In a unanimous vote, justices told a lower court to revisit a ruling that upheld reduced payments to solar panel owners for selling excess power back to utility companies. Justices did not rule on whether the changes to the solar program were legal, requiring the court of appeals to determine this.

“They basically said the lower court kind of punted on the whole substance of the [solar payments] decision,” Bernadette Del Chiaro, vice president for California at the Environmental Working Group, said. “I do think they’re clearly stating this needs to be reviewed.”

At issue is a 2022 decision by state regulators to reduce by about 75% payments to solar panel owners for excess power. The change was intended to help make bills affordable for all customers while still encouraging the adoption of renewable energy sources. Three environmental groups that brought the lawsuit — the Center for Biological Diversity, The Protect our Communities Foundation, and the Environmental Working Group — argued in the case that the state utilities commission’s decision left out crucial considerations around benefits to customers and disadvantaged communities. 

“We don’t need [to be in] an affordability crisis if we have more local generation,” Roger Lin, senior attorney fro the Center for Biological Diversity, said.

Utilities pay solar panel owners for their excess power under a program known as “net energy metering.” In previous iterations of the program – “NEM 1.0” and “NEM 2.0” – utilities paid solar customers a retail rate for their extra energy, which is the same price the utilities charge other customers when they resell that energy. This was changed under the current iteration of the program – “NEM 3.0” – which instead gives customers the “avoided cost,” which is how much utilities save by not buying that power on the wholesale market. 

Customers who joined the program after mid-April 2023 receive the new rate, while customers under the prior two versions will continue to receive the old rate for the duration of their contracts, which is typically about 20 years.

Utility commissioners ruled in favor of power companies, which argued that older versions of the program created an unfair cost burden on customers. Those without rooftop solar, utilities said, have to pay more than their peers for routine maintenance to the grid. The groups bringing the lawsuit said this idea is overblown.  A court of appeals upheld regulators’ decision, relying on a legal standard that gives significant deference to decisions made by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Thursday’s decision said the court of appeals “erred” by using this standard.

Whether or not the change in how solar panel owners are paid is legal will be left to the lower courts. But the decision this week could have farther-reaching implications for state utility regulators.

“We appreciate the Court’s careful attention to the appropriate standard of deference for reviewing CPUC decisions,” Terrie Prosper, utility commission spokesperson, said. “We are pleased that the CPUC’s decision will remain in effect as an important part of controlling electricity bills.”

Advocates said the decision reinforces that the utilities commission must ensure that its decisions fit squarely within the law.

“For too long, they really have operated in a black box behind a shroud of complexity,” Del Chiaro said. “Consumers and the planet have consistently lost out as a result of that.”

The fallout from the utilities commission’s 2022 net metering decision included an 82% drop in customers requesting connections for rooftop solar installations, and industry groups expected a loss of about 17,000 jobs during the first year of the change. 

The post California Supreme Court hands victory to rooftop solar panel owners appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“We conclude that the cumulative effect of these assumed errors does not warrant a reversal (of the death sentence),” according to the unanimous seven-judge decision. “We conclude the defendant is not entitled to relief on appeal.”

Raymond Lee Oyler, now 55, began waging his legal battles in the state appellate court system soon after his conviction in March 2009 of five counts of first-degree murder and more than 30 counts of arson and possession of incendiary devices, along with special circumstance allegations of perpetrating murder by arson and taking multiple lives.

The same four-man, eight-woman jury that found him guilty recommended capital punishment, with which Riverside County Superior Court Judge Charles Morgan concurred.

The “Esperanza Fire” set by Oyler just after 1 a.m. on Oct. 26, 2006, near the intersection of Esperanza Avenue and Almond Way amid a Santa Ana windstorm decimated the crew of U.S. Forest Service Engine 57, which had deployed to protect an outlying property on a hillside. Capt. Mark Allen Loutzenhiser, 43, and firefighters Pablo Cerda, 24, Daniel Hoover-Najera, 20, Jason Robert McKay, 27, and Jess Edward McLean, 27, were killed.

Along with Esperanza, Oyler had lit at least two dozen other blazes from May to October 2006. However, none of those resulted in significant property damage. The Esperanza blaze consumed roughly 41,000 acres, destroying 39 homes and other buildings, as well as killing a large amount of livestock. The fire also damaged a highway before it was stopped four days later. The cost of firefighting and property destruction totaled roughly $100 million.

Oyler’s appeal focused on virtually every facet of his trial, challenging the fact he was not granted a change of venue due to publicity potentially prejudicing proceedings locally, the fact his trial judge was switched less than a year before the case went to a jury, the nature of prospective jurors’ responses to questionnaires, the qualifications of his lead attorney, inadequate evaluation of defense evidence and the prosecution’s use of autopsy photos.

“We find the evidence sufficient to support all of the defendant’s convictions,” the Supreme Court stated in its 162-page decision.

At its peak, the Esperanza wildfire traveled at 30 mph, with flames as high as 70 feet, burning at 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit.

McKay, McLean and Hoover-Najera died within minutes of the fiery tidal wave crashing into them as they scrambled to establish defensive positions on Gorgonio View Road in Twin Pines, where they had deployed to protect a house with a pool from which the men intended to draw water.

The engine crew was alone, with county and other USFS crews remaining a safe distance from the flame wall, which trial evidence showed gained speed in an uphill “chimney” effect as it blew toward the victims.

Loutzenhiser, who like his men had been gravely burned and suffered from “inhalation of superheated air,” clung to life for several hours after being transported off the hillside. Cerda, whose body was 90% scorched and swollen to twice its normal size, was kept on life-support for five days, during which he was able to acknowledge the presence of others, according to testimony. Family members ultimately decided to remove him from support.

A pathologist who examined McLean’s remains found them to be in the worst condition.

“His entire body was charred with fourth-degree burns, and the intensity of the fire caused his bones to fracture and his torso to expand, causing his internal organs to come out,” according to the Supreme Court’s citation of trial court testimony.

The man who prosecuted Oyler, now-District Attorney Mike Hestrin, described him at the time as “obsessed with fire and a fascination with starting a fire and watching it burn.”

“The enormous loss of what happened is something I carry with me,” Hestrin told City News Service on the 15th anniversary of the blaze. “It was a tough case for the community and the families involved. Those five lives were cut short. I still think about the fact that those firemen went up into that inferno, and everybody else was going down to get away. It’s such a symbol of how they were protectors.”

Testimony showed Oyler had developed a technique of creating so-called “layover” incendiary devices, binding stick and paper matches together with rubber bands, affixing debris to them, then flinging them into brushy places to trigger fires.

Hestrin said Oyler wanted to “see that mountain burn” when he lit the Esperanza blaze.

“You can go back and find the incendiary device left there by Ray Oyler, and it leads to the death of those men — directly,” Hestin told jurors.

As of April, Oyler was one of 588 inmates on Death Row at San Quentin State Prison.

The post Esperanza Arsonist’s Plea To Leave Death Row Heard By CA Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The business community-sponsored initiative, formally known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, broadly aimed to make it more challenging to raise taxes in California, including by requiring the Legislature to seek approval from the voters for any new or higher state tax.

Newsom and legislative leaders sued last fall to stop the measure, arguing that it amounted to an illegal attempt to revise the California Constitution and would impair essential government functions. 

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ordering Secretary of State Shirley Weber to refrain from taking any steps to place the initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The proposed changes “are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact,” Justice Goodwin Liu wrote, “but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative. It is instead governed by the procedures for revising our Constitution” — whereby proposed revisions must be submitted to voters by a supermajority of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

The extraordinary decision marks the first time in more than two decades that the court has struck an initiative from the ballot following a full hearing. It last happened in 1999, with a measure that sought to restrict state officers’ pay and transfer redistricting power out of the Legislature, though a few others since then were removed after the proponents did not defend against legal challenges.

Critics called into question the intentions of the seven-member court — six of whom were appointed by Democratic governors, including three by Newsom. Proponents of the initiative slammed the ruling as a travesty and a “gut-punch to direct democracy in California.”

“Clearly, the state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and there is no independent judiciary in California anymore,” Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said at a press conference. He accused Newsom and the Legislature of supporting democracy “only on their terms, when they think it’s in their best interest.”

A spokesperson for Newsom said in a statement that “the Governor believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court’s decision affirmed today, that process does not allow for an illegal constitutional revision.”

In his opinion, Liu acknowledged the unusual nature of the preelection review, but wrote that waiting until after voters weighed in to consider the constitutionality of the initiative “would be more challenging than in a typical case” because it includes a retroactive provision that could invalidate existing taxes.

It “would thus require the state and localities to start preparing to administer special elections if they wish to avoid nullification of taxes or charges,” Liu wrote.

Proponents introduced the initiative to crack down on what they contend are loopholes created by legislators and court rulings that weakened previous voter-approved tax accountability measures and allowed an unelected administrative bureaucracy to flourish. It was heavily supported by the real estate industry and a private ambulance company, which frequently battle local governments over taxes, fees and assessments to fund public services.

The measure would also have increased the margin to pass a voter-initiated special tax at the local level, to two-thirds from a simple majority; restricted how officials can calculate the cost of fees that fund public services and programs; and reclassified some of those charges as taxes.

These changes could have upended the operation of California government at every level, prohibiting administrative agencies from setting levies and requiring the Legislature or local governments to turn to the voters to adjust them. Cities, counties and the unions that represent their employees raised alarms that the initiative would blow a hole in their budgets, threatening their ability to provide essential services.

They celebrated the Supreme Court decision as a victory over corporate greed.

“The Taxpayer Deception Act was a flagrant attempt by a few extremely wealthy real estate developers to undermine our entire democratic system and our voice as voters and devastate the vital services Californians rely on — all to avoid paying their fair share,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California and SEIU United Service Workers West, said in a statement. “Today’s ruling is a strong warning to corporate interests that even those with the fattest pocketbooks will be held accountable to follow our laws.”

Opponents argued in court during a hearing last month that, rather than simply amending tax law in the state constitution, the initiative amounted to a fundamental restructuring of how government operates — a more substantial change that can only be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or through a constitutional convention. The initiative’s proponents countered that the power of the legislative branch has always been shared with the public and urged the justices not to intervene in a political conflict that should be settled by voters.

The court’s decision to block the anti-tax measure from the ballot will likely create cascading effects in the November election and beyond.

Lapsley told reporters today that the business community will shift its financial resources into other campaign fights this fall, including supporting measures to increase penalties for some drug and property crimes, to require financial literacy courses in schools and to limit how funding from a tax on health care providers is used, as well as opposing a rent control measure.

He also said his coalition would develop a narrower tax proposal to put before voters in 2026, potentially incorporating elements of this initiative — protections against the whims of the Legislature and local governments that he said provide critical stability to the business climate in California.

“This, for us, is just a battle in the bigger war. We will be back,” he said. “They have no idea what’s coming.”

It could be harder two years from now. Legislative Democrats confirmed today that they will move forward with a competing measure that they placed on the November ballot last year to undermine the California Business Roundtable initiative.

The legislative measure flips the California Business Roundtable’s own higher standards around, requiring any changes to the threshold for approving state and local taxes pass by that same margin. So if adopted by voters, a future proposal requiring tax measures to secure support from two-thirds of the electorate would need to pass by a two-thirds margin to become law, rather than a simple majority, a high hurdle for a statewide ballot initiative.

“I’m very pleased the California Supreme Court rejected this unlawful and extreme effort to take power away from local communities to pay for essential services like police and firefighters,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, said in a statement.

Republicans slammed the ruling as partisan politics that silenced more than 1.4 million voters who signed the petition to place the initiative on the ballot.

“I’m disgusted,” Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a San Diego Republican, said in a statement. “The court has failed in its duty to the people of California and our democratic system and instead simply caved to pressure from the governor and legislative Democrats.”

The post High court blocks anti-tax measure from California ballot appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

More than 1 million people signed a petition to put a measure on the ballot this November that would have required voters to approve any tax increase passed by the state Legislature. It also would have required all local tax increases to be approved by two-thirds of voters instead of a simple majority vote.

The biggest impact, however, would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases, including one on guns and ammunition set to take effect July 1.

That prospect alarmed Newsom and legislative leaders so much that they took the unusual step of asking the state Supreme Court to remove the measure from the ballot before voters had a chance to decide it.

California voters are allowed to bypass the governor and the state Legislature to amend the state Constitution at the ballot box, something they do frequently. Voters have amended the Constitution to protect abortion rights, declare marriage is between a man and a woman and dock legislators’ pay if they fail to pass a budget on time.

But the court has recognized a distinction between amending the Constitution — adding something new — and revising it by altering the way government works. Voters can amend the constitution by a ballot measure, but they cannot revise it.

In this case, the court ruled the ballot measure is a revision because it would take away the Legislature’s power to raise taxes — a shift the justices said would “fundamentally rework the fiscal underpinnings of our government at every level.” The only way to add these rules to the Constitution, the court ruled, would be for the Legislature and voters to approve a call for a new constitutional convention.

Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association, called the ruling “a gut punch to direct democracy in California.” Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, accused the court signaled its willingness “to back the progressive agenda at every turn moving forward.”

“There is no independent judiciary in California anymore,” Lapsley said. “Be scared. Because it’s only going to get worse.”

Newsom declined to speak to reporters after the ruling, but he issued a written statement — attributed to an aide — that said he supports the ballot initiative process but noted it “does not allow for an illegal constitutional revision.”

The issue is tricky for Newsom, a Democrat now in his second term who is a potential candidate for president. Newsom has tried to counter California’s reputation for high taxes by publicly opposing many new tax proposals, including campaigning publicly against a new tax on the rich.

But he has been willing to temporarily raise taxes on some businesses to balance the budget, something he is proposing to do again this year. And he signed a tax increase last year on guns and ammunition that is likely to be challenged in court once it takes effect on July 1.

Republicans on Thursday were quick to portray Newsom as “greedy,” arguing his successful attempt to block the measure will continue to make things more expensive in California, whose taxes on incomes, sales and gasoline are among the highest in the country.

“The California Democrat machine’s love affair with new taxes to pay for their ludicrous policies keep costing Californians their hard-earned money, and Newsom just made it that much easier to take even more,” said Jessica Millan Patterson, chairwoman of the California Republican Party.

Removing a measure from the ballot before an election is rare, but not unprecedented in California. In 1999, the court threw out one that would have cut lawmakers’ salaries and removed their authority to set boundaries for legislative districts. The court removed that measure from the ballot because it included more than one subject.

The post California voters lose a shot at checking state and local tax hikes at the polls appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“A keen legal mind and well-regarded jurist, Justice Guerrero’s wide-ranging experience, integrity, deep respect for the rule of law and lifelong commitment to public service make her a phenomenal candidate to serve as our next California Supreme Court Justice,” said Governor Newsom. “Born and raised in the Imperial Valley by immigrant parents from Mexico, her extraordinary journey and nomination to serve as the first Latina Justice on the bench of our state’s highest court is an inspiration to all of us and a testament to the California Dream’s promise of opportunity for all to thrive, regardless of background or zip code.”

“Justice Guerrero learned the value of hard work and helping those in need from an early age, lessons she has carried throughout her life to lift up others and advance equity and inclusion,” added Governor Newsom. “As we continue to make strides in building a judiciary more representative of our state’s diversity, Justice Guerrero will bring her rich background and experiences to important decisions that impact the daily lives of every Californian. Serving on our state’s Supreme Court, I’m confident that she will continue her tireless work to ensure that our cherished rights and freedoms are protected for all Californians.”

Justice Guerrero would replace Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, who left the bench effective October 31, 2021.

“I am deeply honored by this incredible opportunity to uphold the rule of law and make a positive impact on the lives of Californians across the state,” said Justice Guerrero. “If confirmed, I look forward to helping instill confidence in the equality and integrity of our judicial system while honoring the sacrifices of my immigrant parents and demonstrating to young people that anything is possible in our wonderful and diverse country.”

Justice Guerrero, 50, of San Diego, has served as an Associate Justice at the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One since 2017. In this role, she has authored numerous opinions to protect the rights of consumers and individuals, while also ensuring that defendants’ constitutional rights are protected and that all parties, including the government, are treated fairly and consistent with the rule of law.

A native of the Imperial Valley raised by immigrant parents from Mexico, Justice Guerrero began working in a grocery store at the age of 16 and graduated as co-valedictorian in high school. She continued working to help pay for her education while attending the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford Law School, where she earned a Juris Doctor degree. Justice Guerrero was active in the Latino Law Students Association and helped fellow students at the recruitment and retention center.

Prior to her appointment to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Justice Guerrero served as a Judge at the San Diego County Superior Court from 2013 to 2017 and was Supervising Judge for the Family Law Division at the Court in 2017. Justice Guerrero was hired as an Associate at Latham & Watkins and became a Partner in 2006. She served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California from 2002 to 2003.

“With her extensive experience handling complex litigation matters, intellectual rigor and commitment to fairness and equality, Justice Guerrero is well-equipped to navigate the most complex legal issues in our court system and will make an excellent addition to our state’s highest court. A historic move toward creating a more inclusive judiciary that represents all Californians, Justice Guerrero would be our state’s first Latina Supreme Court Justice. Brought up in the Imperial Valley by immigrants from Mexico, she would also help add important geographical balance to the court. I applaud Governor Newsom for his insightful nomination of this exceptional candidate,” said retired California Supreme Court Justice Carlos R. Moreno.

Justice Guerrero has contributed many hours of pro bono work, including as a member of the Advisory Board of the Immigration Justice Project, to promote due process and access to justice at all levels of the immigration and appellate court system. She has assisted clients on a pro bono basis in immigration matters, including asylum applications and protecting vulnerable families by litigating compliance with fair housing laws. The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court named her to the Blue Ribbon Commission on the Future of the California Bar Exam and Justice Guerrero has been active in the Chief’s “Judges in the Classroom” civics program.

“There is no question that Justice Guerrero’s impressive analytical skills, work ethic and dedication to public service will be an immense asset to the California Supreme Court. Having surmounted humble beginnings in the Imperial Valley and obstacles throughout her illustrious career, Justice Guerrero is uniquely positioned to protect the equality and integrity of our judicial system. I’m confident that as our next California Supreme Court Justice, she’ll continue to serve the people of California with deep dedication and humility,” said Fourth District Court of Appeal Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell.

The Governor’s nomination must be submitted to the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission on Judicial Appointments consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senior Presiding Justice of the state Court of Appeal Manuel A. Ramirez. The compensation for this position is $274,732. Justice Guerrero is a Democrat.

Governor California | Contributed

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

The post Governor Newsom Nominates Justice Patricia Guerrero to Serve on California Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“How is it that society all of a sudden care more for [the person] who killed my daughter,” asked Angel Ramirez, speaking about the defendant, 80-year-old Michelle Morris of La Cresta. “I don’t understand. If I committed murder … or someone else, I guarantee they wouldn’t have been able to get out this easily.”

Ramirez’s daughter, Diane “Princess” Ramirez, entered the foster care system in April 2018 and was sent to the Morris Small Family Home in the unincorporated community of La Cresta near Murrieta. Her mother said she was soon contacted by an investigator who raised concerns about allegations of some of the dependents being cared for at the home being subjects of “bruising.”

A Riverside County couple charged in the death of a disabled teenager who was living at their foster home appeared in court. They are charged with multiple felonies, including murder and sexual abuse.

“My question was whether my daughter was OK,” said Ramirez, who was disturbed that despite the allegations, her daughter was never removed from the foster home. “I said, ‘Can they remove her?’ and he said, ‘This investigation takes time.'”

Tragically, the teen died on April 6, 2019. According to her family, the operators of the Morris Small Family Home did not immediately call 911.

“I asked the nurse, ‘Why didn’t anyone do anything? Did they try to help her out? Why didn’t they do CPR right away?” asked Ramirez. “The nurse told me herself that she felt something was not right.”

Nearly two years later, Morris – one of the operators of the Morris Small Family Home – was indicted on a variety of charges involving several victims. The charges included murder, child endangerment, dependent adult endangerment and lewd acts on a dependent adult.

Her bail was originally set at $1 million, but during a recent hearing, it was lowered to $50,000. She is no longer in custody.

The judge who made the ruling cited a recent California Supreme Court decision which requires judges to now consider a defendant’s ability to pay bail in addition to the seriousness of the charged crimes when deciding the bail amount.

The attorney representing the defendant argued that because of the Supreme Court’s decision, these additional factors must be considered and are not optional.

He mentioned two other murder cases in Riverside County where accused murderers have been released: one with a bail set at $25,000 and one released on their own recognizance.

The judge agreed that the Supreme Court ruling significantly changes how bail amounts are set, saying defendants can’t be detained simply because they’re poor.

“It changes the landscape for how we assess release and under what conditions ask for bond,” said Riverside County Superior Court Judge Timothy Freer.

Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin doesn’t disagree with the judge’s decision to lower Morris’ bail, saying he was simply following the law.

“We want to be fairer, and I agree that we want to get away from a system where there’s one standard for people who are wealthy, and other standards for people who are not,” he said. “But obviously, I’m troubled by the outcome [in this case.] I’m troubled by the fact that someone charged with that seriousness of crimes can walk out.”

Riverside County Sheriff’s Department | Contributed

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

The post Family of teen who died while in foster care furious after suspect released from jail appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear Rodriguez v. Newsom on Monday, keeping intact California’s winner-take-all approach to selecting presidential electors.

According to the case petition, comedian Paul Rodriguez, Rocky Chavez, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the California League of United Latin American Citizens claimed that current winner-take-all process is unconstitutional. They argued that the current system of voting for president in California isn’t a vote for president, but rather a vote for electoral college electors. As California has voted Democratic for all presidential elections since 1992, it meant that all Republican and other party votes were ignored, diluting and discarding their votes and violating their rights in casting an effective vote.

“This cancellation of the votes of the minority party is unconstitutional for two reasons,” noted the petition. “First, as [a previous court ruling] makes clear, the government may not discard millions of votes at an intermediate step of a multi-stage election, like that for President.

“Second, as this Court made clear in White v. Register, on which the court below erroneously relied—states may not use at-large, slate elections for multi-member bodies to disregard the preferences of a minority of voters. “Winner-take-all is not within the Constitution. It is instead a partisan invention by the states that has become the default for the nation.”

A winner-take-all approach in choosing presidential electors However, the arguments were quickly denounced in a reply brief to Rodriguez v. Newsom by attorneys for Governor Gavin Newsom, then-acting California Secretary of State James Schwab, and other respondents in the original petition.

Specifically, they argued that the current system “does not treat any voter or group of voters differently from any other or prevent anyone from casting a vote.”

While the Supreme Court turned down hearing the case without comment, legal experts noted that this will not be the last time that California or another state will bring this issue up.

“There’s a lot of questions here,” noted John Loughton, a lawyer who has been involved in election cases before, to the Globe on Monday. “But right now Republicans are looking to shake up the electoral system, much like Democrats have been since Bush v. Gore. Many want more of a result based on national popular vote rather than through states. Others want states to vote proportionately and have electors be chosen from the candidate percentage in each state. Under this system, Ross Perot would have grabbed a few electoral votes in California in 1992, with Libertarian Gary Johnson also likely snagging one in 2016.”

“But there are also questions on where the vote for electors should stop. If electors are proportional, will they need to be duty bound to vote for the state winner? Will they be a faithless elector? Will it be more split like Nebraska or Maine currently can do in a presidential election? And what about those votes in the minority? Are they not counted at all in a win? A case like this can really open Pandora’s Box for future cases, and the Supreme Court has really steered away from the electoral college in recent years. Last year they ruled that states can restrict faithless electors, and that was a huge deal.”

“They are very choosy on big issues like this. So it’s like them choosing a gun rights case or an affirmative action case or an abortion case. It doesn’t happen often, but when they do, it can send shockwaves. And they obviously don’t want to rock this boat just yet.”

It is unknown if similar cases in lower courts will be heard later this year.

Evan Symon | Contributed

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

The post California Electoral Vote Process Case Turned Down by U.S. Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Justice Jenkins has held several prominent state and federal judicial positions throughout his career. He would be the first openly gay California Supreme Court justice and only the third African American man ever to serve on the state’s highest court. It has been 29 years since an African American man has served on the California Supreme Court.

“Justice Jenkins is widely respected among lawyers and jurists, active in his Oakland community and his faith, and is a decent man to his core,” said Governor Newsom. “As a critical member of my senior leadership team, I’ve seen firsthand that Justice Jenkins possesses brilliance and humility in equal measure. The people of California could not ask for a better jurist or kinder person to take on this important responsibility.”

A son of San Francisco, Justice Martin Jenkins (Ret.), 66, was born and raised in the Bay Area. He grew up cleaning office buildings and churches with his father who also worked a full time job with the City and County of San Francisco as a clerk and janitor at Coit Tower. Guided by his parents’ values of hard work and respect for all, Justice Jenkins went on to have a storied legal career, including years as a civil rights attorney, an appointment to a federal bench and most recently, guiding the Newsom Administration’s efforts to build a judiciary that reflects the vibrance and diversity of California as judicial appointments secretary since 2019.

Growing up, Justice Jenkins knew he would have to work harder, stay later and go the extra mile to succeed. It was the work ethic he learned from his parents and brought with him to a brief pro football career. Just after finishing undergrad, he signed a contract with the Seattle Seahawks but soon realized that rather than sitting on the football bench, his true calling was becoming a lawyer and pursuing a different bench as a judge.

Throughout his career, Justice Jenkins has advanced the cause of equality, particularly across racial and gender divides. Justice Jenkins’s family traces its roots to the Jim Crow South, and while Justice Jenkins did not grow up in the South, his family’s stories of injustice and blatant discrimination stuck with him. As a young attorney working in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice in the administration of President Ronald Reagan, Justice Jenkins pursued cases involving police misconduct and cross burnings. He has also worked to promote gender equality through cases on pregnancy-related leave and sex discrimination.

“I am truly humbled and honored to be asked by the Governor to continue serving the people of California on the Supreme Court,” said Justice Jenkins. “If confirmed, I will serve with the highest ethical standards that have guided me throughout my career, informed by the law and what I understand to be fair and just.”

In his role as Judicial Appointments Secretary, Justice Jenkins has guided the Newsom Administration’s efforts to build a judiciary that reflects the people they serve. He spearheaded transparency efforts by making public the Regional Judicial Selection Advisory Committees, so that for the first time in California history, the individuals who provide feedback on judicial candidates for nomination and appointment will be known to the public. Justice Jenkins has worked closely with these committees to appoint 45 jurists, helping promote the diversity of the California judiciary for years to come.

Prior to his role in the Newsom Administration, Justice Jenkins served as an Associate Justice on the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District from 2008 to 2019. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 1997 and served on the bench until 2008.

In addition to his recent judicial service, Justice Jenkins served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court from 1992 to 1997 and on the Oakland Municipal Court from 1989 to 1992. From 1986 to 1989, he was a trial attorney with the Pacific Bell Legal Department of San Francisco and from 1983 to 1986, he worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as a trial attorney litigating civil rights cases. From 1980 to 1983, he worked as a prosecutor for the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law.

He will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Associate Justice Ming W. Chin. The Governor’s nomination must be submitted to the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission on Judicial Appointments consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and senior Presiding Justice of the state Court of Appeal J. Anthony Kline.

For more, visit www.gov.ca.gov/2020/10/05/governor-newsom-selects-justice-martin-jenkins-ret-for-california-supreme-court/

-EIN PRESSWIRE

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

The post Gov. Newsom Selects Justice Martin Jenkins (Ret.) for California Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.