privacy attorney and lobbyist who also serves as general counsel for the State Privacy and Security Coalition, an influential industry group backed by companies including Amazon, Meta, Google and Mastercard that lobbies on data privacy issues nationwide.

In just two legislative quarters this year, Kingman’s Alliance spent more than $234,000 solely to advance the bill through the Capitol.

To build public support, the coalition identified small-business owners caught up in these lawsuits and encouraged them to testify in Sacramento. Supporters of the bill say it simply restores reasonable limits, pointing out that even some privacy advocacy groups use similar tracking tools on their own websites. But opponents argue the strategy is more calculated than that — using sympathetic small-business stories to build political cover while tech companies avoid direct scrutiny.

The financial muscle behind the bill goes well beyond one advocacy group. Companies including Meta, X Corp, Amazon, Chipotle, Mastercard and Chick-fil-A have collectively spent millions on lobbying in Sacramento this year, with a portion specifically earmarked for shaping SB 690.

Matt Schwartz, a policy analyst with Consumer Reports, said his organization has watched Kingman use a similar approach in privacy fights across “dozens and dozens” of states, making it difficult for lawmakers — let alone the public — to understand who is actually driving the legislation.

“These Big Tech companies rarely come into state legislatures with lobbyists saying that they’re from Meta or Google or Amazon and testify at the committee level with those affiliations out front,” Schwartz said. “Their own brand as giant companies might be too toxic to be out front, so they use smaller organizations as the mouthpiece. At the end of the day, it distorts the process — and it makes it almost impossible for lawmakers to see who’s actually pulling the strings until it’s too late.”

Kingman declined to comment on the record when asked whether his coalition is acting as a proxy for tech industry interests.

What’s really at stake: enforcement power and a retroactive clock

As originally written, SB 690 offered blanket protection for commercial tracking tools against both wiretapping and pen-register claims. After pushback from labor and privacy groups, Caballero narrowed the bill to focus only on pen-register claims, which involve metadata like IP addresses rather than the content of communications.

But as the bill moved through the Legislature, Caballero also added a retroactivity clause and altered how the law would be enforced — changes privacy advocates see as significant victories for the tech industry. They also warn that exempting metadata tracking altogether opens a serious loophole.

“California should be leading on tech regulation, but SB 690 does the exact opposite; it makes it easier for companies to spy on us,” said Jenna Sherman, campaign director at the women’s advocacy group Ultraviolet.

Ultraviolet joined the opposition largely because of the bill’s two-year retroactivity window, which could affect major ongoing cases — including Frasco v. Flo Health Inc., in which a San Francisco jury unanimously found Meta liable for improperly collecting sensitive reproductive health data, including details about users’ menstrual cycles and sexual activity, from the Flo Health period-tracking app without consent.

A judge overseeing that case has signaled Meta could owe as much as $8 billion in damages. The company has appealed the ruling and declined to comment when contacted by CalMatters.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in that case say that if SB 690 had been law when they filed, they never would have been allowed to bring it — enforcement would have rested solely with the state.

That’s the outcome privacy advocates fear most. If Newsom signs SB 690, the five-year legal fight waged by the Flo Health plaintiffs may end up being remembered not as a turning point in data privacy law, but as one of the last times ordinary Californians were able to hold a tech giant accountable in front of a jury.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Silicon Valley Tapped Into Small Business Frustration to Fight California Privacy Law appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A bill that would have tightened rules on how police collect and share license plate data, and added new safeguards against misuse, cleared the state Senate this year but was quietly blocked in the Assembly on Monday, the final day of the legislative session, before it could even reach the floor for a vote. Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguilar-Curry was behind the move, according to legislative records, ending what had appeared to be one of the session’s more promising reform efforts.

It’s become a familiar pattern. Every attempt since 2022 to update state law governing automated license plate readers has stalled or failed outright. Last year, a similar measure actually made it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk — only to be vetoed.

“It’s a really disappointing outcome at a time when there is bipartisan concern about this mass surveillance tool,” said Catherine Crump, co-director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Law and Technology, who testified in favor of the bill this summer.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1013, was authored by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside, and aimed to limit how the more than 230 California police and sheriff’s departments that use license plate readers can deploy the technology. It would have restricted use to locating criminal suspects or missing persons, mandated privacy and cybersecurity training for officers, curbed default sharing with national databases, and required the state attorney general’s office to conduct random audits to catch misuse.

“It’s unfortunate that Senate Bill 1013 did not get the chance to be voted on before the deadline passed, but I look forward to continuing to fight for the privacy rights of Californians next year,” Cervantes said in a statement.

Law enforcement groups, however, argued the bill would have hamstrung a tool they credit with solving crimes, locating missing people and even clearing innocent suspects. Nearly 40 police unions and law enforcement agencies opposed the measure.

“We were concerned that this bill was going to limit the utility of ALPR data to solve crimes, find missing persons, exonerate innocent individuals, and so the fact that it did not pass, we’re glad for that,” said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association.

The debate comes as skepticism toward license plate readers — and in particular the widely used Flock Safety system — is intensifying across the country. Police departments in Los Angeles and Redwood City, along with city leaders in El Cerrito and Campbell, have recently cut ties with Flock. Nationally, more than 200 cities and law enforcement agencies ended their Flock contracts in August alone, the most in any single month since 2021, according to the privacy advocacy group Secure Justice.

That group’s leader, Brian Hofer, has personal experience with the technology’s pitfalls: he was once held at gunpoint by sheriff’s deputies after a license plate reader wrongly flagged his car as stolen.

Supporters of tighter regulation point to a growing list of abuses. Reporting by CalMatters found that Southern California law enforcement agencies have repeatedly shared license plate data with federal immigration authorities in violation of state law. A 2020 state audit and a subsequent investigation by Attorney General Rob Bonta uncovered similar violations, and the state has since contacted 18 agencies about potential breaches of Senate Bill 34, which bars sharing this data with out-of-state or federal agencies. The attorney general’s office has also sued the city of El Cajon over the issue.

Misuse hasn’t been limited to immigration enforcement. The Washington Post has documented roughly 70 cases nationwide of officers exploiting license plate systems to track spouses, stalk ex-partners or pursue romantic interests. One of those cases involved a former Riverside County sheriff’s deputy, Alexander Vanny, who used Flock’s network to stalk his ex-fiancée and was sentenced in February to six years in prison.

Accuracy concerns have also emerged. A Los Angeles Police Department audit released in July found that one in three vehicles flagged as stolen by Flock cameras had been misidentified — a troubling statistic given the potential for dangerous encounters between officers and innocent drivers.

Oakland activist Crystal Zermeño, who joined a protest against the cameras outside City Hall last month, said she worries about the broader implications of unchecked surveillance, including cases elsewhere in the country where the technology has been used to track women seeking abortions. After Cervantes’ bill died, she asked pointedly: “How could we not as a state have the political will to do this in a moment when all of these [federal immigration enforcement] attacks are happening and we have limited defense?”

Even if the bill had reached a floor vote, its fate was uncertain. Lawmakers had already softened key provisions, replacing an original requirement that police delete license plate data after 30 days with a rule allowing them to “archive” it after 60 days — after which a warrant would be needed to access it, unless tied to an active investigation. Law enforcement groups argued that older data has proven useful in solving cold cases, and some, including the state sheriffs’ association, still opposed the bill even after the compromise. Newsom cited the 60-day data retention requirement as one reason he vetoed last year’s version.

For now, California remains without updated rules governing a technology that continues to expand across the state — and continues to generate controversy in communities from the Inland Empire to the coast.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Shelve Bill to Regulate Flock Surveillance Cameras Despite Mounting Public Backlash appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.