That expectation did not last long.

Only months into his term, Davis publicly bristled at legislative leaders who were pursuing priorities different from his own. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, Davis said lawmakers’ role was to carry out the agenda he had campaigned on, arguing that he alone had won a statewide mandate.

The remarks landed hard in Sacramento. Davis was already at odds with Senate President Pro Tem John Burton and Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, who wanted to focus on health insurance while the governor put education proposals at the center of his agenda. The conflict grew so bitter that Burton and Villaraigosa effectively cut off communication between Davis’ aides and legislative staff.

The episode became an early example of a recurring force in California politics: Even when the governor and legislative leaders belong to the same party, the rivalry between the executive branch and the Legislature often shapes — and sometimes stalls — the state’s agenda.

That dynamic is surfacing again as Gov. Gavin Newsom enters the final stretch of his governorship and looks toward what is widely expected to be a presidential campaign.

This time, the conflict centers on the state budget and the size of California’s ongoing deficit. Newsom is seeking to close a series of multibillion-dollar shortfalls that followed years in which state spending outpaced revenue. His revised budget proposal totals $349.4 billion, and he has described it as balanced not only for the coming fiscal year but also for the first budget cycle after he leaves office.

To get there, Newsom’s plan restrains spending in areas that are central to Democratic lawmakers’ priorities, including education, health care and social services. Those programs are closely watched across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where large numbers of residents rely on state-funded services such as Medi-Cal, California’s health insurance program for low-income residents.

Since Newsom released his revised budget in May, lawmakers have faced pressure from advocates who oppose reductions to safety-net programs. Organizations representing health care providers, schools and social service programs have warned that cuts or delays could affect vulnerable Californians and local agencies that already operate under tight budgets.

Legislative leaders responded last week with their own budget plan, released ahead of Monday’s constitutional deadline for passing a spending blueprint. Their proposal would restore many of the reductions Newsom recommended or postpone them for the next governor to address. Compared with Newsom’s plan, the Legislature’s version would increase spending by more than $6 billion.

That difference is at the heart of the dispute. Newsom is pushing for a tighter budget that reduces the gap between revenue and spending. Legislative leaders are betting that state revenues will improve and want to avoid deeper cuts now.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat, said the Legislature’s approach is intended to prevent severe reductions to programs that many Californians depend on to get by.

The passage of a budget bill by the deadline does not end the negotiations. Newsom and lawmakers now have until the start of the new fiscal year on July 1 to reach agreement on a final spending plan that authorizes specific expenditures.

The coming negotiations will test how much influence Newsom retains as his time in Sacramento winds down. Governors typically have significant leverage in budget talks, but that power can weaken as they approach the end of their tenure. Lawmakers, meanwhile, must answer to districts where constituents may be more concerned about health care, schools and public benefits than about the governor’s long-term political future.

The tension is familiar. California governors often enter office claiming a statewide mandate, while legislators argue that they represent the needs of their communities and must protect the programs their constituents rely on. Party unity can narrow ideological differences, but it rarely erases the institutional competition between the branches of government.

For Davis, that rivalry emerged almost immediately. For Newsom, it is playing out near the end of his governorship, with the stakes centered on how California manages a difficult budget and who will bear the consequences of closing the gap.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Capitol Tensions Flare as Newsom and Lawmakers Clash Over Budget appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The measures now move to the opposite houses of the Legislature, a point where similar efforts have struggled in past years. If approved, the bills would affect drivers statewide, including across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where DUI enforcement and roadway safety remain frequent concerns for law enforcement and families of crash victims.

Hearings this spring exposed a sharp policy divide. Families who have lost loved ones in crashes, along with lawmakers pushing for tougher penalties, argued that California has too often allowed dangerous drivers to remain on the road. Progressive organizations, including the ACLU and other advocacy groups, urged lawmakers to focus more heavily on road design, traffic calming and prevention rather than expanding criminal penalties.

At a March hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Danica Rodarmel, speaking for Debt Free Justice California, opposed broader requirements for ignition interlock devices — in-car breathalyzers used by some DUI offenders. She said the systems can be costly and difficult for some drivers to manage.

“If we’re serious about prevention, we have to design systems that people can easily comply with,” Rodarmel told lawmakers. “I also understand that these concerns sound really minuscule when we’re talking about it compared to lives.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Southern California Democrat who is again trying to expand use of the devices, responded by focusing on the stakes.

“I could not agree more with that sentiment,” she said.

Among the bills still moving forward are two measures, AB 1662 and SB 953, aimed at closing what supporters call a diversion loophole. California’s diversion program is intended to help lower-level offenders avoid the long-term consequences of a criminal conviction. But in some cases, judges have granted diversion to drivers accused of killing someone, meaning the cases were not reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the drivers kept clean records. Critics say that can leave a driver facing less lasting punishment than someone cited for speeding.

AB 1830 would expand ignition interlock requirements. Most states require all people convicted of DUI to install the devices, but California currently mandates them mainly for repeat offenders or DUI crashes involving injuries. Even those requirements are not always enforced by courts, according to prior reporting on the issue.

AB 1546 would increase consequences for repeat DUI offenses. Under current law, prosecutors generally must wait until a fourth DUI within 10 years before charging the offense as a felony. The bill would make a third DUI within that period a “wobbler,” allowing prosecutors to pursue either misdemeanor or felony charges. It also would extend ignition interlock requirements or license suspensions for drivers with four or more DUIs in a decade.

SB 1198 would lengthen license suspensions and vehicle impoundment periods for drivers convicted of reckless driving.

Three other bills remain alive but have been narrowed.

SB 907 originally included five major provisions to increase DUI penalties. The remaining portions would add prison time for some repeat DUI offenders, enhance penalties for hit-and-run cases involving drivers with prior DUIs, and make it easier to charge repeat drunken drivers with murder if they kill someone. Removed provisions would have classified vehicular manslaughter as a violent felony in some cases and added prison time for fatal crashes involving multiple victims.

AB 1685 would change how vehicular manslaughter convictions count against a driver’s license. Currently, a vehicular manslaughter conviction counts as two points; a speeding ticket counts as one, and four points in 12 months can trigger a suspension. The original bill would have made all vehicular manslaughter convictions count as three points. As amended, it adds a third point only when the driver was intoxicated and acted with gross negligence.

AB 1687 would address license revocations for serious repeat offenses. State law now requires the DMV to revoke a license for three years after most felony vehicular manslaughter convictions or a third DUI. The bill initially would have required an eight-year revocation. The current version would allow, but not require, the DMV to impose the longer period.

Several other proposals have stalled or failed.

AB 1723 and AB 1874 sought to change when license revocation periods begin. Courts have sometimes failed to report manslaughter convictions to the DMV. When those cases were later flagged, the DMV has treated the revocation as if it began on the conviction date, meaning some drivers never actually lost their licenses. One proposal would have required the revocation period to begin when the DMV takes action; the other would have started the period when a driver is released from jail or prison after a manslaughter conviction.

AB 1686 would have allowed prosecutors to charge a second or third DUI as a felony, rather than generally waiting until a fourth DUI.

AB 1747 would have made all DUI vehicular manslaughter cases felonies. Under current California law, a driver who kills someone while intoxicated can still face a misdemeanor if prosecutors determine the driver did not act with gross negligence. The bill failed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee after labor and human rights groups argued that existing law gives prosecutors appropriate discretion.

AB 1748 would have doubled the license suspension for a first-time DUI from six months to one year, lengthened suspensions for repeat offenders and required permanent license revocation after five DUI convictions within 10 years. It was rejected by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

AB 2276 proposed a pilot program for “intelligent speed assistance” technology. Similar in concept to ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders, the proposal would have tested technology intended to prevent people convicted of reckless driving from speeding.

AB 1605 and AB 1867 were modeled on a Utah law restricting alcohol sales to repeat DUI offenders. The California proposals would have required the DMV to mark licenses with language such as “No alcohol sales” or “Repeat serious DUI offender.” One version included a lifetime ban on alcohol purchases for the most serious repeat offenders. The bills did not advance.

AB 1814 would have expanded law enforcement training requirements for field sobriety testing, drug recognition or impaired-driving investigations. The proposal failed to meet a key May legislative deadline.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Eight “License to Kill” Bills Advance in State Legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

BELLINGHAM, Wash. (AP) — A ban on dozens of semi-automatic rifles cleared the Washington state Legislature on Wednesday and the governor is expected to sign it into law.

The high-powered firearms — once banned nationwide — are now the weapon of choice among young men responsible for most of the country’s devastating mass shootings.

The ban comes after multiple failed attempts in the state’s Legislature, and amid the most mass shootings during the first 100 days of a calendar year since 2009.

The Washington law would block the sale, distribution, manufacture and importation of more than 50 gun models, including AR-15s, AK-47s and similar style rifles. These guns fire one bullet per trigger pull and automatically reload for a subsequent shot. Some exemptions are included for sales to law enforcement agencies and the military in Washington. The measure does not bar the possession of the weapons by people who already have them.

The law would go into effect immediately once it’s signed by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, who has long advocated for such a ban. When the bill passed the state House in March, Inslee said he’s believed it since 1994 when, as a member of the U.S. Congress, he voted to make the ban a federal law.

After the bill passed, Inslee said the state of Washington “will not accept gun violence as normal.”

Inslee said lives will be saved because of the semi-automatic rifle ban and two other measures approved by the Legislature this session: one that introduced a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases and another to hold gunmakers liable for negligent sales.

Republican state lawmakers opposed the ban, with some contending school shootings should be addressed by remodeling buildings to make them less appealing as targets and others saying it infringes on people’s rights to defend themselves.

“HB 1240 clearly violates our state and federal constitutions, which is why it will end up in court immediately,” Sen. Lynda Wilson of Vancouver said.

The U.S. Congress reinstating a ban on semi-automatic rifles appears far off. But President Joe Biden and other Democrats have become increasingly emboldened in pushing for stronger gun controls — and doing so with no clear electoral consequences.

Nine states including California, New York and Massachusetts, along with the District of Columbia, have already passed similar bans, and the laws have been upheld as constitutional by the courts, according to Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

In Colorado, lawmakers debated on Wednesday about similar gun measures, but a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms faces stiffer odds.

Lawmakers in the Texas Capitol set aside a slate of proposed new gun restrictions without a vote after hours of emotional appeals from Uvalde families whose children were killed last year. The hearing didn’t end until the early morning hours Wednesday.

During debate on the Washington state bill, Democrats spoke of frequent mass shootings that have killed people in churches, nightclubs, grocery stores and schools.

Sen. Liz Lovelett of Anacortes said that kids’ concerns about school shootings need to be addressed.

“They are marching in the streets. They are asking for us to take action,” Lovelett said. “We have to be able to give our kids reasons to feel hopeful.”

Another gun-control bill that passed in Washington this session would allow people whose family members die from gun violence to sue if a manufacturer or seller “is irresponsible in how they handle, store or sell those weapons.” Under the state’s consumer-protection act, the attorney general could file a lawsuit against manufacturers or sellers for negligently allowing their guns to be sold to minors, or to people buying guns legally in order to sell them to someone who can’t lawfully have them.

A second bill would require gun buyers to show they’ve taken safety training. It would also impose a 10-day waiting period for all gun purchases — something that’s already mandatory in Washington when buying a semi-automatic rifle.

Some gun-control legislation in other states has been struck down since last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which set new standards for reviewing the nation’s gun laws. The ruling says the government must justify gun control laws by showing they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

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

The post Semi-automatic rifle ban passes Washington state Legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In less than 10 weeks, by July 1, California’s Reparations Task Force is set to deliver final recommendations to the Legislature for how the state can begin to undo 300 years of harm from slavery and racism.

With the clock winding down, two key questions remain unanswered: How much would the proposed reparations cost? And will the Legislature support the recommendations of the task force?

The first-in-the-nation task force was appointed in 2020 to study whether and how the state government should issue reparations for residents who are descendants of enslaved persons.

At a task force meeting March 29 and 30, state Sen. Steven Bradford, a Democrat representing Gardena, said it will be an “uphill fight” to get the Legislature to seriously engage with the recommendations.

Some new data is bearing that out.

Back in 2020, 12 legislators voted against the law that created the reparations task force, while 58 lawmakers voted in favor of it.

Recently, in an informal emailed poll of the 80 Assemblymembers by CalMatters, just three legislators stated their support for the task force’s years-long effort. The rest did not respond.

Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood, said she “strongly supports monetary reparations for the descendants of formerly enslaved people and believes the Legislature would support the final recommendations from the Task Force.”

Assemblymember Damon Connolly, a Democrat from San Rafael (near San Francisco), said he also supports reparations and the task force’s preliminary recommendations, which he said are long overdue.

“These recommendations are the culmination of collaboration between experts who understand the scope and legacy of how racism and disenfranchisement have had long-term socioeconomic impacts on California’s African-American communities,” he said in a statement. “This report contains recommendations that are common-sense and comprehensive — changes that should have been considered long ago.”

Heavy lifting

Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat from San Diego, noted the historic work of the task force but stopped short of saying he supports the preliminary recommendations.

“I appreciate the work the Reparations Task Force has done,” he said. “The Task Force is led by well-respected members of the African American community who have taken the time to study and discuss these historical effects over the last two years. Once the Task Force concludes their meetings and releases a final report with recommendations, I will review the complete findings.”

Bradford and Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat from Los Angeles, are both on the task force.

Bradford described the heavy lifting that remains to be done to get the Legislature to approve reparations. He highlighted a prior failed effort last session to get a constitutional amendment outlawing involuntary servitude placed on the California ballot.

“Something as simple as removing that from our state constitution, where other states have, and we couldn’t even do that,” he said.

(Opponents of that measure noted that removing the language that allows involuntary servitude from Calilfornia’s constitution would result in tens of millions of dollars in extra state cost because prisoners would have to be paid for their work during incarceration.)

So far, news coverage of the reparations task force’s work has largely focused on what dollar amount the task force might recommend the state pay descendants of formerly enslaved people.

The figure that went around the world recently was $800 billion. But many news reports confused that number, saying it was a recommendation for reparations payouts when it actually was a partial estimation of financial losses that economists said Black people experienced over decades of inequalities.

Dollars “least important”

So far, the task force has yet to vote on specific dollar amounts at its meetings.

“We did not, at this last hearing, arrive at a single dollar figure. We’re not there yet,” said Cheryl Grills, a task force member and clinical psychologist. Grills is also a founding member of Community Coalition, which does outreach work in South L.A. communities.

The news media’s preoccupation with a final dollar figure has become a point of frustration, task force members said. The task force and its experts have produced thousands of pages of documentation, data and research into various categories of injustice — everything from encounters with the criminal justice system to barriers to homeownership.

“We want to make sure that this is presented out in a way that does not reinforce the preoccupation with a dollar figure, which is the least important piece of this,” said Grills.

“It’s important, but it’s the least important in terms of being able to get to a point in our country’s history and in California’s history where we recognize that the harm cuts across multiple areas and domains and that the repair needs to align with that.

“It’s really unfortunate. I’m actually sad to see that our news media is not able to nuance better. It’s almost like, ‘What’s going to be sensational’ as opposed to what’s important.”

The task force at its March 29 meeting decided that descendants of American slaves in California would have at least two pathways for claiming compensation for the injustices and legacy of chattel slavery.

Two options

One of those avenues would be a baseline amount that would potentially apply to all descendants of American slaves who meet a California residency requirement. That compensation would be for the general community harm and legacy of slavery as well as the state’s role in perpetuating racism. The amount has not been decided.

The other route would be people applying for redress for specific injustices experienced under one of five categories outlined in a 40-page report compiled by economists working with the state Department of Justice.

Those five categories of harm include health, disproportionate mass incarceration and over-policing, housing discrimination, unjust property taken by eminent domain and the devaluation of Black-owned businesses.

Those category payments would be in addition to or instead of baseline compensation, task force members said.

Task force members do not appear to agree about whether or not the group should decide on a dollar figure recommendation to the Legislature. In an interview with CalMatters last week, Jones-Sawyer said the dollar amount would be up to the Legislature and governor to decide, while other task force members said the exact figure hasn’t been decided on yet.

The panel’s chair, Kamilah Moore, told KCRA, a television station in Sacramento, that it’s up to the state Legislature to ascribe a dollar amount, based on methodology economists recommended and which the task force approved.

“The task force is pretty much done regarding the compensation component. Our task was to create a methodology for calculation for various forms of compensation that correspond with our findings,” she told the station.

Hearts and minds

Jones-Sawyer said he agrees with Bradford that task force members have their work cut out for them. But he stressed the impact the task force’s interim report may have on “changing hearts and minds.”

“Any legislation is difficult. Period,” said Jones-Sawyer. “Some obviously are easier than others, but all of them require a lot of work.

“As I’ve spoken to individuals who didn’t even understand why we wanted to do this, there have been a few who have read the report and it was eye-opening for them,” he added. “For people who read the interim report, to hear them say ‘I didn’t know’ was probably the most gratifying thing I could hear.”

Jones-Sawyer said one of the most important recommendations from the report “doesn’t cost a dime” — an apology letter from the state of California.

“I think that one is as important as the others,” he said.

The task force decided at its last set of meetings that California should issue a formal apology “for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants.”

Donald Tamaki, a task force member and lawyer from San Francisco, said apologizing would acknowledge lost and often untold history.

“Our history has been so buried, so erased, so denied, I think that is an essential element of our mission,” he said.

Jones-Sawyer said he believes Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking the reparations responsibility seriously.

“I think the governor will do an excellent job in showing that he’s sincere about it, and that he believes in the apology that comes out of the state of California,” said Jones-Sawyer.

A divided public

Support for the reparations movement is pouring in from outside organizations. Tamaki and Grills have been reaching out to organizations throughout California, asking them to endorse the task force’s work. In a few weeks, endorsements grew from 30 to more than 130 organizations.

However a few people who phoned into the task force meetings during the public comment periods took on an angry tone.

Some callers and emailers said they might move out of California if Black people are paid reparations. Support and opposition among published emails to the task force were close — at least 104 expressed support for some form of reparations for Black residents while at least 93 said they were against it.

Many of the skeptics questioned whether other oppressed groups should get reparations.

“The most problematic issue is that California was not a slave state in the first place,” an email reads. “Many ethnic groups have been discriminated against in California — Indians, Asians, Latinos, LGBTQ+. If you open reparations to one group, you must do the same for all discriminated groups.” The writer’s name was redacted.

According to the task force’s interim report, despite California entering the Union in 1850 as a free state, its early state government supported slavery. In 1852, California passed and enforced a fugitive slave law that was harsher than the federal fugitive slave law and made the state more hospitable to slavery than other states, the report states.

Adding to that, in the latter 1850s, the California Supreme Court upheld the rights of an enslaver to retain ownership of Archy Lee, a 19-year-old Black man Charles Stovall took to California from Mississippi. The justices decided in Stovall’s favor because he had a persistent illness and had not known California’s laws, the task force reported.

Listening sessions

Nationally, views on reparations in general vary widely by race. A 2021 Pew Research Center study found 3 in 10 U.S. adults say descendants of people enslaved in the United States should be repaid in some way, such as with land or money. About 7 in 10 (68%) say these descendants should not be repaid, the study found.

Broken down by race, 77% of Black Americans support reparations, compared to 18% of white Americans.

The next set of task force meetings is scheduled to start May 6 in the East Bay Area. So far, an exact location has not been publicized.

In addition to task force meetings, some community groups, including the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, are holding listening sessions about reparations across California. There will be a town hall in Riverside on April 21 involving Moore and a listening session in San Diego on April 29 with Montgomery-Steppe.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various author’s articles on this Opinion piece or elsewhere online or in the newspaper where we have articles with the header “COLUMN/EDITORIAL & OPINION” do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints or official policies of the Publisher, Editor, Reporters or anybody else in the Staff of the Hemet and San Jacinto Chronicle Newspaper.

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

The post California’s reparations task force could face uphill battle in legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Amid rising concerns about crime and recent criminal justice reforms, California’s law enforcement groups are spending big this year in several high-profile races.

So far in the 2022 election cycle, these groups have contributed more than $1 million to campaigns for the state Legislature and several statewide offices, slightly less than the $1.2 million contributed at the same point in 2020 and significantly more than the roughly $305,000 in 2018, according to a CalMatters analysis.

As of Monday, nearly $1 out of every $6 donated by law enforcement groups has gone into the attorney general’s race, specifically to Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert . The $176,900 in cop cash given to Schubert is about 10% of her total contributions.

She is a Republican turned independent who is the preferred pick of these groups looking to unseat Attorney General Rob Bonta , a Democrat who was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021.

Schubert is endorsed by one of the largest contributors: the Peace Officers Research Association of California , an advocacy and lobbying group. The organization has given Schubert $16,200, the maximum allowed for the June 7 primary, while none of her opponents have reported any law enforcement contributions so far – not Bonta, who has raised $6.4 million total so far, and not Republican challengers Nathan Hochman or Eric Early .

This is the first time since at least 1999 the organization has not contributed to the coffers of the incumbent in the attorney general’s race, according to Secretary of State records. The Peace Officers Research Association sees it differently. Brian Marvel, president of the association, told CalMatters that “PORAC doesn’t consider there to be an incumbent in this race” because Bonta was appointed and not elected.

The other major sources of law enforcement cash are unions: the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the L.A. Police Protective League . The CHP union has contributed $112,800 in 38 races so far, with $11,000 going to Schubert’s campaign, its first donation to a candidate for attorney general since 2007. The protective league has donated $146,600 in 25 races so far, but nothing to Schubert.

As the attorney general is the state’s top law enforcement officer, agencies can be directly impacted by decisions, including investigations of police officers.

Bonta and Schubert have different priorities about what they would do in office. Though both their campaigns discuss gun violence and prosecuting polluters, Bonta’s website highlights “fighting hate and protecting civil rights” and Schubert’s promises to “aggressively [prosecute] violent criminals.” Both candidates support the law Bonta wrote while he was a legislator that directs the attorney general’s office to investigate when law enforcement officers kill unarmed civilians.

The attorney general’s race isn’t the only statewide election where law enforcement groups are giving money. For the primary, they are limited to giving $16,200 for statewide offices, other than governor ($32,400), and $9,700 in legislative races.

Fiona Ma , who is running for reelection as state treasurer, has received the second most so far. Why do law enforcement officers care who is treasurer? The treasurer can affect their pensions as a board member of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Ma’s campaign has taken in $55,200, with ​$​47,100 coming from two of the three big police groups: the Peace Officers Research Association and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Ma’s relationship with law enforcement unions isn’t new. According to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets, the Peace Officers Research Association is the fifth largest contributor to Ma over her career.

So far in the 2022 election, law enforcement groups have also placed bets in 42 of the 80 Assembly races and in seven of the 20 state Senate campaigns, after redistricting dramatically changed many of the legislative districts and after a rash of resignations and decisions not to seek reelection created open seats.

Assemblymember Phillip Chen, a Republican who is running in the 59th District near Los Angeles, has raised the most from law enforcement groups of all legislative candidates, $47,400 so far, even though he’s unopposed.

While accepting cop cash might be a contentious issue within the California Democratic Party , some Democratic candidates for Assembly aren’t shy. Assemblymember James Ramos from Rancho Cucamonga has taken $37,200, while his foe in the 45th District, Republican Joe Martinez, has received no cop money.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris of Laguna Beach has raised $27,100, while her opponent, Republican Assemblymember Steven Choi, hasn’t taken any as they compete to represent the new 73rd District centered around Irvine. And Democratic Assemblymember Evan Low of Cupertino has received $26,900, while his opponents in the 26th District, Democrat Long Jiao and Republican Tim Gorsulowsky, haven’t reported any law enforcement contributions.

In the state Senate, the top four recipients of law enforcement money are also Democrats, including three sitting senators: Tom Umberg from Garden Grove who got $26,200, Bob Archuleta from Pico Rivera took $22,700, and Anna Caballero from Salinas accepted $16,700.

Democrat Angelique Ashby, a Sacramento City Council member, is one of the few top recipients of law enforcement money who isn’t already in the Legislature. She has taken $14,900 while Democrat Dave Jones – her most prominent opponent, a former legislator and state insurance commissioner – hasn’t reported any contributions from law enforcement. The fifth largest recipient so far is Republican Sen. Brian Jones of El Cajon, who has pulled in $6,000 in his campaign for the 40th District, while his opponents have reported no police donations.

Law enforcement unions invested about $2.7 million during the 2019-20 election cycle and more than $2.1 million in 2021 when Newsom faced a recall. With $1 million already contributed more than two months before the June 7 primary, it’s possible law enforcement groups will be even more generous in 2022.

Jeremia Kimelman | Contributed

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

The post Cop cash: California law enforcement gives big to campaigns appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In 1986 when the Legislature allowed the wine industry to ship their product to consumers through direct mail there were roughly 700 wineries in the state generating about $5 billion in sales. Now California is approaching 4,000 wineries that generate $40 billion a year.

Everyone has benefited from this commonsense practice of direct-to-consumer shipping. It allowed small and family businesses to flourish, created jobs and generated revenue for delivery companies, distributors, retail stores and the state.

Unfortunately, the law is outdated and doesn’t allow the state’s growing distilled spirits makers to ship their products – gin, bourbon, whiskey, vodka – directly to consumers. Customers must visit a local craft distiller’s tasting room if they want to make a purchase.

The Legislature has a chance to modernize the state’s alcohol shipping laws with Senate Bill 620, introduced by Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from Redondo Beach. It will allow consumers to purchase from in-state and out-of-state distillers just like they currently do with wine.

This will be a lifeline for California’s 150 craft distillers who average between 5-10 employees. Online sales and delivery would open these local family businesses to more consumers so the industry can grow.

A recent poll found that more than 75% of California adults support updating the statute to allow equality in the alcohol shipping laws so they can order directly from distillers. This makes sense since consumers have become accustomed to home deliveries for just about everything. Consumers also have peace of mind knowing that the common carriers that deliver these alcohol products adhere to strict safety requirements like ID check and signature upon delivery.

What makes SB 620 so critical is that it will help small and family-run businesses in the state. California’s craft distillers are so small they can’t get their products through distributors and on store shelves. By selling their products online and growing their business, they can get big enough to eventually partner with wholesalers and be sold in retail stores.

Opponents of the bill are spreading misinformation, saying that a bottle of spirits sold online is one less that will be sold in a store which will hurt jobs. But this is false. California’s craft distillers can’t even get their products into a store because the amount of product they produce is so small and unique.

If SB 620 becomes law, most consumers will continue to make their alcohol purchases at the grocery store, major outlets or their neighborhood store. But what they’ll also be able to do is make an online purchase of distilled spirits for a special occasion, ship bottles back home after visiting a tasting room, or join a spirit’s mail club like a wine club.

SB 620 is a commonsense bill that an overwhelming majority of Californians support. This is a win-win moment for the state. We urge the California Legislature to approve this legislation which will create jobs, grow small business, generate revenue for the state and help grow California’s distilled spirits industry into the shining example that is California’s wine industry.

—

Cris Steller is executive director of California Artisanal Distillers Guild.

Cris Steller | Special for Calmatters

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

The post State should allow direct to consumer shipping for craft distillers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The daughter of California’s top elections official succeeded her mother in the state Legislature Monday, adding to a long tradition of frequent family connections among lawmakers.

Dr. Akilah Weber won the San Diego area’s 79th Assembly District seat with 52% of the vote, avoiding a runoff election by securing more than half the tally.

She was sworn into office by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who in her new position had certified her daughter’s election.

“Today is historic,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, their fellow Democrat. “It is the first time a mother who is a statewide officer has sworn in a daughter for state legislative office in California history.”

The elder Weber had served in the Assembly since 2012.

“As a mother, as a legislator, I am so excited about being back with you here today and leaving you one of my best, one of my children,” she said.

Her daughter, who previously was a La Mesa councilwoman, is an OB-GYN with Rady Children’s Hospital and UC San Diego Health.

She handily defeated four other candidates in a special election this month to succeed her mother, who resigned in January to replace Alex Padilla as secretary of state. Padilla previously left when he was appointed to the U.S. Senate to replace Vice President Kamala Harris.

The district’s voters “spoke very loudly as to who they wanted to represent them,” Weber said in brief remarks after she took her oath alongside her husband and two young sons.

It’s hardly the first such family connection.

Assemblywoman Autumn Burke also followed in her mother’s footsteps, while Assemblymen Joaquin Arambula, Chris Holden and Kevin Mullin followed their fathers. Assemblyman Adam Gray is the son-in-law of a former member, said California State Library legislative historian Alex Vassar.

All are Democrats, as is Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who is married to a former member.

Democratic Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio is a sister of Sen. Susan Rubio, whose ex-husband was also a lawmaker.

Among Republicans, Assemblywoman Megan Dahle is married to Sen. Brian Dahle. And Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh is a cousin of a former assemblyman.

And the Calderon clan deserves its own chapter: Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon succeeded stepson Ian Calderon, who previously had replaced his father, Charles Calderon — Lisa’s husband. Charles Calderon’s brothers also served, Ron Calderon in the Senate and Tom Calderon in the Assembly, though both were convicted on public corruption charges in 2016.

Meanwhile, Alameda Unified School District board president Mia Bonta is eyeing a run to succeed her husband, Assemblyman Rob Bonta, who is awaiting confirmation to become the state’s next attorney general.

The number of familial connections “is a bit lower than it has been for much of the last decade but is about normal for the past 50 years,” said Vassar.

He counted 15 family ties in 2016 and 18 in 2011, but before then there were about a dozen — roughly the same as now — going back to 1991. Before that the figure was in the mid- to upper single digits going back to 1941.

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

The post Daughter succeeds California elections chief in Legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

June 15 was the constitutional deadline for the Legislature to pass a budget and send it to the Governor. The Legislature’s budget largely rejects the Governor’s proposed cuts from the May Revision budget and instead relies on federal assistance, accounting maneuvers, and additional reserves.

The Legislature acknowledged additional work on the budget is needed, which will be carried out in the coming days and weeks. Numerous budget trailers bills will be considered to implement the budget or make cuts to existing programs if federal assistance is not forthcoming.

Negotiations between the Governor and Legislature on additional budgetary items continue this week. It is anticipated that an August revision to the budget will occur once tax receipts are received in July. The League will continue to fight for resources that cities need to address revenue loss related to the COVID-19 pandemic response and recovery.

Read League Executive Director Carolyn Coleman’s response to the FY 2020-21 State Budget here, and read below for highlights that are of interest to cities:

Trigger Cuts

If California does not receive the anticipated $14 billion in additional federal assistance by Sept. 1, the following “trigger solutions” may occur:

• $2.7 billion more from the rainy day fund and Safety Net Reserve.

• $1.3 billion one-time benefit from reinstatement of a longstanding deferral of state payments to CalPERS, including from state special funds.

• $5.9 billion of increased deferrals to Proposition 98 (K-14 education) funding.

• $600 million reduction to the county realignment backfill in this budget plan (leaving $400 million of county backfill remaining).

• $770 million of university reductions ($370 million for University of California and $400 million for California State University systems).

• $100 million of reductions to the judicial branch budget.

• At least $1.5 billion in state employee compensation reductions to be achieved, for represented employees, through the collective bargaining process.

• Potentially another $1.6 billion from reinstatement of the one-day June payroll deferral that was instituted during the last recession (this change would be optional at the direction of the Director of the Department of Finance).

CARES Act Funding

The Legislature’s budget allocates $500 million to cities for homelessness, public health, public safety, and other services to combat COVID-19 pandemic as follows:

• $225 million directly to cities with a population greater than 300,000 that did not receive a direct allocation from the Federal CARES Act. Allocation based on the city’s population.

• $275 million to cities with a population less than 300,000. Allocation based on the city’s population. No city shall receive less than $50,000.

The Legislature’s budget allocates $550 million through the Department of Housing and Community Development for acquisition or acquisition and rehabilitation of motels, hotels, or hostels; master leasing of properties; acquisition of other sites and assets; conversion of units from nonresidential to residential in a structure with a certificate of occupancy as a motel, hotel, or hostel; purchase of affordability covenants and restrictions for units; and the relocation costs for individuals who are being displaced as a result of rehabilitation of existing units. The budget also adopts a placeholder trailer bill to implement Project Roomkey.

Homelessness Funding

The Legislature’s budget includes additional funding to support existing homelessness programs. The budget directs $350 million to the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council, however, it is unclear how these funds will be allocated. A budget trailer bill is likely needed to provide direction to the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council.

Transportation Funding

The Legislature’s budget rejects the Governor’s May Revision proposal to transfer $130.5 million in interest earnings from the State Highway Account (SHA) to the General Fund.

Broadband

The Legislature will adopt budget trailer bill language to better enable telecommunications providers to compete for federal funding with the intent of improving access to broadband Internet in California.

California Office of Emergency Services

The Legislature’s budget allocates $50 million one-time General Fund for Community Power Resiliency to support additional preparedness measures that bolster community resiliency and includes budget bill language reflecting the Legislature’s priorities in this area.

The Legislature’s budget allocates $2 million General Fund for the Wildfire Forecast and Threat Intelligence Integration Center, consistent with Chapter 405, Statutes of 2019 (SB 209), reducing the proposal by $6.8 million General Fund across various departments.

Department of Parks and Recreation

The Legislature’s budget rejects the $30 million General Fund ongoing baseline cut to the Department of Parks and Recreation scheduled to begin 2021-22.

Department of Water Resources

The Legislature’s budget approves $18 million General Fund and $10 million Proposition 68 for the New River Project.

The Legislature’s budget approves the withdrawal of $35 million General Fund for the Tijuana River Project.

Minor Revenue Increases

The Legislature will adopt budget trailer bill language for used car dealer sales tax. This trailer bill language would require used car dealers to remit the sales tax from a vehicle sale to the Department of Motor Vehicles with the registration fee. This change is projected to increase by millions state and local revenues from these transactions.

-League of California Cities

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

Search: Budget Highlights

The post League of California Cities Provides California State Legislature Budget Highlights appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

It’s not enough that California already has among the highest income and sales taxes in America, ranking the state No. 11 among the 50 states in terms of overall tax burden. Only the property tax limits of Proposition 13 keep California away from the top of the list.

But this year legislative Democrats, who saw one of their numbers recalled over a smallish 12-cent increase in the gasoline tax imposed two years ago, have sought to charge a slew of new, previously unthinkable taxes.

Their original list included levies on new tires, sugary soda, firearms, water, prescription painkillers, lawyers’ services, car batteries, estates valued at more than $3.5 million, and oil and natural gas extraction.

The water tax to ensure clean drinking supplies everywhere is all but dead, essentially killed by the state’s $21 billion budget surplus. It may morph into a fairly permanent general fund appropriation. The lawyer tax won’t go far. The list is shrinking fast.

Some of these ideas actually might make sense at times when the state is short of cash. Just not when it’s running a huge budget surplus.

The causes behind some of these tax proposals are noble enough, but if lawmakers really want funds for the causes they would help, why not use some of those surplus billions? Or is the state’s rainy-day fund, where most of the extra dollars now go, more important than, say, pure drinking water?

Cleaning up the fouled water now coming from the taps of about 1 million Californians was to be the sole purpose of a new “Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund” paid for by a tax on water meters.

The fee on new tires, already $1.75 per tire, would rise to $3.25 in another proposed increase, the money earmarked for grants to prevent zinc-bearing “rubber crumbs” produced by ground-up old tires from fouling ground water supplies and the air. Excess zinc can create kidney and pancreas damage.

The soda tax was back this year for its third go-‘round, sponsored by Democratic Asemblyman Richard Bloom of Santa Monica. This one wouldn’t go to a special fund, but is simply intended to discourage kids and others from consuming too much sugary soda, a leading cause of diabetes, tooth decay and obesity. “We have ignored this crisis too long,” Bloom said in introducing his newest levy, which wasn’t immediately specified, but might amount to 2 cents per fluid ounce, or 24 cents per 12-ounce can, or almost $3 per 12-can case.

The noble causes and good intentions go on almost ad nauseum, but they fly in the face of recent polls, which without exception show California voters believe they are overtaxed.

If voters become truly fed up with having new levies piled on them, there could be significant results at the ballot box, as demonstrated in the Fullerton-based district of recalled state Sen. Josh Newman, who cast the vote many felt was decisive in passing the gas tax increase.

The state tax burden is compounded by the Trump administration’s tax “reforms” passed through a Republican-controlled Congress in 2017, which have been fully felt for the first time this year, cutting deductions for items like property taxes and some home mortgage
interest.

Those impacts are felt more strongly in California than anywhere else.

Only overconfidence and a sense they’ll never lose their jobs over tax increases, no matter how many or how high, can explain politicians continuing to try for new tax increases just as voters are paying more federal taxes and feeling overburdened.

If there were serious competition for political survival in California, these levies would never be proposed. Which means that if Democrats are miscalculating the depth of their support and security, the spate of proposed new taxes could produce some startling political change next year.

The post Could too many taxes turn this blue State red? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.