In a video statement, Newsom said federal agents have recently contacted family friends and former employees as part of what he characterized as an open-ended search for wrongdoing.

“In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees,” Newsom said. “Not because they found a crime, but because they simply are trying to find one.”

Newsom said he believes he has been placed on what he called Trump’s political “hit list,” alongside figures such as former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff of California and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee.

A person in the Department of Justice familiar with the matter said at least two criminal investigations involving Newsom have been underway for about a year in the Eastern District of California. According to that person, the inquiries stemmed from whistleblowers and people in Sacramento and involve questions related to Siebel Newsom’s taxes, as well as a separate investigation connected to Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson.

Williamson pleaded guilty in May in a corruption case that has not implicated the governor. She had been indicted on wire fraud charges tied to allegations that money was routed from a dormant campaign account belonging to Xavier Becerra, the former Biden administration health secretary and a leading candidate to succeed Newsom as governor.

Newsom’s office pushed back sharply on the federal activity, saying prosecutors turned their attention to the governor and his family after failing to find evidence tying him to the Williamson case. The governor’s office said investigators have asked about private matters involving the Newsom family, including the couple’s marriage.

The governor alleged that federal agents are seeking records and misusing the grand jury process by combing through years of documents. Newsom’s office said neither he nor Siebel Newsom has received a subpoena, though the office said the governor “looks forward” to receiving any such request.

Officials in Newsom’s office also told reporters that the specificity of some investigators’ questions has led them to believe federal agents may have subpoenaed financial records for businesses tied to the Newsoms.

Before becoming governor, Newsom built the PlumpJack hospitality business, which he has placed in a blind trust. Siebel Newsom is a filmmaker and leads the California Partners Project and the Representation Project, nonprofit organizations focused on gender equity and representation.

Disclosure reports filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission show Newsom solicited at least $1.9 million in charitable donations, known as behested payments, in 2024 and 2025 for the California Partners Project. The donations included $1 million from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.

Newsom’s office said federal agents have contacted more than a dozen people and organizations connected to the couple, including friends, former employees, business associates, donors and affiliated groups. The office did not identify those contacted.

The governor’s accusations were made in a strongly worded video but did not include direct evidence that Trump personally ordered or directed the federal inquiries. Newsom’s office maintains that the Justice Department is seeking a new allegation after the Williamson investigation, which began during the Biden administration, did not implicate the governor.

Matthew Rowan, an attorney for Williamson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The White House referred questions about Newsom’s remarks to the Justice Department. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“You can subpoena my records. You can investigate me. You can harass me. Put my name on any and every enemies list that you have,” Newsom said. “But leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta!”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Says DOJ Interviews With Friends Signal He’s on Trump’s ‘Hit List’ appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Legislature is expected to approve a budget to meet its constitutional deadline and ensure lawmakers continue to be paid. But the spending plan passed by lawmakers is not expected to be the final version. Newsom and legislative leaders still must resolve major differences over education, health care, homelessness and county-administered benefits.

For Inland Empire families, school districts and county agencies, the outcome could affect everything from classroom funding and subsidized child care to in-home care services and public assistance eligibility reviews.

One of the sharpest divides is over education. Newsom has proposed reducing the number of state-supported child care slots by 6,800. Democratic lawmakers instead want to expand subsidized child care by 22,000 slots over the next several years. They also are seeking $2.7 billion more than the governor’s plan for transitional kindergarten through 12th grade schools and community colleges.

Health care is another major sticking point. Lawmakers from both parties oppose Newsom’s proposed reductions to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which helps older adults and people with disabilities remain in their homes with assistance from caregivers.

Democratic leaders also want to delay by one year Newsom’s proposed restrictions on health coverage for undocumented immigrants. In addition, lawmakers are looking to postpone a decision on increasing the monthly Medi-Cal premium paid by undocumented immigrants, effectively leaving that issue for the next governor.

State Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said the dispute is less about challenging Newsom than trying to avoid cuts where possible.

“I don’t think it’s about Gavin Newsom,” Laird said. “It’s really about trying to stretch as far as we can in the hope that we don’t have to make those cuts.”

Democrats hold supermajorities in both the Assembly and Senate, meaning they do not need Republican votes to approve a budget. Still, Newsom’s approval is required for the final spending plan.

The Legislature’s proposal also would increase homelessness funding. Lawmakers want to set aside $900 million for the state’s homelessness fund, compared with $500 million in Newsom’s proposal.

Counties also would receive additional funding under the legislative plan to carry out new federally required eligibility checks for Californians applying for food assistance and health care benefits. That issue could be significant for large counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino, where public assistance caseloads are substantial.

There are some areas of agreement. Newsom and lawmakers both support setting aside $300 million to help subsidize private health coverage for low-income Californians. Lawmakers also appear to be backing the governor’s proposal for three new tax measures.

Another budget-related dispute involves the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Lawmakers want to withhold $55 million from the DMV over concerns about a planned database that would handle information requests involving California drivers and drivers from other states.

Newsom’s office and the DMV say the data-sharing system is necessary to comply with the federal Real ID Act of 2005 and would involve a nonprofit organization made up of motor vehicle administrators from across the country. Immigration advocates, however, have raised concerns that the information could put undocumented Californians at risk if federal immigration enforcement agencies obtained access to it.

The budget negotiations come as other state races and policy debates continue to unfold. Campaigns for California’s Board of Equalization, the nation’s only elected tax board, have drawn more than $3.3 million in donations to three state lawmakers who advanced to the November ballot: Assemblymember Mike Gipson and state Sens. Tom Umberg and Shannon Grove. The board has far less authority than it once did, but donors and analysts say contributions may reflect attempts to influence sitting lawmakers or reward them for past positions.

Environmental officials also are weighing changes to protections intended to keep invasive golden mussels out of Lake Oroville, one of California’s largest reservoirs, prompting concern from some experts.

For now, the immediate focus in Sacramento remains the state budget. Lawmakers are expected to meet their deadline, but the final decisions — including how much California will spend on schools, child care, health care and homelessness programs — remain subject to negotiations with the governor.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Push for Higher Education Spending as Newsom Weighs Budget appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The vote is expected largely because legislators must pass a balanced budget by June 15 under the state Constitution in order to continue receiving pay. But the spending plan approved by the Legislature is not likely to be the final version. Lawmakers and the governor have until July 1 to reach a final agreement on health care, education, homelessness funding and other major programs that affect communities across California, including the Inland Empire.

A major point of disagreement is health care spending. Newsom proposed cuts in response to reduced federal funding tied to a tax and spending law signed last year by President Donald Trump. His plan included restrictions on health coverage for undocumented immigrants, as well as refugees, asylees and survivors of human trafficking.

Legislative Democrats want to push those reductions back by one year while they look for ways to reduce the impact. They also oppose Newsom’s proposal to raise monthly Medi-Cal premiums for undocumented immigrants from $30 to $50, preferring to leave that decision to the next governor.

Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said the Legislature is trying to buy time and avoid deeper cuts if possible.

Lawmakers also rejected Newsom’s plan to bring back stricter asset tests for seniors and adults with disabilities enrolled in Medi-Cal by July. Instead, they proposed a less restrictive limit beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year. With bipartisan support, legislators also turned away proposed reductions to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which helps older adults and people with disabilities remain in their homes.

The Legislature did agree with Newsom on one health care item: $300 million to help subsidize private health coverage for low-income Californians.

Education and child care are another central part of the budget debate. Democratic lawmakers want to add 22,000 state-funded child care slots over the next several years and rejected Newsom’s proposed cut of 6,800 state-supported slots. The added spaces would focus on children 3 and younger, an age group advocates say has not benefited from the state’s expansion of transitional kindergarten for 4-year-olds.

Lawmakers are also proposing $2.7 billion more for transitional kindergarten through 12th grade schools and community colleges than Newsom included in his May budget revision, based on a more optimistic revenue forecast.

Still, education groups say the Legislature did not go far enough. They had urged lawmakers to reject Newsom’s plan to withhold $3.9 billion in constitutionally guaranteed school funding as a way to avoid overpaying districts if projected revenue does not arrive.

David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, accused state leaders of relying on budget maneuvers instead of fully funding schools and said the union is prepared to hold them accountable.

Counties would also receive more support under the Legislature’s plan. The proposal includes additional funding to help counties handle expanded eligibility checks for residents applying for food assistance and health care benefits, requirements tied to Trump’s federal spending law.

The Legislature also wants to provide $125 million to help counties rebuild indigent care programs for low-income residents, which were largely scaled back after the Affordable Care Act took effect. On homelessness, lawmakers propose $900 million for the state’s homelessness fund, compared with $500 million in Newsom’s plan.

To raise revenue, lawmakers are aligned with Newsom on three tax proposals. One would apply sales tax to most business software, including platforms such as Slack and Microsoft products. Another would limit the amount of tax credits large corporations can claim. A third would extend a tax on Medi-Cal health providers, a tool the state has used to draw down additional federal funding.

Those measures would not need voter approval, but they would require two-thirds support in both houses of the Legislature. The proposals come after California voters rejected many local tax measures in the June primary.

Senate Democrats had also considered a monthly charge on large employers whose workers are enrolled in Medi-Cal, but they have stepped back from that idea. Instead, they are asking the next governor to present “fully viable options” next year.

Lawmakers and Newsom also agree that California should be able to save more money in its rainy day fund, though they have not settled on the details. Under current law, the state is required to make deposits into the reserve, but the fund cannot exceed 10% of general fund tax revenue.

Changing that cap would require voter approval. Legislators are considering whether to place a measure on the November ballot to allow the state to save more for future downturns. They face a June 25 deadline to decide what, if anything, to put before voters.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Reach Budget Deal With Spending Above Newsom’s Proposal appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

At the center of the dispute is a plan approved by the California Air Resources Board that would provide free pollution allowances to oil refineries and other large industrial polluters if they commit to investments in clean energy or efficiency upgrades. Senate Democrats say the program threatens a climate-funding agreement reached last year between Newsom and lawmakers, and they are trying to use the state budget to stop it.

Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, a San Bernardino Democrat who chairs the Senate’s climate budget subcommittee, said the state should honor the agreement that was negotiated when lawmakers extended California’s carbon market through 2045.

“We really need to stay to the deal,” Reyes said.

The Senate’s budget proposal, released last month, would block the new incentive program until the administration shows the state can still fund the climate commitments made in last year’s agreement. Senate Democrats are calling their approach “Deal is a Deal,” a pointed message to Newsom as budget negotiations continue.

The stakes are substantial. Money from California’s carbon market helps pay for programs such as public transit, safe drinking water, neighborhood air monitoring, wildfire protection and affordable housing near transit. Many of those programs are intended to benefit communities that face heavy pollution burdens and limited public investment.

The Senate plan also puts pressure on some of Newsom’s own priorities, including funding for high-speed rail, wildfire programs, electric vehicle incentives and a proposed tax credit for sustainable aviation fuel.

California’s carbon market, launched in 2013, is designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions by requiring major polluters to obtain allowances for the carbon they emit. Companies can buy those allowances at state auctions, generating billions of dollars for climate-related programs.

Last year, Newsom and lawmakers agreed to extend the system, now rebranded as “cap and invest,” through 2045. The agreement set a spending order for the money raised through carbon allowance auctions. Under that deal, high-speed rail would receive $1 billion annually before many other programs, and lawmakers would control another $1 billion each year for their own priorities.

Other programs, including affordable housing near transit, cleaner buses and rail service, safe drinking water, wildfire prevention and local air monitoring, were placed further down the funding list.

But last month, amid concerns over rising gasoline prices and after heavy lobbying from the oil industry, the Air Resources Board adopted changes that reduce the number of allowances sold at auction through 2030. With Newsom’s support, the board also created the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive, which could provide up to $4 billion in free allowances to companies that invest in emissions reductions. About half of that amount is expected to go to the fossil fuel industry.

Critics say the changes could dramatically shrink the money available for climate programs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has estimated the new rules could cut annual auction revenue from about $4 billion to roughly $2 billion, potentially leaving little or no funding for some community-focused programs.

Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, criticized the state’s response to pressure from the oil industry.

“It’s unfortunate that the state of California empowers the oil industry to freak everyone out and adopt bad policies,” Wiener said.

Newsom’s office defended the changes, saying they are meant to keep the carbon market stable while addressing costs for consumers and industry.

Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for the governor, said the administration is trying to preserve California’s climate program in a difficult political and economic environment.

“That is not a retreat from climate leadership — it’s how California keeps leading while the federal government is retreating,” Martinez said.

The Senate’s counterproposal would preserve the $1 billion controlled by lawmakers and then direct up to $2 billion toward housing, transit, clean air and drinking water programs. Newsom’s priorities would be moved lower in the funding order. If carbon-market revenue falls to $2 billion, programs such as Cal Fire, high-speed rail and other administration priorities could receive little or no money from that fund.

Sen. Jesse Arreguín, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the Senate housing committee, questioned why the state would risk reducing funding for affordable housing during a severe housing crisis.

“Why, at this time … would we take away critical funding to build affordable homes in California?” Arreguín said.

Wiener said transit systems also should not be left vulnerable to annual funding fights.

“Every year, transit funding becomes a political football,” he said.

Assembly Democrats have not taken the same position as the Senate. Their budget plan does not directly address the Air Resources Board rule change, and they have not advanced an alternative. Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin and Cottie Petrie-Norris, Democrats who lead key climate and energy committees, have supported the board’s approach, saying it reflects the Legislature’s interest in affordability, including the possibility of providing more help with electricity costs.

Newsom and lawmakers face a June 30 deadline to approve a state budget before the new fiscal year begins. However, much of the climate spending dispute could continue beyond that date, since some of the funding decisions can be worked out before the legislative session ends in September.

The fight has already slowed some of the governor’s proposals. Newsom in January proposed spending $200 million on electric vehicle incentives, including $115 million from the climate fund. Senate Democrats have delayed negotiations on that item, and discussions could continue through the summer.

The Senate also rejected Newsom’s proposal for a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit. The governor has argued the credit would encourage production of cleaner fuel and support refinery jobs. The proposal would allow eligible producers to pay less into the state’s road repair fund. It followed lobbying by Phillips 66, the only company that has publicly said it would benefit from the tax credit.

Supporters of the Air Resources Board’s new manufacturing incentive program say it is a practical tool for reducing emissions while keeping major employers in California. The board says companies would receive allowances only if they cut their own emissions and that the program includes safeguards requiring companies to return allowances if they fail to meet their commitments.

Lindsay Buckley, a spokesperson for the Air Resources Board, said the cap-and-invest program was revised to reduce pollution in a cost-effective way, protect ratepayers and keep businesses operating in the state.

“The program was never designed to maximize auction revenue,” Buckley said.

Opponents see the program differently. They argue that giving free allowances to major polluters amounts to a subsidy without enough assurance that emissions will actually fall. Some critics also warn the changes could make it harder for California to meet its legally required 2030 climate targets.

The Air Resources Board approved the overhaul on a 10-3 vote, but several members raised concerns. Before the new incentive program begins, the board required further review.

The Senate proposal would restrict climate-fund spending unless the Department of Finance certifies that last year’s agreement can still be funded. It also would prevent the Air Resources Board from distributing the new industrial allowances unless state officials determine the program aligns with California’s climate goals, helps lower gasoline prices and leaves enough funding for endangered climate programs.

The dispute could carry broader political consequences for Newsom, who has often presented California as a national and international leader on climate policy.

Katie Valenzuela, a policy advocate who works on environmental justice issues, said the rule change could damage the governor’s climate record if it is not revised.

“If this rule goes forward and isn’t fixed, this is a huge stain on his climate legacy,” Valenzuela said. “He is showing loud and clear that the most vulnerable residents who are most impacted by climate change are not his priority.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Warn They May Stall Newsom’s Agenda as Climate Deal Falters appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Since World War II, 11 men have served as California governor, with Jerry Brown counted for his two separate periods in office. Six were Republicans, beginning with Earl Warren, and five were Democrats, including Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Their tenures can also be viewed another way: Some used the office as a platform for national ambitions, while others concentrated more directly on running the state. That divide is nearly even.

Newsom, whose term has roughly six months left, is widely expected to pursue the presidency after leaving office. In that respect, he follows a line of California governors who looked beyond Sacramento, including Warren, who was the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948 before becoming chief justice of the United States, and Ronald Reagan, who went on to win the White House.

Other Republican governors — Goodwin Knight, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger — largely remained focused on state-level governing. Among Democrats, Pat Brown and Gray Davis fit that mold as well. Jerry Brown’s record is more complicated: During his first two terms, he ran for president twice and once for the U.S. Senate. When he returned to the governor’s office nearly three decades later, he adopted a more disciplined, policy-focused approach.

Becerra appears more likely to belong to the governing-first category.

He will face Hilton in the general election after advancing from the primary, and he enters the fall campaign as the strong favorite. No Republican has won statewide office in California since Schwarzenegger’s reelection in 2006. Democrats also hold a major registration advantage over Republicans, 45% to 25%.

Becerra’s political style is a sharp contrast to Newsom’s more public-facing and often combative approach. He is soft-spoken, closely identifies with his background as the son of working-class immigrants in Sacramento, and has long been aligned with organized labor. Unlike Newsom, who climbed through a series of elected offices, Becerra’s rise included several key appointments.

After working as an attorney in the state Department of Justice and as a legislative aide, Becerra served one term in the Assembly. He then represented a Southern California district in Congress for 24 years before Gov. Jerry Brown appointed him attorney general in 2017, filling the vacancy created when Kamala Harris was elected to the U.S. Senate. In 2021, President Joe Biden selected Becerra to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Becerra left that post last year and soon after began his campaign for governor.

For much of the race, Becerra appeared to be trailing the top tier of candidates and was not considered a sure bet to make the November runoff. That changed after Rep. Eric Swalwell, who had been leading in polling, left the race in April and resigned from Congress amid allegations of sexual harassment and abuse. Billionaire Tom Steyer then appeared to be the leading contender.

But Becerra quickly gained support from major business interests, labor unions and other parts of California’s political establishment. Their money and organizational backing helped propel him to a first-place finish in the primary and a spot on the November ballot.

If Becerra becomes governor, Californians should not expect the kind of headline-grabbing gestures associated with Jerry Brown’s first stint in the 1970s or Newsom’s time in office since 2019. His background suggests a more methodical administration, one likely to focus on the state’s most persistent problems rather than national visibility.

Those problems are substantial. California continues to struggle with homelessness, a severe housing shortage, poverty and the loss of businesses and residents to other states — issues felt acutely across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where affordability and economic pressure remain central concerns.

Becerra’s likely model may be closer to Jerry Brown’s second governorship: less showmanship, more attention to the state’s fiscal and policy challenges. For a state facing a long list of unresolved crises, that kind of approach could prove valuable.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Xavier Becerra Would Bring Workhorse Style to California Governor’s Office appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The spending plan for the 2026-27 fiscal year carries major implications across the state, including for Southern California and the Inland Empire, where many residents rely on Medi-Cal and other health and social service programs. At the center of the negotiations are billions of dollars in disagreements over how much California should spend, what services should be preserved and whether new taxes should be used to help close ongoing budget gaps.

Newsom’s revised budget proposes $334.2 billion for health and human services, with Medi-Cal making up the largest share. About three-quarters of that funding comes from the federal government. But with federal aid reduced and the state still facing a persistent budget deficit, the governor’s proposal would scale back some services.

Those proposed reductions have drawn sharp criticism from advocates for Medi-Cal recipients, who have issued a series of objections since Newsom released his revised spending plan. Medi-Cal serves roughly 15 million low-income Californians.

Legislative leaders in both the Senate and Assembly have put forward budget outlines that would restore many of the services Newsom seeks to reduce or eliminate. The two legislative plans vary in details, but both would increase spending by at least several billion dollars. Neither plan lays out a precise final bottom line.

Lawmakers are also weighing tax increases, particularly those aimed at corporations. Proposals include changing how multinational companies calculate taxable income and imposing a $285 monthly fee on large employers for each worker enrolled in Medi-Cal.

The Senate has proposed adopting that employer fee instead of renewing the state’s long-standing Managed Care Organization tax, which is supported by Newsom and the Assembly. The current tax on health plans generates about $4.5 billion per year and has helped California draw additional federal health care dollars. It is set to expire at the end of the year.

The future of that tax is complicated by new federal limits and by Proposition 35, a 2024 ballot measure approved by California voters that requires proceeds from the tax to be used for medical services rather than non-medical programs.

The California Association of Health Plans opposes renewing the managed care tax, arguing that doing so would conflict with the 2024 ballot measure and increase consumer health care costs by $1.5 billion annually.

The debate reflects the broader challenges facing Newsom and legislative leaders as they decide whether to offset federal funding cuts, restore services targeted for reductions and raise taxes to help pay for it all.

Health and welfare programs are expected to dominate the budget talks because of their size and cost, but they are not the only unresolved issues. The spending plan will be Newsom’s eighth and final budget as governor.

Newsom has said his revised proposal would close the gap between state revenues and spending, a problem that first emerged in 2022 and has continued since. He has argued that the plan would prevent his successor from inheriting a structural deficit when the next governor takes office in January.

Still, many of the tools used to balance the proposal are temporary. They include drawing from emergency reserves, relying on loans outside the main budget framework and using revenue that may be tied to a short-term boost from taxes connected to the artificial intelligence industry.

Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek has cautioned that the state remains financially vulnerable. In a review of Newsom’s budget, Petek wrote that California’s reduced reserves and growing debt leave it poorly positioned if revenues fall below expectations.

As the June 15 deadline approaches, the remaining question is whether state leaders will craft a long-term solution or once again rely on short-term measures to keep the budget in balance.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Medi-Cal Cuts, Tax Hikes Loom as State Lawmakers Negotiate Budget appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California has repeatedly drawn attention for reporting final election results more slowly than many other states. Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom sent a letter to county elections officials urging them to “accurately count every legally cast vote as quickly as possible,” warning that misinformation and disinformation can spread in the gap between Election Day and the official certification of results.

The slower timeline is partly a result of voting changes California adopted to make casting a ballot easier, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Every registered voter is mailed a ballot, and mail ballots are valid as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and arrive at county elections offices within seven days.

California is one of eight states that allow all-mail elections, though deadlines for receiving postmarked ballots vary by state. Those grace periods could face changes as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether states may require ballots to arrive by Election Day.

For mail ballots that arrive before Tuesday, elections workers can begin verifying signatures and preparing the ballots to be counted. Ballots that arrive later must go through that process after Election Day, slowing the release of results.

As of Monday afternoon, nearly 17% of California’s registered voters had cast ballots, according to Political Data Inc., a firm that analyzes election data. That early turnout rate was similar to the pace in 2022.

Paul Mitchell, the company’s founder, said he expects overall turnout to exceed the 2022 level. Early returns have shown stronger Republican participation, he said, while some Democrats who had not yet returned ballots are considered highly likely voters.

“There are a lot of indications that we’re probably headed toward a total turnout of 38% or 40%, rather than the 33% turnout we saw in 2022,” Mitchell said.

Election experts have also pointed to California’s large number of competitive districts and the state’s generous deadlines for voters to fix ballot problems as reasons some results can take longer to settle.

Several recent changes could affect how quickly Californians see results in certain races.

One major change involves the amount of time counties have to complete most ballot counting. Under Assembly Bill 5, signed into law last year, counties now have 13 days to finish counting most ballots, down from the previous 30-day window. Newsom highlighted the change during a news conference last week as a step toward speeding up the vote count.

County officials still have 30 days to finalize official election results.

Jesse Salinas, Yolo County’s top elections official and president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said the new 13-day requirement does not apply to ballots that take longer to process. Those include ballots from people who registered on Election Day and ballots with signature mismatches. State law gives voters several weeks to resolve those issues.

“I hear comments like, ‘We should be done by day 13,’ but that is not legally possible under state law,” Salinas said.

Another effort to speed up counting aims to reduce the large number of mail ballots dropped off on Election Day, which can delay processing, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

A survey by the foundation found that 26 of California’s 58 counties will give voters the option Tuesday to bring their mail ballot to the elections office, where it can be scanned and counted the same day as an in-person ballot. The option was authorized through Assembly Bill 626, approved in 2023.

In Placer County, where the system debuted in 2024 under the name “sign, scan and go,” officials said it reduced post-election processing time by about three to four days.

Not everyone agrees that California’s lengthy counting process fuels distrust in elections.

Mindy Romero, a political sociologist and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California, said that criticism often rests on allegations of voter fraud that have been repeatedly debunked. She said the notion that elections are being manipulated has been “artificially created” by politicians such as President Donald Trump to undermine confidence in the electoral process.

“I don’t think we should focus on fixing something that is wrong or flawed, because that longer count is the product of making sure every vote is verified,” Romero said. “It is actually the opposite of the fraud allegations.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voting Ends Tuesday, but Final Results Could Take Time appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The state has long been known for taking more time than many others to report complete election results. That is partly by design: California has expanded voting access in recent years, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, by mailing a ballot to every registered voter and allowing ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and arrive at county elections offices within seven days.

For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, that means early election night totals may offer only a partial picture, especially in close contests where late-arriving mail ballots, signature reviews and provisional ballots could affect the outcome.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last month urged county election officials to count legally cast ballots “as quickly as possible” while maintaining accuracy. In a letter to local registrars, he warned that delays between Election Day and certification can create space for misinformation and disinformation to spread.

Still, election officials and voting experts say the state’s process is not simply a matter of slow counting. It includes multiple steps required under California law to verify ballots and protect voters’ rights.

Mail ballots that arrive before Election Day can be reviewed in advance, including signature verification and preparation for tabulation. But ballots dropped off on Election Day or received in the following week must go through that same process later, which can slow the release of updated results.

As of Monday afternoon, nearly 17% of registered California voters had returned ballots, according to Political Data Inc., a voter data firm. That pace was similar to the 2022 midterm election.

Paul Mitchell, founder of Political Data Inc., said he expects overall turnout to exceed the 2022 level. He pointed to stronger early turnout among Republicans and noted that many Democrats who had not yet returned ballots are frequent voters.

“There’s a lot of evidence here that we’re probably headed towards 38%, 40% turnout in total, rather than 33% which was the turnout in 2022,” Mitchell said.

Several recent changes are intended to speed up the process. Under Assembly Bill 5, signed into law last year, counties now have 13 days to complete counting most ballots, rather than 30 days. Counties still have 30 days to certify official results.

Newsom cited the change during a recent news conference as part of the state’s effort to produce election results more quickly.

But local election officials caution that the new deadline does not apply to every category of ballot. Jesse Salinas, Yolo County’s elections chief and president of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, said some of the most time-consuming ballots are excluded from the 13-day requirement. Those include ballots from voters who registered on Election Day and ballots with signature issues that must be resolved under state law.

“I’m hearing these comments about ‘We should be done by the 13th day’ — that’s legally not possible by state law,” Salinas said.

California also gives voters time to correct certain problems, such as a missing or mismatched signature. Voting rights advocates say that process helps ensure eligible voters are not disenfranchised, but it also contributes to the longer wait for final results.

Another change could reduce the number of mail ballots that pile up at drop boxes and elections offices on Election Day. According to a survey by the California Voter Foundation, 26 of California’s 58 counties will allow voters to bring their mail ballots to an elections office Tuesday and have them scanned and counted that day as in-person ballots.

That option was authorized by Assembly Bill 626, passed in 2023. In Placer County, where officials introduced a version of the system in 2024 called “sign, scan and go,” the county reported that it reduced post-election processing time by about three to four days.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the shift is aimed at easing the late surge of mail ballots that otherwise must be processed after polls close.

California is one of eight states that allow all elections to be conducted by mail, with different rules for how long ballots may arrive after Election Day if postmarked on time. Those grace periods are now under scrutiny nationally, as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether states may require mail ballots to be received by Election Day.

The pace of California’s vote count has also drawn political attention because the state has a large number of closely contested districts. In such races, incomplete returns can leave candidates and voters waiting while counties continue processing ballots.

Some election experts reject the idea that slower counting is evidence of a flawed system.

Mindy Romero, a political sociologist and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, said concerns about delays have often been tied to unfounded claims of voter fraud. She said the lengthy count reflects the safeguards built into the system, not evidence of tampering.

“I think the focus should not be on fixing something that is flawed or wrong, because that long count is a product of making sure that every ballot is verified — indeed, just the opposite of the claims around fraud,” Romero said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voting Wraps Up Tuesday, but Results Could Take Days or Weeks appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Newsom is eager to safeguard programs that have defined his tenure as the leader of the nation’s most populous state and one of the world’s largest economies. As he gears up for a possible presidential run in 2028, the Democrat is promoting the budget as fiscally responsible, saying it protects California’s values but also builds up the state’s rainy day funds — a pointed rebuke to critics who say the state spends more than it has.

The state’s spending has grown more than $100 billion since 2020, according to legislative budget analysts.

“We’re cutting deficits. But we’re not cutting corners,” Newsom said.

Newsom can’t seek a third term and will leave office in January.

Revenues, driven mostly by the booming stock market and the artificial intelligence industry, are $16.5 billion higher than projections in January. That will help the state avoid a $2.9 billion deficit projected in January, guarantee no budget hole next year and cut the shortfall the following year in half, his office said. Newsom also wants to set aside $9.7 billion in a holding account to help balance future budgets.

California faced tens of billions of dollars in budget deficits several years in a row, forcing painful cuts last year such as a rollback on a promise to provide free healthcare to low-income immigrants without legal status. Nonpartisan budget analysts previously projected the state will see budget holes upward of $20 billion each year in the next few years. Newsom and the analysts sometimes differ in their estimations.

Still, Democrats are bracing for federal funding cuts in healthcare and the impacts of high costs on everything from gas to energy because of the war in Iran. State officials repeatedly have said California can’t backfill all the federal dollars.

Republican lawmakers said Newsom’s plan didn’t go far enough to address future budget problems. Republicans are largely excluded from budget negotiations because Democrats have supermajorities in both chambers.

“Governor Newsom appears to define fiscal success narrowly: if the budget doesn’t collapse on his watch, it’s a balanced one,” Assemblymember David Tangipa said in a statement.

Newsom also blasted President Donald Trump and his policies, including in his budget presentation a photo depicting the president and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as characters in the movie “Dumb and Dumber.” Trump “doesn’t particularly give a damn about the financial situation of the average American,” Newsom said.

The budget proposal will officially kick off the final stretch of negotiations between Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature, who have to pass a budget by the end of June.

State lawmakers this year are considering several proposals to increase taxes on corporations to help with budget problems. Newsom has largely avoided raising taxes to boost revenues in past years. Now, he wants to cut fees for new small businesses, limit some tax credits starting in 2027 and impose a sales tax on some digital software and cloud-based services.

The two tax measures could generate more than $1 billion the first year of implementation, according to the governor’s estimation. Newsom is against a ballot initiative for a one-time tax on billionaires that will likely go before voters in November.

He also proposed to increase the monthly premiums for adult patients without legal status in the state-funded healthcare program, up to $50 from $30. The premiums were part of last year’s budget and are set to take effect in July for adults under 60 years old. Democrats in the Senate already signaled they will fight the plan.

California has a progressive tax system that relies on rich people, meaning it gets about half its revenues from just 1% of the population. When the economy is good, rich people pay more in taxes and revenues can soar quickly. When the economy is bad, they pay less and revenues can drop just as fast.

The state could also see a revenue boost from expected upcoming initial public offerings by several major artificial intelligence companies, which are expected to be the largest IPOs in history. But legislative budget experts warned of a potential AI bubble that could worsen the state’s finances.

Newsom’s Thursday proposal also includes a $300 million plan to backfill some of the loss of government-sponsored health subsidies, a $5 billion education grant for teacher training and $100 million to help Los Angeles-area homeowners rebuild after the devastating wildfires last year.

The post Newsom outlines his final budget proposal with no deficit, new major spending appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Last week, Newsom celebrated the program’s accomplishments. 

“Over 1 million people that didn’t have access to clean, safe drinking water today have access to clean, safe drinking water,” Newsom told a conference room filled with California’s water leaders, to a round of applause. 

“I’m not saying that to impress you, but to impress upon you real progress. A lot more work to be done.” 

But that work could lose critical funding as the Newsom administration overhauls its source: California’s carbon market. The changes to the program’s funding priorities and revenue threaten efforts to bring clean drinking water to schools, homes and communities across California. 

“If that funding goes away,” said Sherry Hunter, who has long battled the arsenic leaching into the water supply in the historic Tulare County town of Allensworth, “Oh my god, I can’t even imagine.”

Climate money for clean water

A critical piece of California’s clean water funding is linked to the state’s carbon market, which sets a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions that oil refineries, power plants and manufacturers can meet by buying and trading carbon credits. 

Lawmakers tap this fund for environmental efforts, like combatting unsafe drinking water in rural communities.

In 2019, Newsom signed a law that gave rise to the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience, or SAFER, drinking water program at the State Water Resources Control Board. The law called for funding it with $130 million a year from carbon market revenues through 2030.  

It can be a risky source of funding, subject to the rise and fall of credit auctions. But the law came with a promise: When the proceeds fell flat, the state’s general fund would make up the rest. 

This isn’t the only pot of money that California draws on for its safe drinking water efforts, but it’s the most versatile, paying for emergency and other types of assistance that bonds and more restrictive funding can’t. 

When Newsom and California lawmakers don’t budget enough to provide bottled water for households and schools with dry or dangerous taps, this fund covers the costs. 

When low-income communities can’t pay for the technical expertise to manage their water systems or compete for grants needed to drill new wells and connect to safer water, the safe and affordable drinking water fund can help bridge that gap.

Thousands of households and dozens of schools rely on this money for emergency supplies  — like Hope Elementary School in Porterville, where the taps flow with elevated levels of nitrate. The contaminant is linked to cancers, pregnancy complications and a life-threatening condition in infants known as “blue baby syndrome” when consumed in high enough quantities.  

More than $83,000 has been awarded from the fund since 2021 to supply the school with bottled water and roughly $110,000 for technical assistance as the school district works to connect to safer supplies, according to the water board. 

The funding lets school officials put their budget to work in the classroom. 

“Thank goodness,” said Melanie Matta, the school district’s superintendent and principal. About three-quarters of the students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, Matta said. “That water can get expensive, right? We’re already running on a pretty tight budget.” 

Matta has a message for Newsom: She’d like him to tour her school, and witness why this money is so important. 

“When you meet our kids and walk our small school community, you’ll see exactly why this fight matters and why this funding must be protected,” Matta said in an email. “Safe water is not a gift. It’s a promise. And we need your help to keep that promise.”

‘There’s nothing left’ 

The cuts began in September, when Newsom and lawmakers struck a deal to reauthorize the state’s carbon market after weeks of tense and chaotic negotiations — renaming it “cap and invest.” 

The new laws deprioritized funding lawmakers had promised to safe drinking water, clean air, fire resilience, affordable housing and other programs — shifting their priority behind $1 billion for high-speed rail and $1 billion for lawmakers to direct through the budget. 

The laws removed the 2030 expiration for the safe and affordable drinking water program. But they also dropped the original promise to make up any funding shortfalls from the carbon market — putting $100 million at risk through 2030, according to a Department of Finance forecast in January. 

Assemblymember James Gallagher, a Republican from Chico, called the new priority system “unfortunate” and “misplaced” at a budget subcommittee hearing in March.

“If you ask these Central Valley communities, these rural communities, ‘What would you prefer? Would you want safe drinking water coming out of your faucet, or do you want a high-speed rail in your community?’” he said. “I’m pretty sure I know the answer.” 

Now, climate regulators on the California Air Resources Board — chaired by Newsom appointee Lauren Sanchez — are proposing to overhaul the carbon market in ways that could cut revenues in half. 

If adopted, the changes could leave no funding at all for safe drinking water and other third-tier programs as soon as the 2027–28 fiscal year, according to legislative analyst Helen Kerstein — though, Kerstein added, the forecasts are uncertain. 

Sanchez, who was Newsom’s top climate advisor before leading the air board, defended the staff proposal at a Senate oversight hearing last week.

“Do you believe the Legislature intended to eliminate funding for affordable housing, transit, drinking water, wildfire prevention and clean air programs with the reauthorization?” Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, a Democrat from San Bernardino and chair of a Senate budget subcommittee, asked Sanchez.

Sanchez said the staff proposal didn’t specifically call for defunding those programs. 

“Let me stop you for a moment. That will be the effect,” Reyes said. “There’s nothing left … and those are the most important programs that have served the community.”

Newsom deflected, pointing to the Legislature. 

“Any suggestion that California is ‘trading away’ clean drinking water ignores both the current budget proposal, and the Legislature’s ongoing role in funding these priorities,” spokesperson Anthony Martinez said in an emailed statement. Martinez hinted at, but did not specify, what’s coming in Newsom’s May budget revision Thursday. 

‘Many of them were left behind’ 

Roughly 613,000 people still rely on water systems that fail to meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water. Regulators at the state water board deem another 661 water systems serving nearly 2 million people “at risk” of failure. 

Still, almost one million more people have safe drinking water than in 2019 — which state water officials attribute to the safe drinking water program and its unique, flexible pot of money. 

“When we were relying on the community to spend its own time and money to get ready, many of them got left behind,” said Darrin Polhemus, who leads the state water board’s Division of Drinking Water. “The safe drinking water fund has allowed us to prepare communities to do long-term projects, faster.”  

The program, which draws from other state and federal funding sources, has awarded more than $1.8 billion in grants for disadvantaged communities. It’s helped around 320 water systems serving 3.3 million people come off the state’s failing list, even as other, at-risk suppliers stumble onto it. 

The safe and affordable drinking water fund also has helped pay for emergency repairs, technical assistance, bottled water supplies and even some construction costs in communities from San Bernardino to Tulare, Monterey and Sutter counties — all contending with aging and contaminated water systems.  

“We could not have done it without them,” said Sherry Hunter in Allensworth, which started work on a new well and storage tank in January to bring clean water to a town struggling with arsenic and other water problems for over a century. 

“There’s a lot of other smaller disadvantaged communities that depend on them as well,” Hunter said. 

The costs for fixing these water systems and household wells could hit billions of dollars in the coming years, according to a 2024 water board analysis. And Polhemus said the challenge will  grow — even as funding shrinks — as water suppliers face new limits on contaminants like hexavalent chromium. 

“If we’ve started and committed to a project, we’ve got the funding reserve to see it through,” Polhemus said. “It’s just, we won’t be starting new projects.” 

Federal money is also running out. A Biden-era funding boost ends this year, slashing another, more restrictive fund for drinking water infrastructure projects from hundreds of millions of dollars to tens of millions, according to federal and water board data. Congressional earmarks could eat into what remains. 

Tami McVay, emergency services director for the nonprofit Self-Help Enterprises, which connects rural communities to affordable housing and safe drinking water, is worried. 

Her program provides bottled water to more than 3,000 households in the San Joaquin Valley, and trucks water to refill storage tanks at roughly 700 more. Her team helps replace domestic wells and test their water. And it relies on state funding. 

Seeing the potential cuts, she said, “it definitely made our mouths drop a little.” 

Polhemus said he understands communities are nervous.

“We’re going to work with the funds we’re given to continue the program as best we can, because we know the need still exists,” he said. “The question of how much of it exists, of course, comes out of our hands and into the political arena.”

The post Money for clean drinking water threatened by Newsom administration’s climate overhaul appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.