The nonpartisan event series, which pairs CalMatters’ 2026 Voter Guide with in-person community conversations, drew hundreds of participants during its spring run leading up to the primary. Neighbors gathered over poké bowls in Los Angeles, debated gubernatorial candidates in Bakersfield, and packed a Modesto brewery to talk local news and civic engagement. Now organizers are back with a fall lineup that stretches from San Diego to Eureka, with a heavy presence planned across Southern California and the Inland Empire.

Locally, Rancho Cucamonga kicks things off Sept. 15 with an 11:30 a.m. event at Chaffey College. Redlands follows on Sept. 28 with a 6 p.m. gathering at the Redlands Public Market, hosted alongside Community Forward Redlands. Rancho Mirage residents can join a Sept. 22 discussion at Willie’s Modern Fare starting at 5:30 p.m., presented in partnership with the Coachella Valley Independent and Palm Springs Post.

Claremont McKenna College will host an event Oct. 9 through its Rose Institute, and Thousand Oaks will get its turn Oct. 27 in partnership with public radio station KCLU. San Diego residents have two opportunities to participate — a Sept. 17 gathering at The Times of San Diego offices, and an Oct. 3 session during Politifest at the University of San Diego’s Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies.

Beyond the Inland Empire and Southern California, the tour continues through the Bay Area, Central Valley and far Northern California, with stops planned in San Francisco, Stockton, Fresno, Chico, Eureka and dozens of other communities through the end of October.

CalMatters says the events are designed to be genuinely nonpartisan spaces where residents can ask questions, share concerns and better understand what’s on their ballots ahead of the Nov. 3 general election. Many sessions are organized in partnership with local newsrooms, colleges, libraries and community organizations, and often include food, panel discussions or informal tabling setups where residents can stop by and chat with CalMatters staff.

Organizers note that details for several events — including specific times and locations for later dates — are still being finalized and will be updated regularly on CalMatters’ website. Residents are encouraged to check back often or sign up for the outlet’s WhatMatters and election newsletters for the latest additions to the schedule.

Community groups interested in hosting their own VotingMatters gathering don’t need to wait for CalMatters to bring an event to them. The organization offers a do-it-yourself event kit that includes a slide presentation, discussion guides, an online voter guide and marketing materials — everything needed to turn a casual get-together into a productive conversation about the issues on the ballot. Hosts don’t need policy expertise; the materials are built to help facilitate discussion, not lecture.

Groups wanting CalMatters staff to attend in person can also request a co-hosted event, with the organization covering some costs and providing presenters, so long as local partners help secure a venue, spread the word and arrange food.

Anyone interested in hosting or co-hosting an event can reach the VotingMatters team by emailing votingmatters@calmatters.org.

With the fall election season now underway, organizers say they hope the expanded schedule will give even more Californians — including here in the Inland Empire — a chance to weigh in on the choices ahead of them at the ballot box.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Local Groups to Host VotingMatters Forums Ahead of California’s 2026 Election appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The petition, submitted last week in Alameda County Superior Court, closely mirrors a lawsuit CalMatters filed against UCLA in August. Both cases stem from the campuses’ refusal to disclose payment details following a landmark national legal settlement last year that, for the first time, allows colleges across the country to pay their athletes directly.

UC Berkeley spokesperson Janet Gilmore said in an email Sunday that the university is reviewing the complaint and declined further comment.

The stakes are considerable. Direct payments to college athletes have become one of the most powerful recruiting tools available to universities, and the amount of money flowing into these deals has surged. The commission overseeing NIL compensation nationally cleared more than $227 million in payments during July and August alone — nearly double what was reported during the same period a year earlier. Under current rules, schools are permitted to direct up to $20.5 million toward athlete compensation. At UC Berkeley, Chancellor Richard Lyons said last year that the funding pool draws from athletics revenue, donor contributions and some campus dollars.

CalMatters argues in its filing that Berkeley “has not produced records sufficient to show how those public funds are being distributed.” The lawsuit contends that California taxpayers have a right to know which athletes are being paid, how much, and which teams they represent.

The news organization says it spent nearly a year trying to obtain this information from UC Berkeley, submitting multiple requests under the California Public Records Act to universities statewide. Some campuses provided only minimal data, while others released at least partial records — an inconsistency CalMatters says demonstrates that the payment information it is seeking qualifies as public record.

UC Riverside, for instance, disclosed that it distributed roughly $200,000 to its male athletes, including several payments to members of the men’s basketball team, along with $70,000 to female athletes.

The disparity highlighted by that example touches on a broader legal question. A recent Congressional Research Service report noted that the shift toward direct athlete compensation raises new concerns about compliance with federal sex-based equity requirements in collegiate sports.

Meanwhile, most Division I athletic programs nationwide continue to operate at a financial loss, according to federal data. Both UCLA and UC Berkeley reported athletic department deficits for the 2024-25 academic year, relying on endowment funds or general campus budgets to cover the shortfall.

Andy Schwarz, a sports economics expert and partner at the law firm OSKR, argued in an earlier interview that the distinction between public and private funding within university athletics is largely illusory. “Every single dollar that the university allocates is taxpayer money, whether it’s donated or not,” Schwarz said. “It’s like if you have a bathtub and say the money on the right is public and the money on the left is private, but it’s all bathwater, swirling around.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Sues UC Berkeley Over Access to Student-Athlete Pay Records appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The nonprofit newsroom, which covers California policy and politics with a growing focus on issues affecting the Inland Empire and the rest of Southern California, took first place in two categories: digital video storytelling for a series, and explanatory reporting.

CalMatters also landed as a finalist in two additional categories, with winners set to be announced at an awards ceremony Oct. 1.

The video storytelling honor went to “Agents of Chaos: Tracking Border Patrol Operations Across the U.S.,” a documentary project that marked CalMatters’ first foray into filmmaking. Reporters Sergio Olmos and Wendy Fry teamed up with the nonprofit outlets Evident Media and Bellingcat to produce three films distributed on YouTube and in vertical video format.

The series grew out of an investigation into aggressive enforcement tactics and misleading claims made by federal immigration authorities — tactics that later became a template for large-scale deportation operations carried out across the country. Much of the reporting centered on Border Patrol sector chief Gregory Bovino, who went on to lead high-profile raids in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis and other cities.

Contest judges singled out the team’s use of verified, open-source video footage mapped against real-world locations, saying the approach gave viewers a clearer picture of how the deportation campaign was unfolding on the ground.

Among the project’s key findings: government explanations for the raids didn’t hold up to scrutiny and instead pointed to racial profiling; agents used tactics of dubious legality during the earliest days of the Los Angeles operations; and certain Border Patrol agents appeared repeatedly in violent confrontations with immigrants and protesters in multiple cities.

Business Insider won the large-newsroom equivalent of the award for “View From Above.” Other finalists in the category included Alianza Rebelde Investiga, Cazadores de Fake News, FRONTLINE on PBS, The Texas Tribune and The New York Times, among others.

CalMatters’ second win came in the explanatory reporting category for “License to Kill,” an ongoing investigative series by reporters Robert Lewis and Lauren Hepler examining the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ failure to use its authority to investigate drivers involved in fatal crashes.

Judges commended the project “for its dogged accountability reporting and its ability to reveal systemic failures through deeply human stories.”

The investigation found that despite officials describing driving as a privilege, the DMV in practice treats it much like a guaranteed right. Reporters also discovered that county courts across California have failed to report hundreds of vehicular manslaughter convictions to the DMV, allowing dangerous drivers to keep their licenses. The series further revealed that as drunken-driving deaths in California have climbed at twice the national rate, the state’s DUI laws have not evolved to distinguish between drivers who made a one-time mistake and those who pose an ongoing threat.

The reporting also found that state leaders — including the governor, lawmakers, DMV officials and the courts — have largely failed to respond to rising death tolls, even as a diversion program has allowed some people charged with vehicular manslaughter to avoid having the case appear on their driving record. Although state law gives the DMV authority to investigate drivers involved in crashes that kill or seriously injure someone, the agency’s own data shows it rarely exercises that power.

The Washington Post won the large-newsroom award in this category for “Floods Above,” while Wisconsin Watch took the small-newsroom prize for “Supreme Costs.” Other finalists included the San Francisco Chronicle, Verite News and Grist, and ProPublica.

CalMatters was also named a finalist for immigration reporting for “Agents of Chaos” and for its newsletter “My Legislator.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Honored for “Deeply Human” and Innovative Storytelling at Online Journalism Awards appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The lawsuit, filed Monday, comes after nearly a year of back-and-forth between CalMatters reporters and UCLA officials over public records requests. It marks an escalation in a broader effort by the news organization to shed light on how California’s public universities are spending money in the post-2021 era of college athlete compensation.

California became one of the first states to let college athletes profit from their name, image and likeness five years ago. Since then, top-tier players — including some at UCLA and UC Berkeley — have earned hundreds of thousands of dollars, in part through deals with their own universities, which pay them to appear in promotional campaigns and marketing materials.

But when CalMatters asked more than a dozen University of California and California State University campuses last fall for records detailing those payments to Division I athletes, the response was uneven. Several schools handed over little or nothing. UCLA and UC Berkeley — home to the two most financially robust athletic programs among the state’s public universities — initially denied the requests outright, claiming disclosure would put their athletes at a competitive disadvantage or infringe on student privacy protections under federal education law.

Both schools eventually turned over some records, but neither would identify which athletes or teams received the payments, even though other campuses had been more transparent. UCLA and UC Berkeley have also argued that the money funding these payments doesn’t come from taxpayers — an assertion that higher education finance experts say is difficult to substantiate. In reality, both UC and CSU campuses routinely cover gaps in their athletic department budgets using tuition revenue, student fees or general fund dollars, all of which include public money.

Frustrated by the lack of transparency, CalMatters filed its lawsuit against UCLA this week, arguing that when a public institution hands out public resources, the public has a right to know who is receiving that money, how much, and under what terms. The organization says it plans to take similar legal action against UC Berkeley.

The case adds to a growing list of questions surrounding the intersection of college sports, student compensation and public accountability in California — an issue likely to draw continued scrutiny as name, image and likeness deals become an increasingly significant part of university athletic budgets statewide.

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Sues UCLA After University Withholds Records on Athlete Pay appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

CalMatters, a nonprofit newsroom covering California policy and government, is asking crash survivors, victims’ families and others affected by serious traffic collisions to share their experiences as part of an ongoing investigation into what happens to at-fault drivers once the dust settles. The project examines gaps in how the state’s licensing and legal systems track, penalize and sometimes fail to stop dangerous drivers from returning to the road.

For families across the Inland Empire and greater Southern California — where long commutes, freeway congestion and rural highway stretches make traffic safety a persistent concern — the issue carries particular weight. Fatal and injury crashes involving impaired or repeat offenders have long strained local courts, insurance systems and grieving families seeking accountability.

CalMatters says its reporting team wants to hear directly from people who have been involved in or affected by a serious crash, including how the driver at fault was treated by the courts, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or insurance providers afterward. The outlet has set up an online form where residents can submit their stories confidentially as part of its investigative series, License to Kill, which explores how California’s system allows some dangerous drivers to keep their licenses despite histories of reckless or impaired driving.

Readers interested in following the investigation or contributing their own accounts can sign up for CalMatters’ License to Kill newsletter, which will provide updates as the reporting continues. Organizers say input from everyday Californians — particularly those in regions like the Inland Empire, where highway fatalities remain a significant public safety issue — will help shape the newsroom’s ongoing coverage of the state’s road safety and licensing practices.

Those who have experienced the aftermath of a serious crash, either as a survivor or as a family member of someone killed or injured, are encouraged to share their story through CalMatters’ reporting project to help illuminate what actually happens to drivers once they’ve caused significant harm on California’s roads.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Readers Wanted: Help Us Investigate What Happens to Drivers After Serious Crashes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The legal action, filed Monday, comes after CalMatters sent public records requests last fall to 16 University of California and California State University campuses asking for details on payments made to Division I athletes. Most schools gave vague or incomplete responses. CalMatters argues that because these are public institutions spending public resources, taxpayers have a right to know exactly who is being paid, how much, and under what terms.

“When public institutions distribute public resources, the public is entitled to know who receives those resources, in what amounts, and on what terms,” the lawsuit states. A UC system spokesperson, Stett Holbrook, said the university intends to “respond appropriately in court” and that it takes both the California Public Records Act and student privacy seriously.

The dispute centers on a fairly new practice: direct payments from universities to athletes, which became legal only last summer following a landmark court settlement. These payments compensate students for the use of their name, image and likeness — commonly called NIL — in university-sanctioned promotions, and they also serve as a recruiting tool, helping schools lure top talent or keep players from transferring elsewhere for better deals.

UCLA and UC Berkeley, home to the state’s most high-profile and financially significant athletic programs, initially refused to release records, citing concerns about competitive disadvantage and student privacy. After CalMatters’ attorneys at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP pushed back, both campuses eventually released some data. The numbers show that each school spent roughly $20.5 million on athlete payments during the 2025-26 academic year — the maximum allowed. UCLA reported paying 229 athletes; UC Berkeley reported 147.

Neither school, however, would say which athletes or teams received the money, a level of transparency that some other California universities did provide.

“We’re simply asking these public institutions to follow the law,” said CalMatters CEO Neil Chase, “and explain what’s being done with tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.” Chase said his organization spent months trying to negotiate a compromise that would satisfy privacy concerns while still providing basic transparency, but ultimately felt legal action was necessary. He said a similar suit targeting UC Berkeley is being prepared.

Two campuses stood out for their relative openness: San Diego State and UC Riverside. UC Riverside reported paying its male athletes about $200,000 — much of it going to the men’s basketball program — along with $70,000 for female athletes, though the university didn’t break down most of the individual payments. San Diego State disclosed that it paid its athletes at least $8.6 million during the 2025-26 school year, with more than 60% going to football and most of the remainder to men’s basketball. Female athletes at San Diego State received only about 3% of the total payments, and the university did not specify how many individual players were compensated.

Private universities such as USC and Stanford are exempt from these public records requirements altogether, since state disclosure laws only apply to public institutions.

Universities have long insisted that athletic spending doesn’t come directly from taxpayers, often describing these payments as “revenue-sharing” tied to ticket sales, media rights and sponsorship income. But experts say that framing oversimplifies — or obscures — how the money actually flows.

Nationally, most Division I athletic programs actually lose money. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report found the median college athletic department lost about $20 million in the 2023-24 academic year. Within the UC and Cal State systems, shortfalls are often covered using tuition revenue, student fees or general fund dollars — which include state tax money. At UCLA, about 20% of the athletic budget in 2024-25 came from the university’s endowment or general fund; at UC Berkeley, it was nearly 30%. Both programs still ran multimillion-dollar deficits that year. At smaller programs like UC Riverside, general fund and endowment dollars cover the majority of athletic costs.

“Every single dollar that the university allocates is taxpayer money, whether it’s donated or not,” said Andy Schwarz, a sports economist and partner at the law firm OSKR. “It’s like if you have a bathtub and say the money on the right is public and the money on the left is private, but it’s all bathwater, swirling around.”

Despite the shift toward direct payments, the NCAA still bars schools from paying athletes simply to play — a practice known as “pay-for-play.” The change stems from a 2025 legal settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and former Oregon women’s basketball player Sedona Prince. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the deal last spring, and it took effect July 1, 2025.

Many UC and Cal State campuses provided CalMatters with template contracts used with athletes. Though the agreements explicitly state they are not “pay-for-play,” they typically require students to continue competing in their sport in order to keep receiving payments — a distinction that some experts say is largely semantic.

“The marketability value of a CSU athlete, completely stripped away from the field, is worth functionally nothing,” said Matt Brown, who runs the college sports business newsletter Extra Points.

The contracts uniformly state that athletes are not university employees. UC San Diego classifies its athletes as “independent contractors,” while most other schools avoid defining their employment status altogether. San Jose State’s agreement specifically states that athletes are not eligible for workers’ compensation.

UCLA’s contract goes further still, stipulating that athletes cannot sue the university over employment-related claims. Students are encouraged to consult a parent, attorney or agent before signing — but if they don’t, they waive any right to challenge the agreement based on lack of representation.

Unlike professional athletes, college players remain without union representation, despite unionization attempts at Dartmouth College and USC. “Essentially what the colleges want is all the benefits of collective bargaining without having to give up any of the downsides that professional sports leagues agree to with their unions, such as minimum salaries and worker compensation if there are injuries,” Schwarz said.

While professional sports salaries are typically public record — even though the leagues themselves are private entities — college athlete pay remains largely hidden from view. Similar public records lawsuits have been filed by journalists and transparency advocates in New Mexico, Louisiana and South Carolina, all seeking disclosure of university payments to student athletes.

Separately, athletes are still allowed to pursue outside NIL deals with brands, on top of whatever compensation they receive from their universities. California was at the forefront of this shift, passing a 2019 law that first allowed college athletes to profit from endorsement deals — a move that sparked similar legislation across the country.

CalMatters previously reported on the scope of these brand partnerships, which have tended to favor football players, men’s basketball standouts, and a handful of high-profile women’s teams, including UCLA gymnastics — home to Olympic gold medalist Jordan Chiles — and Fresno State women’s basketball, which featured social media stars Haley and Hanna Cavinder. Companies including Toyota, Nike, H&R Block and Bumble, along with the 2024 Biden campaign, have signed endorsement deals worth as much as $300,000 with California college athletes. But the largest sums often come from university-affiliated booster groups known as “collectives,” which funnel donor contributions into athlete payments with minimal public disclosure.

At UC San Diego, records show 18 NIL contracts signed since last July, totaling roughly $560,000 in direct payments — though the university would not say which athletes or teams benefited. The school also launched a new donor collective, the SD Tide Collective. About a week after its formation, members of the men’s basketball team received nearly $500,000 in additional payments from an affiliated group, Tide LLC, for “social media/licensing/appearances.” UC San Diego did not respond to questions about the arrangement or how many players received the funds.

By contrast, UC Santa Barbara saw a steep decline in private NIL deals. In 2024-25, athletes — mostly from the men’s basketball team — reported earning more than $200,000 through such deals. This past year, that figure dropped to roughly $1,000 spread across just 11 agreements.

Even so, overall compensation appears to be rising as universities take on more of the payments directly. UC Santa Barbara paid its athletes nearly $1.4 million during the 2025-26 academic year. As with most schools, the university declined to specify how funds were distributed among individual players or teams, but confirmed that only 26 agreements were signed — meaning the vast majority of its athletes received no compensation at all.

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Sues California Public Universities Over Secrecy on Athlete Pay appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Nicole Dragoo, a Fair Oaks resident, previously served as licensing chief at the state agency responsible for regulating private postsecondary schools in California. Her appointment to lead the fiduciaries bureau still requires confirmation by the state Senate. According to the governor’s office, Dragoo will earn an annual salary of $118,824.

Carole Herman, a longtime advocate for elderly Californians who was involved in the bureau’s creation, said she was relieved to see the position finally filled.

“It’s about time,” Herman said. “I hope she does better than everybody in the past, which doesn’t take much for her to do.”

The bureau was established roughly 20 years ago in response to a Los Angeles Times investigation that revealed local courts were failing to catch fiduciary abuse. State lawmakers subsequently gave the bureau authority to license professional fiduciaries — individuals appointed to manage the finances and care of vulnerable clients — and to enforce ethical standards within the profession.

But a CalMatters investigation published earlier this year found that the bureau has repeatedly failed to intervene in cases involving clear conflicts of interest banned under its own code of conduct, as well as instances of egregious misconduct by licensed fiduciaries. Families across California told reporters they had exhausted themselves filing complaints with the agency, only to see little or no action taken.

Part of the problem, according to the investigation, is that the bureau largely relies on fiduciaries to self-report wrongdoing. As a result, some of the information the agency keeps on file about those it licenses is outdated or incomplete. CalMatters also found that the bureau shares far less information with the public than it once did, after successfully lobbying the Legislature to narrow its public records obligations.

The investigation detailed several troubling cases. In Ventura County, fiduciary Angelique Friend was found to have funneled $2.7 million belonging to a client into companies owned by her husband over a period of years, according to court records. That arrangement appeared to violate the bureau’s own ethical guidelines, which explicitly bar both actual and apparent conflicts of interest. Yet there is no indication the bureau took action despite receiving complaints. A bureau spokesperson told CalMatters the agency depends on probate judges to catch and address such conflicts.

In Los Angeles, a man who goes by the single name Vinyasi filed his first complaint against fiduciary Donna Bogdanovich back in 2019. It would be years before any consequences followed. Bogdanovich eventually pleaded no contest to charges that she stole more than $160,000 from Vinyasi and over $1 million combined from other clients, court records show. Her license wasn’t revoked until 2024, despite the bureau having received complaints against her for years prior.

The bureau had operated without a permanent director since August 2024. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom’s office, had said earlier this year that the administration was actively working to fill the post.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Names New Director to Lead Consumer Agency After Two-Year Vacancy appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Across 14 sessions, 33 speakers took the stage to weigh in on topics ranging from the tense relationship between state and federal government to the fiscal and political obstacles awaiting California’s next governor. Attendees also explored the state’s outsized role in the national debate over artificial intelligence, with audience members able to ask questions and interact with panelists throughout the day.

The event drew a notably diverse crowd. In partnership with the California Association of Nonprofits, organizers invited nonprofit directors from across the state, broadening both the geographic reach of attendees and the relevance of the conversations to those directly affected by the policies discussed.

A high school newspaper adviser and her student journalists from Roseville spent the full day covering the festival, landing extended interviews with California Attorney General Rob Bonta and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano — a rare opportunity for young reporters to question two prominent public figures at length.

The festival also served as a gathering point for California’s Latino Media Collaborative, whose members met to discuss shared editorial and business challenges while also reporting on the day’s events. Meanwhile, organizers held the first meeting of what will become the CalMatters Creators Circle, bringing in digital content creators who cover the news and issues CalMatters reports on. Those creators were given a dedicated interview space in the green room and had the chance to sit down one-on-one with many of the day’s speakers, followed by a half-day workshop after the main event concluded.

Sessions throughout the day covered a wide range of subjects. CalMatters CEO Neil Chase and Editor-in-Chief Kristen Go opened the festival alongside California Poet Laureate Lee Herrick, who reflected on the state through verse, in a discussion moderated by CalMatters Board Chair Hema Sareen Mohan.

Other panels examined the widening distance between government institutions and the communities they serve, featuring Amy E. Lerman of UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab. A keynote conversation with Cesar Fernandez of the AI company Anthropic explored whether California can lead the nation in both developing and regulating artificial intelligence, a theme picked up again in a follow-up panel featuring UC Berkeley law professor Deirdre K. Mulligan and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan.

Immigration enforcement and its ripple effects on communities were addressed in a session featuring Julián Castro, CEO of the Latino Community Foundation, and CalMatters health reporter Kristen Hwang. The tension between state and federal authority took center stage in a conversation between Attorney General Bonta and Napolitano, while Lincoln Project co-founders Mike Madrid and Rick Wilson offered their take on lessons learned from recent political battles.

Workforce and education issues were front and center in a panel featuring Alysia Bell of UNITE-LA, Don Howard of the James Irvine Foundation, and Eloy Ortiz Oakley of the College Futures Foundation, who discussed how the state must adapt to shifting labor demands.

Looking ahead to California’s next gubernatorial race, Hoover Institution fellow Lanhee Chen, California Federation of Labor Unions President Lorena Gonzalez, and CalMatters columnist Dan Walters outlined the steep challenges — from budget pressures to political gridlock — that will confront whoever takes office next.

The festival closed with a discussion on the state’s ongoing housing crisis, featuring Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty, and Gustavo Velasquez, director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, who acknowledged progress made in recent years while emphasizing how much work remains.

Video recordings of all 10 mainstage sessions are available for public viewing through CalMatters’ online archive.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Elected Officials, Educators and Residents Convene for CalMatters’ Second Ideas Festival appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The awards, presented by the Sacramento Press Club, honor political and public policy reporting from across California.

Reporter Byrhonda Lyons won the impact in journalism award for her investigation into how the California Department of Motor Vehicles handled surplus proceeds from auctioned vehicles. Her reporting found that the DMV collected more than $8 million between 2016 and 2024 from nearly 5,300 vehicle auctions in which cars sold for more than the costs owed, but former owners were not notified that they could be entitled to the remaining money.

CalMatters journalism engineer Mohamed Al Elew followed the investigation by building an online tool that allowed people to search whether their towed vehicle had generated excess proceeds. The DMV later created a similar lookup system.

The reporting also prompted legislative action. In March, state Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, cited Lyons’ work when introducing SB 1029, a bill that would require the DMV to notify vehicle owners when surplus funds from a lien sale may be owed to them.

Awards judges called the project a clear example of public service journalism, noting that CalMatters used reporting and public records to uncover money that should have been returned to Californians.

CalMatters investigative reporter Sergio Olmos was among the journalists honored with the courage in journalism award. The Sacramento Press Club recognized reporters who continued covering protests against federal immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles in 2025 despite being struck, detained or otherwise targeted.

The award included journalists whose experiences were referenced in legal action filed by the Los Angeles Press Club and Status Coup against the Los Angeles Police Department. The lawsuit alleged that officers targeted journalists even when they were clearly identified as members of the press. A court later issued an injunction barring law enforcement from interfering with journalists doing their jobs.

Olmos was included after he was hit in the chest by a crowd-control munition while reporting on an immigration protest in downtown Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. He told The Washington Post he was wearing a press pass and recording video near a federal building complex when LAPD officers fired munitions at demonstrators. Olmos said he believed he was struck by a 40 mm sponge grenade.

Over the past year, Olmos has reported extensively on immigration raids in California. His investigative series examined the conduct of immigration agents from Bakersfield to Los Angeles, and later in Chicago and Minneapolis, documenting allegations of forceful tactics and questionable detentions that courts have said likely violated constitutional protections.

Anat Rubin won in the criminal justice reporting category for “The Man Who Unsolved a Murder,” an investigation into the shortage of investigators working with public defense teams in California. The reporting found that low-income defendants, who make up at least 80% of people charged with crimes, are often convicted without anyone independently investigating the allegations against them.

Rubin’s work showed that nearly half of California’s 58 counties do not employ full-time public defense investigators. In counties that do have them, access varies widely and is often insufficient.

Judges praised the project for its reporting and writing, saying it clearly showed the consequences of inadequate investigative support for defendants. They also noted the reporting on the risks of relying on flat-fee defense attorneys instead of public defenders.

CalMatters reporter Joe Garcia was a finalist in the same category for reporting from inside California’s prison system. His work examined the realities of shared prison cells and the state’s parole process, including how rehabilitative programming has expanded while the share of prisoners found suitable for parole has gradually declined.

In public health reporting, Jocelyn Wiener, Marisa Kendall and Erica Yee won for an eight-part series on California’s CARE Court program. The program allows family members, first responders and others to petition courts to help people with severe mental illness obtain treatment, and in some cases gives judges authority to order care.

The series examined how the program has worked in practice, including the experiences of families trying to get loved ones off the streets and into psychiatric treatment, and the legal limits courts face when handling petitions. Judges said the reporting explained how the law’s original goals were weakened during the legislative process and why the program has struggled to deliver on its promises.

Adam Echelman won in education reporting for his coverage of financial aid fraud in California’s community college system. His reporting found that colleges were seeing unprecedented levels of fraud, with scammers stealing millions more in student aid than in any prior period, according to reports colleges submitted to the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.

Following the CalMatters reporting, Republican members of Congress called for a federal investigation, a Democratic state lawmaker requested a state audit and the chancellor’s office approved a new identification verification policy for students. Jory Hadsell, an executive in technology initiatives for the chancellor’s office, said colleges have become more aggressive in detecting fraud through improved filtering practices and new software.

Judges said Echelman’s coverage combined deep reporting, data and the voices of people affected by the fraud, while underscoring the stakes for students, faculty, staff and taxpayers.

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Earns Golden State Journalism Awards Praise for Public Service Reporting appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The delay is a familiar feature of California elections, where every registered voter is mailed a ballot and many votes arrive after Election Day. Under state law, mail ballots are counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and received by county election offices within seven days. Counties have deadlines to complete their counts, and the state has up to 38 days after Election Day to certify the final results.

That process could leave Californians waiting to see who advances in some of the state’s most closely watched contests, including the governor’s race.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last month urged election officials to “accurately count every lawfully cast ballot as quickly as possible.” Two changes may help speed the process this year. Proposition 50, which redraws congressional districts in a way expected to benefit Democrats, could make some races less competitive and easier for analysts and news organizations to project. A new state law also shortens the deadline for counties to finish counting most ballots to 13 days instead of 30.

The election is already notable for its cost. California is seeing its most expensive primary on record, driven in part by billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, who has put $213 million of his own money into his campaign for governor. Candidates in other races have also contributed heavily to their own campaigns, with self-funded down-ballot candidates putting in roughly a quarter-billion dollars this year — the highest amount since California began tracking such spending nearly 30 years ago.

Supporters of self-funded candidates often argue that personal wealth can make a candidate less dependent on lobbyists or special interests. Critics counter that it raises questions about whether wealthy candidates can buy influence or access to public office.

Chris Anderson, a Lodi City Council candidate who has contributed to his own campaign, described the tension this way: “There is a part of me that likes the fact that a person is funding their own campaign because they’re less likely to be beholden to a special interest. But on the other hand, what special interests got them to where they are?”

In another development tied to the governor’s race, users of the prediction market platform Kalshi were giving Democrat Xavier Becerra a 74% chance of becoming governor in November as of Monday. At the same time, Kalshi itself donated $39,200 last week to Becerra’s campaign.

The contribution has prompted concerns from campaign finance watchdogs about whether a betting marketplace should give money to a candidate while its users are wagering on that same candidate’s political future.

Trent Lange, executive director of the California Clean Money Campaign, said the situation appears troubling. “It does seem especially problematic when a betting market is giving large contributions to any candidate that they are holding betting markets for,” Lange said.

Kalshi has recently expanded its political presence in Sacramento. Earlier this year, an advocacy group for prediction markets registered to lobby in California as part of a coalition that included Crypto.com, Coinbase and Robinhood. Since last year, Kalshi has increased its California political spending, donating $115,000 to state candidates, including Becerra.

Campaign money is also flowing in another long-running California political fight: the battle between tribal casinos and privately operated cardrooms.

A San Francisco judge last month handed tribal casinos a setback in their effort to stop cardrooms from offering blackjack-style games. Tribes have argued for years that they have exclusive rights to offer blackjack and other lucrative games. The dispute has drawn substantial campaign contributions to state officials and lawmakers from both sides.

Twenty-seven casino-owning tribes have given at least $15.8 million to current members of the Legislature, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. Roughly the same number of cardrooms and affiliated companies have donated at least $2.8 million to lawmakers.

Cardrooms have also contributed at least $244,000 to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office has been involved in pursuing related gambling regulations. Tribes have given $531,000 to Bonta.

Jonathan Underland, a spokesperson for Bonta, told CalMatters that “Contributions have never impacted the Attorney General’s decision-making process.”

In the weeks leading up to Election Day, CalMatters and local partners held a series of voter engagement events around the state, drawing more than 600 Californians to discuss the issues driving their votes. As part of the VotingMatters events, CalMatters Director of Partnerships Dan Hu traveled more than 2,000 miles, meeting voters from Vallejo to Riverside.

Other statewide political commentary this week focused on the challenges awaiting California’s next governor, including the state’s troubled unemployment insurance system, which columnist Dan Walters described as burdened by worsening finances and debt. Christian Arana, vice president of civic power at the Latino Community Foundation, also argued that California should strengthen voting rights protections in response to a state voter ID initiative, federal proposals that could limit voting access and recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions affecting voter protections.

Additional coverage being followed across California includes scrutiny of the crowded governor’s race, concerns about internet campaign misinformation ahead of 2028, an AI-generated video posted by Republican Assembly candidate Darin Hale, a possible corruption case involving a San Joaquin Valley government agency, Bay Area graduates’ views on artificial intelligence, questions over whether local or state governments can stop a proposed ICE detention facility near Gilroy, Spencer Pratt’s strategy in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, vandalism and burned ballots under review in Los Angeles County, and the experience of transgender athlete AB Hernandez amid national political attacks.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Voters Head to Polls as Election Results Awaited appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.