DeMaio likes to attract attention. He has plenty of it from opponents. – Michael Smolens

Police and firefighter unions, Republican elected officials and others wage independent campaigns against radio talk-show host DeMaio in Assembly race

Carl DeMaio has crossed a lot of people in his various political endeavors. He’s being reminded of that daily in his campaign for the state Assembly.

The radio talk-show host is being opposed by a rare coalition that spans the political spectrum: labor unions, police and firefighter associations, Democrats, Republican elected officials, the state and local Republican parties, and even some real estate interests.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

The top financial supporters listed on one mailer attacking DeMaio include the California Professional Firefighters, California Correctional Peace Officers Association and the California Apartment Association.

At least five independent campaign efforts are aligned against him. DeMaio, a prolific fundraiser, has a substantial campaign war chest and is also benefiting from his statewide organization, Reform California.

DeMaio is running in the 75th Assembly District, a sprawling East County conservative district that almost certainly will elect a Republican, likely either DeMaio or Andrew Hayes, an aide to state Sen. Brian Jones, D-Santee, who has been endorsed by the Republican Party.

Incumbent Republican Marie Waldron is termed out this year.

A contested primary in a solid Republican district might not typically attract labor involvement but DeMaio changes that equation. Also contributing to the anti-DeMaio cause is the California Labor Federation, which is led by Lorena Gonzalez, who as a San Diego labor leader has clashed with DeMaio for years.

The Peace Officers Research Association of California is also spending money to defeat DeMaio. PORAC is headed up by Brian Marvel, the former president of the San Diego Police Officers Association who also has clashed with DeMaio.

DeMaio has been virulently anti-union and as a member of the San Diego City Council spearheaded a voter-approved ballot measure that did away with pensions for most municipal workers, except police officers, hired after July 20, 2012. The measure was overturned in court about a decade later and the city is now working to restore pensions to affected workers.

DeMaio envisioned that public employee pension bans would take hold across the state, but that never happened.

He also backed a related five-year pay freeze for city employees and restrictions on other benefits for employees, including police officers, that were not affected by the court rulings.

DeMaio maintained pensions were too generous and were bleeding money from government budgets.

He’s familiar with opposition from labor and said that doesn’t faze him. “I wear that with a badge of honor,” he said in an interview.

As for Hayes, DeMaio said, “This guy is backed by corrupt forces in Sacramento” — both Republican and Democrat.

Jones, who is the Senate Republican leader, is backing independent efforts for Hayes and against DeMaio. So are Waldron, county Supervisor Joel Anderson and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Bonsall. Issa defeated DeMaio in a contentious 2020 race for an East County-centric congressional district.

DeMaio also lost races for mayor in 2012 and for Congress to Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego, in 2014 after serving one term on the City Council.

Clearly, DeMaio’s opponents don’t want him in the Legislature or, it seems, any other elected office. But their first order of business appears to be getting the lesser-known Hayes through the primary on March 5.

There are no guarantees in politics, but DeMaio seems poised to advance to November. He is being hit with negative mailers, contending he’s a “Never Trumper” and that he supported “defunding our first responders.”

In turn, DeMaio says he backs former President Donald Trump, and maintains Hayes is being propped up by Democrats and labor unions. Both have claimed they are the strongest on border enforcement and are the more conservative candidate. At times, they’ve mimicked Trump’s penchant for giving opponents derogatory names.

“‘Amnesty Andrew’ Hayes can’t be trusted on illegal immigration,” says one mailer backing DeMaio.

In a campaign release, Hayes accused “Crooked Carl DeMaio” of using donations to his Reform California committee for the Assembly race.

Beyond the attack pieces to dissuade Republican voters from supporting Hayes, DeMaio is making an appeal to Democratic voters, sort of. DeMaio’s campaign has been promoting the Democratic Party-endorsed candidate, Kevin Juza.

It’s an increasingly common campaign tactic to boost a perceived weaker opponent in hopes they will outdistance a stronger one in the primary.

The anti-DeMaio forces have responded in kind, though so far not in a big way. They made a small ad buy on Facebook to promote Democrat Christie Dougherty in an apparent effort to dilute the DeMaio-juiced Juza vote — which, in theory, could help Hayes.

This is becoming quite a tangled web.

Also running are Democrat Joy Frew and Republican Jack Fernandes.

Click here to read the full article in the SD Union Tribune

Gov. Gavin Newsom launches ads to fight abortion travel bans

The multistate campaign will launch Monday with a TV commercial about a measure under consideration in Tennessee.

Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday announced an advertising campaign to combat proposals in several Republican-controlled states to prohibit out-of-state travel for abortions and other reproductive care.

The multistate ad campaign and an online petition effort will launch Monday, beginning with a TV commercial about a measure under consideration in Tennessee. The so-called “abortion trafficking” bill sponsored by GOP state legislators would make it a felony offense for an adult to recruit, harbor or transport a minor to get an abortion without parental consent.

Newsom told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that similar restrictions modeled on a law that has already passed in Idaho are also being proposed in Oklahoma and Mississippi.

“The conditions are much more pernicious than they even appear,” Newsom said. “These guys are not just restricting the rights, self-determination to bear a child for a young woman. But they’re also determining their fate as it relates to their future in life by saying they can’t even travel.”

People who support the Tennessee measure say it could criminalize not only driving a minor to get an abortion, but also providing information about nearby abortion services or passing along which states have looser abortion laws.

Republican state Rep. Jason Zachary, who is co-sponsoring the proposal, has called it “simply a parental rights bill.”

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, anti-abortion advocates have pushed states to ban abortion and find ways to block pregnant women and girls from crossing state lines to obtain the procedure.

Click here to read the full article in ABC7

Coupal: A bold idea for California: Instead of passing so many new laws, how about some oversight over existing ones?

The reaction from politicians to California’s budget deficit – now estimated by the Legislative Analyst to be around $73 billion – breaks down into two camps: the state must either reduce spending or find more revenue. (Euphemism for raising taxes.)

In reality, even the most progressive legislators realize that their dream of unending growth in government is crashing headlong into reality. Days ago, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas acknowledged that the ultimate goal of single-payer health care won’t be on the table anytime soon.

Of course, any reduction in spending will be accompanied by the obligatory gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair. It is easier to extract a sirloin steak from the jaws of a Doberman than to get politicians and government bureaucrats to reduce their record levels of spending. To the tax spenders, all government spending is “essential,” notwithstanding the fact that state spending has doubled in six years.

Ordinary Californians reject the premise that all state spending is “essential” and, in fact, think much of it is superfluous and wasteful. A Public Policy Institute of California survey earlier this month asked, “Do you think . . . state government[s] waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it?” Overall, 45% of Californians perceived that “a lot” of their money was being wasted and 46% believed “some” of their money was wasted.

Specific examples abound. If the High-Speed Rail project were put before the voters after its 14-year history of broken promises, polling reveals it would be derailed. And volumes could be written about the $30 billion in EDD fraud.

An excellent exposé in CalMatters by Sameea Kamal and Jeremia Kimelman reveals the massive non-compliance with legislative mandates regarding the preparation of reports that are supposed to track the effectiveness of government programs. The title of the article is “Legislators wanted 1,100 reports on how California’s laws are working. Most haven’t arrived.”

When it creates a new program, the Legislature frequently requires the affected state or local agencies to prepare a report back to the Legislature about the performance of the new program. The purpose, according to the Legislature itself, is to “provide crucial oversight to ensure effective implementation of programs.”

But according to CalMatters, “more than 70% of the 1,118 reports due in the past year were not submitted to the Office of Legislative Counsel, the public repository for the reports . . . And about half of those that were filed were late. (About 230 were reports required from multiple agencies.)”

The absence of reports on the efficacy of past legislation makes future legislation like a journey into the unknown. CalMatters correctly contends that the “reports could be used to avoid introducing duplicative or unnecessary bills.” But a more fundamental purpose would be to determine which laws or programs should simply be repealed or abandoned entirely.

Compounding the problem of missing reports is that there is little data about which reports are simply late and that there is little notice when they are completed. The lack of a coherent process for tracking legislatively mandated reports is why, according to CalMatters, “some lawmakers and consultants . . . don’t often use the [Legislative Counsel] website,” relying instead on alternative sources of information.

In theory, California has multiple avenues for conducting oversight. The California State Auditor produces a number of useful reports, including a periodic report on “statewide issues and state agencies that represent a high risk to the State or its residents.”

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

California says gas prices could spike 50 cents a gallon next year thanks to this climate program

A nearly two decades-old program to slash climate-warming emissions from transportation could cause California gasoline prices to spike as much as 50 cents a gallon in the next two years.

That’s according to staff of the state’s leading air quality regulator, who provided the estimate ahead of that agency’s decision to strengthen the program created to discourage gasoline and diesel production in favor of cleaner alternatives.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

Their drastic projection comes amid growing concerns about fuel and energy costs related to California efforts to phase out fossil fuels. Already burdened drivers can expect to see gas prices hit $5 a gallon this spring, and electricity bills also are expected to rise.

“I was shocked to see it,” said Danny Cullenward, a climate economist and advisor to the state. “A 50-cent increase in the price of fuel is not a small thing.”

California Air Resources Board staff projected the price jump in a key report last fall, saying proposed reforms to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) would raise costs for the gasoline and diesel production companies that could get passed on to drivers.

In what they called an upper bound estimate, air board staff estimated that gasoline prices may jump by an average of $0.47 next year and $0.52 by 2026. They said diesel prices could increase by $0.59 this year and $0.66 in two years.

Over the long term, they found that gasoline prices could increase by $1.15 per gallon and diesel by $1.50 per gallon from 2031 to 2046. They also projected a $1.21 jump in jet fuel prices.

Air board staff have since downplayed their gas price hike projections, calling them “narrow and incomplete” in a December report. Instead, the agency has focused on cost savings to drivers across the economy as more people make the switch to EVs.

“CARB staff estimates the amount of money Californians spend on transportation costs across all vehicle classes could be up to 42% lower in 2045,” air board staff said this week in FAQs about the standard’s impact on fuel costs.

The LCFS was created in 2007 by then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce the state’s dependence on fossil fuels and encourage low-carbon alternatives. The first program of its kind, it has since been adopted by other governments, including the European Union.

It operates a system of monetary rewards and fees called “credits” and “deficits.” Producers of less carbon intensive fuel — such as biofuel, ethanol and biomethane — sell those credits to gasoline and diesel producers who rack up deficits.

Click here to read the full article in Sacramento Bee via Yahoo News

California voters will decide on Newsom’s mental health overhaul. How did we get here?

Fallout from our state’s long history of breaking promises to people with serious mental illness is everywhere.

It can be found under our overpasses and in our tent encampments, but also inside our jails and prisons, our emergency rooms, our schools, our homes.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

It flashes across our public opinion polls, which repeatedly list mental health as a top concern.

Increasingly, it makes its way into our political discourse. Referencing “our broken system,” Gov. Gavin Newsom in recent years has rolled out mental health policies with dizzying speed.

Now he’s promoting Proposition 1, a two-pronged March ballot measure that would fund a $6.4 billion bond for treatment beds and permanent supportive housing, while also requiring counties to spend more of their existing mental health funds on people who are chronically homeless. 

The measure makes promises of its own. 

“These reforms, and this new investment in behavioral health housing, will help California make good on promises made decades ago,” Newsom has said.

What are the promises that California has made to people with mental illness over the years? And why are so many people still suffering?

Here’s a brief timeline of mental health policies in our state—of promises made and promises broken—during the past 75 years.

1950s & 1960s: An era of institutionalization

In the 1950s, it is relatively easy to force people into state mental hospitals, many of which have horrific conditions. The number of patients peaks in the late-1950s, at approximately 37,000. During that time, the state starts shifting control over mental health services to counties, embarking on the process of deinstitutionalization. This process accelerates in the late 1960s with the passage of the landmark Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a law designed to protect the civil rights of people with mental illnesses.

1954: The federal Food & Drug Administration approves Chlorpromazine (Thorazine), the first antipsychotic drug, to treat people with serious mental illnesses.

1957: The California Legislature increases funding for community mental health under the Short-Doyle Act, aiming to treat more people in their communities instead of in state hospitals.

1963: President John Fitzgerald Kennedy signs the Community Mental Health Act, promising federal leadership to build and staff a network of community mental health centers. Less than a month later, he is assassinated. Many of the clinics are never built.

1965: Congress creates Medicare and Medicaid, allowing people with mental illnesses to receive treatment in their communities.

1967: Then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signs the Lanterman-Petris-Short law limiting involuntary detention of all but the most gravely disabled people with mental illness and providing them with legal protections.

1970s & 1980s: California tax revolt leads to austerity

As state mental hospitals close in the 1970s, many people with serious mental illnesses are moved into for-profit nursing homes and board and care homes. Their numbers on the streets and inside jails and prisons begin to rise. The 1980s sees significant funding cuts for mental health services at both the state and federal levels.

1978: The Community Residential Treatment Systems Act seeks to create unlocked, noninstitutional alternatives for people with mental illness throughout California.

The same year, voters pass Proposition 13, capping property taxes and reducing the amount of money available to counties for a variety of services, including mental health.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

California lawmakers seek to short-circuit new income-based utility charges

GOP and Dems eye plans to overturn hastily approved billing scheme

OAKLAND — Multiple efforts are underway on both sides of California’s political divide to short-circuit a 2022 law that would impose new income-based fixed fees on customers of PG&E and other utility leviathans.

Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature have crafted separate measures designed to quash a plan to implement the fee that lawmakers hastily approved in an 11-hour proceeding.

PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric would be able to impose the new charge on their customers if the state Public Utilities Commission gives the plan a final OK — potentially by this spring or summer. Newsom, who signed the bill, appointed all five current members of the powerful commission.

RELATED: PG&E profits hop higher as revenue from electricity and gas surges

The legislative efforts seek to either overturn or drastically alter the 2022 law, AB 205, a wide-ranging energy bill including a one-sentence provision that directed the utility commission to study income-based fixed charges and then decide on their implementation by no later than June 30 of this year.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

The provision in the legislation was intended to help encourage a transition to greater electrification and energy conservation in California as part of a shift away from reliance on fossil fuels, along with making utility bills more affordable for low-income customers. Critics, though, warn the bill might actually produce higher monthly bills.

The state lawmakers involved in the various efforts to overturn the income-based utility charge plan include Assembly Democrats Marc Berman of Menlo Park and Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks, and Senate Republican Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Janet Nguyen, Roger Niello, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Kelly Seyarto, and Scott Wilk.

What’s more, 22 state lawmakers wrote to the utility commission’s president in October warning that the powerful California regulatory agency might be racing too quickly — and with no public input — to decide on the income-based fees.

“At a minimum, more time will be needed to consider such a significant and far-reaching change in policy that will significantly impact ratepayers with only a theoretical benefit,” the lawmakers wrote.

Several experts led by Ahmad Faruqui, an economist who has consulted with all three of the utility behemoths, have provided an array of reasons that regulators should reject the current proposal, including the fact that PG&E bills are already rising far faster than the Bay Area inflation rate.

“The proposed fixed charges are way too high compared to the national landscape,” Faruqui and the group of economists wrote. “The fixed charges will be burdensome for many, infeasible to administer, are likely to be challenged in court and are likely to unleash adverse unintended consequences, such as penalizing customers who use energy efficiently and frugally.”

Advocates for Income-based fees, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, say that higher-income customers will tend to pay more, while lower-income customers will pay less. Proponents also claim that PG&E and the other utilities intend to lower the kilowatt-hour rates they charge customers as a way to offset the fees.

Even so, TURN and the environmental group concede that fixed fees are far from a complete solution. Despite their support, the groups wrote in a filing with the state that they recognize “the development of a progressive fixed charge does not represent a silver bullet and will not, on its own, make customer bills affordable.”

State lawmakers are increasingly alarmed about the income-based fee proposal.

“Too many Californians struggle to afford their electricity bills at a time when energy is already unreliable, and yet the legislature thought it was a good idea to rip people off more,” Wilk, a Santa Clarita Republican, said in a prepared release this week.

The fixed-income proposal has surfaced at a time when PG&E bills, along with the bills charged by the other two utility titans, have skyrocketed.

Click here to read the full article in the Mercury News

California lawmakers face a ballooning budget deficit

The biggest challenge facing lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom is the state budget deficit — and it just got bigger.

Today, the Legislative Analyst’s Office projected the shortfall as $15 billion higher, or $73 billion.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

The analyst’s office had pegged the 2024-25 deficit at $58 billion in January, using Newsom’s revenue estimates when he presented his initial budget proposal of $292 billion. 

On Friday, Newsom’s Department of Finance reported that preliminary General Fund cash receipts in January were $5 billion below (or nearly 20%) the governor’s budget forecast. Unless state tax revenues pick up significantly, the bigger number will make it more difficult to balance the state budget just through dipping into reserves and targeted spending cuts. 

But exactly how the state can dig its way out — at least in the Assembly — remains to be seen. Speaker Robert Rivas told reporters today that the budget has been at the forefront of conversations among Assembly Democrats and that he is very concerned with the growing deficit.

He praised the governor’s commitment to preserving classroom funding, and said he didn’t see a way to avoid dipping into the state’s reserves, as the governor’s January budget plan proposed — though the speaker urged a prudent approach to using rainy day savings in case the budget picture worsens in future years. 

“We are very concerned about short-term fixes for long-term problems,” said Rivas, who took over as speaker last summer, just days after the Legislature and Newsom reached a deal on the 2023-24 budget that covered a $30 billion deficit after two years of record surpluses.  

“Clearly, we need to prioritize oversight and curb spending and our investments,” Rivas added.

In the coming weeks, Rivas’ plan calls for an oversight budget subcommittee he formed in December to review the state’s spending on housing, he said. 

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Coupal: Gov. Newsom’s silly arguments against the Taxpayer Protection Act don’t stickCoupal:

Last week, the organizations sponsoring the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) filed their response to the governor and Legislature’s lawsuit, which seeks to remove the overwhelmingly popular measure from the November general election ballot. 

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

The Taxpayer Protection Act will close court-created loopholes in Prop. 13 as well as providing additional taxpayer safeguards:

  • Empower voters with the right to approve or reject all new state taxes as well as local taxes.
  • Increase accountability and transparency so politicians spend our tax dollars more efficiently, and ballot titles for tax increases are clear and truthful.
  • Stop government agencies from imposing “hidden taxes” disguised as fees imposed by appointed bureaucrats.

The organizations that are sponsoring and defending the Taxpayer Protection Act include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Business Roundtable and the California Business Properties Association, which collectively represent tens of thousands of homeowners, businesses large and small, and owners of commercial real estate. These groups were supported by several “friend of the court” briefs from over a dozen local taxpayer associations. 

The lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrat leadership, backed by public employee unions, calls for the nearly unprecedented step of using the courts to deny voters their constitutional right to vote on this duly qualified initiative, a commonsense taxpayer protection and accountability measure. They are using a series of political, not legal arguments, to ask the California Supreme Court to remove the measure from the ballot. 

The legal brief from the pro-taxpayer coalition exposed the abject lack of legal merit in the arguments from the governor and his allies in the Legislature. Specifically, the attack on the Taxpayer Protection Act fell far short of meeting the extremely high threshold the California Supreme Court has established for removing duly qualified initiatives from the ballot before voters exercise their constitutional right to vote. 

The lawsuit against TPA is chock full of frivolous political arguments to support their position that California voters should not have the right to vote on future taxes. If the lawsuit proves anything it’s that the tax-and-spend progressives who control California are scared to death that TPA will pass. And that fear is well founded as evidenced by polling showing that its provisions are supported by a majority of Californians. 

Previously, the governor and Legislature’s attorneys complained that “the [Taxpayer Protection Act] reduces the Legislature’s spending power… and increases the power of State and local voters to reject taxes and charges.” 

To which we responded, “Yeah, that’s the point.”

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Some Bills that Caught my Eye from 2024 Introductions

‘Isn’t that kind of obvious? A state statute cannot contradict the state Constitution’

Being the “legislative geek” that I am, as I made my way through the introduced bills in the 2024 California Legislative Session from yesterday’s deadline there have been a few measures that have caught my attention.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

This bill has 227 individual sections, the most I’ve seen so far.

An act to amend Sections 7196.2, 12240, 13400, 13404, 13440, 13442, 13470, and 13531 of the Business and Professions Code, to amend Sections 798.41, 1785.11.9, 1798.98, and 2929.5 of the Civil Code, to amend Sections 349.05, 564, 726.5, and 736 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend Section 17213 of the Education Code, to amend Section 824 of the Evidence Code, to amend Sections 819, 7274, and 32202 of the Financial Code, to amend Section 6602 of the Fish and Game Code, to amend Sections 4216, 4216.3, 4217.11, 6546, 7267.9, 7513.7, 7922.700, 8585.01, 8670.3, 8670.56.5, 11342.610, 16428.1, 16428.15, 16428.2, 51010.5, 53313.5, 54957, 61105, 63010, 65912.113, 65912.123, 65913.16, 65950.5, 65963.2, and 70357 of the Government Code, to amend Section 294 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, to amend Sections 18029.1, 19881, 25144, 25299.97, 25421, 38501, 38562, 38594, 39607, 39731, 39733, 40448.5, 40516, 40603, 41062, 41081, 41704, 42301.15, 42710, 43867, 44229, and 78075 of the Health and Safety Code, to amend Sections 7655 and 7800 of the Labor Code, to amend Sections 2202, 2202.5, 10295.3, 10295.35, 10295.5, and 10299.1 of the Public Contract Code, to amend Sections 2005, 3008, 3015, 3180, 3181, 3186.3, 3205.8, 3227.6, 3300, 3316.2, 3500, 3501, 3503, 3635.3, 6245, 6827.5, 21080.25, 21080.40, 21151.8, 25000.1, 25000.5, 25121, 25122, 25125, 25126, 25134, 25140, 25228, 25300, 25301, 25303, 25303.5, 25310, 25320, 25354, 25355, 25401.2, 25401.5, 25402.10, 25412.5, 25540.6, 25550, 25555, 25620.1, 25620.8, 25704, 25722.5, 25722.8, 25722.9, 25794.6, 25943, 25990, 26401, 30001.2, 30107, 30715, and 42891 of the Public Resources Code, to amend Sections 216, 216.6, 328.1, 328.2, 353.1, 366.1, 368, 379.5, 379.6, 390, 391, 398.4, 399.12, 454.56, 454.7, 701.1, 739.4, 740.3, 740.8, 747, 783.5, 784.2, 785.2, 890, 891, 892, 892.2, 896, 950, 955, 958, 963, 972, 975, 1002.5, 1821, 2104.7, 2775.7, 2801, 2802, 2804, 2806, 2811, 2812, 2836.7, 2840.6, 2841, 2851, 3252, 3255, 3310, 3325, 3365, 3369, 4351, 4358, 6350, 6351, 6352, 7673, 7714.5, 8340, 8341, 8371, 8372, 8380, 9616, 9618, and 99500 of the Public Utilities Code, to amend Sections 6358.1, 7284.3, 7326, 7335, 8613, 8651.6, 8651.7, 9258, 9501, 17131.10, 18154, 25128, 60004, and 60022 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to amend Section 2580 of the Streets and Highways Code, to amend Sections 2402.6, 27602, and 27909 of the Vehicle Code, and to amend Section 24252.1 of the Water Code, relating to methane, and making an appropriation therefor.

Other than the Budget Bill, that’s a lot of code sections affected!

Why is this provision necessary?

Nothing in this section restricts the right of the public to use navigable waters for hunting, fishing, or other public purpose as guaranteed under Section IV of Article X of the California Constitution.

Isn’t that kind of obvious? A state statute cannot contradict the state Constitution.

This bill has an interesting provision.

This act does not affect, and shall not be construed to affect, the validity of City of Woodland Measure S (2004), its applicability to any flood control project, including the subject of this act, or the outcome of the litigation in Yolo County Farm Bureau v. City of Woodland (Yolo County Superior Court Case No. CV 2021-0564; 3rd District Court of Appeal Case No. C097202).

This is unique because it addresses a local ballot measure. In addition, on occasion, the Legislature addresses an appellate court decision, usually to abrogate it. In this case, the intent is to not disrupt the appeals court decision.

SB 1076 is doing it the “right” way (in my opinion):

The Legislature finds and declares that this act furthers the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 by ensuring consumers’ rights, including the constitutional right to privacy, are protected by enacting additional consumer protection provisions regarding consumers’ requests that data brokers delete their personal information, including additional safeguards related to consumers’ use of authorized agents to make those requests.

I really appreciate when bills amending a statutory initiative actually explain why the bill “furthers the purposes” of that ballot measure. In most bills, we find the following as the standard language, which I think is inadequate:

The Legislature finds and declares that this act furthers the purposes and intent of The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.

I always chuckle when reading the maxims of jurisprudence, most of which were enacted in 1872 in the California Civil Code.

Existing law provides certain maxims of jurisprudence, including acquiescence in error takes away the right of objecting to it. This bill would add to the maxims of jurisprudence described above that the exceptions and qualifications to maxims are more important than the so-called maxims.

Click here to read the full article in California Globe

California lawmakers weigh bill to ban cities from requiring voter ID for local elections

SHOULD CITIES BE ALLOWED TO REQUIRE VOTER ID?

California cities would be prohibited from establishing voter ID requirements in local elections, under a proposed law being considered by the Legislature. SB 1174 is intended to preempt the City of Huntington Beach, which is set to vote this March on whether require that voters present identification before voting in city elections.

It would also affect other city government considering implementing such a policy, according to a statement from the bill’s author, Sen. Dave Min, D-Irvine. California voters are not required to present ID in most circumstances during state elections. However, state law leaves it up to local jurisdictions for local elections. “Healthy democracies rely on robust access to the polls.

That’s why in California we follow the facts when it comes to the overwhelming body of evidence that voter ID laws only subvert voter turnout and create barriers to law abiding voters,” Min said in a statement.

Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark is a proponent of voter ID requirements, and in an interview with Spectrum News 1 said, “If asking for an ID makes people feel more secure and brings back their faith for our voting system, then why not?”

Min pointed to the success of California’s COVID-19 motivated push for universal mail-in ballots, and that proponents of voter ID laws have not produced any evidence of voter fraud.

“At the same time, we know that voter ID laws can make it more difficult for seniors, people of color, young people, and other historically marginalized groups from participating in our democracy,” he said. The bill has not yet been assigned to a committee for consideration. Civil rights groups and others have long been wary of voter ID requirements.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

A League of Women Voters report said that “not only do these measures disproportionately impact Black, Native, elderly, and student voters, but they also fail to effectively address any real issues related to election integrity — the very thing advocates say these measures are designed to do. “ Min is running to succeed Rep. Katier Porter in Congress.

This bill will not affect his race.

DRUG CARTELS = TERRORISTS? Last year, six people — including a teen mom and her baby son — were executed in Tulare County. Police alleged that the massacre was drug cartel related. Now, California lawmakers are set to consider a bill that would designate violent drug trafficking gangs as foreign terrorist organizations and direct the California Attorney General’s Office to work with the Legislature to crack down on them.

Click here to read the full article at the Sacramento Bee