California’s push to have independent panels — not politicians — draw election districts has floundered into a more piecemeal approach. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the most ambitious bill passed by state lawmakers, Assembly Bill 1248, which called for independent redistricting commissions in every city and county across the state with more than 300,000 residents, and every school or community college district with more than 500,000. He also blocked Senate Bill 52, requiring independent panels in large charter cities, which would have applied to the scandal-plagued Los Angeles City Council.

It appoints some members of the existing redistricting commission, and last year, a leaked recording revealed city councilmembers strategizing, in a conversation packed with racist comments, about how to get lines drawn in their favor. Newsom did sign two less sweeping redistricting bills that authors put forth in case the broader effort failed, but supporters were still bitterly disappointed. “In Los Angeles we need an independent and unbiased commission to help mend the lack of trust between the community and its government,” Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Culver City Democrat and author of AB 1248, and Sen. María Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat and author of SB 52, said in a joint statement. “We will continue to do work to keep communities whole and allow communities to choose their elected representatives, rather than the elected officials choosing their voters.” In his Oct. 7 veto message for AB 1248, Newsom said he shared the “goal of ensuring community control over the redistricting process.” But he cited budget uncertainty, saying the bill would create a “state-reimbursable mandate in the tens of millions and should therefore be considered in the annual budget process.”

Common Cause, a good government group and sponsor of AB 1248, noted in a press release, however, that the bill’s cost wouldn’t be a factor in the state budget until closer to the next census in 2030, which kicks off the next round of redistricting. “We’re deeply confused and frustrated, why the governor would choose to veto a proven democracy reform that provided California an opportunity to not just eliminate gerrymandering in the state but also lead the nation in pro-democracy reform,” Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director for California Common Cause, told CalMatters. “It’s an enormous missed opportunity.” Newsom did sign AB 764, the fail-safe measure also introduced by Bryan and sponsored by Common Cause that seeks to address ambiguities in current redistricting laws regardless of who does the mapping, such as explicitly banning consideration of incumbency, and increasing standards for public engagement.

He also signed SB 314, by Sacramento Democratic Sen. Angelique Ashby, that establishes a citizens redistricting commission for the Sacramento County board of supervisors, and AB 34, by Anaheim Democratic Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, that creates a similar commission in Orange County. The two counties join a handful of others that are either required by previous state laws or have chosen to do redistricting through an independent panel.

In Los Angeles, there’s also an effort by a city council committee to establish an independent redistricting commission through a measure on the November 2024 ballot. And in San Francisco, where chaos over map drawing was brought on by what some called a “toxic political culture,” there’s an effort to bring the city’s independent redistricting commission — established prior to the state version — up to date with best practices. Redistricting is the process of redrawing election maps after every Census to make sure each district has about the same number of people, ensuring no one’s vote gets diluted.

A statewide independent commission has drawn state Senate, state Assembly and U.S. House districts since 2010, taking that power from the Legislature, so they could no longer draw their own districts. But bringing independent panels to local redistricting has been a start and stop process. In 2019, Newsom vetoed a bill by Redondo Beach Democratic Sen. Ben Allen that would have required counties with more than 400,000 residents to set up independent redistricting commissions. His reason for vetoing the bill then was that local jurisdictions were already allowed to establish independent commissions, and that it should be considered in the budget process. “We are left just flabbergasted that the governor continues to make this baffling choice,” Mehta Stein said. “The forces that have been fighting against voting rights and against redistricting reform have been pouring money into that effort for decades. And the pro-democracy side of the argument has to be willing to put its money where its mouth is. We can’t build a better, more inclusive democracy for free.

It will cost money and it’s worth it.” But for some, the veto of AB 1248 was a win. The California State Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California and Urban Counties of California opposed the bill unless amended, because they were concerned about the resources the bill would require. Patrick Blacklock, president and CEO of the Rural County Representatives of California said the mandate should only happen with a corresponding budget allocation. “Without this kind of support, we are concerned that counties will be set up for failure, and such a failure would only serve to validate public distrust in the redistricting process and in our democratic systems that are already under intense public scrutiny,” Blacklock said in a statement to CalMatters.

Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, said that the veto wasn’t necessarily surprising since redistricting can be a controversial and sensitive subject — especially at the local level. But he did find Newsom’s reason for the veto surprising. Still, while the lawmakers and sponsors haven’t said whether they’ll try to reintroduce the bills next session, Li noted that it took multiple tries to get an independent redistricting commission at the state level, too. “Independent commissions are the wave of the future,” he said. “Even though these bills failed, I don’t think this will be the end of efforts to mandate stronger, better systems.” “California has provided a lot of evidence that, if they’re well designed, they do work and do improve representation and results for voters — particularly for voters who haven’t had a seat at the table.”

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

The post Why California politicians will keep drawing their own election districts appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Insurance companies collected more than $150 billion in premiums from California homeowners over the last 25 years and enjoyed profits at four times the national average. Now they’re demanding an unprecedented bailout from the California Legislature as the price of continuing to do business here in the wake of wildfire losses.

Industry lobbyists are reportedly negotiating with lawmakers, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office toward a deal that would be unveiled in the last weeks before the Legislature adjourns on Sept. 14. The industry’s plan would advance its decades-long drive to undermine the protections of Proposition 103, the insurance reform measure passed by voters 35 years ago. The proposal would allow insurance companies to hike rates without full transparency or justification; force policyholders to assume the staggering costs of insurers’ backup coverage for unexpected losses; and use secret algorithms to set premiums.

These currently illegal practices are likely to raise property insurance premiums by 40% or more. Many more customers could be forced into the California FAIR (Fair Access to Insurance Requirements) Plan, a state-created, industry-controlled association that offers less generous, last-resort coverage at higher prices.

Worse, the proposed bailout relieves insurance companies of their responsibility to cover all losses under the FAIR Plan, forcing the state’s policyholders to shoulder the burden through mandatory surcharges on their insurance bills. The proposal would incentivize insurance companies to push their riskiest customers into the FAIR Plan and make other policyholders subsidize their claims. Insurers would retain only their most profitable customers.

Some lawmakers have suggested that capitulating to the industry’s demands for deregulation, vastly higher premiums and zero risk is necessary to lure insurance companies back to California. Companies such as State Farm, Allstate and Farmers have orchestrated an insurance shortage in the state by refusing to sell new policies and improperly dumping existing customers. But the companies’ proposal does not guarantee that anyone who wants to buy insurance coverage will be able to do so.

Nor has surrendering to industry demands worked in Florida. Under Gov. Ron DeSantis, rate regulation is weak, insurers are opaque and companies are allowed to pass on the cost of reinsurance and impose surcharges on policyholders if the state’s FAIR Plan equivalent falls short. And yet homeowner premiums are two to three times higher than in California, the proportion of policyholders with last-resort insurance is five times greater, and companies are rapidly abandoning the state anyhow.

Under the California Constitution, the Legislature is barred from amending the terms of Proposition 103 except to further the initiative’s purposes. Courts have repeatedly invalidated legislation that weakens those reforms, as the industry’s latest proposal does. Whatever their personal views, lawmakers must respect the voters’ will and insist that insurance companies do the same.

By waiting until the last days of legislative business to negotiate such a bailout, lawmakers are cynically attempting to bypass public scrutiny and debate while undermining the credibility of their institution. As the Legislature’s 1996 deregulation of utility rates showed, poorly vetted, industry-backed proposals can become costly debacles for California consumers and taxpayers.

There are many legitimate ways to address the impact of wildfires and other extreme weather events without bailing out the industry or allowing it to avoid transparency and accountability. Our leaders should take the time to look into them.

For example, money from a proposed climate bond and the state’s cap-and-trade program could be deployed to help homeowners take precautions that reduce the risk of loss from extreme events such as wildfires. Rather than allowing insurance companies to make land use policy through rates, state and local authorities ought to develop rational rules to guide construction in high-risk areas. And insurance companies should be given a deadline to stop insuring and investing in the oil and gas companies that are fueling climate change.

Finally, as a condition for the privilege of selling any kind of insurance in California, companies must be required to cover all homeowners who have taken appropriate measures to protect their property. And insurers that choose to leave the state should not be allowed to return for five years. Companies that collect our premiums for decades and then suddenly decide they don’t want to obey our laws should not be allowed to do business in the largest and most lucrative insurance market in the nation.

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

The post How home insurers are trying to bully California politicians into a disastrous bailout appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Alex Shultz | SFGate

The California state Legislature twisted itself into an extra-salty pretzel this week over a bill that claims to combat child sex trafficking.

On Tuesday, Democratic members of the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee initially shelved Senate Bill 14, the child sex trafficking bill in question, which was written and proposed by one of the state Senate’s most conservative members. By Thursday, after intense blowback, Democrats had reversed course and rushed to back the bill — which isn’t supported by one of California’s leading advocacy groups combating child sex trafficking — in large part because, practically speaking, the bill isn’t going to do much of anything to combat child sex trafficking.

SB 14 would categorize child sex trafficking crimes in California as a “serious felony,” which would add it to the list of crimes eligible for sentencing enhancements under California’s controversial “three strikes” law. In other words, repeat child sex traffickers — or child sex traffickers with other “serious felony” strikes on their records — would potentially receive lengthier prison sentences and fewer parole opportunities.

On May 25, the state Senate passed SB 14 in a 40-0 vote after it was narrowed to focus on child sex trafficking. But this week, after the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee unexpectedly rejected that narrowed version of the bill and prevented it from getting a full Assembly vote, conservatives jumped at the chance to shame Democratic politicians.

On Tuesday, the bill’s author, Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove, tweeted, “I am profoundly disappointed that committee Democrats couldn’t bring themselves to support the bill, with their stubborn and misguided objection to any penalty increase regardless of how heinous the crime. Human trafficking of children is a growing tragedy that disproportionately targets minority girls, and California is a hotbed because of our lenient penalties. The sad reality is that trafficked children on Figueroa Street and across California will continue to be raped and victimized until Assembly Democrats take action.”

Pedophile insinuations were bandied about on social media on Wednesday into Thursday, a tradition that has become increasingly normalized in conservative circles; Assemblymember Heath Flora, a Republican from Ripon, even told his colleagues that with this bill, they could “pick pedophiles or children.”

The attack line worked like a charm. Democrats in the legislature spent Wednesday and Thursday falling over each other to affirm to the public that they’re not pedophile fans.

“On Tuesday, I made a bad decision,” Assemblymember Liz Ortega tweeted. “Voting against legislation targeting really bad people who traffic children was wrong. I regret doing that and I am going to help get this important legislation passed into law.” Gov. Gavin Newsom, perhaps leery of having this bill thrust in his face in 2028, also spoke out on Wednesday to voice his interest in saving SB 14. He indicated he’d had productive conversations with Grove, the bill’s author.

Grove, for the record, was the state Senate’s minority leader from 2019 to 2021, but lost that title after tying herself a little too closely to former President Donald Trump; the Los Angeles Times previously reported that she retweeted false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election and claimed that “Antifa” was behind the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol.

And so, on Thursday, the Public Safety Committee took up the bill it had just squashed two days prior. This time, it passed out of committee 6-0. It’ll be examined by the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee in mid-August, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Child sex trafficking crimes already carry heavy penalties in California, including up to life in prison. When someone is facing human trafficking charges, they’re typically facing other lengthy sentences on often-related charges involving kidnapping or drugs. And interstate human trafficking cases often end up garnering federal charges, further diluting the applicability of SB 14.

There are also plenty of legitimate reasons to be concerned about the language in punitive bills about human trafficking, said Leigh LaChapelle, associate director of survivor advocacy at the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking (CAST). LaChapelle told SFGATE that CAST has had clients who were trafficking victims, were forced to traffic other people, and then were charged with trafficking crimes themselves. Victims of human trafficking — including children, as well as adults who were victims of trafficking when they themselves were children — are taking an enormous risk by coming forward to report these crimes, they said.

“The criminalization of human trafficking survivors creates insurmountable barriers for survivors to report and ultimately get to prosecution and, even more importantly, to heal. Survivors are often charged with crimes that are the results of their trafficking,” LaChapelle said. “So they’ve got charges for solicitation, they’ve got charges for other things they were forced to do, like working within the drug trade or some sort of fraud, etc. Oftentimes, law enforcement will say, ‘You have to testify, or we’ll charge you with this,’ or, ‘You can get these charges dropped, but only if you cooperate.’ These patterns of force, fraud and coercion that traffickers use are also being used within our criminal legal system to get people to cooperate. We can’t expect survivors to want to come forward if the process is not designed to protect them.”

LaChapelle stated that Grove’s office previously met with CAST, seeking the group’s support on SB 14. CAST declined, because alongside many other human rights organizations, the group generally doesn’t support sentencing legislation.

“We do not believe that it addresses any of the societal conditions that contribute to trafficking,” LaChapelle said. “Human trafficking laws tend to be very carceral and very reliant on the prison system. And we do not find that this actually reduces trafficking in a substantial way or provides any services to survivors. But it is very popular on a legislative front, because it offers a seemingly easy solution for the public.”

LaChapelle noted that CAST isn’t opposing SB 14; the group just has far more pressing legislative priorities than a bill that won’t prevent human trafficking.

“I think there’s a misconception that people who are traffickers care about increased punishments for crimes, and that’ll ultimately divert them from committing the crime in the first place,” LaChapelle said. “But most traffickers don’t plan to be caught, and don’t think of themselves as people who can be caught. We have to start addressing root cause issues, we have to start addressing the vulnerability that makes someone susceptible to trafficking, instead of solely focusing on sentencing legislation after the fact.”

Most disappointing of all for LaChapelle was that other human trafficking bills — like the creation of a labor trafficking unit, as well as a “stakeholders’ alliance” that would’ve gathered experts, advocates and survivors to holistically examine how to best combat human trafficking in the state — didn’t make it through this year’s legislative session, even though they could have “greatly changed the scope of human trafficking in California. There was not as big of a push from the public or from authors to have votes reconsidered, or things of that nature,” LaChapelle said.

Instead, it was SB 14 that broke through, thanks to a conservative pressure campaign and some snappy headlines about Democrats ignoring a serious crime. The state Legislature is now in summer recess; assuming SB 14 makes it past its next hurdle after the recess ends in mid-August, the full Assembly will have until mid-September to pass a final bill.

A top legislative aide, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely and was granted it in accordance with Hearst’s ethics policy, stated that the missing context in the SB 14 drama this week has been maddening.

“The frustration is more around right-wing people are able to weaponize sensationalist accusations about sex trafficking that has no bearing on what is, in fact, a really serious issue,” the aide said. “Many legislators do work on human trafficking issues. … There are people who work on this issue year-round, and the way that their work is ignored while ridiculous accusations about bills that don’t matter dominate the headlines is frustrating.”

To that end: LaChapelle said servicing providers are “chronically underfunded” in their efforts to help trafficking victims, an issue that’s far from addressed as we near the end of the 2023 legislative session. CAST had requested $30 million over three years from the Legislature for urgent emergency human trafficking service providers in California, so they could “increase the state’s capacity for receiving/responding to hotline calls, identifying trafficking survivors, participating in first response to victims, and meeting basic needs such as housing, food, counseling and legal assistance,” LaChapelle said.

The Legislature instead agreed on a budget of $21 million for those service providers, they said.

“A lot of people would like the concept of protecting children to be simple,” LaChapelle said. “Unfortunately, protecting children in our country is not simple. It is a very complicated issue. It has a lot of nuance, and complications and nuance don’t make great media pieces. We cannot arrest and prosecute our way to a world free from human trafficking. Protecting children also means protecting them from housing inequity, the school-to-prison pipeline, being separated from their families within our immigration systems, and so much more.”

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

The post California politicians spiral over sex trafficking bill: ‘Pick pedophiles or children’ appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.