Newsom’s office has received, but not confirmed, reports that live ordnance will be fired from offshore vessels during the event commemorating the Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary. The event is titled “Sea to Shore — A Review of Amphibious Strength” and will feature Vice President JD Vance.

Newsom’s office said it has received little information about the event or safety plans. The military show of force coincides with No Kings rallies and marches across the state on Saturday that are expected to draw large crowds, demonstrations challenging Trump and what critics say is government overreach.

“Donald Trump and JD Vance think that shutting down the I-5 to shoot out missiles from ships is how you respect the military,” Newsom posted on the social media site X Wednesday.

A media advisory said the celebration will include a live amphibious assault demonstration. The Times could not confirm whether live ordnance will be fired over the freeway. The White House and Marine Corps did not respond to questions from The Times.

“California always honors our Marines — but this isn’t the right way to go about it,” said a Newsom spokesperson. “The White House should focus on paying their military, lowering grocery prices and honoring these soldiers for their service instead of pompous displays of power. The lack of coordination and communication from the federal government on this event — and the overall impact to our society and economy — is evident of the larger disarray that is the Trump Administration.”

Freeway closures are being considered for a section of I-5 between Orange County to San Diego County from Friday to Saturday, which would cut off a major traffic artery that moves upward of 80,000 travelers a day. A closure with little notice would likely result in massive gridlock from Dana Point in the north to well past Del Mar in the south.

Vance, the first Marine veteran to serve as vice president, is expected to attend the event Saturday along with 15,000 Marines, Sailors, veterans and their families, according to event’s media release. Along with Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to deliver remarks.

Camp Pendleton advised nearby residents that there will be live-fire training with high explosive munitions through Sunday.

The Trump administration previously had plans for a major celebration next month for the 250th anniversary of the Navy and Marines, which would have included an air and sea show — with the Blue Angels and parading warships — attended by President Trump, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. Plans to host that show in San Diego have been called off, the paper reported.

Camp Pendleton is a 125,000-acre base in northwestern San Diego County that has been critical in preparing soldiers for amphibious missions since World War II thanks to its miles of beach and coastal hills. The U.S. Department of Defense is considering making a portion of the base available for development or lease.

The post I-5 may be shut down due to concerns over live-fire military event at Camp Pendleton appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Senate Bill 848, sponsored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democrat from Alhambra, stems from a slew of recent lawsuits over sexual abuse in California schools, as well as a news report on decades of sexual abuse by at least a dozen teachers at a high school in her district.

“I’m proud to see this bill move forward. It’s been really personal for me,” said Pérez, who recently told CalMatters that she was the victim of a teacher’s inappropriate interest while she was in high school. “For survivors, this is an important step toward justice.”

The law goes into effect Jan. 1, and applies to all K-12 schools in California, including private schools. 

Among other things, the law requires schools to train teachers, coaches and other school staff on how to prevent and report sexual misconduct; broadens the number of staff who are required to report abuse allegations; and requires schools to write comprehensive policies on appropriate behavior. 

But the database is perhaps the most significant change. Administered by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the database is intended to stop teachers facing credible accusations of abuse from quitting and getting rehired at another school, potentially abusing more children. The database will be available to schools as part of their employee screening process, and would be updated if allegations against a teacher prove to be unfounded.

Although sexual abuse has long occurred in schools, the extent of the problem came to light in 2020 after the passage of AB 218, which made it easier for victims to sue school districts and other government agencies over sexual abuse. The law opened a floodgate of lawsuits that have so far cost California schools more than $3 billion and brought some districts to the brink of insolvency. 

Another bill’s failure

The large payouts inspired another bill this year, which would have provided some relief for school districts faced with lawsuits over decades-old abuse claims while still allowing victims to be compensated. Senate bill SB 577, sponsored by State Sen. John Laird, a Democrat from Santa Cruz, stalled in the Assembly. 

The bill didn’t cap settlements or attorney fees, but it called for a statute of limitations on older incidents and would have made it easier for school districts to issue bonds to pay settlements, which in California have mostly ranged from $5 million to $10 million.

“I am disappointed that SB 577 will not be advancing this year,” Laird said in an email. “I had hoped to protect survivors’ access to justice while finding some fiscal relief to local governments. Despite these months of hard work, it was just impossible to balance these interests to get to a successful outcome this year.”

Laird said he hopes to resurrect the bill next year.

Financial hardships for districts

School districts were devastated by SB 577’s failure. Some had canceled preschool programs and field trips, frozen salaries or laid off staff and taken other steps to pay legal settlements. The expenses come at a difficult time for schools, as pandemic relief grants have recently expired and enrollment continues to decline in many parts of the state. 

Montecito Union School District, a 350-student district near Santa Barbara, last month settled an abuse lawsuit for $7.5 million — nearly half its annual budget — for alleged sexual abuse by a former staff member between 1972 and 1978. 

Nearby Carpinteria Unified has also been affected.

“We are very frustrated that legislators failed to assist California school districts who have been forced to defend themselves against decades-old claims, spending millions of dollars that impact current students and families,” said Diana Rigby, superintendent of Carpinteria Unified. “Our district has been severely impacted by the financial burden of defending four lawsuits from the 1970s.”

Advocates for SB 577 said that trial attorneys were behind the bill’s failure. Attorneys earn up to 30% to 40% on legal settlements, and have been advertising around California in search of people who were abused in schools. 

In the final days of the legislative session, ads circulated on social media featuring a photo of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas with the words, “Stop the Predator Protection Law” and “Stand with child victims.” The ads were paid for by the law firm Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, a national firm with offices in Irvine and Riverside, which specializes in sex abuse claims.

John Manly, a partner in the firm, said he bought the ads to pressure Rivas to reject the bill.

“If I have to spend every last dime to protect a child from being abused, I will do that,” Manly said. “I’ve spent my career doing this, and I’m not going to stop.”

Manly, the lead attorney in the lawsuit against former Olympic team doctor Larry Nassar, said he’d fight any legislation that curbs abuse lawsuits. He also said Pérez’s bill doesn’t go far enough: it should include felony charges for mandated reporters who fail to report suspected abuse, and it should require school districts to publish the names of staff who’ve been “credibly accused” of sexual misconduct.  

He expects the fight to continue next year and beyond.

Consumer Attorneys of California, a lobbying group, was neutral on Laird’s bill.

“Although CAOC had no official position on the bill, we thought it struck the right balance between protecting survivors’ rights and addressing issues relating to public entities,” said Jonathan Underland, spokesperson for Consumer Attorneys of California. “We were disappointed to see that it did not cross the finish line.”

Eventually, state political leaders will have to take action on abuse lawsuits because too many schools and government agencies are facing insolvency, endangering programs that millions of people rely on, said Ben Adler, public affairs director for the California State Association of Counties.

“God bless Senator Laird for taking this on. It was a thankless task,” Adler said. “Moving forward, there has to be a way to ensure justice for survivors without bankrupting schools and counties, which provide a social safety net. The governor and the Legislature will have to get everyone in a room to figure this thing out.”

The post Newsom signs bill to prevent sex abuse in schools appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The law, Assembly Bill 5, requires county election offices to count ballots no later than 13 days after election day, but does not change the 30-day deadline for local officials to certify results. Counties unable to meet the new deadline must give a reason for an extension to the secretary of state’s office.

“California has one of the most accessible and secure voting systems in the country,” said the bill’s author, Assemblymember Marc Berman, a Menlo Park Democrat, in a statement. “One opportunity for improvement was to speed up how quickly we count ballots and create a system that gave greater certainty to the public for when results would be available.”

Voter fraud is rare, typically occurs in isolated instances and is generally detected. However, local election officials have received greater scrutiny across the country after President Donald Trump and his allies disputed false claims of election fraud after the 2020 election. 

Local officials in California have since launched social media campaigns to explain and show voters how their ballots are processed. 

Lawmakers suggest the new law, which received bipartisan support in the state Legislature, will help clamp down on misinformation as some Republicans have grown increasingly distrustful of mail ballots. It takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, so will not apply to November’s vote on Proposition 50.

Proponents such as the nonprofit California Voter Foundation have said it will increase the public’s trust in elections and avoid officials being sworn in before their races have been certified, which was the case for a number of state lawmakers last year.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office opposed the bill. 

Timothy Cromartie, a spokesperson for Weber, said at a Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee earlier this year that there was a concern that 13 days would not be enough time for counties, which currently have 30 days to complete the count. The secretary of state’s office proposed a deadline of 15 days instead, but that was not adopted.

“As always, we will do our best to uphold the laws as passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor,” Weber said in a written statement.

More mail-in ballots slow down counting

It is increasingly common for counties to take weeks to count ballots due to the growing popularity of mail-in ballots, particularly after the coronavirus pandemic. More than 80% of California voters voted by mail in the 2024 November election, according to the secretary of state’s office. That trend has accelerated since a 2021 law required each registered voter to receive a mail ballot. 

Mail ballots take longer for officials to process than votes at a polling place because of the required steps for officials to verify signatures and confirm that voters have not already cast a ballot somewhere else. The state also allows ballots postmarked by election day to be counted even if they arrive up to a week later. Those ballots will not be subject to the 13-day deadline, nor will provisional ballots or ballots missing voter signatures.

It is not possible to know how long it took counties to count all their ballots in the last election because of a state law that prohibited them from certifying results any earlier than 28 days after election day, Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said in an email.

“Historically, some counties count faster than others. This has to do with a number of factors – space, equipment, staffing,” Alexander said. 

Some California counties, such as Los Angeles, can take close to a month to count election results, as was the case last year in the 22nd Congressional District in Southern California, which was eventually won by Democratic Rep. Derek Tran. Experts largely attribute California’s size and widespread use of mail-in ballots as the reason for this.

Los Angeles County officials say the new law will change little about how they process ballots.

“We’ve always processed ballots much earlier than the date signed into the law. We’re not particularly concerned with that 13-day requirement,” said Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Clerk. “It may seem more ceremonial than anything else.”

Election workers have said that public messaging urging voters to drop or mail off their ballots sooner could speed up the process.

Newsom also signed a bill that bans voters from being paid to register to vote in response to the millions of dollars that billionaire Elon Musk gave away to registered voters in swing states during the 2024 election. Another piece of legislation he signed would schedule a ballot measure for the 2026 election to allow voters to decide if taxpayer funds can be used for political campaigns.

The post California voters could see faster election results under new state law  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.

Insurance industry representative Rex Frazier argues that state leaders have the right idea: Burdensome regulations are making a difficult situation worse. But consumer advocate Jamie Court contends that the state needs to take a harder line by requiring coverage of homeowners who meet fire protection standards.

As the leader of an association of homeowners’ insurers, I frequently hear from anxious Californians who are losing their coverage and wondering whether the situation will get better. My answer is that I am not one of those who believes California is facing an uninsurable future. The problems we face are difficult but solvable.

The insurance challenges the state is facing today have roots in the past. While the giant wildfires of 2017 and 2018 had a huge impact, requiring insurers to pay claims equivalent to more than 20 years of profits, the state’s insurance problems predate the fires. California’s failure to update the old rules governing insurance rates have long prevented insurers from preparing for a hotter, drier future.

California’s laws are a national outlier. The rules for projecting wildfire losses, a crucial aspect of calculating insurance rates, are a case in point. California is the only state in the country that requires property insurers to project future wildfire losses based on average wildfire losses over the last 20 years, regardless of where they plan to do business. Every other state allows insurers to base their rates on where they intend to sell insurance, taking into account the degree of fire risk to the properties they plan to insure.

California is also a national outlier on rate approval in that it’s a “prior approval” state. That means an insurer must receive approval from the California Department of Insurance before it may increase or decrease rates.

While California law promises a 60-day approval period, it often takes six months or more to get permission to change rates. At times of high inflation, slow approvals require insurers to leave the highest-risk areas or face financial ruin.

A less visible but nevertheless critical issue is the financial well-being of the FAIR Plan, a pool of insurers providing last-resort coverage. The FAIR plan is growing well beyond its ability to pay claims for large fires. And if it runs out of money, it will charge insurers, as members of the pool, a fee in addition to claims from their own customers for the same fire. If that fee gets large enough, it could devastate insurers. We must address this.

Fortunately, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has recognized the need to fix these problems. His Sustainable Insurance Strategy would update California’s rate regulations and approval process while requiring insurers to make commitments to cover high-risk areas. The proposal is far from perfect, but we look forward to working with all the interested parties to increase insurance availability and restore the health of the market.

While state regulations and processes can be changed, we remain vulnerable to forces that are beyond our control. Inflation makes repairing and rebuilding homes much more expensive, driving up rates. Longer dry seasons increase the chances of devastating fires, having the same effect in the short term. We need a system that acknowledges these realities.

But raising rates is not a long-term solution. Reducing them over time will require consensus on how to handle combustible fuels near valuable property.

That will take a lot of time and effort. California homeowners’ insurers are ready to do our part to secure an insurable future for the state.

Rex Frazier is the president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California.

Home insurance companies have put Californians in a bind by refusing to sell new policies or renew many customers, leaving them with few coverage options. That has driven more homeowners into the high-cost, low-benefit FAIR Plan, a pool of insurers required to provide last-resort coverage.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced legislation to allow insurance companies to hike rates more quickly in an effort to woo them back to the state. While that will certainly leave Californians paying higher rates, it’s not likely to get more people covered.

Insurance companies are refusing to write new policies despite substantial recent rate hikes — an average of 20% for State Farm and 37% for Farmers, for example. What has them spooked is greater exposure through the FAIR Plan, which increasingly covers expensive homes in wildfire-prone areas. Insurers are on the hook for FAIR Plan claims, and their exposure increases with market participation, so they limit their participation.

Only freeing people from the FAIR Plan will solve this. The most practical way to do that is to require insurers to cover people who harden their homes against fire. We have mandatory health and auto insurance, so why shouldn’t we have it for homes that meet standards?

Hardening is expensive enough that most homeowners are unlikely to do it without guaranteed coverage. Mandating insurance is therefore the best way to mitigate wildfire risks.

Mitigation efforts are already working, with major claim events dwindling in recent years. Moreover, insurers recovered billions from the utilities responsible for major fire losses in 2017 and 2018.

The current crisis was precipitated not so much by wildfires as by investment losses and rising construction costs. Insurers responded by tightening underwriting and raising rates.

Insurance companies got their hikes, but they refuse to write new business here until they get more. Unfortunately, Newsom and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara are ready to give them what they want.

Last week, Lara proposed regulations attempting to address the crisis. Echoing a legislative proposal that failed last year, they would allow companies to raise rates based on black-box climate models. Florida tried a similar approach, and its rates are now about double California’s. Florida’s insurer of last resort covers 20% of its homeowners, roughly five times the share in California.

The proposed regulations purport to require insurers to increase sales to homeowners in “distressed areas” by 5%. However, they would not require them to charge prices consumers can afford. The requirement to cover these areas could also be waived if an insurer shows it’s “taking reasonable steps to fulfill its insurer commitment.” And the plan gives companies two years to comply but lets them start charging all policyholders higher rates immediately.

Newsom cheered the proposal, essentially arguing that California’s insurance rates are too damn low. He didn’t mention that California insurers’ profits have generally outpaced the national average over the last 20 years.

Newsom’s latest legislative proposal would limit public participation in rate-setting by cutting out so-called intervenors such as Consumer Watchdog, which can challenge unnecessary increases and has saved consumers more than $6 billion over 22 years.

Throwing more money at insurers won’t end the crisis; requiring them to cover responsible homeowners will.

Jamie Court is the president of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog.

The post With fires burning again, is California becoming uninsurable? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In a closed-door discussion this week, representatives for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) met with the leaders behind the Californians for Safer Communities Coalition, the group led by local district attorneys that has spent the last six months campaigning for voter support to reform Proposition 47, which voters passed in 2014.

Two people with knowledge of the meeting said legislative leaders are moving forward with a hard-ball approach that would make voters choose between the two efforts — and could splinter support for the ballot measure.

Unless the ballot measure is withdrawn, the Democratic leadership plans to add an “inoperability clause” to its legislation that would revoke the new laws if voters pass the statewide proposition in November, according to the sources and a letter Republicans sent to legislative leaders.

The Republican lawmakers in the letter condemned those changes, saying they would “do grave damage” to the bipartisan progress made on retail theft. Lawmakers are advancing a bipartisan 12-bill legislative package that would address the issues of retail theft and focus on protecting the safety of workers and store owners, without harsher penalties for some offenders.

The proposed ballot initiative takes a different approach that would revise Proposition 47 to make possession of fentanyl into a felony, and repeat offenders who steal for the third time — regardless of the value of the product stolen — could serve up to three years in state prison. A spokesperson for the ballot measure campaign declined to comment about the meeting.

“The Speaker has done more in eight months than anyone has done in eight years to push the conversation forward and I think everyone in the room acknowledges that,” said Daniel Conway, vice president of government relations for the California Grocers Assn., who was present during the discussions this week. “And that is why there is a bona fide effort to see what can be done.”

Both the proposed legislation and ballot measure focus on the need to address retail theft. But over the last several months, disagreements have been mounting over the best path forward. Gov. Gavin Newsom made it clear that he does not want proposed reforms to Proposition 47 on the November ballot, saying effective changes can be made through the legislative process instead. But law enforcement groups and conservative prosecutors say the only way to enact substantive changes is by bringing it back to the voters.

California voters approved Proposition 47 in 2014 to reclassify some felony drug and theft offenses as misdemeanors and to raise, from $400 to $950, the amount for which theft can be prosecuted as a felony.

The political jockeying and the change leaders plan to make to the legislation could potentially lead to splintering within the ballot measure coalition, which has had the backing of law enforcement groups and funding from major retailers.

The Grocer’s Assn., which represents over 6,000 food stores and grocery suppliers, is still supportive of both the ballot measure and legislation.

Rachel Michelin, president of the California Retailers Assn., told The Times that she supports the legislative package and thinks it does more for retailers than the ballot initiative. But she is frustrated at the politics being played on all sides.

“I am just trying to provide resources to retailers and law enforcement to keep our customers safe,” she said. “Unfortunately, I don’t know whether the proponents of the initiative are going to budge. My fear is we lose all of these things in the package if they move forward to initiative. That would be detrimental.”

The post New change coming to retail theft legislation could splinter support for tough-on-crime initiative appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The $6.4 billion bond measure — which overhauls how the state addresses the overlapping crises of homelessness, drug addiction and untreated mental illness — passed late Wednesday by the thinnest of margins, barely 30,000 votes in a state of nearly 40 million people.

Newsom, who made Prop 1 the centerpiece of his political agenda this year, celebrated the win Thursday but acknowledged the obvious message from voters.

“People want results. People are exhausted with the time delay,” the Democratic governor said at a news conference in Los Angeles hours after a painstaking, two-week count to settle the race. “They’re exhausted with the promises. They want to see results.”

The unexpectedly close result, in a campaign that featured only token opposition, shows that Californians are deeply divided over whether to spend more money on homelessness, and to deal with the cost of housing more broadly, which voters consistently say is the No. 1 issue in a state with more people living on the streets than any other. It also raises questions about Newsom, and whether he can execute on major policy proposals.

Californians Against Prop 1, the ragtag group of volunteers who were the sole voices against Newsom’s campaign, said in a statement that the measure could constitute a “humanitarian disaster.”

“Prop. 1 is not a ‘huge’ win for Gov. Newsom. It’s an embarrassing squeaker of a victory that contains a strong warning,” the group said after the race was called.

A map of the election results illustrates the point vividly, with Prop 1 winning along the liberal coast and losing just about everywhere else — especially in the more conservative inland parts of the state. Homelessness, which surged during the pandemic, is most visible in cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco but is at record levels across California.

The state has spent more than $12 billion over the last five years to address the problem, clearing thousands of encampments and moving people into housing, but the close Prop 1 vote suggests a deep reluctance to spend more.

“I get why people said ‘I’m not going to support another bond,’” Newsom said Thursday.

Prop 1 was Newsom’s big swing at housing and homelessness — a sweeping measure that could help define his legacy, or tarnish it, if he seeks higher office.

The measure is more than an anti-homelessness effort. It redistributes spending from a tax on incomes over $1 million, which was adopted by voters in 2004, to focus more on treating severe mental health problems — in part by building facilities to replace those closed decades ago by then Gov. Ronald Reagan.

Critics charged that this overhaul would short-change existing programs for less severe mental health — the kinds of conditions that can lead to more serious problems, and homelessness. They also raised concerns about compulsory treatment — but the opposition raised almost no money to counter the governor and his allies.

As the Prop 1 funding rolls out, starting later this year, the counties that fund the bulk of mental health treatment in the state will face new mandates to direct more services toward housing and to treating people experiencing homelessness.

That’s a feature, not a bug, in Newsom’s mind. He has reasoned that forcing counties to focus more on people on the street, and only on programs that really work, will help deliver the results voters are demanding.

Going to the voters with a bond measure is always risky and especially so during a primary, when the electorate tends to be older and more conservative. That lesson was driven home hard in recent days.

Ahead of the March 5 primary, the campaign predicted the measure would pass with around 55 percent of the vote. Passing with 50.2 percent, it underperformed even those low expectations.

It spent the past two weeks in limbo, though it faced almost no paid opposition. Ten days after the election, the yes campaign sent out a plea for supporters to help fix rejected ballots to push the measure over the finish line.

That’s all despite the fact that Newsom marshaled an unprecedented coalition of supporters — featuring Republican and Democratic leaders from across the state, along with police and fire officials and mental health organizations. The “yes” campaign raised $20 million, compared to just $2,000 by the opposition.

Newsom endured post-election criticism for risking the measure by placing it on the March ballot. His response is that he had no choice, addressing an urgent matter in a way that will start channeling money into the issue by October.

In the end, even a narrow victory is a win. Newsom acknowledges that voters sent a flashing yellow warning sign with the results — and that they may not be willing to spend more money on homelessness any time soon.

“I’ve never been associated with something I’m more proud of,” Newsom said. “I recognize now the imperative of delivering on this vision.”

The post California sends a message on homelessness — and Newsom appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Today, the anti-Prop. 1 campaign withdrew its concession and revived its efforts. What changed?

For one thing, the vote count tightened: As of late Saturday, Prop. 1 was leading by about 20,000 votes, with 7.5 million ballots counted and some 287,000 left to be tallied, according to the Secretary of State.

And for another, Newsom’s political action committee put out an appeal for volunteers to reach out to Democrats who had their ballots rejected — for mismatched signatures or other reasons — to fix them and get them counted. The training was Sunday. 

“Governor Newsom needs you…. The votes are being counted and it is CLOSE. Like, just a couple thousand votes close,” the appeal said. 

Prop. 1 opponents called that strategy “sleazy” and “an attempt to manipulate the final vote count by harvesting the votes of only some partisans in certain areas.”

But the foes said they’re launching a similar effort and refocusing their website to help voters confirm their ballots were counted and to assist voters whose ballots were rejected.

“We believe all ballots should be counted,” Paul Simmons, a director of Californians Against Prop. 1, said in a statement. “We know that many Democrats voted against Prop. 1, so the governor’s effort is no slam dunk. If you’re a Republican or independent, we want you to know that your ballot might make the difference in this election. But the governor won’t help you. We will.”

“We don’t know if reviving rejected ballots will change the outcome of this election,” Simmons added, “but if the governor thinks it might, we for damn sure aren’t going to let him have the field to himself.”

The Prop. 1 results would have to get even closer, however, for a recount. 

There are no automatic recounts for statewide ballot measures. But a campaign can request one in specific counties — if it’s willing to pay for it. That could be a hurdle for the cash-strapped Prop. 1 opponents if the measure narrowly passes.

There’s another provision in state law that could also come into play: The governor can order a state-funded hand recount of all votes statewide if the official results show a difference between “yes” and “no” votes on a ballot measure of 1,000 votes or less, or 0.00015 percentage points or less. As of the latest vote count, the second threshold is 1,055 votes for Prop. 1.   

So if Prop. 1 fails that narrowly, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Newsom uses this provision. Such a recount request would have to come within 36 days of the primary, or mid-April. 

The post Why Prop. 1 foes are getting back in the fight appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom will try to reinforce his state’s role as a global leader on climate change as he begins a weeklong visit to China on Monday, a trip that presents both political risk and opportunity for crucial international collaboration.

Newsom’s tour begins with a discussion in Hong Kong before he continues on to Beijing, Shanghai and the provinces of Guangdong and Jiangsu. He’ll visit the first Chinese city to deploy an all-electric bus fleet, tour an offshore wind facility and see a wetlands preserve. He’ll sign agreements with leaders of Chinese provinces to set mutual commitments on a host of climate goals. California has already signed dozens of such agreements with subnational governments.

Newsom’s agenda also includes conversations on “strengthening cultural ties and combating xenophobia,” and he will visit a school with his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

His trip to China follows a brief visit to Israel.

Governors of California, which has an economy larger than most countries, have a long history of climate collaboration with China. Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger also traveled there to swap knowledge on reducing air pollution and emissions, and since leaving office, Brown has launched the California-China Climate Institute at the University of California, Berkeley.

However, Newsom’s trip comes at a very different political moment, with rising tensions between the United States and China over trade, human rights, the future of Taiwan and international conflicts. It follows a recent visit to Beijing by a congressional delegation led by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who sought a sharper condemnation of Hamas by the Chinese government.

Climate remains one area where collaboration is seen as both possible and necessary. Both countries appear to have fully re-engaged in the run-up to the next U.N. climate change conference, which opens Nov. 30 in Dubai.

China suspended climate and other talks with the U.S. in August 2022 to show its anger over a visit by then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan. Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to resume climate talks three months later at a meeting with President Joe Biden in Indonesia.

John Kerry, the U.S. climate envoy, held in-person meetings in Beijing in July, and he and Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua have held regular video calls since then, Xie told a forum in Beijing last month.

David Victor, a professor and co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at the University of California, San Diego, said state-level dialogue is an important avenue for progress given the complicated politics of the U.S.-China relationship. Animosity between the two countries has led to less travel and fewer joint research projects.

“The states really are where anything substantive is going to happen,” Victor said, while at the national level, “there’s no political constituency for opening the door and having a deeper relationship.”

The Newsom administration has been in close contact with the White House and Kerry ahead of the governor’s trip, said Lauren Sanchez, the governor’s senior climate adviser. The White House did not comment on Newsom’s trip.

Brown, the former governor, said political tensions don’t change the fact that greenhouse gases are still being emitted at an alarming rate.

“Cooperation is the absolute requirement. And at this time, I would say California has been pushing the federal government in the direction of more dialogue with China,” Brown said. “It has a very important long-term effect.”

California has passed some of the world’s most aggressive vehicle emissions rules, and Newsom has moved to ban the sale of most new gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. The state has a mandate to be carbon neutral by 2045, meaning it will remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as it emits. California is already dealing with drought and wildfires made worse by climate change.

Still, the state is responsible for less than 1% of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions, meaning its efforts can go only so far without global partnerships, Sanchez said. In 2020, China was responsible for more than 30% of global carbon dioxide emissions, compared with the U.S. at 13.5%.

“It’s going to be very difficult to tackle the climate crisis just here in California,” Sanchez said. “Climate change is a global issue, it requires global partnerships.”

California has shared its expertise on air pollution regulations, carbon pricing programs and conservation, Sanchez said.

China, meanwhile, is now more advanced at electrifying the transportation fleet and deploying offshore wind — it has more gigawatts of offshore wind power than the rest of the world combined, Sanchez said. The Biden administration recently held an auction for five offshore wind lease areas along the U.S. West Coast.

Newsom’s second term ends in January 2026, and he cannot seek re-election. He has repeatedly denied an interest in running for president, but he has sought to boost his national profile by campaigning for Democrats in Republican-led states and even agreeing to debate GOP presidential hopeful and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in late November.

The international trip stands to bolster Newsom’s political and policy credentials beyond his state. However, opponents will likely be on the lookout for any signs of coziness between him and China’s communist government that could be used against him in the future.

California Republicans said Newsom shouldn’t be visiting China at a time of tensions over international conflicts and the suppression of free speech. Instead he should focus on problems at home like poverty and crime, Republican state Assembly Leader James Gallagher said in a statement.

“Newsom shouldn’t be playing make-believe diplomat while ignoring the challenges facing our state,” he said.

But climate experts said California has a significant role to play in advancing global climate policy.

“It’s a major clean energy leader. It’s one of the leading economies in the world. It has a huge amount of technical expertise,” said Nathaniel Keohane, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “There’s a natural role for California and the California governor.”

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

The post California Gov. Gavin Newsom is traveling to China to talk climate change appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.