The second panel consisted of Barona’s Chairman Raymond Welch, Chairman Vivanco, Chairwoman Erica M. Pinto of the Jamul Indian Village of California, Barona Fire Chief Ken Kremensky and Pechanga Fire Chief Jason Keeling.

“We stand here in the shadow of the 2003 fires that burned 90% of our reservation including 39 homes,” Welch said. “Our history on this 8,000-acre reservation is one of endurance but today that endurance is being tested by an insurance crisis that threatens our financial sovereignty for those of us living in high-risk areas. We now face a fire of a different kind—an economic one. This land is our past and our future. We continue to use our traditional knowledge and modern technology to keep us safe and we will fight to ensure that insurance costs never force a single member to leave their home.”

Vivanco said that through partnerships and the establishment of the Soboba Fire Department, the Soboba reservation’s public protection classification has gone from 3 to 2, which should mitigate the cost of insurance as it helps protect against fires in the area.

The ISO Public Protection Classification (PPC) in California rates fire department effectiveness on a 1-10 scale (1 best, 10 worst) based on dispatch, staffing, water supply, and community risk reduction. Lower scores usually yield lower insurance premiums but that has not been reflected for homeowners living on the Soboba Reservation.

“Our Tribe has been fortunate enough to purchase a bulldozer to create our own fire breaks; we go out yearly and take on that task with our fire department and Public Works crew,” Vivanco said. “We look to this committee and the state for support in helping our endeavors in achieving affordable home insurance so we can continue to build new homes on the lands that we are, I would say, forced to live on.”

As Ramos pointed out in his opening statement, the lands that Tribal communities sit on were not chosen. “Historic state and federal policies forced Indian people to live in the most secluded and rural areas of California,” he said.

“We embrace those lands because they are our communities,” Vivanco said. “We have done the work to create and maintain a safe environment to make sure that our homeowners can go out and hopefully achieve affordable insurance to protect their homes and their resources and yet we are still not seeing that.”

He would like to see the insurance providers visit the reservation and talk to the fire and Public Works departments to see the efforts that have been made to mitigate the risk of fire. “I look forward to further discussions where hopefully we can come to some type of resolution where the state and the Tribes can all be on the same page, working with insurance companies to ensure we have the ability to obtain insurance as it was meant to be,” Vivanco said.

Chairwoman Pinto voiced her concern that as the cost of insurance premiums rise, it strains Tribal budgets and can deter investment in critical infrastructure. “Insurance insecurity also translates to broader social and cultural consequences,” she said. “Home ownership and Tribal community housing are essential to Tribal sovereignty as Tribal housing can anchor cultural continuity, ensure intergenerational knowledge transfer and engender a stable family life. When insurance becomes prohibitively expensive or unavailable, Tribal members may be forced to seek housing outside our communities, undermining efforts to revitalize our Tribal homeland and traditions. Tribal cultural sites, ceremonial spaces and ancestral landscapes require protection that extends beyond simple rebuilding costs.”

Mitigation efforts were outlined by the two fire chiefs that were present. Ramos introduced the third panel members, State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Seren Taylor, who serves as Vice President for the Personal Insurance Federation of California. Lara discussed some of the legislation that is being presented that will hopefully resolve many of the issues brought to light at the hearing. He also suggested more meetings to discuss ongoing problems that Tribes are having with securing affordable insurance.

Vivanco said Soboba was rated in the top 2,000 of the 40,000 communities that were included in the latest PPC report. “We’ve always been taught to be good stewards of our lands that we have and that is part of it, making sure that we can mitigate the risk of fires to protect our reservation at the same time,” he said. He is hoping the insurance companies can appreciate the extra efforts they make and offer quality insurance at a decent rate. “I think that’s what we’re not getting and it’s frustrating because Tribes put in a lot of resources to these efforts,” Vivanco said. “Tribes are doing what’s right and always will.”

Ramos was in total agreement and said the point that was being established is that Tribal governments use their own assets to protect their homes against fires and natural disasters and the mitigation efforts they take on are benefiting the surrounding communities as well. Yet Tribal governments are not given credit for spending their own assets to help mitigate more than just their own lands. Instead, they are penalized with high insurance premiums.

“The purpose of this committee is to gain understanding and make sure California’s First Peoples are included in the equation when we take information back to the state legislature,” Ramos said.

To view the hearing in its entirety, please visit: https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media/assembly-select-committee-native-american-affairs-20260313.

The post Soboba Chairman testifies at State Assembly hearing appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

People often ask me how things have changed at the state Capitol since I began covering news there many decades ago. My latest short answer: Look at the new California Senate leader.

In fact, look at the entire Senate. Actually, the other legislative house, too, the Assembly.

There was only one female legislator when I arrived very young and green in 1961. She was an Assembly member, Democrat Pauline Davis from mountainous Plumas County in the northeast. You can thank her persistence for highway rest stops.

There wasn’t one Latino in the entire 120-member Legislature. The first two in modern times were elected the next year.

Today, the new Senate president pro tem — Democrat Monique Limón of Goleta in Santa Barbara County — is the upper house’s first Latina leader and the first mother who is leader of the Senate. And there are more female senators than males, 21 to 19.

The Assembly’s getting there, too. Women hold 38 of the lower house’s 80 seats. In all, 49% of all legislators are women — 59 of them.

A woman wasn’t elected to the Senate until 1976 when conservative Democrat Rose Ann Vuich, a farm owner, won a seat from Dinuba in the San Joaquin Valley. Vuich made it clear she was “not a part of the women’s liberation movement.” But whenever a male colleague rose to address the “gentlemen of the Senate,” she reminded them of her presence by ringing a small bell.

Even by 1980, only 9% of California legislators were women. The first Latina senator — Democrat Hilda Solis, now a Los Angeles County supervisor — wasn’t elected until 1994. Now, there are 13 Latina senators, including three Republicans.

The first female Senate president pro tem, Toni Atkins of San Diego, was elected leader in 2018. She’s also the only person to have been chosen as both Assembly speaker and Senate pro tem.

There have been three female Assembly speakers, including current L.A. Mayor Karen Bass. The first was Republican Doris Allen of Orange County in 1995, a puppet of departing Democratic Speaker Willie Brown. She was quickly recalled by her constituents.

Six of the last 10 speakers have been Latinos. But before Limón, there was only one Latino Senate leader: Democrat Kevin de León of Los Angeles.

OK, all this history may be interesting. But so what? What difference has it made to California citizens?

“A couple of areas have been the most profound,” says veteran Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), who served in the Assembly in the 1990s and was elected to the Senate in 2018.

“Healthcare and child care. When I first came, I don’t remember child care being a big-deal issue. I certainly don’t remember access to healthcare being an issue. The presence of women has highlighted those things.”

I asked the new Senate leader. Women have provided the Legislature with more “diversity of experiences,” Limón answers. And child care has been made more than just a women’s issue, she adds. “It’s an economic issue. It enables workers to go to their jobs.”

But Latinos? How has their vast increase at the Capitol helped California Latinos?

Not much, complains Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist who has written a book on Latino politics.

“It’s been more about representation than results,” Madrid says. “Representation is not enough. The metrics are worse now than they were years ago: poverty rates, home ownership, 50% of Latino children on Medi-Cal.”

Madrid says Latino politicians have been too focused on immigration issues and not nearly enough on what their constituents really care about: economic opportunity and living costs.

What needs to be done for Latinos? ”Housing, housing, housing,” Madrid says. “Why aren’t Latinos leading this fight?”

Madrid notes that recent reforms of the much-abused California Environmental Quality Act, which has stymied housing development, were pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and white legislators.

Limón says she and Democrats are currently focused on a proposed $10-billion housing bond they’re trying to place on the June primary election ballot. It would help finance housing construction for low-income people. But apparently not the middle class.

Limón, 46, the daughter of Mexican immigrants, has a much calmer personality than many of her rough-hewn male predecessors.

She’s “kind, generous and sweet,” Sen. Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento) told the Sacramento Bee.

But her demeanor masks an inner toughness. You don’t rise to Senate leadership — second only to the governor in raw power — by being a gentle wimp.

At her recent oath-taking ceremony in the Senate chamber, Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City) called Limón in Spanish a “badass.”

Limón appointed Ashby the Senate majority leader, the second in command. Menjivar was named Democratic Caucus chair, a post Limón previously held.

A liberal progressive, Limón was the Democrats’ overwhelming choice for the top job, Umberg says, because “she seems to be fair, a critical quality in a pro tem. She has intestinal fortitude and will stand up to institutional interests. She cares about the [legislative] institution and is pragmatic.”

Longtime Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) says, “She’s easy to get along with, but she’s outcome-oriented.”

No male bothered to run for Senate leader, Laird says, because the men mostly felt the selection of a woman was inevitable since they now hold the house majority. Limón beat out two other women: Ashby and Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach).

Limón named Laird chairman of the crucial Budget Committee. But she appointed women as chairs of the five deep-diving budget subcommittees.

Other major committees will be headed by a gender mix. For example, women were named chairs of Appropriations, Education, Environmental Quality, Governmental Organization and Health. Men will lead such key panels as Energy, Housing, Insurance, Judiciary (Umberg), Public Safety and Revenue and Taxation.

We won’t know for months how any of this will turn out substantively. But it’s the continuation of a big shift toward more female power in California’s Capitol.

The post New California Senate leader Monique Limón, ‘kind, generous’ and a ‘badass’ appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

He was told he would only get two minutes to speak, so he spent hours writing and rehearsing exactly what he wanted to say. But after getting on the road at 4 a.m. for the six-hour drive to Sacramento from Los Angeles County, Morrison didn’t get to say a single word because previous speakers talked for too long.

The committee’s Democratic chairperson, Sen. Caroline Menjivar of Van Nuys, ended testimony in support of the bill after five minutes.

“In a way, this kind of articulated the stigma of addiction. … I’m at the bottom of the line, you know?” Morrison said. “It was just kind of very disheartening.”

Morrison’s experience is hardly unique in the California Legislature as lawmakers try to jam through the more than 2,000 bills lawmakers have introduced so far this year. Over the past two months, CalMatters journalists witnessed more than a dozen examples of committee leaders cutting speakers off midway through their remarks or prohibiting them from talking at all because other people went over the few minutes that members of the public are given to testify.

Lawmakers say the rules are necessary to accommodate the armies of paid lobbyists, political activists and members of the public who flood the Capitol each year to jockey for and against legislation. Lawmakers say they do their best to ensure everyone gets their say while aiming to keep hearings from dragging on well into the night.  

“Some bills you get dozens of people. Some bills you get over 100 people,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman, a Democrat representing the Palo Alto area who oversees the Business and Professions Committee. “There is a real attempt to be fair on both sides and to everybody.”

The public comment limits are yet another symptom of lawmakers rushing through thousands of bills in the few months they’re in session in Sacramento – and usually waiting until right before key deadlines to push through the largest volume of bills.

‘Me too’ speakers get only seconds

To try to fit in all those wishing to speak, most members of the public who show up at the Capitol can only express their positions through what’s known as the “me too” portion of a hearing.

After the lead witnesses in support or opposition of a bill each get to deliver two minutes of testimony, others approach the microphone and state their name, organization and whether they support or oppose it. In 2023, legislative leaders stopped allowing people to offer their comments remotely via Zoom as they had during the pandemic. 

Lobbyists and other insiders usually know the drill and keep their “me toos” to a couple of seconds so the committee leaders don’t cut them off. 

But regular people who might not be familiar with the process regularly get shut down if they speak beyond a few seconds.

That happened to Albert Titman, Sr., a Native American man from the Sacramento area. He came to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee in late April to tell lawmakers why they should oppose a cannabis tax bill he thinks would harm disadvantaged tribal communities. 

But he wasn’t designated as a lead witness, so when he tried to speak during the “me too” portion of the hearing, Berman, the committee chairperson, told him to wrap it up.

“Now we’re just at the name, organization and position,” Berman reminded him as Titman grew frustrated.

“There’s not one Native person here,” Titman shot back. “Not one Native person.”

Capitol security ushered Titman away from the mic.

“They shut me down, just pretty much telling me to shut up, you know?” Titman said in an interview. “I wanted to actually sit up there and present my argument, but they wouldn’t allow me.”

Berman said later that he “felt very bad” for how things went with Titman, and he noted he did give Titman a little more time than the other “me too” speakers had. But Berman said he was obligated to keep the hearing moving. If a committee runs too long, it can delay the subsequent committees scheduled to use the same room.

“I try to have a little flexibility, but you can’t let somebody talk for, you know, a minute who’s really just supposed to be providing their name, organization or affiliation and support or opposition to the bill,” he said. “Every time is a dance, and it’s not easy.”

Kathi Zollinger, a volunteer with the Lake Tahoe-based BEAR League, didn’t have security called on her last month when she approached the mic and tried to say why she opposed a  bear-hunting bill.

But she was still taken aback when Diane Papan, the Democratic chairperson of the Assembly Parks and Wildlife Committee, cut her off mid-sentence. 

The post They drove for hours to speak in the Capitol. California lawmakers cut them off appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The letter, which was signed by more than three-quarters of state lawmakers, said they are “deeply alarmed” by a growing list of cuts to the federal early childhood program under the Trump administration — including the threat of total elimination — and asked that Congress “reject any proposals that weaken or eliminate Head Start.”

“That is probably the most bipartisan letter and issue that we have worked on in years, and it is all to protect and save our Head Start program,” Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens (D-Sunnyvale) said at a news conference. At least 17 Republican legislators, many representing rural areas, the Central Valley and Orange County, signed the letter.

Head Start also enjoys overwhelming public support across the political spectrum, with 74% of President Trump’s voters in support of the program, according to an April survey of more than 1,000 registered voters nationwide. The poll by the firm UpOne Insights was conducted on behalf of First Five Years Fund, which lobbies Congress on early childhood education.

California receives $1.5 billion annually for Head Start. The program provides child care, education, medical care and nutritious meals to more than 80,000 low-income children from birth through age 5 in the state and employs about 26,000 workers.

Because of recent cuts and threats, nearly 1,000 Head Start employees in California have already received pink slips, Ahrens said.

Two of the legislators who spoke at the conference — Ahrens and Assemblymember Heather Hadwick (R-Alturas) — had attended Head Start programs themselves. “I still distinctly remember eating fresh fruit for the first time in my life, because the Head Start program offers free breakfast,” Ahrens said.

In rural districts, such as Modoc, Siskiyou, and Lassen counties, “Head Start isn’t just one option among many. A lot of times, it’s the only option,” said Hadwick, who represents these areas. “I fully believe that we need to cut our budget and cut the waste. I just hope that we don’t do it on the backs of low-income, working families and our children.”

“Access to reliable early education supports parents to work or pursue training, and early childhood jobs —many held by women of color — support community well-being and economic mobility,” the legislators wrote in the letter. Already, a shortage of child-care access “is estimated to cost California “$17 billion in lost productivity and economic output” annually, they wrote, and cuts to Head Start would “exacerbate this loss.”

Last month, an early version of Trump’s budget proposed eliminating the Head Start program entirely. That proposal appeared to have been withdrawn in the “skinny” presidential budget plan released last week, but the administration has undercut the program repeatedly.

In January, an executive order to temporarily freeze all federal financial aid left Head Start staff suddenly unable to access the funds they had been promised. In February, scores of federal staffers were laid off at the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Head Start in Washington, D.C. And in April, the administration announced that five of the 12 regional offices managing relationships with Head Start grantees would be closed immediately and all employees laid off, including Region 9, which covers four states, including California.

The post California legislators are protesting Trump’s cuts to Head Start — even Republicans appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

On the first day of the California Legislature’s new session, Assemblymember Kate Sanchez, an Orange County Republican, introduced a bill that would ban transgender high school students from competing on girls’ sports teams.

“Young women who have spent years training, sacrificing and earning their place to compete at the highest level are now being forced to compete against individuals with undeniable biological advantages,” Sanchez, of Rancho Santa Margarita, said in a video posted to social media.

“It’s not just unfair,” she added. “It’s disheartening and dangerous.”

Sanchez’s proposed law, called the Protect Girls’ Sports Act, is almost certain to fail in a Legislature controlled by a Democratic supermajority with a record of embracing inclusion for LGBTQ+ Californians.

But her introduction of it — notably, as her first bill of the session — underscores the persistent Republican emphasis on transgender issues, which continue to shape policy debates in California, where Democratic leaders have cast the state as a bulwark against President-elect Donald Trump, whose opposition to trans rights was central to his campaign.

Sacramento Democrats have blasted Sanchez’s bill as a political stunt, saying it is an unnecessary attack against transgender youth, who make up a tiny portion of California’s school-age population.

Assemblymember Chris Ward, chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, said in a statement that the caucus, whose members are all Democrats, “will not stand by as anyone attempts to use kids as political pawns.”

“Attacking kids is a failed 2024 issue,” said Ward (D-San Diego). “We are surprised the Assembly member introduced her first bill targeting a very small, vulnerable population of kids rather than using the opportunity to address key issues of affordability, housing and more that are impacting Californians.”

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, which researches public policy around sexual orientation and gender identity, estimates that about 1.4% of American teenagers ages 13-17 — about 300,000 individuals nationwide — identify as transgender. Fewer play sports.

While polls show that most Americans support protecting LGBTQ+ people from discrimination, they are deeply divided on issues involving queer children, especially kids who identify as transgender or nonbinary.

In a nationwide poll conducted last year for The Times by NORC at the University of Chicago, about two-third of adult respondents said transgender girls and women should never or only rarely be allowed to participate on female sports teams.

“Regardless of where Sacramento Democrats are on this issue, they’ll need to face facts,” Sanchez said in a statement to The Times, noting public opinion on the issue.

On the other side of the political aisle, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) last week introduced the Transgender Privacy Act, which would automatically seal all court records related to a person’s gender transition in an effort to protect them from being outed or harassed.

“The incoming Trump Administration and Republican Congressional leadership have made clear that targeting and erasing trans people is among their highest policy priorities, and California must have our trans community members’ backs,” Wiener said in a statement about his Senate Bill 59.

Sanchez’s Assembly Bill 89, would require the California Interscholastic Federation, which regulates high school sports for public and private schools, to enact rules prohibiting any “pupil whose sex was assigned male at birth from participating on a girls’ interscholastic sports team.” It does not stop transgender boys from playing on boys’ teams or specify how the CIF would verify students’ gender.

California education code explicitly says students must be allowed to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including team sports, and must be permitted to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed those rights into law in 2013.

Sanchez’s bill comes after several recent high-profile fights across California over trans girls and women playing high school and college sports.

In November, a Christian high school in Merced withdrew its girls’ volleyball team from a state playoff match against a San Francisco team with a transgender player.

This fall, the San José State women’s volleyball team was embroiled in controversy after current and former players and an associate coach tried to have a trans player removed from the roster by filing a federal lawsuit. A judge later ruled the player could compete.

In November, two female high school students sued the Riverside Unified School District, alleging a transgender girl unfairly ousted one of them from a spot on the varsity cross-country team. The federal lawsuit also claims that when the girls protested the situation — by wearing T-shirts that read, “Save Girls Sports,” and, “It’s common sense. XX [does not equal] XY” — school officials compared it to wearing a swastika in front of a Jewish student.

The suit claims that the district’s policies unfairly restrict the girls’ freedom of expression and deny them fair and equal access to athletic opportunities.

Two Republican Assembly members from the Inland Empire, Bill Essayli and Leticia Castillo, called on the district’s superintendent to resign over her handling of the issue.

In 2023, Essayli, whose district borders Sanchez’s, co-sponsored a bill that would have required school employees to notify parents if their child identified as transgender at school. Critics argued the bill would out and potentially endanger trans kids, while violating student privacy protections under California law. The bill died in committee, but similar policies sprouted up on school boards in conservative parts of the state, showing how a Republican idea that gets squelched in the state Capitol can still drive debate on an issue.

In July, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 1955, which prohibits schools from mandating that teachers notify families about student gender identity changes.

Daisy Gardner, an outreach director for Our Schools USA, a nonprofit that supported AB 1955, called Sanchez’s bill and Republicans’ focus on transgender athletes “a very powerful organizing tool from the far right.”

The parent of an LGBTQ+ student who said she was speaking for herself, not on behalf of Our Schools USA, Gardner called Sanchez’s bill “a media stunt designed to whip up fear and hatred of trans people so that the far right can flip California red in 2026, and the casualties are trans lives.”

Gardner has been in contact with parents of two transgender high school athletes in the Riverside Unified School District amid the recent controversy and read a statement on behalf of one of the girl’s family during a raucous school board meeting last month.

“They are in pure hell,” she said of the parents. “They don’t know how to protect their kids.”

Matt Rexroad, a longtime California political consultant, said that while urban Democrats might be scratching their heads over Sanchez introducing this long shot bill on such a hot-button issue, it makes sense for her suburban district, which is “one of the more conservative areas of California.”

“It’s a good political issue for certain parts of California,” Rexroad said. “Clearly, Scott Wiener is not going to introduce this bill or vote for it, but not all of his bills pass either.”

Sanchez, he said, “is representing the views of her constituents.”

At least one of her constituents, though, was so angry about the Protect Girls’ Sports Act that she called Sanchez’s office and grilled a staffer about the specifics, like how a child’s gender would be verified.

Michele McNutt, a former Democrat who just changed her party registration to no-party-preference, said she was not satisfied with the staffer’s answers and called the bill “performative.”

“If it fails, they can frame it as, ‘California hates parents,’” said McNutt, whose two teenage daughters are student athletes in the Capistrano Unified School District. “I think the theater is the point, and it really isn’t about protecting girls’ sports.”

The post Republican bill would ban transgender girls from high school sports in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday called newly elected state lawmakers to work as soon as they’re sworn in on Dec. 2 for a special session to “safeguard California values” as the state prepares — again — to be a liberal antagonist to the upcoming Trump administration. 

In other words: Gear up for lawsuits. 

In a proclamation declaring the special session, Newsom said he wants the Legislature to approve funding for the Department of Justice and other state agencies to “immediately file affirmative litigation.”

Legislative sources said the special session is intended to be narrowly focused on providing legal resources to the attorney general’s office — perhaps as much as $100 million — to fight the Trump administration. The goal is to appropriate the money before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in on Jan. 20, though given how many new members are joining the Legislature, they may not be ready to act until early January.

As priorities for California’s opposition, Newsom listed civil and reproductive rights, climate change, Trump’s threats to withhold disaster relief dollars and the potential repeal of deportation protections for immigrants who were brought to the country without authorization as children.

“The freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack — and we won’t sit idle,” Newsom said in a statement. “California has faced this challenge before, and we know how to respond.”

It appears that Trump won’t sit idle either. A day after Newsom’s announcement, the president-elect posted on his Truth Social account that “Governor Gavin Newscum is trying to KILL our Nation’s beautiful California” and “stopping all of the GREAT things that can be done to ‘Make California Great Again.’”

Trump suggested he would go after “INSANE POLICY DECISIONS,” such as how California distributes its water and the higher mileage requirements for vehicles sold here, and demand voter identification in future elections, providing an early map for likely clashes between the state and his administration.

The Democratic leaders and budget committee chairpersons in both houses of the Legislature are on board with the special session, expressing support for Newsom’s proclamation, but no detailed proposal has yet been introduced. The special session would start Dec. 2 when the new Legislature convenes, though lawmakers wouldn’t necessarily pass any bills immediately. 

“We learned a lot about former President Trump in his first term — he’s petty, vindictive, and will do what it takes to get his way no matter how dangerous the policy may be,” Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, a Santa Rosa Democrat, said in a statement. “California has come too far and accomplished too much to simply surrender and accept his dystopian vision for America.” 

Republican lawmakers quickly denounced the governor’s order as divisive political theater that does nothing to address the real problems facing Californians and merely boosts what many interpret as Newsom’s own future presidential aspirations.

Assembly Republican leader James Gallagher called the session a “shameless political stunt.” “The only ‘problem’ it will solve is Gavin Newsom’s insecurity that not enough people are paying attention to him,” he said in a statement. “There will not be a single policy implemented in this special session that couldn’t be addressed when the Legislature reconvenes in January.”

But Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat who leads the Assembly Budget Committee, said the state needs to move quickly to be ready if the Trump administration follows through on threats to withhold federal funding from California or other policies attacking the state.

“In litigation, speed matters and preparation matters,” he told CalMatters. “This is an important idea.”

Gabriel — an attorney who, before running for office, represented immigrants who sued the Trump administration over its move to end a program shielding them from deportation — said many legislators also feel a personal duty to address the fear and anxiety they are hearing from their constituents about the outcome of the election.

“They can tell you they want you to focus on everyday, kitchen table issues that matter to working families and at the same time, fight back,” he said. “We’re going to have to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Attorney General Rob Bonta told CalMatters last week that his office is already writing legal briefs in preparation for lawsuits against possible Republican attempts to ban abortion nationwide, overturn California’s commitment to zero-emission vehicles and repeal the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for immigrants.

During the last Trump administration, California sued the federal government more than 100 times over its regulations. Most of those lawsuits were successful.

“We bring cases when we believe we will win,” Bonta said at a press conference Thursday. “We will be asking for sufficient resources to fight back against the attacks that we expect from the Trump administration.” 

This is the third special session that Newsom has called since October 2022. The two previous ones focused on gas prices and the oil industry, including one that just wrapped up last month.

The post Newsom calls special session to ‘Trump-proof’ California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Unfortunately, the proposal still relies on too many budget gimmicksand fund shifts. The Newsom plan also underestimates the severity of the current budget shortfall that must be addressed. Making matters worse, growing economic headwinds, including the tech industry laying off over 81,000 people and California’s subpar personal income growth, raises concerns that the deficit will continue to widenthroughout the year.

The focus on budget responsibility obscures some troubling trends. For example, while focusing on administrative efficiencies, the Governor fails to demand efficiencies in the programs that can yield substantial long-term budgetary savings.

Consider the Administration’s own admission at an Assembly Budget Committee hearing this week that they have no idea whether billions in Project Homekey homelessness expenditures have worked. Taxpayers deserve better with California facing a massive shortfall.

The May Revise also focuses too much on one-time budgetary savings, budget gimmicks, and fund shifts in the hope of restoringspending once revenues have returned to “normal.” But what Gov. Newsom calls normal are the unsustainable revenue surges that are inevitably followed by revenue crashes.

Spending these revenue surges has caused the growth in state expenditures to outpace growth in residents’ incomes. A budget that temporarily reduces spending and plays budgetary games only to continue the Governor’s profligate spending ways sets the state budget up for a future budget crisis.

This approach also wastes the important breathing room that the rainy-day fund reserve is supposed to provide – blowing through half the fund’s balance this year and next while failing to put the state on a sustainable budget path.

Basic budget arithmetic demonstrates that there are three options going forward – greater spending restraint, increased borrowing, or higher taxes.

There are many other ways to reduce spending including making more proposed one-time spending cuts permanent and further reducing Proposition 98 education spending. These reductions are by no means easy or costless, although the sheer amount of ineffective spending by the state (such as Project Homekey spending) demonstrates the many opportunities for the state to do better with less.

More budgetary borrowing, which took the state years to pay off when widely used in the 2000’s, is simply another way of kicking the problem down the road.  Nor is now the time to embrace billions in new borrowing for housing, the environment, schools, or other priorities we cannot afford.

This leaves the tax increase option. While he rejects tax increases this year, not making sufficient additional cuts this year makes future tax increases more likely.

Remember the 2009 budget crisis.  Politicians of both parties embraced budgets during the 2007-09 economic meltdown thatavoided tough spending choices and set the state up for a devastating 2009 budget that included billions in painful cuts to important programs and billions in tax increases.  

Like today, problems were evident well before the 2008-09 budget crisis. The failure to take sufficient actions caused credit rating agencies to downgrade California’s rating five times. Lower credit ratings increased borrowing costs, making addressing the problem more expensive.

Only after the crisis was undeniable, did politicians finally implement actual painful budget solutions that included nearly $60 billion in budget actions. These efforts required actual declines in year over year spending in excess of 15 percent relative to 2007.

The 2009 budget crisis should have taught our political leaders that spending gimmicks and blind hope turns today’s troubles into a worsecrisis tomorrow.

Now action on the Newsom budget turns to the Legislature.  One major question looms – will liberal lawmakers who never met a spending increase they didn’t like embrace cuts – even temporary ones – to CalWORKs, childcare and environmental programs?  Not likely.

Californians are now watching to see if Gov. Newsom and legislative leaders have learned their lesson and will pass a final state budget that reins in the state’s excessive spending sooner rather than later.

The post May Revise sets up California for painful spending choices and tax increases appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The governor’s proposed budget would cut one-time spending by $19.1 billion and ongoing spending by $13.7 billion through fiscal year 2025-2026, according to the fact sheet. It would enact a nearly 8% cut to state operations, eliminating 10,000 unfilled positions.

The sheet said the governor plans to balance the budget by “getting state spending under control — cutting costs, not proposing new taxes.” He also wants to do this by “reducing reliance on the state’s ‘Rainy Day’ reserves this year.”

The true deficit number may actually be closer to $45 billion, as the administration subtracted a $17.3 billion package of budget fixes Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, agreed to in April.

The administration acknowledged it had cut the $17.3 billion from the overall shortfall number in a fact sheet released just before the governor’s press conference Friday.

It was immediately unclear how exactly the administration calculated the deficit, aside from subtracting the legislative agreement.

Newsom pegged the spending gap at $38 billion in January, although the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office later suggested it could be as high as $73 billion.

California’s fiscal year-over-year revenues were $5.8 billion or 4% below Department of Finance forecasts as of March, indicating the overall deficit likely grew.

Budget-watchers had predicted Newsom’s strategy in advance, suggesting he may present a rosier shortfall number by incorporating a handful of previously planned fixes.

The governor’s revised budget announcement kicks off a month of negotiations involving his administration, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg.

The Legislature must pass a budget by June 15 for lawmakers to continue getting paid. The new fiscal year begins on July 1, meaning Newsom has to sign budget legislation by the end of the month.

Just two years ago, the governor was celebrating a budget with a large surplus. This allowed him to invest in a series of bigger policy initiatives, including transitional kindergarten, or pre-kindergarten, Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants and CARE Court to compel treatment for the seriously mentally ill.

The state in January enacted the final piece of its expansion of Medi-Cal — California’s version of the federal Medicaid program — allowing all those who income-quality to enroll, regardless of immigration status.

But the post-COVID-19 pandemic economy hit California hard. That’s because the state is heavily dependent on its highest-income earners due to its graduated tax structure, the tourist industry was hit hard and supply chains were disrupted.

Federal efforts toeaseinflation by raising interest rates have cooled industries sensitive to rate hikes. This has affected some activities, such as home buying and startup and tech investing.

Also hamstringing the state’s efforts to gauge the government’s economic condition, those involved in crafting the state’s 2023-2024 budget were unable to get the most accurate picture of the state’s finances until November, long after lawmakers and the governor had agreed to a spending plan.

The delay was caused by a large number of Californians who could delay filing their 2023 taxes until November due to deferrals the IRS granted to those affected by winter storms. The situation helped complicate the state’s financial outlook heading into 2024.

Newsom in 2023 and in January committed to some cuts while preserving his major initiatives and social safety net programs.

The post Gavin Newsom releases $288 billion revised budget for California. How he tackled the big deficit appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California doesn’t really need 2,600 new laws, right?

Nevertheless, state lawmakers proposed 500 new bills on Friday, the 2023 session’s introduction deadline, bringing the total to about 2,600. That’s the most in more than a decade, according to veteran Capitol lobbyist Chris Micheli. More than 1,000 are “placeholder” bills without specific language. Reminder: More bills are typically introduced in odd-numbered years, the first year of the Legislature’s two-year sessions.

Last year, when about 2,000 bills were introduced, the Legislature passed almost 1,200 of them — and nearly 1,000 became law with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature, including ones on wage transparency and housing.

Some of the new bills tackle California’s hot-button issues. Assembly Bill 3 by new Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a Democrat from Bakersfield, would increase oil production in California just as the state aims to scale back fossil fuels to battle climate change. Her bill, proposed in the special session called by Gov. Gavin Newsom on an oil profits penalty, would require 60% of all crude oil refined in California to be produced in the state in 2030 and 50% in 2035. California now produces only about 30% of its crude oil, while the rest is imported from South America, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dave Min, a Democrat from Costa Mesa, introduced Senate Bill 559 to end offshore oil drilling in California’s waters.

Another hot topic: the fentanyl crisis, which has spurred nearly two dozen bills introduced since December. Last week, bills were introduced by Republican Assemblymember Jim Patterson, from Fresno, and Democratic Assemblymember Carlos Villapudua, from Stockton. Both bills seek to increase the penalties for selling the drug. And Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland, introduced SB 287, which would make social media platforms liable for promoting the illegal sale of fentanyl to minors.

Here are a handful of other key bills introduced last week to beat the deadline:

Housing and homelessness

• AB 799, by Assemblymember Luz Rivas: Creates an accountability framework for cities, counties and organizations receiving state funds;

• AB 1418, by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor: Bans penalties for tenants who have interactions with law enforcement;

• AB 1700, by Assemblymember Josh Hoover: Limits the use of noise and population growth as factors violating CEQA, the state’s environmental review law.

Health care

• AB 1690, by San Jose Assemblymember Ash Kalra: Revives the effort to create a single payer health care system, though it won’t be fleshed out until next session;

• SB 385, by Sen. Toni Atkins, from San Diego: Allows physician assistants to perform first-trimester abortions.

Workers’ rights

• SB 497, by Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, from Los Angeles: Strengthens protections for workers from retaliation by employers;

• SB 525, by Sen. María Elena Durazo, also from Los Angeles: Revives the effort to increase the minimum wage for some healthcare workers to $25 an hour;

• AB 1672 by San Francisco Assemblymember Matt Haney: Creates a framework to address labor disputes between employee organizations who represent independent in-home caregivers and the state.

Fast food fight: With a landmark law to regulate wages and working conditions in the fast food industry on hold until voters decide its fate in November 2024, California lawmakers will try again to hold franchise chains, including McDonald’s and Burger King, responsible for alleged labor violations in their restaurants.

Assemblymember Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat, introduced Assembly Bill 1228 to establish joint labor law liability for fast food franchise owners. Last year, he agreed to strip it out of his fast food bill to sway detractors in the Legislature. CalMatters found that joint liability in other industries — such as extending legal responsibility from janitorial and gardening contractors to the companies that hire them — has been a key part of California’s efforts to combat wage theft and other labor violations.

But fast food franchise corporations have long avoided liability in federal and state labor law. Labor advocates say the current business model allows these companies to squeeze profits from franchise locations while distancing themselves from how employees are treated. Franchise and business groups say extending liability would upend the franchise owners’ independence as employers. The International Franchise Association released a statement saying the bill would cause business opportunities to dry up in California.

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

The post In California Legislature, 500 bills beat the deadline appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Painting alarming scenes of fires, floods and economic disruption, the California Legislature’s advisors released a series of reports that lays out in stark terms the impacts of climate change across the state.

The typically reserved, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office outlined dire consequences for Californians as climate change continues to alter most aspects of daily life. Much of the focus of the six-part series is detailing the economic cost as the changing climate alters where and how Californians build, grow food and protect the most vulnerable residents.

• Wildfires, heat and floods will force more frequent school closures, disrupting education, child care and availability of free school lunches. More than 1,600 schools temporarily closed because of wildfires each year between 2017 and 2020, affecting nearly a million students a year.

• Workers in outdoor industries like agriculture, construction, forestry and recreation — 10% of California’s workforce and mostly made up of Latinos — will continue to bear the brunt of extreme heat and smoke .

• Wildfire smoke may have killed about 20 people among every 100,000 older Californians in 2020, and is projected to become more deadly. A 50% increase in smoke could kill nine to 20 more people among every 100,000 each year.

• Housing, rail lines, bridges, ports, power plants, freeways and other structures are vulnerable to rising seas and tides . “Between $8 billion and $10 billion of existing property in California is likely to be underwater by 2050, with an additional $6 billion to $10 billion at risk during high tide.”

• Extreme heat is projected to cause nine deaths per 100,000 people each year, “roughly equivalent to the 2019 annual mortality rate from automobile accidents in California.”

• Lower-income Californians, who live in communities at greater risk for heat and floods because of discriminatory housing practices , will be hit especially hard by climate change and have fewer resources to adapt.

• Housing will be lost: For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area alone, 13,000 existing housing units and 104,000 job spaces “will no longer be usable” because of sea rise over the next next 40 to 100 years.

• Beaches will disappear, too: Up to two-thirds of Southern California beaches may become completely eroded by 2100. The report’s unsaid but unambiguous conclusion: Climate change could alter everything, and spare no one in California, so legislators should consider preparing for sweeping impacts.

“These hazards will threaten public health, safety, and well-being — including from life-threatening events, damage to public and private property and infrastructure, and impaired natural resources,” the analysts say in their report.

The pain, and costs, will be shared among state, regional, local, private and industry sectors, according to the report.

Scientists say it’s not too late to stop the most severe effects, although the clock is ticking. Technologies and other solutions already exist to reduce greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and other sources and prevent more irreversible harm, according to a landmark international scientific report released Monday. But international accords and plans continue to fall far short, with emissions expected to keep increasing.

California’s legislative analysts did not conduct new research; instead, they compiled existing data and projections, providing a comprehensive clearinghouse for legislators as they enact policies and approve budgets.

State Sen. Bob Wieckowski, a Democrat from Fremont and chair of the budget subcommittee on resources, environmental protection and energy, said he plans to turn to the reports as references and rationale for the subcommittee’s budget proposals.

“It’s impressive,” he said. “(It) turns the climate conversation into an all-hands-on-deck versus, ‘Oh, this is just some tree hugger over here.’”

The analysts make no explicit policy recommendations but they advise legislators to consider such questions as: How can the state avoid exacerbating climate impacts? How can lawmakers protect the most vulnerable Californians? And how should California pay to prepare and respond to climate change?

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon , a Democrat from South Gate, asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office to assess the impacts of climate change on a variety of policy sectors, and the reports grew from there. They frame climate change as a complex, multi-disciplinary problem that requires response from all of the state’s agencies. Project manager Rachel Ehlers said the aim is to assist lawmakers incorporate climate change into decisions outside of traditionally environmental realms, including housing, health and education. For instance, would a new housing policy “have the potential to inadvertently worsen climate change impacts?” she said.

Last year’s budget package reflected the overarching scope of the problem, proposing to spend $9.3 billion over three years to bolster the state’s responses to drought, floods, fire and sea level rise.

The reports come in the lead-up to California Gov. Gavin’s Newsom’s May revision to his January budget blueprint, when the administration can reframe and update its proposals. Thus far, the proposed budget included more than $22 billion for climate change efforts that include protecting communities against wildfires and extreme heat.

Despite the state’s climate-forward reputation, critics and many legislators note that California’s follow-through has been inconsistent.

“I don’t at all feel that we are leading the world anymore,” Rendon , a Democrat from South Gate, told CalMatters last year. Although the state passed a $15 billion climate budget , California Environmental Voters, an advocacy group, gave California its first “D” grade for what it called its climate inaction last year.

“We’re plagued by ‘climate delayers’ in Sacramento – members of the Legislature who talk about climate change but don’t back up those words with action,” CEO Mary Creasman wrote in a CalMatters commentary .

Last month, a coalition of California’s environmental justice advocacy organizations pushed for a phase-out of fossil fuels, and warned that clean air regulators have failed to adequately consider public health in crafting the state’s blueprint for curbing greenhouse gas pollution.

CALIFORNIA IS ALREADY REELING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE

The analysis made clear that many of the worst consequences are already here, even as it noted that future impacts are coming sooner and may be worse than scientists had predicted.

Summer temperatures scorched records as the state’s second-largest wildfire tore across Northern California during the third-driest year on record for rain and snowfall. California must brace for yet more climate hazards, the reports warn, from extreme heat to more severe wildfires, whiplash from drought to flood and sea level rise along the coast.

Drought clutches California and a statewide heat wave forecast for Wednesday is poised to sap the remaining snowpack that supplies about a third of the state’s water. California’s firefighting arm warns that a record-dry start to the year could spell a devastating fire season ahead .

It’s a disaster drumbeat that Californians have heard many times before. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has released report after report assessing the state’s climate policies and spending. It has warned that sea level rise will submerge billions of dollars in homes, roads and businesses by 2050 , and that the state must accelerate planning to protect state assets including college campuses, prisons and even state workers from soaring heat, flooding, fire and extreme weather.

Newsom’s administration launched a preemptive response to the reports, with the Monday release of its updated climate adaptation strategy . The guidelines pull together plans from 38 departments and address priority issues, such as protecting communities vulnerable to climate change and combating risks to health and safety. California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said the strategy is “a matter of protecting our residents and our communities, our natural places, from climate threats that are already here.”

State officials regularly recalibrate the official response to climate change, often in response to dire reports. Four years ago, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment released under former Gov. Jerry Brown warned that climate change would lead to death and property damage on the order of tens of billions of dollars by 2050. Though these reports were focused largely on how California must adapt to the ravages of climate change, the Legislative Analyst’s Office also has warned repeatedly that California’s landmark greenhouse gas market, cap and trade, will fail to meet California’s goals to reduce emissions.

Rachel Becker and Julie Cart | Contributed

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

The post Report to California Legislature: Prepare for sweeping effects of climate change appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.