CalMatters

In summary

Pelosi’s endorsement could push Chan into second place behind Sen. Scott Wiener, who is leading by double digits, ahead of self-funding tech entrepreneur Saikat Chakrabarti.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has endorsed San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan to succeed her in Congress.

The nod from the 20-term congresswoman, the first woman ever to wield the speaker’s gavel, presents a last-minute twist in the three-way Democratic race to become San Francisco’s next congressmember. Pelosi announced last November that she would retire rather than seek another term.

“I know this district, I know the Congress, and I know Connie,” said Pelosi in a short clip from a video provided by Pelosi’s team, in which she’s seated next to Chan. “I’m proud to endorse Connie Chan, and I ask you to join me in electing her to Congress.”

The full endorsement video will be released Tuesday morning. 

State Sen. Scott Wiener is leading the race by double digits, according to recent polls. Chan has been neck-and-neck with tech entrepreneur and former senior congressional aide Saikat Chakrabarti, who is largely self-funding his campaign. Former Republican Marie Huriabell is also running. 

In the announcement, the former speaker points to Chan’s leadership as a supervisor and chair of the Board of Supervisors’ budget committee as evidence that Chan will fight “tirelessly” to “strengthen our safety net and protect our rights.”

Pelosi’s endorsement comes as something of a surprise after the former speaker signaled she would not endorse in the chaotic gubernatorial race, although she was spotted at fundraisers for Chan and appeared to provide unofficial support. It’s also a public rebuke of Wiener, who has previously called Pelosi his “hero.”

“I have tremendous respect for Speaker Emerita Pelosi and deep gratitude for everything she has done for our city and our country. Whoever wins in November will have giant stilettos to fill,” he said in a statement.

Pelosi praised Chan as “a mom who knows her power and knows her ‘why’” and said she also brought important lived experience as an Asian American immigrant woman. 

“Connie’s story reflects the American dream — the hopes and courage of so many families who came to this country believing in opportunity, dignity, and democracy.”

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

Seis personas murieron en centros de detención de inmigrantes en California durante el último año, debido a que estos centros, abarrotados, tenían dificultades para proporcionar atención médica básica, según una nueva investigación estatal que detalla las condiciones dentro de las instalaciones.

El informe de 175 páginas publicado el viernes ofrece la visión más detallada hasta la fecha del interior de los centros de detención, que a menudo se encuentran en zonas remotas del estado y son de difícil acceso para abogados, familias y defensores.

Documenta el mayor número de muertes desde que el estado comenzó a realizar inspecciones en los centros hace siete años. En 2024, no se registraron muertes en los centros de detención de California, según la lista de comunicados de prensa del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) que realiza el seguimiento de estos datos, elaborada por la Asociación Estadounidense de Abogados de Inmigración.

Las muertes se produjeron mientras la administración del presidente Donald Trump llevaba a cabo una campaña de deportación masiva —que comenzó en Los Ángeles— y que aumentó la población en los centros de detención en más del 150%.

Dieciocho personas han fallecido en centros penitenciarios este año en todo el país, aproximadamente una por semana. Desde el inicio del gobierno de Trump, 48 personas han muerto en centros de detención. Un estudio publicado el mes pasado en la revista Journal of the American Medical Association reveló que la tasa actual es casi siete veces superior a la del año fiscal 2023, con 88.9 fallecimientos por cada 100,000 habitantes.

En California, cuatro de las muertes ocurrieron en el Centro de Procesamiento de ICE de Adelanto, en el condado de San Bernardino. Otras dos personas fallecieron en el Centro de Detención Regional Imperial, cerca de la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México, en Calexico. En los cuatro casos de Adelanto, las familias de los fallecidos alegan que el centro no proporcionó la atención médica adecuada, según el informe.

Las inspecciones realizadas por el Departamento de Justicia de California son obligatorias según una ley de 2017 promulgada en respuesta a las preocupaciones sobre las condiciones. Investigadores y expertos médicos realizaron visitas de dos días a cada centro y entrevistaron a 194 personas de más de 120 países.

El año pasado, los inspectores se centraron en las deficiencias en la atención de salud mental en los seis centros que operaban en California durante los primeros meses del segundo mandato de Trump. Este año, los investigadores estatales analizaron en detalle cómo el drástico aumento de la población de detenidos afectó las condiciones y el acceso a la atención médica en todos los centros que operan actualmente en California.

Algunos detenidos describieron que solo tenían frijoles y pan para comer, lo que les provocaba diarrea, y temperaturas extremadamente frías que los obligaban a usar sus calcetines como mangas adicionales. En un centro penitenciario, los investigadores documentaron la falta de suficientes inodoros para la población reclusa, y los detenidos reportaron baños sucios.

Varios detenidos lloraron al relatar a los investigadores estatales las condiciones de su confinamiento en California City. La mayoría de los detenidos no han sido condenados por ningún delito.

“Esto es cruel, inhumano e inaceptable”, dijo el fiscal general de California, Rob Bonta, y agregó que su oficina “trabajó incansablemente para sacar a la luz” estas condiciones.

Los investigadores estatales escribieron que los centros de detención no habían aumentado su personal médico para hacer frente al drástico incremento en el número de detenidos. En un nuevo centro de detención inaugurado el año pasado en una antigua prisión estatal en California City, los investigadores describieron una dotación de personal médico de “nivel crítico” que contribuyó a las demoras en la atención. En ese momento, el centro contaba con un solo médico para casi 1000 detenidos.

Todos los centros de detención son administrados por empresas privadas mediante contratos con el gobierno federal. Los investigadores estatales escribieron que tanto las empresas como la agencia federal no están cumpliendo con sus propios estándares de atención.

CalMatters se puso en contacto con ICE y con las tres empresas penitenciarias privadas que operan centros penitenciarios en California.

Una portavoz de MTC, la empresa que gestiona el centro en el condado de Imperial, declaró que la compañía toma el informe muy en serio y está llevando a cabo una revisión de sus conclusiones. “Nuestro enfoque está en las personas a nuestro cargo, en las conclusiones específicas de Imperial y en el trabajo continuo para brindar una atención segura, humana y que cumpla con los estándares”, afirmó Emily Lawhead, portavoz de MTC.

Christopher V. Ferreira, portavoz de la empresa penitenciaria privada GEO Group, declaró por escrito que los detenidos tienen acceso a atención médica y otros servicios las 24 horas del día.

“En todos los casos, nuestros servicios de apoyo son supervisados por ICE, incluso por personal de la agencia presente en el lugar y por otras organizaciones dentro del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional para garantizar el cumplimiento de las normas de detención de ICE y los requisitos contractuales con respecto al trato y los servicios que reciben los detenidos por ICE”, dijo.

Ryan Gustin, portavoz de la empresa penitenciaria privada CoreCivic, declaró: “Todas nuestras instalaciones de inmigración donde proporcionamos atención médica cumplen con los estándares federales de detención, incluyendo la dotación de personal”.

Disminución de la protección de los derechos civiles

Los investigadores estatales también describieron en su informe cómo la administración Trump redujo las protecciones federales para los detenidos.

Desde enero de 2025, el gobierno federal ha recortado la financiación de programas legales para informar a las personas sobre sus derechos, ha cerrado las oficinas de supervisión de derechos civiles del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y ha suspendido las protecciones para los detenidos transgénero, según indica el informe.

Según el informe, el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas dejó de incluir en sus informes estadísticos quincenales, en febrero de 2025, los datos sobre personas transgénero exigidos por el Congreso. La agencia también eliminó de su sitio web un memorando de política que la comprometía a crear un entorno seguro para las personas transgénero.

Loba, una mujer transgénero de El Salvador que estuvo detenida en California City durante seis meses en 2025, declaró a CalMatters que sufrió incidentes de acoso sexual e intimidación traumáticos por parte de los guardias mientras estaba alojada en los dormitorios masculinos. Solicitó a CalMatters que solo la identificara por su nombre de pila porque teme represalias por hablar sobre las condiciones y por su seguridad en su país.

Según contó, la situación era tan estresante que finalmente decidió firmar los documentos para su salida voluntaria y regresar a su casa en El Salvador.

“Esa es la razón principal”, dijo. “Llevo dos años luchando por mi caso de inmigración, y después de estar lejos de mi comunidad y de la falta de apoyo a la comunidad LGBTQ+ dentro de los centros de detención, y luego de ser víctima de acoso, fue realmente intimidante. Fue muy traumático”.

El informe también examinó otras quejas presentadas por los detenidos y sus familias.

Durante un incidente en Adelanto, una persona informó a los inspectores estatales que los guardias utilizaron gas pimienta en una habitación cerrada donde se encontraban unas 50 personas.

En el centro de detención de Otay Mesa, en San Diego, los investigadores expresaron su preocupación por los registros corporales. El informe indica que Otay Mesa es el único centro en California que aplica la práctica de realizar registros corporales a los detenidos después de cada visita con alguien que no sea un abogado.

Las mujeres describieron los registros como “humillantes” y “denigrantes” tras ser registradas delante de agentes masculinos, a veces incluso durante la menstruación. Tanto hombres como mujeres manifestaron sentirse “violados” por esta práctica. Una persona declaró a los inspectores que había dejado de visitar a su familia para evitar los registros.

Dos nuevos centros de detención

En el momento de las visitas de los investigadores, 6028 personas se encontraban detenidas por motivos de inmigración en California. Esto representa un aumento del 162 % con respecto a las 2300 personas detenidas durante las inspecciones de 2023. California tiene la tercera mayor población de detenidos por el ICE, después de Texas y Luisiana.

California también alberga dos de las siete instalaciones más grandes del país. Los detenidos en California procedían principalmente de México, India, Guatemala, El Salvador, China, Rusia, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela y Honduras.

Durante los dos mandatos de Trump, los demócratas de California adoptaron políticas destinadas a impedir el funcionamiento de los centros de detención. En 2019, California intentó prohibir la operación de centros de detención privados con fines de lucro en el estado, pero GEO Group interpuso una demanda que logró impedirlo. El Tribunal de Apelaciones del Noveno Circuito dictaminó que la prohibición viola la Cláusula de Supremacía de la Constitución al impedir que el gobierno federal lleve a cabo la aplicación de las leyes de inmigración.

El Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) abrió dos centros de detención en California el año pasado: primero el de California City y luego el de McFarland, denominado Anexo del Valle Central. Este último comenzó a recibir detenidos en abril de 2026, mientras se finalizaba el informe, pero el estado afirma que también comenzará a supervisar dicho centro. Ambos lugares se utilizaban anteriormente para albergar a reclusos de prisiones estatales bajo contratos con el sistema penitenciario de California.

Este año, los demócratas de California impulsan varios proyectos de ley para contrarrestar la represión migratoria del gobierno de Trump. Uno de ellos, presentado por el asambleísta Matt Haney, demócrata de San Francisco, gravaría los centros de detención , destinando los fondos a grupos defensores de los derechos de los inmigrantes, lo que en la práctica haría que mantener estos centros en el estado no fuera rentable.

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

La administración Trump está suspendiendo 1,100 millones de dólares en fondos de Medicaid destinados al programa de atención médica domiciliaria de California debido a preocupaciones por fraude, una medida que, según funcionarios de salud estatales y defensores de la salud, podría perjudicar a cientos de miles de personas mayores y personas con discapacidades.

En el centro de la disputa se encuentra el programa de Servicios de Apoyo a Domicilio de California, o IHSS por sus siglas en inglés, que ayuda a unos 900,000 californianos mayores y personas con discapacidades con sus actividades diarias para que puedan permanecer en sus hogares en lugar de en entornos institucionales.

El Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrador de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid de EE. UU., lo calificó como el “mayor aplazamiento que jamás hayamos realizado” en una conferencia de prensa el miércoles . Afirmó que California es un caso atípico —su gasto en atención médica domiciliaria está creciendo al doble de la tasa de otros estados— y que el gobierno federal retendrá los fondos de Medicaid hasta que el estado pueda explicar de manera convincente el motivo.

La suspensión forma parte de la campaña declarada por la administración contra el fraude en Medicaid y Medicare. Si bien la agencia de Oz ha expresado su preocupación por la “integridad” del programa de atención médica domiciliaria de California, no ha presentado pruebas que lo respalden, según informaron funcionarios de salud de California.

El director estatal de Medicaid, Tyler Sadwith, declaró en un comunicado de prensa que el crecimiento del programa ha sido intencional. Lo atribuyó a tres factores: un mayor número de casos, salarios por hora más altos para los trabajadores de atención médica a domicilio y un mayor número de horas trabajadas, ya que los trabajadores atienden a más personas con mayores necesidades.

Entre 2023 y 2025, el número de casos aumentó un 17.5%, y el salario medio por hora de los trabajadores de atención médica a domicilio pasó de 19 a 21 dólares, según el Departamento de Servicios de Atención Médica, que supervisa el programa Medicaid del estado, más conocido aquí como Medi-Cal.

El gobernador Gavin Newsom, durante la presentación de su presupuesto el jueves, argumentó que la expansión debería celebrarse, no castigarse. Los servicios de atención médica a domicilio cuestan alrededor de 30,000 dólares por persona al año, dijo Newsom. Las residencias de ancianos especializadas pueden costar entre cuatro y cinco veces más.

Los funcionarios de salud estatales dijeron que cuentan con un sólido sistema de supervisión para erradicar el fraude en el sistema de atención médica domiciliaria, que incluye “evaluaciones anuales, hojas de registro de horas electrónicas, herramientas de verificación y procesos de revisión coordinados entre el estado y el condado”.

Además del aplazamiento de 1,100 millones de dólares en servicios de atención médica domiciliaria, el gobierno federal está reteniendo otros 200 millones de dólares relacionados con reclamaciones administrativas que el estado dijo que esperaba y que está trabajando para resolver.

La congelación federal de los fondos para California se produce tras una medida similar adoptada en Minnesota en febrero, cuando la administración federal suspendió 259 millones de dólares en pagos de Medicaid. Minnesota presentó una demanda para bloquear la decisión.

Durante la conferencia de prensa del miércoles, el vicepresidente JD Vance, quien supervisa el grupo de trabajo contra el fraude del gobierno, acusó a California, Nueva York y Hawái de no hacer lo suficiente para combatir el fraude de Medicaid. “Por eso estamos tomando esta medida”, dijo Vance. “Queremos que California se tome más en serio este fraude”.

California ha sido un foco de atención en los esfuerzos antifraude de la administración Trump, con los cuidados paliativos en el centro de las investigaciones. Vance y Oz también anunciaron el miércoles una moratoria nacional de seis meses, que prohíbe a los nuevos proveedores de cuidados paliativos inscribirse en Medicare. California ha impuesto una suspensión similar a las nuevas licencias para cuidados paliativos.

Los funcionarios de salud estatales afirman que los pacientes que reciben atención médica a domicilio seguirán recibiendo servicios sin interrupciones. Sin embargo, los defensores y los sindicatos que representan a los cuidadores están preocupados por la incertidumbre sobre el calendario de desembolso de los fondos federales y por las posibles consecuencias de una congelación prolongada para los pacientes.

Como parte del programa, Medicaid paga a los cuidadores para que ayuden a las personas con tareas cotidianas como bañarse, cocinar, hacer la compra y asistir a citas médicas.

“Es evidente que los ciudadanos más vulnerables de California necesitan este programa”, declaró Doug Moore, director ejecutivo de United Domestic Workers, organización que representa a los cuidadores. “Hay personas mayores, niños y personas con discapacidad. No pongan a personas inocentes en medio de esta situación”.

Este programa cuenta con el apoyo de la Fundación de Atención Médica de California (CHCF), que trabaja para garantizar que las personas tengan acceso a la atención médica que necesitan, cuando la necesitan y a un precio asequible. Visite www.chcf.org para obtener más información.

Remember talking to people with civility about politics — even on contentious issues? Meet the CalMatters guy who has made that happen dozens of times.

CalMatters’ director of partnerships, Dan Hu, has been traveling across the state to talk with Californians about the upcoming election. His VotingMatters events with local news organizations, colleges and others, aim to bring voters together to discuss the issues that matter most. 

In the run-up to the 2024 election, Dan led 40 events and drove 7,000 miles. This year so far, he has driven 2,046 miles, and estimates he’s interacted with a total of 2,000 Californians through VotingMatters. I spoke with Dan to learn more about what voters are saying.

Have you met people at the events who are big fans of any gubernatorial candidate?

No! No one at any of these has actually been that passionate about any candidate. Generally, people are talking about affordability, housing, healthcare. People are passionate about issues, not politics. 

How polarized is California? 

It’s probably less polarized than you think. When people come together in person they appreciate talking to each other. It is more civil than the discussions they have online. 

In 2024, at an event in Santa Barbara with Noozhawk, two people who had been arguing on Nextdoor met each other for the first time in real life. And they were like, “Oh you’re a real person and you care about this community.” They still disagreed, but walked away cordially. 

Democracy works when people engage. And engaging doesn’t always mean, ‘I voted and my job is done.’ It starts with talking with your neighbors.

Has all that driving exposed you to good food?

There’s so much good food around the state. I was meeting Người Việt in Westminster, which has one of the largest enclaves of Vietnamese-Americans. The editor-in-chief brought me to his favorite restaurant, Pho 79, and it was the single best bowl of pho I had in my life.

Do people find our voter guide helpful?

One attendee said he tried watching a televised debate, but it devolved into people attacking each other. He said he didn’t learn anything and he turned it off after 15 minutes. But watching CalMatters governors’ videos for a few minutes, he said he could watch this for a whole hour. The videos help because it makes the candidates feel more human.

How can people stay involved?

We put together a kit so anyone can put on their own VotingMatters event. I also started an Instagram for some of my travels that will be a place for people to follow along.

Our next events are tonight in Fremont and Tuesday evening in Vallejo with more to come over the next couple of weeks.

---

The Ideas Festival agenda is set and it’s packed. Hear from The Lincoln Project founders, Janet Napolitano, Julian Castro, Dan Walters and more. Join us in Sacramento Thursday for a day of big ideas, smart conversations and connection. Get your tickets today.

---

Other Stories You Should Know

---

Addressing CA’s rising prices; insurance crisis

Let’s dive into some economic and consumer news:

• Gas prices: Rising gas prices due to the Iran war are affecting the budgets of state agencies. Average per-gallon fuel costs have risen almost 46% for the California Highway Patrol. School buses serving rural districts can drive 100 miles daily. The higher gas costs are taking funding from student services, said Siskiyou County’s superintendent. Read more from CalMatters’ Levi Sumagaysay and Carolyn Jones.

• Surveillance pricing: Lawmakers last week advanced a bill that would ban retailers from changing prices based on a shopper’s age, location and other information. The bill is similar to one that failed last year, but now inflation and affordability are top concerns for voters. Read more from CalMatters’ Khari Johnson.

• Bigger state role with insurance?: To address the state’s insurance crisis, some candidates for insurance commissioner want the state more involved in insurance coverage. There’s precedent for that: Legislators created the California Earthquake Authority in 1996 after insurers retreated from California following the 1994 Northridge earthquake. But the publicly managed, privately funded earthquake insurance provider has thin coverage, and the pricey premiums policyholders have paid over the decades have mostly gone to bureaucracy, according to the president of Consumer Watchdog. Read more from Levi.

Questions remain for data centers; hospital grant

Two separate efforts from the state — housing more data centers and saving its hospitals — are leaving major questions unanswered, underscoring how California is making big decisions without knowing the full details.

Data centers, writes CalMatters’ Rachel Becker, are steadily encroaching on rural, water-strapped regions. But a patchwork of state, federal and local policies have allowed data center builders to avoid publicly disclosing how much water they use, according to a new report.

Though lawmakers are considering a bill that would require data center operators to report their water usage, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar measure last year amid industry pressure.

Meanwhile, lawmakers and the governor earlier this month approved a $25 million grant to struggling hospitals, report CalMatters’ Yue Stella Yu and Ana B. Ibarra.

The measure became law less than a week after it was introduced, and stakeholders still don’t know how many hospitals would qualify and whether the funding will be enough to prevent hospital closures in the near term. When trying to get more clarity during the budget hearing, state Sen. Chris Cabaldon called the lack of answers “profoundly disturbing.” The Napa Democrat voted for the measure anyway.

And lastly: A rise of conservative CA students

Turning Point USA presence has nearly tripled on California campuses, following the 2025 assassinatin of its co-founder, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. Some California conservative students say Turning Point chapters have helped them become more public about their beliefs. Some professors also said they have noticed increased tension in the classroom when political disagreements arise, but welcome the conflict in the name of encouraging healthy debate. Read more from Kahani Malhotra of CalMatters’ College Journalism Network.

---

California Voices

Community-rooted preschools are eroding due to Newsom’s well intentioned growth of transitional kindergarten, and lawmakers should pass measures that would bolster nonprofit preschools, write Bruce Fuller and Lisa Wilkin, professor emeritus of education policy at UC Berkeley and CEO of the Child Development Consortium of Los Angeles, respectively.

---

Other things worth your time:

Some stories may require a subscription to read.

---

Six people died in CA ICE detention centers as Trump deportations soared // CalMatters

House talks look at blocking some state AI laws, including in CA // Politico

Ballot measure to cap hospital executive pay at $450K qualifies for November // The Sacramento Bee

14,000 apply for CA’s housing down payment program // The Orange County Register

Should a high-voltage power line run through CA’s largest state park? Critics are furious // Los Angeles Times

SF men face murder over fireworks deaths. The state Supreme Court may have killed the case // The San Francisco Standard

Opinion: The real story of the OpenAI case // The Wall Street Journal 

Guest Commentary written by

Bruce Fuller

Bruce Fuller is professor emeritus of education policy at UC Berkeley.

Lisa Wilkin

Lisa Wilkin leads the Child Development Consortium of Los Angeles, a nonprofit network of preschools.

Gov. Gavin Newsom once aspired to ease the sky-high cost of childcare as a key to making families economically feasible again. But as the affordability issue dominates nationwide, the governor’s momentum seems to be fading.

The Republican promise to buoy families rings hollow. Gas prices and healthcare premiums are climbing for cash-stretched parents, as President Donald Trump seeks a 42% jump in military spending. Trump told his budget director last month, “Don’t send any money for day care … We are fighting wars.” 

In bright contrast, Newsom emerged from the COVID pandemic with plans to extend transitional kindergarten to 96,000 additional children each year. Now half of all 4-year-olds are in this new school grade. 

He also boosted the count of childcare vouchers available to help parents pay for child minders. And he raised per pupil spending for public schools by nearly two-thirds.

But this year, Newsom has dampened his dreams. 

His final state budget emphasizes fiscal caution and big gains for local schools. But surprisingly, Newsom seeks a 2% cut in public childcare and preschool programs after adjusting for California’s accelerating inflation.

It’s safer to sit on one’s laurels and declare victory than to acknowledge an unanticipated harm of one’s otherwise progressive policies. 

Transitional kindergarten eliminated massive childcare bills for thousands of parents raising 4-year-olds. But now options are shrinking for California’s 1.6 million children, ages zero to 3.

Newsom’s well intentioned growth of transitional kindergarten is eroding community-rooted preschools that long served 4-year-olds — the kids now migrating to transitional kindergarten programs, which are hosted by public schools. 

Since Newsom’s bullish support for transitional kindergarten arose in 2021 — urged on by Democratic lawmakers — nearly 1,200 nonprofit preschools have closed across California, says a new analysis from UC Berkeley. Los Angeles County alone has lost 12,000 slots in nonprofit preschools. In mid-size counties like Santa Clara more than 4,000 child places have disappeared.

The loss of nonprofit childcares requires parents to fetch their kids from transitional kindergarten in the early afternoons, which is impossible for many moms and dads laboring full time. 

In contrast, community preschools have long run from early morning to evening and throughout the summer. Less than a third of California parents of 3-year-olds have been able to find preschool slots in a neighborhood hub, church or YWCA.

Thankfully Democratic lawmakers, Assemblymember David Alvarez from Chula Vista and state Senator Sasha René Pérez from Pasadena, have supported incentives to help nonprofits pivot to serve younger children, by raising per-child allocations for children under 4 and extending eligibility for public preschool to families earning up to about $120,000 yearly.

Lawmakers are weighing a $123 million request from state schools chief Tony Thurman to reach more children under age 4 and bolster nonprofit preschools. It’s affordable, given that tax revenue flowing into the Proposition 98 education set-aside grows, thanks to a stock market stoked by artificial intelligence stocks. Newsom’s budget would add another $8.3 billion to support local schools.

Newsom’s waning interest in universal preschool may stem from a union’s push for additional childcare vouchers to be awarded to parents opting for home-based providers, many of whom are organized by the Service Employees International Union, a contributor to Newsom’s campaigns.

Long term, nonprofits and schools can avoid competing for young children. Inventive nonprofits already collaborate with educators to serve toddlers on school campuses, along with after-school programs for transitional kindergarten youngsters. Lawmakers could incentivize districts to convert vacated campuses into early-childhood centers, as pursued by Vallejo and L.A. school boards. 

The governor and lawmakers can regain momentum this budget season by ratcheting-up  investments in children. Economically stretched families can’t live on promises alone.

California is considering handing oil refineries and other major polluters billions of dollars in free emission allowances just as the state says carbon reductions need to come faster than ever.

In the last six months, two refineries have closed and gas prices have topped an average of $6 a gallon as the Iran-Israel war sent oil markets into turmoil. The oil and gas sector spent $10.3 million lobbying Sacramento in the first three months of the year, according to lobbying filings, with the Western States Petroleum Association and Chevron accounting for the bulk of it.

The result is a new proposal before the California Air Resources Board that would provide as much as $4 billion in new free emission permits to companies with half slated for the fossil fuel industry in exchange for commitments to invest in clean energy. 

Environmentalists warn the proposal is a giveaway to Big Oil that would weaken California’s “cap-and-invest” program just as the state is relying on it to cut emissions and fund climate, housing and other programs. Anthony Martinez, a spokesman for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said the changes are necessary to keep the state’s carbon market “durable” and “affordable” amid mounting refinery closures.

The fight over California’s carbon market has exposed the political tensions at the heart of Newsom’s energy transition agenda. California is trying to preserve its climate ambitions while keeping gasoline affordable for drivers already facing the highest prices in the country. Critics say the air board’s proposal accomplishes neither goal.

“We are really concerned that this would significantly kneecap the program,” said Chloe Ames, a policy adviser with NextGen Policy.

Weakening the backstop

Through California’s 13-year-old carbon market, major polluting companies must buy permits for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit, with the state capping total emissions year by year. Each permit is worth real money and companies can sell the ones they don’t use. The program is considered California’s climate backstop — the only state policy that sets a firm limit on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the heart of the dispute with environmentalists is a proposed subsidy program carved out of that carbon market. The air board, if it approves the proposal on May 28, would create a new pool of free pollution permits for refineries, cement plants and other big companies that pledge to invest in clean energy and efficiency projects.

The pool would be capped at 118.3 million permits — the same number the air board has said must come off the market for California to hit its 2030 climate target. Environmentalists say the proposal risks wiping out those reductions.

Berkeley energy economist Meredith Fowlie, who chairs an independent committee that oversees the carbon market, wrote in a recent analysis that the design would give qualifying refineries more free permits than they need to cover their emissions.

“One could use the word generous,” Fowlie said.

Rajinder Sahota, the air board official overseeing the program, said the proposal would ensure emissions reductions. The new permits, she said, would only go to companies undertaking clean energy and efficiency projects and would be limited, temporary and rescinded if companies misuse them. The plan is meant to help keep refineries operating in California at a time of uncertainty, she added.

“We want to make sure that there’s reliable, affordable fuel for California consumers while the demand persists,” Sahota said.

But environmentalists say the air board has built in almost no accountability for how companies invest in those projects. Katelyn Roedner Sutter, state director for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the proposal  “is based on proposed investment, not any guaranteed reduction.” 

“That’s a red flag,” she said.

A climate money crunch

Quarterly auction revenue for state programs could drop from roughly $4 billion a year to about $2 billion under the proposal, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Sen. John Laird, the state Senate budget chair and a co-author of California’s original 2006 climate law, warned at a May 6 hearing that the proposal “flies against many things we negotiated just last fall” with the governor and could put the carbon market deal “back on the table.”

Not all lawmakers are critical. Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin and Cottie Petrie-Norris, who respectively chair climate and energy committees, said the proposal “reflects the Legislature’s focus on affordability,” and urged the board to proceed “without delay.” 

They pointed to an increase in the Climate Credit, the twice-yearly rebate that the carbon market funds on Californians’ utility bills; a UC Santa Barbara analysis, however, found the new subsidy could shrink the credit by as much as $1.7 billion under the proposal.

A separate, bipartisan group including Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat, and Senator Suzette Valladares, a Republican, argues the purpose of the carbon market is to cut emissions, not raise money for programs.

Newsom struck an eleventh-hour deal with lawmakers last year that extended the state’s carbon market through 2045 and set the order of which state programs get auction money first.

Under that plan, California’s high-speed rail project receives $1 billion a year before many other programs. Lawmakers also carved out a $1 billion annual pool for priorities they control themselves, but Newsom in January proposed committing that money to wildfire spending and other programs. 

Last in line are programs lawmakers have spent years building into California’s climate agenda: affordable housing and transit-oriented development meant to reduce driving and climate pollution, rail and bus service, wildfire resilience, clean drinking water in poor communities and neighborhood pollution monitoring. 

Newsom unveiled a revised state budget on May 14 that did not reflect the potential drop in carbon market revenue. Laird, in an interview, said the administration told him the revenue drop wouldn’t show up in the coming fiscal year.

Laird said he planned to “ground truth” that assessment in the weeks ahead. The hit “would still be a big hit the year after this budget year,” he added.

Big Oil’s biggest target

California’s carbon market became a central focus of the oil industry’s lobbying efforts after the air board released a January proposal sharply reducing free pollution permits for industry.

Seven of the 10 highest-spending oil and gas lobbying groups in California pushed state officials on the proposal, state filings show. The petroleum association and Chevron mounted some of the industry’s most aggressive lobbying, pressing lawmakers, the governor’s office, the air board and the California Energy Commission on the plan.

The April plan raised free permits for most industries through 2030 above the January version, but deferred decisions on permits after 2030 to a future rulemaking.

Jim Stanley, a spokesman for the petroleum association, said the group has been pressing lawmakers, regulators and the governor’s office about “the potential consequences of a poorly structured cap-and-invest program.”

Chevron spokesman Ross Allen declined to comment beyond letters Chevron filed with the air board. Chevron initially warned the proposal threatened refinery survival in California. After last month’s revisions, the company is continuing to push for additional protections.

Zach Leary, a lobbyist for the petroleum association, said California needs to go further than even its latest proposal. He wants California to lock in a higher level of free permits permanently. 

“The state is acknowledging that affordability and ambition are not getting along very well right now,” Leary said.

Eddie Ahn, executive director of Brightline Defense, oversees community air sensors in San Francisco’s Tenderloin, Mission and South of Market neighborhoods funded through the state’s community air protection program. That program is among those that could lose state money if carbon market auctions decline under the proposal. 

“If the funding is cut off, then convening groups of people on a monthly basis — that goes away,” Ahn said. “It means frontline communities get disconnected from environmental policy.”

In summary

Fast food workers, council members call on Newsom to appoint a chairperson so the council can meet again.

California’s first-in-the-nation fast food council — created to give workers a voice on wages, safety and working conditions — has not met in over a year and has no chairperson.

Now the workers the council was built to protect, organized by the Service Employees International Union, are taking their concerns directly to the state, demanding that Gov. Gavin Newsom appoint a chairperson so the council can do its work, as required by law. 

Luna Mondragon, who works at a Carl’s Jr. in Milpitas, told CalMatters through a translator that she started out as a cook but has done many other duties in her five years there. After she joined the fast food workers union, she said she began speaking up, especially when she started to experience aches and pains from her job. Since then, she said she has been retaliated against, including with fewer shifts.

“If we don’t have our health we can’t accomplish anything,” she said, her voice choked with emotion. “It’s so important for them to appoint a chair. We need the council.”

The council was created as part of a 2023 compromise that also set a $20 minimum wage for fast food workers. It has the power to set standards on wages, health, safety and working conditions — and to raise the minimum wage annually for hundreds of thousands of fast food workers at chains with 60 or more locations nationwide. 

The council — composed of four members representing the businesses, four members representing labor and a chairperson who’s an “unaffiliated” member of the public — must, under state law, hold at least two meetings a year, though the law does not specify who should enforce this provision. 

The council only held those meetings in 2024; last year it held two subcommittee meetings, the latest in February 2025. Shortly after, the council’s chairperson, Nick Hardeman, resigned when Newsom appointed him to a different state position. When reached by CalMatters, Hardeman said he did not want to speak on the record about a council he has not chaired in a while. 

In 2022, the Legislature raised fast food workers’ minimum wage to $22 an hour. The industry fought back, gathering signatures to repeal the law. Workers across the state went on strike. In late 2023, the SEIU and the industry reached a last-minute compromise: Workers dropped a ballot fight in exchange for a $20 minimum wage and the establishment of the council. The SEIU-affiliated California Fast Food Workers Union launched the following year — lacking the collective bargaining rights of a traditional union, but acting as an advocacy and membership group for workers. 

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, would not answer questions about the council, instead referring CalMatters to the state’s Labor & Workforce Development Agency. Crystal Young, a spokesperson for the agency, confirmed that there is no chairperson and the council’s meetings are on hold. The council’s four-person staff continues to respond to inquiries and prepare for future meetings, she said. 

On April 16, marking about two years since the council’s first meeting, workers delivered a 96-page book to the governor’s office, describing more than 100 complaints filed with CalOSHA, the state labor department and different city agencies since the council’s formation, alleging wage theft and poor working conditions. The union estimates there are about 630,000 fast food workers in the state, about 75% of whom are people of color and 20% of whom are immigrants.

“Employers feel newly empowered to threaten us with calling ICE when we ask questions about paid sick leave or (workers’ compensation), or report health and safety hazards,” Angelica Hernandez, a McDonald’s worker who is a member of the fast food council, said in the book.

Rich Reinis, a member of the council who represents employers and is a former franchise owner, said he has no knowledge of when meetings will resume, and is waiting. In his view, the council should have been discussing “fire and ICE.” The phrase refers to the effects of last year’s L.A. County fires on the fast-food industry and its workers, some of whom lost their homes, and what businesses and workers need to know about immigration enforcement. 

Reinis also wants the council to order a study of the wage increase’s effects on prices and employment. Competing studies by UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz have reached opposite conclusions, and the question of affordability remains unresolved, he said.

A Los Angeles Times columnist who analyzed the competing studies concluded the debate over the wage’s effects is likely to continue. Hernandez, the council member, rejected the industry’s claims that the wage increase has hurt business. “The sky didn’t fall on the California fast food industry,” she said. 

The council is also required to submit a performance review to the Legislature every three years — a deadline approaching without a single full meeting in the past year. Before he resigned, Hardeman, the former chairperson, said it was hard for the council to reach decisions.

 “The staff will have to write a report without having any meetings,” Reinis said. “How the hell are we supposed to do that?”

Chris Holden, the former California assemblymember who authored the law that raised the workers’ wages and created the council, told CalMatters that the council was “groundbreaking” and “needs to address the challenges that were the genesis of the council in the first place.” He said he hopes the governor is doing his due diligence to identify a new chairperson.

“I want to tell (the governor) to finish the job he started,” Julieta Garcia, a cook at a Pizza Hut in Los Angeles, told CalMatters through a translator. “Leave a good legacy for this generation and the future generation, so you can be recognized as a leader who gave fast food workers a chance.”

Young, the Labor & Workforce Development Agency spokesperson who was speaking on the governor’s behalf, confirmed that Newsom’s office received the workers’ book. 

The governor’s office has not said when — or whether — Newsom plans to appoint a chairperson to the council. 

Data center builders don’t tell the public how much water they use, according to a new report — and the industry is encroaching into water-stressed and vulnerable communities. 

The report, by the think tank Next10 and researchers at Santa Clara University, finds that planned data centers — the ganglia of artificial intelligence — are spreading to regions reliant on overtapped groundwater and strained surface water, with potentially major effects in the Central and Imperial Valleys. 

But, reinforcing previous studies, the researchers found that a patchwork of state, federal and local policies allow data center operators to avoid publicly disclosing their actual water use. 

California lawmakers tried to address this last year, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the measure. Now, the Legislature is trying again, with bills mandating disclosures about water use and planning. 

“We have this huge build out, and we have very little data,” said Irina Raicu, who directs the Internet Ethics program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. 

Paired with California’s precarious water supplies, Raicu said, “it’s just not a good combination.” 

Shaolei Ren, an expert on the environmental impacts of AI at UC Riverside who was not involved in the study, said the findings point to a much broader problem. 

“Limited publicly available information about data center water use makes it difficult for communities, water providers, and researchers to have meaningful public discussions and responsibly assess power-water trade-offs,” Ren said in an email. 

Murky water use 

Few environmental impact reports for California’s data centers were publicly available online, the researchers found. 

Raicu and co-author Iris Stewart-Frey, a professor of environmental science, went looking for the reports, meant to assess and disclose a project’s impacts for both nature and people under the landmark California Environmental Quality Act. 

They found almost none. The ones they did find were largely for facilities in the city of Santa Clara. 

Through interviews with planning officials, they discovered that projects can slip through with little environmental review if they fall under certain size or water use thresholds, or if they meet a city or county’s criteria for other approval pathways. These include something called ministerial approval, which requires planning agencies to approve a project that meets local zoning and other standards. 

Even for data centers that undergo more stringent environmental scrutiny, the researchers found that documentation is rarely available to the public. 

In the few cases the planning documents were posted publicly, the information — on the data center’s owner or operator, size, type of cooling system, the amount of water used, whether it’s recycled or potable — was often “missing, contradictory, or vague,” the report said. 

The researchers said they contacted water providers in areas where data centers cluster, seeking usage data. None responded. 

A shift to vulnerable regions

California’s data centers mostly cluster in the south San Francisco Bay Area and the city of Los Angeles, with smaller concentrations in Sacramento and San Diego. 

But the report noted large, planned projects in rural and less affluent regions — like in Santa Clara County’s Gilroy, as well as in the heavily agricultural Imperial Valley. 

“They need a bunch of cheap land,” Raicu. “If we’re not careful, they will end up being pitched, very convincingly, to communities that have real needs — without enough attention being paid to the water part.”

Khara Boender, director of state policy for the  Data Center Coalition, which has opposed bills mandating more granular water use reporting, said in an email the industry is “committed to being a good neighbor.” 

Boender argues that data centers collectively “used significantly less water than other essential industries in 2025, including the agriculture, power, food and beverage, and semiconductor sectors,” but the coalition offers no data to back that up.

Collective use matters less than local impacts in a state where each community has its own mix of water supplies and strains, according to a previous study published by a team at UC Berkeley. 

Whether data centers use a lot or a little water relative to agriculture or other industries, “what matters most is the scale of new local use compared to available local supply,” the Berkeley team concluded earlier this year. “Unfortunately, this picture is clouded by data deficiencies.” 

In this week’s report, the Santa Clara University team drilled into those local supplies and community vulnerabilities to anticipated expansion. 

“We’re at the brink of this happening in California,” Stewart-Frey, the environmental scientist, said. Her report, she added, isn’t advocating against data centers. But “communities should know what they’re getting themselves into.” 

Debates over proposed data centers are erupting in a Kern County desert community with dwindling groundwater and in the hot Imperial Valley drawing from the strained Colorado River. 

Monterey Park residents in the San Gabriel Valley successfully opposed one data center project over environmental concerns and inadequate information and secured an upcoming vote on a citywide ban. 

In a letter to city officials, a representative for the developer dismissed opponents as  “rage-baiting an uninformed mob to pressure your decisionmaking.” 

Raicu pushed back. “If those communities are uninformed about the issue — whose fault is that? Who should be informing the people so that you don’t have this kind of pushback, if there is no need for it?” 

New laws v. Big Tech

Last year, Assemblymember Diane Papan, a Democrat from San Mateo, authored a bill requiring data center operators to report estimated or actual water use to their water supplier when seeking or renewing a business license or permit.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the measure amid industry pressure, saying he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements about operational details on this sector without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.” 

Now Papan is trying again with two bills. One largely reprises last year’s measure, with additional reporting required to the city and county. The other would bar local governments from approving new or expanded data centers unless the developer discloses information about their water use and plans. 

It would also set other requirements — like prohibiting development in overdrafted groundwater basins, like in the San Joaquin Valley, unless state water managers okay it. 

“You cannot manage what you have not and cannot measure,” Papan said. “The public likes transparency, and they should.” 

Both bills cleared a key legislative chokepoint this week but face staunch opposition from the tech industry and business groups. 

“If they run out of water, guess what happens? And they can’t cool their systems — are they going to succeed?” Papan said. “To which I say, help us help you.”

In summary

From a public wildfire authority to a state backstop, California insurance regulator candidates propose greater state involvement.

A few of the candidates vying to be California’s next insurance commissioner want to address  the insurance crisis by having the state take a bigger financial role.

Some of the problems they’re trying to solve include: 

• Not all insurance companies will write new policies in areas at high risk for wildfires, driving many homeowners to the FAIR Plan, the fire insurer of last resort. 
• Policyholders’ rates are rising because Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has addressed insurance availability issues by implementing new regulations that allow insurers to use new additional factors when setting premiums. 
• Many of those who are insured and have submitted claims after a disaster — such as last year’s deadly Los Angeles County fires — have been frustrated by delays, denials and dissatisfaction with insurers’ handling of their claims. The Insurance Department recently took legal action against State Farm over such issues.

Their proposals run the gamut: Create a public insurer and do away with private insurers altogether. Implement a state-run natural disaster insurance system that would complement the private market. Provide a state backstop for insurance for insurance companies, also known as reinsurance. Form public-private partnerships that would theoretically give insurers confidence to keep doing business in California. 

State coverage for major fires

More state involvement might help, said David Russell, a professor of insurance and finance at Cal State Northridge who co-authored a report for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners published last December. The report recommends creating a public-private partnership called the California Wildfire Authority, which would leave most coverage to private insurers and shift coverage of major wildfires to the state, including by providing additional reinsurance.

“It’s an amalgamation of compromises,” Russell told CalMatters. “The government will end up bailing people out anyway. Why not plan it in advance? Give everybody the playbook now and fund it properly.”

The idea sounds a little bit like what commissioner candidate Jane Kim, a Democrat, is proposing: a state-run authority for wildfire and flood funded by a portion of policyholders’ premiums. 

Similarly, Republican candidate Merrit Farren has proposed a state-run reinsurance authority funded by a fee insurers charged their customers. Kim and State Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat, have told CalMatters they are also interested in state reinsurance but have not included it in their platforms like Farren. Steven Bradford, a former Democratic state lawmaker, wants to explore a public-private partnership that he said could help insurance companies with liquidity.

California has tried this before — sort of

In April, the California Earthquake Authority released a report analyzing different levels of state involvement in catastrophic risk. One option: a state backstop that would provide reinsurance for catastrophe, which Allen said could “help to absorb wildfire loss… an analogy, I suppose, is the (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) — they stabilize the banking system when it’s under major stress.”

The earthquake authority itself may offer some clues for California moving forward. 

Created by the Legislature in 1996 after insurers retreated from California in the wake of the 1994 Northridge quake, the authority is a public-private partnership that critics say does not cover enough of the residential market. Moreover, the critics continue, the authority’s approximately $20 billion in claims-paying capacity is inadequate.

“It was a terrible deal,” said Jamie Court, president of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog. He said coverage through the authority is thin, deductibles are high and premiums are expensive. Court said that because quake insurance was carved out of homeowners insurance, the premiums policyholders have paid over the past three decades have mostly gone to reinsurance and bureaucracy as opposed to building up enough reserves.

On the other hand, Russell said, the authority has yet to be tested by a major earthquake, and “what (its creation) shows is that in California, we can do this because we’ve done it before.”

California and reinsurance 

Some insurance industry representatives questioned why the commissioner candidates think California would want to take on financial risk now largely borne by the FAIR Plan, which is required by law to offer policies to property owners who can’t get them from private insurers and is run by an industry alliance.

“It’s easy for people to propose solutions for government involvement that no one wants to fund down the road with taxpayer dollars,” said Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. “We’re not asking for that, by the way.”

But Farren said he developed his plan with the help of the insurance industry, including executives at Acrisure, a big insurance broker and financial services company based in Grand Rapids, Mich. If disaster strikes and funds in the proposed state reinsurance authority are insufficient to pay claims, it could raise funds by issuing bonds, which would have the same status as municipal bonds, Farren said. His idea was inspired by public reinsurance programs in Florida for hurricanes, the United Kingdom for floods and the U.S. federal government for terrorism risk.

A couple of consumer advocacy groups are more receptive to the reinsurance concept. Court said it might be a good idea if the state or U.S. government provided some sort of backstop for insurance companies. (U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, the Democrat from California, has proposed federal legislation to establish a federal reinsurance fund for insurance companies, which the insurance industry opposes.) Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, told the state Senate Insurance Committee this week that she was in favor of “some kind of a backstop like Florida’s hurricane catastrophe fund.” Bach told CalMatters later that she thinks the state helping “take a bite” out of what’s driving higher premiums could help.

Florida is different from California, though, said Carolyn Kousky, an economist who studies climate risk and disaster finance. Kousky said that Florida’s insurance market is dominated by small players that need help with reinsurance, while “big national players are still writing quite a bit in (California).” Those national companies are diversifying their risk and can buy reinsurance based on their national portfolio, so those insurers have less need for a state backstop, she said. She questioned whether establishing a state reinsurer would make a significant difference in consumers’ insurance premium rates.

Kim said critics of her proposal to create a public disaster insurance fund that would split off wildfire and flood coverage from homeowners insurance — inspired by New Zealand’s program — ignore that California’s “current system doesn’t work, it’s too expensive and doesn’t cover enough.” She pointed to Los Angeles fire victims who have found that they are underinsured and don’t have enough coverage to rebuild their homes. She has not provided specific numbers for how much capitalization her proposed system would need; it’s something that would need to be studied, she said. She envisions that her plan would create a revenue stream that the state could invest into reducing fire risk. 

“At least some of our dollars will be stewarded by the public,” Kim said.

Another candidate, Lalo Vargas of the socialist Peace & Freedom Party, wants to go further: He is calling for investigating the 10 largest insurance companies in California and eventually replacing them with a public insurer run by the state. 

“Insurance works better when everyone is in the same pot,” Vargas said. That pot, he said, could be filled by taxing utilities and fossil fuel companies, “so billionaires could pay for the costs associated with the climate crisis.”

In summary

Turning Point chapters continue to grow on California campuses months after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Campuses are seeing tensions rise as conservative students become more vocal both in and out of the classroom.

Despite being a political junkie and longtime fan of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, Shasta College senior Raymond Randolph hesitated to speak up about politics on campus. But Kirk’s assassination during a Turning Point USA event at a Utah university in September 2025 changed that.

“God was calling me up to the plate,” said Randolph.

The day after Kirk’s death, Randolph reached out to Turning Point, which Kirk had founded, to start a chapter at his college in Redding. As the chapter’s president, he said he’s not alone in feeling mobilized after Kirk’s assassination.

“It drove a lot of people like me to get up and do something,” he said.

While conservative students say they’ve felt hesitant to speak aloud in the past, they now say emerging Turning Point chapters have helped them break out of their shells in California, with one student even describing them as a “safe space.”

As of March this year, Turning Point USA told CalMatters it has 1,462 active college chapters nationally. Over 70% of those were founded after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Turning Point’s presence has nearly tripled on California campuses as of March, with 78 of the state’s 119 active college chapters founded after Kirk’s death.

But conservative views continue to be overshadowed by more liberal voices on California campuses as tensions persist both in and outside classrooms, students and professors say.

“Most of [the liberal students] think we’re racist, most of them think we’re fascists … especially in California,” Randolph said.

Kameron Tessier, president of the statewide California College Democrats organization, said Turning Point’s rhetoric is “disgusting and very bigoted” and must be investigated on campuses.

“I’m a firm believer in the First Amendment, but also the First Amendment has its consequences,” said Tessier, a senior at UC Santa Cruz. “If they are pushing actively dangerous rhetoric on campuses, then I think it’s worth it for administrations to look into that.”

Turning Point founder Kirk was a highly controversial political figure. His organization is notorious for its Professor Watchlist, an online database identifying “radical” professors. The watchlist has been called inaccurate, and has led to threats and harassment against faculty members across the country. It was also the reason why Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego denied a third attempt by students to establish a school-affiliated Turning Point USA chapter last November.

Some of Kirk’s most controversial comments include calling the Civil Rights Act “a huge mistake,” spreading COVID-19 misinformation and saying some gun deaths each year were worth it to protect the Second Amendment.

In California, Generation Z, or those under the age of 29, is 1.5 times as likely to identify as liberal compared to their grandparents’ generation, according to a 2022 statewide survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California.

This lack of conservatism among young people spills onto campuses. Only three California institutions are featured on a list published last fall by college-ranking website Niche of the 100 most conservative colleges in the country. The list is based on student reviews of the political leanings of their campus communities. All three California institutions are private universities: Biola, California Baptist and National.

Creating red spaces in blue places

Students founded a Turning Point chapter at Claremont McKenna last spring. After Kirk’s death in the fall, college security supervised each of the chapter’s events. Several students heckled a vigil they held after Kirk’s assassination in September. And at a February campus Turning Point tabling event, dozens of partially nude bikers rode by in protest of the national organization’s viewpoints.

Bike protest organizer Luca Davis called Turning Point’s values “un-American,” and said the national organization’s harmful rhetoric should not be tolerated on campuses. A junior at Pitzer College, which is part of the Claremont consortium, Davis said he hoped that having dozens of students laughing and blasting music as they biked by the tabling event would act as a visible “foil” to Turning Point’s values.

“We’re living our beliefs and values while they’re working to tear them down,” he said. “It’s an active expression of everything they’re trying to destroy.”

Despite the pushback, a Turning Point student leader said that membership has grown substantially since Kirk’s death, and most members are underclassmen.

A die-hard Floridian, 19-year-old Gabriel Khuly said he became disillusioned by Democratic politics after he moved to California to attend Claremont McKenna for college.

“You really only get to see how stupid and bad Democrat policies are once you get to [really] see them,” he said, citing the high concentration of homelessness on Skid Row and high food prices.

The self-described “gadfly” and well-known conservative on campus said he noticed his right-leaning peers often don’t feel fully comfortable sharing their views, both in and out of the classroom.

“There is still a sort of desire… to at least partially conceal those views,” he said.

Khuly has received a lot of flack for voicing his conservative political opinions on campus, particularly on the anonymous, campus-based social app Fizz. In late September last year, Khuly wore his MAGA cap and, alongside his friends, debated students on abortion and climate change at a table outside the campus dining hall. Later, a post on the campus app called him “the most insufferable, weird, and unf*ckable guy on the planet,” receiving over 1,500 upvotes.

Khuly said “he could not care less” about the retaliation.

“These sorts of people, they don’t exist in the real world,” he said. “They exist online, they exist on college campuses, they exist at bougie millennial coffee shops… they’ll block up the streets for traffic for some protest or whatever, but outside of that, they don’t exist.”

Up north in Shasta County, voters aged 18 to 20 are more likely to register Republican than those aged 21 to 29. But Shasta College itself, according to Randolph, is still a liberal hotspot, where speaking against liberal viewpoints wasn’t really allowed — until his Turning Point chapter came along.

“People have said that they’ve gotten a lot of relief now that they know we’re on campus.”

In some instances, tensions have boiled over, like at Turning Point’s final tour stop at UC Berkeley in November. Fights broke out, with one man hospitalized after he was struck in the head. Police in riot gear arrested several people. In March, a heated exchange occurred at Cerritos College between Democrat congressional candidate Shonique Williams and Republican students and activists. 

Political conflict in the classroom

Scott Waller is the chair of the Political Science Department at Biola University in La Mirada, which Niche calls the most conservative college in California — and the 24th most conservative in the nation.

During both of Trump’s administrations, Waller said he has noticed an increased “anxiousness” in the classroom.

“If a student expresses his or her displeasure with the current Trump administration, they will know that there are students similarly animated in a very virulent way to defend the Trump administration,” he said. “That creates some tension in class.”

Yet, some educators relish in-classroom conflict. Stephanie Muravchik and other scholars across the Claremont Colleges analyzed millions of college syllabuses last year to see how professors teach about some of the most contentious subjects in academia, including the ethics of abortion and the Israel-Hamas war. They argued that only a small fraction of professors teach the full range of controversy in the classroom.  

Professors must build “more contention” into the classroom in order to encourage healthy intellectual debate, the Claremont professors wrote in an October online magazine op-ed.

So, in sections of her “Introduction to American Politics” class, Muravchik runs simulations with students taking on characters across the political aisle on topics such as social media regulation and constitutional ratification.

She builds the simulations to include prominent conservative characters such as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and FBI Director Kash Patel. While all of her students have fun taking on these roles, she noted that her “quietly conservative students” can choose them and feel like they have “equal play in the political conversation.”

“They have fun fighting,” she said. “They get to argue in a civil way.”

Freshman Ava Khansari was in Muravchik’s American Politics class last fall. She said she enjoyed the simulations, and found them eye-opening. In one simulation, as she took on the role of TikTok CEO Shou Chew in a debate on deregulating social media, Khansari said she realized her true viewpoints “went the opposite direction” to her character’s views. 

“The games were a lot of fun,” Khansari said. “I really did change my viewpoints on certain topics.”

In a separate course on “American Jews and Liberal Democracy,” Muravchik allows a few tense class sessions where, in class discussions, students debate more right-wing perspectives as well as other views.

“A number of students had some sort of revolution in their political thinking in all kinds of directions,” Muravchik said. After some particularly exciting debate, one student even “came out as conservative.”

Claremont McKenna student Khuly was part of a course titled “Liberalism and Conservatism” at the college last fall, which explored political opinions over multiple centuries, and was, for the first time, co-taught by a left- and a right-wing professor.

“I think that it allows the space for genuine, real study of politics,” he said. “You don’t get many spaces for that.”

Despite these benefits, there is one thing Khuly would change. 

“I can’t believe I’m saying this, [but] I wish we read more [work by] liberals.”

Kahani Malhotra is a contributor with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

In summary

A law advancing in the California Assembly makes it illegal to set prices with algorithms. Three other states have passed such bans in the last month.

Last year, California lawmakers backed off on a plan to do something about surveillance pricing, the practice of using someone’s personal information to determine what they pay.

This year — with voters across the country facing rising inflation and an affordability crisis — lawmakers in California and in other states are cracking down. 

A proposed surveillance pricing ban cleared a key vote in the California Legislature Thursday. It would forbid retailers from altering prices based on information about shoppers like their age, gender, or location.

Algorithms used for surveillance pricing can predict things like whether a shopper is desperate to buy or how much money they have. The data they use draws on personal information gathered through apps, web browsing history, and data brokers.

 Attorney General Rob Bonta opened an investigation into surveillance pricing by businesses in January but has not released results or commented on it.  

“This practice hits hardest for low-income individuals.”

Assemblymember Chris Ward, Democrat, San Diego

The legislation that moved forward, Assembly Bill 2564, is one of more than a dozen AI-related bills, and hundreds of bills in total, that faced the possibility of elimination as the Legislature’s appropriations committees decided whether to hold them, a practice that effectively killed 25% of all bills up for consideration this year. The bill still needs to clear the full Assembly and Senate in order to make it to the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom this fall.

“The last thing anyone needs is to be charged higher prices based on their personal data,” said the bill’s author, San Diego Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, in a March briefing. “This practice hits hardest for low-income individuals and shoppers and those with limited shopping options.”

Roughly half of U.S. states this year are considering bills to regulate the ways companies offer multiple prices for a single good. In the past month alone, three states passed bills to ban surveillance pricing. In Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore signed a law that bans using the practice to price groceries, and in recent days lawmakers in Colorado and Connecticut passed their own surveillance pricing bans.

California lawmakers last year backed off on a similar bill to ban surveillance pricing. It did not reach Newsom’s desk. 

This year, pressure to act on surveillance pricing is building as voters across the country cite affordability as a top concern ahead of midterm elections this fall. 

This week, inflation rose to 3.8%, outpacing wage gains, and prices continued to rise for gas, groceries, and other goods. A Gallup poll released two weeks ago found that 55% of Americans say their financial situation is getting worse, a record high since the polling company began asking Americans about that in 2001.

The recent spate of state surveillance pricing bans is significant after no states passed any such bans last year, said Grace Gedye, a policy analyst for Consumer Reports who tracks efforts to regulate surveillance pricing by state governments. Consumer Reports is a cosponsor of AB 2564 and has partnered with The Markup, a part of CalMatters, on reporting projects.

It’s unclear just how widespread surveillance pricing is today but numerous examples of the practice have come to light.

A 2025 Federal Trade Commission study found that surveillance pricing can lead to targeted exploitation of consumers who are willing to pay higher costs like first-time parents or first-time car buyers and that the practice can lead to inferences about what price a person is willing to pay based on their location or IP address.

A 2024 White House study estimated that price-fixing algorithms cost apartment renters $3.8 billion in 2023, amounting to higher rents nationwide, including $99 more a month in San Diego, $62 more a month in San Francisco, and $34 a month more in Los Angeles.

A December 2025 Instacart investigation by Consumer Reports and partners found that the company charged hundreds of people, including at least 53 who lived in California, different prices even if they were shopping for groceries in the same store at the same time. Two weeks later, Instacart announced plans to stop the experimental practice and attorney generals in California and New York launched investigations.

Other prominent examples:

• Target paid $5 million to settle a suit from San Diego County’s district attorney over its alleged use of location for surveillance pricing. 
• A 2025 investigation by SFGATE found that Bay Area residents get charged more for hotel rooms by websites like booking.com than people in less affluent areas, including $500 more a night for a hotel room in Manhattan.

Gedye argues that a surveillance pricing ban is necessary because it’s unreasonable to place the onus on consumers to protect themselves when they’re busy trying to live their lives and buy groceries, and because laws that require disclosure laws are ineffective. 

The California Chamber of Commerces and business groups representing retailers, tech companies, and others oppose AB 2564. In a letter, some of them argue that the bill would keep stores from offering discounts, is complicated to comply with, and would drive up costs. The bill allows discounts for customers who do things like sign up for mailing lists or participate in loyalty programs.

Samuel Levine, who previously served as director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at a recent UC Berkeley School of Law symposium that people must reject the idea that surveillance pricing is inevitable.

“Worried about algorithmic wages? Set a minimum wage. Worried about algorithmic pricing? Ban it. Worried about algorithmic scheduling? Ban it,” he said.

Christopher D’Angelo, who previously worked at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and now works for the New York Attorney General, said his office supports a bill in the state legislature that would ban surveillance pricing and electronic shelf labels in grocery stores. The state of New York passed a law last year that requires companies disclose to consumers when they use surveillance pricing, but “by virtue of the fact that we’re supporting a ban on surveillance pricing we can see it’s not a solved problem.”

Eleanor Blume, special assistant attorney general in the California Department of Justice, said the affordability crisis is driving an urgency to act. She said it may be that a new law that bans algorithmic pricing is needed, but the state can influence how businesses use the technology by clarifying when her office will take action based on existing antitrust, privacy, or unfair competition laws. Blume said the AG’s office looked into New York surveillance pricing law before launching its January investigation and continues to discuss privacy law related issues with state officials in Colorado.

“I think we’re at a moment now where states are able to do phenomenal work that can have effective outcomes for people,” she said.

In summary

The Trump administration immigration crackdown swelled the population inside California’s immigrant detention centers. State investigators in a report described strained medical resources inside the sites.

Six people died in California immigration detention centers over the past year as the crowded sites struggled to provide basic medical care, according to a new state investigation detailing conditions inside the facilities.

The 175-page report released Friday offers the most detailed look to date inside the detention centers that are often in remote areas of the state and hard to access for attorneys, families, and advocates. 

It documents the highest death toll since the state began conducting inspections of the centers seven years ago. In 2024, there were zero deaths in California detention centers, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s list of Immigration and Customs Enforcement press releases tracking them, and the Attorney General’s office. 

The deaths occurred as the Trump administration carried out a mass deportation campaign — starting in Los Angeles — that drove up the population inside detention centers by more than 150%. 

Eighteen people have died in facilities this year across the country, around one person a week. Since the start of the Trump administration, 48 people have died in detention. A study published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the current rate is nearly seven times higher than fiscal year 2023 levels at 88.9 per 100,000 people.

In California, four of the deaths occurred at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County. Two other people died at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility near the U.S.-Mexico border in Calexico. In all four of the Adelanto cases, families of the deceased allege the facility failed to provide adequate medical care, the report states. 

The Department of Homeland Security called the allegations in the lawsuit about the conditions inside Adelanto false. 

“ICE is regularly audited and inspected by external agencies to ensure that ICE facilities comply with performance-based national detention standards,” a then-spokesperson for DHS said when the lawsuit was filed.  

CalMatters reached out to ICE and the three private prison companies that operate facilities in California. ICE, GEO Group, MTC and Core Civic did not immediately respond to a request for responses to the AG’s report. 

The inspections by the California Department of Justice are required under a 2017 law enacted in response to concerns about conditions. Investigators and medical experts did two-day site visits at each facility and interviewed 194 people from more than 120 countries. 

State inspectors interviewed 194 detainees for the new report, making it one of the largest reviews of its kind, between July and November 2025. 

Last year, inspectors focused on lapses in mental health care across the six facilities operating in California in the early months of the second Trump administration. This year, state investigators drilled in on how the dramatic surge in detainee populations strained conditions and access to medical care at all of the facilities now operating across California. 

Some detainees described only having beans and bread to eat, which gave them diarrhea, and extremely cold temperatures that caused them to try to turn their socks into extra arm sleeves. At one facility, investigators documented not enough toilets to serve the population, with detainees reporting dirty bathrooms. 

State investigators wrote that the detention centers had not increased medical staffing to match the dramatic rise in the number of detainees. At a new detention center that opened in a former state prison in California City last year, investigators described “crisis-level” medical staffing that contributed to delays in care. At the time, the center had only one physician for nearly 1,000 detainees. 

Several detainees cried as they relayed the conditions of their confinement in California City to state investigators. Most of the people detained have not been convicted of any crime. 

“This is cruel, inhumane, and unacceptable,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, adding that his office “worked tirelessly to shine a light” on the conditions.  

All of the detention centers are managed by private companies under contracts with the federal government. State investigators wrote that the companies and the federal agency are failing to meet their own standards of care. 

“The federal government and facility operators have a significant choice before them: to reform their practices and bring these facilities into compliance or to continue their noncompliant policy of prioritizing detention over safety, which likely will lead to dire human and legal consequences,” the state report said.

Diminished civil rights protections

State investigators also described in their report how the Trump administration is rolling back federal protections for detainees. 

Since January 2025, the federal government has defunded legal programs to inform people of their rights, shut down Department of Homeland Security civil rights oversight offices, and stopped protections for transgender detainees, the report states. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement stopped including congressionally mandated data on transgender people in its biweekly statistical reports in February 2025, the report says. The agency also removed from its website a policy memo that committed the agency to creating a safe environment for transgender people. 

Loba, a transgender woman from El Salvador who was detained at California City for six months in 2025, told CalMatters she experienced traumatizing sexual harassment and intimidation from guards while being housed in the male dorms. She asked CalMatters to only identify her by her first name because she fears retaliation for speaking about the conditions and for her safety in her home country. 

The situation was so stressful, she said, that she finally decided to sign her voluntary departure paperwork to go back home to El Salvador. 

“That is absolutely the reason,” she said. “I have been fighting my immigration case for two years, and then after not being around my community and the lack of support for the LGBTQ+ community inside detention centers, and then being a victim of harassment, it was really intimidating. It was very traumatizing.” 

The report also looked into other complaints raised by detainees and their families. 

During one incident at Adelanto, a person reported to state inspectors that guards deployed pepper spray in a confined room holding about 50 people. 

At the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, investigators flagged concerns about strip-searching. The report states Otay Mesa is the only facility in California that has a policy of strip-searching detainees after every visit they have with someone who is not a lawyer. 

Women described the searches as “humiliating” and “denigrating” after being searched in front of male officers, sometimes even while menstruating. Both males and females described feeling “violated” by the practice. One person told inspectors they had stopped visiting their family altogether to avoid the searches. 

Two new detention centers

At the time of the investigators’ visits, 6,028 people were held in immigration detention in California. That was up 162% from the 2,300 held during inspections in 2023.  California has the third highest ICE detainee population, behind Texas and Louisana. 

California is also home to two of the seven largest facilities nationwide. Detainees in California were mostly from Mexico, India, Guatemala, El Salvador, China, Russia, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, and Honduras. 

California Democrats during both of Trump’s terms have adopted policies that were meant to block the detention centers from operating. In 2019, California tried to ban private for-profit detention centers from operating in the state, but GEO Group, one of the major private prison operators, successfully sued to stop it. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the ban violates the Constiution’s Supremacy Clause by preventing the federal government from conducting immigration enforcement. 

ICE opened two detention centers in California over the past year, first the one in California City and then one in McFarland called Central Valley Annex. It began receiving detainees in April 2026 while the report was being finalized, but the state says it will begin monitoring that detention center as well. Both of the sites were previously used to hold state prison inmates under contracts with California’s corrections system.

This year California Democrats are carrying a range of bills to push back against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. One by Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat,  would tax detention facilities, with the funds going towards immigrant rights groups, effectively making it unprofitable to keep detention centers in the state. 

State Sen. María Elena Durazo, a Democrat from Los Angeles, also introduced a bill to extend the state Department of Justice’s authority to conduct inspections at the detention centers. 

Democratic frontrunner Xavier Becerra took fire from all sides at the last debate among governor hopefuls before the June primary. He was an easy target considering that his former political consultant was in court earlier Thursday pleading guilty to federal fraud charges.

But even with San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan calling Becerra the “embodiment of the status quo,” and former Fox News host Steve Hilton arguing that Becerra should be preparing for his criminal defense instead of running for office, the former California attorney general tried to brush off the jabs. 

• Becerra: “This is what happens when you take the lead in the polls and you’re ahead of everyone else. They all come at you.”

Former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter also drew laughs from the audience for pushing Becerra to disclose his state revenue plan, holding up a handwritten question on a piece of paper that harkened back to her whiteboard-wielding days in the House.

The race is still up in the air. Only 3% of ballots have been returned, and 12% of likely voters remain undecided, according to the latest poll from Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics. Becerra has eked out a lead with 19% of respondents favoring him, followed by Hilton, a Republican, and billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, who both polled at 17%. 

Two of them, regardless of party, will advance to November’s general election. And concerns among Democratic voters that two Republicans will land on the ballot has some delaying their decision until a clearer leader emerges.

Aside from attacking Becerra, the candidates tried to distinguish themselves with answers on how they’d handle housing, affordability and education. 

Steyer pledged familiar promises, including single-payer healthcare and building 1 million homes. Porter laid out her four-point plan to address affordability, which involved eliminating state income taxes for people earning less than $100,000 — an idea Porter admitted she cribbed from Hilton.

Both Mahan and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa cited their experience running big cities, touting their record of bringing down homelessness and crime rates in their cities.

Meanwhile, the two GOP candidates united in faulting the state’s long dominant Democratic Party for today’s affordability and housing crises. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco advocated for more deregulation and reining in “excessive fraud.” And Hilton said he was not “an idealogue,” but was running to restore balance from the state’s “one-party rule.” 

If you’re still undecided, spend some time with our voter guide.

Read more about the debate from CalMatters’ Jeanne Kuang.

---

The Ideas Festival agenda is set and it’s packed. Hear from The Lincoln Project founders, Janet Napolitano, Julian Castro, Dan Walters and more. Join us in Sacramento on May 21 for a day of big ideas, smart conversations and connection. Get your tickets today.

We’re bringing our voter guide to life through VotingMatters events across California this month, in collaboration with on-the-ground partners: Local news organizations, colleges, libraries, churches and nonprofit organizations. Our next events are tonight in Riverside and Monday evening in Fremont. Plus, we have a DIY kit to host your own event.

Other Stories You Should Know

---

More money, but no relief

Yes, the California state budget is flush with billions of dollars more coming in than the Newsom administration projected at the start of the year.

But Gov. Gavin Newsom isn’t letting up on some healthcare cutbacks to unauthorized immigrants that Democratic lawmakers badly want restored. 

That’s the bottom line from Newsom’s final budget proposal, a $350 billion spending plan that braces for an uncertain economy and continuing friction with the Trump administration.

• Newsom: “I’m not trying to get out of Dodge. This is a balanced budget structurally for the next 18 months after I’m gone.”

CalMatters’ Yue Stella Yu reports that Newsom pointed fingers at President Donald Trump repeatedly during his budget press conference Thursday, labeling the president and Treasury Secretary “Dumb and Dumber” for pursuing policies like tariffs that burden consumers and destabilize small business owners. 

Newsom’s spending plan sets up a conflict with Democrats in the Legislature who want to boost healthcare services for unauthorized immigrants and spend more to build affordable housing and fight homelessness. 

• State Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat and head of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, in a statement: “ Medi-Cal should not be created into a two-tier system. The working people and those who are underserved in California deserve seamless access to healthcare in the world’s 4th largest economy.”

Quick reminder: The Legislature must pass a budget by June 15 and lawmakers and Newsom have until July 1 to agree on a final spending plan for 2026-27.

Read more.

School cell phone ban, with exceptions

California lawmakers still want to curb student cell phone usage in schools, but they’re willing to make some exceptions for teenagers. 

That compromise helped keep alive legislation that was originally meant to ban cell phones in K-12 schools, writes CalMatters’ Carolyn Jones.

The proposal builds on an existing state law requiring schools to limit students’ cell phone use during the school day. Originally, the new bill would have required all schools to draft policies banning students from using cell phones on campus or during a school trip.

But school leaders argued that having two laws on the issue would be confusing for school staff and may nullify policies they had already been working on. In response to their criticisms, lawmakers exempted high schools from the new bill.

Research has shown that cell phone use distracts students and affects their ability to concentrate in class. But a recent study cast doubt on whether cell phone bans have a significant effect on test scores and other measures of student success.

Read more.

And lastly: Surviving the ‘suspense file’

Speaking of bills, lawmakers on Thursday went through more than 900 other measures that had new spending attached. The fast-paced, relatively opaque process, essentially spiked 259 bills for the session. Read more from CalMatters’ Maya C. Miller and Nadia Lathan. 

---

California Voices

CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: Newsom’s revised budget shows he has learned a hard lesson about managing volatility, but with his ability to bend the Legislature to his will fading, the big question is whether lawmakers will go along with his spending plan.

California’s economic messaging stays relentlessly triumphant, yet more than half of the tech jobs that were eliminated nationwide in 2025 were in California, writes Misty McAfee, an L.A. marketing strategist and writer. 

Other things worth your time:

Some stories may require a subscription to read.

---

Why the migrant child crisis is roiling the CA governor race // The New York Times

The race for lieutenant governor has resurfaced a years-old sexual harassment scandal // San Francisco Chronicle

CA lawmakers raise alarms after private prison official named acting ICE // KQED 

200K Californians create as much power as a nuclear plant to help the grid. Now that’s up in the air // Los Angeles Times

CA detention centers are charging up to 300% more for basic needs items. This bill will stop that // Caló News

Shasta’s ballot and Voter Information Guide contain numerous typos, at least one of which could decrease voter access // Shasta Scout

Newsom to CA agencies: Get ready for a four-day return to office // The Sacramento Bee

Google’s Downtown West is paused. Its $1B bet on San Jose is not // The Mercury News

LA moves to delay $30-an-hour minimum wage for hotel, airport workers tied to 2028 Olympics // Los Angeles Times

Since the turn of the century, California’s state budget has been plagued by a boom-and-bust syndrome rooted in its lopsided revenue system and a lack of political discipline.

The budget became increasingly dependent on taxes paid by the state’s most affluent residents, whose incomes increasingly came from investments rather than salaries.

Thus state revenues would often spike upwards, only to level off or decline. But governors and legislators would make new spending commitments during the spikes that would become liabilities during the downturns.

It was dubbed “volatility” and it reached an apex four years ago when Gov. Gavin Newsom declared that the state had a $97.5 billion surplus, having decided that a post-pandemic revenue spike would be permanent.

His administration later acknowledged a $165 billion error in a four-year revenue projection. But in the meantime he and the Legislature had raised spending, creating deficits that totaled $125 billion over four years, according to the Legislative Analyst Office. The deficits were papered over with a series of short-term fixes, including loans and accounting gimmicks.

On Thursday, Newsom unveiled a revised version of his final budget and, without saying so, indicated he had learned a hard lesson about managing volatility.

Although the state is seeing a new tax spike and his budget sees a $16.5 billion increase in revenues over three years, Newsom’s $349.4 billion 2026-27 budget takes a cautious approach. He says it would not only erase the structural deficit of the past four years, but it would guarantee that his successor would have a balanced first year budget for 2027-28.

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

The $246.6 billion general fund portion of the budget relies not only on new revenues, including a $3.6 billion boost from several relatively minor tax increases, to be balanced, but it is indirectly helped by big reductions in federal aid for healthcare.

Newsom devoted the first minutes of his budget presentation to bragging about California’s $4-trillion-plus economy, saying “we simply have no peers.” He also trolled those with “California derangement syndrome” and denounced President Donald Trump as corrupt and incompetent.

However Trump’s tightened eligibility for federally subsidized healthcare that could affect hundreds of thousands of Californians also has the effect of reducing the state’s healthcare spending, thus helping Newsom draft a balanced budget.

He could have backfilled the lost federal funds, but that probably would have required him to propose a major tax increase of some kind, which, as a likely 2028 presidential candidate, he is unwilling to do.

However his attitude on healthcare and taxes places Newsom at odds with advocates for poor Californians who would be affected and their allies in the Legislature, many of whom want a tax increase.

Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Association of Counties, immediately declared that “the governor is proposing to do to counties what he accuses the president of doing to California.”

Chris Hoene, of the left-leaning California Budget & Policy Center, which has been beating the drums for tax increases, said, “The governor promoted California’s economic dominance while, in the same breath, making it more difficult for Californians with low incomes to access healthcare by reinstating harmful Medi-Cal asset limits, expanding work requirements and increasing Medi-Cal premiums for certain immigrants.”

With just a few months remaining in his governorship, Newsom’s ability to bend the Legislature to his will is fading, so the question his new budget poses is whether legislators will go along. Or will they insist that the new holes in the state’s safety net be plugged and support raising taxes to pay for it?

In summary

Studies have shown that cell phone use is a serious distraction for students that affects their mental health, social-emotional development and ability to concentrate in class.

Until last month, California was poised to join nearly a dozen other states that ban cell phones in K-12 schools. But under pressure from school boards and administrators, lawmakers scaled back a bill that would have required such a blanket ban.

“I was disappointed, but I take the long view on this,” said Torrance Democratic Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, an author of the bill. “There’s still a growing global concern that too much cell phone use has detrimental effects on students.”

Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story.

Al Muratsuchi

Democrat, State Assembly, District 66 (Torrance)

The bill, AB 1644, builds on an existing law in California that requires schools to limit, if not outright ban, students’ cell phone use during the school day. A slew of studies have shown that cell phone use is a serious distraction for students that affects their mental health, social-emotional development and ability to concentrate in class.

Confusing and unnecessary legislation?

Muratsuchi’s bill would have required all schools to draw up policies banning students from using cell phones while they’re on campus or on a school-related trip. School board and school administrator groups opposed the bill because they said a “one-size-fits-all” policy undermines districts’ ability to enact their own rules suited to their own specific students’ needs. 

They also argued that the bill conflicts with the existing law that requires schools to come up with policies limiting cell phones on campus. Those policies are supposed to go into effect in July. Having two laws on the issue would be confusing for school staff and may invalidate the policies they’d already been working on, they said.

“AB 1644 creates a ‘do-over’ just one year (after the previous law passed), creating unnecessary frustration and confusion,” the Association of California School Administrators wrote to the Assembly Education Committee. 

In response to those complaints, lawmakers removed high schools from the ban.

Outcomes in Contra Costa and Los Angeles

Many school districts in California, including Los Angeles Unified, have already banned cell phones. A recent study cast doubt on whether cell phone bans have any impact on test scores, attendance or other measures of student success, but individual districts say the policies have made a difference.

Mount Diablo Unified, in the San Francisco Bay Area’s Contra Costa County, has seen improvements since banning cell phones. In a presentation to the school board, teachers said students are more focused in the classroom, have livelier discussions and conversations, fight less and don’t get “riled up” about social media posts.

At Northgate High School in Walnut Creek, reports of harassment fell 33% and bullying dropped 50% since the district banned cell phones.

The only complaints, according to the presentation, were that students didn’t have access to their phone cameras to take pictures of assignments and that locking up students’ phones cut into classroom time. The authors of the report also said some students found ways around the ban.

‘All these zombies’

Rishaan Marwaha, a high school freshman from Newport Beach, was so fed up with cell phones he testified at the Assembly Education Committee hearing last month to urge lawmakers to pass AB 1644.

“Tech companies are making all this money off students’ phone addiction,” he said. “It’s not a fair fight because students are a vulnerable population. … School should be a place for learning.”

Marwaha said he was a phone addict himself. He would spend hours scrolling through Instagram reels, “when I could have been doing things I actually like, like playing basketball or going to the gym.”

He eventually removed Instagram from his phone, but saw his classmates suffering from the same addiction. 

“I’d walk through school and it felt like all these zombies,” he said. “Some people were so addicted, they’d make up excuses to go to the bathroom just so they could look at their phones.”

He was disappointed the bill got scaled back, but he’s hopeful the state will enact a high school cell phone ban at some point. After all, he said, “in the past people managed without cell phones  OK. I think we’ll be fine.”

This is Muratsuchi’s third bill related to schools and cell phones, each inching closer to a total ban. The previous two cell-phone-related bills were enacted into law, and he believes this one will pass, as well, now that it’s been amended.

“I hope this is part of an ongoing movement to recognize that technology can provide benefits as well as harms,” said Muratsuchi, a candidate for California schools superintendent. “We need to have responsible regulations to make sure we’re helping students navigate technology successfully.”

Guest Commentary written by

Misty McAfee

Misty McAfee is a Los Angeles marketing strategist and writer. 

In the past seven months, I’ve applied for 736 jobs. And I don’t know how I’m making rent in June. 

I’m 55; I’ve worked since I was 14. I raised a son who graduated from a UC school. I paid taxes for four decades. I spent more than 20 years building a career in marketing, communications, events and brand strategy in California. 

I’ve been using artificial intelligence tools since before most people knew what to call them. I integrated AI into workflows, marketing strategy, research and communications work because I believed staying current was the price of staying employed. 

This is the part that’s hard to explain to people who haven’t lived it. I’ve revised my resume countless times. I’ve optimized LinkedIn. I’ve researched applicant tracking systems. I’ve networked and tailored every application. 

The advice is endless and always about what I should do differently: Have you updated your LinkedIn? Have you reached out to your network? Have you tried applying to smaller companies?

Nobody stops and says: “Wait. We’re the fourth largest economy in the world and this is happening to someone who worked for 40 years and paid taxes and did everything they thought was correct.” The conversation never gets that far. 

The dominant public narrative around unemployment still assumes a personal failure of adaptation. If someone can’t find work, the assumption is that they failed to evolve, failed to learn, failed to stay current. That story is convenient because it locates the problem in the individual and keeps it there. 

I’m the worker the story said would be fine. I’m far from fine. 

I started by applying for six-figure director level roles. When those didn’t land, I moved to manager positions. Then coordinator positions. Then hospitality work. Then catering jobs at hotels. The result across seven months and 736 applications was one Zoom interview. 

Applications vanish into automated systems. Any sign of a human being on the other end has disappeared. Jobs are reposted after you’ve already applied. After months of applying, many postings begin to feel less like opportunities and more like data collection systems. 

Meanwhile, California’s economic messaging stays relentlessly triumphant. Gov. Gavin Newsom boasts that California’s gross domestic product has grown to $4.25 trillion. Nvidia became the first company to surpass a $4 trillion market valuation, generating more than $2 million in profits per employee. And investment in AI reached more than $200 billion in 2025, up sharply from the year prior. 

At the same time, more than 118,000 tech jobs were eliminated nationwide in 2025. California accounted for more than half of those losses. The companies cutting those positions cited AI as a primary cause.

What’s less clear is what happens to the workers being replaced along the way. I still believe I’ll work again. I still apply every day. 

Before writing publicly about any of this, I sent an email to Newsom, gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter, Rep. Ted Lieu, Rep. Ro Khanna, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. I told them exactly what I’m telling you. I asked them one question: What’s the plan?

Only Bass’s team responded. They sent an automated email with a list of employment resources. I clicked the link. The page said, “Error, not found.”

In summary

California leaders approved the hospital funding within days even as they questioned the narrow criteria, the amount and the number of hospitals that would qualify. The speed stunned some hospitals that are now scrambling to apply by the deadline.

A $25 million grant to cash-strapped hospitals became law less than a week after it was introduced — so fast that it caught some hospitals, their advocates, and even some lawmakers, off guard.

It also left a litany of unanswered questions: who came up with the narrow criteria, how many hospitals would qualify and whether the funding will be enough to prevent hospital closures in the near term. 

Assembly Bill 108, signed into law last week, will provide grants to public and nonprofit hospitals that meet several criteria, including having less than 10 days of cash on hand and having more than half of their patients on government-funded insurance programs or uninsured. The goal is to tide eligible hospitals over until July 1, when the new fiscal year begins, said Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Senate Budget Committee and championed the funding bill. 

The measure, put in print on May 4, flew through both legislative chambers in just three days before Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it within hours. By Monday, the program was up and running and hospitals had just a week to apply. The Department of Health Care Access and Information will announce recipients May 26.

“It is a rare occurrence for bills to go from the starting block to the finish line in just a few days,” said veteran lobbyist and Capitol watcher Chris Micheli, who said the speed reflects the urgent need of hospitals and a consensus among leaders.

Hospital leaders interested in applying said they were pleased the Legislature acted so quickly, though some are scrambling to meet the application deadline after learning about it just a week ago. 

Laird told CalMatters that he knows of two to three hospitals that will likely qualify but declined to name them, arguing that doing so could scare off vendors and hospital staff. 

When pressed, he acknowledged that potential recipients include Watsonville Community Hospital in his own district. 

“This bill comes at a completely inopportune time in the budget process, and the time was not dictated by us,” Laird said during a budget hearing last Tuesday. “It was dictated by a few hospitals going under.”

The criteria are so narrow and the bill moved in such an “expedited fashion” that it seems tailored to the needs of a specific hospital, said Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chair David Tangipa, a Fresno Republican, who voted for the bill nonetheless.

“It says 10 days. Why not put it at 30 days?” he said. “They needed to make sure that even though it appears to be a general fund that all of these other hospitals could apply for, that probably only one hospital met all of those qualifications.”

Neither Laird nor the finance department staff was able to explain how they came up with the criteria, including why they picked 10 days — instead of any other number — of cash on hand to indicate a dire enough financial situation. Hospital administrators said the typical goal is at least 90 days of cash on hand. 

The ambiguity frustrated some state lawmakers, who repeatedly pressed for clarity during the budget hearing. Sen. Chris Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat, called the lack of answers “profoundly disturbing.”

“It’s been one long ‘I said what I said’ hearing,” he said. Still, he voted for it.

Others lamented that the criteria, especially the 10-day threshold, should have been expanded to allow more hospitals to compete for the funding. 

“Right now, it’s far too narrow, and really by this time the hospital has gone over the cliff,” Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, a Los Angeles Democrat, told CalMatters in an interview. She, too, voted for it. “We want to figure out who’s standing on the cliff, who’s a few feet from the cliffs, who’s a mile from the cliff.”

The $25 million grant comes as hospitals across California, particularly in rural areas, say they are at risk of dropping services or shutting their doors due to rising labor costs and federal Medi-Cal funding cuts. 

The funding woes sparked calls for renewed funding for the state’s Distressed Hospital Loan Program, which in 2023 gave 16 financially distressed hospitals nearly $300 million. Of those, 15 have asked for more time to repay the debt, and nine of them have also applied for loan forgiveness, according to the California Health Facilities Financing Authority. 

The California Hospital Association, which represents nearly 400 hospitals, is sponsoring a bill to put another $300 million into the loan program. Senate Democrats proposed $200 million in funding in mid-April but have not specified if the dollars would be a loan or a grant.

Newsom proposed up to $50 million toward hospitals in “immediate and significant financial distress” in 2026-27 in his budget revision Thursday.

A few hospitals plan to apply

Watsonville Community Hospital, which has publicly shared its financial struggles, reported having 8 days of cash on hand in the last quarter of 2025, according to the most recent financial records collected by the state. The hospital received an $8.3 million state loan in 2023 as part of the distressed hospital program lawmakers passed that year. When asked about the hospital, Laird said the hospital is “quite likely” to be eligible.

“This is critically important for the hospital as we navigate fiscal challenges brought on by funding delays and cutbacks at the federal level,” hospital spokesperson Jennifer Murray said in an email.

Hospitals in the Central Valley and rural Southern California also could benefit from the grant, according to Laird. 

Madera Community Hospital told CalMatters it intends to apply for a slice of the grant money. The hospital reopened its doors in March 2025 after closing at the start of 2023. American Advanced Management, the company that took over the hospital, received $57 million from the state to reopen it. State data show the hospital ended 2025 with two days of cash on hand. 

Delays in reimbursements and low patient volume in its outpatient clinics are contributing to Madera Community’s slower-than-expected recovery, said Matthew Beehler, a spokesperson for the hospital. He said Madera Community is still working on contracting with some insurers and is not yet receiving funds from the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee, a state-federal supplemental payment program for hospitals that serve a high number of Medi-Cal and uninsured patients. State data show that in 2022, before the hospital closed, it relied on more than $16 million in supplemental payments.

The $57 million from the state, Beehler said, helped cover the hospital’s first six months of operations. Beyond that, American Advanced Management has covered the shortfalls.

“I think that we are headed towards the path of real sustainability for the hospital,” Beehler said. “It just takes time to have all that sort of reach its state of equilibrium.”

In the Eastern Sierra, Dr. Kevin Flanigan, CEO of the Southern Inyo Healthcare District, said he, too, plans to apply for the state’s emergency grant. He said his hospital needs about $1 million to get through 2026. However, he does not know if his hospital will qualify given the 10 days of cash on hand criteria. He said Southern Inyo’s cash balance fluctuates anywhere between 18 to 20 days of cash to 8 to 10 days — grim in either case. 

If his hospital doesn’t qualify for a grant? “Then God willing, we find money elsewhere. If not, we begin the process of closing certain things,” Flanigan said. Southern Inyo is a small hospital, with only four acute care beds, 30 skilled nursing beds and an outpatient clinic; there isn’t much to cut from, he said. 

“We are clearly one of the most precarious hospitals in the state.”

Unanswered questions

Laird told CalMatters he is confident the $25 million will be enough to save hospitals facing the most imminent threat of closure. 

But it’s unclear how he and the finance department arrived at the dollar amount. Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said the figure represents the administration’s “best assessment of potential funding needs” and is partly based on the Distressed Hospital Loan Program, which gave 16 hospitals an average of $19 million each to keep them afloat for several years.

Laird said the amount was based on the number of hospitals legislators “informally” think would be eligible. Whatever is left untapped by June 30 would revert back to the state, he said, and legislators could add more funding if it runs out.

“It is what we think is necessary now,” Laird said.

The Department of Health Care Access and Information collects and publishes financial data from hospitals quarterly, but that data lags. Which hospitals qualify for the grant will depend largely on their self-reported finances as of April 15, the department said. 

Many state lawmakers want more answers, too. Sen. Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican, grilled finance department staff over the bill details. 

“How long is this lifeline going to last? Is it even going to save the people who are in the 10-day timeframe?” she asked. 

“That is the intent,” said Lupe Manriquez of the Department of Finance.

“I know it’s the intent. Is it going to save them?” Grove pressed.

“That’s the goal,” Manriquez answered.

Cabaldon told the staff he wouldn’t even bother asking about the criteria because “I already know what the answer is going to be.”

“It is incumbent on this committee to be able to have real answers to the questions that are posed about the why and the evidence,” Cabaldon said. “We are not having a conversation. We are asking questions of fulfilling our constitutional role in this process and getting zero answers.”

Palmer called the heat on his staff “undignified sniping and sarcasm,” noting that the bill originated from the same legislative chamber that’s now questioning it.

“They asked for our assistance in the expedited consideration of the bill outside of the regular budget process — and we complied and cooperated,” Palmer said in an email. “If members were either unable or unwilling to do some basic homework on their own bill that they wanted to be put on a fast track, then that’s a question that’s better posed to them — not us.”

How long a lifeline?

But throwing money at hospitals to keep them afloat is not the answer, some lawmakers argued.

“We can’t just keep giving $25 million handouts over 10 days where a hospital is looking to close,” Smallwood-Cuevas said, noting that President Donald Trump’s H.R. 1, which sharply reduces federal spending on Medicaid, could devastate hospitals.

“What is the state doing to identify and support vulnerable safety net hospitals before they reach the point of fiscal crisis? That is an answer I want to hear.”

Some hospital administrators also called for longer-term solutions. Katherine Burnworth, board president of the Imperial Valley Healthcare District, which oversees Imperial County’s two hospitals, told CalMatters that while she appreciates state action, $25 million statewide “is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the problem.”

“That may help a small number of hospitals avoid a near-term emergency, but it does not address the ongoing instability that communities like ours live with year after year,” Burnworth said.

While acknowledging the importance of emergency grants, Republicans on the committee argued that California has shortchanged hospitals’ Medi-Cal reimbursements. The California Hospital Association estimates that hospitals are reimbursed 74 cents for each dollar they spend on Medi-Cal patients. Hospitals that see a high share of Medi-Cal patients do get supplemental payments to help offset some of the gaps in reimbursement.

The GOP lawmakers also said that some state regulations, such as a minimum wage hike for health care workers and the requirement that all hospitals comply with new seismic safety requirements by 2030, will burden hospitals with high costs. 

“We are throwing Band-Aids on everything, when really we need to just get together and fix the issues of what are the unfunded state mandates that are on our hospitals right now,” Tangipa said.

In summary

As CHP, Caltrans and schools adjust spending because of rising fuel costs, the state braces for broader effects of higher energy prices.

As California drivers are paying the highest gas prices in the nation, local and state agencies face increased fuel costs because of the U.S. and Israel’s war in Iran that began at the end of February. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom pointed to higher energy costs as just one of the many effects of Trump administration policies straining the state, despite the stronger-than-expected financial outlook in the revised budget he unveiled Thursday.  

“(The war’s) impact across this country is self-evident,” the governor said.

Agencies such as the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans, and school districts around the state, are tightening their belts as a result. The state’s Finance Department is bracing for additional effects; in its budget summary it said that it expects elevated energy prices to drive broader inflation and “reduce real purchasing power, while tariffs are still expected to continue to raise costs for businesses and consumers.”

“It isn’t just higher oil prices themselves as a standalone percentage or price-per-barrel issue – but how the effects of these price increases ripple throughout the economy,” said H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for the department, in an email. For example, he mentioned higher prices trickling down to consumers because the agricultural industry’s fertilizer prices have climbed due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Gas prices affect schools

Soaring fuel prices have hit hard for rural schools, where school buses can travel more than 100 miles a day and districts’ budgets have little wiggle room for extra expenses. In Siskiyou County, diesel has risen as high as $7 a gallon.

“The impact has been substantial,” said Allan Carver, Siskiyou County superintendent. “It’s literally taking money away from programs that benefit kids and families. It’s as simple as that.”

Schools rely on gas and diesel to take children to and from school, transport sports teams to games and deliver supplies around the county, which spans 6,347 square miles. Almost nothing is a short drive. When the Yreka High volleyball team plays its rival, Modoc High, that’s a six-hour round-trip journey halfway across the state.

“We do what we can to save money, but there’s only so much we can do,” Carver said. “As we start making our budgets for next year, this is definitely something we need to account for.”

Law enforcement also under pressure at the pump

For the CHP, whose vehicles include patrol cars, motorcycles and helicopters, average per-gallon fuel costs have risen almost 46% since the war began, according to spokesperson Jaime Coffee. The agency has adjusted spending on other projects to accommodate the increased costs.

Caltrans, whose fleet includes everything from passenger vehicles to heavy-duty trucks, has seen about a 44% increase in fuel costs since the beginning of the war, with diesel fuel costs accounting for a significant portion, spokesperson Chris Clark said. The department’s fuel costs were $3.9 million in February, $4.6 million in March and $5.7 million in April. The agency has “absorbed” the rise and has not requested additional funding, Clark said.

In summary

Candidates for California governor faced off in one last debate before the primary. Republicans begged a liberal state to vote differently, Matt Mahan sought to place himself in the middle and everyone came for Xavier Becerra.

When you’re leading the polls, everyone takes their shots. Xavier Becerra found that out Thursday night as six gubernatorial rivals ganged up on him in the final debate before California’s primary — attacking everything from his ethics to his ideas to his choice of political consultants.

It was their last chance to make a personal appeal to California voters ahead of the June 2 election to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

While the San Francisco debate was calmer than the brawls in the last few meet-ups, everyone’s target was the Democratic frontrunner Becerra. 

These are five takeaways:

Becerra was the one to beat:

Opponents piled on with anything that might stick, from his acceptance of a campaign contribution from Chevron to his failure to answer questions at a housing forum last week to fraud in the hospice system while Becerra was secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration. 

But the Becerra weakness du jour was the guilty plea earlier Thursday of his former political strategist Dana Williamson, who admitted to conspiring with Becerra’s former longtime chief of staff to steal money from his campaign account. 

Opponents were unified in their skepticism about Becerra’s repeated claims that he wasn’t involved. Despite the plea deal that did not accuse him, Democratic rival Katie Porter went so far as to say he could still be implicated in the case. 

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate backed by tech leaders, went out of his way to call Becerra the “embodiment of the status quo” in Sacramento. 

Several candidates attacked Becerra over his lack of a funding plan for his ideas, including Porter, who pulled out a makeshift whiteboard in a callback to her signature move in Congress.

“What is Mr. Becerra’s revenue plan?” she pressed.

The former health secretary took a page out of Newsom’s book, pointing to an idea to restrict some corporations’ use of tax credits.

Newsom proposed that earlier in the day as part of his state budget.

Once lagging in polls and fundraising, Becerra has surged since ex-Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in early April over sexual assault allegations, offering Democratic voters a familiar face who’s held public office for decades and who frequently talks about fighting with Trump.

And he made the most of it:

Becerra appeared pleased with the attention.

“This is what happens when you take the lead in the polls,” he said. “They all come at you.”

Republican frontrunner Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, quickly jumped in to correct him: Hilton is leading, per some polls. (Accounting for margins of error, both candidates are essentially tied.)

But Becerra used the moment to try to shut the door on the Williamson scandal, touting a statement from the prosecutor’s office Thursday saying that “no candidate running for governor has been implicated” in the case. 

Earlier in the week, he refused to answer when a reporter asked if he was sure Williamson couldn’t connect him to the case. Asked Thursday if he could guarantee the case wouldn’t be a “distraction” if he advances to November, he responded, “I can.”

Mahan looks to separate from Republicans:

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has made a name for himself as a moderate Democrat willing to take on his own party. That has included his early support for Prop. 36, the tough-on-crime ballot measure that Newsom and the party opposed in 2024 but which voters passed overwhelmingly, and his campaign proposals to tie pay to performance in the public sector that rankle organized labor. 

But on TV in a state where Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans and Trump is anathema, he sought to clarify that he’s not a Republican. 

“I’m going to offer something different,” he said. “Not MAGA and not more of the same.”

Mahan appeared to relish his spats with Hilton, taking care to point out Hilton’s association with Trump and his former employer, Fox News. Mahan criticized the Republican’s plan to expand California suburbs by building on undeveloped land as likely to drive up carbon emissions, and aattackded hiover rumors he was pushed out of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s government. 

“I attacked the extremes on both sides,” Mahan said after the debate. 

Mahan was the only Democrat not to say on stage that he would support any of the other Democrats if they advanced to November and he didn’t, instead naming fellow moderate former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, because “mayors get things done.”

Later, he wavered, first saying “it depends” when asked if he would support another Democrat, clarifying, “I would vote for a fellow Democrat against a Republican.”

Everyone but Hilton would restrict chatbots:

When moderators asked a lightning-round “yes or no” question on whether the state should more strictly regulate artificial intelligence chatbots that interact with children, the candidates appeared united across party lines. 

Democrats in the state Capitol this year are already pursuing stricter chatbot regulations after advocates decried a law Newsom signed last year as too weak. Steyer promoted his brother’s influential work on the topic. 

In contrast, Hilton hesitated, then refused to answer yes or no, saying “it’s not as simple as that” and expressing a desire not to over-regulate the industry. 

“It’s not the right way to discuss a very important and serious issue,” he said as opponents and moderators tried to pin him down. “It causes problems that are unintended.”

Hilton moved to California from the United Kingdom to Silicon Valley in 2012 to join his wife Rachel Whetstone, a prominent tech executive. 

Republicans boost each other:

Even before the moderators asked the candidates who else they would support if they didn’t make it onto the November ballot, the two Republicans were already practically high-fiving. 

In previous debates, interviews and TV ads the two have attacked each other, but by Thursday they were often referencing each other’s points.

“Only two of us actually represent real change,” Hilton said of himself and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

With numerous Democrats competing for liberal support, Hilton has consistently led in the polls. While he and Bianco have previously declined to specifically endorse the other, the only realistic way for a Republican to win in blue California is for both Republicans to come in Nos. 1 and 2 and shut Democrats out of the general election.

In summary

Down the hall from where Gov. Gavin Newsom bragged about his balanced two-year budget proposal, California lawmakers went on a rapid-fire spree culling their colleagues’ pricey proposals.

If you’re just a bill, sitting up on Sacramento’s “Capitol Hill,” the last place you want to be is on the Legislature’s dreaded “suspense file.”

Known as the most secretive and fast-paced biannual hearings, suspense file day is a bill-kill spree where the chairs of the Assembly and Senate appropriations committees quickly and quietly shelve legislative proposals in the name of cost-cutting. 

Often, the chairs are more ruthless during years of budget woes.

But despite a rosier budget picture from Gov. Gavin Newsom, delivered Thursday just down the hall from the appropriations hearings, lawmakers largely halted any new spending programs that didn’t have a way to self-fund. 

Both chambers killed about a quarter of the bills up for consideration — 90 of 332 in the Senate and 169 of 637 in the Assembly.

“We are working to fulfill our enduring promise to serve all Californians while acting with fiscal responsibility,” said Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, the new appropriations committee chair appointed this year by Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, in a statement after the hearing.

The suspense files are where the appropriations committees send bills that would cost the state at least $50,000 in the Senate and $150,000 in the Assembly. The process was originally a way for lawmakers to consider policy proposals that cost the state money together by balancing them against each other. 

But it’s also an opportunity for lawmakers to quietly kill controversial bills, appease powerful special interests without fanfare and reduce their workload. Lawmakers decide ahead of time, in secret, which bills to pass on to the other chamber and which to reject. The public hearings are a rapid-fire announcement of the decisions.

One measure axed would have given property tax breaks to low- and moderate-income households. Another would have established a special utility rate for data centers, which use so much water and electricity that they deplete supply and drive up prices for nearby communities. Still another unsuccessful measure would have provided tax credits to homeowners who “hardened” their homes against wildfires. 

An additional wildfire prevention measure would have instructed Cal Fire, the state’s wildland firefighting service, to prioritize vegetation management in areas where there are high concentrations of homeowners who rely on the state’s FAIR plan, or plan of last resort, for insurance. 

And the committee shelved a bill from Sen. Scott Wiener that would have exempted clean and renewable energy transmission projects from California’s landmark environmental review law. 

Like Newsom in the final budget presentation of his governorship, legislators blamed the state’s financial situation on Trump and federal decisions coming out of the Republican-controlled Congress.

In the Assembly, a closely watched bill seeking to repeal a tax break for multinational companies was taken off the agenda before the hearing. It sought to roll back a law known as “water’s edge,” which allows multinational companies to avoid paying taxes on foreign income. The proposal, Assembly Bill 1790, is backed by unions and opposed by business groups.

Assembly Appropriations Chair Buffy Wicks said the proposal will be discussed as part of budget negotiations.

“I think a lot of stuff is going to shake out in the next month in terms of what the budget looks like, in terms of what is on the ballot,” Wicks said after the hearing.

It’s among a handful of proposals — including a ballot initiative to tax billionaires — to address the billions of dollars in federal funding the state is expected to lose next year.

The Trump administration is suspending $1.1 billion in Medicaid funding from California’s home health program over fraud concerns, a move that state health officials and health advocates say could harm hundreds of thousands of seniors and people with disabilities.

At the center of the dispute is California’s In-home Supportive Services, or IHSS, which helps about 900,000 older Californians and people with disabilities with daily activities so they can remain in their homes instead of institutional settings. 

Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, called it the “largest deferral we’ve ever made” at a Wednesday press conference. He said California is an outlier – its home health spending is growing at twice the rate of other states – and that the federal government will withhold Medicaid funds until the state can convincingly explain why. 

The suspension is part of the administration’s stated crackdown on Medicaid and Medicare fraud. Though Oz’s agency has raised concerns about “integrity” in California’s home health program, it has provided no supporting evidence, California health officials said.

State Medicaid director Tyler Sadwith said in a press release the program’s growth has been intentional. He attributed it to three factors: a larger caseload, higher hourly wages for home health workers, and more hours logged as workers serve more people with greater needs.

Between 2023 and 2025, caseload increased 17.5%, and the average hourly wage for home health workers grew from $19 to $21 according to the Department of Health Care Services, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program, better known here as Medi-Cal. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom, speaking at his budget presentation Thursday, argued the expansion should be celebrated not punished. In-home health services cost about $30,000 per person annually, Newsom said. Skilled nursing facilities can cost four to five times that. 

State health officials said they have a strong oversight system to weed out fraud in the home health care system, including “annual assessments, electronic timesheets, verification tools, and coordinated state-county review processes.”

In addition to the $1.1 billion deferral on home health, the federal government is withholding another $200 million tied to administrative claims the state said it expected and is working to resolve. 

The federal freeze of California funding follows a similar action in Minnesota in February, when the federal administration suspended $259 million in Medicaid payments. Minnesota sued to block it. 

During Wednesday’s press conference, Vice President JD Vance – who oversees the administration’s fraud task force – accused California, New York and Hawaii of not doing enough to combat Medicaid fraud. “This is why we’re taking this action,” Vance said. “We want California to get more serious about this fraud.” 

California has been a focus in the Trump administration’s anti-fraud efforts, with hospice care at the center of investigations. Vance and Oz also announced a six-month nationwide moratorium on Wednesday – barring new hospice providers from enrolling in Medicare. California has imposed a similar pause on new hospice licenses. 

State health officials say home health patients will continue to have uninterrupted services. But advocates and unions representing caregivers are concerned about the uncertain timeline for the release of federal funds – and what a prolonged freeze could mean for clients. 

As part of the program, Medicaid pays caregivers to help people with daily tasks like bathing, cooking, grocery shopping, and going to medical appointments.

“Clearly, the most vulnerable citizens in California need this program,” said Doug Moore, executive director of United Domestic Workers, which represents caregivers. “There are people who are elderly, there are children, there are people with disabilities. Don’t put innocent people in the middle of this.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

California acaba de dar a los productores de plástico hasta 2032 para que todos sus envases sean reciclables o compostables, el plazo más ambicioso del país. Los defensores de esta medida afirman que no es suficiente. Por su parte, los productores -definidos por un criterio preciso en las leyes de California- aseguran que es excesiva. Al menos uno de los dos bandos amenaza con demandar.

Las estrictas regulaciones, aprobadas a principios de mes, han puesto a los productores en una situación difícil sin una solución obvia. Los envases de plástico tipo concha, por ejemplo, protegen las bayas de ser aplastadas y las mantienen frescas por más tiempo hasta que llegan al refrigerador. Los fabricantes de plástico afirman que simplemente no hay sustituto, pero con las nuevas normas, tendrán que encontrarlo.

La semana pasada, dos grupos ecologistas —el Consejo de Defensa de los Recursos Naturales y Californianos Contra el Desperdicio— anunciaron su intención de demandar al estado. Su argumento: las normas estatales infringen la ley al permitir métodos de reciclaje que generan gran cantidad de residuos tóxicos y al eximir por completo a algunos plásticos de la normativa. Por su parte, los fabricantes de plásticos afirman que las normas son excesivas y encarecerán sus productos para los consumidores.

El senador Ben Allen, demócrata del condado costero de Los Ángeles y autor de la ley sobre residuos plásticos, afirmó que el programa aún representa un avance significativo en este grave problema, a pesar de que el proceso fue complicado. “Fue el resultado de un compromiso, no fue perfecto y todos se retiraron de la mesa de negociaciones con ciertas reservas respecto a diversos aspectos”, declaró Allen.

“California es Estados Unidos, pero 30 años en el futuro”, afirmó Joe Árvai, director del Instituto Wrigley de Estudios Ambientales de la Universidad del Sur de California. “Lo que está sucediendo ahora es un reflejo de las tendencias que observamos en todo el mundo… y Estados Unidos necesita adaptarse de la misma manera que otros países lo han hecho para seguir siendo competitivo a nivel global”.

Menos plástico, más reciclaje

Durante décadas, la responsabilidad de reducir, reutilizar y reciclar los residuos plásticos ha recaído sobre los consumidores. Una vez que un consumidor compra un producto, decide qué sucede con él —si termina en la basura o en el contenedor azul de reciclaje— y sus impuestos financian los sistemas de reciclaje que tenemos hoy en día.

En 2022, la histórica Ley 54 del Senado de California, la Ley de Prevención de la Contaminación por Plástico y Responsabilidad del Productor de Envases, transfirió dicha responsabilidad a las empresas. La normativa detalla qué materiales están cubiertos por la ley y quiénes se consideran “productores” de residuos plásticos.

Las nuevas regulaciones representan un hito importantísimo, afirmó Anja Brandon, directora de políticas sobre plásticos en Estados Unidos para Ocean Conservancy. «Aún quedan muchos pasos por dar en este camino, pero me entusiasma que por fin empecemos a lograr avances reales», añadió.

La ley se aplica a los utensilios de plástico para el servicio de alimentos y a casi todos los envases de un solo uso, desde el envoltorio de plástico que rodea las grandes paletas de productos que se envían a los minoristas hasta un tubo de pasta de dientes y la caja de cartón que lo contiene.

Nuestro sistema de reciclaje defectuoso

La mayor parte de los envases de plástico que los californianos desechan no se reciclan, y eso no es culpa tuya como consumidor.

Durante décadas, el símbolo de las flechas verdes giratorias ha instado a los consumidores a reducir, reutilizar y reciclar mejor. Pero el sistema en sí ya era defectuoso desde el principio y empeoró con el tiempo.

Cuando la gente deposita objetos en los contenedores de reciclaje, los trabajadores de los centros de reciclaje los clasifican. Los artículos contaminados, como un envase de mantequilla de cacahuete con restos de comida, van directamente al vertedero. Los fabricantes compran materiales limpios y valiosos, como botellas de agua y envases de detergente, y los transforman en nuevos productos.

Pero gran cantidad de otros desechos no tienen el valor suficiente para venderse. También terminan en vertederos.

En 2021, la tasa de reciclaje de plástico a nivel nacional fue de tan solo el 6%, según un informe del grupo activista Beyond Plastics. Esta cifra representa un descenso con respecto al 8% de 2018, en parte debido a que China y otros países que solían comprar nuestros residuos han dejado de hacerlo. En California, la mayoría de los tipos de envases de plástico se reciclan a tasas sorprendentemente bajas, según un informe de CalRecycle de 2025: incluso las jarras de leche y las botellas de detergente, entre los plásticos que se reciclan con mayor frecuencia, alcanzaron solo el 19%, mientras que la mayoría de los demás registraron porcentajes de un solo dígito o inferiores.

.sidebar-with-copy { border-radius: 4px; border: 1px solid #ccc; } .sidebar-with-copy h2 { font-size: 24px; margin-bottom: 0px; } .sidebar-with-copy p, .sidebar-with-copy li { font-size: 0.9rem; line-height: 1.3rem; } .sidebar-with-copy li { margin-bottom: 10px; }

Para dar cumplimiento a la ley, el Departamento de Reciclaje y Recuperación de Recursos designó a la Circular Action Alliance, una organización sin fines de lucro que ayuda a los estados a implementar mandatos de responsabilidad extendida del productor, como organismo organizador para los productores. La alianza es responsable de elaborar un plan para alcanzar los objetivos de la ley.

Los productores —definidos como empresas con ventas superiores a un millón de dólares que fabrican productos envasados en plástico o que poseen marcas propias bajo las cuales se venden dichos productos— deben afiliarse a la organización y pagar cuotas para financiar la gestión de residuos. Pueden cumplir con los requisitos de la ley reduciendo el uso de plástico, buscando materiales alternativos o invirtiendo en infraestructura de reciclaje.

“El mayor desafío reside en la magnitud y la coordinación necesarias para modernizar un sistema de reciclaje complejo en un estado tan grande y diverso como California”, declaró Sheila Estaniel, portavoz de la Circular Action Alliance, en un correo electrónico.

La exigencia de California de que las empresas reduzcan por completo el uso de plásticos de un solo uso la convierte en una de las leyes más estrictas del país en materia de residuos plásticos. Además, va más allá que otras leyes similares, ya que obliga a los productores de plástico a pagar 5,000 millones de dólares en una década para compensar el daño ambiental que sus productos han causado a las comunidades; si bien el estado no prevé comenzar a distribuir esos fondos hasta 2027 como muy pronto.

Reglas diluidas

La normativa sobre residuos plásticos ha tenido un recorrido difícil hasta su implementación.

En 2024, CalRecycle elaboró un primer borrador de reglamento que detallaba qué plásticos abarcaba la ley y qué debían hacer los productores. El borrador caducó antes de que CalRecycle lo finalizara. En 2025, el gobernador Gavin Newsom ordenó a los reguladores que revisaran las normas, una medida que, según algunos activistas, fue impulsada por grupos de presión de la industria alimentaria y agrícola.

El resultado fue un segundo borrador que establecía una amplia exclusión para los plásticos utilizados en la industria alimentaria y agrícola, abarcando productos bajo la jurisdicción de la FDA y el USDA, como los envases para productos frescos y suplementos. Los defensores afirmaron que esta exclusión invalidaba la ley.

“El gobernador Newsom fue claro cuando solicitó a CalRecycle que reactivara estas regulaciones: debían servir para minimizar los costos para las pequeñas empresas y las familias, al tiempo que garantizaban que la ambiciosa ley de reciclaje de California lograra el objetivo fundamental de reducir la contaminación por plásticos”, declaró Anthony Martinez, portavoz del gobernador. “Eso es precisamente lo que hacen estas regulaciones preliminares”.

CalRecycle presentó ese borrador a la Oficina de Derecho Administrativo en agosto de 2025, pero lo retiró para realizar cambios que limitaron dicha exclusión. Finalmente, los reguladores excluyeron únicamente el plástico que la ley federal exige para la seguridad alimentaria, revirtiendo una excepción más amplia que, según los activistas, habría debilitado considerablemente la ley.

Los activistas se preparan para demandar.

No todos los plásticos se rigen por las mismas normas, y los defensores de los derechos de los consumidores se oponen al sistema de doble vía del estado.

Algunos materiales con desafíos técnicos únicos pueden solicitar exenciones, pero deben cumplir criterios específicos para poder optar a ellas.

Otros plásticos, como el que la ley federal exige para la seguridad alimentaria, quedan totalmente exentos de las normas una vez que los productores completan una solicitud a CalRecycle, sin plazos ni obligaciones.

“En la práctica, esto permite que las exclusiones sigan vigentes… incluso para notificaciones que finalmente fracasan, lo que crea fuertes incentivos para presentar reclamaciones débiles o sin fundamento legal simplemente para retrasar (y, de hecho, obstaculizar) el cumplimiento”, escribió Tony Hackett, asociado de políticas de Californians Against Waste, en una carta de comentarios públicos dirigida al departamento.

Los activistas plantean una segunda preocupación: la normativa permite que ciertas tecnologías contaminantes —que la ley excluía específicamente por generar cantidades significativas de desechos peligrosos— se consideren reciclaje, siempre y cuando cuenten con un permiso para residuos peligrosos.

Estas tecnologías incluyen procesos de reciclaje químico que la industria petrolera ha promovido durante mucho tiempo como solución a la contaminación por plásticos; una afirmación que el fiscal general de California considera deliberadamente engañosa. Rob Bonta ha demandado a ExxonMobil alegando que la compañía engañó al público sobre el potencial del reciclaje para abordar la crisis del plástico.

“Estas regulaciones ignoran los límites explícitos sobre las tecnologías de reciclaje y crean resquicios legales permanentes que la ley nunca autorizó”, dijo Nick Lapis, director de defensa de Californians Against Waste, en un comunicado.

Rhonalyn Cabello, portavoz de CalRecycle, dijo que la agencia no hace comentarios sobre litigios pendientes o potenciales.

El senador Allen coincidió en que las regulaciones son insuficientes.

“Consideramos que la normativa presentada no respeta algunos de los acuerdos fundamentales alcanzados durante la aprobación del proyecto de ley”, afirmó. Añadió que, cuando hay demasiadas exclusiones, las empresas “básicamente obligan a los demás a pagar y salen impunes”.

¿Preparado para el fracaso?

Las empresas afirman que quieren reducir los residuos plásticos, pero se sienten atrapadas por las normativas estatales contradictorias y la falta de alternativas de embalaje viables.

La tensión comienza con el etiquetado. La ley estatal sobre etiquetas de reciclaje precisas, el Proyecto de Ley del Senado 343, prohíbe a las empresas usar el símbolo de flechas cruzadas para indicar la reciclabilidad a menos que se cumplan ciertos criterios. Quienes defienden esta medida argumentan que la restricción es necesaria para evitar confusiones. Sin embargo, las empresas afirman que esto reduce la probabilidad de que los consumidores reciclen productos que podrían ser reciclables.

“Si perdemos el derecho a usar etiquetas de reciclaje en los envases de productos lácteos, nuestros miembros tendrán que aumentar el uso de plástico, porque es el único otro tipo de envase que puede contener un producto de larga duración”, dijo Katie Davey, directora ejecutiva del Instituto Lácteo de California.

Según Cabello, a medida que las inversiones de los productores lleguen a las ciudades y los condados en virtud de la ley, es posible que con el tiempo más materiales cumplan con los criterios de etiquetado.

Más allá del etiquetado, las empresas afirman que aún no existen alternativas viables al plástico, y que encontrarlas será costoso. Según estimaciones de CalRecycle, las inversiones necesarias para cumplir tan solo con el primer objetivo de la ley —una reducción del 25 % en el uso de plásticos de un solo uso para 2032— podrían ascender a 15,400 millones de dólares.

Kevin Kelly, director ejecutivo de Emerald Packaging, vende papel plástico para envolver a agricultores, quienes los utilizan para embolsar productos como ensaladas y zanahorias baby. Según Kelly, los envases de papel que podrían replicar la capacidad del plástico para regular los niveles de oxígeno y dióxido de carbono —manteniendo así la frescura de los productos— aún se encuentran en fase inicial de desarrollo, y la producción en masa tardará décadas en llegar.

“Hay que invertir decenas o cientos de miles de millones de dólares en infraestructura para producir algo al nivel necesario para reemplazar los plásticos”, dijo Kelly.

El sector lácteo ilustra el mismo problema. Entre las alternativas al envasado de leche en plástico se incluyen los envases refrigerados con tapa a dos aguas, los envases de larga duración y el vidrio. Cada opción presenta sus ventajas e inconvenientes. El vidrio es más pesado —lo que significa menos unidades por envío— y el vidrio transparente expone la leche fresca a la luz, lo que puede deteriorarla. Cambiar por completo las líneas de envasado costaría a los productores unos 40 millones de dólares por una sola línea de tamaño mediano, según el Instituto Lácteo, un coste que repercutirían en los consumidores.

“Estamos profundamente preocupados porque sabemos que los precios de los alimentos van a aumentar y que algunos productos van a desaparecer del mercado, ya que, literalmente, no existe una solución de envasado en el plazo requerido”, dijo Davey.

Pero Joe Árvai, de la USC, dijo que las quejas de los productores se refieren en realidad al ritmo del cambio, no a si es posible siquiera un embalaje que cumpla con la normativa.

«Les guste o no, estos cambios son inevitables», afirmó. «Al final, habrá actores en la industria que estarán mejor preparados para responder y estarán mejor protegidos contra las crisis que sus socios y competidores».

¿Qué sucede después?

La próxima prueba importante tendrá lugar en junio, cuando la Circular Action Alliance deberá presentar su plan a CalRecycle, en el que se detalle cómo los productores cumplirán los objetivos de la ley.

Oregon, que aprobó una ley similar y también enfrenta un desafío legal de la industria, ofrece un posible modelo. Allí, los fondos de subvención ya están fluyendo para expandir la reutilización e infraestructura de recarga con ayuda a empresas y escuelas para sustituir productos de plástico de un solo uso y a mejorar el acceso al reciclaje.

“A pesar de que hay una demanda en Oregón, el dinero sigue fluyendo”, dijo Anja Brandon, de Ocean Conservancy. Añadió que grupos como el suyo seguirán de cerca el plan de junio.

“Todos estaremos esperando con gran expectación” para ver cómo los productores interpretan esto y qué estrategias están trazando, dijo.

Mientras tanto, los defensores seguirán de cerca la evolución de CalRecycle a la hora de tomar decisiones sobre quiénes cumplen los requisitos para las exclusiones y exenciones. El Consejo de Defensa de los Recursos Naturales está a la espera de que CalRecycle publique documentación adicional antes de presentar su demanda.

“Si permitimos que esto se descarrile y se convierta en un coladero de exenciones e incumplimientos, perjudicará gravemente nuestro progreso global en este tema”, dijo Allen.

In summary

California tax revenue is soaring thanks to tech stocks. But Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing more cuts, warning that the boom won’t last and Trump cuts will hit the state hard.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing further budget cuts and expanding the state’s reserves despite a recent surge in tax revenue — an attempt to balance the books in anticipation of a looming long-term deficit in the coming years, he said.

In a presentation riddled with criticism of the Trump administration and featuring memes including an image of President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as “Dumb and Dumber,” Newsom released his last budget plan as governor on Thursday. 

He proposed a $350 billion spending plan that would zero out the state’s budget deficit for two years and cut longer-term budget gaps in half. Newsom had pledged not to leave his successor with a giant structural deficit.

“I’m not trying to get out of Dodge,” Newsom said. “This is a balanced budget structurally for the next 18 months after I’m gone.”

He proposed slashing general fund spending by $1.8 billion, primarily by further cutting Medi-Cal, including by raising monthly premiums on undocumented immigrant adults by $20 and reinstating Medi-Cal asset tests. 

While Newsom wants the state to continue withdrawing $7 billion from the state’s reserves this year, his proposal would also shore up the rainy day fund by transferring $3.6 billion to the account and setting aside nearly $10 billion more for fiscal year 2027-28.

The governor’s presentation is an updated outlook at the state’s finances since January, when Newsom’s administration projected a “modest shortfall” of $2.9 billion that would grow to a $22 billion deficit in fiscal year 2027-28. 

Since then, the state’s tax revenue has grown faster than anticipated, thanks to a robust stock market and California’s robust AI-driven technology sector. Newsom projects that the state will see $16.5 billion more in revenue over a three-year budgeting window than expected in January.

But Newsom said the state’s financial outlook remains ominous, attributing much of the uncertainty to Trump’s policies, including a spending plan the president calls his “one, big beautiful bill.” It could strip 2 million low-income Californians of health insurance coverage, and the war in Iran, which has sent gas prices skyrocketing nationwide.

“We have a president who … doesn’t particularly give a damn about the financial situation of the average American,” Newsom said. 

It’s unclear how long California’s revenue boon would last. The recent spike in tax collection suggests that the stock market is reaching “bubble territory” and could head toward an “eventual bust,” said the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which advises the state Legislature. “The state should be prepared for revenues to be tens of billions lower within one or two years.”

California’s spending has continued to outpace revenue growth. Since fiscal year 2019-20, spending has grown by more than $100 billion, primarily from maintaining and expanding K-14 education, according to the LAO. 

“We need to tighten our belt, and we need to focus on the outcomes,” he said.
But Newsom is proposing new spending in some areas, including $300 million to subsidize private healthcare for low-income and middle-class Californians as well as money to offer paid pregnancy leave for TK-12 and community college employees and to cut filing fees for roughly 250,000 new businesses in half.

In summary

In a corruption scandal that shocked Sacramento, Dana Williamson was accused of conspiring with Becerra’s longtime chief of staff and another Sacramento lobbyist to divert $225,000 from Becerra’s dormant state campaign.

A former political consultant for Democratic frontrunner for governor Xavier Becerra and ex-aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom pleaded guilty Thursday to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, submitting a false tax return and lying to federal investigators. 

The consultant, Dana Williamson, was charged in a corruption scandal that shocked Sacramento. Following an investigation that included FBI wiretaps and seized communications, prosecutors accused Williamson of conspiring with Becerra’s longtime chief of staff Sean McCluskie and another Sacramento lobbyist to divert $225,000 from Becerra’s dormant state campaign account into McCluskie’s hands. 

As part of the plea deal, Williamson agreed to pay $225,000 in restitution to Becerra and $500,000 in restitution to the IRS. She faces up to 38 years in prison.

Williamson’s plea comes just over two weeks before the primary election that will determine whether Becerra advances to the November election.

According to the indictment, the money was to help McCluskie follow Becerra to Washington when he was named U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration. McCluskie’s job there offered a lower salary. 

Prosecutors say the Democratic operatives charged Becerra’s dormant campaign account $10,000 a month under the guise of maintaining it for legal compliance, but instead routed it to McCluskie in violation of federal laws prohibiting federal employees from being involved in campaign activities. The investigation was launched during the Biden administration.

McCluskie and the other lobbyist, Greg Campbell, pleaded guilty to fraud in the case. Williamson also faced a variety of tax evasion charges and was accused of fraudulently obtaining federal COVID-19 benefits.

The plea deal brings to a close a case that has loomed over Becerra’s recently revitalized campaign for governor. It’s unclear whether it will have any effect on the crowded race, in which Becerra is one of six Democrats vying for the seat that Newsom is vacating; two Republicans also are in the running. 

The timing of the agreement is unusual. Federal prosecutors typically avoid pursuing political cases within 60 days of an election under a Justice Department custom designed to prevent interference that could advantage or disadvantage candidates. Voters have already begun turning in their ballots in the gubernatorial race. 

Federal prosecutor Michael Anderson told U.S. District Court Judge Troy Nunley the plea was the result of months of negotiations between prosecutors and Williamson. Williamson had previously rejected one plea offer and made a counter-offer, Anderson said, calling the agreement the “most favorable” outcome for both parties.

Campbell and McCluskie are scheduled to be sentenced June 4, two days after the primary election. 

Becerra was lagging in polling and fundraising until former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out over sexual assault allegations in early April, when he suddenly shot into the lead as anxious Democratic voters searched for a candidate to coalesce around. 

Williamson’s case is one of several critiques opponents have seized upon in debates and negative ads to call into question Becerra’s judgment and fitness for executive office. 

Allegations were a “gut punch”

Prosecutors have considered Becerra a victim in the case and he has not been charged with any wrongdoing. He has said he cooperated with investigators and that revelations of McCluskie’s betrayal were a “gut punch” to him akin to finding out about an unfaithful spouse. 

But some in the California capital’s often-overlapping circles of interest groups, lobbyists and political strategists have questioned how Becerra could not have known what the payments were for. 

On the campaign trail, Becerra has faced questions about whether he should have paid closer attention to his campaign account’s expenses. Strategists say $10,000 a month — the amount he agreed to be charged — is a high price for account maintenance. 

It is common practice in California for official staff members of lawmakers and other officeholders also to work on their bosses’ political campaigns, allowing them to supplement taxpayer-funded state salaries with payments from campaign accounts. Williamson herself was paid by the California Democratic Party for political work on ballot measures during the two years she was employed in the governor’s office as Newsom’s top aide. She made nearly $200,000 from the party in 2024 on top of her official duties, according to campaign finance records.

Asked by KCRA last month how voters could be assured Becerra would not let taxpayer funds be similarly “swindled,” Becerra did not answer.

Williamson was a hard-charging Sacramento lobbyist who previously ran Gov. Jerry Brown’s office. When Newsom appointed her chief of staff in 2023, her clients included criminal justice reform advocates, healthcare corporation Centene, Meta, Comcast and the video game giant Activision. 

The indictment accused Williamson of lying to investigators about whether she used her position in Newsom’s office to influence a gender equality and workplace harassment lawsuit state regulators had brought against Activision. The state later settled that case for $54 million.

Newsom’s office put Williamson on leave when she informed them she was under investigation in November 2024. He has also said the charges caught him by surprise.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown left office eight years ago with a big surplus and an ominous message in his last state budget: “What’s out there is darkness, uncertainty, decline and recession, so ‘Good luck, baby.’” 

Today Gov. Gavin Newsom is scheduled to present his final state spending plan and he’ll do it with a cloudy crystal ball. 

On the one hand, California’s state finances are flush from the booming stock market and the thriving artificial intelligence companies driving the Bay Area’s economy. Those companies are a gift that keeps on giving to the state budget, especially with an initial public offering just over the horizon for ChatGPT-maker Open AI.

On the other, the Trump administration’s priorities are at odds with Newsom’s, and decisions coming out of the White House are costing California billions of dollars in revenue that was expected for healthcare.

Then there’s the war in Iran, which threatens to trigger a global recession as the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz continues.

Newsom in January projected a “modest shortfall” of $2.9 billion next year that would grow to a $22 billion deficit in fiscal year 2027-28.

But since then the picture has become a bit rosier. California Assembly budget guru Jason Sisney has noted that income tax collections are coming almost $11 billion over what Newsom anticipated five months ago.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office also revised its revenue forecast, finding the state is likely to collect about $25 billion more over a three-year budgeting window than previously projected.

How much will Newsom want to spend and how much will he sock away to cushion what may come for his successor? We’ll find out today. Check back at CalMatters.org for updates. Our Yue Stella Yu will be anchoring coverage. 

Speaking of state spending: California climate regulators are proposing to change the state’s carbon market in ways that could cut revenues in half — leaving no funding at all for safe drinking water, fire resilience and other programs. Read more from CalMatters’ Rachel Becker.

---

The Ideas Festival agenda is set and it’s packed. Hear from The Lincoln Project founders, Janet Napolitano, Julian Castro, Dan Walters and more. Join us in Sacramento on May 21 for a day of big ideas, smart conversations and connection. Get your tickets today.

We’re bringing our voter guide to life through VotingMatters events across California this month, in collaboration with on-the-ground partners: Local news organizations, colleges, libraries, churches and nonprofit organizations. Our next events are tonight in Bakersfield and Friday evening in Riverside. Plus, we have a DIY kit to host your own event. 

---

Other Stories You Should Know

---

New rules for plastics recycling

California just finished writing new rules for plastics recycling that demand more from manufacturers and less from consumers. They’re among the toughest regulations in the country. And while it’s no surprise that plastic producers are pushing back against the regulations, why are environmental groups threatening to sue over them?

As CalMatters’ Alejandra Reyes-Velarde explains, plastic producers will be required by 2032 to make all their packaging recyclable or compostable. They’ll also have to pay $5 billion over a decade for the environmental damage their products have caused to communities.

But the rules also allow some materials with unique technical challenges, as well as plastic that federal law requires for food safety, to apply for exemptions. It also allows certain waste polluting technologies to count as recycling, as long as companies have a hazardous waste permit.

Because of these exemptions, two environmental groups — the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste — said they plan to take California to court.

• Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, in a statement: “These regulations … create permanent escape hatches the law never authorized.”

Read more.

Delayed ‘point in time’ report

The federal report that pulls together each state’s “point-in-time count” on homelessness provides a critical snapshot of the number of unhoused people nationwide. But there’s one big problem with the latest report, writes CalMatters’ Marisa Kendall: The feds haven’t released it.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires cities, counties and states to count their homeless populations every other year. Each region must submit their count to HUD by the spring. HUD then verifies the data, tallies the total count and submits a public report to Congress — which typically happens in December.

But it’s been five months and there hasn’t been a peep from HUD. 

• Jesse Rabinowitz, spokesperson for the National Homelessness Law Center: “This is, by what I can tell, the latest any point-in-time count has ever come out, including the years where it was delayed during COVID.”

The report guides how homelessness funding is allocated, shapes policy decisions and provides state-by-state comparisons. Though California has tallied its own data, its analysis doesn’t include information including race, age and mental health status like the official federal report. 

Read more.

And lastly: Clashes over changing county charter

San Diego County leaders want to update the county’s charter to make the local government run more efficiently. But not everyone is in agreement: While one county board member wants to give supervisors longer term limits and more say over senior staff, another is labeling the proposal “a rushed power grab.” Read more from CalMatters’ Deborah Brennan.

---

California Voices

CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: When Newsom presents his revised budget today, how he intends to cover the cap-and-invest program’s shortfall could boil down to prioritizing the bullet train project or wildfire protection.

CalMatters contributor Jim Newton: Adam Miller’s late start to the Los Angeles mayoral race has stymied his chances of winning, which is too bad since he is dedicated to the city and conveys a serious sense of purpose.

---

Other things worth your time:

Some stories may require a subscription to read.

---

Federal government to defer $1.3B to CA Medicaid says VP Vance // The Sacramento Bee

Trump and Kennedy seek to relax safeguards for AI healthcare tools // KFF Health News

Tom Steyer’s hedge fund past complicates his run as CA’s anti-billionaire billionaire // The Mercury News

A bombshell fraud case takes the spotlight in CA’s high-stakes race for governor // Los Angeles Times

AI companies are poised to go public. CA’s hoping to get rich // Politico

Solar developers say state program is a mess and slow to help low-income households // LAist

SF Mayor Lurie promised a permitting overhaul. Its builders say it was troubled from the start // The San Francisco Standard

Hundreds of late ballots in the Valley were not counted last year, data analysis finds // KVPR

Residents fear a backlash after mayor accused of working with China // Los Angeles Times

In summary

Democratic frontrunner for California governor Xavier Becerra has dodged weeks of criticism about his record. His dismissals reflect a confident position near the top of the polls.

The California governor’s race has forced a couple of mea culpas. 

Former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter apologized for yelling at a staffer in a years-old incident revealed in a viral video that fueled blowback about her temperament. Investor Tom Steyer said he was wrong to have made his billions in part by investing in fossil fuels and private prisons. 

But for frontrunner Xavier Becerra, facing criticism about elements of his long record in state and federal government, the answer is to dodge. 

He bristled in recent debates when opponents criticized the way he handled a surge of unaccompanied migrant children when he was U.S. health secretary under President Biden. He dismissed the attack as a “MAGA talking point” even though the allegations are based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times investigation on child labor. In a television interview this week with KTLA, he sought to convince a reporter not to ask “only tough questions” and produce a “profile piece … not a ‘gotcha’ piece.” The reporter later asked about the migrant children.

Becerra, a former health secretary and former California attorney general, shot into the lead among Democrats after ex-Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in early April over sexual assault allegations. Since then, opponents have spent weeks criticizing his record and questioning his judgment as an executive. 

The attacks are coming during a sensitive time for Becerra. Democratic strategist Dana Williamson is due in federal court Thursday on charges that she conspired with other strategists to steal $10,000 a month from Becerra’s dormant campaign account to pay his longtime former chief of staff Sean McCluskie on top of his federal government salary. 

Becerra has not been implicated in the federal indictment and prosecutors have considered him a victim in the case, but opponents have criticized his judgment and said his connection to it makes him unfit for office. Asked by reporters about the case over the past several months, Becerra has said he approved the payments believing they were for account maintenance and legal compliance. 

“It doesn’t pass the smell test,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said during a CNN debate last week. On the same network this week, Porter said the unsettled case makes Becerra a risk for Democratic voters. 

McCluskie pleaded guilty to fraud in the case and is scheduled for sentencing in June — after the primary election. Williamson is in talks with prosecutors about a possible plea deal. 

Becerra’s dismissals and dodging of tough questions reflect a confident position at the top of the polls as the long-winding primary election nears its end. An Emerson College poll released Wednesday finds Becerra tied for lead with Steyer and Republican former Fox News host Steve Hilton. Another poll found he and Hilton have far outstripped Steyer. 

Becerra’s fundraising has also surged. He brought in just over $500,000 in campaign donations in the first three months of the year; since Swalwell dropped out on April 12, he’s received at least $2.3 million.

Democratic voters, anxious to rally behind a candidate to prevent two Republicans from winning the top-two primary election on June 2, are largely coalescing behind Becerra as a “safe choice,” said Menlo College political science professor Melissa Michelson. Because he’s in the lead, Becerra has been able to avoid discussing the criticism in detail — and unlike for other candidates who have faced attacks, it’s working, Michelson said. 

“The attacks just aren’t hitting,” Michelson said. “He can go to the public and say, ‘They’re only doing this because I’m in the lead,’ and yes, that is true. … It makes it hard for the public to know, how seriously should I take these claims?”

Serious questions about migrant children

No criticism has dogged his campaign more than the 2023 New York Times series detailing the surge in children working dangerous, exploitative jobs in meatpacking plants, construction sites and factories around the country. The report attributed the rise to a record number of unaccompanied children arriving at the southern border from Latin America in late 2020 and 2021, the first year of Becerra’s term as Health and Human Services secretary. 

According to the report, Becerra, whose agency had custody of the children, was under pressure from the Biden administration to get them out of crowded shelters near the border and undo a Trump-era practice of holding the minors in detention centers. He pushed for them to be placed quickly in the homes of adult sponsors, who were sometimes distant relatives or unrelated to the children and who sent them to work. The investigation found Becerra’s agency missed or ignored warning signs of labor trafficking and failed to stay in contact with the minors.

In one video in the Times report, Becerra is seen telling staff to speed up the placements.

“This is not how you do an assembly line,” he said.

Opponents have seized on the report repeatedly during debates. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has run ads about it since last fall.

“The experience we got from Secretary Becerra didn’t lead to better outcomes,” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said during a CNN debate last week. “It led to 85,000 migrant children who were lost.”

Becerra has repeatedly called that a “Trump lie.” On Monday, in a brief press conference after a town hall in Sacramento, he again dismissed the criticism and said he wasn’t responsible for the children’s treatment after they left his agency’s care.

“What employers did after they left our care, after they left our jurisdiction, where the exploitation of children may have occurred, was not on my watch,” he said. “When people tell these Trump lies about kids that are lost, when Democrats repeat those lies, I just say, this campaign is better than that.”

Some Republicans who were critical of Biden’s handling of immigration did claim there were hundreds of thousands of “missing children,” which immigration advocates called misleading at the time. 

But a 2024 audit by an independent watchdog validated the Times investigation and concluded Becerra’s agency did miss critical safety checks before releasing children to adult sponsors. 

The report by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General found that caseworkers had in 16% of cases failed to document background checks and other vetting of the adults. In other cases they failed to conduct required home visits. 

In more than one-fifth of cases the inspector general reviewed, Becerra’s agency failed to contact children one month after they were placed with sponsors, as required by agency policies to ensure the children were safe. In those cases staff didn’t call until four months later, on average, and at times as long as a year after the children were released from federal custody. 

Becerra’s campaign did not respond to a CalMatters inquiry about the watchdog report. 

Pressed about the warning signs detailed in the investigation, Becerra told a reporter after the town hall this week that she had “conflated a lot of different things that are unrelated.” 

He also refused to answer when CalMatters asked whether he was certain Williamson couldn’t implicate him in the campaign fraud case during her court appearance this week. 

“I’m moving forward,” he said.

Adam Miller is a serious candidate for mayor of Los Angeles. He has a real background in business, a commitment to philanthropy and experience in the city’s most pressing issue, housing the homeless. 

His political profile resembles that of San Francisco Mayor Dan Lurie, whose tenure in California’s fourth largest city has drawn notice for his willingness to break, however subtly, from its most liberal impulses.

Los Angeles is five times the size of San Francisco. Its challenges are far greater and the stakes far higher. Here, Miller is running in the business-leader-turned-candidate lane that has produced mayors before, most notably Richard Riordan in 1993 and quite nearly Steve Soboroff, who unsuccessfully ran for mayor in 2001. Just this week, Miller picked up the endorsement of the Los Angeles Daily News, a feat that once would have placed him in the top tier of contenders, though it holds less weight today than in the past.

Still, businessman-mayors and almost-mayors haven’t made much headway in Los Angeles over the past two decades. Developer Rick Caruso got clocked the last time he ran and was headed for a repeat before taking a pass on this year’s campaign. The city’s Republican base, traditionally the core for business-oriented candidacies, has evaporated, forming barely 15% of the city’s electorate today.

Miller is a Democrat, not a Republican, and could appeal beyond that sliver of city voters. His success in business — he founded an education technology company with more than 3,000 employees — and his creation of nonprofits to address disaster response and homelessness supply him with genuine credentials for the office he seeks. 

But he remains barely at the edge of the city’s political radar — polling at under 10% — even as the race crashes into the final weeks of what will probably be the first of two rounds. On June 2, voters will elect the mayor of California’s largest city; if no candidate gets more than 50%, as seems likely, the two top finishers will go on to a runoff in November.

In a recent interview, Miller sized up his prospects optimistically. If he makes the runoff, he predicted that the city’s discontented voters — by some polls, more than half — will come to him, making him the winner. 

He suggested a similar path for one of his opponents, Councilwoman Nithya Raman, saying she, too, could consolidate the anti-incumbent vote if she ends up in a runoff with Mayor Karen Bass. But Raman would likely do so by coalescing a different set of voters, since she draws on support from the city’s left, mainly its growing number of Democratic Socialists.

Another opponent is Spencer Pratt, a temperamentally stunted contender whose scandal-infused memoir should disqualify him from this office. He would lose in a head-to-head battle with Bass, Miller said.

Miller is right about Pratt, who offers Bass her easiest route to re-election. But Miller underestimates the mayor’s strength against her other rivals. She’s vulnerable, no question, but she leads the field, brandishes a passel of endorsements from former Vice President Kamala Harris, to Sen. Adam Schiff, to Magic Johnson, and brings a strong citywide base to the campaign. 

Still, Miller has a plan and a political lane.

“People want results,” Miller said, noting that his campaign has polled voters, asking if they would prefer a “strong progressive” or a “proven leader,” and found that in this cycle leadership trumps ideology.

“I come from the outside,” Miller said, “with extensive experience, with a lot of work in these exact issue areas.”

As he surveyed those “issue areas,” Miller was both insightful and nimble. Sitting among a group of unhoused people lined up for a meal and showers on a warm morning in Hollywood, he criticized the Bass Administration for solutions to that problem that he said were cumbersome and expensive. 

The Bass Administration boasts of having reduced street homelessness by 17% over the past four years. Miller says he can do much, much better. “I think we should have a 60% reduction in street homelessness during my first term,” he said, “and I think we should see an 80% reduction in visible encampments.”

To do that, Miller proposes a kind of community wrap-around approach, with prevention, shelter, social services and housing all contributing to a reduction in those without housing. Overarching that work would be an infusion of technology to better track progress, to connect those in need of services with providers and to slot those who need housing into available spots.

In addition, he said, the city should track the problem more rigorously, abandoning the annual count that for decades has formed the basis for policy discussions around the issue and replacing it with real-time tracking, such as the platform developed by his organization, Better Angels.

Pivoting to public safety, he acknowledged that violent crime in the city is down in recent years, but noted that few people are victims of violence. What plagues neighborhoods is property crime, burglaries, robberies, car break-ins. Those may not carry the same personal gravity as murder or assault, but they leave people in fear. 

Miller didn’t mention James Q. Wilson’s “Broken Windows” theory, but he was speaking Wilson’s language, and it is one that was a major contributor to urban renewal a generation ago. Wilson postulated that property crimes and decay generated an atmosphere of neglect and that addressing those issues would bring down more serious offenses as well. To a remarkable degree, he was correct.

So, Miller is fluent in technology, dedicated to the city and conveys a seriousness of purpose, combined with a little tech bro swagger. The question for Miller, though, is whether he’s coming to the party too late to make the impact that he seeks. 

If he had launched a year ago, he could easily be in contention now. But a late start gave Pratt — who has name recognition that comes from his turn as a bad boy on a reality TV program — the room to fire up the anti-Bass vote, and he now clogs up Miller’s lane.

That creates a piece of political paradox: Pratt is outpolling Miller, with most surveys showing Pratt at around 15% to 18% and Miller at more like 3% to 6%. But Pratt has almost no chance of defeating Bass. A loudmouth Republican who squandered a fortune on crystals is not what Los Angeles is begging for in a mayor. 

Miller, meanwhile, would stand a far better chance to win but is jammed up behind Pratt in the June voting. 

That has stymied Miller, whose polling numbers were too low to earn him a seat in a recent mayoral debate and whose efforts may prove too little, too late to make it to the runoff in a crowded field. 

That’s too bad, because he has something to offer this campaign: real ideas that belong at the center of the city’s discourse, win or lose.

Two decades ago, when California got serious about reducing or even eliminating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, its political leaders weighed two potential tactics about industrial emissions.

The state could impose direct facility-by-facility limits, generally favored by climate change advocates. Or it could set overall emission reduction goals that would gradually decrease and auction off emission allowances, assuming their costs would encourage reductions.

The latter, known as cap-and-trade, was favored by corporate interests as being less onerous and was adopted, finally taking effect in 2012.

Since then, the California Air Resources Board has conducted quarterly auctions of emission allowances, collecting a total of $35 billion dollars so far, which, in theory, is being spent on projects that would reduce emissions.

The revenues have varied from year to year, but they have generally increased as the emission caps have declined. Since reaching a peak of $8.1 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year, however, auction proceeds have been declining.

Roughly half of the money has been given to utilities to minimize cap-and-trade’s impact on consumer costs. However, the program has been widely criticized as a de facto tax on gasoline and other fuels, which were already among the most expensive of any state.

The remaining revenues have been deposited into a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that governors and legislators have tapped for various purposes, not all of them connected to emission reductions. In a sense, it’s been a slush fund.

Last year Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature overhauled the program in two bills, Senate Bill 840 and Assembly Bill 1207. The program was extended, it was renamed as cap-and-invest and new priorities for spending auction proceeds were set.

Notably, the state’s cash-strapped and long-stalled bullet train project would get a flat $1 billion a year, rather than the 25% share it had been getting. Project managers hope that lenders will advance enough money to complete its first leg in the San Joacim Valley; the plan is to repay the loans from the $1 billion annual cap-and-invest allocation.

Early this year, the Air Resources Board released new regulations to implement the legislative changes but faced criticism that they would increase consumer costs. That led to a revision in April that softens the rules’ impact — most obviously on refiners who have been threatening to leave California — but environmental groups are very critical.

The April version would also sharply reduce net revenues from emission auctions, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, providing barely enough for the $1 billion allocation to the bullet train and another $1 billion for the governor and Legislature to spend. Other programs that have been receiving cap-and-invest support, such as wildfire protection and housing, would probably get nothing.

The program has been tapped in recent years to backfill programs that a deficit-ridden state budget could not cover, so the projected revenue drop would exacerbate efforts by Newsom and legislators to close the state budget’s yawning gap.

“The (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) is a relatively small portion of the overall state budget, but it has been a noteworthy source of funding for environmental and other programs in recent years,” the state Assembly’s budget advisor, Jason Sisney, says in an email. “Collapse of its revenues would change the state budget process noticeably. The state’s cost-pressured general fund seemingly would be unable to make up much, if any, of a significant (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) revenue decline at this time.”

When Newsom presents his revised budget this week, he may reveal how he intends to cover the cap-and-invest program’s shortfall, particularly whether he will maintain the $1 billion bullet train commitment that project leaders say is vital to continuing construction of its Merced-to-Bakersfield segment.

It could boil down to bullet train vs. wildfire protection.

Seven years ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law to bring safe and affordable drinking water to the state’s most disadvantaged communities. 

Last week, Newsom celebrated the program’s accomplishments. 

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

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

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

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

Climate money for clean water

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘There’s nothing left’ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newsom deflected, pointing to the Legislature. 

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

‘Many of them were left behind’ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polhemus said he understands communities are nervous.

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

In summary

The federal government’s annual “point-in-time” homelessness count is used by city and county governments across the country to determine funding and gauge progress in getting people off the streets.

Every December, the federal government releases a report that reveals the number of homeless residents in each state and across the country.

It’s now May and the report, which compiles data from a homeless census known as the “point-in-time count,” is nowhere to be found. 

That’s a problem because the report dictates how funding is allocated in California and beyond. It also shapes policy decisions and provides the country’s main barometer for how the homelessness crisis is being managed. 

The five-month delay is leaving public officials, policymakers and advocates scratching their heads. California has filled the gap by tallying its own data, showing a 9% drop in the number of people sleeping outside. But unlike the official federal report, California’s analysis leaves out information such as the race, age and mental health status of the people who are counted. And without the full federal report, there’s no way to tell where California stands compared to other states. 

“It’s a big deal,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, spokesperson for the National Homelessness Law Center. “This is, by what I can tell, the latest any point-in-time count has ever come out, including the years where it was delayed during COVID.”

‘Point-in-time’ count

For the past two decades, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has required local regions to take a census of their homeless populations every other year in a massive undertaking called the point-in-time count. Volunteers go out on foot over a day or two in January and count every person they see living outside. People sleeping in shelters are tallied as well. Counters also conduct surveys of a sample of unhoused people, collecting extra data on people’s race, age, gender, time spent homeless, medical and mental health conditions, and more.

The count isn’t perfect (volunteers can easily miss people, and different counties use different methods), but it’s a key tool policy makers use to measure changes in the population.

Each jurisdiction (which is known in HUD parlance as a “continuum of care,” and typically is made up of a county and the cities within it) must submit their count to HUD by the spring. They also release their local data to the public. Meanwhile, HUD verifies the data, tallies the total count for each state and for the country as a whole, submits a public report to Congress and uploads more detailed data on its website.

While there’s no legal deadline, that  report usually comes out in December of the year of the count. In 2021 and 2020, when COVID disrupted counts, the reports came out the following February and March, respectively. 

It’s unclear why the 2025 report still isn’t out. The report is so much later than usual that some counties, including San Francisco, already released their 2026 count data.

HUD refused to comment.

“It is perplexing that HUD has not released this information,” Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said in a statement to CalMatters. “Perhaps the Trump administration is afraid to release clear data that demonstrates California’s strategies for addressing this issue are actually extremely effective.”

What California’s data show

California’s data does point to a reduction in homelessness, suggesting the state’s methods are starting to work. Data provided by the Newsom administration, and echoed by an independent analysis, show a 4% overall decrease between 2024 and 2025, and a 9% drop in people sleeping in tents, on the sidewalk, in cars or in other places not meant for habitation.

That data comes from the 30 California continuums of care that counted their street homeless populations last year. The remaining 14 that counted this year instead (they’re only required to count at least every other year) are not included.

“I think it shows that the headwinds in California continue to be very strong and continue to push more people into homelessness,” said Alex Visotzky, senior California policy fellow for the National Alliance to End Homelessness, “but the investments to build up the response to homelessness have made a really big difference and are moving people out of homelessness faster than ever before.”

That runs counter to President Donald Trump’s platform, which holds California up as an example of failed homelessness policy. California follows a principle called “housing first,” which prioritizes getting people into housing immediately and then addressing their other needs (such as mental health and substance use help). The Trump administration wants to end housing first, which it says isn’t working, and instead withhold housing until people enroll in addiction treatment or other programs.

California also uses most of its federal funds to pay for permanent housing, which experts say is the most effective way to end someone’s homelessness. The Trump administration recently tried to divert that money to temporary shelters where people stay for a limited time. 

California’s homelessness strategy

California is one of 19 states suing the Trump administration over that change. That case is ongoing, but, in a win for the states, a federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s changes.

A drop in homelessness in California would have a significant impact on the country’s overall homeless population. Nearly a quarter of all unhoused Americans lived in California as of 2024 – a total of more than 187,000 people, according to the most recent HUD report. 

The New York Times found homelessness also dropped in other places around the country last year, including Chicago, Denver, Washington, D.C., Minnesota, Florida and Maine, which it found points to a nationwide reduction.

If homelessness dropped nationwide in 2025, it would be the first time in eight years. In 2024, the national count hit 771,480 – an 18% increase from the year before.

In the battle over whether to change a California crime law, both supporters and critics are waging their campaign not only through crime statistics but also by invoking harrowing anecdotes — including one involving American rapper Lil Nas X.

As Gagandeep Singh for CalMatters explains, legislators are advancing a bill that would lower the threshold a judge could use to deny mental health diversion for people accused of certain crimes. 

The bill would tweak a 2018 law that currently allows judges to block diversion if they find the defendant poses “an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” But by changing the standard to “a substantial and undue risk,” which the bill proposes, it would make it easier for judges to reject diversion and send defendants to prison instead.

Proponents, which include police unions and law enforcement leaders, argue that it closes a loophole that allows violent offenders to walk free. In his support of the measure, Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho cites multiple cases from Sacramento County in which suspects committed serious offenses after being granted diversion.

The most recent case occurred last year, when deputies arrested 40-year-old Jordon Murray for allegedly stabbing another person to death in Fair Oaks. Murray was previously released from jail under a mental health diversion.

But public defenders and civil liberties organizations say the 2018 law is working as intended, and that judges already wield enough power to limit access to diversion. In illustrating the success of diversion, the California Public Defenders Association points to Lil Nas X, a prominent music artist whose real name is Montero Lamar Hill.

In 2025 police found Hill, nearly naked, wandering the streets of Los Angeles. Officers said Hill charged at them, and he faced four felony counts and up to five years in prison. A judge granted him diversion, saying at the time, “When treated, he is much better off and society is much better off.”

• Kate Chatfield, executive director of the association, in an April press release: “Diversion is not a loophole. … It is a promise that the system will respond to human beings as human beings, that treatment is possible, that a crisis does not have to define a life.” 

The Senate’s Appropriations Committee will decide on Thursday whether the bill moves forward.

Read more.

---

The issues defining California’s future don’t wait, and neither should you. From AI to immigration to the next governor’s challenges, join CalMatters on May 21 for the Ideas Festival and be part of the conversation. Secure your seat.

We’re bringing our voter guide to life through VotingMatters events across California this month, in collaboration with on-the-ground partners: Local news organizations, colleges, libraries, churches and nonprofit organizations. Our next events are tonight in Los Angeles and Thursday evening in Bakersfield. Plus, we have a DIY kit to host your own event. 

Focus on Inland Empire: Each Wednesday, CalMatters Inland Empire reporter Aidan McGloin surveys the big stories from that part of California. Read his newsletter and sign up here to receive it.

---

Other Stories You Should Know

---

‘Borrowed time’ on gas supply

If your wallet is already hurting at the pump, things may get even worse in the next few weeks, reports CalMatters’ Alejandro Lazo.

At a recent legislative oversight hearing, Siva Gunda, the vice chairperson of the California Energy Commission, said the state’s fuel supplies look stable for the next six weeks. After about mid-June, however, it’ll cost California — and consumers, in turn — a lot more money to secure more oil and gas.

As of this week, Californians pay an average of $6.15 a gallon — the highest in the country. But if the conflict in Iran drags on, the average in California would likely settle “under seven, more like $6.50,” Gunda said.

Severin Borenstein, a UC Berkeley energy economist who was also at the hearing, has a more pessimistic view: If the Strait of Hormuz stays closed another 60 days, the price of crude could increase by another $40 to $80 a barrel, he said. Each $40 increase adds about another $1 per gallon at the pump.

• Borenstein: “I know we all hope that doesn’t happen and that the flow of oil resumes, but the reality is we are on borrowed time as we run down inventories.”

Read more.

1 million students affected by Canvas hack

As California schools assess the fallout from the major Canvas cyberattack, at least one state lawmaker wants answers.

Teachers use the popular academic software Canvas to give tests, communicate with students, post grades and more. Last week a hacker group claimed to obtain sensitive data through Canvas and demanded a ransom. 

Canvas’ outage hit California especially hard — likely affecting more than 1 million of the state’s university students, write CalMatters’ Colin Lecher and Mikhail Zinshteyn. The hack has raised serious questions about whether schools should be so dependent on centralized solutions for their online education tools. Though these services enable schools to easily manage everything on a single platform, a security breach of one company also leaves vulnerable the data of numerous institutions.

The outage prompted Sen. Melissa Hurtado to seek a legislative audit into California’s heavy reliance on Canvas. 

• Hurtado, a Bakersfield Democrat: The “breach exposes the growing risks of concentrating massive amounts of student records … into a single platform.”

Read more.

And lastly: New bill tackles CA’s public defender crisis

Following a 2025 investigative series by CalMatters’ Anat Rubin that exposed the systemic failures of California’s public defender system, lawmakers introduced a bill that would require counties to report basic information about their public defender services, such as how many cases attorneys handle. Read more.

---

California Voices

CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: Stanford University’s report on California public schools leaves no doubt that the state dashboard and local improvement plans implemented under former Gov. Jerry Brown haven’t worked well.

CalMatters contributor Robert Greene: For Los Angelenos of a certain age, the governor’s race may come as a surprise for voters who remember the 2001 mayoral race — when the clean-cut Xavier Becerra and the electric Antonio Villaraigosa first squared off.

---

Other things worth your time:

Some stories may require a subscription to read.

---

He was fired for sexually harassing students. CA allowed him to keep teaching anyway // ProPublica

Becerra’s rivals in the CA governor’s race have seized on these 3 incidents // San Francisco Chronicle

Porter faces backlash online after saying illegal immigration drives CA’s population growth // MSN

CA Democrats rush to pass additional anti-ICE bills // Caló News

Forget tech and Hollywood. CA is powered by healthcare jobs // The Wall Street Journal

Santa Clara County sues Meta, alleging it made billions from scam ads as Californians lost billions // The Mercury News

Union-funded ‘attack ad’ against Pratt seems aimed at helping him make LA mayoral runoff, analysts say // Los Angeles Times

‘Being here breaks people’: Inside solitary confinement at Adelanto // LAist

Arcadia mayor, accused of being Chinese foreign agent, strikes deal with feds and resigns // Los Angeles Times

California just gave plastic producers until 2032 to make all their packaging recyclable or compostable — the most ambitious deadline in the country. Advocates say it doesn’t go far enough. Producers say it goes too far. At least one of them is threatening to sue.

The sweeping regulations, finalized at the start of the month, put producers in a bind that has no obvious solution. Plastic clamshell containers, for instance, protect berries from being crushed and keep them fresher, longer until they reach a refrigerator. Plastic producers say there’s simply no substitute — yet under the new rules, they’ll have to find one. 

Last week, two environmental groups — the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste — said they plan to take California to court. Their argument: the state’s rules actually break the law by allowing recycling methods that create a lot of toxic waste, and by letting some plastics slip through the rules entirely. On the other side, plastic manufacturers say the rules go too far and will make products more expensive for shoppers.

Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from coastal Los Angeles County who authored the plastic waste law, said the program still “massively moves the needle on this really major problem” — even if the process was messy. “This was the product of a compromise, and it was not perfect, and everybody walked away from the table, you know, unhappy about various aspects,” Allen said.

“California is the United States, but 30 years in the future,” said Joe Árvai,  director of the University of Southern California’s Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies. “What’s happening now is emblematic of trends that we are seeing worldwide … and the U.S. needs to adapt in the way that those countries are adapting in order to remain globally competitive.”

Less plastic, more recycling 

For decades, the burden of reducing, reusing and recycling plastic waste has fallen on consumers. Once a consumer buys a product, they decide what happens to it — whether it ends up in the garbage can or the recycling blue bin — and their tax dollars fund recycling systems we have today.  

In 2022, California’s landmark Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, shifted that responsibility to businesses. The regulations outline what materials are covered by the law and who counts as a “producer” of plastic waste.  

The new regulations are a huge milestone, said Anja Brandon, director of U.S. plastics policy for the Ocean Conservancy. “There’s plenty more steps on this journey, but I’m just really excited that we are going to start making real progress,” she said. 

The law applies to plastic food service ware and almost all single-use packaging — from the plastic wrap around large pallets of products shipped to retailers to a tube of toothpaste and the cardboard box around it.  

Our broken recycling system

Most of the plastic packaging Californians throw away isn’t recycled — and that’s not your fault as a consumer.

For decades, the revolving green arrows symbol has urged consumers tp do a better job of reducing, reusing and recycling. But the system itself started out broken, and got worse.  

When people toss items into recycling bins, workers at recycling centers sort through them. Contaminated items — like a peanut butter tub with residue still inside — go straight to the landfill. Manufacturers buy clean, valuable materials like water bottles and detergent tubs and turn them into new products.

But a slew of other trash isn’t valuable enough to sell. It ends up in landfills, too.

In 2021, the plastic recycling rate was only 6% nationwide, according to a report by the advocacy group Beyond Plastics. That’s down from 8% in 2018, partly because China and other countries that used to buy our trash have stopped doing so. In California, most plastic packaging types are recycled at strikingly low rates, according to a 2025 CalRecycle report: Even milk jugs and detergent bottles, among the most commonly recycled plastics, reached only 19%, while most others came in at single digits or below.

.sidebar-with-copy { border-radius: 4px; border: 1px solid #ccc; } .sidebar-with-copy h2 { font-size: 24px; margin-bottom: 0px; } .sidebar-with-copy p, .sidebar-with-copy li { font-size: 0.9rem; line-height: 1.3rem; } .sidebar-with-copy li { margin-bottom: 10px; }

To carry out the law, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery appointed the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit that helps states carry out extended producer responsibility mandates, as the organizing body for producers. The alliance is responsible for coming up with  a plan to meet the law’s goals. 

Producers — defined as companies that make more than $1 million in sales and produce products packaged in plastic or own brands under which those products are sold — must join the organization and pay fees to fund waste management. They can meet the law’s requirements by using less plastic, finding alternative materials, or investing in recycling infrastructure.

“The biggest challenge is the scale and coordination required to modernize a complex recycling system across a state as large and diverse as California,” said Sheila Estaniel, a spokesperson for the Circular Action Alliance, in an email. 

California’s requirement that businesses reduce single-use plastic altogether makes it one of the strongest plastic waste laws in the country. It also goes further than other similar laws because it requires plastic producers to pay $5 billion over a decade to address the environmental damage their products have caused to communities — though the state doesn’t expect to start distributing those funds until 2027 at the earliest.

Watered down rules

The plastic waste rules have had a rocky road to implementation. 

In 2024, CalRecycle developed a first draft of regulations detailing what plastic the law covers and what producers must do. The draft expired before CalRecycle finalized it. In 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed regulators to rewrite the rules — a move that some advocates say say food and agriculture lobbyists pushed for.

The result was a second draft that carved out a broad exclusion for plastics used for food and agriculture purposes, covering products under the jurisdiction of the FDA and USDA, such as packaging for fresh produce and supplements. Advocates said the exclusion gutted the law.

“Governor Newsom was clear when he asked CalRecycle to restart these regulations that they should work to minimize costs for small businesses and families — while ensuring California’s bold recycling law can achieve the critical goal of cutting plastic pollution,” said Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for the governor. “That’s exactly what these draft regulations do.” 

CalRecycle submitted that draft to the Office of Administrative Law in August 2025, but withdrew it to make changes that narrowed that exclusion. Regulators ultimately excluded only plastic that federal law requires for food safety — walking back a broader carve-out that advocates said would have gutted the law.

Advocates gear up to sue 

Not all plastics follow the same rules — and advocates object to the state’s two-track system.

Some materials with unique technical challenges can apply for exemptions, but must meet specific criteria to qualify.  

Others, like plastic that federal law requires for food safety, escape the rules entirely once producers complete an application to CalRecycle — no timeline, no obligations.

“In practice, this allows exclusions to remain in effect …even for notices that ultimately fail — creating strong incentives to submit weak or legally unsupported claims simply to delay (and effectively filibuster) compliance,” wrote Tony Hackett, a policy associate for Californians Against Waste in a public comment letter to the department. 

Advocates raise a second concern: the regulations allow certain waste polluting technologies — ones the law specifically excluded because they generate significant quantities of hazardous waste — to count as recycling, as long as they have a hazardous waste permit.

These technologies include chemical recycling processes that the oil industry has long promoted as a solution to plastic pollution — a claim California’s attorney general says is deliberately misleading. Rob Bonta has sued ExxonMobil alleging the company misled the public about recycling’s potential to address the plastic crisis.  

“These regulations ignore explicit limits on recycling technologies and create permanent escape hatches the law never authorized,” said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, in a statement. 

Rhonalyn Cabello, a CalRecycle spokesperson, said the agency does not comment on pending or potential litigation.  

Sen. Allen agreed the regulations fall short. 

“We feel that the regulations as presented don’t maintain some of the core agreements that were made in the passage of the bill,” he said. When there’s too many exclusions, he said, companies are “basically forcing everybody else to pay and getting away scot free.” 

Set up to fail?

Businesses claim they want to reduce plastic waste but feel trapped by conflicting state regulations and a lack of viable packaging alternatives.

The tension starts with labeling. The state’s accurate recycling labels law, Senate Bill 343, prohibits businesses from using the chasing arrows symbol to indicate recyclability unless certain criteria are met. Advocates say the restriction is necessary to avoid confusion. But businesses say it means consumers are less likely to recycle products that could be recyclable. 

“If we lose the right to use (recycling labels on) dairy cartons, our members are going to have to expand their plastic use, because that is the only other packaging type that can take a shelf stable product,” said Katie Davey, executive director of the Dairy Institute of California. 

As investments from producers flow to cities and counties under the law, Cabello said, more materials may eventually meet the labeling criteria.  

Beyond labeling, businesses say workable alternatives to plastic simply don’t exist yet — and that getting there will be costly. Investments needed to meet the law’s first goal alone — a 25% reduction in single-use plastic by 2032 — could cost up to $15.4 billion, according to CalRecycle estimates.  

Kevin Kelly, the chief executive of Emerald Packaging, sells film plastic packaging to farmers, who use the plastic to bag items like salads and baby carrots. Paper packaging that could replicate plastic’s ability to regulate oxygen and carbon dioxide levels — keeping produce fresh — is still in early development, he said, and mass production is decades away. 

“You have to build tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure to actually produce something at the level that would be needed to replace plastics,” Kelly said. 

Dairy illustrates the same problem. Alternatives to plastic milk packaging include refrigerated gable-top cartons, shelf-stable cartons, and glass. Each comes with tradeoffs. Glass is heavier — meaning fewer units per shipment — and clear glass exposes fresh milk to light that can degrade it. Switching packaging lines entirely would cost producers about $40 million for a single mid-size line, according to the Dairy Institute — a cost they would pass on to consumers.  

“We’re deeply concerned because we know that food costs are going to increase and products are going to come off the market because there literally is not a packaging solution within the required timeframe,” Davey said. 

But USC’s Joe Árvai said producer complaints are really about the pace of change, not whether compliant packaging is possible at all. 

“Whether they like it or not, these changes are coming,” he said. “In the end, there are going to be players in the industry that are going to be better able to respond, and they will be better indemnified against the shocks than their partners and competitors.”

What happens next

The next major test comes in June, when the Circular Action Alliance must submit its plan to CalRecycle outlining how producers will meet the law’s goals. 

Oregon, which passed a similar law and is also facing an industry legal challenge, offers a possible model. There, grant funding is already flowing to expand reuse and refill infrastructure — helping businesses and schools replace single-use plastic products and improve recycling access. 

“Despite the fact that there’s a lawsuit in Oregon, money is moving out the door,” said the Ocean Conservancy’s Anja Brandon. She said groups like hers will closely watch the June plan.

“We’ll all be waiting with bated breath” to see how producers are interpreting this and what pathways they’re laying out, she said. 

Meanwhile, advocates will be watching closely as CalRecycle begins to make decisions about who qualifies for exclusions and exemptions. The Natural Resources Defense Council is waiting for CalRecycle to post additional documents before filing its lawsuit.

“If we let this thing get derailed and turned into a Swiss cheese of exemptions and non‑compliance, it will really harm our global progress on this issue,” Allen said. 

In summary

San Diego County wants an ethics commission and fiscal watchdogs. LA County is adding more supervisors. Both want better budgets. How California counties are updating their charters.

San Diego County Board Chair Terra Lawson-Remer pitched a plan to reform the county charter by adding an ethics commission, fiscal watchdogs and an open budget process, while giving supervisors longer term limits and more say over senior staff.

It aims to improve what she called a “giant county bureaucracy of 20,000 people” that  “doesn’t seem to work for voters.”

If San Diego voters green-light it in the November election, Lawson-Remer said it would modernize county government and bring it in line with other large California counties. Los Angeles County is revising its government after voters approved a charter reform measure in 2024, while San Francisco is considering amending its charter.

Lawson-Remer argues the proposed changes would make San Diego County more efficient, enabling supervisors to better manage its $8.6 billion budget and serve 3.3 million residents.  And she thinks it would position the county to respond to sweeping federal changes and budget cuts under the Trump administration, which has slashed funds for homeless programs, healthcare and food assistance.

“We have really tried to take a careful look at how to make government accountable and prioritize good government locally, because we’re nationally in a difficult situation,” she said.

Lawson-Remer said the reforms would add no extra cost to taxpayers and would instead use existing resources and modernize outdated structures to reduce “inefficiency, duplication, and waste.”

Critics say her plan goes too far and would invest the board of supervisors with inordinate power. On Saturday her colleague Supervisor Joel Anderson offered a counter-proposal; he also supports the oversight positions, but wants to limit supervisors’ authority over top administrators and apply longer term limits only to future office-holders, not the present board.

“My revised measure takes a more collegial approach: focused, transparent, and grounded in what you actually asked for: real reform, not a rushed power grab,” Anderson said in a statement.

What San Diego County’s changes would do

Lawson-Remer’s proposed charter reform has five main components.  It would establish an independent ethics commission with authority over elected officials, which could examine complaints ranging from financial conflicts of interests to sexual harassment allegations. The commission would have the power to subpoena witnesses and would be required to make its findings public.

She also wants to create new positions for a nonpartisan budget analyst who reports to the board, and an independent program auditor to evaluate whether county programs in areas such as homelessness, mental health and jail services deliver the expected results. 

For instance, she said, “if you’re spending money on homelessness programs, how many people are you helping per dollar, and are you getting them off the streets permanently or just for a few days?”

Her proposal also calls for county department heads to present budget requests directly to the board during public hearings, where they would explain their program needs and spending asks. 

Under the existing system the county administrative officer develops the budget and submits it to the board as a finished document. Breaking it down by department would allow supervisors to weigh in earlier, and shape the budget before the spending plan is solidified, Lawson-Remer said.

She also wants to empower supervisors to hire and fire some top county officials, instead of leaving those appointments to the chief administrative officer. Under her plan the board would confirm appointments for the assistant and deputies to the CAO, the emergency services director, public health officer and public defender. It could also require the public defender to report directly to the board, instead of to the CAO.

Finally, the proposed charter reform calls for extending term limits on supervisors from two four-year terms to three, for a total of 12 years. Lawson-Remer said that would bring San Diego County in line with state legislative limits of 12 years, and other counties such as Los Angeles that allow three terms.

It would also apply those restrictions to other elected officials including the sheriff and district attorney, but only if state law is changed to permit that. Under current state law those countywide positions cannot be subject to term limits.

Lawson-Remer said 39 organizations contributed to the proposal and the final recommendations represent modest changes to increase the county’s efficiency without disrupting its existing structure.

“Some of the ideas that were on the table were pretty big changes, and those were eliminated in favor of thinking carefully, doing the smallest possible things to make moderate changes to make government work, and making government as accountable as possible to voters,” she said.

Charter reforms in other counties

Other large California counties are introducing more dramatic changes to their government structures. 

For instance, in 2024 Los Angeles County voters passed a charter reform measure that introduced open budget hearings and a similar ethics commission to San Diego. But it goes much further.

The LA charter reform measure also adds an elected county executive, a sort of countywide mayor who will preside over government departments, develop the budget and lead emergency response. It expands the board from five to nine seats and creates a charter review commission that will meet every 10 years to consider additional changes.

“People are frustrated with the status quo,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who spearheaded the charter reform drive.  “They’ve lost faith in government, they see corruption and they want accountability.” 

Reform was long overdue, Horvath said.

“We haven’t changed our model of government since 1912, when there were more cows than people and when women didn’t have the right to vote. We know 2026 reality is substantially different than the last time the county took a look at the governance model.”

The voter-mandated changes are being phased in over a decade. Los Angeles County launched open budget hearings last year, and is starting the second round now. 

“The budget process here was historically rather opaque,” Horvath said. Now, “It’s a much more rigorous, robust public process,” in which department heads present their programs and staffing needs over several days of public hearings. 

Los Angeles County is creating the ethics commission now and will introduce the county executive position in 2028.

In 2031, following the next redistricting cycle, Los Angeles County will be divided into nine districts, and elections for those offices will begin on a staggered basis starting in 2032.

The fact that supervisors called for diluting their own authority has been a source of wonderment to some observers; the civic organization Zócalo Public Square highlighted that paradox in a commentary entitled: “Miracle in L.A.: Politicians Seek to Reduce Their Own Power.”

Horvath maintains the extra seats are necessary to ensure that supervisors can adequately serve their districts, which now number around 2 million people each in the county of 10 million. She thinks adding a county executive position “creates healthy checks and balances.”

By contrast San Francisco, which operates as a consolidated city-county, is considering changes which would concentrate power in the mayor’s office. Mayor Daniel Lurie said those reforms would streamline government, arguing that the current system “locks in bureaucracy, diffuses accountability, and protects the status quo.”

One provision would give the mayor sole authority to hire and fire most city department heads and appoint deputy mayors to oversee some policy decisions. Another would give the city administrator authority over changes to the city’s purchasing laws. Under a third measure the signature requirement for citizen initiatives would increase from 2% to 8% of registered voters.

San Diego County counter-proposal 

Public speakers at a San Diego County Board of Supervisors meeting last month were divided on the merits of charter reform. 

Some speakers applauded the supervisors’ goals of transparency, accountability, and independent oversight, but said empowering the board to hire and fire watchdogs and other top county leaders would undermine that. Critics objected to extending term limits for supervisors, saying two terms is enough time to get the job done.

Others argued that the county charter is broken and needs updating. Courtney Baltiyskyy, with the Tijuana River Coalition, said inefficient county systems have hindered efforts to fix toxic sewage pollution in the Tijuana River.

“For too long, there’s been uncertainty about the health impacts about who’s responsible and about how to actually move solutions forward,” she said.

The three Democratic supervisors – Lawson-Remer, Paloma Aguirre and Monica Montgomery Steppe – voted to approve the charter reform measure, which will return to the board for a second reading on May 19.

Republican Supervisors Joel Anderson and Jim Desmond opposed it.

Desmond, who terms out of office this year and is running for Congress, chastised the measure as a “self-serving action to put an extension of term limits on the ballot to the benefit of these current board members sitting here today,” arguing that the rest of the proposed reforms were included  “to bury and sugarcoat the term limit extension from two to three terms.”

Lawson-Remer called that interpretation “very conspiracy-minded.” She’s expecting a baby in a few weeks and said whether to run for re-election in 2028 is not top of mind. 

“You know what would be really self-serving is if I had a job that had maternity leave,” she said.

Anderson, who terms out in 2028 but is running for San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector this year, said he wanted to approve the measure, but objected to applying the extended term limits to sitting supervisors. And he disagreed with authorizing the board to confirm or remove senior staff. 

Anderson introduced a competing charter reform proposal that the board will also consider Tuesday, which would also delete potential term limits on countywide officials such as the sheriff and district attorney.

The Board of Supervisors will consider both those motions next week, and vote on whether to place San Diego County charter reform on the November ballot.

In summary

Californians accused of crimes can receive mental health treatment rather than prison time under a 2018 law. Lawmakers are revamping the rules following reports of violent offenses.

Four years ago, Jerome Grayson was arrested on suspicion of shooting another Sonoma County man in the chest. But his mother, Monique Sexton, believed he could avoid prison. Grayson’s father had died of cancer and a forensic psychologist diagnosed Grayson with post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Under a California law enacted in 2018, defendants with qualifying mental health diagnoses can receive treatment instead of going to prison and have their records wiped clean if they finish. The process, known as mental health diversion, is unavailable to people accused of murder and certain sex-related offenses. Grayson was eligible.  

 But when the family appeared in Sonoma County Superior Court, a judge denied him diversion and concluded he posed a risk to public safety. Two weeks later, Sexton’s daughter took her own life.

“That is not justice,” said Sexton, who works at the Sonoma County Superior Courthouse and has become familiar with the diversion system.

Sexton’s experience is an example of what’s at stake this spring as the Legislature advances a measure that would change the rules for mental health diversion in ways that would give judges more discretion to deny it. It was shaped by lawmakers from both parties responding to reports of people committing serious crimes after receiving diversion.

 Currently, once someone qualifies for diversion, a judge can stop it if they find the defendant poses “an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety,” as stated in the 2018 law. Critics say that threshold essentially forces judges to grant diversion when they don’t think it’s appropriate; supporters say it appropriately defers to decisions by mental health experts. The new measure would allow judges to block diversion if they think it would pose a “a substantial and undue risk” to anyone’s physical safety, an easier threshold for denial.

With her son in prison on a six-year sentence, Sexton says judges already have enough power to reject diversion.  “I don’t believe that judicial officers should have any more discretion than they already have right now because it’s already being abused,” Sexton said.  

The measure,  Assembly Bill 46, is from Democrat Stephanie Nguyen of Elk Grove. It passed the Assembly last year and is now moving forward in the Senate, where it cleared the Public Safety Committee last month by a 5-1 vote. 

It’s overwhelmingly supported by the state’s police unions and law enforcement leaders, who frame the “unreasonable risk”threshold as a dangerous loophole that lets violent offenders walk free. Public defenders and civil liberties organizations are fighting the bill, saying the 2018 law is working as intended and the changes would strip vulnerable people of the treatment they need, particularly people of color and lower-income Californians who are not represented by private attorneys .

“Judges already make these decisions,” Nyugen said. “This just gives them a clearer standard to apply. It doesn’t expand their role, it clarifies it.”.

The bill would also make it more difficult for  mental health experts to conclude that the defendant’s mental disorder caused or contributed to the offense. Under current law, the experts must conclude there is a “preponderance of evidence” that the disorder caused or contributed to the crime. Under the proposed law, they must conclude there is “clear and convincing evidence” it did so.

UC Berkeley School of Law Professor Andrea Crider called the bill unnecessary. “From my understanding, the people who have been touting this legislation are largely conservative district attorneys, and they have used what I would describe as ‘extreme outlier cases’,” Crider said. 

At the same time, Crider also recognized there are real victims in those cases who have experienced real harm. “There certainly are a lot of gaps within mental health diversion, but it’s not completely broken,” Crider said. “There’s been a lot of success through mental health diversion.”

Law enforcement leaders point to violent offenses

Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho is supporting Nguyen’s Assembly Bill 46 because he believes the current system puts too much onus on prosecutors opposing diversion to prove that someone will not commit a violent crime in the future.

“You walk into a bank, and you rob that bank, or you shoot the teller who survives. So it’s an attempted murder. You are eligible to get a mental health diversion for that bank robbery,” said Ho, a Democrat who is running for Congress. “Then, if the doctor says that you have insomnia, the judge must assume that you committed your bank robbery and attempted murder because of your insomnia.” 

Under current law, the court must find that a mental health disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense, according to an analysis of Nguyen’s bill by the state senate committee on appropriations.

But once that happens, the judge will almost always give the defendant mental health diversion, Ho said, “Unless I, the prosecutor, can prove that you, in the future, will commit a rape, a murder, or child molestation.” 

Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, a former Democratic Assemblymember, has joined Ho in supporting the new bill. Both of them have shared recordings of jail inmates talking about mental health diversion as a way to avoid prison time.

Ho cited three cases from Sacramento County in which mental health diversion was granted, and then the suspects committed serious offenses. 

In May 2025, Sacramento County deputies arrested 40-year-old Jordon Murray for the alleged fatal stabbing of Carlos Romero in Fair Oaks. Murray was previously released from jail under a mental health diversion.  

In March 2026, 47-year-old Willie King was charged with murder after being allegedly involved in a deadly shooting in Sacramento. According to the prosecutors, King had three prior strike convictions for burglary and was released from jail before shooting under the state’s mental health diversion program, despite objections from prosecutors. 

In December 2023, Fernando Jimenez was arrested on murder charges in Placer County.  He was under mental health diversion on a Sacramento County case for battery with serious bodily injury and terrorist threats when he allegedly reoffended in Placer County and now has a pending case in that county.

In 2025, the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office received more than 1,300 motions for mental health diversion.  Of those, 689 motions were granted on felony cases alone.  As of the end of this March, of those granted mental health diversion in 2025 alone, 247 — nearly 36% —were arrested on new charges.

For comparison, 39% of people leaving California state prisons are convicted of new offenses within three years of release, according to state data. 

Mental health diversion in LA courts

Opponents of Nguyen’s bill counter that the diversion has proven effective in getting treatment to people who need it and that crime rates have continued to fall since it took effect. They also say it shifts too much power away from clinicians and toward judges, who are more susceptible to political pressure.

The California Public Defenders Association cited the Judicial Council of California’s data that more than 17,000 people have been granted mental health diversion from 2019 to 2025, excluding Los Angeles and San Diego counties. Over the same period, crime rates in California have dropped, and continue to drop, to historic lows A total of 188,146 crimes were tallied in California in 2024.

“If mental health diversion were the public safety catastrophe its critics claim, the data would show it. It does not,” the public defender’s association said in its newsletter. 

Los Angeles County Public Defender Ricardo García  in a letter to lawmakers wrote that fewer than 10% of graduates from Los Angeles County’s mental health diversion program have new cases filed against them after release.

“The Mental Health Diversion Courts in Los Angeles County are highly successful,” he wrote.

In contrast to the cases Ho has cited, a judge in Los Angeles granted prominent, genre-bending singer Lil Nas X entry into a mental health diversion program after an August arrest. He had been found wandering Ventura Boulevard in the early morning hours, nearly naked, in cowboy boots. 

When officers arrived, they say he charged at them. Lil Nas X — the stage name of Montero Lamar Hill — faced four felony counts and up to five years in prison.

Granting him a two-year diversion program, the court said: “When treated, he is much better off and society is much better off.”

“You all know something that is easy to lose in the political debate around these bills: that diversion is not a loophole,” California Public Defenders Association Executive Director Kate Chatfield wrote. “It is a promise that the system will respond to human beings as human beings, that treatment is possible, that a crisis does not have to define a life.” 

For Southern California voters of a certain age, there’s something disorienting about the current race for governor.

It’s not that two Republican candidates may shut out the entire field of Democrats in this overwhelmingly Democratic state. Democrats are always coming up with new ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so none of that is particularly new or surprising.

No, the cognitive dissonance for Los Angeles voters who remember a historic mayoral race a quarter of a century ago is this: Xavier Becerra is leading the pack. Antonio Villaraigosa is struggling in the single digits.

Seriously? How could that happen? What cataclysm took place to bring about this reversal of fortune?

Villaraigosa was always the electric one, the history-maker, the man of destiny. On completing his tenure as state Assembly speaker, he steamrolled home to Los Angeles to run for mayor in 2001. Broadcasters, after several months of butchering his name, finally began to pronounce it correctly, then quickly learned how to pronounce Cristóbal Aguilar, as in, “Villaraigosa could be the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles since Cristóbal Aguilar in 1872.”

But it wasn’t just that he was Latino. Labor loved him. Progressives loved him. The cameras loved him. His flashy smile was like the beacon on top of City Hall that once pointed planes toward the airport but had been shut off for decades. Maybe it was time to turn it back on.

Who could stop the Villaraigosa phenomenon? His biggest obstacle was City Attorney James K. Hahn, scion of L.A. political royalty. Other candidates made a play too.

Then Becerra entered the race, and much of Los Angeles let out a collective, “Who?”

Becerra was a Stanford-educated lawyer and native Sacramentan who served a single term in the state Assembly before succeeding the legendary Edward Roybal in Congress. He was one of the so-called Boy Scouts, earnest, clean-cut young Latino men who went to law school, focused on policy and (in image) stayed out of trouble (yet who always seemed to be just an arm’s-length from some campaign trick worthy of Richard Nixon). 

Villaraigosa was only a few years older, but it was an important few years. He was already a teenager during the Chicano Moratorium in 1970, a member of MEChA while at UCLA, and a labor organizer in the early part of his career. Like Becerra he went to law school, but instead of Stanford it was People’s College of Law, an unaccredited school dedicated to “progressive social change.” 

Becerra kept his nose in the books. Villaraigosa focused on activism.

They ostensibly belonged to two rival Latino political factions, divided by loyalties to different mentors and defined by different places on the political spectrum, different attitudes toward coalition-building, different older-brother figures whose couches they slept on while establishing residency to qualify for office. 

But both men in fact worked with many of the same leaders and on many of the same causes. When Becerra was preparing his congressional run, his home was briefly Villaraigosa’s couch.

In the mayoral race, though, Becerra looked like Villaraigosa’s spoiler. Yet why should one Latino candidate feel obligated to stay out of another’s way when no one expected state controller and mayoral candidate Kathleen Connell, for example, to defer to Hahn?

What actually seemed to separate Villaraigosa and Becerra in the minds of most voters during the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral race’s first round was the electricity gap. To put it gently, Becerra was never a particularly exciting guy. 

That showed up in the vote count. He won less than 6%, too little to even make him a spoiler. 

In those days, city and congressional elections were held in different years, so Becerra could lose big for mayor and still return to his safe seat in Congress. Villaraigosa finished first, then Hahn beat him in the runoff, and then Villaraigosa crushed Hahn in the 2005 rematch. Villaraigosa was featured on national magazine covers and talk shows. He was a regular visitor to Washington, D.C. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein famously said he had “a special shimmer.” 

Becerra meanwhile plugged along in Congress. No one ever accused him of shimmering.

But unlike Villaraigosa, whose activist legal education didn’t prepare him for the bar exam, Becerra’s State Bar membership made him eligible for political advancement unavailable to non-lawyers. Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Becerra to be state attorney general when Kamala Harris vacated the office to take her seat in the U.S. Senate.

As AG (which, political pundits like to say, stands for “almost governor”), Becerra became known for his lawsuits against the first Trump administration.

Villaraigosa continued to call himself a “proud progressive” while tacking toward the political center (toward Becerra) and prepared his run to succeed Brown as governor in 2018. He got trounced — maybe even out-shimmered — by Gavin Newsom. He wandered in the political wilderness as Becerra became President Biden’s secretary of Health and Human Services during the COVID pandemic.

And here we are. Neither Becerra nor Villaraigosa made any headway in the current governor’s race until moderately shimmery Eric Swalwell was accused of rape and other sexual misconduct and quickly dropped out of contention, then out of Congress.

Nothing seems obvious or natural about Becerra suddenly inheriting Swalwell’s support. But someone had to. After the revulsion against Swalwell and after years of big personalities in office — Newsom as governor, Donald Trump as president once, and now as president again — Democrats may be hungry for someone steady, quiet and, let’s face it, a bit dull. Villaraigosa, scraping the lower regions of the polls, is not dull. Becerra may just fit the bill. 

A recent poll put him in the lead alongside Republican Steve Hilton. Announcers are practicing the name Romualdo Pacheco, the last Latino California governor in 1875. The reversal of fortune is complete.

Becerra’s unofficial campaign slogan may now be “cálmate,” a word he cheerfully lobbed toward Villaraigosa in a recent debate. Calm down, excitable friend. Maybe that’s what California Democrats want right now. A little calm.

That’s also what they wanted in the 2020 presidential race. And they got it.

For a little while.

In summary

Counties would have to report their public defenders’ workloads under the proposed legislation.

A new bill in the state Legislature would require counties to report basic information about public defender services, such as how many cases attorneys handle, in an effort to compel California to confront its public defender crisis.  

The proposed legislation comes after a CalMatters investigative series exposed failures in California’s county-based public defender systems. Our reporting showed that public defender offices across the state lack defense investigators, who are often the greatest protection against wrongful convictions. We also found that lawyers in several rural counties had astronomical caseloads, and were less likely than other defense attorneys to challenge the prosecutors’ evidence in legal motions and take their cases to trial. 

“We cannot as a government look the other way and rely exclusively on our journalistic partners to really uncover and peel back that onion and see how bad it is,” said Assemblymember Nick Schultz of Burbank, who is co-sponsoring the bill. He said statewide data might “reveal an even more bleak picture.” 

California has a constitutional obligation to ensure poor people accused of crimes, who account for more than 80 percent of criminal defendants, receive effective representation. But the state has left that responsibility entirely in the hands of its 58 counties, which collectively spend almost twice as much on prosecuting people as they do on defending them. 

California is one of just two states that don’t provide any funding or oversight of trial-level public defense. There are no minimum standards and no reporting requirements. The resulting patchwork of local systems is rife with disparities. 

Many of the state’s rural counties have outsourced their public defender services through flat-fee contracts, paying private attorneys and firms a fixed amount, regardless of how many cases they handle or how much time they spend on each case. A bill that would ban these arrangements, which disincentivize investigating and litigating cases, was put on hold last year. Seven of the eight counties with the state’s highest jail and prison incarceration rates have flat-fee contracts. 

“There are dire signs in some jurisdictions of attorneys handling 300, 400, 500, or more cases in a year, including hundreds of felonies,” said Josh Schwartz, a researcher with the Wren Collective, a nonprofit organization advocating for criminal justice reform. The proposed bill mandating data collection, he said, “would be a massive step towards bringing the caseload crisis that we know is occurring into public view.”

The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, would require each county to report rudimentary data every two years. Arambula had previously sponsored legislation that led to a comprehensive workload study of California’s public defender services. The study, which was published last year, called California “an outlier in not collecting and publishing comprehensive, aggregated data on its county-based public defense systems.” 

“This bill is a necessary first step in understanding the scope of this issue,” Arambula said. It would require legislators to “face that truth head on, and to identify disparities so that ultimately we can address them.”

Many of the contractors in counties with flat-fee systems already collect caseload data in order to report it to county supervisors. And most of the state’s institutional public defender offices use case management systems that track this data, though each county uses its own metrics. 

The California State Association of Counties opposes the bill, and has asked legislators to include language that would make compliance with reporting requirements contingent on state funding. The organization also opposes the flat-fee ban, and has characterized that measure as an unfunded mandate from the state. Arambula said his office is requesting $30 million to help counties pay for data collection. 

Scott Baly, a retired Fresno County public defender, told the assembly’s Public Safety Committee in April that criminal defendants want attorneys who have “time to read the police reports … to maybe meet you in the jail and listen to your side of the story.”

“Are they gonna talk to me and are they gonna help me with this problem? The answer to these questions is caseload,” he said. “How busy are these lawyers?”

The bill passed the assembly’s Local Government and Public Safety committees with unanimous support and is now in front of the Appropriations Committee. 

Schultz, a former prosecutor, said high caseloads and a lack of investigators undermine the entire justice system.

“We need to make sure that we’re making the investment to have a sufficient number of capable and qualified attorneys who can actually hold prosecutors to account and make them prove the case,” he said. “It has to start with the data.”

Shortly after beginning his second stint as governor of California in 2011, Jerry Brown began promoting a two-pronged overhaul of how the state finances public schools.

Brown proposed to eliminate, or at least reduce, “categorical aids,” which were earmarks for specific purposes and instead provide additional funds to schools with large numbers of kids falling behind on academic skills.

Brown said what came to be known as the Local Control Funding Formula would give local educators flexibility and additional resources to design curricula that match what their pupils need to succeed, buttressed by input from local parents and civic leaders.

It was the pet concept of Stanford University Professor Michael Kirst, who had long been Brown’s most trusted education advisor.

Education reformers who had been pressing politicians and the education establishment to do something about the mediocre — at best — levels of academic achievement of California’s schools generally supported the concept, except for one aspect.

Brown wanted to leave implementation to local school boards and administrators, a concept he dubbed “subsidiarity,” extrapolating it from a Catholic Church doctrine of empowering individuals.

Reformers were worried that putting more money into the hands of local school districts, without oversight to ensure that it was being spent effectively, would lead to its diversion into administration and more generous union contracts rather than hands-on instruction for kids who needed it most.

Brown insisted that the mechanism built into the new system, requiring local schools to  adopt plans to improve outcomes, bolstered by broad state measures of accountability, would suffice.

Experience proved otherwise.

The state’s accountability program turned out to be a jargon-filled mishmash of academic and non-academic items on a “dashboard” that was almost impossible to understand and did not give parents an accurate picture of whether their kids were learning to read, write and use mathematics.

The local plans that were supposed to guide educational improvements were equally dense, often written by formula rather than truly reflecting parental wishes. Districts, especially the large ones, would fudge on how the money was being used and if caught, would be given passes by state officials. Reformers often had to sue to get districts to use the money as Brown said it would be.

Finally, 13 years after the Local Control Funding Formula came into being, its shortcomings in accountability have been recognized in a massive study of California’s public school system, titled Getting Down to Facts, issued this month by Stanford University.

It explored many aspects of the system other than Brown’s handiwork, but it leaves no doubt that subsidiarity hasn’t worked well.

“California has many accountability tools and data systems, but they are not well connected to one another or to clear guidance and support” for schools and educators, Susanna Loeb, director of the study, says in her summary.

“Governance structures are fragmented and policies have proliferated over time, often creating disconnected, contradictory, and burdensome guidance to schools,” she wrote. “The system produces information without consistently turning that information into action.”

School districts face a lot of ambiguity about “what constitutes effective practice” and have heavy administrative burdens, she added: “In areas such as math instruction, tutoring, and curriculum, local leaders must navigate consequential decisions with limited clear guidance and heavy compliance demands, even where the research base is strong.”

The state dashboard and local improvement plans Brown touted are singled out for criticism in the report, essentially validating concerns that reformers had voiced but were ignored.

Loeb notes that California’s schools are at “an inflection point” on many levels. Maybe the study will persuade those in the Capitol to pay attention this time.

Eleven weeks into the Iran war and a global energy shock, California drivers are paying the highest gas prices in the nation, an average of $6.15 a gallon this week.

The pain at the pump is colliding with California’s ambitious push away from fossil fuels, as refinery closures, supply disruptions and a deepening debate over reliance on imported oil and gas raise new questions about whether the state can keep gasoline affordable during the transition.

Here are five things to know about how Sacramento is responding to the crisis and what it could mean for prices in the months ahead.

California can see six weeks out — after that, prices could rise.

California can confidently forecast gasoline and crude oil shipments coming in through about mid-June, and supply looks stable through that window, Siva Gunda, vice chair of the California Energy Commission, told an Assembly oversight hearing last week.

After that, oil and gas will cost significantly more to secure, he said.

California can outbid the rest of the world for gasoline and crude oil, pulling shipments away from Asia and other markets. But that bidding war comes at a cost, and consumers will pay it at the pump, Gunda told the committee.

To hedge against that uncertainty, Gunda said California is negotiating long-term supply deals with Asian refiners that could lock in another three to six months of certainty.

“Liquidity, in the short-term, is okay,” Gunda said. “As we move forward, it’s really about making sure more ships are coming, more marine vessels are coming.”

As refineries close, imports are filling the gap.

The Iran war has exposed California’s growing reliance on imports of both crude oil and gasoline. The state needs to import more supply as in-state refineries shut down.

Neale Mahoney, a Stanford economist, told the committee that imports can be a benefit. They add competition and lower prices, since newer overseas refineries often produce gasoline more cheaply than California’s.

Other experts agree. UC Berkeley energy economist Severin Borenstein, also at the hearing, said California’s resilience now depends on building out port, pipeline and storage capacity to handle imports, not on bringing new refineries online.

As the war has dragged on, California refiners have shifted crude sourcing away from the Persian Gulf toward Latin America, Alaska and Canada, Gunda said at the hearing last week. The state met about 20% of its refined-product demand through imports in the year before the war began.

“Fundamentally, we have to recognize we are going to have fewer refineries, and the solution is imports,” Borenstein said. 

The oil industry says imports are the problem, not the answer.

But the oil industry is pushing back, saying that relying on increased imports is the wrong strategy. California’s fuel system has been “weakened by design” by state policies pushing refiners out of the state, said Jodie Muller, president and CEO of the Western States Petroleum Association — a characterization energy economists dispute.

Because California requires that cars burn a specialized fuel blend, shipments can be tougher to source and take longer to arrive, exposing consumers to delays and volatility every time something goes wrong globally. 

“Continuing to move to more and more imports will put this state at more and more risk,” Muller said last week. “If you think we are in a precarious position right now, we will continue to see more and more volatility.”

And the oil industry argues that the playing field is tilted. California refiners face some of the strictest rules in the world, the industry argues, while imported gasoline is produced under far weaker standards before it’s shipped halfway around the world. California requires importers to certify their fuels meet its standards, but the industry argues that foreign producers operate under less stringent environmental rules.

$6.50 or $7-plus? Experts can’t agree.

In the end, what you feel most acutely is the price you pay at the pump. And even the experts aren’t sure where things will land.

Asked what consumers should expect if the conflict drags on, Gunda said California prices will likely settle “under seven, more like $6.50.” He explained that demand starts dropping once gas crosses about $5.50 a gallon, and California is already seeing drivers shift from higher-priced stations to cheaper ones. 

Borenstein is less optimistic. If the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that carried more than 20 million barrels of oil a day before the start of the war, stays closed another 60 days, the price of crude could climb by another $40 to $80 a barrel, he said. Each $40 increase translates into about $1 per gallon at the pump. He called that scenario plausible, and warned there’s almost nothing California policy can do about it. 

“Unfortunately, I think that would be a crisis,” Borenstein said. “I know we all hope that doesn’t happen and that the flow of oil resumes, but the reality is we are on borrowed time as we run down inventories.”

Will high gas prices boost EV sales?

California has spent years trying to push drivers out of gas cars. Now sky-high gas prices may be sparking interest in some consumers. 

EV sales in California slumped last year after the Trump administration revoked a key federal tax incentive, undercutting California’s plan to steadily replace gas-powered cars with electric ones to meet its climate goals.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is now pushing to revive some of those sales through a new state incentive under negotiation in the budget. It’s too early to know whether pain at the pump is translating into a broad rebound in EV demand. But some consumers are already making the switch.

When gas prices recently climbed past $6 a gallon in Redding, Victor Ireland said his daughter decided there was “no way” she wanted a gas-powered car after watching the family spend more than $140 on a single Sacramento round trip in their minivan.

The search wasn’t easy. EV inventories have dropped across the country since expiring federal tax credits briefly boosted demand. The family searched dealerships across the West, from Washington to Kansas, after his daughter settled on a specific model: the Fiat 500e Giorgio Armani Collector’s Edition. They found a dealer in Utah that could ship the vehicle to California.

Ireland said the soaring cost of gasoline only reinforced his family’s decision. “You just charge it and go,” he said.

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

Hemos creado un folleto a partir de nuestro quiz “Elige a tu próximo gobernador” . Publicamos el archivo a continuación en formato PDF para que puedas imprimirlo, publicarlo o compartirlo con otros votantes de tu comunidad mientras te preparas para las primarias de California del 2 de junio. También puedes conseguir un ejemplar en uno de nuestros eventos de VotingMatters en todo California.

Las elecciones avanzan rápidamente; desde que publicamos esto, al menos un candidato ha cambiado de postura sobre algún tema. Estamos atentos y puedes seguir esos cambios aquí.

Para leer o ver más información sobre los principales candidatos a gobernador, así como sobre todas las contiendas clave que estamos siguiendo durante las primarias, consulte la Guía del votante de CalMatters para 2026 .

.cm-cta.long-ask{ border: 1px solid var(--Core-grey-300, #CCC); container-type: inline-size; container-name: long-ask; margin-top: 48px; margin-bottom: 48px; } .cm-cta.long-ask ul{ padding-left: 24px; } .cm-cta.long-ask h2{ background: linear-gradient(90deg, #FFE094 0%, #FFB500 100%); padding: 20px 40px; font-size: 24px; font-weight: 1000; line-height: 110%; /* 26.4px */ letter-spacing: -0.48px; } .cm-cta.long-ask > .wp-block-group__inner-container > :not(h2){ margin: 16px 40px !important; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group .wp-block-group__inner-container{ display: flex; gap: 12px; align-items: center; } .cm-cta.long-ask figure{ max-width: 40px; flex-shrink: 0; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group p{ font-size: 18px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 120%; /* 21.6px */ letter-spacing: -0.36px; width: 100%; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group .wp-block-buttons{ flex-shrink: 0; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-button__link{ padding-left: 40px; padding-right: 40px; } @container long-ask (min-width: 601px) { .cm-cta.long-ask p { font-size: 18px; } } @container long-ask (max-width: 600px) { .cm-cta.long-ask h2, .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group p{ text-align: center; } .cm-cta.long-ask h2{ background: linear-gradient(90deg, #FFB500 0%, #FFE094 50%, #FFB500 100%); padding: 12px 20px; font-size: 30px; letter-spacing: -0.4px; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group .wp-block-group__inner-container{ flex-direction: column; } .cm-cta.long-ask > .wp-block-group__inner-container > :not(h2){ margin: 16px 20px !important; } } Back this spin-free, bias-free and actually free Voter Guide.

Thank the nonprofit journalists who are working hard to bring you and millions of other California voters a free, independent and trustworthy voter guide.

Every gift helps us keep this work going, through June and beyond.

Please give now.

DONATE

We’ve created a physical zine out of our “Choose Your Next Governor” quiz! We’ve published the file below as a PDF that you can print, post or share with other voters in your community as you prepare for California’s June 2 primary. You can also pick up a copy of the zine at one of our VotingMatters events across California.

Elections move fast – since we made this, at least one candidate has changed their position on an issue. We’re watching carefully and you can follow those changes here.  

To read or watch more about the leading governor candidates, as well as every key race we’re watching during the primary, check out CalMatters’ 2026 Voter Guide.

.cm-cta.long-ask{ border: 1px solid var(--Core-grey-300, #CCC); container-type: inline-size; container-name: long-ask; margin-top: 48px; margin-bottom: 48px; } .cm-cta.long-ask ul{ padding-left: 24px; } .cm-cta.long-ask h2{ background: linear-gradient(90deg, #FFE094 0%, #FFB500 100%); padding: 20px 40px; font-size: 24px; font-weight: 1000; line-height: 110%; /* 26.4px */ letter-spacing: -0.48px; } .cm-cta.long-ask > .wp-block-group__inner-container > :not(h2){ margin: 16px 40px !important; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group .wp-block-group__inner-container{ display: flex; gap: 12px; align-items: center; } .cm-cta.long-ask figure{ max-width: 40px; flex-shrink: 0; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group p{ font-size: 18px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 120%; /* 21.6px */ letter-spacing: -0.36px; width: 100%; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group .wp-block-buttons{ flex-shrink: 0; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-button__link{ padding-left: 40px; padding-right: 40px; } @container long-ask (min-width: 601px) { .cm-cta.long-ask p { font-size: 18px; } } @container long-ask (max-width: 600px) { .cm-cta.long-ask h2, .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group p{ text-align: center; } .cm-cta.long-ask h2{ background: linear-gradient(90deg, #FFB500 0%, #FFE094 50%, #FFB500 100%); padding: 12px 20px; font-size: 30px; letter-spacing: -0.4px; } .cm-cta.long-ask .wp-block-group .wp-block-group__inner-container{ flex-direction: column; } .cm-cta.long-ask > .wp-block-group__inner-container > :not(h2){ margin: 16px 20px !important; } } Back this spin-free, bias-free and actually free Voter Guide.

Thank the nonprofit journalists who are working hard to bring you and millions of other California voters a free, independent and trustworthy voter guide.

Every gift helps us keep this work going, through June and beyond.

Please give now.

DONATE

To vote early, or not to vote early? That is the question — at least for some California Democrats who want to avoid seeing two Republicans as the only candidates for governor come November.

As CalMatters’ Maya C. Miller explains, fears that two GOP candidates will advance through the June primary because Democratic voters failed to coalesce around a top candidate has some liberals deciding to cast their ballots at the 11th hour.

The strategy — which has spread online among impassioned Democrats — supposes that if you hold off voting early and keep watching the polls, a standout should eventually emerge and that is when you should make your decision.

• Katie Evans-Reber, a Democratic voter in San Francisco: “The thing that flipped for me was going from, ‘I don’t really know what to do,’ to, ‘I strategically am not making a decision.”

But turning in mail-in ballots on Election Day is the worst possible scenario for election administration officials who must process and verify ballots in a state notorious for its slow vote-counting process. 

The advice goes against pleas from top Democratic officials including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber who are urging voters to turn in their ballots early. 

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic political consultant, also argues that the strategy likely won’t produce significant results, and that “people vote for whoever they were going to vote for anyway.”

• Mitchell: “It’s just a bad message. I think they should always have a message of, ‘As soon as you get your ballot, fill it out, turn it in, mail it in and get it done.”

Read more.

---

The issues defining California’s future don’t wait, and neither should you. From AI to immigration to the next governor’s challenges, join CalMatters on May 21 for the Ideas Festival and be part of the conversation. Secure your seat.

We’re bringing our voter guide to life through VotingMatters events across California this month, in collaboration with on-the-ground partners: Local news organizations, colleges, libraries, churches and nonprofit organizations. Our next events are tonight in San Francisco and Camarillo, and Wednesday evening in Los Angeles. Plus, we have a DIY kit to host your own event.

---

Other Stories You Should Know

---

Build, baby, build

A lot is up in the air about our governor’s race, but we can see one clear winner: YIMBYs.

CalMatters’ Ben Christopher reports today that the leading Democrats are on the same page when it comes to the pro-development policies the Yes In My Backyard movement wants. It’s a stark contrast to eight years earlier when few candidates openly embraced the approach as a way to address California’s housing crisis.

During a candidate forum earlier this year in San Francisco, seven candidates, including Tom Steyer, Katie Porter and Xavier Becerra, answered “yes” to whether they believed “California’s housing shortage is primarily the result of local and state regulatory barriers to home building.”

That consensus is a win for YIMBYs. They’re so content with the lineup that they aren’t making a formal endorsement in the race.

• Brian Hanlon, co-founder of California YIMBY: “By and large, the top four Dems all have really good housing plans. YIMBYs should feel pretty good about the choices they have for governor.”

Read more.

Who should lead CA schools?

Eight years ago the open race to become California’s state superintendent was one of the hottest competitions on the ballot as teachers’ unions and charter schools poured tens of millions of dollars into the election. Tony Thurmond came out ahead, edging out Marshall Tuck.

This year’s race has more candidates but less drama, writes CalMatters’ Carolyn Jones.

Whoever wins could lead an office with a narrowed mandate: Newsom this year wants to trim the superintendent’s powers and add more responsibility into the governor’s office.

The leading candidates include a host of education policy veterans: 

• Richard Barrera, San Diego Unified school board member endorsed by the California Teachers Association
• Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, former head of the Assembly education committee
• Josh Newman, former head of the Senate education committee
• Anthony Rendon, former Assembly speaker and a longtime early education program administrator
• Nichelle Henderson, Los Angeles Community College District board member

Another candidate, Sonja Shaw, is a school board member in Chino Valley. She is known for her advocacy on policies related to LGBTQ students, including requiring schools to notify parents if their child is transgender, and banning students from playing on sports teams that don’t align with their gender at birth.

Read more.

---

California Voices

CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: Capitol politicians not only blame President Donald Trump for the state budget problem they created four years ago, but they may seize the projected revenue surge as a cure and repeat what got them in trouble in the first place.

The Canvas cyberattack underscores the security risk of having millions of student records and multiple terabytes of data stored in one place in order to save money, writes Foaad Khosmood, Cal Poly professor and research director for the Institute for Advanced Technology and Public Policy.

Californians deserve to know what’s in their food, and lawmakers must pass a bill that would require food companies to disclose the chemicals they are hiding behind vague terms, writes Thomas Galligan, principal scientist for food additives and supplements for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 

---

Other things worth your time:

Some stories may require a subscription to read.

---

Think $6 gas is bad? It’s about to get even worse in CA // The Wall Street Journal

Specter of an all-GOP governor’s race spurs push to remake CA open primary // Los Angeles Times

CA GOP’s insurance pick brings Jan. 6 baggage to race shaped by crisis // The Mercury News

Few CA teenagers preregister to vote a decade after given the option // LAist

English learners could miss out on support under Newsom proposal, advocates warn // EdSource

Amazon halts high-speed e-bike sales in CA following fatal crashes // Los Angeles Times

As transitional kindergarten grows, hundreds of child care centers close // KQED

Workers at Planned Parenthood’s largest affiliate are unionizing, citing Trump cuts // San Francisco Chronicle

What happens after a homeless encampment sweep? // The San Diego Union-Tribune

In summary

Recent polling suggests it’s unlikely that two Republicans would lock Democrats out of the November gubernatorial election. But some liberal activists are still panicking about the possibility of a MAGA governor. Their solution could delay California’s already slow ballot-counting.

Some California Democrats have a plan to avoid disaster in the governor’s race: Wait until the last minute to vote.

With no one candidate emerging as a clear favorite and an open primary where the top two advance regardless of party affiliation, panic has set in for some who plan to vote Democratic.

To avoid a dreaded scenario in which Democrats are locked out of the November general election, many Democrats coalesced around former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who ultimately flamed out after multiple women accused him of sexual assault.

That fear has morphed into wariness, leading some party activists and influencers to encourage people to hold off on voting early, watch the polls, then vote for the candidate with the most support just before Election Day.

In a “normal year,” Katie Evans-Reber of San Francisco said she would probably back former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter even though the Democrat is not likely to advance to November given her current polling. But this year the stakes are higher, she said, and as a lesbian woman, any of the Democrats would be more aligned with her core values than a Republican. 

She fears supporters of President Donald Trump who have soured on him could back Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, giving him enough of a boost to match the power of Trump’s endorsement for Steve Hilton, the former Fox News host who is leading all other candidates in the polls. That would send both Republicans to the runoff.

“The thing that flipped for me was going from, ‘I don’t really know what to do,’ to, ‘I strategically am not making a decision,” Evans-Reber said. 

In pole position is Xavier Becerra, the former Health and Human Services secretary who surged from single digits to the top of the polls following Swalwell’s downfall. As his popularity soared, so has the scrutiny of his record at HHS and as California’s former attorney general. 

Behind Becerra are progressive Democratic challengers Tom Steyer, a former businessman turned billionaire activist and Porter. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has also positioned himself as a tech-friendly moderate and ally of Silicon Valley.

Evans-Reber and other impassioned Democrats have been urging others to follow the “same “wait and see” strategy by sharing videos and posts on social media. 

One post even falsely attributed the strategy to Heather Cox Richardson, a political historian and popular Democratic influencer who writes the substack “Letters from an American.” That erroneous post was the first one Evans-Reber saw and forwarded. She later had to follow up with a disclaimer that Cox Richardson was not the author.

“It’s not like, bad advice, but it’s 100% not coming from me,” Cox Richardson told CalMatters in an interview.

Democratic political consultant Paul Mitchell disagrees.

“It’s just a bad message,” he said. “I think they should always have a message of, ‘As soon as you get your ballot, fill it out, turn it in, mail it in and get it done.”

Mitchell said although activists might talk about and push for a strategic voting plan, trying to organize a movement like that at scale would likely not produce significant results. 

“I think people vote for whoever they were going to vote for anyway,” said Mitchell, whose company tracks how many ballots are turned in each day statewide.

The push to vote late flies in the face of recent pleas from election officials and Gov. Gavin Newsom for voters to get their ballots in early in the hopes of speeding up California’s notoriously slow vote-counting process. Attorney General Rob Bonta, a fellow Democrat, told reporters last week that the social media posts urging late voting could be misinformation, disinformation, and “potentially unlawful,” and Secretary of State Shirley Weber said her office would “look into” those social posts. 

“Time is of the essence in preventing election lies from taking hold,” Newsom wrote in a recent letter addressed to all 58 county registrars urging them to “tabulate and release results quickly and accurately.”

Turning in a mail-in ballot on Election Day, as some activists propose, is the worst possible scenario for election administration officials. 

It creates what Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, calls the “pig in the python effect.” County election offices are inundated with in-person ballots on Election Day, as well as mail-in ballots that require a meticulous process of signature matching, envelope opening and extracting the ballot before it can be counted. 

Returning ballots even a few days earlier can give counties a head start, Alexander said at a recent CalMatters forum on election integrity.

Mark DiCamillo, who runs polling for the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, said pollsters are doing their best to produce accurate results, but in an election with so many variables, even the best surveys could be off-base.

The past trend of low voter turnout in gubernatorial primaries, plus a potentially confusing array of 61 candidates for governor alone, make it difficult to determine who the likely voters will be and account for that in their surveys.

“This election’s got all the elements you have to deal with,” DiCamillo said. “It’s a challenge for the polling profession.” 

Despite the concerns about a slow vote count and imprecise polling, Evans-Reber says she still plans to stick to her last-minute voting strategy. She doesn’t trust that mailing her ballot will reach the county elections office in time. She plans to bring her completed ballot to the office or one of the county’s vote centers and hand it directly to an election official. 

“I am going to cast the ballot at the very last possible moment,” Evans-Reber said. “I’m going to wait until polling day.”

In summary

On zoning, permitting, fees and NIMBY obstruction, the top candidates vying to become California’s next governor all say the state needs to make it easier to build more homes.

Earlier this year, in the windowless conference room of a downtown San Francisco hotel, one of the first gubernatorial candidate forums of the season kicked off with a simple question: “Do you think California’s housing shortage is primarily the result of local and state regulatory barriers to home building?”

It made for a pithy summary of the “Yes In My Backyard” movement’s pro-development philosophy that the question-asker — Brian Hanlon, co-founder of California YIMBY — and his organization have been pushing California lawmakers to embrace for more than a decade. California’s chronic unaffordability is born of a shortage of homes and the state needs to play an aggressive role in getting more units built, the YIMBYs argue. 

On stage were seven candidates, including current Democratic poll leaders Tom Steyer, Katie Porter and Xavier Becerra. 

One by one, each responded. “Yes.” “Yes.” “Yes.” “Yes.” “Yes.” “Yes.” “Yes.” 

The showing of unanimity made Hanlon realize something.

“Oh, yeah,” he thought. “We won.”

The crowded race to become California’s next governor may still be unsettled with no clear front runner among a half dozen plausibly viable Democrats and two Republicans, but one clear victor has emerged: The Yes In My Backyard movement.

Underscoring that point, five Democratic candidates gathered in Oakland on Friday to participate in another forum on housing. The moderator was New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, whose best-selling book, Abundance, has become a kind of shorthand for a new emphasis in elite Democratic policy circles on rethinking government processes and regulations to make it easier to build more things cheaper and quicker, including homes. 

The candidates didn’t find much to disagree about.

‘Pro-housing noises’

What a difference eight years of skyrocketing rents and home prices make.

Think back to 2018, the last time California had an open governor’s race. The Legislature was considering a bill that would have forced local governments to allow apartment buildings near public transit stops. Few of the gubernatorial candidates were willing to embrace it and many were adamantly opposed. Newsom, the clear front runner, who was promoting his hyper-ambitious goal to oversee the construction of 3.5 million new homes, said he appreciated the general idea of the bill but nevertheless refused to back it. It died later that year.

Newsom went on to win that race and as governor he has come to embrace the build, baby, build cause, especially in this second term. Last summer, he signed a bill curbing environmental lawsuits against urban housing developments, a longtime YIMBY policy goal. During the signing ceremony he heralded the end of NIMBYism in California and name-dropped Klein.

A couple months later, Newsom signed Senate Bill 79 — a successor to the unsuccessful 2018 transit-oriented rezoning bill — into law. “YIMBYs rejoice!” his press office said in the resulting press release.

This year, the top Democratic candidates for governor do not see supporting state-imposed pro-development efforts as an electoral liability. Porter publicly backed the new rezoning law in a social media post before Newsom signed it. Steyer championed it in a newspaper opinion piece. After it became law, Becerra noted his support and vowed to “keep building.”

Not that every candidate supports the legislation. Republican Steve Hilton warned that it will “destroy” California’s “single-family suburban neighborhoods” by allowing the construction of mid-rise apartment buildings. The former Fox News host objects to state-led planning mandates and to the prevailing orthodoxy among YIMBY-aligned Democrats in Sacramento that the state should focus new construction in dense urban areas.

Nor have all the candidates taken to the new elite consensus on housing policy with the same enthusiasm. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan supports deregulating housing policy, capping local development fees and relaxing building codes. Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, in contrast, is focused on finding more public support for affordable housing. Some YIMBY groups have already taken sides. YIMBY Action, a California-based pro-development advocacy organization with chapters across the country, endorsed Steyer in early May.

But everyone, especially among the poll-leading Democrats, has at least rhetorically embraced the notion that California needs to build more houses and that state government has a role to play in making sure they get built, even if that sometimes means elbowing aside local governments, neighborhood groups, environmental advocates and unions. As former California YIMBY policy director Ned Resnikoff observed in a recent blog post, “most of the candidates are making pro-housing noises.”

New conventional wisdom on housing

The change on the campaign trail is only the most recent indicator that the politics of housing have radically shifted in California. 

Over the last decade, the cause of making it easier to build has gone from a somewhat thankless, niche interest in the California Assembly and Senate to a priority issue championed by legislative leadership. In San Francisco and Berkeley, once synonymous with anti-development local obstruction, mayors have come to power touting their pro-housing bonafides. In Los Angeles, the top fundraising Democrat trying to unseat Karen Bass in the coming mayor’s race has advocated for the densification of the city’s single-family neighborhoods and changes to L.A.’s property transfer tax that developers want. 

“The fact that we are now talking about housing production, to the extent that we are, is significant,” said Clayton Nall, a UC Santa Barbara political scientist who has studied public attitudes about housing policy.

But just because the top candidates are offering YIMBY-flavored generalities on the debate stage and setting ambitious targets of units to be built doesn’t mean they will govern as pro-development purists, he stressed. 

There might be good political reasons for that: Whatever successes organized YIMBYs have had in California’s Legislature — and in statehouses across the country — that agenda sometimes seems untethered from what the typical voter wants or cares about, said Nall. When asked about the best way to make housing more affordable, majorities of American respondents tend to express preferences for rent control and financial subsidies for renters and aspiring buyers. Polling support for pro-development policies tends to be more muted — and it depends on how the question is asked.

“There are very few people who endorse what I would call the libertarian YIMBY position, which is that we need to deregulate to free the market to build more housing,” said Nall.

A YIMBY-fest in Oakland

As eager audience members lined up outside the Henry J. Kaiser Center for the Arts in Oakland on Friday for the Klein-moderated event, a group of 60 or so left-leaning tenant rights groups assembled across the street to offer some critical counterprogramming. The activists cheered for rent control, anti-eviction protections, funding for affordable housing and restrictions on large for-profit landlords. When new market-rate apartments were mentioned, the crowd booed.

Renter rights and landlord greed wouldn’t be the focus of the YIMBY-fest inside the Kaiser Center, predicted Anya Svanoe, spokesperson with Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. 

That represents a “complete abdication of responsibility for tenants who are living right now and can’t wait 10 years for a supply solution,” she said.

Later, the Democratic candidates — Steyer, Becerra, Porter, Mahan and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — mostly offered ways to make it easier, cheaper and simpler to build more homes. They discussed and largely agreed upon the pernicious effects of local development fees, slow permitting processes, and NIMBY obstruction. A research paper on the glacial speed of developing housing in California published by RAND was the improbable star of the event, receiving repeated mention and praise. 

Though a few substantive disagreements popped up, no one broke from the general agreement on making it easier to build. Becerra is more comfortable with requiring projects streamlined under state law to require higher labor standards; Porter, not so much. Steyer wants to raise property taxes on commercial properties; Villaraigosa said he would defend California’s property tax system, even as he allowed that some changes might be necessary.

Rent control did come up, but briefly and at the very end.

“As a temporary situation, I’m for it,” said Villaraigosa, responding to Klein’s question about whether state lawmakers should renew its current rent cap policy. “(But) if you want to bring down rents over the long term, you need supply.”

The following Tuesday, California YIMBY put out its official endorsement announcement for governor: No endorsement. 

That’s not because none of the top candidates are acceptable to the group — just the opposite. Though none are perfect, “by and large, the top four Dems all have really good housing plans,” Hanlon said in an interview, referring to Becerra, Steyer, Porter and Mahan. “YIMBYs should feel pretty good about the choices they have for governor and should probably select the person that they like based on other, non-housing areas.”

For YIMBYs, California’s next governor — whoever that turns out to be — is already saying all the right things.

The last message I expected to receive Thursday afternoon was a request by a student to postpone an assignment because of a cyberattack. Canvas, the tool where millions of students around the world submit their work, check their grades, watch lectures and take quizzes was inaccessible to faculty and students in the waning days of the school year.

People were posting ransom note screenshots on social media. Something like this was bound to happen eventually. It’s an inevitable consequence of information centralization. 

About an hour after I got the message, I was trying to assess the damage. For me, it was not that bad. I give paper tests and quizzes and I’ve been regularly creating Slack workspaces for my classes. I mainly use Canvas to link to documents and allow students to check their scores and ponder about their grades. It was a real hassle when the only answers to “How am I doing in this class” sat in a private gradebook in the instructor’s office. 

But I am probably in the minority. Many of my colleagues are heavily dependent on Canvas, especially for bigger or online classes —  those that have no live lectures. For them this was “deeply disruptive,” as the California Faculty Association put it.

I had never heard of the parent company Instructure before, and until this hack, I didn’t realize Canvas content was centrally stored. It’s been at least a decade-long trend to move services off campus to save on costs. All kinds of records and student databases are offsite now. 

The pitch is always the same: save money by doing things at scale. Cut out expensive maintenance and data storage. Why pay for servers and IT staff for technology that will be obsolete in a few years? The vendors who contract with university campuses swear up and down that it’s safe, secure and it won’t be used to train AI. 

The risk of having millions of student records and multiple terabytes of data in one place is rarely even contemplated by decisionmakers. Experts have warned about these vulnerabilities for well over a decade. And that’s not the only problematic vendor doing business with universities.

Many students and faculty began reporting normal service restoration by Friday afternoon, almost 24 hours later. By Monday, Instructure had announced how the hackers pulled it off. Everyone knows how this works when major breaches occur. Our personal information is surely already out there, like so many old passwords we receive warnings about. Even if the hackers are paid, can we really believe they deleted the data?

The real question is whether California officials and university administrators are any wiser now. Will our schools and offices continue to offload personal data to outside companies to save a few bucks?

Of course, huge companies already store our emails and credit card transactions. We accept the risk and cope with the breaches. But do they also have to store our school grades, food orders, security footage, license plates? And which ones can we trust?

Some are great at security. Some are clearly not.

In summary

Nearly a third of California voters are undecided in the race for state superintendent of public instruction.

The primary for the state’s top K-12 schools job is in less than a month, but judging from the polls, it’s debatable whether anyone is paying attention.

A whopping 32% of voters are undecided with just a few weeks until the June 2 primary for state superintendent of public instruction, according to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. In the past, it’s been one of the state’s hottest races, with millions of dollars in spending.

Among the dozen or so candidates, none had more than 10% of voters’ support, meaning that the race is essentially a 10-way tie.

“There’s no lack of qualified candidates, but previous elections had an urgency and a sense that who won really mattered,” said Morgan Polikoff, an education professor at USC. “We don’t have that this time.”

A job with few duties?

One reason for the malaise, observers said, may be that voters are more focused on education policy unfolding in Washington, D.C. The Trump administration is in the process of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, which could potentially upend funding and student rights. Another reason might be that most of the candidates agree on the major issues, so there’s not much to distinguish them.

Regardless, the position might be nearly irrelevant by the time the new superintendent takes office. The state is poised to strip the superintendent of most duties. Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed in January that the superintendent no longer run the California Department of Education. Instead, it would fall under the control of the State Board of Education, which is appointed by the governor. The idea was introduced in his January budget proposal and is expected to pass the Legislature. 

That would shift power over the state’s 10,000 public schools to the governor’s office. The superintendent would have few responsibilities except championing various education-related causes. The governor’s race would carry more relevance to school funding, policies and other issues than the superintendent’s race.

Teachers union weighs in

The California Teachers Association, one of the biggest players in education politics, has been far more involved in the governor’s race than the superintendent race. After Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the governor’s race, the union endorsed billionaire Tom Steyer for governor, citing his alignment with the union’s priorities. 

For superintendent, the union endorsed Richard Barrera, a San Diego Unified school board member who was little known outside San Diego before winning the union’s backing. 

“The superintendent race is off the radar because the governor’s race has taken up so much bandwidth,” said David Goldberg, president of the union. “Although the superintendent’s impact is deeply felt by those who work in public education, it’s not widely known outside public education.” 

The next superintendent will replace Tony Thurmond, who is termed out and is running for governor. The superintendent position is nonpartisan and pays $210,460. The top two candidates in June’s primary will advance to the November general election.

So far, the leading candidates in the superintendent’s race include a host of education policy veterans. Among them: Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, former head of the Assembly education committee; Josh Newman, former head of the Senate education committee; Anthony Rendon, former speaker of the Assembly and a longtime early education program administrator; and Nichelle Henderson, a Los Angeles Community College District board member. 

‘A lightning rod’

Sonja Shaw, a school board member in Chino Valley, is also running and has gained traction on the right. In the most recent poll, she had support from 7% of voters, the same as Barrera. Lance Christensen, who ran against Thurmond in 2022, predicted that Shaw will advance to the November election because Democrats’ votes will split among the other candidates.

Shaw is best known for her fiery positions on transgender student rights. She was propelled to the limelight in 2023 when she presided over a Chino Valley school board meeting where security guards escorted Thurmond out when he spoke over his time limit defending transgender students’ right to privacy. She’s been an outspoken advocate for schools to inform parents if their child identifies as transgender, and for students to participate on teams that align with their gender at birth.

“They can say anything they want about her, but she’s such a lightning rod that now everyone knows who she is,” said Christensen, who’s now a vice president at the anti-union California Policy Center. “I think this issue will take her all the way to Sacramento.”

Why no one’s talking about charter schools

One issue that’s been glaringly absent in the superintendent race is charter schools. In years past, charter schools were the No. 1 topic in the race. Candidates were deemed to be either “pro-charter” or “anti-charter,” with donations and rhetoric following suit. “Pro-charter” was often interpreted to mean anti-union, leading to an avalanche of rancor from both sides. 

But the public, and even the unions, seem to have grown tired of arguing about the independent public schools. One reason is that many charter schools now have unions. Another reason is that because of declining enrollment, charter schools are no longer expanding; they appear to have plateaued at about 10% of overall enrollment. 

A more likely reason is that voters see that charter schools and traditional public schools grapple with the same issues, said Marshall Tuck, a former chief executive of the Green Dot charter school network who ran for superintendent in 2018 and 2014. The 2018 election in which he lost to Thurmond was one of the most costly superintendent races ever, with contributions topping $50 million. By comparison, no candidate in the current election has raised more than $1 million so far.

Most schools – regardless of their governance structure – are facing teacher shortages, floundering reading and math scores and lackluster student engagement since the pandemic ended.

“Now that we’ve removed the charter vitriol, we can focus on bigger issues,” said Tuck, who is now chief executive at EdVoice, a policy advocacy organization. “The core issues are the same everywhere.”

The state Assembly’s Democratic leadership published a remarkable bit of political fiction last week, a “budget road map” that essentially blames President Donald Trump for California’s multibillion-dollar deficits.

The document declares that “state revenues are surging,” which may be true, but then continues: “Yet the fiscal picture ahead is anything but easy. Because of the Trump administration’s failed policies, health care costs are climbing. Republicans in Washington are ripping away federal funding. And a White House that’s lurching — from unprecedented foreign policy miscalculations to reckless tariffs — makes an already difficult job balancing the budget significantly more challenging.”

Nowhere does the document acknowledge that the state has a “structural deficit” that has plagued the budget for four years, ever since Gov. Gavin Newsom declared in 2022 that the state had a $97.5 billion surplus based on what the administration later acknowledged to be a $165 billion, four-year error in forecasting revenues. It had assumed that a one-time surge in revenues would be permanent.

The Legislature embraced the revenue estimate and the surplus declaration without question and sharply increased spending. When the assumed revenues didn’t materialize, they were left with obligations that outstripped real revenues by $20 billion or more each year.

The gaps, $125 billion so far, have been papered over with a variety of what officials called “solutions,” most of which solved nothing other than postponing the day of fiscal reckoning. They included off-the-books loans, spending deferrals and accounting gimmicks.

Newsom has pledged to finally balance the state’s books in his revised 2026-27 budget that will be unveiled this week and to not leave the chronic deficit for his successor. But how he would do that without raising taxes remains a mystery.

The state Senate leadership’s budget outline embraces tax increases of some kind, probably on corporations, while the Assembly’s version says, “Fixing the long-term budget will take a combination of cost controls and new revenue.”

While Trump’s name is invoked repeatedly in the Assembly’s “budget road map” as a major factor in the state’s budget dilemma, not only does the problem predate Trump by several years but the reductions in federal aid, mostly affecting health care, don’t impose any legal obligation on the state to fill in the gaps. Moreover, Newsom and the Legislature have made their own health care reductions.

One of the biggest items in that 2022 spending surge after Newsom’s wrongheaded surplus declaration was the extension of Medi-Cal health care coverage to all adult undocumented immigrants. The coverage took effect in 2024 but in 2025, officials said it was costing $6.2 billion more than expected, so enrollment was frozen.

Backfilling today’s federal reductions would be costly, and health care advocates are ramping up pressure on Capitol politicians to do it, but the underlying structural deficit is a far bigger nut to crack.

Revenues are running higher than projected in the current fiscal year. The Legislature’s budget analyst, Gabe Petek, has upgraded estimates of revenue from sales taxes and personal and corporate income taxes by $25 billion over two years but adds, “we continue to caution that these surging revenues likely are not sustainable. This suggests it would be prudent to approach the state budget as if we are at or near a revenue peak.”

Petek’s office also notes that about half of any revenue surge would automatically go to schools, so the impact on the larger budget deficit would be marginal.

The danger is that the Capitol’s politicians may not only blame Trump for the problem they created four years ago, but they’ll seize on the revenue surge as a painless cure — in other words repeating what got them in trouble in the first place.

Guest Commentary written by

Thomas Galligan

Thomas Galligan is the principal scientist for food additives and supplements for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  

When food companies keep secrets, consumers pay the price.

In 2022, a foodborne illness caused by Daily Harvest’s French Lentil & Leek Crumbles sickened nearly 400 people, including dozens of Californians, and sent 133 people to the hospital, some needing their gallbladders removed. The outbreak was later linked to tara flour, an ingredient not known to have been used in food before.

Who decided tara flour was safe to eat?

That same year, a college student from New Jersey died after drinking Panera’s highly caffeinated “Charged Lemonade.”

Who determined that amount of caffeine in Charged Lemonade posed no risk?

The answer to both questions is the same: the food industry.

American consumers reasonably assume that before an ingredient ends up in our food or beverages, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has checked it for safety. But in most instances in recent decades, they would be wrong. 

A loophole in federal law allows food companies to market new food additives by self-certifying their safety in complete secrecy. Companies pay their own experts or employees to assess whether a substance is “generally recognized as safe” for use in food. 

With that determination in hand, manufacturers can either share it with the FDA or simply start using that chemical in food without notifying the FDA or the public. 

If you were a profit-seeking company, which would you do?

Unsurprisingly, both Daily Harvest and Panera appear to have made safety decisions behind closed doors, not notifying the FDA of plans to use tara flour and caffeine in their respective products. You might assume that food companies would have to disclose all ingredients on the ingredient labels found on packaged foods and beverages. But you’d be wrong. 

Companies can hide large numbers of ingredients behind such vague terms as “artificial flavor.” As a result, only food companies know what is in food and if those ingredients have been proven safe.

Californians deserve to know what’s in their food. They should be able to trust that those ingredients are safe. The state already leads the way in protecting consumers— especially children — from unsafe food chemicals. Now Assemblymember Dawn Addis is working to give Californians more protections and transparency by pulling the curtain back on the food industry via Assembly Bill 2034.

The bill would require companies that use ingredients that have not undergone FDA safety review to notify the state and explain how they determined those ingredients are safe, providing all the underlying safety data. That information would then be posted in a public database for all to see. 

The measure would also require companies to publicly reveal the chemicals they are hiding behind such black-box terms as “natural flavor” and “artificial color.”

The food industry is pulling out all the stops to kill this commonsense bill. They argue that it will raise food prices across the state, because the companies would suddenly incur major new expenses to comply with the law. 

That is not true. Under federal law, even if companies choose to use new ingredients without notifying the FDA, they are still required to prove those chemicals are safe by conducting rigorous safety evaluations. AB 2034 would simply require companies that skipped the FDA process to share that safety evaluation information with the state instead. 

Only companies violating federal law by using chemicals that have not been proven safe would have anything to worry about. If companies are indeed following existing federal law, then they already have that information on hand.

They would need to just send it to the state — a minor cost at best. There’d be no reason to jack up prices. Besides, the human cost of food industry secrecy has proven to be much higher.

In summary

A massive hack of education platform Canvas hit California especially hard. What happens next?

Esther Mejia and Kelly Merchant had a question Friday afternoon for their professors: Where were you?

The UC Riverside public policy students were among the likely hundreds of thousands in California who lost access to the all-important academic software Canvas when it was brought down by a hacker group Thursday afternoon. Losing Canvas meant losing assignments, tests, and required reading material along with a way to communicate with instructors. The timing was especially bad for UC students, who were hunkering down for midterms or finals.

“This is a very crucial time for students to be able to access their coursework. So I definitely do think that professors should reach out,” Mejia said in an interview. “And they did not.”

Merchant heard from only one professor by Friday who addressed the downed website. She learned about the hack attack on the social media site Reddit after she was logged out of her account while finishing an assignment.

“Professors should reach out. They did not.”

Esther Mejia, student, UC Riverside

The Riverside students’ experience underscores just how central Canvas has become to higher education in California — the outage likely affected more than 1 million of the state’s university students. The hack has raised serious questions about how schools should be vetting and balancing their use of online platforms, to what extent they may be held liable for breaches, and what role policymakers should play in protecting student data and regulating edtech.

By Monday evening, the company behind Canvas had told customers, including the University of California, that it had struck an agreement with the hacking group. CalMatters asked the company if it had paid a ransom but did not immediately hear back.

The attack seems to have begun on or around April 29, when Instructure, the company behind Canvas, “detected unusual activity,” according to a class-action suit filed in a Texas federal court. It exploited a vulnerability in Canvas’s free tool for teachers, the company later disclosed.

On May 4, some Cal State campuses experienced a brief shutdown but were operational within 20 to 30 minutes, the university system said.

By May 7, Thursday, the platform was offline. The University of California system blocked access to Canvas the same day, and wrote on its website that it won’t “be restored until we are confident the system is secure. We understand this disruption is concerning.” 

The hackers, a group calling itself ShinyHunters, claimed to have obtained sensitive data, including billions of messages, and threatened to release the data if they weren’t paid a ransom. The CEO of Instructure has said that core “learning data (course content, submissions, credentials) was not compromised” and Cal State has said that Canvas does not store social security numbers. 

One of Merchant’s professors, she said, created a Discord group for the class at the beginning of the term and on Thursday evening shared the material students needed to complete an assignment due Friday. She appreciated the initiative, though observed that not every student checks Discord as regularly as they would their email account. 

By May 9, Saturday, UC Riverside mostly restored access to the platform, with other universities coming online in the following days. Mejia had a quiz and assignment due Monday at 2 p.m. She received a note from the professor of that class only at 9 a.m. that day through Canvas, she said. The professor granted a two-day extension.

Merchant wants more professors with a communication back-up plan, especially since Canvas has been down before. “Whether it’s a cybersecurity thing or routine Canvas maintenance, it’s going to continue to be a risk. And we have to prepare for it.”

A spokesperson at the systemwide UC Office of the President, Stett Holbrook, said, “These situations are fluid and campuses and UCOP communicated as quickly and completely as feasible.” 

Holbrook forwarded a communication from Daly that “we reached an agreement with the unauthorized actor involved in this incident” returning the data and providing assurances that the data was no longer held by the attacker and was not shared. Further, “we have been informed that no Instructure customers will be extorted as a result of this incident.”

For many colleges and high schools, Canvas has become indispensable, with teachers using it to give quizzes, message students, post grades, and more.

Almost 9,000 colleges, K-12 schools and school districts, and offices of education around the world were reportedly affected by the Canvas outage, according to the hacker group and other media, along with likely millions of students and teachers. California seemed to be hit especially hard. The institutions relying on the system and affected by the cyberattack included Stanford, at least some campuses at the University of California, USC, all 22 California State University campuses and all 116 of the state’s community colleges.

The number of students ultimately affected by the breach could be staggering. The Cal State system alone enrolls more than 400,000 students. The UC system, where hackers claimed to hit six of 10 campuses, enrolls about 300,000. The hacker group listed the Los Angeles Unified and Fresno Unified school districts as among their targets — they too enroll more than 400,000 students combined. 

Deputy chancellor of the LA Community College District, Nicole Albo-Lopez, told CalMatters that Canvas was being used by students in thousands of courses, including as a “repository for gradebooks, sharing of course materials, and messaging.” The district is among the largest community college districts in the country, with nearly 200,000 students annually.  

Canvas, she said Friday, still hadn’t informed them of what’s been exposed in the hack. “We’re supposed to receive specific information about what was accessed in our specific system, but we have not received that yet,” she said. 

‘Eggs in one basket’

One expert said the incident highlights the problem of relying on “all-in” solutions for online education tools.

The attraction of software like Canvas is that it allows institutions without technical expertise to easily manage everything on a single platform. But the hack shows the danger of relying on such centralized systems, where a breach of one company exposes the data of the countless institutions that rely on it.

“The beauty of these software as a service systems and what they sell is, ‘Hey, your staff members don’t need to run this, we’ll just handle it,’” said Jake Chanenson, an education technology researcher and PhD student at the University of Chicago. 

In the best case, those companies have diligent cybersecurity teams protecting student data.

Many schools without tech departments, by contrast, may only be equipped to give any new tools “a cursory, at best, privacy and security assessment,” Chanenson said. Small schools, especially, may then struggle to recover from a breach or outage. 

But a centralized system also means that only a single point needs to be hacked for every school that uses the software to be affected. 

Chanenson, who is currently researching “critical infrastructure” in schools, said that 

“when you put all your eggs in one basket across schools, it makes these targets very attractive.” 

One state lawmaker wants a legislative audit into California’s heavy reliance on Canvas. “The Canvas breach exposes the growing risks of concentrating massive amounts of student records, academic systems and institutional operations into a single platform,” said Sen. Melissa Hurtado, a Democrat from Bakersfield, in a written statement. 

What now?

It may be too early to identify the consequences of the hack for schools and for Canvas. It’s still not clear, for example, how the breach happened, or the full extent of data that was compromised. 

At minimum, schools will want to reassess how much information they’re willing to give over to third-party software companies in the name of efficiency. Those companies, Chanenson said, should also take a look at their policies around data collection and retention to minimize how much sensitive information they store. 

“You think in your head that any data set that you have has a non-zero probability of being leaked or breached or some sort of privacy loss, then you want to start thinking about things like data minimization,” he said.

Past data breaches have led to legal consequences for the companies and institutions involved,  including action by state attorneys general. There are federal legal protections for data belonging to children under 13, through the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, as well to students, under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. In California, the Student Online Personal Information Protection Act protects data for K–12 students. Lawmakers in the state are also actively considering additional data protections. 

The state has grappled with previous compromises of school data. Los Angeles Unified School District has faced a series of class-action lawsuits related to data privacy breaches. Most recently, the district disclosed last year that a telehealth vendor it worked with experienced a breach. 

Chanenson points out that schools are prime targets for hackers since they hold immensely sensitive data but often lack the technical prowess of other large institutions, like banks.  

“They’re happening with enough of a frequency that it’s more of a when, not an if,” he said. 

CalMatters reporter Adam Echelman contributed to this story.

What was it like interviewing eight candidates for governor in a wild-west primary battle? I posed that question to CalMatters Capitol reporter Jeanne Kuang, who was the lead reporter on the voter guide that features bite-sized videos of what the candidates said on major topics, such as taxes and homelessness. Jeanne and I also discussed what went on behind the scenes, a candidate’s surprising answer and her approach to crafting questions.

How did you come up with your questions?

The voter guide was a place to ask everyone the same question and be able to compare answers side by side. 

We came up with questions that were more ideological, bigger picture. Many of the candidates default to traditional policy answers, but we were trying to ask questions that were getting at who this person is, and how they were thinking about this issue.

Was it tough to get any of the candidates to answer candidly?

We were limited by time more than anything. If we had more time I would ask them followups. 

Like homelessness, where almost everyone agrees that it’s not appropriate to just criminalize the act of being homeless. But we wanted to get to the heart of the debate that’s happening across cities and counties: What if someone refuses shelter, what then? There were times I had to press people on that. 

Were there any answers that surprised you?

Steve Hilton basically said he didn’t know what the right answer would be for fixing the state’s healthcare system. Most other candidates have a default policy answer, and he is someone who has apparently thought a lot about and written a lot about big bureaucratic systems like healthcare. He’s not a fan of the British system nor the American system. But he told me that he didn’t really have an answer about California, and I thought that was interesting.

How many friends and family have asked you for voting advice?

Many! I have sent the guide to my parents. In the past, my dad has been a fan of the campaign finance data being included, so shoutout to (our data team). I have received questions from many people asking, ‘Who should I vote for?’ and my answer is, I cannot make that decision for you.

What non-political question do you wish you could ask?

I would ask them about the food region meme that was going around a few months ago. 

We’ve had off-the-charts readership on our voter guide since it published last week, so we know Californians are still making up their minds. Check out the full presentation here.

---

The CalMatters Ideas Festival convenes policymakers, journalists and community leaders for conversations about the issues shaping California, including a main stage discussion with The Lincoln Project. Join us on May 21 in Sacramento. Purchase tickets.

CalMatters’ work was called “extensive,” “rigorous” and “incredible” in the Best of the West awards with a first place in immigration and border reporting, along with our partners on the project Evident Media and Bellingcat, and second place for investigative reporting.

We’re bringing our voter guide to life through VotingMatters events across California this month, in collaboration with on-the-ground partners: Local news organizations, colleges, libraries, churches and nonprofit organizations. Plus, we have a DIY kit to host your own event.

---

Other Stories You Should Know

---

Cal State: Fast-tracking degrees; repatriation progress

Let’s dig into some news at California State University:

• Three-year degrees: Cal State trustees voted last week to allow campuses to create three new types of bachelor’s degrees that can be completed in as little as three years: One for aspiring teachers, another targeting employees pursuing managerial positions and a third geared toward students with vocational or technical training. The move comes at a time when Cal State is trying to boost student enrollment, particularly among working-age adults who may want a degree to further their careers. The university system must also compete with online colleges that offer quicker academic certificates. Read more from CalMatters’ Mikhail Zinshteyn.

• Native remains: Cal State campuses are still stowing away the remains of more than 2,000 Native Americans and more than 1.57 million artifacts — despite federal and state laws requiring campuses to return the items to tribes. That’s according to an updated catalogue that Cal State released, which underscores the long and complex process of repatriation. Though campuses are supportive about returning items, differing federal and state rules regarding non-federally recognized tribes complicate the process, say multiple tribal leaders. Read more from CalMatters’ Brittany Oceguera.

Pushing CA pension funds to divest

Leaders helming California’s retirement funds for the state’s public employees and teachers are facing pressure to divest from companies associated with President Donald Trump, reports CalMatters’ Adam Ashton.

Various groups are pushing the state’s two largest public pension funds to pull money out of companies including Tesla and the surveillance company Palantir. They argue that while these companies are lucrative for now, their ties with the Trump administration could carry reputational risks that backfire on the funds.

The two systems — California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System — hold a combined $1 trillion in assets.

But despite the pension funds divesting from controversial industries in the past, both remain underfunded and staff at CalPERS and CalSTRS oppose divestment.

• Richard Costigan, a Republican who served on the CalPERS board from 2011 to 2019: “When you look at Palantir and Tesla, it’s driven by politics. Seriously, why would you not invest in Palantir?”

Read more.

And lastly: CalMatters stories you might have missed

• GM pays up: In the largest settlement to date over violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, General Motors has agreed to pay $12.75 million related to allegations that it sold the data of hundreds of thousands of California drivers without their consent. The car company made about $20 million between 2020 and 2024 by selling driver names, location information and driving behavior data, according to the state’s justice department. Read more from CalMatters’ Khari Johnson.

• Tijuana River: Sewage pollution from the Tijuana River sickens swimmers and is linked to health ailments in neighboring communities. Now experts from the Tijuana River Coalition are providing updates on the cleanup efforts. Those include earmarking $2.5 million to fix a pollution “hot spot” in south San Diego County and county officials’ distributing thousands of air purifiers to nearby households. Read more from CalMatters’ Deborah Brennan.

---

California Voices

State lawmakers must reject a bill that would allow the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to fund sports teams in prison, and instead prioritize rehabilitating incarcerated people back to their communities, writes Steve Brooks, an award-winning journalist.

---

Other things worth your time:

Some stories may require a subscription to read.

---

In CA governor race, single-payer is a litmus test. There’s still no way to pay for it // KFF Health News

Two viral clips have dogged Katie Porter. Her rivals have dodged similar scrutiny // San Francisco Chronicle

CA Assembly leaders describe ‘line in the sand’ on safety net cuts // The Sacramento Bee

CA abortion pill suppliers ready with workaround in case of Supreme Court ban // Los Angeles Times

CA hospitals will soon provide free diapers to newborns thanks to new state program // Los Angeles Times

CA students scramble amid Canvas cyberattack // San Francisco Chronicle

Newsom declines to weigh in on heated race to replace Pelosi in Congress // The San Francisco Standard

Invasive golden mussel species discovered at drinking water treatment plants in San Jose // The Mercury News

Silicon Valley’s Musk-OpenAI trial: Petty billionaires, protests and a stern judge // The Guardian

In summary

Should California pension funds invest in fossil fuels? How about Tesla and Palantir? Or companies with anti-union records? Those debates are playing out at CalPERS and CalSTRS.

California’s two biggest public pension funds have more money than ever — and they’re hearing from more people than ever on how those assets should be used to change the world.

The boards at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System are facing campaigns from groups that want them to pull money out of companies associated with the Trump administration, scale back investments in fossil fuels and break with private equity firms over their labor records.

The list includes electric car maker Tesla, surveillance company Palantir, private companies that operate immigrant detention centers, ExxonMobil, Chevron and private equity firm Apollo Global Management.

To some extent, divestment campaigns are routine business at CalPERS and CalSTRS, which hold assets worth a combined $1 trillion and are headquartered in the capital of a deep blue state. 

But the combination of Trump-era politics and a concerted push by labor in the Legislature to force the pension funds to open the books on private equity holdings is attracting the focus of a more diverse mix of advocates.

“It’s politics,” said Richard Costigan, a Republican who served on the CalPERS board from 2011 to 2019 as an appointee of Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. “When you look at Palantir and Tesla, it’s driven by politics. Seriously, why would you not invest in Palantir?”

The rebuttal: Despite their earnings and stock value today, the companies affiliated with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement program are taking on serious reputational risk that could backfire on the funds. Separately, they say putting money into fossil fuel companies poses hazards both for the environment and for pension systems banking on long-term investments.

The pension funds “should be aligning their investments with the values of their state, the values of their members, and the long-term interests of their members,” said Richard Brooks, the climate finance program director at the advocacy organization Stand.Earth.

He recently released a study tallying CalPERS and CalSTRS investments in companies that participate in the Trump administration immigration sweeps, such as Palantir and private prison companies CoreCivic and GeoGroup. 

“I see a disconnect right now,” he said.  

Staff at CalPERS and CalSTRS oppose divestment and they consistently fight legislation that would tie their hands. Both systems are underfunded and owe tens of billions more than their assets, a crisis that in 2012 led the Legislature and then-Gov. Jerry Brown to pass a law mandating less generous pension benefits for employees hired after that year. 

But CalPERS and CalSTRS have pulled money out of industries in the past. CalPERS divested from firearms in 2013 and from tobacco in 2016. They’re also barred by state law from investing in coal as well as in businesses connected to Iran.

They’re governed by boards of directors that are made up of public employee union leaders, appointees of state Democratic leaders and the state controller and state treasurer, both of whom are Democrats. 

In short, they’re people who are aligned politically with the mostly liberal groups that are pressing them to change policies. 

That doesn’t mean it’s an easy call for them to withdraw investments from any industry.

“It’s so tricky. How do you divest from all of that is anti-union? The quick answer is you can’t,” said Kenny Waggoner of Ducenta Squared Asset Management, who advises union benefit plans.

He gave an example of a real estate investment trust with stakes in large warehouses — the kind operated by Amazon. Members might question an investment in a company with a reputation for fighting unionization, but the rent from the warehouse might be the best return available to support their pensions.

Here’s a look at the main friction points before CalPERS and CalSTRS.

Tesla volatility

A long–running campaign to persuade CalPERS to break with electric car maker Tesla peaked in September when the pension board commissioned a risk assessment on whether it should own stock in the electric car maker.

Tesla delivered returns for CalPERS over time. It’s considered one of the “magnificent seven” tech stocks that drive markets today.  

The company’s critics characterize it as a volatile risk under Trump ally Elon Musk, pointing to Tesla’s drop in sales last year along with regulatory challenges it’s facing with its self-driving cars. CalPERS as a Tesla shareholder has consistently voted against Musk’s pay packages.

“Tesla’s past gains don’t erase the present picture,” CalPERS board Mulissa Willette said at the meeting where she requested the risk analysis. 

In March, the board held a closed-door discussion on “owning Tesla”. Afterward, a board member said in open session that CalPERS would not sell off its holdings in the company. 

“While we are unable to provide specifics regarding the discussion, we can note that the company has been one of the top 10 drivers of performance in our global equity portfolio and is a key holding for our climate transition portfolio,” CalPERS board member Kevin Palkki said. “After our closed session discussion, we collectively agreed to make no changes at this time.” 

Immigration and surveillance

Palantir, a California company that supported the U.S. military during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, became a focus of public pension divestment campaigns during Israel’s assault on Gaza because of its work with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The Berkeley Unified School District, for example, in September passed a resolution calling on CalSTRS to divest from the company. 

Now Palantir is facing more scrutiny because of its work with the Department of Homeland Security, which is carrying out the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The climate advocacy organization Stand.Earth called attention to CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ holdings in Palantir and six other companies working with Homeland Security in a study it published last month highlighting public pension investments in companies that Stand.Earth described as enabling “repression and violence”.

Fossil fuels

California lawmakers were close to forcing CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from fossil fuels three years ago when a bill to do that passed the state Senate. But it didn’t become law.

Both of the big pension funds opposed the bill, although one of their board members, state Treasurer Fiona Ma, supported it.

Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story.

Dave Cortese

Democrat, State Senate, District 15 (Campbell)

Lena Gonzalez

Democrat, State Senate, District 33 (Long Beach)

Robert Garcia

Democrat, State Assembly, District 50 (San Bernardino)

Advocates and public employees who don’t want their pensions to support industries that drive climate change have pressed the funds to divest from oil and gas for a decade. 

California’s third largest public pension fund, the University of California Retirement Plan, divested from fossil fuels in 2020. At the time, its leaders cited financial reasons, finding that fossil fuels have a poor long-term outlook.

The UC Retirement Plan is in better shape than CalPERS and CalSTRS. The UC plan’s assets are worth 92% of what it owes over time to its beneficiaries, while CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ portfolios are worth about 80% of what they owe.

Labor’s attention on private equity

Two bills in the Legislature this spring pit unions against unions in questions over how CalPERS and CalSTRS should do business. 

One would compel the funds to release more information about their private equity holdings, a change that CalPERS staff contends would so severely undermine its ability to invest with those firms that it would have to increase its charges to employers by more than $6.1 billion a year. 

The measure by Democratic Sen. Dave Cortese of San Jose has support from unions that represent grocery store workers and hotel employees, none of whom have pensions in CalPERS or CalSTRS. Public sectors have not yet taken a stand on the proposal  

The second one, carried by Democratic Assemblymember Robert Garcia, would direct the funds to commission a study on their labor standards for construction and development projects. The State Building and Construction Trades Council has urged CalPERS and CalSTRS to heighten their existing labor standards and is supporting the bill.

The California School Employees Association, whose members have CalPERS pensions, is on the record opposing the trades’ bill. 

“CSEA’s position is that investment and divestment decisions regarding CalPERS funds should be made by the CalPERS Board and its investment professionals, not by the Legislature,” Aaron Latham, the union’s spokesperson, said in a written statement. 

CalMatters reporter Michael Zinshteyn contributed to this story. 

In summary

California State University leaders took a first step in creating new bachelor’s degrees that can be completed in as little as three years. A need to attract more students and competition from online colleges are reasons why.

Students may soon be able to earn bachelor’s degrees in as little as three years at California State University campuses as system leaders contend with a need to attract more working-age students and those without a degree eager to lift their job prospects.

The system’s trustees voted unanimously last week to allow campuses to create three new types of shortened bachelor’s degrees:  

• Bachelor of Education, for aspiring teachers who want a bachelor’s focusing on teaching specifically 
• Bachelor of Professional Studies, which targets employees pursuing managerial positions that will give them course credit for skills learned at past jobs 
• Bachelor of Applied Studies will be geared toward students with vocational or technical training, such as in car maintenance or home heating repair

The new degree types don’t replace the existing four-year bachelor’s in the arts and sciences but will instead widen the offerings campuses can provide — if they want to. There’s no mandate for the campuses to create any. 

Nor do the new degrees have to be as short as three years. They may require any number of units that take between three and four years to finish. The policy sets the minimum units for these degree types at 90 units — which typically take three years for students to complete. A four-year degree generally requires 120 units.

The changes are meant to “reduce the time required for students to earn a degree” and to “offer more immediate access to economic and social mobility,” said Nathan Evans during last week’s trustees meeting. He is Cal State’s associate vice chancellor for academic affairs and helped to write the policy. 

The new offerings are also designed to compete with for-profit and online colleges that offer quicker degree programs but are generally far pricier than what Cal State charges.

Students transferring from community colleges may choose these degrees to earn a bachelor’s in one year, rather than two, said Evans in an interview. Adults with on-the-job experience and busy schedules may opt for these so that they convert some of their workforce experience into completed degree units and finish degrees faster, saving money. 

Battling enrollment declines

Today, some Cal State campuses are experiencing enrollment growth but others are battling steep student losses, prompting soul-searching about how to bring in more learners and plug the financial holes from lost tuition revenue. Ten campuses have seen double-digit-percent enrollment declines between 2020 and 2025, including Easy Bay and Dominguez Hills.  

Evans said the new degrees could appeal to workers in fields undergoing strain, such as set workers in Hollywood. Campuses that adopt these shorter degrees may pair them with master’s programs in professional disciplines as part of accelerated pathways, Evans said.

Chancellor’s office officials indicated that a handful of universities in other states now offer these quicker degree types, such as Cornell University, the University of Kansas and New Mexico State University. Meanwhile, the University of California has promoted traditional four-year bachelor’s degrees that students can earn in three years, such as economics and math at UC Santa Cruz. Students there generally need to take summer courses to fit all their courses into the tighter window.

Fall is the earliest that faculty at Cal State’s 22 campuses will begin working on developing these new degrees. The first to debut may come as soon as fall 2027, but more likely in 2028, Evans said.  

California is home to more than 6 million working-age adults with a high school diploma but no college degree. Half of them earned some college credit.  

Bachelor’s degree recipients in California typically earn an annual salary of $96,000, according to 2024 data. It’s $65,000 for those with associate degrees and $48,000 for workers with only a high school diploma. Student loans may eat into those wages, but most Cal State undergraduates earn their bachelor’swithout debt.

Another change allows Cal State students to earn a degree without having to accumulate a minimum number of units at any one campus. In the past students had to earn at least 30 units at the Cal State campus awarding them a degree. That campus-level requirement is now gone, which could make it easier for some students to earn a bachelor’s, such as those who previously dropped out of one Cal State, moved, and are returning to a different Cal State campus to finish their degree.

Some faculty express concerns

The systemwide academic senate, a key player in shaping academic programming, supports  the shorter degree plan broadly but objects to specific portions. The academic senate wrote publicly before the board’s vote that any degree needing fewer than 120 units shouldn’t be called a bachelor’s but some other degree name. They also wrote that these new degree programs should expire after 10 years, unless an evaluation indicates the degrees requiring fewer units have merit.

“A student who worked hard to earn a degree with 120 units would be lumped in with a student who merely took 90 units, so the traditional BAs and BSs would be devalued. Frankly, students might feel insulted that their hard-earned (in terms of money and in terms of academic work) BAs and BSs are treated the same as degrees with fewer units,” the letter states. 

The letter says almost all of the advocacy for the new bachelor’s program comes from College-in-3, an organization advocating for three-year degrees with about 60 campuses as members. However, there are thousands of colleges in the country that haven’t joined the group, the letter says.

The senate chairperson, Elizabeth “Betsy” A. Boyd, told trustees that the senate wanted to pause the approval of the new degrees until at least September. The trustees denied that request.  

Evans said in an interview and to the trustees that colleges in Europe award bachelor’s in three years. But the academic senate’s letter says that’s only because European high schools are more rigorous than U.S. high schools and can in turn offer fewer courses once those students enter college.

But one trustee was sympathetic to the academic senate’s worries. Jack McGrory, who often faults the Cal State system for requiring too many general education courses, said “we’re diluting the quality and the importance of a BA degree by lowering the unit count,” with these new degree types. 

Cal State officials stressed these new degrees won’t replace existing four-year bachelor’s degrees and the system is not pivoting to fewer units for all its bachelor’s offerings.  

Other trustees supported the measure but said the systemwide chancellor’s office isn’t doing enough to consult the faculty. “I’m not comfortable approving things that they don’t feel they’ve had enough consultation with,” said Trustee Larry Adamson. 

One possible barrier to creating expedited degrees is approval from the regional accreditor of academic offerings at California’s colleges and universities. But Evans said that the accreditor, the quasi-federal Western Association of Schools and Colleges, is on board with these degrees.

“WASC has already approved five or six of these degrees for their universities that are part of their accrediting region, and they’re expecting many more to come,” Evans said in an interview.

He noted to the trustees that the regional accreditor recommended slightly different names for the shorter bachelor’s degrees. Cal State officials heeded that advice — which is why the new degrees have “applied”, “education” or “professional” in their titles.

“We’re not mandating anything. It’s really an opportunity to experiment and be more flexible,” said Julia Lopez, a trustee, during the board meeting. For campuses without enrollment struggles, these shorter bachelor’s degrees may not be what they want to do. But for campuses on a state watch list for low enrollment, a faster degree may attract the students they desperately seek.

At campuses with many part-time or working-adult students or with a goal of attracting them, “this may be a real opportunity to offer growth where there hadn’t been growth before,” she said.

Guest Commentary written by

Steve Brooks

Steve Brooks is an award-winning journalist who has written for TIME magazine, Sports Illustrated, Bay City News, Local News Matters and many others. His work can be found on Substack at In Proximity.

I still remember the first time I ran a marathon while incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison.

After 13 miles of running in a circle, doubt crept into my mind on that day in November 2017. But I kept going. The last five miles was like trudging through six feet of snow. Without my training, discipline and focus, I would not have crossed that finish line.

The sport of marathon running taught me how to be a responsible person. It not only reshaped my body, but reshaped how I saw myself. I went from running marathons to completing college degrees and participating in self-help groups. 

San Quentin has excellent sports programs, but I don’t believe that organized sports should expand in California prisons.

Assembly Bill 2204, authored by assemblymembers Jesse Gabriel and Isaac Bryan, two Los Angeles-area Democrats, will allow the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to recognize organized sports as rehabilitation. It would allow CDCR to solicit proposals, negotiate and enter contracts with professional sports teams, colleges and private donors to create a treasury fund for sports in prison. CDCR will also be able to keep 5% of the money collected for administrative costs.

To my knowledge, no one consulted the incarcerated population before creating this proposal. According to Democracy Beyond Bars, an incarcerated group focused on public policy, “this (bill) can quickly and quietly turn into millions more dollars falling into CDCR’s already inflated budget.” Currently, CDCR spends only 5% of its annual $14.2 billion budget on rehabilitation.

CDCR has previously diverted millions of dollars from the inmate welfare fund, a self-funded piggy bank to benefit incarcerated individuals’ recreational activities, to pay for hundreds of employee positions. For almost two years, nighttime access to the yards have been restricted, preventing the San Quentin Giants from holding baseball practice.

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, California’s prison system needs an estimated $11 billion for infrastructure fixes at more than two dozen prisons. Some, like the California Rehabilitation Center and Soledad Correctional Training Facility, would be cheaper to close. In fact, legislative analysts have recommended closing the CTF, and the CRC in Norco is expected to shut down this year. Organized sports would be dangerous at Calipatria, Centinela and Ironwood state prisons, which are located in deserts that regularly reach 120 degrees in the summer.

CDCR doesn’t have sufficient cooling systems to accommodate summer sports.

AB 2204 would help make participating athletes eligible for earlier releases. But roughly 1 in 5 incarcerated individuals are age 55 or older. Thousands have disabilities. Neither group would likely earn credits by playing sports.

More than 5,000 people are serving life sentences without parole, and athletes serving time for serious crimes will likely face legal challenges against earning early release credits. CDCR is already being sued by the Criminal Justice League Foundation for extending Proposition 57 credits to violent offenders serving indeterminate sentences. 

Instead of inflating CDCR’s budget to organize ballgames, we should prioritize getting incarcerated individuals back to their communities. This agency has demonstrated its priorities by canceling night yards and baseball practices and diverting welfare money to pay for employee positions. It has a clear incentive to repair outdated infrastructure to help maintain prisons and a massive budget.

Californians should push back against this. The state should stay focused on closing old prisons and releasing old prisoners well beyond their criminal or athletic years.

After spending more than 30 years in prison, I know that my sports-playing days are over. I’m not interested in ballgames. I’m interested in going back to my community.

General Motors agreed to pay $12.75 million in civil penalties for selling driving data of hundreds of thousands of California motorists to data brokers, allegedly without their consent.

The settlement, announced Friday, is the largest ever for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, a 2018 law that requires companies to tell consumers about how their data is shared and to respect requests to stop the sharing. 

It stemmed from an investigation by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, several county district attorneys, and the California Privacy Protection Agency, which enforces the privacy act. They said General Motors misled drivers who paid for the emergency roadside and navigation service OnStar and made approximately $20 million from the unlawful sale of their data between 2020 and 2024. The information included names, location information, driving behavior, and contact information, Bonta said, which went to the data brokers LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk Analytics.

“This trove of information included precise and personal location data that could identify the everyday habits and movements of Californians,” Bonta said in a press release.

The settlement also requires GM to stop selling data to any consumer reporting agencies for five years and submit privacy assessments to the state, among other provisions. It followed a similar agreement between the Federal Trade Commission and GM earlier this year and California settlements with Honda and Ford over the past 14 months for their own violations of the privacy act.

California’s investigation of GM began after a 2024 New York Times investigation found GM collected data about millions of drivers nationwide and sold it to insurance companies in order to charge the drivers higher premiums. Californians were not impacted by those premium hikes because a state law prohibits insurers from using driving data to set insurance rates, Bonta said.

Bonta told CalMatters at a press conference Friday that it’s unclear if location data collected by General Motors was used by other companies to make predictions about the prices people are willing to pay for goods. That practice is better known as surveillance pricing and can leverage location data. Target paid $5 million to settle a suit from San Diego County’s district attorney over its alleged use of location for the technique. Bonta’s office began an investigation into the surveillance pricing practices of businesses in January.

“I understand that there could be some overlap and maybe we’ll discover something in our investigation in surveillance pricing, but that wasn’t the focus of this case,” he said.

Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said the case started with one person finding location data in a report they requested about the data collected on them. That discovery, he added, led to investigations by journalists, prosecutors, and regulators.

“This case shows more than anything that one consumer can make a huge difference,” he said.

Though the settlement isn’t much compared to the $2.7 billion in net income that General Motors made last year, Hochman called it an indication that companies should expect higher penalties in the future. California reached a privacy law violation settlement with Disney in February for $2.75 million, previously the largest of its kind.

In a statement shared with CalMatters, General Motors spokesperson Charlotte McCoy said, “This agreement addresses Smart Driver, a product we discontinued in 2024, and reinforces steps we’ve taken to strengthen our privacy practices. Vehicle connectivity is central to a modern and safe driving experience, which is why we’re committed to being clear and transparent with our customers about our practices and the choices and control they have over their information.”

Californians will soon have a new protection against companies that use their data without their consent. Starting August 1, the more than 500 data brokers registered with the state must comply with requests California residents can make using an online tool known as the Delete Request and Opt-out Platform, or DROP. The privacy protection agency introduced the tool earlier this year.

In summary

The Best of the West contest recognizes work in 14 states. The contest was founded in 1987 to reward journalistic excellence and promote freedom of information.

CalMatters journalists were honored for reporting on immigration and the border, and investigative reporting in the Best of the West awards.

The contest recognizes journalism excellence in 14 western states, with about 1,100 annual entries.

Immigration and Border Reporting, First Place

CalMatters reporters Sergio Olmos and Wendy Fry, along with our partners on the project Evident Media and Bellingcat, won first place. The team won for the investigation and mini-documentary, ”Border Patrol said it targeted known criminals in Kern County. But it had no record on 77 of 78 arrestees.”

The judge said: “Extensive public records work, on-the-ground reporting, open-source investigation using social media videos, and an interview with (Border Patrol leader Gregory) Bovino exposed the truth behind Border Patrol’s Jan. 7 raid on Kern County farm workers … The investigation was rigorous and timely. The videos were captivating.”

Congratulations to the other finalists, Yesenia Amaro of The Oregonian in second place for “Immigration in Oregon” and Nina Shapiro of Seattle Times in third place for “Northwest immigration reporting.”

Investigative Reporting, 2nd Place

CalMatters’ reporters Robert Lewis and Lauren Hepler, won second place for “License to Kill.”

The judge said: “An incredible investigation that used deep data analysis and powerful reporting to reveal how the California Department of Motor Vehicles routinely allows drivers with horrifying histories of dangerous driving, including DUIs, crashes and numerous tickets to continue to operate on our roadways, often with deadly consequences.”

Congratulations to the other finalists, Cynthia Dizikes and Joaquin Palomino of the San Francisco Chronicle in first place for “Failed to death,” and Kyle Hopkins and Marc Lester of Anchorage Daily News in third place for “Slow Justice.”

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

Hace dos años, Chiefer Danks de Rosedale, quien trabaja en la agricultura, creía que el expresidente Donald Trump estabilizaría la economía y haría que la vida volviera a ser más asequible, como lo era durante su primer mandato. Pero más de un año después del inicio del segundo mandato del líder republicano, Danks no está satisfecho con cómo han cambiado las cosas.

Al igual que Danks, muchos latinos de California se sienten traicionados por las promesas de campaña del presidente de reducir rápidamente los costos y mantener a Estados Unidos al margen de conflictos militares en el extranjero; promesas que suenan vacías a medida que los precios de la gasolina y los alimentos se disparan debido principalmente a la impopular guerra de Trump en Irán.

También les aterra e indigna que la segunda administración de Trump haya atacado a los residentes latinos —tanto a los que están aquí ilegalmente como a los que están legalmente, incluso a los ciudadanos estadounidenses— con violentas redadas de inmigración y deportaciones, separando familias en el proceso.

“Pensé que iba a hacer que Estados Unidos volviera a ser grande”, dijo Danks, de 31 años, mientras esperaba a su esposa en El Mercado Latino, un centro de negocios familiares latinos en el barrio predominantemente hispano de East Bakersfield. “No cumplió su palabra”.

Las encuestas de opinión pública y las elecciones intermedias han indicado que los latinos están revirtiendo su histórico giro a la derecha de 2024 hacia Trump. Y según un nuevo análisis de CalMatters de los datos electorales de 2025, esa tendencia también se aplica a las elecciones especiales del año pasado sobre la redistribución de distritos, que los demócratas lograron presentar como un referéndum sobre Trump.

El análisis de los resultados de las votaciones en 57 de los 58 condados de California reveló que la Proposición 50, el plan del gobernador Gavin Newsom para manipular los distritos electorales del estado a favor de los demócratas, superó con creces la campaña presidencial de Kamala Harris de 2024 en los distritos donde la mayoría de los votantes no son blancos.

La tendencia fue más notoria en los distritos electorales donde la mayoría de los votos fueron emitidos por votantes latinos. El “Sí” a la Proposición 50 ganó alrededor de 30 puntos porcentuales en comparación con el desempeño de Harris frente a Trump un año antes, según el análisis de CalMatters.

Los hallazgos de CalMatters proporcionan algunas de las pruebas cuantitativas más claras hasta la fecha de que el giro a la derecha de los latinos hacia Trump en 2024 fue más un hecho aislado que una realineación permanente, una tendencia a nivel nacional que hasta ahora ha sido captada por encuestas estatales y nacionales, grupos focales y evidencia anecdótica.

Votar “Sí” a la Proposición 50 fue una forma para que los latinos canalizaran su frustración acumulada con la administración Trump, dijo Ben Tulchin, un encuestador demócrata con sede en San Francisco que ha realizado varias encuestas y grupos focales con votantes latinos indecisos.

“Estos latinos, incluso los que votaron por Trump en 2024, estaban furiosos con él”, dijo Tulchin. “Se sienten engañados por Trump y sus promesas”.

El incumplimiento de las promesas económicas ha sembrado desconfianza y resentimiento, pero los latinos también se han sentido injustamente atacados por la administración en múltiples frentes, incluyendo el cambio de nombre del “Golfo de México” a “Golfo de América”, los altos aranceles a los productos provenientes de México y, por supuesto, la represión migratoria, dijo Tulchin.

La suegra de Danks, residente permanente legal, tenía un puesto de fruta en una esquina de su barrio. Pero cerró el negocio después de que las redadas del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) se intensificaran el año pasado.

“Al ser hispana, e incluso siendo residente de Estados Unidos, no se siente segura”, dijo Lorena Herrera, esposa de Danks, quien vive en Estados Unidos con una visa de trabajo. “Nadie está realmente seguro en este país ahora. Es muy triste”.

Los demócratas esperan capitalizar esta frustración anti-Trump entre los latinos mientras trabajan para obtener el control de una o ambas cámaras del Congreso en noviembre. El camino hacia la mayoría en la Cámara de Representantes probablemente pase por California, donde los latinos podrían desempeñar un papel decisivo en al menos dos escaños muy disputados: uno en el Valle Central y el otro en San Diego.

Pero si bien un buen resultado para la Propuesta 50 podría confirmar la insatisfacción con el Partido Republicano y la administración Trump, no significa necesariamente que esos votantes apoyen a los demócratas, ni que vayan a votar en absoluto.

Las entrevistas realizadas a casi una docena de latinos del Valle Central con derecho a voto pusieron de manifiesto el profundo escepticismo hacia todos los políticos, que a menudo mantiene a muchos votantes elegibles al margen. Incluso Danks, a pesar de su descontento con la vida bajo un gobierno federal controlado por los republicanos, no votó en las elecciones especiales del año pasado sobre la Proposición 50 y afirmó que probablemente no votaría en las elecciones de mitad de mandato de este año.

“¿Acaso la Proposición 50 fue un indicio de algo ideológico o de un regreso a sus raíces? No, ni un poquito”, dijo Mike Madrid, un consultor político conservador que estudia el comportamiento del electorado latino. “Están rechazando al partido en el poder que no prioriza sus preocupaciones económicas”.

El costo de vida se está ‘descontrolando’

Desde que se aprobó la Proposición 50 el pasado noviembre, la administración Trump no ha hecho más que perder popularidad entre los votantes latinos, según muestran las encuestas nacionales , a medida que siguen aumentando los precios de productos básicos como alimentos, servicios públicos y, sobre todo, gasolina, debido a la guerra en curso en Irán.

“Esto se está saliendo de control”, dijo Gabriel Gracia, de 31 años, de Tulare, quien dirige una pequeña empresa de limpieza comercial en Woodlake, a unos 40 kilómetros al noreste. Todo ese tiempo conduciendo equivale a unos dos tanques de gasolina por semana, cuyo precio ha subido de unos 60 dólares a casi 85.

“Todo está demasiado caro”, repitió Mónica Rodríguez, de 31 años, otra residente de Tulare que habló con CalMatters una tarde reciente mientras entraba en Superior Groceries para comprar algunos ingredientes para el larb de pollo que estaba cocinando para la cena.

Según cuenta, su familia se limita a pollo y cerdo cuando comen carne, porque a menudo no pueden permitirse la carne de res. Compró un Honda Fit usado por su eficiencia en el consumo de combustible, ya que los precios de la gasolina son muy altos y tiene que cruzar la ciudad dos veces al día para llevar y recoger a sus dos hijos del colegio.

Rodríguez incluso comentó que había considerado tener un tercer hijo, ya que siempre había querido una hija, pero el costo de los pañales, la leche de fórmula y otros artículos esenciales era tan elevado que decidió no tenerlo.

A pesar de su frustración por el costo de vida, Rodríguez no ha votado recientemente, absteniéndose tanto en las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 como en las elecciones especiales sobre la Proposición 50. Sin embargo, dijo que podría votar en las elecciones de mitad de mandato de este año si su hermana la ayuda a completar su boleta.

“Debería votar, pero no lo hago porque me estreso”, dijo Rodríguez, explicando que no siempre entiende quién se postula para qué cargo ni cómo llenar su boleta.

Gracia, quien también habló con CalMatters de camino a Superior Groceries, dijo que votó por Trump en 2024 porque era “una elección entre lo malo y lo peor”. No le gustaba cómo se veía a Estados Unidos como un “país débil” bajo el mandato del presidente Joe Biden, y creía que la economía mejoraría con Trump, como sucedió la primera vez que ocupó el cargo.

“Su primer mandato fue bueno, así que pensé que el segundo también lo sería”, dijo Gracia. “Básicamente, nos vendieron mentiras. Eso es lo que hacen”.

A pesar de su frustración, Gracia afirmó que de todos modos habría votado por Trump, ya que las políticas fiscales del Partido Republicano son más favorables para los pequeños empresarios como él. No votó sobre la Proposición 50 y declaró que apoya al sheriff del condado de Riverside, Chad Bianco, para gobernador.

La Proposición 50 movilizó a la base demócrata

Si bien la Proposición 50 sirvió como válvula de escape para la ira de algunos votantes, también impulsó una mayor participación entre los demócratas latinos que se sentían desmotivados por la campaña de la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris para 2024.

“Simplemente no tenía a alguien con quien pudiera decir que conectaba”, dijo Angel Jimenez, de 23 años, estudiante de segundo año de ciencias animales en Bakersfield College.

Jiménez afirmó que el panorama político era tan poco alentador que no votó para presidente en 2024. Como antiguo seguidor de Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump “definitivamente no” era el candidato adecuado para él. Jiménez había considerado a Robert F. Kennedy Jr. por su plataforma ambiental, pero finalmente decidió que no era viable. Además, no le gustó cómo la dirección del Partido Demócrata designó a Harris como sustituta de Biden antes de que el público tuviera la oportunidad de expresar su opinión.

Pero cuando Jiménez se enteró de la Proposición 50 y del mensaje de los demócratas de luchar contra Trump y los esfuerzos republicanos de redistribución de distritos en Texas, se mostró ansioso por igualar las condiciones.

“Estaban obteniendo una ventaja injusta”, dijo Jiménez refiriéndose a Texas. “Yo estaba a favor de que se volviera a equilibrar la situación”.

Jiménez habló con CalMatters después de un foro de candidatos en el campus para el Distrito Congresional 22. El demócrata Randy Villegas, quien cuenta con el respaldo tanto de Sanders como del Partido de las Familias Trabajadoras, de tendencia progresista, fue el único candidato presente. Tras el foro, Jiménez se inscribió como voluntario de la campaña y también preguntó sobre oportunidades de pasantías.

Jiménez, de tendencia más liberal, dijo que el conflicto en Irán y cómo afecta al coste de la vida y a la asequibilidad serán factores clave en su decisión de voto este año.

“La guerra actual sin duda genera inestabilidad en todo”, afirmó. “La seguridad laboral podría verse afectada. La economía en general también se está viendo perjudicada”.

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

Los votantes latinos de California están mostrando señales de alejarse de Donald Trump después de haber ayudado a impulsar un giro a la derecha en 2024. CalMatters analizó los resultados a nivel de distrito electoral de las elecciones de 2025 en 57 de los 58 condados de California, que representan más del 99% del voto estatal. Nuestro análisis muestra que la Proposición 50, el plan del gobernador Gavin Newsom para manipular los distritos electorales del Congreso a favor de los demócratas en respuesta a una manipulación electoral republicana en Texas, tuvo un mejor desempeño que la campaña de Kamala Harris de 2024. votantes de color.

Observamos el mayor cambio en los distritos electorales con mayoría latina. En los distritos donde los latinos constituyen la mayoría de la población en edad de votar, se produjo un cambio neto de 25 puntos porcentuales a favor de la Proposición 50. En los distritos donde la mayoría de los votos fueron emitidos por votantes latinos, el cambio neto fue de 29 puntos porcentuales.

Para determinar el cambio neto, restamos la diferencia en puntos porcentuales de votos en la contienda presidencial de 2024 entre Kamala Harris y Donald Trump de la diferencia en puntos porcentuales de votos entre los votos “Sí” y “No” a la Proposición 50.

Este cambio en el comportamiento de los votantes podría presagiar una reacción adversa contra el presidente Trump y los republicanos en las próximas elecciones de mitad de mandato, después de que los votantes latinos ayudaran a que Trump volviera a la Casa Blanca en 2024.

Estas dos elecciones, marcadas por una fuerte polarización política y celebradas en fechas muy cercanas, representan una oportunidad única para analizar el comportamiento concreto de los votantes tras la toma de posesión del presidente electo, especialmente teniendo en cuenta que la administración Trump ha puesto en el punto de mira a California para la aplicación de la ley en materia de inmigración y los recortes del gasto federal.

Metodología Recopilación y estandarización de datos

Base de datos estatal : Recopilamos los resultados de las elecciones de 2024 y 2025 de 55 condados de la base de datos estatal, la base de datos oficial de redistribución de distritos del estado de California. El conjunto de datos incluye información sobre los resultados de los distritos electorales, los límites y la demografía racial y étnica de los votantes.

Oficinas electorales de los condados de Shasta y Tulare: En el momento de la publicación, la base de datos estatal no disponía de datos para los condados de Mono, Shasta o Tulare, por lo que recopilamos los resultados y los límites de 2025 de las oficinas electorales de los condados de Shasta y Tulare.

Centro de Datos de Redistribución : Para el análisis demográfico, descargamos los datos del Censo de Población Ciudadana en Edad de Votar (CVAP) de 2024, desagregados por bloques censales de 2020 por el Centro de Datos de Redistribución . Esta tabulación del Censo se produjo originalmente para análisis de derechos de voto y para facilitar el proceso de redistribución de distritos.

Estimación de la demografía de la población votante del distrito electoral

Estimamos la demografía racial y étnica de la población a nivel geográfico de distrito electoral utilizando el conjunto de datos CVAP. El Centro de Datos de Redistribución desglosa los datos demográficos de CVAP de grupos de manzanas de 2020 a manzanas de 2020 mediante asignación proporcional, basada en la proporción de la contribución de la población de una manzana a un grupo de manzanas.

Utilizamos la interpolación espacial para asignar los datos de población del CVAP de los bloques censales a los distritos electorales. Este método asigna los datos de población proporcionalmente según la superposición del área territorial de un distrito electoral con un bloque. Por ejemplo, si un bloque tenía 100 votantes elegibles y la mitad de su área territorial se encontraba dentro del Distrito Electoral A, entonces 50 votantes elegibles de ese bloque se asignan al Distrito Electoral A.

Interpolar los recuentos de votos de 2024 a los distritos electorales de 2025.

Utilizamos la interpolación espacial para estimar el número de votos de las elecciones de 2024 en los distritos electorales de 2025. Esta estimación se utiliza únicamente para calcular el cambio en la distribución de votos a nivel de distrito electoral.

No nos basamos en este recuento interpolado para los resultados a nivel de condado o estado; más bien, lo utilizamos para evaluar los cambios dentro de los distritos electorales individuales de 2025. Fuimos cautelosos con esta medida debido a su vulnerabilidad al sesgo estadístico (específicamente, el problema de la unidad areal modificable ). No podemos determinar con certeza si el cambio observado en el voto se debe a cambios en el comportamiento electoral o a cambios en la geografía de los distritos electorales.

Análisis

Para nuestro análisis de grupos mayoritarios, agregamos los resultados de los recuentos de votos de todos los distritos electorales donde un grupo racial constituye la mayoría de los ciudadanos adultos. Esto no significa que la mayoría de los votantes de un grupo racial determinado hayan votado de una manera específica en un distrito electoral; se trata de una aproximación para estimar el comportamiento electoral en las áreas geográficas donde esos votantes elegibles son mayoría.

Calculamos el cambio neto entre las elecciones de 2024 y 2025. El cambio neto mide la variación general del electorado entre elecciones. Por ejemplo:

Cambio neto = (Porcentaje de votos a favor de la Propuesta 50 – Porcentaje de votos en contra de la Propuesta 50) – (Porcentaje de votos de Kamala Harris – Porcentaje de votos de Donald Trump)

Recomendaciones <img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/datawrapper.dwcdn.net/UdnQW/full.png?w=780&#038;ssl=1" alt="Gráfico de flechas que muestra el cambio en el voto desde las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 hasta las elecciones especiales de la Proposición 50 de 2025. Hubo un importante cambio de dos dígitos a favor de la Proposición 50 en comparación con la contienda entre Harris y Trump. Los votantes latinos se inclinaron 25 puntos porcentuales más a favor de la Proposición 50." /> Distritos electorales de mayoría latina

La mayor diferencia se observó en los distritos electorales de mayoría latina, donde la medida obtuvo el 73% de los votos en todo el estado, en comparación con el 59% de Harris en 2024.

Los distritos electorales con mayoría latina en el sur de California registraron el mayor cambio en el porcentaje de votos son los condados de Los Ángeles, Orange, Riverside y San Bernardino, que experimentaron un cambio neto de 27,5 puntos porcentuales, votando un 60,6% a favor de Harris y un 75,9% a favor de la Propuesta 50.

Este hallazgo no se limitó a los condados con grandes centros urbanos. Los condados de Kern y Stanislaus, ambos en el Valle Central, registraron un cambio neto de 24,5 puntos porcentuales en los distritos electorales de mayoría latina.

Distritos electorales de mayoría negra

Los distritos electorales con mayoría negra, ubicados principalmente en los condados de Los Ángeles y Alameda, brindaron el mayor apoyo tanto a Harris en 2024 como a la Propuesta 50 en 2025. Harris ganó con el 85% de los votos; la Propuesta 50 obtuvo más del 92%.

Distritos electorales de mayoría asiática

Kamala Harris obtuvo el 60% de los votos en todo el estado en los distritos electorales de mayoría asiática en 2024. Al año siguiente, la Propuesta 50 recibió el 67% de los votos en los distritos electorales de mayoría asiática, lo que representa un cambio neto de 10,3 puntos porcentuales.

Los Ángeles y el condado de Orange suman una población de más de 1,5 millones de ciudadanos asiático-americanos en edad de votar. El análisis de los resultados de los distritos electorales con mayoría asiática en estos dos condados del sur de California muestra un cambio neto de 13,1 puntos porcentuales.

Distritos electorales de mayoría blanca

Los distritos electorales de mayoría blanca fueron el único grupo que observamos donde el cambio neto a nivel estatal entre la contienda presidencial de 2024 y la Proposición 50 fue inferior a 10 puntos porcentuales. El cambio neto fue de 1,6 puntos porcentuales: Harris ganó con el 56,3% en 2024; la Proposición 50 ganó con el 58,6%.

Distritos electorales sin mayoría racial

Nuestro análisis de los distritos electorales donde ningún grupo racial constituye la mayoría reveló que la diferencia en el apoyo entre Harris en 2024 y la Propuesta 50 coincidía aproximadamente con el cambio en los distritos electorales de mayoría asiática y negra en todo el estado: Harris obtuvo el 60,7% de los votos en 2024, mientras que la Propuesta 50 obtuvo el 68,3%.

Limitaciones Comparación entre una elección presidencial y una elección especial.

Una desventaja de nuestro enfoque es que comparamos una elección presidencial con una elección especial celebrada en un año sin elecciones primarias. Las elecciones generales presidenciales suelen tener una mayor participación que las elecciones especiales: 15,9 millones de votos en 2024, frente a 11,6 millones en 2025. Cualquier cambio en el comportamiento de los votantes entre las elecciones de 2024 y las de 2025 representa, como resultado, una menor cantidad de votantes. La participación en la elección especial de 2025 fue similar a la de las recientes elecciones de mitad de mandato y especiales en el estado, con un 50 %.

<img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/datawrapper.dwcdn.net/uhe8F/full.png?w=780&#038;ssl=1" alt="El apoyo a la Propuesta 50 en los distritos electorales de mayoría latina superó con creces el apoyo a Kamala Harris (Tabla)." /> Distribución de la población e interpolación espacial

La interpolación de áreas geográficas estima la demografía de la población votante bajo el supuesto de una distribución uniforme. Sin embargo, la población no se distribuye de manera uniforme. Intentamos minimizar este problema utilizando datos del CVAP desagregados por bloques censales.

Esto difiere del enfoque de la Base de Datos Estatal, que utiliza datos restringidos del padrón electoral y direcciones de registro para asignar a los votantes a su bloque censal y distrito electoral. Mediante esta metodología, la Base de Datos Estatal ha determinado que el 80 % de los bloques censales ubican a todos sus votantes registrados en el mismo distrito electoral, en lugar de distribuirlos entre varios.

Análisis de votaciones con polarización racial

Los análisis de votación con polarización racial (RPV, por sus siglas en inglés) se utilizan para evaluar el cumplimiento de la Ley de Derechos Electorales (VRA, por sus siglas en inglés). Un método utilizado es el método de distrito homogéneo, que compara distritos en los que el 100% de los votantes pertenecen a un solo grupo racial demográfico. Realizamos un análisis geográfico de los resultados de las elecciones y no intentamos llegar a una conclusión definitiva con respecto a la VRA. Repetimos nuestro análisis con umbrales cada vez más altos hasta el 100% y observamos que el cambio neto a favor de la Propuesta 50 se mantuvo por encima de +5 puntos porcentuales en los distritos con votantes de color y alcanzó hasta +36,6 puntos porcentuales para los distritos donde los votantes latinos elegibles representan más del 90% de los votantes elegibles. Disminuyó en los distritos de mayoría blanca, llegando a un mínimo de -7,4 puntos porcentuales en los distritos donde los votantes blancos elegibles representaban más del 90% de los votantes elegibles.

<img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/datawrapper.dwcdn.net/hqLW3/full.png?w=780&#038;ssl=1" alt="El cambio a favor de la Propuesta 50 entre los votantes de color es consistente con el aumento de los umbrales de categorización (Tabla)." /> <img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LOaeA/full.png?w=780&#038;ssl=1" alt="Recuento de distritos electorales para 2025 para cada grupo racial utilizando umbrales de corte crecientes (Tabla)" /> Excepciones

Los administradores electorales editan los resultados de los distritos con un número reducido de votantes registrados para proteger el voto secreto.

Datos de la encuesta censal frente a los registros electorales

Nuestro análisis se basa en datos de la Encuesta Censal que estiman el número de ciudadanos en edad de votar en una zona geográfica censal. Análisis similares utilizan información extraída directamente de los padrones electorales. Estos padrones incluyen información como nombre, dirección, raza, etc. Los datos de los padrones electorales pueden utilizarse para realizar una inferencia ecológica y extraer conclusiones sobre el comportamiento electoral de diferentes grupos.

Repetimos una versión de nuestro análisis incorporando datos del registro de votantes de la base de datos estatal. Clasificamos los distritos electorales según si la mayoría de los votantes son latinos y calculamos el cambio neto.

Expresiones de gratitud

Agradecemos a Spencer Nelson y Peter Horton, de Redistricting Data Hub, por revisar un borrador inicial de esta metodología.

También nos gustaría agradecer a Matt Barreto (UCLA) por sus comentarios metodológicos.

Descargar datos

Utilizamos herramientas de codificación de IA para facilitar el análisis. Todos los resultados fueron revisados manualmente por miembros de nuestro equipo. Puedes acceder y descargar nuestro análisis aquí.

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

En la contienda por la supervisión del presupuesto de California, los dos principales contrincantes son un funcionario en funciones con tres años de experiencia y un aspirante decidido a exponer el gasto fraudulento y derrochador.

La demócrata Malia Cohen ha ejercido como interventora (también conocida como la contadora principal de California) desde 2023 y ha recaudado más de 1.2 millones de dólares para la campaña de reelección. Supervisa el gasto de un estado con un presupuesto de casi 350 mil millones de dólares y una de las economías más grandes del mundo. Su trabajo consiste en garantizar que el estado gaste de forma prudente y eficiente.

Mientras el gobernador y la Legislatura negocian un acuerdo presupuestario para este año, Cohen ha instado a la cautela , afirmando que un gasto superior al previsto “refuerza la necesidad de moderación”.

Cohen también ha mejorado la capacidad del estado para entregar un informe financiero clave que se retrasaba crónicamente durante años. Cohen se puso al día con la publicación de cuatro informes en dos años, y le comentó a CalMatters que el próximo informe (llamado Informe Financiero Anual Integral) estará casi a tiempo, con un retraso de tan solo dos meses, en comparación con los años en que se retrasaron los anteriores.

Durante su campaña electoral de 2022, Cohen declaró a CalMatters que planeaba examinar minuciosamente el gasto estatal en programas para personas sin hogar y analizar críticamente el Departamento de Desarrollo del Empleo y el Departamento de Vehículos Motorizados. Un informe de 2024 de la auditoría estatal reveló que California no realiza un seguimiento adecuado de su gasto en programas para personas sin hogar.

Cohen no cumplió con sus promesas de campaña. Afirmó que esto se debía a que el auditor estatal ya había revisado dichas agencias. En lugar de duplicar ese trabajo, decidió centrarse en mejorar algunas funciones internas del departamento financiero del estado. Actualmente, está trabajando en la modernización de FI$Cal, el sistema informático que gestiona las finanzas estatales, y del sistema de pago a los empleados estatales.

“En definitiva, creo que los californianos merecen saber adónde va su dinero”, dijo. “Así que en eso estoy trabajando”.

El principal rival de Cohen, el republicano Herb Morgan, ha prometido subsanar las deficiencias que, según él, ha dejado su oponente. Al igual que Cohen prometió en 2022, Morgan afirmó que, de ser elegido, examinará minuciosamente el gasto estatal en la lucha contra la falta de vivienda. Su objetivo es crear un sistema en el que cada vez que una organización sin fines de lucro financiada por el estado realice un pago, dicha transacción se registre en una base de datos estatal. Posteriormente, explicó, utilizará inteligencia artificial para monitorear esas compras e identificar cualquier actividad sospechosa.

Como ejemplo de cómo se puede hacer un seguimiento transparente del gasto estatal, un panel público en su sitio web registra las donaciones a su campaña en tiempo real. A finales de abril, había recaudado 367,000 dólares.

Morgan reconoció que es una excepción como republicano que se postula en un estado históricamente dominado por los demócratas. Pero cree que los votantes considerarán las cualificaciones de ambos candidatos en lugar de votar según las líneas partidistas.

“No me importa en qué punto del espectro social te encuentres, el 99% de nosotros somos fiscalmente responsables”, afirmó. “Eso no significa recortar gastos. No significa retirar fondos. Simplemente significa ser responsables con nuestro dinero. Y eso, creo, resulta atractivo para todas las ideologías políticas”.

También se presenta Meghann Adams, candidata del Partido Paz y Libertad. Conductora de autobús escolar y residente del barrio Tenderloin de San Francisco, es presidenta de su sindicato y administra sus finanzas. De ser elegida, Adams prometió actuar contra las grandes empresas inmobiliarias que inflan los precios de los alquileres, analizar el costo de implementar un sistema único de seguro médico (Medi-Cal) y retirar las inversiones estatales de las empresas que apoyan la guerra de Israel contra Gaza.

A finales de abril, había recaudado 16,000 dólares.

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

Los líderes de San Diego están tratando de acelerar las soluciones a la contaminación por aguas residuales del río Tijuana, al tiempo que investigan el alcance del problema.

Activistas comunitarios, profesionales de la salud y expertos ambientales de la Coalición del Río Tijuana ofrecieron el jueves información actualizada sobre la contaminación tóxica que azota el sur de San Diego. Asimismo, detallaron las iniciativas para solucionar el problema, incluyendo legislación estatal, financiación para la limpieza y estudios sobre los impactos en la salud y la economía.

“Como muchos saben, este es uno de los problemas de salud pública más antiguos que enfrenta Estados Unidos”, dijo Courtney Baltiyskyy, vicepresidenta de políticas públicas y defensa de la YMCA del Condado de San Diego. “Es un problema singular porque se encuentra en la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos, en un lugar con un comercio próspero y recursos ecológicos y naturales sumamente singulares. Pero sabemos que la amenaza para nuestras comunidades es grave. Y es peor que nunca”.

Las aguas residuales mexicanas contaminan el río Tijuana, provocando enfermedades entre bañistas y surfistas, el cierre de playas y poniendo en peligro el entrenamiento de los Navy SEALs en Coronado. El río también emite toxinas en el aire, como el sulfuro de hidrógeno, un gas de olor fétido que causa problemas respiratorios y otras dolencias en las comunidades vecinas. Según los oradores, esta contaminación atmosférica ha empeorado en los últimos meses, con un aumento en las alertas por mala calidad del aire.

Los funcionarios del condado están difundiendo la información tan pronto como la calidad del aire empeora. Antes, los padres recibían alertas por sulfuro de hidrógeno mucho después de que sus hijos se fueran a la escuela. Ahora, el condado proporciona avisos con mucha más antelación, según Stefanie Sekich, asesora especial de Paloma Aguirre, supervisora del condado de San Diego.

“Recibían actualizaciones a las ocho de la mañana”, dijo. “Eso no es suficiente cuando uno va camino a la escuela. Nadie quiere recibir un mensaje de texto que le diga que su hijo está respirando sulfuro de hidrógeno, así que nuestra oficina colaboró con el condado para garantizar que… la gente se levantara a las cinco de la mañana y enviara alertas”.

Según Sekich, las autoridades del condado de San Diego han distribuido 12,000 purificadores de aire a hogares cercanos al río Tijuana. Están recaudando fondos para adquirir más, ya que las autoridades sanitarias recomiendan uno en cada dormitorio y muchas familias cercanas al río Tijuana viven en hogares multigeneracionales.

El condado destinó 2.5 millones de dólares para las obras iniciales destinadas a solucionar un foco de contaminación en Saturn Boulevard, al sur del condado de San Diego, donde aguas residuales contaminadas fluyen por alcantarillas que dispersan sulfuro de hidrógeno y otros contaminantes en forma de aerosol. La reconfiguración de la estructura podría reducir el caudal de agua e impedir que las toxinas se dispersen en el aire. Las autoridades también solicitan al menos 25 millones de dólares al estado para esta mejora.

Un conjunto de leyes estatales tiene como objetivo elevar los estándares de calidad del aire y liberar fondos para reducir la contaminación emitida por el río.

Los senadores estatales Steve Padilla y Catherine Blakespear, demócratas de San Diego y Encinitas, respectivamente , presentaron un proyecto de ley para revisar las normas sobre el sulfuro de hidrógeno . Este proyecto exigiría a la Oficina Estatal de Evaluación de Riesgos para la Salud Ambiental que establezca niveles umbral basados en criterios de salud para el sulfuro de hidrógeno antes de enero de 2030, lo que podría reducir el estándar estatal para niveles seguros de este gas tóxico. El proyecto de ley fue aprobado por el Senado estatal y está pendiente de votación en la Asamblea.

Un proyecto de ley relacionado exigiría a la División Estatal de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional establecer normas que protejan la salud y la seguridad de los empleados expuestos a la contaminación transfronteriza en trabajos al aire libre, incluidos los socorristas y guardaparques que trabajan cerca del río Tijuana. Algunos trabajadores reportan “dolores de cabeza, fatiga, náuseas y hemorragias nasales después de ser expuestos (a las condiciones insalubres)”, declaró Blakespear en una audiencia del comité del Senado el mes pasado. El proyecto de ley está pendiente de votación final en el Comité de Asignaciones del Senado.

El asambleísta David Alvarez, demócrata de Chula Vista, también propuso una ley para acelerar el gasto del bono climático de California de 2024 , la Proposición 4. El dinero de esta medida está destinado a solucionar el problema de la contaminación en Saturn Boulevard, para reducir la contaminación del aire proveniente del río.

Los funcionarios del condado están realizando un estudio de impacto económico sobre cómo la contaminación por aguas residuales afecta a las escuelas y empresas locales. Una encuesta anterior, realizada en 2023 por el condado y la Cámara de Comercio Regional de San Diego, reveló que el 74% de las empresas locales se vieron afectadas negativamente y el 50% sufrieron pérdidas significativas de ingresos, según Baltiysky.

El próximo estudio será más exhaustivo, dijo Sekich: “Este va a analizar todo durante dos años, para ver cuántos niños faltaron a la escuela, qué impacto tuvo en la financiación escolar y qué pasó con el valor de las propiedades”.

También se están realizando estudios sobre salud. Virginia Castellanos, enfermera escolar en la Bayside STEAM Academy, cerca del estuario del río Tijuana, dijo que estudios de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de EE. UU. descubrieron que la contaminación aumenta la inflamación pulmonar y puede empeorar los síntomas del asma en los niños, mientras que un estudio de la Universidad de Stanford demostró que la exposición a la contaminación del aire puede alterar la función inmunológica.

Un estudio epidemiológico del condado de San Diego analizará cómo la contaminación del río Tijuana afecta la salud de los residentes, examinando retrospectivamente la exposición tóxica a través de muestras de cabello, muestras de sangre y otros tejidos.

La Dra. Vi Nguyen, pediatra de San Diego, ha creado una red de cientos de médicos locales para diagnosticar y documentar problemas de salud relacionados con la contaminación, como infecciones de oído, rinitis alérgica, erupciones cutáneas y problemas gastrointestinales como la diarrea. También observa un aumento de enfermedades graves, como la enfermedad renal y las infecciones urinarias resistentes a los medicamentos, en adolescentes.

“San Diego no se quedará atrás, no podemos olvidarnos de la Bahía Sur”, dijo Nguyen. “Mis pacientes, especialmente los niños de Imperial Beach, San Ysidro, Nestor y la escuela primaria Berry, merecen algo mejor, y por eso estoy aquí y sigo ejerciendo como pediatra comunitario. Y realmente el estado de California y el resto de los californianos también deberían hacerlo”.