It’s really hard. Both compared to how difficult it is in other states, and how challenging it was for previous generations of Californians.

In the late 1960s, the value of the typical California home was more than four times the average household’s income. Today, it’s worth more than eleven times what the average household makes.

While it’s always been more expensive to be a homeowner here, the gap between California housing costs and the rest of the country has widened into a chasm. The median California home is priced nearly 2.5 times higher than the median national home, according to 2022 Census data.

Both high and low, interest rates haven’t helped much. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve pushed down borrowing costs, making it easier to take out a mortgage on better terms. But that only drew more would-be borrowers into the market, pumping up demand for the short supply of homes for sale in California. So prices went up.In the face of roaring inflation, the Fed jacked up interest rates in 2022. That drove plenty of buyers out of the market, but it also convinced many homeowners to reconsider selling. Homes, already in short supply, disappeared from the market. So prices went up.

Given how expensive it is to actually buy a house here, maybe it’s not surprising that California’s homeownership rate is on the low end. Just over half of Californians own the home they live in, the second lowest rate of any state in the country. Nationwide, two out of every three households own their homes.

California’s homeowners also skew significantly white. White Californians are twice as likely as Black Californians to own, according to 2022 Census data. That racial gap widened over the years, which also means Black Californians are less likely to build wealth over time, said Carolina Reid, associate professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley.

Racial disparities pop up in every corner of the housing market.

“Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be cost burdened, more likely to live in overcrowded conditions, more at risk of eviction, and displacement,” she said.

Rents are among the highest in the country in California, home to four of the ten most expensive large cities for tenants, according to the rental listing website Zumper. Believe it or not, that’s actually an improvement since 2020. In the state’s priciest cities, an outflux of residents and an modest apartment building boom have had the combined effect of slowing (or in some cases) even reducing rents. 

Still, California is anything but affordable for most renters. 

The state’s low homeownership rate plays a role here. As it has become more difficult to buy a home, wealthier people have remained stuck in the rental market — and driven up rents.

Though renters saw sluggish wage growth in the first half decade after the Great Recession, median incomes among California tenants have ramped up in recent years. On average, income over the past two decades has finally caught up with escalating rents.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is those income gains haven’t been spread around the state evenly, even as rents continue to ratchet up for everyone. 

More than half of California renters are rent burdened, which means that more than 30% of their income goes toward rent, according to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Nearly a third of Californians are severely rent-burdened, which means that rent eats more than half of their income. No surprise, rent burdens are rare among high earners and virtually ubiquitous among those living below or near the poverty line.

The numbers are worse for families of color, too. A California Housing Partnership analysis found that in 2019, Black renter households were about twice as likely as white renter households to be severely cost burdened.

The number of people experiencing homelessness is notoriously hard to track, but the estimates available indicate that the problem is as bad as it has ever been.

State numbers show that throughout 2023, more than 300,000 people accessed homeless services through local agencies. About 220,000 were single adults, and nearly 116,000 in families with kids. Los Angeles County, the state’s most populous county, also had the highest number of people experiencing homelessness, with about 100,000 people accessing services. But the crisis affects every corner of the state.

People lose their homes for a wide variety of reasons. The sudden loss of a job, a mental health crisis, a severe substance abuse problem and becoming the victim of domestic violence are common factors that can push a Californian into homelessness. But there’s no evidence that California experiences those social ills at substantially higher rates than other states. Experts and survey results suggest that the main reason that homelessness is so much more severe in California than most other states is a lack of affordable housing.

California just doesn’t have enough housing to keep up with demand. The difference between the number of homes we need and the number we’ve been building has been growing for decades. 

The gap is starting to shrink. But very, very slowly.

Population has essentially broken even over the last decade, while the state experienced a modest building boom in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of 2024, there are more homes per person — 3,789 units for every 10,000 Californians — than there have been since at least 1991. 

But the picture might be less encouraging than those numbers suggest.

The number of people living in each home has been on a long-term decline across the country, a trend turbo charged during the pandemic. That makes the number of homes that the state needs to build to keep up with demand a moving target. And however you define the size of the state’s housing shortage, we’re nowhere close to closing it.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has set a statewide production goal of roughly 2.5 million new units by the end of the decade — or roughly 315,000 per year. The state has never come close to building that much that quickly.

Part of the problem boils down to the (literal) nuts and bolts of housing development. The cost of building multifamily housing in California spiked by about 25% between 2010 and 2020, according to a report by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. In the first few years of this decade, construction costs in the state’s major metros increased nine percent or more each year, according to a state cost index.

On average, each square foot cost $44 more to build in 2018 than it did a decade ago across the state. In the Bay Area, however, that cost jumped up by $81 a square foot, according to the Terner Center. And affordable housing was more expensive to build than market rate housing.

The reasons are many and complicated. Land costs, permitting delays, borrowing costs, local fees and the threat of litigation can all add up. Subsidized housing typically receive public funding and so have to abide by heightened hiring, wage, environmental and public amenity requirements. But two especially big ones are more expensive materials — which saw particularly price hikes during and immediately following the pandemic — and a relative shortage of labor. While the number of permitted units spiked by 230% between 2009 and 2023, the number of workers has grown by only 45%. Experts attribute the lack of construction labor to restrictive immigration laws, a tighter overall labor market, the inability of residential jobs to compete with higher paying commercial projects and a construction workforce that is still coming back online after it was gutted during the Great Recession.

But construction costs are only part of the problem.

In most of the state’s major urban areas, the bulk of a single-family house’s price is locked into the land it sits on. That high price tag on the cost of actually buying a parcel, prepping it for construction and getting the regulatory approval to break ground not only makes new housing more expensive, it influences what kind of housing gets produced: Developers prioritize high-end projects, since even the cheapest pre-fab unit will come stuck with a steep fixed cost.

What makes land expensive? A lack of supply doesn’t help. Take San Francisco: Seven-by-seven miles of rolling hills penned in by water on three sides. Of the top 15 most physically constrained metro areas in the country, seven dot California’s oh-so-desirable (and oh-so-expensive) coast. 

But many of those same coveted locales place additional limits on where — and when and how and how much — construction can take place. That all makes it that much harder for housing to keep up with demand. And for decades, it has not.

Who has cause to celebrate when a new housing project goes up in your neighborhood? Young homebuyers, nearby businesses, new arrivals to the area, and, of course, developers. But people who have been living in the neighborhood for years may worry that the new development will depress the value of the homes they own, or (paradoxically) trigger increases in the rent they pay. Those who prefer not to live next door to a construction site, or watch their zucchini garden wither in the shadow of a garish new condo building, have plenty of reasons to object, too.

And object they have. For generations, land use planning in California was a strictly local process — and one that afforded opponents of change ample opportunity to stall, stymie, or scale down. The tool kit of local obstruction includes zoning restrictions, lengthy project design reviews, the California Environmental Quality Act, parking and other amenity requirements, and multi-hurdled approval processes. In California, you’re most likely to find these extra restrictions where developable space is already scarcest — in coastal urban enclaves.

Local pushback might be rooted in concerns about the environment, about congestion, about the creep of gentrification, or in a desire to preserve the “character” of the neighborhood (however that might be defined). But whatever the flavor of “Not in my backyard”-ism and whatever its ultimate goals, higher hurdles to development in the state’s most desirable locations mean many cities have failed to add new units fast enough to keep up with population or job growth.

And that inevitably means higher prices.

A little recent history: In 2012, California began unwinding its redevelopment agencies, the local investment organizations tasked with revitalizing “blighted” areas across the state. By law, redevelopment agencies were supposed to provide a guaranteed stream of cash to cities for subsidized housing — 20% of any increase in property tax payments.

With the end of redevelopment came the end of the single largest source of non-federal money for affordable housing in the state. Between 2013 and 2018, state investments in affordable housing dropped from an annual average of $1.3 billion to less than $500 million, according to the California Housing Partnership. 

Spending ramped back up during the Newsom administration through a combination of new bond sales, the rare tax measure and a glut of one-time funding during good budget years. But even as spending has crept back up (and then some), the cost of building housing purpose-built for lower income Californians continues to climb faster and affordable housing advocates still yearn for a permanent source.

It’s hard to get people to agree on a solution when they don’t even agree on the problem.

Ask some state politicians and much of the blame for California’s housing woes lies with local obstructionists. Take away the NIMBYs’ favorite procedural tools and the housing market will eventually build its way out of the shortage, they argue. 

But “red tape” has a powerful constituency. Its members include:

• City governments, which generally like having a say in what does and doesn’t get built within their borders. The powerful League of California Cities has opposed several measures to streamline the local housing approval process. It has called such efforts counter to the “the principles of local democracy and public engagement.”
• Environmentalists, who don’t want the Legislature tinkering with the California Environmental Quality Act or similar eco-minded regulations. Pro-housing advocates argue that environmental concerns can be used as a pretext to hold up a project for any number of unrelated reasons. Cases in point: The law has been used in the past to block high-density housing and bike lanes and the conversion of parking lots into affordable housing. The law’s defenders counter that legal challenges are fairly rare.
• Building trade groups also benefit from the status quo. Proposed changes to make it easier to build almost invariably lead to debates among organized labor groups over what kinds of high wage requirements and union-hiring mandates should be included. When the trades don’t get their way, they’ve been known to block legislation or oppose local developments. 
• Anti-gentrification activists, who often argue that developers should be saddled with more restrictions, not fewer. New houses may bring down prices over time and in general, they argue, but for those who are facing eviction or displacement today, new, high-end development only makes a particular locale more attractive to outside investors and wealthy house hunters.
• Good old fashioned NIMBYs. As California lawmakers have set their sites on building denser, more affordable housing within the state’s exclusive suburbs, local lawmakers and irate homeowners have gotten creative in their efforts to get around the rules. A few examples of what cities have tried: Declaring themselves mountain lion habitats, requesting historic designation protections, rewriting their local constitutions and shunting required development onto parcels that are literally underwater.  

You’d be hard pressed to find a single aspect of California life that isn’t affected by Proposition 13. Naturally, it gets blamed for an awful lot of the state’s problems.

So what about the cost of housing? After all, Prop. 13, California’s 1978 tax revolt initiative, capped property taxes at 1 percent of a home’s purchase price and limited the rate taxes can tick up each year by 2 percent. Financially, a city giving available land to new housing doesn’t necessarily make much sense if a sales-tax-paying restaurant or clothing store is waiting in the wings.

But the Legislative Analyst’s Office looked into the question of whether the state’s capped property taxes distort local land use decisions. Their conclusion: a resounding “probably not.” In short, a city’s dependence on property taxes or sales taxes didn’t predict much about its land use decisions.

Even so, there are other ways in which Prop. 13 could be contributing to our housing affordability crisis. Lower property tax rates allow many longtime homeowners to stay in homes that have skyrocketed in value. But it also means empty nesters with large homes face less financial pressure to downsize and make room for new buyers. Another consequence of capped property taxes is that local governments have to scramble for other sources of cash. One of those sources is housing developers. On average, California levies the highest developer fees in the country, making it that much more difficult to build new housing.

Once upon a time, it was taken for granted in Sacramento that housing policy was to be left up to the locals. That is no longer the case. Since 2017, a growing chorus of state lawmakers — an informal caucus that includes both progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans — have come to the conclusion that the state needs to play an active role in ensuring that California builds more homes, even if that means steamrolling reluctant local governments, environmental interests and unions. 

The laws that they have passed have radically reshaped California housing law, even if they’ve been slow so far to resolve the affordability crisis. 

A few of the biggies:

• Regulator teeth: A 2018 law gave state housing regulators more power to force local governments to plan for more housing development.
• ADUs in every backyard: A 2019 law makes it harder for local governments to keep homeowners from building backyard bungalows, also known as accessory dwelling units.
• Rent cap: This 2019 law put a lid on how much landlords of some (though not all) properties can raise from year to year.
• No downzoning: Another 2019 law, this one prevents local governments from reducing the overall number of homes that can be permitted within their borders.
• Density for affordability: A 2020 law allows developers to radically increase the number of units in a project if a certain share is designated affordable.
• Duplexification: In 2021, the state passed which is still known in housing circles by its bill number, SB 9. It requires cities and counties to allow for duplexes on parcels currently exclusively zoned for single family homes.
• Stripmalls to housing: This 2022 law makes it easier to convert defunct businesses along commercial corridors into apartment buildings.
• Apartments by-right: A 2023 law by San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener allows many proposed apartment buildings with some units set aside for lower income Californians to be exempt from environmental litigation or local discretionary review. The law was an update to an earlier version, also by Wiener, from 2017.

Close to 94% of Califiornians have health care insurance, an all-time high insured rate in 2022, according to an analysis by the California Health Care Foundation. That 6% uninsured rate is a steep improvement from a peak of around 15% in 2013, according to the analysis.

Those gains can be attributed to both federal and state efforts to expand health care coverage after Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare,  in 2010. That boosted funding and expanded eligiblity for Medi-Cal, California's version of the federal low-income Medicaid program. Medi-Cal enrolls about 15 million people. 

About 1.5 million people have insurance through Covered California, a state-supported program that offers health insurance to people who don’t qualify for it through work or Medi-Cal. The rest generally obtain coverage through their employers.

California has a record-high insured rate — but many states are doing even better. 

In some ways, that’s unavoidable. Compared to other states, California has the highest proportion of immigrants with and without legal status in the United states, and has one of the highest proportions of Latinos. Those communities have historically faced barriers to access.

The state’s unemployment rate is higher than the national average too, meaning fewer residents can use employer-sponsored care and more have to turn to state-funded programs. 

Conservative states such as Kentucky and Ohio have higher proportions of insured residents than California. They are among those that have expanded Medicaid in line with Affordable Care Act. One state, Wisconsin, has not adopted an expansion, but it offers tax credits for marketplace insurance to those who earn more than the poverty line, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Over 2 million Californians will lack health insurance this year despite all the efforts to expand coverage, researchers at the UC Berkeley Labor Center estimate. One-fifth of them are projected to be undocumented residents. The others are people who qualify for coverage but have not signed up, cannot immediately afford it, or have chosen not to sign up. 

In the past decade, residents without legal immigration status made up the largest group of uninsured Californians, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Half a million undocumented Californians are not eligible for Medi-Cal because they earn too much money to qualify for it, according to the labor center’s analysis.

Around 40,000 of them qualify for Medi-Cal because of their legal status through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to new May regulations from the Biden administration. But those whose families arrived in the United States after the program’s 2007 cutoff remain ineligible under federal law for Covered California or its subsidies. 

Money is often a key barrier to health insurance, particularly for low-income Californians without steady jobs or employer-based coverage. Health care costs are rising significantly faster than average incomes in California, according to a January 2024 report from the UC Berkeley Labor Center. 

To help those who don’t qualify for low-income insurance, policymakers have bolstered the Covered California marketplace multiple times, through both federal subsidies and state funding. Plans are available for as little as $10 a month.

But premiums for California’s middle-class have been steadily rising in recent years, and overall health care costs Californians more per person than it costs the average American, according to the California Health Care Foundation.

California expanded access to health insurance in an era of generally increasing tax revenue. That’s changing, with the Newsom administration projecting tight budgets in the years ahead. 

California’s state spending for Medi-Cal has risen to about $37 billion a year, an increase of over 80% since 2018. The expansions of access to undocumented households cost about $4 billion a year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. California’s budget is nearly $300 billion this 2024-25 fiscal year. 

Those numbers led lawmakers to scale down more ambitious health care proposals in 2024. 

One would have created a way for higher-earning undocumented people to buy health insurance through Covered California. Colorado and Washington have experimented with those so-called mirror marketplaces. The California Legislature’s Democratic supermajority voted that down.

The Legislature also has backed away from single-payer health care, with projected costs to the state of government-funded health care exceeding $390 billion a year. 

While lawmakers haven’t been able to muster support for a government-run system, they have shored up the state’s marketplace. Covered California receives funding from the state and its costs are capped by federal aid established at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID assistance is set to expire at the end of 2025. 

With expansions off the table for now, state officials are attempting to hold down costs for health care consumers. The Office of Health Care Affordability, announced a new rule in April which aims to hold annual health care cost increases below 3%. Experts say it could take years for Californians to feel its effects.

Just over half of Californians reported that they skipped or put off care due to costs in the last year, according to an early 2024 poll from the California Health Care Foundation. Half of respondents said it led to their condition worsening. The numbers are even more stark for low-income, Black and Latino Californians. 

By Mikhail Zinshteyn

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1780 by Assemblymember Philip Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco, would bar private nonprofit colleges from making admissions decisions based on whether a student has ties to a donor or an alumnus. About a half dozen colleges currently factor legacy or donor ties in their admissions decisions — including Stanford and University of Southern California. The bill would take effect next September. Schools that report that they violated the law would appear on a list published by the Department of Justice. They’ll also be required to publish aggregate data about their newly admitted class, including who were and were not admitted with legacy or donor ties, but not in a way that identifies individual students. Students with legacy or donor ties could still be admitted, just without preferential treatment.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

A coalition of social justice and education groups and wide support from Democrats. Bill backers say the bill could influence other states to ban legacy and donor ties in admissions decisions, something four states so far have already done. They cite concerns that the very wealthy are much more likely to be admitted to highly selective colleges. Also, they underscore the chilling effect that last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to outlaw race-based affirmative action in the U.S. may have on students of color. If a student’s racial identity cannot be a factor in applying for college, why should proximity to wealth and power, their logic goes. The bill can both be a signal to students that college is for them and free up enrollment slots.

WHO IS OPPOSED

In the Legislature, most Republicans opposed or didn’t vote for the bill. The major opponent, though, is the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, the group that represents the state’s 80-plus private nonprofit colleges and universities. The group has “strong reservations” about legislators scrutinizing the admissions and academic practices of private colleges. That’s the kind of oversight that’s typical for public colleges and universities, which receive billions of dollars in direct state support to fund their education missions. Private colleges generally just receive state financial aid dollars for their low-income students. A previous version of the bill would have required colleges that violate the law to repay the amount equal to what they received in student financial aid from the state. That was cut in amendments. 

California’s public universities do not consider legacy or donor ties in admissions.

WHY IT MATTERS

So far four states have approved such bans on either public or private institutions. But because California is the most populous state and enrolls more college students than any other, the bill takes on an outsized role in the national conversation about wealth, race and access to college. Bill backers say it will be a necessary corrective to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ban on race-based affirmative action. If that decision may have caused a chill on student desire to apply for college, this bill would send a welcoming signal in response, backers say.

The bill would again cement California as a trendsetter in state policy that takes on national resonance. The state was the first to ban affirmative action at public institutions through a voter-approved proposition in 1996, setting off a wave of similar efforts across multiple states. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 30 that he signed the bill. “In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work,” he said in a statement. “The California Dream shouldn’t be accessible to just a lucky few, which is why we’re opening the door to higher education wide enough for everyone, fairly.”

By Alexei Koseff 

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1825, by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat, would require public libraries in California to establish a clear policy for choosing books, including a way for community members to voice their objections, but would prohibit banning material because it deals with race or sexuality. It also clarifies that library material can include sexual content that’s not obscene and leaves to the discretion of librarians where to display those books, though they could not prevent minors from checking them out.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Over the past year, politicians in Huntington Beach and Fresno County created review committees for children’s library books to move material with “sexual references” and “gender-identity content” into restricted sections, where it could only be accessed with a parent’s permission. This has raised fears in the LGBTQ community that they are being targeted and their stories suppressed. The California Library Association, civil liberties advocates at ACLU California Action and LGBTQ rights organization Equality California argue that the state must protect diverse perspectives at public libraries amid growing threats of censorship. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Opponents of AB 1825, including the California Family Council, which lobbies for a conservative Christian perspective in policymaking, complain that the measure would undermine their efforts to keep inappropriate reading material out of children’s hands. They contend that book review panels allow communities to set their own standards for age-appropriate material and parents to introduce their kids to controversial topics on their own terms.

WHY IT MATTERS

Public libraries are the latest front in a burgeoning battle between California’s liberal government and more conservative communities across the state. With Democrats so dominant in Sacramento that they can dismiss the cultural grievances animating political discourse in red states, such as election fraud and abortion restrictions, Republicans are turning to local governance to push back against California’s progressive values. The state has moved quickly to shut down these flashes of rebellion through bills such as AB 1825.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 29 he signed the bill.

By Khari Johnson

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 1047 by Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, requires the makers of advanced artificial intelligence models to test their likelihood to cause critical harm to society. The bill also protects the rights of whistleblowers to raise concerns to the attorney general. The bill attempts to codify, oversee, and enforce safety testing similar to what major companies voluntarily agreed to in deals with the White House and governments in the United Kingdom and South Korea. The bill also takes steps toward establishing a public cloud computing cluster known as CalCompute to advance AI development.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

In the weeks leading up to passage, X CEO Elon Musk and prominent researchers Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton voiced support for the bill. Other supporters include AI company Anthropic, youth AI nonprofit organization Encode Justice, the Economic Security Project California, and experts including Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, the first director of the Joint AI Center at the Pentagon; Dan Hendrycks, director of the Center for AI Safety; and Daniel Kokotajlo and William Saunders, former OpenAI employees and whistleblowers. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Major AI developers including Google, Meta, and OpenAI strongly oppose the bill, arguing that it will stifle innovation and the availability of open source software. Eight members of Congress who represent California districts, all Democrats, took the unusual step of urging Gov. Newsom to veto the bill. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco also opposes the bill, saying in a letter that it does more harm than good.

WHY IT MATTERS

California is home to the majority of the top AI companies in the world, so tough regulation of them could set a standard for the entire industry and for Congress. Supporters of the bill say now is the time to act because they don’t trust the makers of AI to self regulate particularly as profit pressures mount. Kokotajlo told CalMatters that if SB 1047 were in effect when he worked at OpenAI, it would have prevented or at least helped expose a violation of internal safety protocols he witnessed there.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌

Newsom announced Sept. 29 that he vetoed the bill, saying that a broader approach is needed and announcing a series of related initiatives. “By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology.”

By Sameea Kamal

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 1174 by Sen. Dave Min, a Democrat from Irvine, would ban local governments from requiring voters to present identification to vote. The bill attempts to push back against a charter provision passed by voters in Huntington Beach that supporters said would prevent voter fraud. Min said “an overwhelming body of evidence proves our elections are safe, secure, and above board.” 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Groups that advocate for voter access such as the League of Women Voters of California, as well as California Environmental Voters and Disability Rights California. Common Cause California said that voter identification is already required when someone registers to vote, and that there are numerous protections in place to prevent voter fraud. The group — and other supporters — say the city’s law would disproportionately impact Latino, Black, young and low-income voters, and would create confusion since it would only apply to the local elections, which might be held at the same time as state and federal elections.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Min’s bill is in response to the city of Huntington Beach’s move to place a measure on the ballot allowing the city to verify voter eligibility through IDs, which 53% of voters passed in March — one of several local initiatives aimed at pushing back against California’s progressive politics. 

An attorney for Huntington Beach said the city’s law, which takes effect in 2026, is intended to increase participation in elections, and that the ballot measure represented “the will of the people.” In addition to the city, the bill is also opposed by the conservative-aligned group Election Integrity Project California, and the Greater Bakersfield Republican Assembly. Republicans from other parts of the state, including Riverside-area Assemblymember Bill Essayli, have also opposed the bill

WHY IT MATTERS

This bill is the latest front in an ongoing battle over allegations of voter fraud, which have been rampant since the 2016 election. In April, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed a lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach, alleging that the voter ID requirement is in conflict with state law. The lawsuit is pending.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 29 he signed the bill.

By Nigel Duara

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 2178 by Assemblymember Phil Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco, would cap the number of empty beds at all California prisons at 11,300 by the summer of 2026. It would require further cuts each year until reaching the state’s minimum capacity requirement of 2,500 empty beds. That likely means closing prisons.

The measure is meant to reduce spending on prisons, which house about 65,000 fewer inmates today than they held in 2011. Despite the falling inmate population, California is expected to spend $18 billion on state prisons over the next year, an annual budget of $3 billion more than at the start of the Newsom administration in 2019.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

A wide variety of public defense and civil rights organizations support Ting’s bill. They include the ACLU of Northern California, the California Public Defenders Association and a prison advocacy group called Californians United for a Responsible Budget. The California Nurses Association also backs the proposal. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

The bill is opposed by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the union for prison guards, which said that tightening capacity limits will mean tighter quarters that pose more danger to guards. It’s also opposed by the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, a smaller union that represents mental health workers in state prisons and state hospitals.

WHY IT MATTERS

California prisons have an empty bed problem. The prison system, which was once so crowded that inmates slept in hallways and day rooms, has cut down on its population over the last decade under federal court orders. The result is that the prison system now has too many empty beds, at least 13,000 in January. By 2028, the prison system is anticipated to have 19,000 empty beds, about one-fifth of the system’s total capacity.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has moved to close four prisons, a reduction that his administration says will save about $3.4 billion by 2027. A recent report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office says the system can afford to close five more, which would save an additional $1 billion a year. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌

Newsom announced Sept. 29 that he vetoed the bill, saying that he “fundamentally disagreed” with the approach: “We must leave the practice of warehousing incarcerated people in the past and instead focus on a future that provides humane and dignified housing that facilitates rehabilitation. Codifying this prescriptive approach to ‘empty beds’ will undermine this effort.”

By Wendy Fry 

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1810 by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat from Culver City, would require state prisons to provide incarcerated people with free and ready access to menstrual products without inmates having to request them. Currently, state prisons, local jails and juvenile facilities are required to provide sanitary pads and tampons products only “upon request.” A 2023 report by the attorney general’s office found half of the facilities surveyed were not complying, including 25 county jails that were not providing free period products. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

A coalition of human and prisoner rights advocates, including the ACLU California Action, the San Francisco Public Defender, the Western Center on Law & Poverty and the Legal Services for Prisoners With Children organizations. Bryan said there were documented cases of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officers withholding sanitary products as retaliation or punishment. Alissa Moore, the re-entry coordinator for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, testified at a hearing on the bill that she was sexually assaulted several times during her 25 years in prison: “I often felt humiliated, and ashamed and embarrassed when I would have to, on occasion, ask the same staff that had victimized me for sanitary supplies.” The bill passed the Senate and Assembly without any “no” votes.

WHO IS OPPOSED

The California Family Council voiced opposition to the bill, arguing that the legislation does not clearly identify a person who menstruates as a woman. Some correctional officers have said male inmates sometimes ask for pads to make cushions for seats or for their sandals. State mandates that cost money for local jurisdictions, like county jails and juvenile detention facilities, are usually reimbursed by the state. According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill does not have significant costs.

WHY IT MATTERS

There are more than 3,700 women in state prisons, plus more than 9,800 in county jails. Formerly incarcerated people have described being humiliated by having to ask for personal hygiene products. Advocates say it can lead to unsafe and unsanitary conditions and lead to an imbalance of power between correctional officers and inmates. 

California is reckoning with how it treats its prisoners. Proposition 6 is asking voters whether to change the state constitution to expressly ban involuntary servitude so that inmates in California jails and prisons can no longer be compelled to work and punished with solitary confinement or the loss of privileges for declining jobs, most of which pay less than $1 an hour. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 29 he signed the bill.

By Wendy Fry and Jeanne Kuang

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

AB 1840 and SB 227, written by Assemblymembers Joaquin Arambula and María Elena Durazo, respectively, aim to ensure Californians are not excluded from assistance programs due to their immigration status. 

AB 1840, written by Arambula, a Democrat from Fresno, makes clear that undocumented first-time homebuyers can apply for a program that offers 20% downpayment assistance of as much as $150,000. The bill has drawn national media attention, with Republicans claiming it follows “a long litany of taxpayer dollar giveaways…that encourage and reward illegal immigration.” A spokesperson for Arambula said the bill only clarifies that undocumented Californians can participate in “Dream for All” and other home purchase assistance programs if they meet all other eligibility and financial criteria. The program ran out of $300 million in funding 11 days after launching in 2023. Because of the state budget shortfall, no new funds were appropriated this year. 

SB 227 requires the Employment Development Department, by next March, to come up with a plan on how to give undocumented workers who lose their jobs access to unemployment benefits. Employers pay into the unemployment fund; an expansion would likely need to be funded by the state. Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 vetoed a similar bill directly requiring the new program because lawmakers hadn’t identified a funding source. This version would make the administration figure out how to create the program, including how much it would cost, and then send the plan back to lawmakers and the Department of Finance for review.

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

A large coalition of immigrant rights advocates, including the ACLU, CHIRLA, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

California Republicans argue that programs providing aid to undocumented residents act as a magnet for illegal immigration, even as many Californians can’t afford to buy houses. Elon Musk posted on his social media site X that “half of earth should move to California given all the incentives to do so.” 

There are no registered opponents for the unemployment bill. Newsom’s finance department last year opposed the bill because the state hadn’t budgeted funds for it, and called its timelines “infeasible,” but the bill has since been amended to require a plan rather than the program itself. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Decades of work went into building a social safety net for California’s roughly 2.3 million undocumented immigrants, who still have the highest poverty rates in the state. Some argue that because undocumented immigrants pay taxes, they should also have access to taxpayer-funded programs, like unemployment insurance. According to USC’s California Immigrant Data Portal, undocumented immigrants paid an estimated $3.7 billion in state and local taxes in 2019. 

In recent years, natural disasters such as winter storms and extreme heat have shed light on how farmworkers, over half of whom are undocumented, can lose work with little notice. But with a tight state budget, Newsom has cited costs in halting or slowing down the state’s expansions of social services. 

GOVERNOR’S CALLS ❌

Newsom announced on Sept. 6 that he vetoed AB 1840 to expand homebuyer aid to undocumented immigrants, citing budget concerns. With “finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively,” he wrote.

Newsom announced Sept. 28 that he vetoed SB 227 on jobless aid. In his veto message, Newsom wrote that it “sets impractical timelines, has operational issues, and requires funding that was not included in the budget.”

By Jeanne Kuang

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Authored by Sen. Dave Cortese, a Campbell Democrat, SB 1299 would make it easier for farmworkers to make a workers’ compensation claim for heat illness. Under the current system a worker can get covered for any workplace injury — whether it’s their employer’s fault or not — if they can prove the injury was connected to the job. Benefits include payments for medical care, lost wages or death benefits for the family. For certain injuries in certain industries, workers claiming benefits get a “presumption” (legalese for a fast-track to approval) that their injury was work-related — firefighters who develop cancer, for example, because of how often they are exposed to carcinogens in burning buildings. The bill gives a similar, though narrower, presumption to farmworkers claiming heat illness by allowing them to more easily link the injury to their job, specifically in cases in which the employer was not following state safety rules for those who work outside in the heat. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is sponsored by the United Farm Workers and has support from labor groups and attorneys who represent injured workers in workers’ compensation claims. The United Farm Workers say the bill can put financial pressure on employers to comply with the heat rules, in the absence of more robust state enforcement.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Farming groups oppose the bill, as well as workers’ compensation insurance carriers and broader business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce. Business groups say the bill unfairly mixes workplace safety regulations with workers’ compensation insurance rules, and worry it could put employers on the hook for heat cases that are not work-related. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Heat waves in California are growing longer and more intense, but workers’ advocates say many employers still do not follow the state’s nearly two-decade-old outdoor work heat rules  that require growers, farm labor contractors, construction site supervisors and others to provide shade, breaks and water and to monitor their workers for heat illness. The challenge is compounded by an understaffed state workplace safety agency; CalMatters reported in August that the agency’s enforcement of heat rules has declined significantly since 2019 despite the increasing risks of extreme heat. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌

Newsom announced Sept. 28 he had vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he wrote the enforcement of heat safety rules should be done only by the state’s workplace safety agency, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) and not be determined by the workers’ compensation system.

By Ryan Sabalow

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 549 would allow tribal governments to sue their business competitors — private card rooms — over the tribes’ longstanding contention that these private gambling halls are illegally offering table games including blackjack and pai gow poker. Tribes say California voters gave them the exclusive rights to host the disputed table games. But because they’re sovereign governments, the tribes lack legal standing to sue.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Tribes including those operating the state’s 70 tribal casinos support the measure. The bill has several bipartisan coauthors, many of whom have large casinos in their districts. The tribes contend the card rooms’ games have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from historically disenfranchised tribal communities across California. They’ve spent millions of dollars on lobbying and political donations for this bill, as well as a failed sport-betting ballot initiative two years ago that included a similar provision.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Opposing the bill are the state’s 80 or so privately-owned gambling halls, as well as several California cities and the municipalities’ employee unions. Card rooms, which embarked on a massive lobbying blitz this year, say their games are not illegal and that the attorney general’s office has approved each of them. They argue that if the tribes are allowed to sue, the card clubs wouldn’t be allowed to sue tribes back, and they could go out of business from the ensuing legal fees. Card rooms’ annual earnings are barely 10% of what tribal governments make, and the tribes have outspent the card rooms in this fight three to one.

WHY IT MATTERS

Cities, including San Jose, argue that if the card rooms stop offering the disputed table games, it could force the municipalities to cut police, fire and other city services because their budgets are propped up by the taxes and fees that the card rooms pay local governments. Tribes say passing the bill would go a long way toward California making amends for the atrocities the state committed on native peoples.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 28 he signed the bill.

By Kristen Hwang

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 3129 by Assemblymember Jim Wood, a Democrat from Ukiah, would authorize the attorney general to approve or reject private equity takeovers of most medical businesses, such as doctors offices, outpatient clinics and surgery centers. The attorney general already regulates nonprofit hospital mergers and is able to stipulate conditions intended to protect patient access and cost, such as preventing facilities from eliminating certain services. This would grant similar review powers over transactions in private industry. It exempts for-profit and government-run hospitals.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The measure has been hotly contested in the Legislature. Supporters include consumer health advocates, the state doctors’ lobby, and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who sponsored the legislation. They warn that private equity buyouts in health care drive increased consolidation and higher prices while diminishing patient access.

WHO IS OPPOSED

The state hospital lobby and a coalition of investor groups and dental practices oppose the bill. The coalition, Californians to Protect Community Health Care, spent more than $500,000 lobbying against the measure in the most recent quarter, according to state financial reporting records. They argue that the measure will stifle much-needed investment in health care, leading to service cuts and hospital closures.

WHY IT MATTERS

Private equity investment in health care has drawn scrutiny nationwide. The investment firms tend to finance the purchase of hospitals, doctors offices and the like with borrowed money, saddling them with debt before exiting and selling the properties.

In California, between 2005 and 2021, private equity deals in health care grew from $1 billion to $20 billion annually, according to a recent policy paper from the California Health Care Foundation.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌

Newsom announced Sept. 28 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Newsom said the existing state Office of Health Care Affordability can review such mergers and acquisitions, and while it “cannot block a proposed transaction, it can coordinate with other state entities, including referring transactions for further review” to the attorney general’s office.

By Kristen Hwang

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

Pharmacy benefit managers work as middlemen between insurance companies and drug manufacturers. They process claims, negotiate drug prices and help determine the list of drugs that health insurance plans cover. 

SB 966 by Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers from restricting where patients can fill prescriptions and mandate that 100% of discounts negotiated with drug manufacturers be passed onto health insurance plans. It would also require the state insurance department to license pharmacy benefit managers and improve price transparency.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The measure is co-sponsored by the California Pharmacists Association, California Chronic Care Coalition, Los Angeles LGBT Center and San Francisco AIDS Foundation. Supporters say exclusionary practices have forced the closure of 300 pharmacies across the state and limited drug access. It is also supported by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents drug companies.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Health plans and trade organizations representing pharmacy benefit managers are the primary opponents to the measure. They say preferred pharmacy networks, formularies and discounts are all strategies that allow pharmacy benefit managers to keep prices reasonable. They blame drug companies for driving up prices and say this legislation would increase premiums by $1.7 billion in the first year.

WHY IT MATTERS

Spending on prescription drugs in California ballooned 39% in just five years, according to the most recent state data. State and federal regulators are increasingly concerned about tactics used by pharmacy benefit managers to generate profits. A report from the Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating the middlemen, suggests that the largest organizations may be engaging in practices specifically to evade regulation, such as moving portions of their operations out of the country. Research also suggests consolidation drives prescription drug prices higher with the three biggest companies — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx — controlling 80% of the market. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌

Newsom announced Sept. 28 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said while prescription drug prices are too high and there needs to be more transparency, “I am not convinced that SB 966’s expansive licensing scheme will achieve such results.” Instead, he said he’s directing the California Health and Human Services Agency to “propose a legislative approach to gather much needed data on PBMs next year.”

By Kristen Hwang

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

Two bills on the governor’s desk aim to improve transparency when a hospital plans to shut down its maternity ward and help state agencies understand the ripple effects of growing labor and delivery “deserts.”

If a hospital plans to close labor and delivery or inpatient psychiatric services, SB 1300 by Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat from Campbell, would require public notification four months in advance. The hospital would also need to hold a public hearing with its county board of supervisors and report why it is eliminating services and how its patients may be affected.

AB 1895 by Assemblymember Akilah Weber, a Democrat from La Mesa, would require hospitals to notify state regulators, including the Department of Public Health, of challenges keeping maternity services open. Regulators would be required to assess how service cuts would affect the community and identify the next closest hospitals with operating labor and delivery wards.

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

Cortese’s proposal is co-sponsored by the National Alliance on Mental Illness and supported by a number of behavioral health associations and consumer advocates. Supporters of Weber’s measure include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District IX, the California Nurse-Midwives Association, and Reproductive Freedom for All California, which all co-sponsored the legislation. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

The California Hospital Association had opposed Cortese’s measure, arguing that it does not address the underlying financial and staffing challenges many hospitals are struggling with, and may make it more difficult to keep services running. The association dropped its opposition on Aug. 28, after an amendment decreased how much information hospitals would be required to report.

Weber’s bill is unopposed.

WHY IT MATTERS

Maternity wards are closing in California at an unprecedented rate. More than 50 hospitals have closed or reduced labor and delivery services in the past decade with at least eight more closures planned this year, according to an ongoing CalMatters investigation. In addition, birth centers, which can handle low-risk pregnancies, are also shutting down rapidly.

CalMatters reporting has revealed that these losses disproportionately impact low-income and Latino communities.

GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅❌

Newsom announced Sept. 28 he had signed SB 1300. But he announced Sept. Sept. 29 he vetoed AB 1895, saying in his veto message that current law already requires public notice: “Further, this bill creates costly administrative burdens for the state that are unlikely to change hospitals’ business decisions.”

By Jenna Peterson

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

SB 969 would let local governments create “entertainment zones,” where bars and restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages that people can drink on public streets and sidewalks. Starting Jan. 1, cities could tailor these zones to fit their needs. 

AB 1775 would legalize cannabis cafes in California. Cannabis lounges already exist in some places, but they’re limited to selling prepackaged food and drinks. 

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and author of SB 969, says the bill would help boost local businesses and “make our cities more fun!” Currently, cities can designate open-container zones for events such as festivals and parades, but they’re only applicable to outside vendors. The city of San Jose, the California Nightlife Association, and the city and county of San Francisco are sponsors of the bill. 

AB 1775’s author, Assemblymember Matt Haney, also a San Francisco Democrat, says the bill is necessary to support small cannabis businesses. He’s compared California’s cannabis culture to Amsterdam’s, which has well-known cannabis cafes that have been legal for decades. Many cannabis organizations are supporters of the bill. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Recorded opponents — which include the California Alcohol Policy Alliance, Alcohol Justice, California Council on Alcohol Problems and Citizens for a Better Los Angeles — say the bill could harm mixed-use neighborhoods and contribute to rising alcohol mortality rates and drunk driving accidents. 

The American Heart and Lung Associations and other health-focused organizations oppose AB 1775 because cannabis contains particulate matter, which can cause cardiovascular disease and lung infections. They also say that secondhand cannabis smoke can be harmful to workers at cannabis cafes. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Many California cities have yet to see foot traffic recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year, a University of Toronto study tracked cell phone activity to determine how many downtown visitors cities have recovered. While San Jose was at 96% as of October, Los Angeles was at 83%, San Francisco at 67% and Sacramento at 66%. Wiener pushed through a similar bill last year, but it was limited to San Francisco. Cannabis cafes could also contribute to post-pandemic recovery of foot traffic.

GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅✅

Newsom announced Sept. 28 he signed SB 969. “Getting people out in the streets to enjoy themselves is critical for communities across our state to bounce back from the pandemic,” Wiener said in a statement. “I’m thrilled to see the program’s massive success in San Francisco expand across the state.”

Newsom announced Sept. 30 he signed AB 1775.

By Ana B. Ibarra

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1830 by Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula sets out to help make pregnancies healthier by requiring that manufacturers of corn masa add folic acid to their products starting in 2026. Corn masa is used to make tortillas, corn chips and other foods. The federal government already requires folic acid in enriched grain products, including cereals, breads, pasta and rice because of its known effectiveness in helping prevent birth defects. 

Specifically, the bill requires 0.7 milligrams of folic acid in every pound of masa flour. That addition must be reflected in the nutrition label. Through the legislative process, the bill was amended to make exemptions for small businesses and restaurants, which often make their own corn masa and tortillas. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, March of Dimes and a number of organizations that advocate for kids’ health. 

WHO IS OPPOSED 

There is no registered opposition on file. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Arambula said this bill will help address disparities in who gets the necessary amount of folic acid. State public health data show that Latinas are less likely to take folic acid in the early weeks of pregnancy or before becoming pregnant when compared to other racial or ethnic groups. This puts them at higher risk of having children born with birth defects of the brain and spinal cord, most commonly spina bifida and anencephaly. Research shows that folic acid can help prevent birth defects by as much as 70%. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 28.

By Jenna Peterson

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 2442, authored by Los Angeles Democrat Rick Chavez Zbur, would speed up the licensure process for gender-affirming healthcare providers. The bill does not change the requirements to get a license; rather it prioritizes applicants who intend to practice gender-affirming healthcare or gender-affirming mental health care. As part of a package of new laws on abortion access, the legislature passed a similar law in 2022 to expedite licenses for abortion service providers after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. AB 2442 has a sunset clause, so the legislature would reevaluate the need for the bill in four years. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and Equality California are sponsors of the bill, which also has support from organizations that support LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive justice and healthcare access. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

The California Family Council, Our Duty Democrat, Protect Kids Initiative and Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids Advocacy are recorded opponents of AB 2442. The latter group says that other providers should also get expedited licensing, and that the bill could hurt other areas of medicine. Instead, they want to add more staff to the Department of Consumer Affairs so that all medical providers can get licensed more efficiently. The other organizations have concerns about the safety of children undergoing gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy before their brains fully develop, saying it could harm mental health and lead to infertility. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Twenty-six states have passed laws that ban gender-affirming care. In a 2022 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality, 47% of transgender respondents said they had considered moving to another state because of these laws. In California, patients seeking gender-affirming care at Stanford Medical Center often have to wait six to eight months to get an appointment. Supporters say AB 2442 would allow California to keep up with the demand from out-of-state patients while continuing to support in-state patients. In 2022, California passed a law protecting those receiving or providing such treatment from prosecution by other states. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌

Newsom announced Sept. 27 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said too many accelerated licenses could be unfair to other applicants and “the increase in staff needed to ensure expedited applications may lead to licensing fee increases.”

By Lynn La

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

The bipartisan SB 1043 seeks to bring greater transparency to the treatment of children and young adults living in state-licensed facilities — specifically short-term residential therapeutic programs. The bill would expand reporting requirements over the facilities’ use of restraints and seclusion rooms.

Following an incident that involves restraining a child (or youth up to 21 years old) or putting a youth in a seclusion room, the facility would be required to provide a report to both the youth and to their parent, guardian or other representative. The report would include a description of the incident and various other information, and a copy would be provided to the California Department of Social Services. The department would be required to review reported incidents for any health, safety and licensing violations and investigate the incident if needed. The department must also make data about these incidents publicly available on its website by Jan. 1, 2026.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Led by Sen. Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican, the measure has several Democratic and Republican co-authors. But the bill’s most recognizable and famous supporter is Paris Hilton, the hotel heiress, socialite and media personality. As a teenager, Hilton experienced physical and emotional abuse at youth treatment centers in California, Utah and Montana. This has led to her personal crusade against institutional abuse in the “troubled teen industry.” Hilton’s nonprofit, 11:11 Media Impact, is a co-sponsor of the bill. Disability Rights California and Children’s Law Center of California also support the proposal. 

WHO IS OPPOSED 

There is no formal opposition registered and no lawmakers have voted against the bill, though some legislators did not vote.

WHY IT MATTERS

In 2021, after reports of rampant abuse, California passed a law prohibiting the practice of sending troubled youth, including foster children, to out-of-state, for-profit treatment centers. As an alternative, youths can be sent to short-term therapeutic facilities licensed by the state’s social services department. Two years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law to fund crisis residential treatment facilities for children on Medi-Cal. The bill seeks to bring more transparency and accountability to the 355 facilities operating in California. It would also provide parents or guardians, who may have to make the difficult decision of sending their children to one of these facilities, information about any potential misuse of restraints and seclusion rooms. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 27. “Children and teens — especially those in the care of the foster system — should never be subjected to improper use of restraints, or isolation while they are meant to be receiving treatment,” he said in a statement. “I am proud to sign legislation today to help protect our youth against such harmful tactics, and I’m grateful to Paris Hilton for using her voice to ensure that no child suffers like she did.”

By Wendy Fry

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

Lawmakers shelved two critical pieces of reparations legislation in the final hours of the session, but sent 10 other reparations bills to the governor’s desk. The California Legislative Black Caucus announced 14 priority reparations bills in January based on recommendations made last year by a first-in-the-nation reparations task force. The most significant bill, AB 3089, authored by Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat from Los Angeles and task force member, would require a formal apology from the state for “perpetuating the harms African Americans faced” from racial prejudice and unequal distribution of state and federal funding. 

Also approved: SB 1050, by Sen. Steven Bradford, a Democrat from Gardena, aimed at returning property or the financial equivalent to people who had their land taken by racially-motivated eminent domain; AB 1986, to increase oversight on book bans in prisons; and SB 1089 to require grocery stores and pharmacies to notify employees before closing. 

Another bill, AB 1815 by Assemblymember Akilah Weber, a Democrat from San Diego, would expand a 2019 law, barring hair discrimination in competitive sports. 

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

The California Legislative Black Caucus and other members of the California Reparations Task Force who do not serve in the Legislature support most of the bills. Also backing the legislation are a slew of social and racial justice advocates and organizations such as the Black Equity Collective, the California Black Power Network, the ACLU and others. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Organizations generally did not register official opposition. Some Republicans abstained from voting. Many argue that because California was not a “slave state,” it is not responsible for making amends.

WHY IT MATTERS

California is the first state in the nation to grapple with the complexities of reparations — an effort that has sparked controversy among advocates and opponents alike. The most significant ongoing debate is whether reparations should be for all Black residents or just those who can prove they are the descendants of African Americans enslaved in the United States. Most of the bills before Newsom are more broadly tailored for overall racial equity, not aimed at a specific remedy for a specific harm. So far, California lawmakers have not pushed for cash payments.  

Black lawmakers say this session is only a first step in building a foundation for future reparations measures. The Legislature also placed a measure on the November ballot asking voters to amend the California constitution to delete language that allows involuntary servitude as a form of punishment for crimes.

What California does could ripple into the presidential elections, with Republicans claiming Democrats made false promises to Black Californians about supporting reparations. Vice President Kamala Harris has only publicly supported studying the issue, but she’s close friends and political allies with Amos Brown, a task force member who was one of the strongest advocates for lineage-based reparations and direct compensation.

GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅❌

Newsom announced on Sept. 25 his veto of SB 1050, saying it couldn’t be put into effect. “I thank the author for his commitment to redressing past racial injustices,” he said in his veto message. “However, this bill tasks a nonexistent state agency to carry out its various provisions and requirements, making it impossible to implement.”

But on Sept. 26, Newsom signed AB 1815, AB 1986, SB 1089 and, most significantly, SB 3089, the formal apology for slavery. “The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities,” the governor said in a statement. “Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past — and making amends for the harms caused.” 

By Jenna Peterson

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

AB 2504 would designate the shell of the black abalone — an endangered marine snail — as California’s official state seashell. AB 1797 would name the Dungeness crab the state crustacean. And AB 1850 would recognize the banana slug as the state slug. These would be the latest additions to the state’s 44 official symbols. 

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

The shell bill was authored by Assemblymember Diane Dixon, a Republican from Newport Beach who notes that the black abalone has an important history to Native American tribes in Southern California, who have used the shell for trading and ceremony regalia and eaten the snail for thousands of years. The crab measure was authored by Assemblymember Jim Wood, a Ukiah Democrat. And the slug bill came from Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat. All three bills won overwhelming support in the Legislature.

WHO IS OPPOSED

There is no recorded opposition from advocacy groups to any of the three bills. Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale, was the lone vote against the slug bill, but “in good fun.” 

WHY IT MATTERS

The National Marine Fisheries Service designated the black abalone as an endangered species in 2009, as it faces environmental threats such as overfishing, disease and natural disasters. Lawmakers hope the designation will help Californians be more aware of those dangers. The Dungeness crab was chosen because of its positive impact on the commercial fishing industry and coastal economies. Pellerin chose the banana slug not only because it’s the mascot of University of California, Santa Cruz, but it also symbolizes California’s biological diversity. 

GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅

The governor signed all three bills on Sept. 27. “California has some of the most biodiverse environments in the world — with over 5,500 plants, animals, and other life forms. From the majestic California redwood down to the delicate California quail, every organism matters here — and it’s time we celebrated our less cuddly friends before they get too crabby,” he said in a statement. “The Dungeness crab, the banana slug, and the black abalone each bring much to our state and are well deserving of this recognition.”

By Jenna Peterson

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1979 would allow victims of doxxing — when someone shares identifying information online about someone else with the intent to harm them — to sue their attackers in civil court for damages of as much as $30,000. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat, and Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Davis Democrat, co-authored the bill. AB 1979 has support from many LGBTQ+ rights organizations, as members of the LGBTQ+ community are disproportionately targets of doxxing. A number of Jewish rights organizations announced their support for the bill earlier this month, and the Anti-Defamation League is a co-sponsor. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

There is no recorded opposition to AB 1979. Newport Beach Republican Diane Dixon was the sole “no” vote in the Assembly, and told CalMatters she generally opposes bills that create a private right to action because they clog up the court system. The bill also received five “no” votes in the Senate. 

WHY IT MATTERS

It’s difficult to obtain evidence for doxxing, so the crime isn’t prosecuted often. For example, only one doxxing case was filed in Sacramento County in the last five years. According to a 2024 Anti-Defamation League Report, 45% of transgender respondents said they had experienced severe online harassment in the last year, and LGBTQ+ advocates say harassment is worsening as anti-trans legislation rises across the country. 

Doxxing has also played a role in recent Gaza war demonstrations, with many protesters wearing face coverings in fear of being identified and facing online harassment. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 25 he had signed the bill.

By Ana B. Ibarra

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 1061 by Sen. Monique Limón would remove medical debt from credit reports and prohibit debt collectors from reporting patients’ medical debt information to credit agencies. This pertains specifically to debt owed to a medical provider, such as a hospital or a doctor’s office, and not medical debt charged to credit cards.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill is backed by Attorney General Rob Bonta, the California Nurses Association and a number of consumer advocacy organizations. 

WHO IS OPPOSED 

The bill was originally opposed by a coalition of bankers and creditors that pushed back on the bill’s definition of “medical debt” because it included medical credit cards, which are often offered at doctors’ and dentists’ offices as a way to pay for a procedure, but also can be used to pay for elective services, fitness programs and even veterinary services. That kind of debt, these groups argued, should not be hidden from lenders. The coalition removed its opposition once the bill redefined medical debt to that owed directly to providers. 

WHY IT MATTERS

About 4 in 10 Californians report carrying some type of medical debt, according to the California Health Care Foundation. Medical debt can significantly weigh down credit scores and hurt consumers’ chances at securing a rental, a mortgage or car loan. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 24 he signed the bill, along with other consumer bills. “Nobody wants to get ripped off, whether it’s a small subscription fee that’s seemingly impossible to cancel or massive medical debts which force families into financial ruin.”

By Ben Christopher

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 2347 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat, would give tenants 10 business days to respond to an eviction notice, doubling the current deadline of five business days. If a tenant doesn’t respond within that time frame, they automatically lose their eviction case. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Legal aid organizations that represent low-income tenants are the main backers of the bill. They’re joined by affordable housing advocates, the California Democratic Party and the city of San Jose. Supporters argue that tenants being threatened with eviction may also be struggling financially, not have access to legal representation, not speak English as a first language, or fail to understand the significance of the landlord’s eviction notice. Five court calendar days, they say, is simply not enough time to respond. 

Researchers have found that tenants lose 40% or more of their eviction cases in California by default — either because they failed to respond on time or filed the application incorrectly. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Landlords. It often takes months between when an eviction notice is filed and when an owner can reclaim their property from a tenant. Extending that process even further means higher costs for those in the rental industry and, landlord lobbying groups warn, higher rents.

WHY IT MATTERS

California has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the county. California already has laws on the books that restrict how and when landlords can boot tenants from their rental properties, but this bill would give tenants more legal leverage to make use of those protections. Supporters hope that will keep more Californians from becoming homeless in the first place. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 24 he signed the bill, among other consumer protection proposals.

By Mikhail Zinshteyn

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 2586 by Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat from Chula Vista, would make California the first state in the nation to allow public colleges and university students who are undocumented to work at their campuses. The bill is based on a novel legal theory, first proposed by UCLA law professors, that argues that the 1986 federal law that bars undocumented residents from working doesn’t apply to state employers. About 60,000 students at California’s community colleges, California State University and the University of California could benefit starting Jan. 6 if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs it.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

A coalition of undocumented students, the student governments of the three public higher education systems, UCLA legal scholars, some individual community colleges and a phalanx of social justice nonprofits. While undocumented students are eligible for state grants and tuition waivers, they’re blocked from receiving federal aid and loans, which denies them full access to funds to afford tuition, rent, school supplies and other basic needs. Many undocumented students already work, but risk being exploited or put in dangerous situations. Working on campus ensures more safety and jobs that are better fits with what students study.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Aside from the few Republicans who voted against the bill, no one officially, though the public university and community college system central offices expressed an assortment of concerns. The University of California worries that its hiring staff would be at risk of prosecution for flouting federal law and that its billions of dollars in federal contracts would be in jeopardy. The Cal State system had similar worries about the federal student financial aid all its students receive. The UCLA law scholars have argued those scenarios are highly unlikely and that in a worst-case scenario, a judge would tell the state and campuses that they can no longer hire undocumented students. The Senate’s judiciary committee staff analysis also pushed back on UC’s concerns. 

The community college system, meanwhile, said it’ll struggle to meet the early January deadline to implement the law.

WHY IT MATTERS

Students and UCLA legal scholars first proposed the idea to the UC Board of Regents, who pledged in 2023 to consider the proposal. Ultimately, the regents voted to delay any implementation, citing the analysis of the system’s lawyers and outside counsel about the risks to the UC in the event the federal government retaliates. Heartbroken, the students and their allies synced up with Alvarez to propose this bill.

The bill would mean more economic opportunity for undocumented college students. It may also prompt other state legislation to allow more state agencies to hire undocumented residents. How the bill is received by the federal government will be top of mind for state and national immigration and education watchers. The stakes may be even higher if Donald Trump again wins office: He and his aides want to deport millions of undocumented Americans and establish deportation camps near the southern border.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌

Newsom announced Sept. 22 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said the courts need to decide this issue first. “Given the gravity of the potential consequences of this bill, which include potential criminal and civil liability for state employees, it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding,” he wrote.

By Jenna Peterson

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 1053 would ban all plastic grocery bags in California, so customers would have to use paper or reusable bags, effective Jan. 1, 2026. Voters approved a similar ban in 2016, but a loophole allowed for plastic bags that are thick enough to reuse. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill was authored by state Sens. Ben Allen and Catherine Blakespear, Democrats from El Segundo and Encinitas, respectively. They wrote the bill to raise awareness of the current law’s contribution to plastic pollution. More than 70 environmental organizations — including the Center for Environmental Health, Climate Action California and California Environmental Voters — support the bills because they would prevent plastic waste, which releases toxic chemicals into the air, water and soil. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Opposition includes the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance, which says that according to a survey they conducted, 60% of Californians are reusing plastic bags from the grocery store. They also say that many reusable bags have a more negative impact on the environment than the currently legal plastic bags. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Plastic waste contributes to 3.4% of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to a CalRecycle report, plastic grocery bags made up more than 231,000 tons of California waste in 2021. When plastic enters a landfill, it breaks down into microplastics, which can seep into soil and contaminate groundwater. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 22 he signed the bill.

By Sameea Kamal

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

AB 1784 by Democratic Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin and Wendy Carrillo would stop candidates from seeking multiple offices, by clarifying state law to prevent candidates from filing papers for more than one office in a primary election. It also allows people to withdraw their candidacy until the filing deadline, which they currently can’t do. The bill does not apply to candidates for statewide office, and clarifies that withdrawal is final. 

AB 2041 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta would make it easier for candidates to use campaign cash for their own security. Under current law, threats have to be verified by law enforcement.  This bill would lift that requirement and allow spending on home or office security systems and other expenses (but not firearms) due to threats tied to official duties. The bill would allow politicians to protect their families and staff, and spend as much as $10,000 on security expenses over their careers.  

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

AB 1784 is supported by Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and California’s League of Women Voters, which said that having someone on the ballot twice can confuse voters and undermine confidence in elections. It could also lead to costly special elections if a candidate wins both contests, the group said.

Supporters of AB 2041 include the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, as well as the League of California Cities. The bill’s supporters in the Legislature tell of increasing threats and harassment over controversial bills. They also point out that female candidates and officials are often the targets of threats. “Stalking and harassment have become all too common in today’s politics, especially for candidates who are female, LGBTQ+, and candidates of color,” Bonta said in a statement after her bill passed on the final night of session. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

There is no registered opposition on file to either bill.

WHY IT MATTERS

AB 1784 seeks to address the very specific debacle that resulted from Assemblymember Vince Fong putting his hat in the ring after Rep. Kevin McCarthy stepped down from Congress. Fong was already on the primary ballot to run for re-election in his Assembly district, so the Secretary of State tried to stop him from running for a second office. Fong sued, and won. Authors of the bill want to clarify for future elections that dual candidacies are prohibited.

Gov. Newsom vetoed a similar bill to AB 2041 last year, saying it lacked clear definitions of security expenses and could lead to unintended uses of political donations. But supporters say the bill language has been tightened up to only allow spending for reasonable costs. If Newsom signs this bill, it would take effect immediately, so candidates could take advantage during the fall campaign.

GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 22 that he signed AB 1784 and AB 2041.

By Ryan Sabalow

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 804 would allow community service officers — uniformed police department civilian employees who don’t have arrest powers — to testify at preliminary hearings where authorities present evidence to a judge who decides whether to move ahead with a full felony trial. Witnesses or victims are still required to testify in a trial. As it stands, only sworn officers are allowed to testify at “prelims,” despite community service officers often taking witness statements at crime scenes and during investigations. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The Redding Police Department brought the issue to the attention of the region’s senator, Republican Brian Dahle, arguing that as police budgets shrink, community services officers should be allowed to testify to free up sworn officers for other duties. The California State Sheriffs Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and the state’s police union support the legislation. Proponents say that it would keep officers from having to re-interview witnesses. Plus, they argue that having fewer armed officers interacting with witnesses helps address concerns about over-policing in communities of color.

WHO IS OPPOSED

ACLU California Action, criminal defense attorneys, including the California Public Defenders Association, and social justice groups opposed the legislation. They argue that the changes could lead to shoddy testimony being admitted into legal proceedings where a suspect’s freedom is on the line. They argue that preliminary hearings are already tilted in the favor of police and prosecutors. “The bottom line is that preliminary hearings are so problematic right now,” Ignacio Hernández of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, told the Assembly Public Safety Committee this summer. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Since 1990, the state’s population has grown by nearly 10 million people, yet the numbers of California’s sworn patrol officers have dropped to below where they were in 1991, according to a recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California. Sworn officer staffing shortages are particularly prevalent in rural areas such as those in Dahle’s sprawling Senate district in northeastern California.

At the same time, in the wake of high-profile cases of unjustified police violence, social justice advocates have been urging California lawmakers and local governments to scale back the numbers of armed police patrolling communities of color. Some communities are deploying unarmed social or mental-health workers trained to defuse confrontations in situations where armed officers used to be the sole respondents.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ❌

Newsom announced Sept. 20 he vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he said while he appreciates the goal to “conserve law enforcement resources, the bill raises concerns about the reliability of evidence presented at a critical stage of criminal proceedings, in which decisions are made regarding whether probable cause exists to charge defendants with felonies.”

By Ben Christopher

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 450 by San Diego Democratic Sen. Toni Atkins is aimed at “fixing” one of the most controversial state housing laws in recent memory. 

In 2021, Gov. Newsom signed another Atkins bill that allows California homeowners to divide their properties into as many as four separate units. That law was both lauded and condemned at the time as the “end of single family zoning” as we know it. In practice, it did no such thing. Few homeowners made use of the law. This bill is aimed at making that law more user friendly, by requiring local governments to approve applications quickly and preventing them from saddling duplex-ification proposals with extra requirements. 

The bill also includes language promoting it as a statewide solution to California’s “severe shortage of housing.” That’s meant to address a court ruling from earlier this year that exempted charter cities from the 2021 law.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Builders, landlords and “Yes in my Backyard” activists. For years, pro-density and development advocates have argued that zoning restrictions that keep apartment complexes, townhouses and multiplexes out of certain neighborhoods makes it harder for the state to build its way out of the current housing shortage and exacerbates economic and racial exclusion.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County and local governments in San Mateo opposed the bill, arguing that it chips away local authority over land use and puts an added burden on city planners. Though this year’s effort generated less attention, the original bill in 2021 saw enormous opposition from local governments, suburban neighborhood associations, anti-density advocates and some progressive political advocacy groups.

WHY IT MATTERS

“Ending single family zoning” has long been the holy grail of YIMBY advocates and pro-equity groups. The 2021 law was a symbolically important crack at statewide zoning reform, but its impact was limited. This year’s bill is another effort to make that vision of a denser California a reality — and to see whether achieving the goal will also make the state more affordable. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 19.

By Marisa Kendall

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

SB 1395 by Sen. Josh Becker, a Democrat from Menlo Park, would make it easier for cities and counties to quickly set up tiny homes for their homeless residents. 

How? Traditional homeless shelters already are exempt from some of the red tape that often slows down housing construction, including the California Environmental Quality Act. Becker’s bill would expand that to include shelters that are “non-congregate and relocatable.” In other words: tiny homes. The bill also would extend cities’ ability to streamline the construction of homeless shelters, which now is set to expire in 2027. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill’s co-sponsors include San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan (whose city has embraced tiny homes as solution to homelessness), DignityMoves (a nonprofit that helps build tiny homes villages), the Bay Area Council, and SPUR (a nonprofit public policy organization focused on housing and transportation).

WHO IS OPPOSED

SB 1395 has no registered opposition. But that wasn’t the case last session, when a similar version introduced by Becker died following opposition from prominent groups that included the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Western Center on Law & Poverty and the Corporation for Supportive Housing. They complained the bill characterized tiny homes as permanent housing. In reality, they said, tiny homes’ substandard construction (many lack kitchens and bathrooms) means they should be used as temporary shelters only. The new version of the bill specifies that tiny homes are temporary shelters. 

WHY IT MATTERS

As homeless encampments continue to grow, the state and many cities are doubling down on tiny homes as a quick way to get people off the streets. San Jose has more than 500, and there are 2,000 statewide, according to DignityMoves. Newsom last year promised 1,200 tiny homes to four communities in California, though that project ran into some snags.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 19.

By Khari Johnson 

WHAT THE BILLS WOULD DO

Lawmakers passed three bills intended to protect voters from deepfakes — deceptive forms of audio, images and video generated by artificial intelligence.

AB 2839 by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democrat from Santa Cruz, goes after individuals who create or publish deceptive content made with AI. The bill allows a judge to order an injunction requiring them to either take down the content or pay damages. AB 2655 by Assemblymember Marc Berman, a Democrat from Palo Alto, requires large online platforms such as Facebook to remove or label deepfakes within 72 hours of a user reporting it. And AB 2355 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, a Democrat from Los Angeles, requires political campaigns to disclose use of AI in advertising.

To comply with the First Amendment, the deepfake bills only affect content that is intended to deceive. Ones that are considered comedy or parody aren’t covered.

WHO SUPPORTS THEM

AB 2839 and AB 2655 were sponsored by California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a branch of the nonpartisan nonprofit Common Cause. Attorney General Rob Bonta also supports AB 2839, which would go into effect immediately if signed into law and would apply 120 days before and 60 days after the Nov. 5 election.

WHO IS OPPOSED

Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a range of book publishers groups opposed AB 2839 due to concerns the bill may violate free speech rights. Business and internet organizations are also against AB 2655. Only the foundation is listed as an opponent to AB 2355.

WHY IT MATTERS

Deepfakes became a flashpoint earlier this summer when X CEO Elon Musk circulated a fake campaign ad that mimicked the voice of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Gov. Gavin Newsom said the ad made by Musk should be illegal; Musk retorted that it was parody and thus protected speech. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump posted a generated image of his political opponents in prison jumpsuits, although the platform he posted it to, Truth Social, is too small to be regulated by AB 2655.

The AI disclosure bills come amid concern about the accuracy of AI-generated content. According to a study released in February, more than half of answers from AI models such as Google’s Gemini, Mixtral, and Meta’s Llama-2 were labeled inaccurate. Still, the bills would not stop AI-generated disinformation, but just make users be more aware. 

GOVERNOR’S CALLS ✅

Newsom signed all three bills on Sept. 17. “Safeguarding the integrity of elections is essential to democracy, and it’s critical that we ensure AI is not deployed to undermine the public’s trust through disinformation — especially in today’s fraught political climate,” he said in a statement. “These measures will help to combat the harmful use of deepfakes in political ads and other content, one of several areas in which the state is being proactive to foster transparent and trustworthy AI.”

After months of signature gathering, litigating and legislative wrangling, the final list of measures on the Nov. 5 ballot is set. The Legislature directed the Secretary of State’s office to assign numbers to several, and the office set the others. (Reminder: Prop. 1 was Newsom’s mental health measure that narrowly passed in March.)  

Proposition 2: Borrow $10 billion to build schools. Legislative Democrats put on the ballot a bond issue to give $8.5 billion to K-12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges for construction and modernization.   

Proposition 3: Reaffirm the right of same-sex couples to marry. This constitutional amendment from the Legislature would remove outdated language from Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, that characterizes marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Proposition 4: Borrow $10 billion for climate programs. Legislative Democrats also placed a bond issue on the ballot that includes $3.8 billion for drinking water and groundwater, $1.5 billion for wildfire and forest programs and $1.2 billion for sea level rise. In part, the money would offset some budget cuts.  

Proposition 5: Lower voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure bonds. This constitutional amendment from the Legislature would make it easier for local governments to borrow money for affordable housing and other infrastructure. To avoid opposition from the influential real estate industry, supporters agreed to block bond money from being used to buy single-family homes.   

Proposition 6: Limit forced labor in state prisons. Lawmakers added this one late — a constitutional amendment to end indentured servitude in state prisons, considered one of the last remnants of slavery. The California Black Legislative Caucus included the amendment in its reparations bill package. 

Proposition 32: Raise the state minimum wage to $18 an hour. This initiative seemed a much bigger deal when it was first proposed in 2021. But under existing law, the overall minimum wage has risen to $16 an hour. And lower-paid workers in two huge industries are getting more: Fast food workers received a $20 an hour minimum on April 1 and health care workers will eventually get $25, though the start date has been pushed back to at least Oct. 15. 

Proposition 33: Allow local governments to impose rent controls. This is the latest attempt to roll back a state law that generally prevents cities and counties from limiting rents in properties first occupied after Feb. 1, 1995.

Proposition 34: Require certain health providers to use nearly all revenue from a federal prescription drug program on patient care. Sponsored by the trade group for California’s landlords, this measure is squarely aimed at knee-capping the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has been active in funding ballot measures (see Prop. 33). 

Proposition 35: Make permanent a tax on managed health care insurance plans. This initiative is sponsored by California’s health care industry to raise more money for Medi-Cal and block lawmakers from using the cash to avoid cuts to other programs. The measure would hold Newsom to a promise to permanently secure that tax money for health care for low-income patients.

Proposition 36: Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking. This initiative may be the most contentious on the ballot. It would partly roll back Proposition 47, approved by voters in 2014.

By Ben Christopher

By 2014, California voters were sick of ballots larded up with too many measures, many of them highly technical, specific to one industry or difficult to understand. 

So state lawmakers changed the rules. While initiatives can only go before voters in November, a tweak to the election code gave the Legislature more time to hold public hearings on those upcoming measures, while giving initiative backers the chance to revise or remove initiatives later in the process. The goal was a more deliberative, thoughtful process with more room for compromise.

But one person’s “compromise” is another person’s “legal extortion.”

The most notorious example came in 2018 when the soda industry funded a ballot measure that would have made it much more difficult for local governments to raise taxes. They pulled the initiative — which then-Gov. Jerry Brown called an “abomination” — after lawmakers agreed to ban new local soda taxes for the next 13 years. 

Then in 2023, the Legislature passed a law allowing similar deal-making on referendums to overturn existing laws. It was immediately used to pull a fast food industry referendum off this November’s ballot, and used again by the oil industry to abandon its referendum to kill a ban on drilling near homes, schools and other sensitive areas.

Prior to this year, a total of nine measures had been withdrawn from the ballot after qualifying; the most for any single election was three in 2018.

But this year, five compromises were struck to pull measures off the ballot before the June 27 deadline. Business and organized labor made a deal to change a California-only state law that allows workers to sue their bosses over alleged workplace violations; business groups withdrew a measure to repeal the law completely. The governor’s office brokered pacts with the proponents so that they stood down on initiatives to fund pandemic preparedness through a tax on multi-millionaires and to expand state funding for health care for critically ill children. And after the Legislature passed a similar proposal, a nonprofit executive pulled his initiative to require a financial literacy class to graduate from high school. 

Separately, in a highly unusual and controversial decision, the California Supreme Court removed a sweeping anti-tax measure in response to a lawsuit by Newsom and legislative leaders.

By Sameea Kamal

California is one of 26 states with either an initiative process, referendum process, or both.  

While the state has had some way for citizens to initiate laws since 1898, it formally adopted the ballot initiative process after a special election on Oct. 10, 1911, when then-Gov. Hiram Johnson signed into law the ability for voters to recall elected officials, repeal laws by referendum and to enact state laws by initiative. 

The push for more direct democracy was a part of a movement across the U.S. in the late 1800s for social and political reform. In California, it was fueled by concerns over the influence that Southern Pacific Railroad and other “monied” interests had over the Legislature.

From 1911 through the most recent ballot measures in November 2020, there have been 2,068 initiatives cleared for signature collection. Of those, 392, or about 19%, qualified for the ballot. And of those that made the ballot, 137, or 35%, have been approved by voters, including 39 constitutional amendments. 

The most measures on a single ballot? 48 in 1914, followed by 45 in 1990 and 41 in 1988.

What’s the difference between a referendum and an initiative? 

A referendum allows voters to approve or reject a statute passed by the Legislature, but with some exceptions: “urgency” statutes necessary for public peace, health, or safety; statutes calling elections; or laws that levy taxes or provide appropriations for current expenses. 

Initiatives, which are more common than referenda, propose new statutes, as well as amendments to California’s constitution. Since 2011, initiatives can only appear on the November general election ballot.

In most cases, initiatives and referenda share the same signature requirements — at least 5% of the total votes cast for the office of governor at the last election. A constitutional amendment initiative, however, requires at least 8% of the total votes cast at the most recent gubernatorial election. 

For this election, that was at least 546,651 signatures to qualify an initiative, and 874,641 for a constitutional amendment.

By Sameea Kamal

What can be an initiative? Anything that’s the “proper subject of legislation” – as long as it only addresses one subject.

To get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, there are a few steps that can begin more than a year before the election.

• An idea is proposed by citizens to the state attorney general’s office with a $2,000 fee, or a bill is passed by the Legislature.
• A title and summary are written by the attorney general.

In California, unlike in some other states, the ballot title and summary are not drafted by the secretary of state or an elections board. The language is meant to be neutral, but former attorneys general Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris, and current Attorney General Rob Bonta, have been accused of not always staying impartial. 

For example, a parents’ rights group sued over the title of its proposed initiative to require schools to notify parents if their child identifies as transgender, to ban female transgender students from girls’ athletic teams and to prohibit children from medically transitioning. Bonta labeled it as “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth” and a judge upheld his description. Subsequently, proponents failed to gather enough signatures to qualify their initiative.  

(A proposed initiative to transfer the drafting authority to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office failed to qualify for the 2022 ballot. And a bill this year to do the same also failed.)

• Signatures are gathered.
  The number of signatures required is based on a percentage of total votes in the last gubernatorial election. 

• Lawmakers are alerted, after which they may hold public hearings.
  The Legislature is not allowed to amend the measure or prevent it from appearing on the ballot, but a 2014 law allows more room for compromise for proponents to withdraw qualified measures from the ballot.
  
• Collected signatures are verified by the Secretary of State’s office.
  This is done in two ways, once measure proponents file at least 100% of the required signatures to qualify. Under the random sample method, each county elections office is required to verify at least 500 signatures or 3% of the number of signatures filed in their office, whichever is greater. If the completed sample shows that the number of valid signatures is projected to be more than 110% of the required signatures, the measure qualifies. If it’s less than 95%, the measure fails to qualify.
  
  If the number of valid signatures in the random sample represents between 95% and 110% of the required total, then the full check method requires election officials to verify every signature on the petition filed with their office.
  
  Campaigns pay anywhere from $2 to $6 per signature to petition gatherers, depending on how well-funded the campaign is, and how close they are to the required number of signatures and the deadline. Over the last two years, due to COVID-19 safety measures and the labor shortage, the price per signature could rise to as much as $15, some strategists told the Los Angeles Times.

A statewide ballot measure is approved by a simple majority vote of the people. 

By Ben Christopher

The founding story of the California ballot measure is an electoral tale of David versus Goliath. In 1911, progressives introduced the initiative statute, the referendum and the recall as a way to wrest ultimate lawmaking authority away from a corrupt Legislature and bestow it upon the electorate.

But from the early days, Goliath learned how to fight back. 

“The controlling factor is money,” said Glen Gendzel, a history professor at San José State University who has written about the early history of Californian direct democracy. “If it’s a pay to play system, then those who have the most money are going to play the most.”

In 1920, white agricultural interests helped sponsor a measure banning Japanese immigrants from owning farmland. In 1926, the dairy lobby waged an expensive war against margarine producers. Throughout that decade, private utilities helped defeat three efforts to establish a public hydroelectric power agency. As early as 1923, a special legislative committee came to a depressing conclusion about California’s experiment with direct democracy: “Victory is on the side of the biggest purse.”

That wasn’t always the case — nor is it today. Sometimes the appearance of trying to buy a law can backfire. In 2010, PG&E spent nearly $50 million — more than 300 times the opposition — on a campaign to make it more difficult for local governments to set up their own public power agencies. The utility lost.

In recent years, many business interests have gone to the ballot not just to advance their own policy goals, but to reverse the work of California’s increasingly Democratic Legislature. That strategy paid off for ride-hailing app companies and bail bond agents in 2020, when both industries spent millions to undo state laws aimed at transforming or outlawing their business models. 

No doubt cigarette and vape liquid manufacturers were taking note. In 2022, they funded an effort to nix a state ban on flavored tobacco. While voters overwhelmingly rebuffed them, that still bought them time. As soon as a referendum qualifies for the ballot, the law that it targets is put on hold. And because state law only allows referendums during regular general elections, that reprieve can last as long as two years. 

By Sameea Kamal

It’s possible for multiple measures on the same topic to appear on the ballot – even ones that conflict with each other. If one is approved by voters and the others are rejected, it’s simple: The approved one takes effect. And if several pass and they don’t conflict with each other, they all go into effect.

But if multiple measures pass that conflict, the measure or provision of a measure that receives more “yes” votes is the one that goes into effect.

In November 2022, that would have been the case with the big-money battle between competing online sports betting measures, one sponsored by national giants in the industry, the other by some Native American tribes. But voters rejected both measures decisively, though the campaigns spent more than $570 million combined, nearly twice the previous record.

One of the most recent examples was in 2016, when there was Proposition 62 to repeal the death penalty, but also Proposition 66 to speed up the appeals process for capital punishment by putting trial courts in charge. Because 51.1% of voters approved Prop. 66, it superseded Prop. 62, approved by only 46.8%.

In 2010, Prop. 20, a measure adding congressional redistricting to the duties of an independent redistricting commission, competed with Prop. 27, which aimed to disband the commission. Prop. 27 failed.

And on the 1988 ballot, Californians faced five competing initiatives on car insurance reform. Voters passed just one. Also in 1988, Prop. 68 and Prop. 73 went head-to-head on the regulation of political campaign contributions. Prop. 73 received more “yes” votes, and after a legal battle, the California Supreme Court ruled it would take effect – only to be tossed out by another lawsuit.

California became the first state to commit to a $15 an hour minimum wage when then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that ratcheted up the pay floor from $10.50 in 2017. 

The law included an inflation adjustment, is bringing the California minimum wage to $16.50 an hour in 2025. 

California has experimented with a higher minimum wage in other ways, including local measures that require higher pay in high-cost cities and industry-specific laws for fast-food and health care workers.

Dozens of California cities, particularly in coastal communities with a high cost of living, have adopted local minimum wage ordinances.

The first was San Francisco. Its local minimum wage dates back to 2003. Its minimum wage today is $18.67.

Today, California’s highest local minimum wage is $19.03 in West Hollywood.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two laws in 2023 that set a state higher minimum wage for workers in two specific industries: fast-food and health care.

Fast-food workers now earn at least $20 an hour under a law that took effect on April 1, 2024.

The union-backed law that instituted higher pay for 400,000 fast-food workers also created a fast-food industry council that has the power to set future wage increases and to advise on working conditions.

Health care workers will see a series of wage increases to gradually raise their pay floor to $25 an hour by 2033. The first step was supposed to took effect on Oct. 16, a few months later than originally planned because of a delay related to the state budget deficit.

Minimum wage increases can lead to consumers paying more money for products and services.

Notably, fast-food restaurants such as McDonald’s, Chipotle and Chick-Fil-A increased prices after California’s law increasing the minimum wage for their employees took effect.

Research from UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy found that a “10% minimum wage hike translates into a .36% increase in the prices of grocery products.”

The majority of low-wage workers in California are either under age 25 or over 50, according to an analysis of Census data by the Legislative Analyst’s Office. 

About 40% of them have children under age 18. Most California low-wage earners are not married. About 10% of them are the sole breadwinners for households with children, according to the analysis.

Many are immigrants. They make up about 40% of the state’s low-wage earners.

Many low-wage workers in California hold positions that were regarded as “essential” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They are often in-home care givers, clerks in retail stores, farmworkers and restaurant workers. The Legislative Analyst’s Office uses the term “low-wage workers” to refer to employees who made up to $17.50 per hour at their main job in 2023. These workers would be affected directly by proposals to increase the statewide minimum wage. 

Economists have found that minimum wage increases can cause employers to offer fewer jobs, but there’s ongoing debate about the severity of potential job losses.

In California, some fast-food franchises say they are lowering labor costs by accelerating a shift to automated service. They are installing self-service kiosks, experimenting with robots in the kitchen and outsourcing food delivery to apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats.

A 2023 report from the Congressional Budget Office projected that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $17 would reduce employment by about 700,000 jobs. That’s .4% of the overall workforce.

The minimum wage doubled in two states — California and New York — since 2014. A recent study found the higher minimum wage in those states actually increased employment in the fast-food sector.

“We find that these large minimum wage increases both raised pay for workers at the bottom of the earnings ladder and increased employment,” wrote the authors, a group of economists from the University of Victoria, UC Berkeley and UC Davis.

California’s minimum is high enough to ensure that full-time workers earn more than the federal poverty threshold. 

The state’s expensive cost of living, however, means a minimum wage income might not be enough to make ends meet. 

About 8% of California workers — 1.3 million people — were living in poverty in 2023, according to a poverty measure by the Public Policy Institute of California that takes into account the state’s housing costs and safety-net benefits.

While there is no official living wage measure, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator puts the living wage in California at $23.81 for a working couple with one child, and $21.24 for a single adult with no children.

In its 1960 higher education “master plan,” California promised students that tuition at its public universities would be free. Like a city filled with flying cars, that promise never came to be.

Ten years later, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan prompted the University of California to introduce tuition-like charges — he and his allies had scaled back state support to punish the UC for tolerating student activism, and also to save taxpayer dollars. In Reagan’s view, college students shouldn’t rely on the state alone for an education that most Californians didn’t pursue.

This view of higher education as a consumer good rather than public right spread nationally —  fueled by a public tax revolt. Tuition rose rapidly. The California State University system began collecting fees in 1981, labeling them “tuition” in 2011.

Over the past half-century, student fees and tuition at UC have nearly quadrupled, adjusted for inflation, and continue to rise. At Cal State, they’ve jumped six-fold, with plans to raise tuition 6% annually for the next five years.

Yet almost 60% of California resident undergrads at UC and Cal State actually pay no tuition or systemwide fees. That’s due to an annual state financial aid program exceeding $3 billion, plus another $1.6 billion in university-run grants. A third to nearly half of the money from students who do pay flows back to fund financial aid.

Tuition, however, is a small portion of the total cost of college. The big toll is housing — the wrecking ball often obliterating families’ affordability plans. Food, textbooks and transportation add up as well. But California’s robust financial aid system, including the growing power of the federal Pell Grant for low-income students, helps keep college affordable for low- and middle-class students — a concept known as “net price.”

Families making more than $110,000 have historically paid much higher college costs, chiefly because they receive less state and federal aid. California ranks among the most affordable states for low- and middle-income students at public universities. Cal State is the bigger bargain: Students from families with incomes below $30,000 typically pay less than $5,000 to attend. Why is it cheaper than a UC? Lower in-state tuition and more students living at home.

Still, although low-income families qualify for more financial aid, the share of family income they pay remains high.  

The story is the same for UC: Students from families with incomes below $60,000 have a net price of about $11,000 a year —  a level that barely budged in two decades. Through loans and part-time work, those costs can be manageable, but they still eat up nearly a fifth of that family’s income.

Generally, public schools are cheaper than private colleges after all financial aid is considered. But some private colleges have really generous financial aid.

At Stanford, for example, the net price for low-income families is nothing. At the University of Southern California, low-income students end up paying slightly more than what a typical UC costs, according to federal net-price data.

California, like other states, used to spend more on higher education per student before  recession hammered the economy in the early 2000s. Campuses absorbed big cuts. But in recent years, the state’s per-student spending has shot far above the national average.

Still, while UC and the Cal States have been getting more money from the state, the systems have had to rely increasingly on tuition revenue to afford their education missions, reflecting a national trend. Four decades ago, California funded 80% of UC’s education mission. Last year, it was less than half — and that’s a partial rebound from what it was during the tough recession years of the early 2000s. State support also collapsed mightily for Cal State, but has partially rebounded in recent years.

California spends in excess of $3 billion on grant aid to students — tops among all states. Students can apply for numerous state, federal and campus-specific grants and scholarships. Here are the major ones:

• Cal Grant: Around 400,000 students receive this, which waives some tuition for private colleges and all tuition at the UC and CSU. Lawmakers and the governor are due to decide whether they can expand the Cal Grant, including to more than 100,000 community college students. The state’s deficit bodes poorly for that proposal. A majority of recipients also get some kind of cash award of up to $6,000.
• Middle Class Scholarship: About 300,000 get this, a relatively new award that provides  an average of about $2,000 to UC and CSU students. Nearly 160,000 students receive both this and the Cal Grant.
• Pell Grant: This is a federal grant for low- and middle-income families worth as much as $7,400 annually.
• Promise Grant: Nearly half of community college students who’d have to pay tuition don’t through this grant, a benefit for those with low incomes. It can save full-time students at least $1,100 annually.
• UC grants: The university has its own internal pot of money worth nearly $900 million that it awards students. Students get this by first applying for financial aid through the state or federal government. 
• Cal State’s university grant: Students with low incomes who don’t get a Cal Grant to cover tuition may get this. Cal State spends $700 million to run this grant. Students get it by first applying for financial aid through the state or federal government. 

Many students who are likely eligible for these awards don’t apply, leaving free money on the table.

Apply for state and federal financial aid here. 

If you’re an undergrad living off-campus and not with your parents, you can only wish housing was as affordable as tuition. For Cal State students, housing tends to cost two to three times the price of tuition and fees. Food and housing for Cal State students living off-campus accounted for more than half of the total cost of attendance — before financial aid kicked in. Meanwhile, most UC campuses are in expensive rental markets where a one-bedroom apartment rents for more than $2,000 monthly.If students worry about losing stable housing or reliable access to food, their grades and prospects for graduating suffer.

A majority of California college and university students say they have experienced housing and food insecurity in the past 12 months, according to a November 2023 survey by the California Student Aid Commission. That’s way up from just a few years ago, when it was a third of students. The commission blames the uptick on inflation and the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to the rising need, California’s government has ramped up funding to help campuses provide students emergency housing and food.

Because most UC and Cal State students live off campus, housing can likely only be solved by local, state and federal governments, as well as private developers, who all have a role to play in combating the housing shortage statewide.

Still, legislators in 2021 established a $2.2 billion plan to construct affordable campus housing at the UC, Cal State and community colleges — space for an estimated 12,000 students. After the state’s budget forecast worsened, that money instead turned into bonds the campuses had to borrow, with the state vowing to cover annual payments on those debts.

That money will help the UC, the state university system with the highest share of students living on campus. It’s planning or building space for 13,700 beds by fall 2028 and has added about 35,000 beds for students in the past decade.

More money to fund no-interest loans for subsidized student housing may not survive 2024’s budget tightening.

As the demographics of California have changed, so too has the racial and ethnic makeup of the state’s college and university undergraduates.

In 2010 white students were the largest demographic group in California. Now, Latino students make up the plurality of all undergraduates.

There’s also variation in who goes where. At the UC, more than 30% of undergraduate students were Asian, according to 2022 federal data, even though statewide, Asian students made up 15% of undergraduate enrollment. Latino students make up 27% of all UC undergrads — and 50% of community college students.  

California also continues to attract more low-income students to its public colleges and universities than the rest of the country. New California students are much more likely to receive state and local grants, which typically go to students from low and middle class families. In 2021-22, about 60% of the state’s public college and university students received state aid, much higher than the national average of 39%. Compared to other states, a greater share of California students get the federal Pell grant, which is reserved for low-income students.

The roughly 60,000 undocumented college students at California’s public campuses are eligible for state financial aid, but not federal grants and loans. They cannot legally work, and they struggle to find the money to afford rent, food and other college expenses beyond tuition.

These students often can have their tuition waived, though until recently excessive paperwork likely prevented some students from receiving all the state aid for which they were eligible.

Some lawmakers are pushing for legislation that would permit undocumented students to work at public colleges and universities. The effort follows a failed attempt by students at the UC to persuade the system’s leadership to adopt a novel, but untested, legal theory that says state agencies are exempt from federal rules blocking undocumented residents from working in the U.S. The ability to work on campus would likely help many undocumented students afford their education.

California undergraduates are much less likely to use federal loans — just 15% of students in the state did in 2021-22, compared to 29% nationally. In both cases, that’s a significant drop from the time of the Great Recession, when family incomes collapsed, tuition doubled as state coffers disintegrated, and debt was the only way to pay for a degree.

One major reason California has a lower borrowing rate is because community college students, who make up most of the state’s undergraduates, almost never borrow — just 1% do.

The federal government limits how much undergraduates can borrow annually in federal loans. The latest numbers put the national average for federal borrowing at about $6,600. In California, the average amount borrowed was nearly $6,900.

Years of debt accumulation has meant that almost 4 million Californians owe about $146 billion in federal student loans. Just a small share of student loan debt is private.

Paradoxically, borrowers with the least federal student debt are historically more likely to default at higher rates, typically because those with smaller balances are less likely to have graduated.

In California, relatively few borrowers accumulated more than $100,000 in federal debt. But, because they borrowed so much, their large loan balances represent nearly half of California’s debt total.

President Joe Biden’s debt-forgiveness plan in February cleared $1.2 billion in federal debt for borrowers who’ve been repaying for a decade and borrowed $12,000 or less. Students with higher balances could see their debt cleared in as little as 10 years under the Biden program, which offers more generous provisions than existing debt forgiveness plans. But a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states is challenging that program, calling it a “bailout for the wealthy.” For some who work in government or non-profit jobs, federal repayment plans can forgive debt after a decade. And borrowers in default on federal student loans have until September to opt into a program to gain more debt relief. 

Large debts and not-great pay can make some question if pursuing that degree was worth it. But overall, a college degree usually pays off — for some, it may even mean one day affording that flying car we were all promised.

Working Americans are much more likely to earn less than $50,000 if they don’t have a bachelor’s degree. And those with at least a bachelor’s are far more likely to earn above $100,000.

Younger working Americans ages 25 to 34 gain big from earning a bachelor’s — their incomes are typically around $60,000 — about $22,000 more than those who just completed high school, according to federal data. 

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020, recipients of CalFresh, California’s version of food stamps, were given the maximum benefits available for their household size. Advocates theorize that may have contributed to a steady growth in enrollment; total payments to California families rose from $505 million in March 2020 to $1.4 billion in March 2023.

Those emergency allotments ended in March, reducing benefits to 5.3 million Californians by a total of nearly $500 million a month. For some single-person households, CalFresh benefits dropped from $281 to as little as $23 a month. 

• In May 2019, before the pandemic, the average Californian receiving food stamps got $132 a month;
• In May 2021, when benefits were boosted during the pandemic, the average Californian receiving food stamps got $214 a month;
• In May 2023, after the boost in aid ended, the average Californian receiving food stamps got $179 a month.

The extra benefits maintained the number of food insecure Californians at 20% during the pandemic. However, that number is expected to rapidly rise this year. 

Since March, Californians have turned to their local food banks in record numbers. Instead of functioning as sources of emergency aid, food banks say they are becoming long-term supermarkets for Californians facing food insecurity. 

March and April were among the busiest months ever for the Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services. Before the pandemic, the food bank served around 150,000 people per month. Since March, it has averaged more than 270,000 people each month. 

Now the statewide food banks association is warning of a “catastrophic hunger crisis” this year, and the warnings appear to be coming true.

State government’s primary way to help low-income families afford food is CalFresh. Qualifying recipients get money each month on an Electronic Benefits Transfer card, which is similar to a debit card, and can spend it on food items at grocery stores and some farmers markets. 

How much each family gets depends on their household size and their income. Benefit amounts are set each year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and are based on nationwide cost-of-living measures. That can result in benefits that don’t always account for the way food prices rise locally.

The federal government has boosted benefits during emergencies, such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. In October 2021, it also overhauled its formula for calculating benefits, resulting in a significant hike during record inflation. 

Statewide, 20% of Californians are food insecure, putting them at higher risk of hunger. But the situation varies widely depending where you live — from as low as 17% to as high as 44% across the 58 counties — and not always where you might expect.

Take your best guess with this interactive. 

A little more than 70% of those who qualify for food benefits are actually receiving them. That participation rate has frustrated advocates because it leaves valuable federal funds on the table that could feed more Californians and boost the state’s economy.

The reasons are complex and varied: Geographic and ethnic diversity makes some poor Californians difficult to reach. Many immigrants fear signing up could hurt their citizenship chances. It can be hard to apply for seniors or those who don’t speak English. And college students face a byzantine set of special eligibility rules. 

Another major challenge is that California’s 58 counties administer food benefits, rather than the state government, creating a variety of application processes statewide. California is one of only 10 states that use a county-based system to distribute the aid. 

That means some counties enroll far more eligible families than others. 

In 2020, the latest year for which the state has data, Los Angeles County had nearly 80% of its eligible population receiving the benefits. That includes Supplemental Security Income recipients who became eligible the year before. 

Contra Costa County, meanwhile, had enrolled about 64%. That year five other counties, including relatively affluent San Mateo and San Luis Obispo, had fewer than half their eligible residents receiving benefits. 

Many college students, immigrants and older Californians have particular trouble accessing food assistance. There are additional eligibility rules that can affect those groups, which complicate an already lengthy application.

Food assistance advocates say counties should be doing more to help qualified residents get on CalFresh, but beleaguered counties say they’re underfunded and understaffed. The state — following federal regulations — only pays county social services agencies based on how many people receive aid, not on how many apply. Critics say this means counties are not incentivized to help vulnerable groups go through the application process. 

Take, for example, mostly rural Yolo County just west of Sacramento. It has the state’s highest poverty rate in part because it is home to tens of thousands of college students at UC Davis.

After conducting extensive outreach to students and campus groups, the county’s Health and Human Services agency received double the applications each month for CalFresh from 2016 to 2021, said Nolan Sullivan, its director. 

Despite that, CalFresh households rose only 21% and the county’s funding went up only 6% in that time. That’s because college students have high rejection rates for food stamps, because the rules for them are so complex.

But getting more people on food aid includes walking them through the application, which is a time- and labor-intensive process. 

And when students ultimately are denied at the end of the process, Sullivan’s department doesn’t get any extra funding for the work it took to help them apply.

“It penalizes us for doing outreach to try to get students on,” he said. “I want every student to apply that thinks they might be eligible. But we get overwhelmed.”

Though the COVID-19 pandemic has largely receded, the spike in need that began with the health emergency hasn’t. Enrollment in food stamps has steadily grown. CalFresh participation climbed to more than 3 million households — more than 5.3 million people — earlier this year before dipping slightly.

The growth in food stamps recipients may be due in part to the boosted benefits that ended this year and several more flexible, but temporary state and federal rules that made it easier to apply or qualify for CalFresh. 

• Interview requirements: Federal regulations require applicants and CalFresh recipients who are renewing their benefits to interview with a county welfare office to verify their application. California counties vary on whether they offer a phone option or require in-person interviews, and advocates say failing to clear this hurdle is one reason eligible recipients often lose access to aid and reapply, a phenomenon experts call “churn.” During the pandemic, applicants have not been required to interview if counties can verify their identity other ways. This relaxed rule is in place until April 2024. 
• Signature requirements: All CalFresh applications must be signed, either physically or through a telephonic recording. Another relaxed requirement in place until April 2024 allows an applicant to simply verbally attest to a county welfare worker that their application is correct. 
• College student access: College students are typically barred from food stamps unless they meet one of a dozen complex exceptions. During the pandemic, a much more flexible eligibility rule allowed many more students to qualify for aid. But that rule ended in June, and those who signed up under it will get a year of food stamps before they are either cut off or must find another way to qualify.

California will begin a test next year in select counties that increases the minimum monthly CalFresh benefit from $23 to $50 per household and that supporters hope will go statewide with a higher amount.

In addition to a longstanding nutrition program for expecting mothers or moms with young children and a universal school meals program, lawmakers are continuing to expand California’s nutrition safety net. The California Nutrition Incentive Program runs a variety of programs to help CalFresh recipients buy healthy food. At 270 farmers’ markets across the state, food aid recipients get as much as $10 in matching money — meaning they have at least $20 to spend every week on fresh fruits and vegetables. 

Policymakers recognize that CalFresh recipients predominantly shop at big-box stores and supermarkets. So the state recently funded a pilot, based on a model pioneered by Massachusetts, that allows recipients to get money rebated directly back on their EBT cards after buying fruits and vegetables at authorized grocery stores. Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed into law a bill for the state to seek federal waivers so that recipients can buy hot and prepared foods.

Challenges of scale, funding and inclusiveness still remain for California’s food aid programs. Continuing budget deficits could mean a shrinking of resources available to documented and undocumented food insecure Californians. With future budget surpluses, however, policymakers will be able to expand existing programs and consider new, research-based programs to end hunger in the state. 

1. Increase public funding to food banks, to buy more from small farmers and distribute the produce to all.

“Funding for local procurement at food banks gets at all of the bottom lines by keeping small, local farms in business, and by growing fresh, healthy food for people who need it and who don’t have to qualify for it.”

—Catherine Brinkley, faculty director of the UC Davis Center for Regional Change

2. Expand access to undocumented: Beginning in 2025, California will be the first state to issue food stamps to undocumented immigrants who are 55 and older. Advocates are calling for this policy to be expanded to all of California’s 2.3 million undocumented people and beyond to drastically reduce hunger in the state.

“We’re talking about undocumented people, DACA recipients, temporary protected status immigrants, and some visa holders.” 

—Betzabel Estudillo, head of the Food4All campaign by advocacy group Nourish California

3. Provide produce prescriptions: Imagine going to the doctor, who gives you a prescription to buy fresh fruits and veggies, and then getting reimbursed by your insurance provider. “Produce prescriptions” are already being tried in Stockton and Los Angeles, and advocates are calling for its large-scale expansion.

“By 2040…we can create a system that has the capacity to feed every Californian well.”

—Michael Dimock, executive director of think tank Roots of Change

Reparations programs acknowledge and address harms caused by human rights violations such as slavery, segregation, or the systematic denial of fair housing, education, or employment opportunities. 

The United Nations identified five components to an effective reparations plan: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. 

Compensation could take many forms, according to scholars. They could include direct cash payments, infrastructure investments in historically underserved communities, and vouchers for housing, college or medical insurance. California’s task force also proposed hundreds of policy recommendations falling under such categories as justice and law, voting, education, health, business, and housing. 

Yes. While California did not have large-scale plantations like the Southern states, slavery existed in various forms during California’s early history. 

California was not legally a slave state, yet more than 2,000 enslaved people were brought to the state from 1850 to 1860, typically by plantation owners, to work in gold mines, according to the task force. State and local government officials also at times upheld fugitive slave laws.

Click through the slideshow to see more examples of slavery in California.

Figuring out who would be eligible for reparations is expected to be a complicated process. 

The task force in March 2022 voted to limit potential compensation to descendants of free and enslaved Black people who were in the United States prior to 1900. To qualify a person would have to trace lineage. The reparations panel narrowly rejected a proposal to include recent immigrants. The eligibility debate dominated the task force’s first year of work and highlighted a cultural schism within the Black community. 

The task force also voted to recommend the Legislature create a California American Freedmen’s Affairs Agency — an updated version of the Freedmen’s Bureau instituted by the federal government in 1865, after the Civil War, to assist formerly enslaved people. The new agency would help California residents trace their lineage. 

Kamilah Moore, chairperson of the task force, said nearly 80% of California’s 2.8 million Black residents would be eligible for reparations.

Some task force members predicted a large percentage of Black Californians would have trouble proving eligibility, including children in the state’s welfare system, incarcerated people and those suffering mental illness or homelessness.

 “Our most vulnerable could be left out,” said task force member Cheryl Grills. 

Task force economic experts say the current wealth disparity between Black and white California households — pegged at $350,000 per person — is the best indicator of the impact of racism. 

They also calculated the costs of other harms African Americans endured and estimated Black Californians could be owed more than $800 billion total, for decades of over-policing, disproportionate incarceration, home seizures and housing discrimination. That is more than two-and-a-half times California’s $310 billion annual budget. Yet it does not include a recommended $1 million per person to older residents for health disparities that shortened their average life span.

If those debts were paid, where would the money come from? 

Some people suggested tapping tax revenues from marijuana sales. Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, voted in 2019 to allocate $10 million of its marijuana tax revenues to reparations initiatives addressing gaps in wealth and opportunity for Black residents. 

Others told California’s task force the state should create a “superfund” with taxes and donations paid by wealthy donors.

Some task force members suggested the state make a “downpayment” on reparations or pay installments. Steven Bradford, a Democratic state senator from Gardena on the task force, proposed diverting 0.5% of the state’s annual budget to a $1.5 billion annuity, to fund reparations programs and payments over time.

Ultimately, the governor and Legislature would need to decide where money for reparations would come from.

Many times reparations have been paid for human rights abuses in the United States and abroad. The University of Amherst catalogs several dozen cases on its library website.

Reparations payments to Black Californians have garnered mixed support in polls, with some panel recommendations more popular than others. In a 2023 survey by the nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California, nearly three out of five Californians supported the Legislature and governor offering a formal apology for human rights violations and crimes against humanity for enslaved Africans and their descendants. 

Yet the political calculus is likely to give lawmakers pause. Although most Californians surveyed believe racism is a problem, a majority of adults and a slightly greater majority of likely voters in the same poll said they had an unfavorable impression of the state having a reparations task force.

And a poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Government studies showed 59% of California voters opposed to cash payments to residents who are descendants of enslaved Black people, compared to 28% of voters in favor. The poll, conducted in late August, found Democrats and liberals largely divided on cash reparations while Republicans and conservatives were nearly universally opposed. Two out of three voters who reported no party preference said they are against cash payments to Black residents.

A different poll, by UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, showed most respondents agreeing that some form of compensation is warranted. At least 81% endorsed investing in education, health care, and business development to benefit Black residents.

A common warning by some opponents of reparations is that it could encourage other historically aggrieved groups to seek payback from the government. 

Even some proponents agree. Task force members Don Tamaki and Reggie Jones-Sawyer, Democratic Assembly member from Los Angeles, have said the task force’s work could become a blueprint for other ethnic groups. 

Two Harvard University scholars argue the United States already pays reparations to a variety of groups, including coal miners with black lung disease, descendants of veterans, farmers, and people who have had bad reactions to COVID vaccines. Researchers Cornell William Brooks and Linda Bilmes said few groups are as deserving of reparative justice as Black Americans.

“When you talk about restorative justice in flesh-and-blood terms, it means how do we restore people in terms of land sold? How do we restore a people in terms of dignity robbed? Bodies violated? Liberty taken?” Brooks said during a podcast.  

One group that might seek reparations are families who had lived on land Dodgers Stadium occupies, now known as Chavez Ravine. The city of Los Angeles moved out hundreds of families, most of them Latino, during the 1950’s to build the stadium. Now some are fighting to get their land back. 

Other examples could include Native Americans, Mexican American and Chinese Americans  —  who were oppressed at various times in California’s history — as well as undocumented workers, LGBTQ+ community members and women. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom created the California Truth & Healing Council, which is expected to report  on California’s historic relationship with Native Americans and possibly recommend reparations in 2025.

The task force recommends more than 100 programs or policies that do not involve direct cash payments. (They can be found on pages 19-24 of the interim report.) The policy recommendations generally fall under these categories: justice, voting, education, health, business or housing. 

Some policy recommendations would have a defined cost while others, such as the recommendation that California apologize for slavery and systemic injustices, would not have a budgetary impact. 

Other recommendations to the state:

• Delete language from California’s Constitution permitting involuntary servitude as punishment for crime

• Make it easier to hold law enforcement (including correctional officers) accountable for unlawful harassment and violence

• Consider legislation to prevent the dilution Black votes via redistricting

• Let people with felony convictions serve on juries and prohibit judges and attorneys from excluding jurors for having a criminal record.

• Identify and eliminate anti-Black housing policies and practices.

• Repeal Article 34 of the California Constitution, which requires public votes before “low-rent housing projects” can be developed, constructed, or acquired by public entities.

• Identify and eliminate racial bias in standardized tests, including statewide K-12 proficiency assessments, undergraduate and postgraduate assessments and professional career exams 

Very few lawmakers publicly expressed support for the preliminary recommendations of the California Reparations Task Force. In CalMatters’ informal email poll of all 120 state legislators, just five not on the task force responded.

Those who expressed support include Assembly members in the Black Caucus — La Mesa Democrat Dr. Akilah Weber, Moreno Valley Democrat Corey Jackson, and Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood — and Damon Connolly, a Democrat from San Rafael.

In opposition is Assemblymember James Gallagher, a Republican from Chico, who in a statement asked: “How can we ask new immigrants and low-wage workers to foot the bill for something done 150 years ago, on the other side of the country?” 

Gov. Newsom signaled caution. “Dealing with the legacy of slavery is about much more than cash payments,” he said in a statement.

Bradford, the Gardena senator on the task force, said he’s not surprised by caution from lawmakers. “This is an issue folks still don’t want to deal with head on,” he said, “and here we are in 2023 and not only California, but America wants to bury their head when it comes to addressing America’s original sin — slavery.”

Jones-Sawyer, the Assembly member on the task force, acknowledged: “Not all recommendations may see the light of day, but it is imperative that the ones aimed at undoing racially prejudiced laws are enacted.”

The first state-appointed task force in the nation exploring how a state could make reparations to African Americans hurt by slavery and discrimination. It held close to 200 hours of public hearings and produced hundreds of pages of public documents. 

The 9-member panel did not always agree, but its work likely will be considered historic and could serve as a blueprint for the rest of the nation.

Some members of California’s Legislative Black Caucus kicked off a statewide tour in June, 2024 to promote 14 bills stemming from recommendations of the reparations task force, including a measure to ban one of the last vestiges of slavery: forced labor in jails and prisons. Now voters in November will decide the fate of Proposition 6, which would amend the state constitution to prohibit the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments and from disciplining those who refuse to work. 

Proponents of the bills conducted community listening sessions throughout the state to make the case for bills addressing health care, education, business, criminal justice and civil rights. They were set to continue through at least October, at which point Newsom will have decided which of the bills that cleared the Legislature — 10 of the original 14 — he will sign. One obstacle confronting at least some of those proposals: a yawning budget deficit, which over the next two fiscal years is estimated at $56 billion. 

Have a reparations question we didn’t cover? Submit it here — questions may inspire additional cards.

California collects taxes to fund state programs. The kinds of taxes the state relies on to fill its coffers has changed over time, and that has increased revenue volatility. The state’s major revenue sources have shifted from retail sales and use taxes making up the bulk of major revenue to personal income taxes.

Here is a breakdown of some of the major revenue sources:

Personal Income Tax

California has a progressive income tax, where the state’s top earners pay at a higher rate and provide a bulk of that tax revenue. Over the years, income taxes have become the largest major source of general fund money. Capital gains — money made from investments such as stocks — is also taxed, but that stream of revenue is highly volatile. We’ll talk more about that in a moment. 

Corporate Tax

There is a flat 8.84% tax on the gross taxable income of businesses and corporations doing business in California, excluding some types of business such as sole proprietors and partnerships. Other rates apply to certain types of businesses, such as financial institutions. 

Starting in the 2021 tax year, Californians who are shareholders of S Corps. or who have business partnerships could pay into a newly created tax, which effectively allows them to get income tax credits. This has shuffled what could have been income tax revenue into corporate tax revenue as far as the state is concerned, while allowing those individuals to get around federal deduction limits on state and local taxes passed in the Trump administration. 

Retail Sales and Use Tax

This tax covers the purchase of most physical merchandise — including vehicles — regardless of whether the merchandise was bought at a physical store in California or an out-of-state retailer. While the current statewide sales and use tax rate is 7.25%, that rate can be higher depending on additional taxes levied by cities and counties. Of all the major revenue sources, this one continues to shrink over time.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom was asked to explain how the state has a record surplus one year and has to make budget cuts the next, he answered “progressive taxation.” He was referring to the way California’s tax law is structured so that wealthy residents pay far more than anybody else. In fact, the top 1% of income earners paid nearly half of all personal income taxes in 2021, according to the governor’s recent budget proposal.

And the state relies heavily on capital gains — the profit a person gets when they sell stock for a higher price than they bought it for — of those wealthy folks more than ever. In 2021, a record-setting year for the stock market, capital gains accounted for 11.3% of personal income in the state. That’s good when the financial markets are doing well, but shocks to the income of this relatively small group of taxpayers can have a significant impact on the state’s revenue.

In putting together a California budget, legislators pay attention to the end-of-the-year balance — the difference between expenses and available tax revenue and the previous year's ending cash on hand. The state has a budget surplus when the difference is positive and a deficit when it's negative. That number is usually a big number, but small relative to the overall budget. But that all changed with the COVID-19 pandemic, as emergency expenses soared along with tax revenue and federal assistance. The average ending balance from 2006 through the 2019-20 fiscal year was a surplus of about $2.8 billion; for 2020 through 2022-23 it was more than $37.5 billion.

In 1979, voters approved a limit on how much money the state can spend each year — beyond how much is in its bank account. Proposition 4 created the state’s spending limit, sometimes called the “Gann Limit,” which says that if the state’s tax revenues increase too quickly for two consecutive years, the government has to either change tax rates, reduce spending or give taxpayers a rebate. The check-cutting isn’t triggered often, but it was the reason thousands of California families making as much as $75,000 a year got Golden State Stimulus checks in 2022 so that the state wouldn't exceed the Gann Limit in 2020-21 and 2021-22 fiscal years.

Since voters enacted Proposition 98 in 1988, the state is required to fund K-14 education at a minimum level based on which of two tests is higher — about 40% of general fund revenue for the year, or the previous year's Prop. 98 funding, adjusted for student attendance and the per capita income of Californians. How much general fund revenue needs to be spent is based on how much money school districts receive from local property taxes: More property tax revenue means less general fund money is required to provide the minimum level of funding. 

What does this mean in the context of revenue volatility? 

It means each year, some portion of the general fund will have to go toward making up what local property taxes can't provide for school funding. And that amount is tied to other complex factors that can make budget planning difficult and lock out a chunk of revenue from being spent on other priorities, including plugging budget holes. 

And the formula for determining the minimum level of K-14 education funding keeps changing as new requirements are added. For example, voters passed Proposition 28 last year, which guarantees an additional 1% of what Prop. 98 provides toward arts and music education. That's estimated to be an additional $941 million in this year's budget.

There are a few ideas floating around to help stabilize general fund revenue through new taxes, or the modification of existing tax relief. 

“Split roll”

Proposition 13, approved by voters in 1978, established rules on how and when residential, commercial and industrial property can be assessed to determine how much in taxes is owed to local governments. Prior to this, local property taxes paid a larger share of K-14 education, but after the passage of Prop. 13, it fell on the state to offset spending, particularly after Prop. 98 was approved by voters ten years later. 

While property values across the state have been climbing for decades, local governments don't capture that value through taxation for homeowners who sit on their property. If you bought a home in 1990 and never left, you are paying property taxes based on the assessed value that year even if the house is worth, say, three times as much today. 

One solution to relieving the funding pressure put on the state's general fund to pay for K-14 education is by assessing taxes on most commercial and industrial properties based on market value, essentially removing the tax relief Prop. 13 offers them. This is called "split roll" and a recent attempt to have voters pass this lost by 3 percentage points in 2020. If it passed at the time, large commercial and industrial entities could have provided an estimated $6.5 billion to $11 billion a year for local governments and school districts, a boon that surely could offset Prop. 98 spending from the general fund. 

Service taxes

In 2016, then-State Controller Betty Yee published a comprehensive report exploring alternative tax reforms to generate new income. One proposal called for expanding the state's sales and use tax to include services, such as going to the doctor, using an accountant's services, or getting your hair done. Since more and more of the economy relies on services, the current sales tax regime was seen as outdated. 

This was proposed by then-state Sen. Robert Hertzberg, and it could have generated an estimated $10 billion a year in additional revenue. It didn't pass, but Hertzberg continued to push the issue for years, albeit in different ways. Ultimately, none of the proposals panned out.

Changing spending habits

Due to how volatile revenue has become, how the state spends money has also changed in two important ways. One is a focus on one-time spending obligations instead of multiyear spending on state programs. This was a tactic used during the last budget negotiations, where the state was flush with cash.

Another approach is the state's rainy day fund, basically a voter-approved savings account the state is required to invest in each year to weather an economic downturn when it inevitably happens. This became popular after the Great Recession saw deep program cuts when the state was facing down deep deficits.

Los gobiernos estatales siguen el modelo del gobierno federal. De acuerdo con la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, deben defender una “forma republicana” de gobierno. Por lo general, eso significa tener tres poderes: el Ejecutivo, el Legislativo y el Judicial.

El estado de California es responsable de hacer cumplir las leyes y funciones federales, por ejemplo, supervisar los programas de asistencia pública como CalWORKs y Medi-Cal.

Debido a nuestro sistema federal, el estado también establece sus propias reglas. La Legislatura estatal aprueba leyes específicas para California, sujetas a vetos por parte del gobernador, mientras que los funcionarios y agencias estatales llevan a cabo esas leyes y reglamentos para implementarlas.

El estado supervisa:

• Construcción y mantenimiento de carreteras.
• Asegurarse de que las escuelas estén funcionando
• Hacer cumplir las políticas de salud pública
• Establecer reglas para las empresas
• Proteger al medio ambiente
• Pero gran parte del presupuesto y las operaciones diarias recaen en los condados y las ciudades.

La excepción a la separación de poderes: en tiempos de emergencia, como vimos durante la pandemia de COVID-19 que se ha cobrado la vida de casi 98,000 californianos, el gobernador puede usar los poderes ejecutivos para invalidar parte de esa autoridad local, como la reapertura de negocios. y el requerimiento de máscaras. (El estado de emergencia de COVID no está programado para terminar oficialmente hasta el 28 de febrero, casi tres años después de que comenzó).

¿Cómo paga el estado la construcción de autopistas, el funcionamiento de escuelas y otras funciones clave? A través de una combinación de dinero: fondos federales, ingresos estatales de impuestos y tarifas e ingresos de inversiones realizadas por la oficina del tesorero del estado.

Vale la pena señalar que una gran parte de los fondos federales totales en todo el país proviene de California. Un análisis de 2021 realizado por el Centro de Políticas y Presupuesto de California encontró que, en conjunto, los contribuyentes de California, tanto individuos como empresas, aportan casi $1 de cada $6 en ingresos fiscales federales netos totales.

La Legislatura y el gobernador deciden sobre el presupuesto cada año. Pero ocasionalmente, puedes decidir las prioridades de gasto. La Proposición 98, por ejemplo, fue aprobada por los votantes en 1988 y garantiza un cierto nivel de gasto para la educación K-12.

Si bien el gobierno estatal ha disfrutado de superávit récord y miles de millones en ayuda federal por el COVID en los últimos años, la Legislatura y el gobernador deben lidiar con un déficit proyectado de $24 mil millones

Si bien todos los estados tienen una configuración básica similar, la forma en que opera cada gobierno estatal varía, al igual que la Legislatura de cada estado.

La Legislatura de Texas, por ejemplo, se reúne solo cada dos años y por un máximo de 140 días, en comparación con las sesiones anuales de casi 210 días en California.

En otros estados, Idaho, Nuevo México y Utah, entre ellos, los legisladores solo sirven a tiempo parcial. Mientras que a los legisladores de base de California se les paga alrededor de $120,000 al año, mucho más que en casi todos los demás estados, algunos tienen ingresos comerciales externos.

Debido a la gran población de California y la legislatura relativamente pequeña, cada legislador representa a más personas que en cualquier otro estado, según Ballotpedia. Cada senador estatal representa a casi 976,000 personas, mientras que cada asambleísta representa a unas 488,000.

Los senadores de Dakota del Norte representan la menor cantidad de personas, alrededor de 16,600 cada uno, mientras que los representantes de New Hampshire representan la menor cantidad de residentes, 3,444. A modo de comparación, cada miembro de la Cámara de Representantes de EE.UU. representa a unas 766,000 personas.

California ocupa el puesto 12 en gasto por persona con $9,040. Alaska y Hawái son los países que más gastan, alrededor de $16,300 y $12,500, respectivamente.

Cada nivel de gobierno tiene sus propios representantes electos:

Encuentre a sus legisladores aquí:

Los funcionarios constitucionales estatales sirven términos de cuatro años y todos fueron elegidos en 2022. Los senadores estatales también sirven términos de cuatro años, con la mitad elegidos en 2022, mientras que los miembros de la Asamblea sirven términos de dos años, y todos fueron elegidos en 2022.

La Legislatura de 2023 está compuesta por 93 demócratas y 26 republicanos, con un escaño aún en disputa.

Eso refleja la división partidista del estado: alrededor del 47% de los votantes registrados para las elecciones de 2022 eran demócratas, mientras que los republicanos representaban solo el 24%. Esas cifras significan que los demócratas suelen obtener la victoria con facilidad en las contiendas estatales y en muchos distritos legislativos. (California es uno de los 14 estados con una inclinación demócrata de dos dígitos, en comparación con la forma en que vota todo el país, según un análisis de FiveThirtyEight).

¿Qué significa eso para la formulación de políticas del estado?

Si bien los demócratas tienen una "supermayoría" de dos tercios en ambas cámaras, lo que les permite aprobar impuestos y otros proyectos de ley sin ningún voto republicano, eso no significa que se aprueben todos los proyectos de ley propuestos por un demócrata. Hay diferentes franjas de demócratas, en particular, moderados más favorables a los negocios, que no están de acuerdo con los progresistas.

Por lo general, es una combinación de lo que quieren los electores y lo que un legislador cree que es beneficioso. Este último puede ser moldeado por la experiencia laboral previa de los legisladores, según Matt Lesenyie, profesor asistente de ciencias políticas en la Universidad Estatal de California, Long Beach. Afecta sus asignaciones de comité preferidas, lo que da forma a los problemas que abordan. Los legisladores también juran no solo abogar por su distrito, sino por California en su conjunto, aunque a menudo esa agenda estatal está determinada por los partidos políticos.

Pero otros grupos también tienen influencia, lo que a menudo se denomina "intereses especiales". Pueden ser industrias, como la del petróleo y el gas, así como sindicatos o grupos de defensa del medio ambiente y otras causas. Y, a menudo, estos grupos de interés son importantes donantes de campaña para muchos candidatos legislativos.

Los "intereses especiales" pueden ser incluso otros funcionarios gubernamentales: las asociaciones que representan a los 58 condados y las 482 ciudades y pueblos de California, además de los gobiernos locales individuales, se clasifican como los que más gastan en cabildear al gobierno estatal: un total de casi $700 millones desde 2002.

Y el gobernador (Gavin Newsom jurará este segundo mandato de cuatro años el 6 de enero) a menudo establece la agenda, ya sea formalmente a través de su presupuesto propuesto o los proyectos de ley que apoya, o de manera más informal a través de eventos públicos y utilizando su posición de visibilidad. Para esta nueva Legislatura, Newsom ha convocado una sesión especial concurrente para debatir su plan de una "penalización" a los excesos de ganancias de las refinerías de petróleo.

Los temas y proyectos de ley específicos generalmente se discuten varias veces en varios comités antes de posibles votaciones en el pleno de la Asamblea o el Senado (por ejemplo, hay comités de educación y vivienda en ambas cámaras). Por ley, se supone que las audiencias deben ser accesibles al público.

Luego, hay partes del proceso legislativo que no son completamente transparentes. Por ejemplo: el temido y misterioso “archivo en suspenso” (suspense file), donde los comités de asignaciones eliminan los proyectos de ley, a menudo con muy poca o ninguna explicación.

Además, esté atento a los "trailer bills" del presupuesto, que a veces ocultan cambios de política importantes sin la revisión completa habitual de otros comités, incluso con reglas recientes que requieren que los proyectos de ley estén impresos durante 72 horas antes de una votación.

Y luego está la estrategia de "gut-and-amend” (destripar y enmendar), en la que un proyecto de ley que ya ha sido aprobado por una cámara se destripa y luego se modifica con una propuesta o idea completamente diferente, a menudo en los últimos días de la sesión y, a veces, buscado por un interés.

Finalmente, si un proyecto de ley finalmente es aprobado tanto por la Asamblea como por el Senado y se envía al escritorio del gobernador, aún está sujeto a veto. De los casi 1,200 proyectos de ley aprobados en 2022, el gobernador Newsom vetó casi 170.

• Conoce a los legisladores que te representan y contáctalos. Cada senador y cada asambleísta tiene un sitio web que incluye información sobre cómo llamar, enviar correos electrónicos o solicitar una reunión. También puede suscribirse a sus listas de correo electrónico y seguirlos en las redes sociales para que pueda recibir alertas sobre iniciativas que le interesen o eventos que ocurran cerca de usted.
• Obtener una idea general del proceso legislativo. Si tiene una inquietud o una idea, ¿cómo se convierte en ley estatal? La Asamblea tiene una visión general aquí.
• Averigüe qué comités de la Asamblea y del Senado se enfocan en el tema o los temas que le preocupan, preste atención a quiénes son los presidentes de los comités, sintonice las audiencias de los comités y haga comentarios públicos. Aquí es donde puede ver qué audiencias se están llevando a cabo, cuándo y qué está en la agenda: en la Asamblea y en el Senado.
• La Legislatura tiene su propia jerga. Estos son algunos de los términos y frases que quizás no entienda.
• Si todo parece más de lo que tiene tiempo o energía, comience simplemente por informarse. 

Si todo parece más de lo que tiene tiempo o energía, comience simplemente por informarse. Regístrese para recibir el boletín informativo diario WhatMatters de CalMatters, donde tratamos de entender lo que está sucediendo.