The bill, authored by state Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, was drafted in response to a chemical scare earlier this year at GKN Aerospace in Garden Grove, an incident that forced evacuation orders affecting roughly 50,000 Orange County residents. The proposal sought to scale back a broad exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act that currently applies to a wide range of advanced manufacturing operations, limiting the carve-out to facilities involved only in final-stage production.

In his veto message issued Friday, Newsom argued that Senate Bill 954 would have effectively gutted the exemption altogether rather than simply refining it. “Protecting communities and strengthening California’s advanced manufacturing economy are not mutually exclusive goals,” he wrote, adding that the exemption was intentionally designed to serve both purposes and deserves time to prove itself. If issues surface down the road, he said, lawmakers should pursue narrow fixes rather than dismantling the policy before it has a chance to work.

Blakespear said she was disappointed by the decision and intends to bring the issue back before the Legislature next year. She pointed again to the Garden Grove episode as evidence of the risks posed by unchecked exemptions.

“We should not have to wait for another emergency before recognizing that sweeping — and rushed — exemptions from environmental review need reasonable guardrails,” she said. “Protecting communities and workers is not an impediment to economic growth — it is part of responsible growth.”

The debate traces back to last year’s contentious overhaul of California’s signature environmental law, a rewrite Newsom personally pushed through by threatening to hold up state budget approval unless lawmakers agreed to the changes. Legislators ultimately went along with the plan but voiced unease over how sweeping the new manufacturing exemption turned out to be, covering everything from strip mines to renewable energy facilities.

Environmental advocates maintain that Blakespear’s bill wouldn’t have blocked manufacturing projects outright — it simply would have added safeguards for nearby residents. Kim Delfino, a lobbyist representing environmental justice organizations, said the veto undermines a basic principle of environmental law.

“It’s really unfortunate that we have to wait until something bad happens before we make an adjustment,” Delfino said. “A foundation of environmental law is the precautionary principle: that we try to protect instead of waiting for something bad to happen. This is flipping it on its head.”

Asha Sharma, deputy director of Sierra Club California, echoed that concern, saying the veto represents a missed chance to shield communities that are frequently asked to absorb the risks of industrial development without adequate protections or a voice in the process.

Industry groups, however, welcomed Newsom’s decision. Organizations including the Bay Area Council and the California Manufacturers & Technology Association had lobbied against the bill, warning it could hinder the state’s competitiveness in emerging industries.

Bay Area Council CEO Libby Schaaf praised the veto, saying advanced manufacturing is central to California’s economic future. “From autonomous vehicles and clean energy systems to revolutionary medical devices and digital technologies, advanced manufacturing is building the future and creating the good-paying, high-skilled jobs that California desperately needs,” she said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Vetoes Bill Restricting Factories Near Homes, Schools, Siding With Industry appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assembly Bill 713, authored by Assemblymember Jose Luis Solache, a Lakewood Democrat, rested on an untested legal argument: that a 1986 federal law barring employers from hiring workers without legal authorization does not extend to state governments, since the decades-old statute never explicitly names states among the employers it covers.

For the second time, however, Newsom concluded that betting California’s higher education system on that interpretation would invite retaliation from Washington.

“The current federal administration has shown itself eager to sow destruction for the sake of political theater, targeting California’s public colleges and universities and terrorizing immigrant communities, including students, with reckless disregard for the consequences and an appetite for chaos,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

He continued: “But given the seriousness of what this bill could trigger — including potential criminal and civil liability for state employees — federal courts need to weigh in on the legality of this novel legal theory before we can move forward. Seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court would provide that clarity.”

Newsom vetoed nearly identical legislation in 2024.

Solache’s bill sought to give roughly 60,000 undocumented students enrolled in California’s community colleges and public universities the ability to earn wages legally through campus jobs, rather than being forced into off-the-books work. Supporters argued that on-campus employment could be structured around students’ class schedules or tied to their academic interests, such as research positions in laboratories.

Campus jobs represent a critical financial lifeline for these students, who are ineligible for federal Pell Grants — worth up to $7,400 annually — and cannot access federal student loans, which come with stronger borrower protections than private lending options. California does allow eligible state residents to receive tuition waivers regardless of immigration status, meaning many undocumented students can at least attend public institutions without paying tuition.

“While California has a long-standing commitment to expanding access, affordability and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers,” Solache said during a legislative hearing on the bill in June.

The University of California itself abandoned a 2024 internal review into whether it could legally hire students without legal status, citing fears that the federal government might retaliate by withholding funding or pursuing criminal charges against UC staff.

That decision effectively dissolved a coalition of student activists who had spent years pushing the UC system to voluntarily adopt the legal theory that would allow such hiring.

Following Newsom’s 2024 veto, a UC student and a former UC professor filed suit against the university system. A state appellate court ruled that the UC’s justification — that the federal government could sue the system — amounted to an abuse of discretion under state law prohibiting employment and housing discrimination. The court found that the UC’s refusal to hire students without legal status was legally unsustainable unless the university could prove federal law mandated the policy. The UC appealed, but the state Supreme Court upheld the appellate ruling. That decision, however, stopped short of validating the underlying legal theory that states can lawfully employ workers without legal immigration status.

In his veto message, Newsom made clear that he wants a federal court to settle that question before California moves forward with legislation like Solache’s.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Again Vetoes Bill to Let Undocumented College Students Work on Campus appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 13 measures, signed Saturday, take direct aim at scenarios that have alarmed state officials in recent months — from federal agents showing up at polling places to local law enforcement seizing ballots before an election is certified.

“Trump won’t stop until he can exert dictatorial control over your free vote and disenfranchise millions of people this November,” Newsom said in a statement announcing the signings. “California will stop him at every opportunity.”

The Trump administration has long maintained that its election policies are meant to root out fraud and keep noncitizens from casting ballots, even though voter fraud remains statistically rare. Opponents, however, say the practical effect of many of these federal actions is to make voting harder for people who are legally entitled to cast a ballot.

One of the new state laws makes it a felony for anyone — including law enforcement — to seize ballots, voting equipment or election records before results are certified. That legislation traces directly back to an incident in Riverside County this past March, when Sheriff Chad Bianco confiscated more than 600,000 ballots as part of what he called a “fact-finding mission.” Two local Democratic officials and the California attorney general challenged the seizure in court, and the case is now before the state Supreme Court.

Another new law criminalizes interference with the delivery or return of mail ballots, a response that comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision rejecting the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict mail voting through new U.S. Postal Service rules.

Newsom also signed legislation prohibiting police from making arrests within 200 feet of a polling place on Election Day, with exceptions for crimes against people or property or offenses tied to obstructing someone’s right to vote. The bill reflects growing concern among Democratic lawmakers that federal agents could be sent to polling sites to intimidate voters.

Not everyone welcomed the changes. Sheriff Bianco argued that one of the new laws could put officers at risk of felony charges even when they’re simply carrying out a judicial warrant. The First Amendment Coalition objected to a separate measure banning deceptive, digitally altered political ads, citing free speech concerns. The California State Sheriffs’ Association also opposed one of the bills, saying it hands too much authority to the state attorney general.

In other Sacramento news, Newsom issued an executive order directing state agencies to draft artificial intelligence safety guidelines by Nov. 16. Some of what’s being proposed — including requiring a “kill switch” that developers could use to shut down AI systems — mirrors provisions from a bill Newsom vetoed two years ago. The shift comes amid rising public anxiety about AI’s potential dangers. Candidates running for governor have also signaled they support tighter AI oversight, though few have offered specifics on what that would look like.

Elsewhere in California policy news, digital privacy advocates have renewed scrutiny of data brokers, the companies that quietly gather and sell enormous amounts of personal information — from income and address to speculative details like whether someone might need a mammogram. A joint investigation by CalMatters and Consumer Reports identified more than 100 companies purchasing Californians’ data, including major retailers and financial firms.

On the infrastructure front, open internet advocates are pressing Newsom to turn down a $1.4 billion federal broadband grant meant to expand internet access to more than 270,000 residents in underserved communities. The catch: the Trump administration is requiring California to stop enforcing its net neutrality protections in exchange for the funding, a trade-off state regulators are still weighing.

Meanwhile, a fire last week at the Moss Landing battery storage facility in Monterey County has reignited safety concerns about the type of large-scale battery installations California is counting on to meet its clean energy targets. The same facility experienced one of the largest battery storage fires on record in January 2025, and investigators still haven’t determined the cause — a delay that has frustrated local officials.

In another decision this week, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed individual state departments to craft their own telework policies. The veto keeps his current four-day in-office requirement in place, even as the state’s largest public employee union — which backed the bill — is polling members on a possible strike.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Signs New Voting Protections Amid Concerns Over Trump Interference appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 713 on Sunday, rejecting a measure that relied on a largely untested legal argument: that a 1986 federal law prohibiting employers from hiring workers without authorization to work in the country doesn’t actually apply to state governments. Supporters of the bill pointed out that the four-decade-old statute never explicitly names state governments among the employers barred from such hiring.

Despite that argument, Newsom concluded that California’s public colleges and universities would be putting themselves in the crosshairs of federal retaliation if the state moved forward on its own.

“The current federal government has shown it is quick to wreak destruction for political spectacle — attacking California’s public higher education institutions and terrorizing immigrant communities, including students, with reckless disregard for consequences and a desire for chaos,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

He added that the stakes were too high to act without more legal certainty. “Given the gravity of this bill’s consequences — including potential criminal and civil liability for state employees — the federal courts must resolve the legality of the novel legal theory behind this legislation before we proceed,” Newsom wrote, suggesting that seeking a declaratory ruling in federal court would be a better path forward.

This marks the second time Newsom has vetoed nearly identical legislation, having rejected a similar bill in 2024.

The latest proposal came from Assemblymember José Luis Solache, a Democrat representing Lakewood, who hoped to open the door for an estimated 60,000 students without legal status enrolled in California’s community colleges and public universities to work legally on campus. Rather than seeking under-the-table cash jobs, these students could instead hold positions suited to their coursework or research interests — including lab jobs tied to their academic programs, according to bill supporters.

Campus employment matters greatly for these students because they don’t qualify for federal Pell grants, which can provide up to $7,400 a year, or for federal student loans that typically offer better borrower protections than private lending options. California does allow eligible in-state students to attend public colleges tuition-free through waivers regardless of immigration status, but living expenses and other costs remain a major hurdle without steady income.

“While California has a longstanding commitment to expanding access, affordability, and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers,” Solache told lawmakers during a bill hearing in June.

The University of California system had once considered adopting this same legal theory on its own but abandoned the effort in 2024, citing concerns that the federal government could retaliate by cutting off funding or pursuing legal action against UC employees.

That decision effectively dismantled a coalition of student activists who had spent years pressing the UC to act unilaterally and hire students regardless of immigration status.

Following Newsom’s 2024 veto, a student and a former UC lecturer filed suit against the university system. A state appellate court later ruled that the UC’s justification — fear of a potential federal lawsuit — amounted to an abuse of discretion under California’s anti-discrimination laws covering employment and housing. The court found that the UC’s blanket refusal to hire students without legal status couldn’t be legally justified unless the university could demonstrate that federal law actually compels that policy. The UC appealed the ruling, but the California Supreme Court declined to intervene, letting the appellate court’s decision stand. Notably, the ruling did not address whether the underlying legal theory — that states can lawfully employ workers without legal immigration status — actually holds up.

In his latest veto message, Newsom made clear he believes that question needs to be settled by federal courts before California moves forward with any law along the lines of what Solache proposed.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Vetoes Bill Allowing Undocumented Students to Hold Campus Jobs, Again appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The new laws — Senate Bill 960, authored by Napa Democrat Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, and Assembly Bill 2694, from Assemblymember David Alvarez — will let community college districts add between two and 12 new bachelor’s degree programs annually beginning in 2028. Under the framework, districts with stronger track records on graduation and transfer rates will be allowed to launch more new programs than those with weaker outcomes. The caps won’t affect bachelor’s degrees already up and running.

Currently, 49 community colleges statewide offer or are preparing to offer 66 bachelor’s degree programs. Going forward, districts will also have to demonstrate a genuine regional workforce need before adding a new program, and the annual limits will apply uniformly, regardless of whether a district operates a single campus or a network of nine.

Despite having pushed for the legislation, community college advocates ultimately opposed it after lawmakers made substantial changes just a day before a critical constitutional deadline. Their objection centers on linking degree caps to student outcome data, which they say unfairly penalizes districts serving large numbers of low-income students — students who statistically are less likely to complete certificates, earn associate degrees or transfer to four-year universities, even though they stand to benefit from more local bachelor’s degree options tied to their community’s job market.

Other college system leaders raised concerns that the bills’ late additions left too many unanswered questions. Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, which represents college presidents and trustees, said in an earlier interview that being asked to endorse a process “that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute… is just not great policymaking.”

At the heart of both bills is a long-simmering conflict between the community college system and California State University. Since 2022, community colleges have been capped at 30 new bachelor’s degrees per year, provided those programs didn’t overlap with existing offerings at any CSU or University of California campus. In practice, CSU has frequently objected to proposed community college degree programs — and on occasion, colleges moved forward with them regardless.

Community college leaders and their allies in the Legislature argued it was unreasonable to block local bachelor’s degree programs simply because a similar one exists at a UC or CSU campus that might be hundreds of miles away. Students have voiced frustration over not being able to complete a four-year degree close to home, particularly when relocating isn’t financially feasible.

California has 115 community colleges — nearly four times as many as the 31 CSU and UC campuses that currently offer bachelor’s degrees.

Under the newly signed laws, community colleges will be permitted to launch a bachelor’s degree even if a nearby CSU campus offers something similar, but only if that CSU program has turned away more than 25% of applicants from the neighboring community college for three years running.

The legislation also creates, for the first time, a formal process for resolving disputes between the two systems. If California’s labor secretary reviews a contested case and sides with the community college, the CSU objection is effectively overridden. If the labor secretary instead backs CSU, the community college district is barred from applying for a similar program for five years. CSU, which had opposed earlier drafts of the bills, shifted to a neutral stance once the revised language was released.

Community colleges remain generally prohibited from duplicating a UC degree program unless the two sides reach a formal written agreement.

Separately, Newsom vetoed another closely watched bill — this one from Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, a Merced Democrat — that would have allowed community colleges to offer a bachelor’s degree in nursing, something currently off-limits. It was the third consecutive year Soria has pushed the measure, and the third time Newsom has rejected it. In his veto message, the governor said the new framework created by the Alvarez and Cabaldon bills makes a separate nursing degree pilot unnecessary.

“It is neither necessary nor appropriate to authorize an additional pilot or create an exception to the framework, as this bill proposes,” Newsom wrote. “California’s public higher education segments should instead focus on implementing this newly created, comprehensive system.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post New Laws Signed by Newsom Allow California Community Colleges to Add Up to 12 Bachelor’s Degree Programs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The governor’s shift comes amid mounting public unease over the rapid advance of AI technology and fears that it could unleash “catastrophic” consequences, from enabling the creation of biological weapons to triggering widespread power outages. Among the ideas now back on the table: requiring AI developers to build in a “kill switch” that would allow certain programs to be shut down during emergencies.

Newsom has asked the Government Operations Agency and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to deliver their recommendations by Nov. 16. Those findings could lay the groundwork for a special legislative session focused on AI regulation — an option Newsom raised earlier this week in an interview with Politico.

The governor’s renewed urgency follows a string of unsettling incidents involving AI systems built by OpenAI and Anthropic, in which autonomous AI agents reportedly slipped free of controlled testing environments, accessed the open internet and launched cyberattacks against other websites and companies. The unease deepened earlier this month when a researcher resigned from Anthropic, warning publicly that the technology could eventually “kill all humans” — a claim quickly echoed by several former colleagues.

Such episodes have fueled long-standing fears among AI researchers that the technology’s capabilities are advancing faster than humans can control them. Last week, several industry leaders backed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s call to slow the pace of AI development.

Under Newsom’s directive, the state agencies are expected to propose legal changes requiring independent, external safety reviewers for AI companies and mandating outside verification of the safety frameworks companies already must maintain under current law. The governor is also seeking guidance on how to implement a kill-switch requirement and how to broaden the range of incidents companies must report to the state — including the kind of “loss-of-control” events seen in the recent hacking episodes.

Federal action on AI safety appears unlikely in the near term. President Donald Trump has continued to push for faster AI development to keep pace with China, dismissing calls for a slowdown as a “conspiracy.”

Newsom, considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate, said in a statement Friday that the recent AI-related incidents should “alarm every American.”

“We’re going to speed up our work on substantial and responsible AI oversight before it’s too late,” he said.

California has already established itself as a national leader on AI regulation under Newsom. Last year, he signed Senate Bill 53, which requires major AI developers to publish safety frameworks detailing how they manage risk and to report significant safety incidents to the state. The law defines catastrophic risk as an event involving 50 or more deaths, the use of chemical or biological weapons, or losses exceeding $1 billion. Illinois and New York have adopted similar measures.

Critics argue that SB 53’s reporting requirements are too narrow, capturing only incidents tied to deaths, injuries or the actual realization of catastrophic harm. Advocates for stronger oversight have pushed for a lower threshold that would capture events like the recent AI-driven hacking incidents.

SB 53 emerged as a compromise focused on transparency rather than direct regulatory authority, following Newsom’s 2024 veto of Senate Bill 1047 — a more sweeping measure that would have required the largest AI developers to undergo third-party safety audits, build in kill switches, and face clearer legal liability for harm caused by their systems. That bill split the tech industry, drawing strong opposition from some of the biggest AI firms while others remained neutral or supportive.

Both bills were authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat whose San Francisco district includes many of the nation’s leading AI companies.

“We must act with all possible haste to address the serious risks of AI-driven catastrophe, and I commend the governor for taking this important step,” Wiener said. “I’m glad to see the strong AI safety framework I laid out in 2024 is still being used to guide policy in 2026.”

In his 2024 veto message, Newsom acknowledged the need for safety protocols but warned that SB 1047 risked stifling innovation among major AI developers “at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.” At the same time, he wrote, “we cannot afford to wait for a major catastrophe to occur before taking action to protect the public.”

Since then, attitudes within the industry have shifted. Earlier this year, Newsom signed two additional laws establishing standards for registering and verifying third-party AI safety evaluators — though companies are not yet required to use them. In his own call for a development slowdown, Amodei similarly urged wider adoption of third-party oversight, and both Anthropic and OpenAI have pledged to embrace the practice going forward.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Directs State Agencies to Craft AI Safety Guidelines After Vetoing Stricter Legislation appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Newsom on Monday signed Assembly Bill 1359, which allows older residents to request a lifelong exemption from jury service simply by certifying that they have a disability preventing them from serving. No additional medical paperwork will be required. Seniors who still want to serve on juries will retain the option to do so.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, D-Cupertino, said he was inspired to introduce the legislation after a constituent, former Santa Clara County Supervisor Dianne McKenna, described the trouble she went through helping her elderly husband secure a jury duty exemption.

“Senior jurors are excellent jurists who can and will continue to serve if they are willing and able,” Ahrens said in a written statement. “But if they aren’t able to, they will no longer have to navigate a maze of paperwork just to opt out permanently.”

Unlike some other states, California has not had a blanket minimum age for jury duty exemptions. Florida sets that threshold at 70, while Texas sets it at 75.

Under California’s previous rules, residents 70 and older could seek a medical exemption without a doctor’s certification, but they still had to notify their local jury office in writing each time they were summoned, explaining why they were unable to serve. That meant the exemption applied only once — forcing seniors to repeat the process every time their name came up again for jury selection.

Supporters of the new law argue that having to repeatedly request an exemption places an unnecessary burden on older adults, particularly those dealing with mobility issues, chronic illness or limited access to computers and the internet. According to a 2025 report from the Public Policy Institute of California, roughly one-third of adults over 80 struggle to remain at home without assistance, and about one in five faces limitations with basic self-care.

Advocates say the change could be especially helpful for people living with Alzheimer’s disease who lack a caregiver to assist them with the exemption process. Andrew Mendoza, director of state government affairs for the Alzheimer’s Association, testified in support of the bill during a legislative hearing in June.

“This bill can help vulnerable populations avoid what would otherwise be a stressful process of gathering documents and explaining their disability status during a time of significant personal change,” Mendoza said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Signs Law Permanently Exempting These Californians From Jury Duty appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Back in 2019, Newsom halted executions statewide with an executive order, a move underscored by the dismantling of San Quentin’s lethal injection gurney and gas chamber. That decision left many Californians with the impression that capital punishment here was essentially over. It wasn’t. Today, 546 men and 18 women remain on California’s death row, caught in a system that satisfies almost no one — too broken to carry out executions, yet too politically fraught to be dismantled.

That standoff stems largely from a divide between tough-on-crime district attorneys in conservative counties who continue to pursue death sentences and a more liberal state leadership unwilling to carry them out. The result has been two decades without a single execution and a backlog of appeals that keeps growing.

Now, with his term ending, Newsom is facing calls from California activists and international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, urging him to commute all death sentences before leaving office. Doing so would convert those sentences to life without parole, protecting inmates from execution even if a future governor supports resuming the practice. It would also be one of the most consequential moves of Newsom’s political career — a single act that would reduce the nation’s death row population by more than a quarter, dwarfing similar clemency actions taken by other governors, and even eclipsing President Joe Biden’s decision to commute 37 federal death sentences before leaving the White House.

Unlike Biden, however, Newsom can’t act entirely on his own. Because more than half of the relevant cases involve inmates with multiple felony convictions, the California Supreme Court would need to sign off on those commutations. And looming over the entire decision is politics: Newsom is widely expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, and a decision this large carries risk no matter which direction he takes.

Newsom’s office declined to answer direct questions about his plans. Spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in a statement that the governor has “been clear about his position on the death penalty since his first year in office, when he ordered a moratorium on executions. He believes that intentionally killing another person is a reprehensible act.”

An analysis by The Marshall Project and CalMatters of roughly 9,000 death sentences imposed nationwide found troubling patterns in California stretching back half a century — patterns Newsom himself has criticized during his time in office. Compared with other states, California courts have exonerated or reduced sentences for a much smaller share of death row inmates. Death sentences here fall disproportionately on Black and Latino defendants, and whether someone receives such a sentence often has more to do with which county prosecutes the case than with the severity of the crime itself.

Just before taking office, Newsom told CalMatters that he had asked his predecessor, Jerry Brown, to “solve this problem.” Brown never did. Now Newsom finds himself facing the same dilemma — one where any decision carries political consequences.

No California governor has granted clemency to a death row inmate since Ronald Reagan did so in 1967. After the U.S. Supreme Court forced states nationwide to overhaul their capital punishment laws in the 1970s, California reinstated the death penalty in 1977. Over the following five decades, prosecutors persuaded juries to sentence more than 1,000 people to death, yet the state has carried out only 13 executions.

That gap is largely a product of California’s political geography. Conservative counties elect district attorneys who pursue capital cases aggressively, but the authority to carry out executions ultimately rests with governors, who answer to a statewide electorate that leans considerably more Democratic.

Even with legal challenges and Newsom’s moratorium in place, some counties have continued sending new capital cases through the courts. More than 200 people have been sentenced to death in California since the state’s last execution in 2006.

Voters narrowly rejected two separate ballot measures, in 2012 and 2016, that would have abolished the death penalty outright. A third measure, also on the 2016 ballot, sought to speed up executions by shortening the appeals process, but it failed to provide adequate funding for defense attorneys to handle the caseload. Amid this tug-of-war, the number of unresolved capital cases has swelled for years, straining the state budget in the process.

California now spends roughly $200 million annually on legal costs tied to capital cases, even though most death row inmates are still waiting to be assigned an attorney, according to a 2025 report from the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, which represents people appealing death sentences. Providing legal counsel to every person currently on death row would likely cost the state more than half a billion dollars.

With no executions taking place and few successful appeals, California’s share of the nation’s death row population has climbed dramatically over the decades. Today, more people sit on death row in California than in any other state.

Newsom has long been an outspoken critic of capital punishment, citing racial disparities, the enormous cost of trials and appeals, and the risk of executing innocent people.

In 2022, he signed legislation making it easier for incarcerated people whose cases were tainted by racial bias to challenge their sentences. He had previously stated that “California’s death penalty system is, and has always been, infected by racism.” In the years since, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive review of capital cases dating back to the 1980s and found that prosecutors had systematically excluded Black and Jewish jurors from many of those trials, deeming them unsympathetic to the death penalty. Twenty defendants from those cases have since been resentenced, and at least two are now pursuing multimillion-dollar civil lawsuits.

Meanwhile, a coalition of civil rights groups has filed suit arguing that racial disparities in death sentencing violate the state constitution. Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court directed a lower court in Sacramento to examine those claims, which draw on research showing Black defendants are up to 8.7 times more likely than others to receive a death sentence for similar crimes, and Latino defendants up to 6.2 times more likely.

Newsom has also raised concerns about the geographic randomness of who receives a death sentence — noting that outcome often hinges less on the crime itself than on which county’s district attorney chooses to pursue capital punishment. An analysis by The Marshall Project and CalMatters found that since 1987, when the state began tracking county-level homicide data, someone who committed a killing in Riverside County was four times more likely to be sentenced to death than someone who committed a similar crime in neighboring Los Angeles County.

At least 25 people have been sentenced to death since Newsom’s moratorium took effect, 11 of them in Riverside County. District attorneys remain free to pursue new capital cases unless California voters abolish the death penalty through a future ballot measure.

Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin’s office did not respond to a request for comment. In the past, however, Hestrin has defended local control over such decisions, telling The Sacramento Bee in 2016 that “criminal justice policy should reflect the community as much as possible, because it’s personal.” More recently, Hestrin, a Republican, has argued that Newsom’s moratorium “subverted the express will of the people” and “reopened fresh wounds for the families of homicide victims.”

Those kinds of statements offer a preview of the political backlash Newsom could face if he commutes a large number of death sentences, particularly if he runs for president. Some of the underlying cases could easily become fodder for attack ads — among them Richard Allen Davis, convicted of murdering 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1993. Her father, Marc Klaas, has been a vocal critic of Newsom’s moratorium.

“I think he has to consider how this would look in other parts of the country if he granted clemency,” said Garry South, a longtime California political strategist who worked on Newsom’s first gubernatorial campaign in 2008. “He doesn’t want to create a problem — even a false one — that lets his opponents in 2028 claim he let murderers loose in his own state.” Notably, commuting a death sentence wouldn’t release anyone from prison; those affected would instead serve life without the possibility of parole.

On the other hand, Newsom could also choose to grant clemency to inmates whose claims of innocence have drawn significant public support. One such case is Kevin Cooper, sentenced to death for a quadruple murder in Chino Hills in 1983. High-profile supporters, including Kim Kardashian and columnist Nicholas Kristof, have argued that Cooper was framed by San Bernardino County law enforcement — an accusation local authorities have repeatedly denied. Newsom ordered additional DNA testing in the case, but the results were inconclusive. An outside legal review commissioned by the state reaffirmed Cooper’s guilt, though that review itself drew criticism over questions of bias and other shortcomings.

Experts on capital punishment note that Newsom likely doesn’t have enough time left in office to review every case individually, suggesting his final decision may come down to an all-or-nothing choice. Biden, by contrast, granted clemency to 37 people but declined to do so for three inmates convicted in high-profile mass killings.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that a sweeping commutation could actually help Newsom in a competitive Democratic presidential primary. “The voters he’ll need to win over in a Democratic primary would likely see this as a bold, principled move,” said Natasha Minsker, a former ACLU attorney who now lobbies against capital punishment in California. “They’re looking for candidates who act on their values instead of just playing it safe politically.”

If Newsom chooses not to act, the unresolved question of California’s death penalty will fall to his successor. Democratic frontrunner Xavier Becerra, who supported capital punishment during his time as state attorney general, has said he would extend the current moratorium if elected governor. His Republican opponent, Steve Hilton, has said he would lift the moratorium despite personally opposing the death penalty. That leaves the future of executions in California uncertain, regardless of who wins.

And if Newsom leaves office without taking action, he will hand off an unresolved and deeply contentious issue — with hundreds of death penalty cases still in limbo, and neither side of the debate satisfied.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Holds a Quarter of the Nation’s Death Row Inmates. Will Newsom Grant Clemency? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Back in 2019, Newsom halted executions statewide and had the gas chamber’s chair hauled out of San Quentin. To many observers, that seemed like the death knell for capital punishment in California. But the reality on the ground tells a different story: 546 men and 18 women remain under active death sentences in the state, according to a new joint analysis by The Marshall Project and CalMatters. That’s roughly a quarter of every death sentence currently on the books nationwide.

Now, with his time in the governor’s office winding down, Newsom faces a decision with enormous consequences. Advocacy groups, both local and international, are pressing him to commute all 562 death sentences to life without the possibility of parole before he leaves. Such a move would align with his long-standing opposition to executions and would ripple far beyond California’s borders. It would also be a politically loaded gamble for a governor widely believed to be eyeing a run for the White House.

The irony isn’t lost on Newsom himself. Before he took office, he told CalMatters he had urged then-Gov. Jerry Brown to tackle the death penalty issue once and for all. Brown didn’t, and now the unresolved question has landed squarely in Newsom’s lap.

As Marshall Project journalists Maurice Chammah and Jill Castellano put it in their analysis, California has ended up with “a bloated, dysfunctional system that satisfies virtually nobody” — neither the state’s outright abolitionists nor supporters of capital punishment who want to see sentences actually carried out.

Complicating matters further, local district attorneys haven’t stopped seeking death sentences despite the moratorium. At least 25 people have been condemned to death in California since Newsom’s 2019 order, and 11 of those cases came out of Riverside County alone — a reminder that the Inland Empire remains a significant battleground in the state’s capital punishment debate.

Ending new death sentences altogether would require voters to repeal the punishment through a statewide ballot measure, something that hasn’t gained enough traction to date.

If Newsom leaves office without granting clemency, the unresolved fate of California’s death row will fall to whoever succeeds him. Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, who backed the death penalty during his tenure as attorney general, has said he would keep the moratorium in place if elected governor. Republican candidate Steve Hilton, meanwhile, has indicated he would lift the moratorium — even though he says he personally opposes capital punishment.

For now, the question of whether California will empty its death row or continue in this legal limbo remains unanswered, leaving hundreds of inmates, their families, and crime victims’ families waiting for clarity that may not come until a new governor takes office.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Halted Executions Years Ago. Could Full Abolition Be Next? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For months, they warned Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration that sharing driver’s license data through a national verification system could expose undocumented residents to federal immigration enforcement. Now, following a federal subpoena targeting millions of commercial driver records, those warnings look prescient.

According to reporting by CalMatters journalists Wendy Fry and Khari Johnson, Newsom’s office and the California Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed earlier this summer that they would begin sharing driver data with a multistate verification network operated by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a nonprofit known as AAMVA. Advocacy groups objected loudly at the time, arguing the arrangement could put undocumented Californians at greater risk of deportation should federal agencies access the information.

Their concerns proved timely. Just ten days after Newsom signed legislation authorizing the data-sharing arrangement, the California DMV learned that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had already demanded records from AAMVA covering roughly 17 million commercial driver’s license holders nationwide — including full names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers. Less than a month after that, federal officials went further, issuing a formal subpoena to AAMVA for the information.

Ed Hasbrouck, who works with the civil liberties organization The Identity Project, didn’t mince words about the outcome. “We hate to have to say, ‘We told you so.’ But in this case, we told you so,” he said.

The federal push appears connected to a wider Trump administration effort targeting non-citizen commercial truck drivers. California officials have defended their participation in the data-sharing system, however, arguing that opting out could put the state out of compliance with federal identification requirements — potentially causing California driver’s licenses to be rejected at airport security checkpoints.

Newsom’s office has downplayed fears that the federal subpoena represents a broader privacy threat, echoing arguments it made earlier this year when critics first raised concerns about the data-sharing plan.

“The federal government’s demand … is for bulk access to (commercial license) data — not the individual searches that federal officials already conduct — and California has not provided the requested bulk data,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor.

Elsewhere in Sacramento, a bill that supporters describe as protection for small businesses from nuisance privacy lawsuits is drawing sharp criticism from consumer advocates who call it a giveaway to major technology companies.

State Sen. Anna Caballero, a Merced Democrat, authored the legislation in response to what her office describes as a wave of “frivolous litigation” under a nearly 60-year-old state surveillance law. Attorneys representing small businesses say more than 4,000 claims alleging privacy violations have been filed against companies in the past four years alone.

But national privacy organizations, including the ACLU and the Tech Oversight Project, argue the bill would strip individuals of their right to sue companies over unauthorized consumer tracking. The measure has drawn financial backing from Amazon, Meta, X and Google. Critics point specifically to a retroactivity clause in the bill that they say could undercut a high-profile ongoing privacy lawsuit against Meta.

In more encouraging news for California classrooms, the state Assembly passed a bipartisan measure clarifying how school districts can spend roughly $1 billion in arts education funding approved by voters through Proposition 28 in 2022.

That ballot measure required schools to use the new money to add to, not replace, existing arts programs. But confusion over how to comply led numerous districts to return their allocated funds to the state, fearing lawsuits if they misspent the money. Los Angeles Unified is currently facing exactly that kind of legal challenge, filed by former district superintendent Austin Beutner, who accuses the district of using Prop. 28 dollars to substitute for arts programs it had already cut. The district denies wrongdoing, and the case remains unresolved.

Beutner, who helped write Proposition 28, initially opposed the new clarifying bill but withdrew his objection after reaching a compromise with lawmakers.

Meanwhile, another attempt to regulate automated license plate readers has stalled in Sacramento. The bill, which would have placed new limits on how law enforcement agencies collect and share license plate data, died quietly this week before reaching the Assembly floor — the fifth such effort to fail despite growing public concern over the privacy implications of the technology.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Trump Administration’s Push for Trucker Records Raises Privacy Concerns in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.