Walters: Governor-elect Becerra must quickly confront state budget mess Newsom left behind

November 5, 2026 By Dan Walters 3 Comments

The most fundamental — and arguably most important — duty of a California governor is managing the state budget.

Xavier Becerra, the former attorney general who won the governorship Tuesday, must submit a new budget to the Legislature just days after his inauguration in January. Outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom is leaving him with a fiscal mess.

Newsom, who will likely launch a presidential campaign, insisted in June that the 2026-27 budget he signed was not only balanced but would remain so during his predecessor’s first year.

Not by a long shot.

During Newsom’s second term, he and the Legislature routinely enacted general fund budgets that spent billions of dollars more than the state’s tax system was producing, covering the gaps with accounting gimmicks, by draining emergency reserves and incurring on- and off-the-books loans.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

A chart in the back pages of the 2026-27 budget reveals that during Newsom’s eight years of managing the budget, the state took in $1.4 trillion in general fund revenue but spent $1.7 trillion, averaging $37 billion in overspending each year. Among other things, the spending spree increased the state’s payroll by 100,000 positions.

Newsom leaves the state with what Gabe Petek, the Legislature’s budget analyst, describes as a $29 billion “wall of debt” that must eventually be repaid, echoing a term that former Gov. Jerry Brown coined in 2010.

Becerra faces a stark choice.

He could continue the deficit spending, running up even more debt — the governmental equivalent of a family maxing out its credit cards to finance its lifestyle. Or he could do what Brown did when he began his second governorship and faced a $35 billion “a wall of debt” from the effects of the Great Recession.

After his 2010 election, Brown engaged in a very public discussion about what it would take to balance the budget and whittle down its debts. He settled on a mixture of spending reductions and temporary sales and income tax increases, plus creating “rainy day” reserves to cushion future revenue drops.

During Brown’s governorship, general fund income and outgo closely matched, the aforementioned chart confirms. He bequeathed a healthy budget to Newsom.

It would take political courage for Becerra to adopt the face-the-music attitude that Brown displayed in 2011. Politically, the easier path would be to emulate Newsom, who was content to overspend revenues while shunning any major tax increases to cover the gaps.

Becerra has been very reluctant to reveal any policy intentions, but in an interview late last month, he indicated that he may be willing to increase taxes — unlike Newsom.

Becerra told Ashley Zavala, of Sacramento’s KCRA-TV, that he’s interested in raising taxes on high-income Californians, taxing employers whose low-paid workers qualify for Medi-Cal health benefits, closing corporate tax loopholes and adopting a mileage-based tax on electric cars.

Click here to read the full article at CalMatters

 

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Newsom proposes $1-billion cap for film and TV tax incentive

November 4, 2026 By Cerys Davies and Stacy Perman 1 Comment

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday called for a significant expansion of the state’s film and TV tax incentives in the face of mounting evidence that producers are fleeing California in search of cheaper locales.

Newsom said in a statement Monday that he favors expanding California’s current Film and Television Tax Credit Program from $750 million to at least $1 billion annually.

Notably, Newsom’s proposal would include credits for actors and other above-the-line talent and extend the tax credit through 2040, according to the statement. That would make California’s program more competitive with those of other states such as Georgia and New York that allow tax credits to offset the cost of actors’ salaries.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

If approved by the state Legislature, the credit would be the country’s largest capped film and TV tax credit, Newsom’s office said.

“We’re the capital of entertainment and we’re going to keep it here,” Newsom said in the statement. “Through this expansion, we will maintain the momentum and success of our historic expansion last year.”

Newsom’s announcement comes as the outgoing California governor and possible presidential candidate is looking to burnish his image as a champion of Hollywood as the state is increasingly losing production to other hubs in the U.S. and abroad, where tax incentives are higher and production costs lower.

The proposal puts pressure on fellow Democrat Xavier Becerra, who is widely expected to be California’s next governor, to take up the mantle of helping Hollywood at a time when the state faces rising financial pressures.

Newsom expanded the program last year, when the annual credit was raised from $330 million to $750 million through 2030. Since then, the credit has generated more than $8 billion in direct production spending and over 43,000 jobs, according to the governor’s office.

Newsom also recently signed California’s first stand-alone postproduction credit to bring back jobs for the industry’s editors, sound mixers, composers and visual effects artists.

With a budget of $10 million, the program will allow a 35% to 50% credit on qualified expenses related specifically to postproduction work done in California, even for productions that don’t shoot in the state.

Despite the expanded incentives, local film and TV production in the Los Angeles area continues on a downward trend.

On-location shoot days in the Los Angeles area fell nearly 5% between July and September from the same period a year earlier, and were 29% below the five-year average, according to FilmLA, the nonprofit group that handles film permits for city and county.

Newsom said the expanded credits would address some of California’s limitations.

Click here to read the full article at the LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Poll: Voters tiring of Newsom, yet may not really want change

October 22, 2026 By Blake Jones 1 Comment

Xavier Becerra, another mainstream Democrat who has effusively praised Newsom, is running ahead of Republican Steve Hilton by a 20-point margin, according to a new Citrin-POLITICO survey.

SACRAMENTO, California — Most California voters rate Gavin Newsom’s tenure governing California as “poor” or “fair” and want his successor to take the state in a different direction, according to a new Citrin-POLITICO poll.

Yet Xavier Becerra, another mainstream Democrat who was among the gubernatorial candidates to most effusively praise Newsom during the primary, is on track to beat Republican Steve Hilton by a 20-point margin, according to the survey. The results suggest a disconnect between voters expressing desire for policy change, but picking a candidate more similar to the status quo.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“Becerra basically wins everyone — the third of the electorate that wants to continue the policies — and picks up nearly a third of those who want change,” said Jon Cohen, founder and CEO of TrueDot, whose firm fielded the poll.

Just 36% of registered voters characterize Newsom’s performance over the last eight years as “good” or “excellent,” according to the survey, and only 28% would like to see the next governor continue his policies.

The tepid views of Newsom’s performance in his home state add to concerns from Democrats elsewhere about whether his record will, if he runs for president, be a liability on the campaign trail. They also come as California voters have soured on the idea of Newsom running for president, according to another recent Citrin-POLITICO survey.

But a strong majority of California Democrats and Democratic-leaning registered voters — 61% — said they would be excited for a Newsom presidential bid, according to that survey, while 39% would not be. Democrats were less keen on former Vice President Kamala Harris, with a 55% majority saying they would not be excited for her to run. Newsom’s approval rating was 51% in a recent survey from the Public Policy Institute of California, a few points higher than the California Legislature’s.

“Gavin Newsom overwhelmingly won five elections in eight years and is the most popular outgoing Governor in the history of PPIC polling the question,” Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement. “It’s a shame America’s Favorite Governor can’t run for another term — he’d crush it!”

Newsom received his strongest marks on climate change in the new survey, where more voters said he had done well than poorly. His weakest reviews were on housing and homelessness: Just 28% said he had done a good job on housing and 25% on homelessness. Nearly three in four voters said he had not handled homelessness well.

Click here to read the full article in Politico

 

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

California Campaign Cash, Legal Bills and Unanswered Questions

October 16, 2026 By Susan Crabtree Leave a Comment

When a member of Congress opens a legal defense fund, it usually makes national news. Reporters dig into the donors, and ethics experts ask whether federal rules allow the lawmaker to spend donor money to fight specific types of legal battles.

Investigations into state legislators is hit or miss when it comes to media scrutiny. In California, where citizen journalists and federal probes have uncovered a series of high-profile fraud and corruption cases this year, Democratic state Sen. Susan Rubio’s defense fund has drawn virtually no public attention. The lack of scrutiny has continued even after the Los Angeles Times and other media outlets have identified Rubio as the only possible person accused in a plea deal of taking illegal campaign contributions and soliciting bribes in a sprawling marijuana pay-to-play scheme, which has ensnared several local officials.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Rubio opened the defense fund in early 2024, collecting at least $161,000 in contributions so far, as well as $85,000 in loans from her Senate campaign committee. She has used the funds to pay at least $95,000 to a Los Angeles-based law firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump Holley LLP, or KWIKH, which specializes in entertainment law and civil and criminal defense cases, and another $9,000 to Nossaman LLP, a national law firm with a range of legal practices, including litigation. Another $127,000 in payments to KWIKH came from Rubio’s Senate campaign committee.

The same year she opened the defense fund, Rubio, who previously served on Baldwin Park’s city council, said she was questioned in the federal marijuana bribery public corruption probe. Her ex-husband, whom she has repeatedly accused of domestic violence, also was suing her for defamation at the time.

The public silence about the legal set-up and payments is striking because the federal probe has been anything but quiet. In August, the Los Angeles Times ran the headline: “Cash buried in L.A. politician’s backyard helped expose marijuana corruption scheme.”

The cash in the backyard

The “L.A. politician” in question is Baldwin Park Councilmember Ricardo Pacheco, who buried nearly $63,000 in illicit cash in his backyard amid the “green rush” of marijuana legalization a decade ago. After federal agents found the money, Pacheco began cooperating with the government. His cooperation helped open a wide FBI investigation into bribes paid for marijuana permits and political favors across Los Angeles County and beyond.

Officials in Compton, Commerce, and San Bernardino County have since pleaded guilty. So has Baldwin Park’s former city attorney. His unsealed plea agreement describes an unnamed official identified as “Person 20.” It says Person 20 took $30,000 in illegal campaign contributions and asked a cannabis company for a $240,000 bribe.

In December 2024, the Los Angeles Times reported that only one person fits that description: Susan Rubio. She served on the Baldwin Park city council with Pacheco before winning her Senate seat in 2018. The investigation is ongoing. Rubio, who says the FBI has told her she is not a target of the probe, has not been charged and has denied taking bribes.

Two legal fights, one pot of donor money

Amid the federal probe, Rubio was fighting a defamation lawsuit from her ex-husband, former Assemblyman Roger Hernandez. She won it in 2025 and has paid her lawyers with donor money from two sources: the legal defense fund and her Senate campaign committee.

California law allows a legal defense fund to pay for an elected officials’ attorneys when a case arises directly from a campaign, legislative, or official duties. If any federal allegations are filed in the marijuana bribery case, those would involve Rubio’s time on the city council and her 2018 Senate campaign, so they may meet that test. But the Hernandez suit grew out of a marriage that ended a decade ago amid domestic violence accusations. That’s a tougher fit, according to legal experts familiar with California campaign finance law, but it’s the explanation she has cited.

Click here to read the full article at Real Clear Politics

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: ,

How is Kimberly Guilfoyle related to California governor Gavin Newsom? The surprising link between two political figures

October 15, 2026 By Advaita Suresh 2 Comments

Kimberly Guilfoyle and Gavin Newsom’s personal history connects two big names from opposite sides of the American political spectrum. The former couple tied the knot in December 2001 and divorced in 2005, before Newsom became governor of California and Guilfoyle rose to prominence in conservative media and Republican politics.

Politics often brings together people whose careers later move in very different directions. Kimberly Guilfoyle and Gavin Newsom are one such example. Guilfoyle and Newsom shared a chapter of their personal and professional lives together in San Francisco once married to each other before Guilfoyle went on to become a conservative political figure and Newsom became governor of California.

Their relationship continues to be an interesting connection between two characters on opposite ends of American politics. Since then their careers, public statements and party affiliations have gone their separate ways, and their history is relevant to an understanding of where each of them has ended up.

Who is Kimberly Guilfoyle?

Kimberly Guilfoyle is an American lawyer, former television legal analyst and political personality. She initially established her career in law, working as a prosecutor in California before getting into television and conservative politics.

Born and raised in San Francisco, Guilfoyle earned her undergraduate degree at the University of California, Davis, and later graduated from the University of San Francisco School of Law. She was admitted to practise law in California in 1994 and worked in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.

Guilfoyle subsequently established a media career as a legal analyst for CourtTV and later worked at Fox News. After leaving the network in 2018, she became increasingly involved in Republican politics and fundraising for Donald Trump.

Click here to read the full article in the Economic Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Newsom apologized to tribes for historic harms, but vetoed 2 bills that would have empowered them

October 9, 2026 By Melanie Henshaw, CalMatters-ICT Leave a Comment

Five days after signing a law formalizing a state apology for “harms and atrocities” against California’s Native peoples, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two additional bills that California tribes had championed, one on water and the other on sacred sites.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Tribal leaders say the vetoes leave them shut out of decisions about their ancestral waters and sacred places.

One of Newsom’s vetoes struck down a measure that would have compelled state agencies to address water shortages faced by tribes. Assembly Bill 2218 by Ash Kalra, a Santa Clara County Democrat, would have established a state policy to address water-related inequities and would have required a dispute between a tribe and any state water agency over water projects in the tribe’s ancestral territory to go through a mediation process, run by the Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs. The Karuk Tribe and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians co-sponsored the legislation.

Newsom also rejected a bill that would have barred state agencies from significantly interfering with tribal religious practices on state land unless the state showed a compelling reason and chose the approach that interfered least. Assemblymember James Ramos, a Democrat from San Bernardino and the Legislature’s only Native American member, authored AB 1881, which was called the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026. 

Only tribes could sue to enforce Ramos’ bill. Agencies would also have had to seek and document a tribe’s written consent before significantly changing a site they know is sacred, though an agency could ask for consultation if a tribe objected.

Ramos is a member of the Serrano/Cahuilla tribe and is a former chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

Neither bill drew a “no” vote in the Assembly, though 23 members did not vote on the water bill and 15 on the sacred-sites bill, many Republican. Not voting counts the same as a no vote, and lawmakers are known to skip votes that might offend their supporters and donors.

In his veto message for the water bill, Newsom wrote that the bill was “not sufficiently clear about how its new policy will be implemented” and that “adding new sources of uncertainty will delay our urgent fight to secure Californians’ water supplies.”

About Ramos’ bill, Newsom wrote that he was “sympathetic to the goals of this measure” but that it could have “far-reaching impacts” on state government operations and management of state property, and that “this uncertainty calls for further discussion and review.”

The governor’s office referred to Newsom’s veto messages in response to a request for comment on this article.

Tribes criticize water bill veto

“Tribes need to be at the table when decisions are being made, not brought in after the important decisions have already been made,” said Russell “Buster” Attebery, chairman of the Karuk Tribe.

Shingle Springs Vice Chair Malissa Tayaba called the veto of the water bill a “backhanded betrayal of California tribes and a direct contradiction of his apology and promises of reconciliation.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: ,

Newsom’s signing saga is over

October 7, 2026 By NOAH BAUSTIN, ALEX NIEVES and RILEY RAMIREZ 1 Comment

PENS DOWN: Gov. Gavin Newsom wrapped up his last bill signing and vetoing marathon in office Wednesday evening.

The 2026 legislative session was largely defined by the major proposals that never made it to Newsom’s desk, such as the push to reshape the state’s wildfire liability system (and don’t forget the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant extension that never was).

Nonetheless, the Legislature passed 1,160 bills, and Newsom signed 1,040 of them — and vetoed 120, according to his office.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Many of those decisions will have far-reaching impacts on California’s energy and climate policies, so, now that the dust has settled, we bring you our totally-unofficial-but-hopefully-informative take on the winners and losers of this year’s legislative session.

Winner: Wildfire policy advocates

Megafire Action, a wildfire policy organization, declared a victory for wildfire resilience and home hardening after Newsom signed all of the organization’s sponsored bills.

Those include Sen. Ben Allen’s SB 894, which establishes a loan program to provide low-interest financing for home hardening and defensive space improvements, and Assemblymember Steve Bennett’s AB 1934, which requires state fire officials to develop a home hardening certification program to make buildings more wildfire resistant. The nonprofit’s CEO, Matt Weiner, said the bill package represents a huge shift in how the state is approaching wildfire and climate risk.

Winner: Bike industry

Newsom also signed Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s SB 1167, a bill to clamp down on the sale of high-powered vehicles resembling electric bicycles.

The measure clarifies that look-alikes that exceed state speed limits can’t be sold or advertised as e-bikes and creates new manufacturer labeling requirements to make it easier for parents and law enforcement to know if a bike is legal. The bill emerged earlier this year amid a rash of headlines about children killing or injuring themselves or others riding high-speed devices.

The bigger win for the bike industry this session was the bills that didn’t pass. That includes AB 1942, which would have created new license plate rules, a step advocates say would have disrupted the e-bike market because California doesn’t have a system for registering the devices.

Loser: California’s utilities

It was a tough year to be a power company. The state’s investor-owned utilities were poised to be the biggest beneficiaries of Newsom’s signature proposal to reduce how much money they have to shell out if they cause a wildfire. When that deal failed, it sent their stock values tumbling.

Then, Newsom signed a slew of bills cracking down on utility finances. That included SB 905, by Sen. Josh Becker, which requires the California Public Utilities Commission to consider reducing the profit rate the state’s utilities are allowed to collect for some types of investments, like burying power lines, and evaluate alternative methods of financing projects that could save money.

Becker told POLITICO that outcome was “not at all certain” given stiff opposition from the utilities.

Newsom also signed other measures targeting power company finances, including AB 2463, by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, which requires the CPUC to disclose the financial models it relies upon in determining utility profit rates, and AB 2065, by Petrie-Norris, which requires the CPUC to financially penalize utilities that charge customers for costs they weren’t supposed to, as well as SB 1098, by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, which requires the CPUC to discourage utilities from unnecessarily racking up expenses outside of their primary budget.

To Becker, those decisions indicated a Newsom attitude of “we’re not going to be afraid to look at some of the fundamental economics of utilities, even while we still work on utility issues and wildfire issues going forward,” he said.

Loser: Fossil fuel industry

Newsom signed AB 2313, by Assemblymember Marc Berman, which requires the CPUC to establish a program where the state’s natural gas providers must offer an incentive to customers whose service lines are scheduled for a replacement to instead discontinue their gas service.

He also signed Assemblymember Gregg Hart’s AB 1448, which will block offshore oil producers from using pipelines to transport their product to the California shore. That will make it far more difficult to get product to market for any offshore drillers the Trump administration might lease offshore drilling territory to in the future.

Loser: High-speed rail accountability

One of Newsom’s more surprising vetoes Wednesday came over a bill that would have given an independent watchdog — whom the governor appointed — more power over the state’s high-speed rail project.

The rejection of Assembly Transportation Chair Lori Wilson’s AB 1608 came after it received bipartisan support during the final days of session. The bill would have allowed Inspector General Ben Belnap to hire under new job classifications and sign contracts of up to $1 million without needing approval from other state agencies first.

Belnap has argued that he’s been unable to fill positions because the job classifications it can hire for are too low-level and don’t meet the skills needed for the job. The California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Office of the Inspector General has also reported delays in acquiring needed goods and services, like a whistleblower hotline.

Click here to read the full article in Politico

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: ,

No single failure caused LA fires, report finds. Who fixes the system?

October 6, 2026 By Rachel Becker 1 Comment

No single failure explains the devastation of the Palisades and Eaton fires that burned through Los Angeles County in January 2025, a new report concludes. Instead, the blazes exposed weaknesses across a system never designed to combat a wind-driven conflagration that spread from structure to structure at sweeping scale.

The 723-page report dropped Friday morning. Commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom, it lands during his last months in office and just days after California’s Legislative session concluded. The report doesn’t pin the disaster on a single agency or decision. Its authors caution against seeking one culprit or one magic fix.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

As a result, the report, which completes an analysis of some of the most deadly, destructive and costly fires in state history, raises a harder question: If responsibility is spread across an entire system, who is responsible for fixing it?

A governor-ordered review

The Fire Safety Research Institute’s first report, published last November, offered a detailed timeline beginning Jan. 7, the day the Palisades and Eaton fires ignited less than eight hours and roughly 30 miles apart. The institute’s final report takes a closer look at the policy gaps the fires exposed.

“While the state continues to advance building codes, hazard mapping, fuels treatment programs and insurance-related reforms, these efforts are not consistently translating into reduced risk at the parcel, neighborhood, or landscape level,” the authors wrote.

Informed by interviews with nearly 300 people from 22 different agencies, another 200 conversations with residents within or near the fires footprints, and detailed analyses or alerts, communications and other information, the institute’s authors acknowledge gaps. Some agencies didn’t provide complete information, and some operational records were sparse, limiting parts of the analysis.

Taken together the recommendations from the state-funded consultants call for a systemic shift, including a realignment of government responsibilities at multiple levels.

“The problem is implementation and funding,” said Michael Wara, director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program and a senior research scholar at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “We can have the best plans in the world, but if we do not actually implement those plans, it will not matter.”

What the report found

Homes, structures and the built environment in general played a “substantial role” in spreading the fire. Embers and flames and heat radiated from building to building.

But the report concludes that no one resident’s fire hardening could have guaranteed their home’s survival; it’s community efforts that matter.

Though wildfire-resistant building features helped in some areas, whether homes survived “was also strongly influenced by surrounding conditions, neighborhood-scale exposure pathways, and defensive actions.”

Even before the fire started, the institute concludes that the state’s wildfire response system was already stressed and failing — particularly in communicating about risk and preparedness to residents. In interviews, fire survivors said they didn’t know whose information to listen to or act upon, or how to track evolving recommendations.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Gov Newsom Signs CA Disaster Preparedness Bill – But Protects Water Agencies From Liability

October 5, 2026 By Katy Grimes 1 Comment

The governor just conflated wildfire safety for Californians with indemnity for water agencies

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1153 into law on September 29, 2026. Why is this notable, you ask?

SB 1153 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced), “requires all urban retail water suppliers that serve a high or very-high fire hazard severity zone to include incident-specific response procedures for wildfires as part of their disaster preparedness plans beginning on January 1, 2028,” according to the Governor’s Department of Finance.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“This bill also clarifies that urban retail water suppliers are not responsible for maintaining water supply for wildfire defense.”

Boom. The governor just conflated wildfire safety for Californians with indemnity for water agencies, because no one can sue water agencies if there isn’t any water to fight fires with.

Remember that the Santa Ynez Reservoir was empty when fire fighters tried to fight the Palisades fires with nearby water? Today, Palisades residents have many lawsuits against the LADWP.

From the “You can’t make this sh*t up” file, the 117-million-gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir, the main local storage for Pacific Palisades, was offline and empty when the fire started on January 7, 2025. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power had drained it in early 2024 after a large tear was found in its floating cover, which officials said risked contaminating the drinking-water supply. State drinking-water rules required the shutdown. Repair contracting and work were slow: a relatively small contract was awarded in mid-2024, and work did not start until after the fire. Emergency repairs brought it back online in June 2025; further leaks later forced another drain, and a full liner-and-cover replacement was finished in September 2026. LADWP began refilling it again October 1st, aiming to return it to service by the end of the year.

The ostensible “California disaster-preparedness bill” by Democrat Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced), passed both Houses of the California Legislature unanimously: 40–0 in the Senate and 77–0 in the Assembly.

It was sponsored by the Association of California Water Agencies, who have an interest in indemnity, and came after lawsuits over dry hydrants in the January 2025 Palisades fire, and Eaton fire claims, against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Here is the mind-blowing caveat: The bill adds Government Code section 8607.3 and states that nothing, including any other law, imposes a duty on public water systems, including wholesale systems, to design, construct, or maintain a water system for wildfire defense or suppression.

It also provides that:

  • Failure of an urban retail water supplier to implement or comply with the new incident-specific procedures is not a “substantial cause” of wildfire damages.
  • Inability of any public water system to maintain water supply or pressure during a wildfire is not a “substantial cause” of those damages.
  • Spread of wildfire is not an inherent risk of the deliberate design, construction, or maintenance of a public water system.

Former LA Mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, offered his analysis to this sham bill:

Buried in this bill Gavin signed is a big “fuck you” to the Palisades. We are suing LADWP for draining our reservoir (which was built for fire protection), and leaving us with dry hydrants. This bill now says LADWP doesn’t have to provide water for firefighting AT ALL. And when their negligence leaves us with no water to fight fire, Gavin is prohibiting any accountability for the water utility for leaving people to die, precluding fire victims from recovering losses from a catastrophic wildfire. At EVERY turn, this scumbag finds ways to block fire victims from being made whole by incompetent, negligent, and corrupt bureaucrats and big utility providers when they routinely destroy entire towns.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Gavin Newsom signs Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha into law as new California state holidays

October 3, 2026 By Lindsay Kornick Leave a Comment

California governor also signed laws providing protections for other religious holidays like Yom Kippur

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that formally recognizes two Muslim holidays as state holidays on Sunday, making it the second state to formally recognize both holidays statewide.

California Assembly Bill 2017 officially added Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to the list of state holidays, which would permit public schools and colleges to close and allow state employees to be eligible to observe the holidays.

However, schools and businesses will not be required to close on these days, and courts will be required to stay open.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

This makes California the second state in the country, after Washington state, to pass statewide legislation recognizing the Muslim holidays.

Before signing AB 2017, Newsom had multiple bills on his desk that provided protections and exceptions for other religious observances, including Jewish holidays such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

For example, AB 395, which reached the governor days before AB 2017, would codify these Jewish holidays, among others, into state law and require state agencies and facilities like schools to “make every reasonable effort” to avoid scheduling significant functions for those days.

Another bill, AB 1763, would also guarantee students in K-12 be allowed excused absences for religious holidays.

Though these bills were introduced and presented to the governor before AB 2017, Newsom did not sign the additional bills into law until Wednesday, prior to the midnight deadline.

Republican opponents criticized Newsom for appearing to prioritize bills recognizing Muslim holidays over bills allowing for equal treatment for Jewish holidays.

Click here to read the full article at FoxNews

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,