Newsom Vetoes Controversial Gender-Identity Bill in California

September 24, 2023 By David Zimmerman 6 Comments

Deviating from his past legislative support of transgender youth in California, Democratic governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required parents to demonstrate affirmation of their child’s gender identity in custody court battles.

Under California Bill AB957, judges would have been legally obligated to specifically consider whether parents have affirmed their child’s gender identity or gender expression in determining “the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” The California State Assembly passed the bill along strictly party lines earlier this month, hoping to advance transgender rights in the state.

Newsom said in a statement late Friday night he appreciates “the passion and values” of Democratic assembly member Lori Wilson for authoring the bill but disclosed he couldn’t sign it.

“I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office,” Newsom wrote.

“That said, I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate – in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic – legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply,” he added. “Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.”

Nonetheless, the California governor noted judges are still “required to consider a child’s health, safety, and welfare” in the context of their gender identity when hearing out parents in child custody cases, even if the bill wasn’t signed.

“Moreover, a court, under existing law, is required to consider a child’s health,
safety, and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these
proceedings, including the parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity,” he concluded.

Following the governor’s veto, Wilson expressed her disappointment with the decision.

“I am extremely disappointed. I know the Governor’s record. He’s been a champion for the LGBTQ+ community for years and even before it was popular to do so,” Wilson said in a statement. “However, on this point, the Governor and I disagree on the best way to protect [Transgender, Gender-Diverse and Intersex] kids.”

She added her bill was intended “to give [the trans community] a voice, particularly in the family court system where a non-affirming parent could have a detrimental impact on the mental health and well-being of a child.”

Democratic state senator Scott Wiener, who co-authored the bill, also called out Newsom for rejecting it.

“This veto is a tragedy for trans kids here & around the country,” Wiener posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “These kids are living in fear, with right wing politicians working to out them, deny them health care, ban them from sports & restrooms & erase their humanity. CA needs to unequivocally stand with these kids.”

“Governor Newsom has been such a staunch ally to the LGBTQ community. A true champion. Respectfully, however, this veto is a mistake,” he continued.

Click here to read the full article in the National Review

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Wildfire-prone California to consider new rules for property insurance pricing

September 23, 2023 By Adam Beam 11 Comments

California will let insurance companies consider climate change when setting their prices, the state’s chief regulator announced Thursday, a move aimed at preventing insurers from fleeing the state over fears of massive losses from wildfires and other natural disasters.

Unlike other states, California does not let insurance companies consider current or future risks when deciding how much to charge for an insurance policy. Instead, they can only consider what’s happened on a property in the past to set the price.

At a time when climate change is making wildfires, floods and windstorms more common, insurers say that restriction makes it difficult to truly price the risk on properties. It’s one reason why, in the past year, seven of the top 12 insurance companies doing business in California have either paused or restricted new business in the state.

On Thursday, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said the state will write new rules to let insurers look to the future when setting their rates. But companies will only get to do this if they agree to write more policies for homeowners who live in areas with the most risk — including communities threatened by wildfires.

“Modernizing our insurance market is not going to be easy or happen overnight. We are in really unchartered territory and we must make difficult choices when the world is changing rapidly,” Lara said at a news conference.

The rule change could mean higher rates for homeowners who are already seeing dramatic increases. Eight insurance companies doing business in California have requested rate increases of at least 20% or higher this year, according to the California Department of Insurance.

Harvey Rosenfield, founder of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and author of a 1988 ballot proposition that regulates insurance rates, said Lara’s announcement “will dramatically increase homeowner and renter insurance bills by hundreds or even thousands of dollars.”

But Lara said looking to the future to set rates doesn’t have to always be pessimistic. Insurers can also consider the billions of dollars the state has spent to better manage forests and the improvements homeowners have made to their homes to make them resistant to wildfires — all things insurers aren’t allowed to consider when setting rates under the current rules.

“Insurers have advanced a very powerful argument that the past is not as good a predictor of the future as it used to be,” said Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a national insurance consumer organization. “I think the (Insurance) department did what it needed to do to try to restore a viable market. We don’t have a viable market right now in this state in a lot of areas.”

California isn’t the only state that’s struggled to keep home insurance companies amid natural disasters. Officials in Florida and Louisiana, which deal with hurricanes and flooding, have fought to keep companies writing policies. A recent report from First Street Foundation said about one-quarter of all homes in the nation are underpriced for climate risk in insurance. Florida allows insurers to consider climate risk with restrictions. States with less regulated insurance markets have insurers who build current and future events into their models.

Wildfires have always been part of life in California, where it only rains for a few months out of the year. But as the climate has gotten hotter and dryer, it has made those fires much larger and more intense. Of the top 20 most destructive wildfires in state history, 14 have occurred since 2015, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Insurance companies have responded by not renewing coverage for many homeowners who live in areas threatened by wildfires. When that happens, homeowners who need insurance must purchase it from the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan. All insurance companies doing business in California must pay into a fund to provide coverage from the FAIR plan.

People with mortgages often have to buy home insurance because their lender requires it. The number of people on California’s FAIR plan nearly doubled in the five years leading up to 2021, and that number has almost certainly increased even more in the past two years.

Lara said his plan is to require insurance companies to write policies for no less than 85% of their statewide market share in areas at risk for wildfires. That means if a company writes policies for 20 homes, it must write 17 new policies for homeowners in wildfire-distressed areas — moving those people off of the FAIR Plan.

“This is a historic agreement between the department and insurance companies,” Lara said.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, which represents insurers, called Lara’s actions “the first steps of many needed to address the deterioration” of the market.

“California’s 35-year-old regulatory system is outdated, cumbersome and fails to reflect the increasing catastrophic losses consumers and businesses are facing from inflation, climate change, extreme weather and more residents living in wildfire prone areas,” Denni Ritter, vice president for state government relations, said in a statement.

Jeremy Porter, a co-author of the First Street Foundation report on climate risk, said allowing insurers to consider climate change in their pricing might lead to more competition in the state’s insurance market.

“If this is implemented correctly, this would definitely allow insurers to come back into the market in California,” he said.

Some consumer groups, including Consumer Watchdog, say they are not opposed to insurance companies using a model to look to the future to set their rates. But they want to see what is in that model. It’s not clear if California’s new rules will allow that. State regulators will spend much of the next year deciding what the rule will be.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

‘We’re hurting’: Murder Charge Announced in Deputy’s Slaying as Fiancée, Family Grieve

September 22, 2023 By Keri Blakinger 4 Comments

Four days after Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Ryan Clinkunbroomer was fatally shot in the head, his fiancée fought back tears as she spoke publicly for the first time about the man she planned to spend the rest of her life with.

Brittany Lindsey’s fairytale engagement ended in a nightmare Saturday night when Clinkunbroomer was shot in the head while driving a marked patrol car near the sheriff’s Palmdale station.

“Ryan was the best guy I’ve ever met,” Lindsey said at a joint news conference Wednesday with Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón and Sheriff Robert Luna. “I am so happy I was able to love him. It was not long enough.”

Lindsey’s and Clinkunbroomer’s families joined the district attorney and the sheriff to announce murder charges against Kevin Cataneo Salazar of Palmdale.

Behind her, Clinkunbroomer’s family cried quietly, and solemn-faced deputies from the Palmdale station lined one side of the crowded room inside the Hall of Justice.

“We’re hurting right now,” Luna said. “The family is hurting, this department is hurting.”

Though the news conference was called to publicly announce a murder charge against Cataneo Salazar, officials were tight-lipped when it came to releasing additional details about the case.

In a courtroom in Lancaster earlier in the day, Cataneo Salazar pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in Clinkunbroomer’s fatal shooting.

The 29-year-old, whose family said he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, faces one count of murder with special circumstances of lying in wait, firing from a car and personal use of a firearm, a .22-caliber revolver, in the shooting, according to the criminal complaint.

Cataneo Salazar’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While prosecutors confirmed that the suspect had purchased a gun in the weeks before the killing, they did not clarify whether they believed he had purchased it legally. And though they acknowledged “unconfirmed” reports about his mental health history, they said the investigation was in the early stages and they were still collecting more documentation.

“We’re not being cagey; we’re simply protecting the integrity of the investigation,” Gascón said.

Though Luna said he hoped for “nothing less than the maximum punishment available under the law,” Gascón reiterated his past position on the use of the death penalty, seemingly confirming the ultimate punishment was not on the table.

“If I thought that seeking the death penalty was going to bring Ryan back to us, I would seek it without any reservation,” he said. “But it won’t.”

Gascón vowed not to seek the death penalty while running for district attorney in 2020. He made good on that campaign promise during his first day in office, when he barred prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in new cases.

Cataneo Salazar’s court appearance occurred as Clinkunbroomer’s body was escorted in a long procession of law enforcement motorcycles and marked patrol cars along the 10 Freeway from the county coroner’s office to a mortuary in Covina.

In Santa Clarita, Clinkunbroomer’s hometown, a memorial was set at the top of a 172-stair climb in Central Park, where a picture of the fallen deputy was being signed. The memorial was set to continue until sunset Wednesday.

A motive in the shooting is unclear, but Cataneo Salazar did not have a criminal record before his arrest Monday.

His mother, Marle Salazar, told The Times in an interview that her son had been diagnosed with schizophrenia about five years ago and the family had struggled with his illness for years. She said her son attempted suicide at least twice and was hospitalized on at least two occasions because of mental health crises.

She said she and the rest of her family were not aware that Cataneo Salazar had in the last year legally purchased a firearm, which experts said he should have been prohibited from doing considering his mental health history.

Salazar said she and her family had tried to make sure that her son was not a danger to himself or others, including safeguarding the firearms owned by her husband. But she said she was surprised to learn, after the shooting, that her son had been able to purchase a gun.

Cataneo Salazar’s most recent hospitalization was in September 2021, around the time sheriff’s deputies were called to the family’s home for a welfare check.

A law enforcement source said Cataneo Salazar’s record indicates he was barred from purchasing a firearm in California until 2026, possibly because of the 2021 hospitalization. That has raised questions as to how the 29-year-old was able to legally purchase a firearm.

Prosecutor David Ayvazian said officials were requesting records regarding Cataneo’s mental health history and previous calls to his home from sheriff’s officials.

But authorities declined to offer more details on the case, including questions about whether Clinkunbroomer was specifically targeted by Cataneo Salazar and about law enforcement’s previous encounters with him concerning his mental health.

Luna, too, said some of the information was being withheld to maintain the integrity of the case.

“There is public interest in that, but right now, our priority is to get this individual prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” he said. “We don’t want to put this out right now. And it’s not because we have something to hide. It’s because we need to get this individual prosecuted with the facts and evidence that we have.”

Asked about the special circumstance of lying in wait, prosecutors pointed to the video that shows a vehicle pulling up alongside Clinkunbroomer during the shooting.

“We believe the evidence is sufficient for conviction,” Ayvazian said. “If you’ve seen the video, and the way it’s been described as an ambush, that is consistent with the lying-in-wait theory of prosecution.”

Luna was asked about Cataneo Salazar’s mental health.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Councilmembers Restart Conversation About Allowing Noncitizens to Vote in Santa Ana Elections

September 21, 2023 By Destiny Torres 1 Comment

At least two Santa Ana councilmembers said they think local voters should decide if noncitizen residents in the city should be allowed to vote in local elections.

Noncitizen residents make up about 24% of Santa Ana’s population, and nearly 20% of Orange County’s noncitizen resident population lives in Santa Ana, city officials quoted from US Census Bureau statistics. Immigrant residents, including noncitizen residents, in Orange County contributed $10.5 billion in taxes in 2018, according to the American Immigration Council.

But noncitizens can’t vote for the local lawmakers who help set the policies affecting their everyday lives, councilmembers Johnathan Hernandez and Benjamin Vazquez said in requesting their City Council colleagues consider putting on the November 2024 ballot the question of allowing residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local elections. The City Council is set to decide at its Tuesday night meeting whether or not to direct city staff to look into the options.

“We know that the right to vote isn’t set in stone. It’s an open book and we’re fighting to push it forward,” Vazquez said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon before the meeting. “The founding fathers of this country could not have imagined a world where the Black community, (community) of color or women had the right to vote. We have won those rights. Now, we ask that you see immigrants for their humanity with the rights that give them a role in the government in which they live.”

At least two Santa Ana councilmembers said they think local voters should decide if noncitizen residents in the city should be allowed to vote in local elections.

Noncitizen residents make up about 24% of Santa Ana’s population, and nearly 20% of Orange County’s noncitizen resident population lives in Santa Ana, city officials quoted from US Census Bureau statistics. Immigrant residents, including noncitizen residents, in Orange County contributed $10.5 billion in taxes in 2018, according to the American Immigration Council.

But noncitizens can’t vote for the local lawmakers who help set the policies affecting their everyday lives, councilmembers Johnathan Hernandez and Benjamin Vazquez said in requesting their City Council colleagues consider putting on the November 2024 ballot the question of allowing residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local elections. The City Council is set to decide at its Tuesday night meeting whether or not to direct city staff to look into the options.

“We know that the right to vote isn’t set in stone. It’s an open book and we’re fighting to push it forward,” Vazquez said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon before the meeting. “The founding fathers of this country could not have imagined a world where the Black community, (community) of color or women had the right to vote. We have won those rights. Now, we ask that you see immigrants for their humanity with the rights that give them a role in the government in which they live.”

Now, the conversation “is not about whether the city of Santa Ana has the legal power to do it or not. Today is about whether they have the political will to do it,” said Carlos Perea, executive director at the Harbor Institute for Immigrant and Economic Justice, who participated at Tuesday’s press conference with the two councilmembers.

Santa Ana has already been a leader in protecting civil rights and its immigrant and refugee communities with recent policies and this would continue that momentum, Hernandez said.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

California Legislature Passes ‘Tyrannical’ Package of 12 Gun Control Bills

September 20, 2023 By Katy Grimes 9 Comments

‘The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people’

In June 2022, U.S. Supreme Court issued a critical decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen striking down a New York gun law that put unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry of a gun out in public. And because this is the law of the land, California with its extremely restrictive gun laws, was put on notice.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

“This ‘special need’ standard is demanding,” Thomas wrote. “For example, living or working in an area ‘noted for criminal activity’ does not suffice.” In 43 other states, Thomas noted, authorities are required to issue licenses to applicants who meet certain requirements, and officials do not have discretion to say no due to what they believe is an insufficient need.”

Despite being rebuked by the highest court in the country over gun control attempts last year, California Democrats continue to tell the people through unconstitutional legislation that you can’t defend yourself with a firearm… or at least they will limit who can carry, and where you can carry.

Last year, Senator Anthony J. Portantino’s (D–Burbank) annual gun control legislation restricting CCW permit holders, Senate Bill 918, appeared to be dead as it was placed on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee – until he it moved out with 32 pages of 185 new amendments. However, SB 918 died in the Assembly.

Portantino came back in 2023 with Senate Bill 2, also sponsored by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta. SB 2 again illegally imposes restrictions on those seeking a California CCW permit.

Notably, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino know they are imposing to restrict those applying for CCWs, when virtually no crimes are committed by CCW holders, who are required to pass background checks by County Sheriffs.

Yet, CCW permit holders don’t commit mass shootings, they stop them. We’ve never had a positive comment from Gov. Newsom or Sen. Portantino on this statement.

Following the close of the 2023 California legislative session Friday, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released the entire list of the 12 gun control bills which were passed by state lawmakers.

Notably, SB-2 was passed this year, which clearly violates the Supreme Court Bruen decision, enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, and changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.

The Globe spoke with gun advocate Craig DeLuz, host of Morning Coffee with Craig, publisher of 2A News, and candidate for California’s 6th Congressional District. DeLuz said pro gun groups now have to spend their money defending the U.S. Constitution.

DeLuz said considering the most notable mass shootings in California, as well as those shootings in the rest of the U.S., creating a “sensitive location” signals to anyone considering such an event, “that it’s a target rich environment and will be met with little resistance.” And DeLuz warned, “allowing local governments to decide on additional ‘sensitive areas,’ creates a different set of laws in one state, for when, where and how they can carry.”

De Luz reiterated Justice Thomas’ written decision in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case in which he clearly laid out what can and cannot be done, noting that there should never be a test to determine if someone is permitted to carry a gun, based on the 2nd Amendment.

And in the face of that decision, California lawmakers have shown they do not care about the Constitution, except when it protects their activities.

“The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people, flying in the face of the Second Amendment and recent Court decisions, by advancing multiple pieces of anti-rights legislation to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk,” FPC said.

“This tyrannical package shows the legislature’s utter disdain for peaceable People and their willingness to use state violence to squash their rights,” Richard Thomson, FPC’s Vice President of Communications said.

“FPC stands steadfast in opposition to the state’s destruction of fundamental rights. Threatening peaceable conduct with imprisonment, injury, and death is nothing new for the tyrants in Sacramento. FPC promises to continue to work behind enemy lines and be a voice for the People of the state.”

The FPC listed all of the bills that passed before the Friday 9/15/2023 legislative deadline:

  • SJR-7: Resolution for a federal constitutional convention to restrict firearms
  • AB-28: Enacts a gun and ammunition excise tax
  • AB-92: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm to purchase, own, or possess body armor
  • AB-301: Authorizes a court considering a red flag petition to consider evidence of acquisition of body armor when determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist
  • AB-725: Requires lost and stolen reporting for “precursor parts”
  • AB-1089: CNC and 3D-printing of arms ban, prohibits sharing digital firearm plans
  • AB-1406: Authorizes DOJ to request a delay of the delivery of a firearm for up to 30 days in an “emergency” that caused DOJ to be unable to review purchaser’s eligibility
  • AB-1483: Deletes the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition, which prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period
  • AB-1587: Requires a merchant acquirer to assign to a firearms merchant a unique merchant category code
  • SB-2: Bruen response bill, enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.
  • SB-368: Prohibits gun dealers from offering an opportunity to win an item of inventory in a game dominated by chance, exempts nonprofit organizations under certain circumstances
  • SB-452: Postpones handgun microstamping requirement to at least January 1, 2028

In June, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who pretends he isn’t running for President, proposed a 28th Constitutional Amendment to restrict gun national rights, and had the chutzpah to claim it will “leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

“Firearms Policy Coalition will continue to restore the rights of the People in court, just as it has done in its lawsuits challenging California’s handgun roster and discriminatory fee-shifting regime, New Jersey’s Bruen response bill, and Illinois’ ‘assault weapon’ ban,” the the Firearms Policy Coalition said in a press statement. “And to all tyrants, like Gavin Newsom and his legislative co-conspirators, that push these immoral and unjust policies, we say simply this: ‘Fuck you. No.’”

In 2021, District Judge Roger T. Benitez threw out California’s 32-year ban on assault weapons, while also clarifying the deliberate and incorrect use of the label “assault weapon.”

Benitez noted that the California Legislature has not properly adjudicated their ban laws, and quotes former California Governor Pete Wilson’s 1998 priceless veto statement:

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he will sign climate-focused transparency laws for big business

September 19, 2023 By Staff Report 6 Comments

NEW YORK (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he plans to sign into law a pair of climate-focused bills intended to force major corporations to be more transparent about greenhouse gas emissions and the financial risks stemming from global warming.

Newsom’s announcement came during an out-of-state trip to New York’s Climate Week, where world leaders in business, politics and the arts are gathered to seek solutions for climate change.

California lawmakers last week passed legislation requiring large businesses from oil and gas companies to retail giants to disclose their direct greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that come from activities like employee business travel.

Such disclosures are a “simple but intensely powerful driver of decarbonization,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat.

“This legislation will support those companies doing their part to tackle the climate crisis and create accountability for those that aren’t,” Wiener said in a statement Sunday applauding Newsom’s decision.

Under the law, thousands of public and private businesses that operate in California and make more than $1 billion annually will have to make the emissions disclosures. The goal is to increase transparency and nudge companies to evaluate how they can cut their carbon emissions.

The second bill approved last week by the state Assembly requires companies making more than $500 million annually to disclose what financial risks climate change poses to their businesses and how they plan to address those risks.

State Sen. Henry Stern, a Democrat from Los Angeles who introduced the legislation, said the information would be useful for individuals and lawmakers when making public and private investment decisions. The bill was changed recently to require companies to begin reporting the information in 2026, instead of 2024, and mandate that they report every other year, instead of annually.

Newsom, a Democrat, said he wants California to lead the nation in addressing the climate crisis. “We need to exercise not just our formal authority, but we need to share our moral authority more abundantly,” he said.

Newsom’s office announced Saturday that California has filed a lawsuit against some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, claiming they deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels now faulted for climate change-related storms and wildfires that caused billions of dollars in damage.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Southern California Gas Prices Climb at Their Fastest Rate This Year

September 18, 2023 By Carly Olson 4 Comments

Gas prices in Southern California shot up at their fastest rate of the year last week, according to data released by AAA.

A gallon of regular self-serve gasoline cost an average of $5.62 in the Los Angeles-Long Beach metro area as of Thursday. That is up 18 cents from last week and 38 cents from last month.

The national average price is nearly $2 less — $3.86 — up 6 cents from a week ago.

AAA officials blamed both regional and global factors for high prices, including the floods in Libya.

“Our pump prices have been skyrocketing as a result of regional refinery outages, as well as from increasing crude oil prices following deadly flooding in Libya, which will temporarily disrupt oil exports from that OPEC nation,” Doug Shupe, a spokesperson for the Automobile Club of Southern California, said in a statement.

Other parts of Southern California have seen similar eye-popping price increases.

In the San Diego metro area, the average price for a gallon of gas is $5.60, and in Riverside, $5.50. Both of those figures are up 17 cents from last week and 39 cents from last month.

On the Central Coast, a gallon will cost drivers an average of $5.53, 14 cents higher than a week ago and 38 cents more than last month.

It remains unclear when drivers might feel relief, but AAA officials said last month that California has increased oil stockpiles and imports, which may drive down wholesale prices soon.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

How California Lawmakers Embraced Hot Labor Summer

September 17, 2023 By Alexei Koseff 2 Comments

The hot labor summer was scorching at California’s Capitol.

As the legislative session wrapped Thursday night, unions could point to an impressive string of wins this year, some of which only surfaced in the past few weeks: Bills to increase the number of guaranteed sick days, raise the minimum wage for health care and fast food workers, allow legislative staff to unionize and make striking employees eligible for unemployment insurance, a benefit long on labor’s wish list.

While Gov. Gavin Newsom could still veto some of the measures over the next month, organized labor’s overwhelming victories — notable even in a Legislature stacked with union-friendly Democrats — caught the attention of both allies and opponents. One Republican senator complained on the floor that “the fourth branch of government in this Capitol building has a little bit too much power this year.”

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, head of the California Labor Federation, said unions have worked over the past few years, as a large portion of the Legislature turned over, to elect new members with a strong track record of championing workers’ rights. That paid off this session, as major strikes across the country powered a surging public interest in the labor movement and helped unions push through a “really heavy agenda” in Sacramento.

“The legislators are representatives of the people, right, and they see what we see. And that’s that unions are exceptionally strong right now. They’re exceptionally popular among their constituents,” said Gonzalez Fletcher, a former Assemblymember. “I don’t think anyone wants to be on the opposite side of that right now.”

But it’s also a prelude to a looming electoral battle with the business community over taxation.

Several of the late-breaking measures pushed by organized labor, including a proposed constitutional amendment that would set new rules for changing tax law, were aimed at least in part at boosting their campaign to defeat a November 2024 ballot initiative that would make it more challenging to raise taxes.

“Everything that is taking place is to be able to shape the ballot,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, which sponsored the initiative. “We see it as a sign of desperation. They’re willing to say and do anything, including amend the constitution.”

Labor advocates stress that their success is not by chance, but the culmination of a decade of increased activism.

Wins elsewhere — such as the Fight for $15 minimum wage campaign that began in New York City in 2012 — encouraged California workers to take on more ambitious fights, said Mike Roth, spokesperson for the California chapter of the Service Employees International Union, one of the state’s biggest and most powerful labor organizations. 

“When workers see and feel the power they create by coming together, they are inspired to push higher and broader,” Roth said.

Those ambitious fights are backed up by serious muscle at the Capitol. SEIU California, for example, was among the top lobbyist employers in the first half of year — it spent nearly $2.3 million on advocacy, ranking sixth for the period — though it was surpassed by some of its industry opponents, including McDonald’s, which spent more than $4.2 million on lobbying, and the California Business Roundtable, which spent $2.3 million.

Major labor measures that passed the Legislature this session, and which Newsom now has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto, include:

Unions also negotiated two last-minute deals with industry groups to avert ballot fights that could have cost tens of millions of dollars or more. AB 1228 by Assemblymember Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat, would boost wages for fast food workers in exchange for backing off a proposal to hold corporations liable for their franchisees’ labor violations. The industry plans to withdraw a November 2024 referendum challenging a recent law that created a new regulatory council for fast food restaurants. SB 525 by Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat, would hike the hourly wage for health workers to $25, but place a 10-year moratorium on local measures to increase compensation.

“I think we’re responding to the abnormal economic situations of Californians,” said Durazo, citing the pandemic turmoil, high inflation, expanding gig economy and growing wage inequality of recent years. “That’s all we’re trying to do, is help people catch up.”

Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat who leads the Assembly Labor Committee, credited the leadership of new Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and his team for making labor legislation a priority and helping position it to pass. Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, took over the speakership this summer.

“It matters that the infrastructure is in place to get these bills across the finish line,” Kalra said. “The tough work was done before they got to the floor.”

That was a source of frustration and disappointment for Lapsley of the California Business Roundtable, who is now counting on the governor to “do the right thing and create some checks and balances by vetoing some of these bills.” 

He said Rivas had signaled at the start of his tenure that he would seek more of an equilibrium between workers’ rights and job growth. But “he seemed to embrace giving the labor groups everything they want,” Lapsley said. “It raises questions about what the future looks like for the statewide business community.”

Rivas called the union victories “a sign of the times… some challenging times for our state, and they’re counting on us to get the work done and deliver results.”

Legislators on both sides of the aisle agreed that progressive gains in recent elections have lifted organized labor’s prospects at the Capitol, though some expect that momentum will eventually swing back to the middle.

“There’s an ebb and flow to all these issues, and all of our politics,” said Sen. Steve Glazer, a moderate Democrat from Orinda who voted against the unemployment insurance bill. “These things all shift through the decades, and I think that they’ll continue to shift.”  

Sen. Roger Niello, a Roseville Republican, described the volume of labor bills this session as a “natural existence” of the Legislature, given that the Democrats who make up a supermajority tend to align with unions.

“If you look at past years, it’ll fluctuate,” he said. “But you’ll always see a lot of pro-labor bills.”

Though the hot labor summer gave unions a boost in public support for their agenda, another animating force behind the spurt of dealmaking and victories at the end of session is their mounting campaign to defeat a tax measure that the California Business Roundtable qualified for the November 2024 ballot.

That initiative, dubbed the Taxpayer Protection Act, would introduce several changes that make it more challenging to raise taxes in California, including a requirement for the Legislature to put any new or higher tax before voters for approval and another increasing the margin to pass a voter-initiated special tax at the local level, to two-thirds from a simple majority. Organized labor worries this would undermine funding for public services and infrastructure projects that employ union members.

“It was certainly leverage to get people unified and working together,” said Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat.

The deals on minimum wage increases for fast food workers and health care workers cleared the deck so that unions can focus their political resources next year. And the late push for ACA 13 by Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat, which will now appear on the November ballot, was aimed directly at the California Business Roundtable measure. ACA 13 would require that any changes to the threshold for approving state and local taxes pass by the same margin; if it wins, the Taxpayer Protection Act would then need to secure two-thirds support from voters rather than a simple majority, a high hurdle for a statewide measure.

“There’s a reason why the unions are doing this — because they’re scared to death,” said Lapsley, who complained that the maneuvering stole focus from other issues that should have been the priority at the end of session, including a failed effort to fix California’s collapsing market for homeowners insurance.

But Gonzalez Fletcher of the California Labor Federation argues that going through the Legislature is a more responsive process that results in better policy for workers.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

California Treasurer Fiona Ma to Face Trial in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

September 16, 2023 By Sophia Bollag 6 Comments

State Treasurer Fiona Ma must stand trial in a lawsuit by a former high-ranking female employee who accuses Ma of sexually harassing her by climbing into bed and exposing herself, then firing her for rejecting the sexual advances, a judge ruled Thursday.

Judith Blackwell has made allegations that, if believed by a jury, would establish that Ma sexually harassed her, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher Krueger said in a ruling denying Ma’s motion to dismiss the case.

He said Blackwell, who is African American, had also presented evidence of racial discrimination, allegations that Ma made racist statements and treated Black employees worse than others. But Krueger said the evidence could not be presented to the jury because the state treasurer’s office had presented adequate, independent grounds for Ma’s firing of Blackwell, based on her job performance. For the same reason, he dismissed Blackwell’s claim that she was wrongfully fired in retaliation for her complaints.

Ma, 57, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, then in the state Assembly and the state Board of Equalization before being elected treasurer in 2018. She has said she plans to run for lieutenant governor in 2026.

Ma has called Blackwell’s allegations “baseless,” and said she has rejected offers to settle the case and looks forward to “bringing the truth to light in court.”

“As the treasurer has said repeatedly, we look forward to having these meritless allegations being dismissed,” Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Ma, told the Chronicle on Thursday.

The lawsuit, filed after Blackwell was fired in 2021, alleged that while she and Ma were sharing rooms at a hotel and a rental property, Ma called her into Ma’s bedroom four times and crawled into bed with her at least once.

“She exposed her bare rear end directly to Plaintiff on multiple occasions,” attorney Waukeen McCoy wrote in the lawsuit. “Ms. Ma’s actions were intentional and not accidental, and it was done to get Plaintiff’s attention. Plaintiff was uncomfortable and was fearful to comment on Ms. Ma’s lewd behavior.”

In her dismissal motion, Ma denied the allegations and said it was Blackwell who had entered Ma’s bedroom. She denied touching Blackwell and said the four incidents “were not sexual” but instead were “random, isolated incidents that do not constitute sexual harassment.”

But Krueger said a jury could reach a different conclusion.

Evidence provided by Ma herself indicates that “she called (Blackwell) into her room while half-dressed on three separate occasions and climbed into bed with her on a fourth,” the judge wrote.

In claiming racial bias, Blackwell alleged that the treasurer’s office had dismissed other Black senior executives without cause. She also alleged, and Ma denied, that the treasurer once said all the Black children in her high school never turned in their homework.

Those allegations, if proved, could show discrimination, Krueger said. But he said the Treasurer’s office had presented “legitimate” reasons for firing Blackwell, including her failure to be communicative with her subordinates, failure to keep minutes at all board meetings, failure to handle issues involving other workers, and failure to prepare necessary documents on time.

Blackwell’s claim of retaliatory firing must also be dismissed, the judge said, because she provided no evidence that she had “objected to any sexual advances from Ma.”

Investigations by the Sacramento Bee found Ma frequently shared hotel rooms with staff during her first two years in office “to save money.” Another investigation by the paper found that Ma, who lives in San Francisco, charged taxpayers more for business trips to Sacramento during that time than any other statewide elected official, including those who lived in Southern California.

Click here to read the full article in the San Francisco Chronicle

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Federal appeals court opens way to block California law on gun marketing to children

September 15, 2023 By Staff 4 Comments

A federal appeals court on Wednesday opened the way to block a California law that bans gun ads aimed at children, saying it went too far in restricting lawful speech.

Sporting and gun rights groups and the publisher of a youth shooting magazine had sought an injunction to temporarily stop the law from taking effect, arguing that it blocked the marketing of legal gun events and recruitment for safe and responsible youth sport-shooting and hunting programs.

A lower court denied that request. But on Wednesday a three-member panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision.

That sends the issue back to the lower court for reconsideration.

The measure was signed into law last year. It bars marketing of firearm-related products “in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

In its ruling, the appellate court said the law was likely to violate the First Amendment right to free speech and “does not directly and materially advance California’s substantial interests in reducing gun violence and the unlawful use of firearms by minors.”

“There was no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad,” the opinion’s summary said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the ruling, citing advertising by a gun-maker that sells a version an AR-15 style rifle that is smaller and lighter and advertised as being “geared toward smaller enthusiasts.”

“The court is fighting to protect marketing weapons of war to children,” Newsom said in a statement. “It is pure insanity.”

Newsom said he and Attorney General Rob Bonta are looking at options for challenging the ruling.

The law was one of several gun control measures passed by the Democratic-controlled state Legislature last year after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense — a major expansion of gun rights.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,