For most of the 2024 U.S. Senate race for former Senator Dianne Feinstein’s seat, the three main Democrats, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA),  Congresswoman Katie Porter (D-CA), and  Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) , have been topping the polls. Lawyer Eric Early (R), Businessman James Bradley (R), and later, former Major League Baseball star Steve Garvey (R) have been relegated to the background. That has been pretty much the narrative. Solid blue state, let’s focus on the Democrats, maybe the GOP will luck out with a mention at the bottom of an article.

But the GOP candidates have been continuously derailing Democratic expectations. Early has been getting a surprising number of county GOP endorsements and actually topped a few polls in June thanks to the huge Democratic candidate support split. Bradley, with a small campaign, held his own and even was leading in Republican support for a few months. And, most recently, Garvey has come on the scene, quickly scored a double digit support percentage in polls, and is currently in third place in polling, ahead of Lee and only a few points behind Porter.

Only a few weeks ago, media outlets had continued to barely report on how GOP candidates were doing. This week, outlets are now reporting that Garvey may get second or first place in the primary. The narrative is changing. But, as the Globe reported on last month, an area of all importance for GOP candidates that still hasn’t been fully utilized has been endorsements.

As endorsements can make or break a campaign, especially if the group or person endorsing a candidate can bring in a bloc of voters, these get vitally important closer to election day. And with Primary day just over 3 months out, these have only become more important.

Last week, the California Democratic Party voted on an official endorsement, but fell on in-fighting. Lee, a darling amongst left-wing Democrats, managed to get 41% of the vote despite getting under 10% in recent polls thanks to the far-left bloc. Schiff got another 40% with Porter only getting scraps of votes left over. As a party endorsement would have pretty much guaranteed a one or two finish in the primary, the lack of any endorsement was disheartening.

Lee seems to have that kind of luck. She arguably has the most prominent endorsements of any candidate, but her message is failing to land with more and more Californians. And this is where it kicks in for the GOP. For the Democrats, it is just musical chairs on who gets into the primary. For the GOP, they want to upend that and get someone in. Even if November 2024 is a likely loss, then pushing out some top Democrats who gave up their House seats to run early on, as well as embarrassing the Democratic Party in general with a good showing, can prove that the GOP still is alive in California.

And for that to happen, endorsements are key. The California Republican Party is likely not going to support anyone unless someone makes it past the primary, but everyone below that is fair game. Early has been on a hot streak for months, racking up a few lawmakers and several county and city Republican party groups, with the most recent being the Republican Club of San Francisco on Monday.

“Homelessness and crime in California continues to skyrocket. You can’t walk down a street in San Francisco without fear of getting accosted, and you can’t park your car without worrying about a window being broken and items being stolen,” said Joan Leone, President of the Republican Club of San Francisco, on Monday. “Elected Democrats in Sacramento and DC have turned a blind eye to the rise in crime and homelessness in our cities. They treat criminals better than the law abiding and the victims of crime. It is past time for a new, strong, unwavering voice for the people in California. California needs Eric Early in the US Senate.”

But this is where it gets tricky. Early was an early favorite, but is currently at 2% of the vote according to recent polls. Bradley is doing little better, with 3%. Garvey, meanwhile, has come out with a solid 10% and finally broke through the Democratic candidate wall this month by overtaking Lee. Like the Democrats, the GOP needs to solidify on support, but are bogged down by a split.

The need for GOP endorsements grows

And that could change with endorsements. But prominent Californian Republicans haven’t exactly thrown their support behind anyone just yet. No sitting House members have, and neither has any GOP mayors, local officials, celebrities, or most major groups. And as the election approaches, this is becoming all the more important.

“I’ve said before what the GOP, specifically Garvey, needs to do to win,” added Stephanie Lewis, a pollster in Southern California. “Right now, let’s say that Garvey gets a bit more popular. Add in Early and Bradley’s totals as well as a decent chunk of the undecided voters. We’re looking at a big range, but that is anywhere between 25% to 35% on primary day. Considering that a quarter of California are registered Republicans, that percentage could be even higher.

“Fundraising is an issue, but it’s not the main one. That is support. And endorsements are key. Lee’s endorsement to support ratio isn’t very good, but she has a lot of other factors that are working against her. The Senate GOP candidates need big names behind them. Schwarzenegger, Wilson, those sorts of names. And we just aren’t seeing that. Schiff is. Pelosi is. Even Lee is. Early has a decent network from previous campaigns helping, and Garvey can utilize his longstanding fundraising and even athletic connections to get some big names stumping for him . I mean, get Fernando Valenzuela to talk him up in Latino areas of SoCal or other former teammates across the state, and that is something even Schiff and Porter could never even hope to get.

“That endorsement button needs to be pushed now, or at the very least, come out in waves. You know, bring out a big name  each week over every X number of days when they are out of the news cycle. Then, bam, new one. That’s how you do endorsements right. Some of the most successful campaigns ever didn’t just accumulate endorsements, but had them come in at strategic times.

“Democrats have largely brought in too many early on because of the perceived 3 candidate race. For GOP candidates, now is the time to unleash theirs and build momentum going into the final few months. Get some ridiculous polling numbers. If Garvey can get a 1 or 2 slot and Early and Bradley start to threaten Lee again, or even overtake her, within a few months time, then the Democrats will start freaking out more than they have. This was in the bag for them in January. Well, it’s November, and the GOP is gaining on them.”

More polls on the 2024 Senate race in California are to come out soon.

A California state agency needs to provide notice of an emergency regulation that the agency proposed. This must occur at least five working days before submitting an emergency regulation to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The adopting agency is generally required to send a notice of the proposed emergency action, including certain information, to every person who has filed a request for notice of regulatory action with the agency.

A regulation may be adopted as an emergency regulation if a state agency makes a finding that the adoption of the regulation or order of repeal is necessary to address an emergency.

A state agency must make a finding of an emergency that includes a written statement containing specified information, as well as a description of the specific facts demonstrating the existence of an emergency and the need for immediate action. Moreover, the finding must demonstrate by substantial evidence that there is a need for the proposed regulation to effectuate the statute.

Note that a finding of emergency based only upon expediency, convenience, best interest, general public need, or speculation, is not adequate to demonstrate the existence of an emergency.

An emergency regulation remains in effect no more than 180 days, but the OAL may approve no more than two readoptions, each for a period not to exceed 90 days. However, readoption is only to be permitted if the agency has made substantial progress and proceeded with diligence to comply with specified requirements.

1 CCR § 48 concerns “Notice of Proposed Emergency Action” and provides that, unless the emergency situation clearly poses such an immediate, serious harm that delaying action to allow public comment would be inconsistent with the public interest, then a specified notice must contain a requirement statement.

1 CCR § 50 concerns “Special Requirements for Submission of Emergency Regulatory Actions” and provides that, for all emergency regulatory actions promulgated, the agency must prepare specified documentation, submit copies of all documents, such as the finding of emergency and an estimate of the fiscal impact.

The agency’s statement must confirm that the emergency situation addressed by the regulations clearly poses such an immediate, serious harm that delaying action to allow notice and public comment would be inconsistent with the public interest. The statement has to include specific facts demonstrating by substantial evidence that failure of the rulemaking agency to adopt the regulation within the time periods required for notice will likely result in serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare.

1 CCR § 52 concerns “Readoption of Emergency Regulations” and provides that the readoption of an emergency regulation requires sending a notice of the proposed regulatory action along with a statement providing specific facts demonstrating by substantial evidence that the agency has made substantial progress and proceeded with diligence, and that the emergency circumstances are unchanged since the initial adoption or prior readoption.

1 CCR § 55 concerns “OAL Review of Public Comments” and provides that OAL may consider comments submitted directly to OAL by the public in connection with emergency regulation reviews. However, OAL cannot review comments submitted directly to OAL by the public when OAL is reviewing regular (i.e., non-emergency) rulemaking actions.

In order for OAL to review comments submitted directly to them on an emergency rulemaking, the comments must be submitted to OAL in writing and received by OAL within five calendar days after the notice of the filing of the proposed emergency regulations is posted by OAL on its Internet Website. The public must simultaneously submit their comments to OAL and the adopting agency.

OAL is required to consider rulemaking agency rebuttals or responses to comments concerning emergency regulations if they are submitted to OAL in writing and are received by OAL within eight calendar days after the receipt of the regulations.

1 CCR § 56 concerns “Emergency Regulations Adopted After Completion of Rulemaking Procedures” and provides that, when a regulation adopted as an emergency is submitted to OAL with the certificate of compliance and the rulemaking file, then OAL is required to review the emergency statement within ten days and not file the regulation if OAL determines that the statement fails to satisfy the requirements the APA.

Finally, OAL must review the emergency regulation and rulemaking file within 30 days and order repeal of the regulation if OAL determines that the regulation fails to meet the standards for an emergency regulation or if OAL determines that the regulation fails to comply with the APA.

The Hanford office of Congressman David Valadao (R-CA) was vandalized by anti-Israel protestors on Monday morning. The Congressman later denounced those who vandalized his office and vowed to prosecute those responsible.

Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas War in early October, both anti-Israel and anti-Palestinian acts of violence and vandalism have been on the rise. In the last week alone, multiple synagogues across the country have been vandalized with anti-Israel and antisemitic graffiti and vandalism, some of which has been investigated by the FBI. In the past month, anti-Israel attacks have resulted in everything from police vehicle destruction to the White House itself having gates being significantly vandalized. On Monday, this wave of vandalism spread to Hanford, a city 10 miles west of Visalia in Central California.

Anti-Israel protestors specifically targeted the office of Congressman Valadao. In the attack, fake blood was splattered on his Hanford office, along with numerous papers saying “Murdered by Israel” on them. The vandalism itself happened early Monday morning and was discovered by staffers going into work. Valadao himself soon reported on the incident on X, even showing pictures of the attack.

“This morning, my Hanford office was vandalized by anti-Israel protestors,” Valadao posted in a series of messages. “I strongly support the right to peaceful protest, but violence and vandalism are never acceptable. In a democracy, harassment and intimidation is not how you make your voice heard.”

“If these protestors truly cared about Palestinian children they would also support the eradication of Hamas terrorists, who are actively using Palestinian hospitals and schools as cover for their military operations and putting thousands of Palestinian civilians at risk.”

This morning, my Hanford office was vandalized by anti-Israel protestors. I strongly support the right to peaceful protest, but violence and vandalism are never acceptable. In a democracy, harassment and intimidation is not how you make your voice heard. (1/3) pic.twitter.com/f2OHRuqeLu

— Rep. David Valadao (@RepDavidValadao) November 27, 2023

In a statement soon after, Valadao said that the office would remain open and even continue to receive visitors by appointment. He also added that he and his office wants to see those responsible face justice and “be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

“Our office has filed the proper reports with local law enforcement and Capitol Police,” continued Valadao on Monday. “We hope to see those responsible held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

While Hanford Police and Capitol Police are currently investigating the incident, no arrests have yet to be announced as of Monday afternoon. Experts told the Globe on Monday that attacks like the Hanford incident almost always backfire and that cool, measured responses to such incidents almost always win out.

“Valadao’s response killed pretty much any sympathy people had for the attack,” said John Nagy, a private investigator who specializes in vandalism incidents. “He didn’t call for blood or anything like that. Instead he just denounced the attack, said that this wasn’t the way to express the right to protest, and said that that, because they broke the law, he wished that they be prosecuted. A totally normal and level thing to say.

“Despite everything, most Americans also support Israel. Even the lowest voting demographic is still above 50%. Those peaceful protests we have seen recently, including the one in San Francisco, people may not like but generally were tolerant of because it was a peaceful one by and large. When things like what happened in Hanford happen however, that’s when most people lose patience. And that makes Valadao’s reaction today all the more better. He reacted quite rationally.”

Just in time for Thanksgiving, Mr. and Mrs. Gavin Newsom, also known as the California Governor and the First Partner, made this nauseating short video for the little people of their state. It’s as sweet as Pecan Pie – or at least they thought it was. It’s probably closer to an improperly cooked Thanksgiving turkey contaminated with bacteria… like salmonella.

Salmonella infection affects the intestinal tract. You get the picture.

The First Partner apologized to the “Native Peoples” for the “complicated history of this day,” but “celebrates” them “in the face of unimaginable odds.”

That nearly caused me to disgorge my breakfast.

But this comment was worse: “We are building an equitable California where we can all thrive together.”

Was that a clever nod to Chairman Xi?

When Gov. and Mrs. Newsom attempt to be cute and relate to the average bloke, it comes off as sincere as your malignant co-worker who tells you that your outfit actually looks good today.

But instead of weighing in on this tacky video from the First Couple auditioning for the White House, let the comments on YouTube speak:

• Remember when Newsom was hosting a dinner party at the French Laundry when all of us were on lock down and couldn’t be in large groups? pepperidge farms remembers.
• They will teach classes one day on videos like this.
• If you watch this with the volume turned off, they literally look like psychopathic robots incorrectly expressing inappropriate facial expressions.
• Is that why everyone is leaving?
• God help us if he is elected President.
• The chicoms are thankful you could clean up SF for them.
• You left God out of the giving thanks part. You are slick. Wow.
• This guy single handedly ruined California.
• We appreciate your service to our Great State of California. Happy Thanksgiving Governor and First Partner.
• Every time I see him I get irritable bowel syndrome.
• 4th biggest economy my ass.
• Happy Happy Thanksgiving from Florida.
• Is this an SNL skit ? FYI it’s not funny.

A friend shared, “You can tell she hates him.”

Another said, “Yes saw it..the complicated history of California. Barf.”

Yet another said, “Incredibly creepy – and what is with then hands and apologizing for Thanksgiving?”

And the final comment was actually a question from one of these friends: “Has Newsom expanded his ‘self-medicating’ with wine to daytime?”

Remember, “Governor Gavin Newsom admits he likes to self-medicate with a glass of wine while watching the nightly news,” we learned in 2020.

Be sure to refresh your memory of California’s 2020 Thanksgiving: “Remember Gov. Newsom’s 2020 Thanksgiving Stay-Home, No ‘Gatherings’, and Curfew Order: ‘Stay home, no singing, no shouting, no music, no parties, eat outside and keep a mask on’ law.”

When my very proper elderly aunt couldn’t think of anything nice to say about someone, she’d announce, “Well, I’m sure he had a nice mother.”

California Globe readers, please share your thoughts.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom faces off with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at the upcoming Fox News debate on Thursday, November 30, Newsom should be made to answer for the countless flagrant fiascos of his own making in California — not the least of which is the disastrous anti-independent contracting law, AB 5 (Assembly Bill 5).

Although Newsom’s list of bad policy decisions is long and growing longer, AB 5 ranks as the most destructive and reckless bill ever to become law in California. Signed by Newsom in 2019 and enacted in January 2020, the onerous law has shattered the careers of hundreds of thousands of Californians across a vast swath of professions — everyone from transcriptionists, pharmacists and forensic nurses, to translators, event producers, wedding planners, tutors, court reporters and independent owner-operator truckers, to name a few. 

This burdensome law, with its strict ABC worker classification test, is also wreaking havoc on entire sectors including community theaters, indie filmmakers, nonprofit arts groups, and the wellness profession. 

Regardless of exemptions granted to favored professions, AB 5 imposes a minefield of restrictions on typical contracting relationships. Carve-outs come with caveats and fine print, as is the case with the freelance photographers’ exemption, for example. 

During his recent trip to China, Newsom likely violated his own AB 5 law when hiring former White House freelance photographer Charles Ommanney to take “presidential” glamour shots of the trip. According to Politico, Ommanney, who has been freelancing for Newsom for more than five months, receives no photo credits for his work with Newsom, and is directed when and where to shoot. Per AB 5, a freelance photographer must be able to set his or her own hours otherwise the arrangement violates the “control and direction” restriction of AB 5 and therefore misclassifies the independent contractor. Additionally, the individual cannot be restricted from distributing, licensing or selling their work product to another business. 

If Newsom was treated like any other business owner in California, the Employment Development Department (EDD) would target him for misclassifying his freelance photographer. As the hiring entity, he would face an aggressive payroll tax audit resulting in robust fines, penalties, back taxes, wages and unpaid benefits. Additional civil penalties could include fines of $5,000 to $25,000 for willful misclassification. There’s also a $10,000 fine for failing to provide workers’ compensation coverage, not to mention potential fines and penalties imposed by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

Given that California’s EDD is now structurally insolvent due to its botched pandemic response, the department has every incentive to ramp up ruthless audits on small businesses everywhere — including moms-and-pops and solopreneurs — for the “crime” of using an independent contractor here or there. The audits can drag on for years and the attorneys’ fees alone can be enough to put a small businessperson out of business.

An archive of testimonies from the Facebook group “Freelancers Against AB5” documents hundreds of stories of destruction exposing the big-picture collateral damage AB 5 has inflicted on everyday Californians who are just trying to make a living. Sadly, AB 5’s ripple effect also disproportionately harms the most marginalized groups including seniors, the disabled, immigrants and single moms.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration’s Department of Labor (DOL) will soon finalize a new rule under the Fair Labor Standards Act that will restrict independent contracting nationwide. Mimicking California’s ABC test, the impending six-factor rule — 184-page long — threatens the livelihoods of more than 70 million Americans who choose self-employment as a career or as a side gig to supplement their income. 

When the DOL rule is unveiled, Biden’s Acting Secretary of Labor, Julie Su — who endorsed and enforced AB 5 when she was Newsom’s labor secretary in California — will have to defend the new regulation inspired by her home state’s heavily regulated labor policies. 

Should Newsom become the Democrats’ nominee for President (as he apparently wants to be), he will also need to defend the DOL rule, as well as the myriad dumpster fires and debacles currently taking place in California, including the perpetual dumpster fire of the draconian AB 5 bill that he signed into law. 

The newest chapter in the years-long feud between the City of San Francisco and outdoor street vendors began on Monday when the 90-day street vending ban in the Mission District, prompting local street vendors to announce an upcoming “direct action” protest.

For years, San Francisco has seen a major upswing of street vendors appearing on city streets because of high rents of brick and mortar buildings, as well as the rise in crime and overhauls in the street permitting system. While proponents of street vending have said that it gives livelihoods to people who could otherwise not afford a storefront or other retail space not on the sidewalk, opponents have said that street vending itself increases crime and has led to dirtier streets because of city services unable to go into areas packed with vendors, such as on Mission Street.

Last year Supervisor Hillary Ronen and DA Brooke Jenkins, announced major new initiatives and ordinances to crack down on crime by taking down illegal street vendors. Namely, the measures taken aimed at going after open air drug markets and areas with illegal and unpermitted vendors, who often sell stolen goods. Despite some protests from vendors who said it was difficult to get permits or that it restricted where they could do business, the number of illegal vendors quickly fell throughout the city.

Encouraged by this, an even more targeted crackdown occurred later in 2022, aimed at vendors who didn’t pay the $430 fee for a license, or didn’t get one for free if they met certain financial conditions. While this also proved to be successful, new problems appeared in 2023. Namely, some areas, such as Mission Street, began  teeming with outdoor vendors, making both local residents and businessowners alike upset. Businessowners reported fewer people going into physical store locations because of the high number of vendors, with city workers struggling more than ever to get into areas to clean them up. With Department of Public Works workers effectively blocked, trash accumulations became the norm.

“The area looks junky thanks to these outdoor sellers,” said Jose Chavez, a local resident, to the Globe on Monday. “They just don’t care if they leave out boxes or packaging materials or papers or anything like that. It used to just be a few outdoor food places and maybe a store or two. And that was fine. It added local flavor. But then more showed up, and soon you pass stalls that sold things of tide pods with electronic alarm tags obviously ripped off and boxes of razor blades still with price tags on them. There were some legitimately making a living who went through the right channels and cleared it with local store owners, but they were so few. Even with that big crackdown last year, it just meant that licensed places congregated together, making problems like the trash even worse.”

New vendor ban in SF

With problems growing worse yet again, and more and more city workers reported being assaulted when trying to do work in vendor heavy areas, Supervisor Ronen began work on a new total street vending ban on Mission Street in early fall. While previously limited by a state law, SB 946, that legalized street vending, Ronen worked with city leaders in finding health and safety issues occurring in areas with many vendors, including the fact that some city workers had resorted to wearing bulletproof vests in areas out of fear for their own personal safety. With areas permitting vending now deemed a hazard, the city swiftly moved to a ban for several months on Mission Street and other areas.

“Unfortunately a good intentioned State Law SB 946, which legalized street vending in any public space in California, has led to problems in the Mission District and in many other areas around the City,” said Ronen in a newsletter last month. “When I originally tried to limit street vending in the Mission, the City Attorney explained that the State law limits what we can do. I stretched the limits of the law by passing a permitting regimen attempting to improve conditions. That law has had only limited success and the Mission’s vulnerable small businesses and residents deserve streets and a public transportation system that they can easily access and that is safe.”

“I recently learned that DPW workers who enforce the law have been assaulted and had their lives threatened by individuals selling stolen goods on the street. I also found out that DPW workers are wearing bullet proof vests to work and that many workers filed grievances through their union so they no longer had to work in the Mission because they feared for their safety. Outraged,  I pulled a group of City leaders together with the City Attorney to demand that we find a way within the law to address the situation. After pulling health and safety records in the neighborhood, we were able to make the case that allowing vending on Mission Street and around BART Stations are creating measurable hazards in the neighborhood.”

“Therefore, starting in November, the City will ban street vending on Mission Street. To mitigate the harm to innocent street vendors who sell their artisan goods to make a living, we are identifying spaces off public sidewalks where vendors can sell their goods as well as adding resources to existing workforce development programs serving the street vending population so they can find alternative sources of income.”

With new areas around the street leased for the vendors, the city went ahead with the Mission Street outdoor vending ban on Monday. Vendors, who had furiously challenged the ban, said that the action, which is set to go through at least the end of February, punishes vendors who are abiding by the law and that it takes away needed income during the holiday season. Vendors also noted that while there are well over 100 licensed vendors along Mission Street before the ban, city designated areas nearby only have enough spaces for 48 vendors, leaving most out as a result. Many also charged that there was a lack of dialogue between Ronen and the vendors, despite numerous meetings happening between the sides, including a particularly charged public meeting in October.

“This misconceived ban would force vendors to abandon their established livelihoods and possibly relocate to two designated sites with limited space, a move that would cripple their businesses during the crucial holiday season,” said the Mission Vendors Association. “We have exhausted every avenue to collaborate with the Supervisor, but our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. We are not seeking preferential treatment. We simply ask for the opportunity to continue providing for our families during this critical time of year.”

A new ban beginning in the holiday season

With previous rallies and attempts to work with lawmakers failing, vendors announced on Monday that a new direct action protest would be occurring to combat the new ban. However, many outdoor vending experts told the Globe that vendors would have a hard time challenging the ban because of the focus on health and safety.

“Ronen found a much needed exception to the state sidewalk vending law,” said Amy Blaine, a lawyer who has represented retail stores in the past against outdoor sidewalk vendors, on Monday. “In LA, the city has been keeping up as many anti-vending laws as possible. They put them up in the late 2010s and, lucky for them, the pandemic happened and challenges against them  fell on deaf ears. Areas of LA once infested with them are now pretty much clear of them. Still a big battle going on for sure, but the city is finally seeing more and more victories against them.”

“San Francisco had success last year in getting rid of illegal ones, but permitted vending areas began to wreck havoc. This is why the Mission Street ban is so crucial too. San Francisco followed state and city law and managed to use health and safety concerns to shut it down. It’s a 90 day ban right now, but it could be extended.”

“This is what stores want. When you have another store in front of yours, it doesn’t bring in business. It scares customers away. Food they are cooking can nauseate people living nearby. People get hurt, crime goes up. There are some responsible vendors out there. But it has gotten to be such a nuisance. Hopefully this action is expanded. Vendors are people trying to live their lives, but so are store owners and residents who don’t want their quality of life to go down. Thankfully, San Francisco listened and vending is banned on the street for awhile.”

As of Monday, it is unknown as to what effect the vendors new “direct action” protests will have on the ban.

Members of the public can examine California legislative records based upon the provisions of the Legislative Open Records Act (LORA), which is found in the California Government Code. LORA was enacted in 1975 to allow public access to legislative records.

How are public requests for legislative records made? Requests by members of the public must be made in writing and be submitted to either the Senate Committee on Rules or the Assembly Rules Committee, depending upon the location of the documents being requested.

What happens when there are records held jointly by the Senate and Assembly? The Joint Committee on Rules is charged with the custody of records in the joint custody of the Assembly and Senate.

What does the Rules Committee do with LORA requests from the public? Generally, the Rules Committees respond within 3 to 10 days upon receiving written requests for legislative records.

What happens if the Rules Committee rejects a LORA request? If a request is denied, the individual requesting the information is entitled to a written explanation of why the request is being denied.

How does the public review legislative documents? Generally, the records may not be removed from the office that is designated for records inspection and must be inspected in the presence of a designated staff member from the Legislature.

Can copies of legislative records be obtained by the public? Yes, the public can request copies of records and are charged a nominal amount for the costs of photocopying.

Are there any legislative records exempt under LORA? Yes, the following categories of legislative records are exempt from mandatory public inspection under Government Code Sections 9072 and 9075:

1. Records prepared before December 2, 1974.

2. Records pertaining to certain claims against the Legislature until they are finally adjudicated or settled, and records pertaining to litigation to which the Legislature is a party until such litigation has been finally adjudicated or settled.

3. Personnel files, medical files, and similar files pertaining to the privacy of individuals.

4. Preliminary drafts, notes, or memoranda among Members and staff, other than committee staff analyses directed to all committee members.

5. Records of individual names and phone numbers of senders and receivers of telephone and telegraph communications.

6. Records of individual transactions for fuel or lubricants for committee leased cars.

7. Communications from private citizens to the Legislature.

8. Records of complaints to the Legislature, its investigations, and its security procedures.

9. Correspondence of Members and their staffs.

10. Correspondence to Members and their staffs on matters other than legislation.

11. Written commentary submitted to the committee on legislation and the commentary (a) was not utilized by the staff of a fiscal committee in the presentation of the analysis of legislation or (b) is otherwise determined by the committee or its staff to be confidential.

12. Records where, based on the facts of the particular case, the Joint Rules Committee believes the public interest served by their nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by their disclosure.

Can the public review committee records? Yes, members of the public are also allowed to gain access to legislative committee records concerning legislation.

Are there other rules applicable to gaining access to committee records? Many legislative committees have adopted written procedures concerning the public inspection of their records.

How does the public access committee records? Generally, interested parties must complete a form stating specifically what legislation records that want to inspect. If those records are not subject to inspection, then they are not released.

What happens if the records are available? The committee will arrange for inspection. The records are not removed from the office and are inspected in the presence of committee staff. Copies can be requested and the public are charged a nominal amount for the costs of photocopying.

There are thirty-five thousand registered Republicans in San Francisco, but you’d barely know it, under the guidance and rule of the local party’s leadership committee.

Representing nearly six percent of the eligible voter base of San Francisco’s total five hundred thousand registered voters, the SFGOP is in shambles and has been for years. Little meaningful money flows in, and even less flows out, needed to support what few candidates run for key offices locally anyway. Infighting, massive ego inflation, contentious monthly meetings featuring legal chest puffing and a floundering executive committee ensure the party will remain irrelevant in local politics for the near future. Will it improve? After all, thirty-five thousand is a truly significant voter block.

What’s even more puzzling is how the twenty-five member local party leadership committee (known as the San Francisco RCCC, the “Republican County Central Committee” or SFGOP) continues on the path in supporting its own internal leaders amid platform paralysis and sustained insignificance to the voters. Who’s in charge, and why?

John Dennis is the chairman of the county SFGOP. There’s a curious love-hate relationship with him, if indeed the city even knows him by name at all. He took the reins of the party in 2019 when previous chair Jason Clark suddenly resigned to take a job in Washington DC, leaving party leadership in disarray- resulting in infighting, backstabbing, and further descent into insignificance. Ruling the party with an iron fist and constant threats to expel committee members, many elected and appointed delegates of the RCCC quit due to Dennis, including yours truly, in 2020 and more recent.

At such a critical juncture in time in San Francisco’s rollercoaster history as today, when residents and business owners are disgusted with city hall leaders, with the lack of meaningful action on crime, serious fiscal mismanagement and corrupt officials indicted, the potential of influence by (and options to voters for) conservatives in San Francisco should seem a no-brainer. Arguably, there has been no better time than right this moment for moderate, reasonably-viable Republicans to run for the city’s elected offices. I’m talking key offices, such as mayor; for any of the six available seats on the city council (Board of Supervisors); for city attorney, and more. Some political strategists even profess a value of running a Republican placeholder candidate, just for show, for exposure.

Contrary to popular belief the San Francisco Republican Party is not a branch of the national Republican party (the RNC). There is no financial nor leadership connection. The SFGOP receives no guidance from national party chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. No political donors’ funding trickles down from the RNC to San Francisco’s leadership committee. You’ll be hard pressed to even recognize any of the names on the roster of SFGOP delegates, and there is a great internal schism today over support for-and disdain for – Donald Trump. Yet local party leaders fail, time and time again, to make this important distinction, especially when pressed (or insulted) publicly. For example, the SFGOP openly accepts and embraces the LGBTQ issue yet local voters don’t know this. The Democrats exploit this, succeeding in pounding the GOP into the dirt on the issue.

Previous SFGOP chairman Jason Clark warned delegates prior to John Dennis’ rein that unless serious efforts were undertaken to make the local party relevant, with exposure in the local media, with courting of journalists and meaningful outreach to voters, the party will be doomed. He asserted the SFGOP would become a mere social club. And that’s where they headed. For an example: Under Clark, the SFGOP created a special “rapid response team”: Key media-friendly committee members who were comfortable speaking on camera and writing press releases would monitor news in San Francisco, ready to react to developing stories with a mere moments notice. Keeping the SFGOP in the headlines (and in Republican voters’ inboxes) is, of course, an easy way to gain exposure and relevancy. But once new chairman John Dennis took control, he dismantled rapid responses in favor of a one-person reactionary voice: himself. Dennis made it very clear it was he alone authorized to speak to media.

Five times, five attempts, Mr. Dennis tried over the years to knock Nancy Pelosi out of office in Washington D.C. Concurrently serving as both a delegate on the RCCC and more recently as chairman, he ran quixotic campaigns which essentially caused neglect of SFGOP party chairman’s priorities, in favor of utilizing resources and efforts to pretend he had any chance in hell to unseat the insanely beloved Speaker Emerita. The few SFGOP fundraisers which have been held feature Dennis (to boost his profile) alongside the varied keynote speakers, and netted paltry donations above event break-even cost. Generally, there’s little money to support any local Republican candidates, and an SFGOP endorsement garners little attention across the city.  They don’t sponsor ballot measures nor organize rallies at city hall. They make little to no honest effort to promote change for the good of the city. Myriad opportunities exist, yet they essentially coordinate nothing. There’s just too much internal strife, leading to sustained failure.

We are again approaching another important election season. You can make a difference as a San Francisco registered Republican specifically. Cross-party, independent, and NPP voters are not eligible. The SFGOP party leadership elections (Primaries) to be held March 5th, 2024 are solely for Republican party-registered voters, which will see an actual opportunity to voice approval (or not) of the choices of elected delegates to the RCCC. Believe me, this is an often-overlooked opportunity to have direct influence. The current SFGOP leaders can be found here: [ https://www.sfgop.org/about ].

San Francisco is divided into east side and west side representatives for AD17 and AD19 (assembly districts). The list of current candidates can be found here [https://sf.gov/reports/march-2024/candidates-march-5-2024-presidential-primary-election#republican-county-central-committee-ad-17 ] and here [ https://sf.gov/reports/march-2024/candidates-march-5-2024-presidential-primary-election#republican-county-central-committee-ad-19 ].  Chairman John Dennis is running in AD19; send him a message at his publicly-listed GOP site email address: chair@sfgop.org .

The most recent tranche of polls has not been good for President Joe Biden.

In general, voters are worried about the economy, immigration, the entrenched bureaucracy, and crime.  About Joe, specifically, they are worried about his age – actually, probably not about his age per se but his clearly diminishing physical and mental faculties.

The Biden campaign itself, too, has come under significant criticism, either for not properly getting a positive message out to the public (a tough job, unquestionably) and/or for not really knowing how to cope with Joe’s ever-growing list of health, family, financial, and political issues.

But that can change in an instant – there is still a way Biden can not only win next November but do so comfortably. All it would take is one short speech and signing a few executive orders:

“My fellow Americans:  Not only is our nation divided, but it is at a crossroads. For us to continue to prosper and to hold our place as a force for good in the world, I have decided that we must put behind us those things that threaten our very national nature.

To that end, I am announcing – and signing the necessary executive orders and proposing the needed bills to ensure these are more than mere words – the following:

The immediate termination of the Attorney General and the directors of the FBI and the CIA, all to be replaced with agency outsiders to change the culture of the departments.

The abolishment of all federal DEI offices.

The ending of all funding to any university research that has been found to be fraudulent and any university that is involved with any effort to grade, modify, or censor freedom of speech.

The removal of civil service protections for any of its members that are in a policy-making position.

The end to the subsidizing of the effort to shift the nation away from fossil fuels until if and when such a change can occur without economic destruction.

The immediate closure of the border to all illegal entry.

A top down review of all federal departments with the express intent to cut their budgets by at least 15%.

An immediate shift to “zero based” budgeting.

The creation of an independent pandemic investigative committee – with subpoena powers – made up of experts from every side of the response debate.

A complete restructuring of the entire intelligence community, an immediate end to the gathering of information on American citizens, and a cessation of every and all program that could be construed as involved in the denigration of the First Amendment.

A re-institution of the ban on federal employee unions from engaging in any political activity.

An end to any and all blatantly biased federal “get out the vote” programs, projects, and practices.

A review of all federal regulations that have any impact on the nation’s economy.

The end of any federal partnership with and/or support of any law enforcement agency that does not enforce already-extant laws within its purview.

An end to any federal financial support to any experimental medical procedures.

The elimination of all funding to any and all non-governmental organizations that do not place the primacy of the interests of the nation first.

The closing of the revolving door between government agencies and the businesses they regulate and/or the private foundations and educational institutions they are involved with.

A withdrawal from the World Health Organization if and when its base treaties are modified in a manner which will directly impinge upon the sovereignty of the United States and her citizens.

And that’s just the start…

Done and done – Biden gets 60% of the vote and he would even win Texas. He could probably even say “hey, everyone, let’s let this Hunter and family money thing rest” and people might just be willing to go along.

As to the progressives that dominate and ruinate the Democratic Party, let them howl – push comes to shove they’re five percent of the vote; they’re just very loud and use your current tacit approval to push their agenda.  Take that away and the public floodgates of everyone else saying they’ve had enough, too, open and where are they? Back to squabbling with one another at faculty meetings.

None of that will happen, of course – Biden is beholden to each and every group that would be put out of business, be shunted aside, be declawed by such an announcement. 

And there is the issue of Biden’s temperament.  He’s not an earth-shatterer, a world beater, an agent of radical change. He’s always been just a plain old DC liberal grifter whose “big ideas” were pretty much confined to trying to figure out how to become president because, well, he wanted to be important and very very different from his bankrupt dad. He’s never been “progressive,” let alone “woke” in his life so it is true that at least some of the above would be ideologically acceptable to him, but even if he wanted to his staff would never allow it.

Like the Star Trek character John Gill, Biden simply has none of the mental acuity, the physical stamina, political juice, or will remaining to stand up to the people around him who got him his dream job and say “enough is enough.” If he tried, Biden, unlike Gill, would hopefully not see his career end in such tragic circumstances as his staff would not have to be so extreme.

The interesting thing is that much of the above list applies to Donald Trump, too, the difference being that he tried and failed because had a very limited understanding of how government actually works.  Being president is important, but just because you are president doesn’t mean people will do exactly what you want them to do and Trump did not understand that incredibly important fact.

If, however, Trump actually has a detailed and responsible plan to succeed with everything  this time – which, remember, Biden could do right now to ensure his own win – he, too, will win overwhelmingly.

But to ensure that win, Trump has to deal with another matter: he must personally confront the pandemic elephant in the room and admit he – the ultimate dealmaker – got completely played by the bureaucracy with the fabricated stick of exaggerated threats and the false political carrot of being seen as the true national savior who would be a shoo-in in 2020.  

Whether or not his ego could ever allow him to make such an admission is – as we have seen thus far – doubtful.  He was wrong and he needs to say so but he appears incapable of doing so.

It is this hitch in his ego that is opening the door to Robert Kennedy, Jr. Most polls show Kennedy pulling more from Trump than Biden and the reason for that is very simple: the pandemic. Die-hard Trumpians are there for him and able to look past his colossal error, but others are not, hence Kennedy’s attraction (on the Biden side it’s because, well, of everything else) to many Trump-lite voters.

Moving beyond Biden and Trump, the pair hoping to replace them could do something similar and make earth-shattering moves that could vault them past the pair of people that most American’s say – for a variety of reasons –  they do not want to see running against each other next November.

But for it to really work best for California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a time machine would have to be involved.

For DeSantis, since he’s pretty much running on the above outline already, he would have to use the machine to go back in time and hire campaign managers, consultants, and lawyers, and others that are the exact polar opposite of those he actually did hire.

For Newsom, he can still do much of the above at a state level, so his time machine jaunt would be back to the beginning of his first term when he seemed to try to think about canceling the state’s mockery of a government project called high speed rail.  

Newsom hinted, Newsom was savaged by unions and bureaucrats employed by the project, Newsom caved.

California is horribly governed and has a myriad of problems and Newsom and the power structure that created him is the heart of the rot, but if Newsom had just done that one thing he would now have the credibility (sort of) to be able stand up in front of the American people and say he knows a bad government idea when he sees it and he acts.

But there are no time machines, Trump’s ego seems intact, and Biden cannot make a radical change so we can expect the current situation – barring a different kind of massive shake up – to continue.  The polls will wobble this way and that, Trump’s trials will continue, Biden’s abilities will continue to decline, Americans will continue to look for hope wherever we can find it.

And may next November we will.

At last week’s Democratic state party convention, they had to face a gauntlet of angry Hamas supporters, both physically outside the hall and philosophically inside the hall.

The problem is that the Democratic standard bearer in the race to replace DiFi – horrors of horrors – may very well be a very white very Jewish very (hmm, not sure about that…) man in the form of Congressman Adam Schiff.

Put aside for the moment that Schiff lies and leaks more than Pinocchio with a bladder condition and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deep State, Inc. and put aside for the moment he abused his position as chair of the House Intelligence Committee so nakedly that he was not just removed as chair when Republicans took over but was even removed from the committee itself – those are both rational appropriate reasons to not let Schiff near the Senate.

Instead, Democrats seemed to focus on issues of optics and, though he has pretty consistently led (barely) in the polls to replace Feinstein, Schiff will never be able to crack that final Democratic mystery because of who he is.

This time, I say YAY! For DEI!

The convention did give the most votes to Rep. Barbara Lee when it came to endorsing a Senate candidate, but she couldn’t quite get over the 50% mark needed.  Lee got about 42%, Schff got about 40%, and Rep. Katie Porter got about 16%.  Public polling, though, has showed Schiff with a slight lead over Porter with Lee actually now trailing Republican Steve Garvey, so the endorsement would have been a very big deal to her candidacy, especially since Gov. Newsom decided to pick a different black woman – Laphonza Butler –  to fill (temporarily) Feinstein’s seat (wonder who she’ll endorse?)

As for Porter’s distant third place showing at the convention, it seems surprising until you remember an important fact: most of the delegates have actually personally met her.

Speaking of meeting, Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will do so in Georgia on Thursday (not strictly ‘about last week,’ but, tough.)

Over the past few months – with DeSantis’ campaign having been a central Asian multiple incursion that Meg Whitman’s consultants would be proud of – it had seemed that Ron needed this way more than Gavin.

But with the largely negative fallout from Newsom’s global galivant, Gavin now needs it to go very well, too.  That means Gavin will most likely go full jargonaut as he usually does when asked to, um, “explain” why the state is in such a roiling mess (remember, this is billed as the “Red State Vs. Blue State” debate.)

DeSantis cannot let that happen, he cannot let Newsom confuse-a-filibuster his way through the 90 minutes.  He needs to throw him off his game from nearly the get-go – let the nation see Gavin in all his nonsensical glory and then drop the hammer.

And, amazingly enough considering who, what, and where he is now, DeSantis should take a cue from Stephen Colbert – yeah that guy.

Because before his utter woker-than-woke conversion was complete, Colbert could make a good point here and there. With one guest – I cannot find the clip and am pretty sure it’s waaaaay buried or literally gone – near the beginning of the Hilary/Barack Democratic nomination contest he agreed that Obama shifted personas based upon his audience and tended to be “as black as it was convenient to be.”

Interviewing Gavin in 2013 about his book Citizenville – imagine reading Gavin instead of merely having to listen to him – Colbert actually called him out on his nonsense:

Newsom: “The whole idea is this: Right now we have a broadcast model of governing. You vote and I decide. You understand this intimately. You’ve seen the contours of this change with the media, you’ve seen it, certainly, in the music industry. Big is getting small, small is getting big. Technology has the ability to level the playing field—

Colbert: “What the fuck does any of that mean? … The big is getting small and the small is getting big? What are you talking about? Is there a glossary [in the book]? Is there a bullshit translator?”

It is this type of thing DeSantis must do, in part because it is absolutely 100% true and in part because Newsom really really doesn’t like it when he is challenged and he will be on his back foot for the rest of the debate.

Remember this gem from the recall campaign, his chat with the editorial folks from the Bee newspapers?

That’s the Newsom DeSantis wants to debate and the Newsom the nation needs to see with its own eyes.

From an earlier story on the recall video:  

Two things, though: if you try to play the “Damn!” drinking game you will end up in a coma or worse so please do not.

Second, while Twitter can often be a morass of irritation, occasionally a comment appears that is hilariously on-point.  So credit where credit is due, Pete Campbell @googlewell, for coming up with this gem after watching the video:

“Good thing California doesn’t have nuclear weapons.”

Thanks for reading the Globe!

The Globe just reported Friday on California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas’ (D-Hollister) orchestrated a shakeup of the leadership lineup in the California Assembly, following the departure of former Speaker Anthony Rendon.

Rivas named Majority Leader Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) as the replacement to Assemblyman Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles). Her replacement as the former Speaker Pro Tempore is Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg).

The powerful Assembly Appropriations chair Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) was also removed and replaced by a very curious choice – Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland). Wicks is the lawmaker who pushed so hard for infanticide legalization in California. Not sure how much that will forward appropriations bills….

The all-important Assembly Budget Committee chairman Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) was replaced with Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills).

What does all of this mean to the average California voter? And really, who are these people we’ve elected to do the people’s business?

Speaker Robert Rivas’ is a classic California melting pot story: Rivas was raised in Paicines, California, where his grandfather was a farmworker at Almaden Vineyards. Rivas and his brother grew up in farmworker housing, cared for by their single mother and beloved grandparents, who emigrated from Mexico in the 1960s in search of the California Dream, his Assembly biography says.

It’s the other items of import Rivas chose to include in his biography that tell us what is important to him:

• affordable housing
• workplace health and safety protections
• created the Golden State Teacher Grant Program
• the first-in-the-nation COVID-19 Farmworker Relief Package, which included critical efforts related to access to PPE and testing, temporary housing, and health care
• A long-time champion of the environment
• led the effort to accelerate the construction of renewable energy
• ensure the state explores all options to use public lands and oceans to effectively sequester carbon

No surprises there. Rivas is a progressive Democrat.

Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) comes the closest to business friendly in the Democrat leadership. However, while she may have been effective in Winters California as town Mayor, she recently sponsored ACA 13 with the backing of Speaker Rivas – a devious attack on California’s Proposition 13 – the Constitutional Amendment passed by voters in 1978 to protect property owners from outrageous property taxes.

As Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association explains:

“…radical progressives in the California Legislature launched the most brazen sneak attack on California’s iconic Proposition 13 in its 45-year history. Assemblyman Christopher Ward, backed by the new Speaker of the Assembly, Robert Rivas, introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13 (ACA 13). It would amend the constitution to make it easier to raise taxes, by making it harder to pass citizens’ initiatives that seek to enforce Proposition 13’s two-thirds vote requirement for local special tax increases.

The specific target of ACA 13 is a citizens’ initiative backed both by taxpayer organizations and the business community. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) has already qualified for the November 2024 ballot, and polling shows it to be popular with voters. The TPA closes several loopholes created by the courts that have allowed special interests to work with local governments to raise taxes with a simple majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13.”

Nuff said. You get it. Her bio makes her sound reasonable, but ACA 13 tells us who she really is… and it’s surprising as the co-owner of an 80-acre walnut orchard with her brothers.

As we mentioned, Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland, who has never held a real job outside of “championing the rights of women and working families, protecting consumers, and reducing gun violence in our communities,” and her work as “a lifelong community organizer,” is the new chairwoman of the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

The purpose of the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

The committee reviews all bills with any fiscal impact after passage by a policy committee. The committee hears more bills than any committee in the Legislature. In the 2009-10 and 2011-12 sessions combined, the committee heard about 4,600 bills. For contrast, the Business, Professions and Consumer Protection and Public Safety Committees each referred about 400 bills over the course of these two sessions.

The goal of the committee is sound, responsible, affordable fiscal policy.

How comforting that a lifelong community organizer “championing the rights of women and working families, protecting consumers, and reducing gun violence in our communities” is heading the committee responsible for sound, affordable fiscal policy.

And Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills), who at least is “an attorney, civic leader, and lawmaker fighting to advance justice and defend California’s most vulnerable residents,” according to his bio, is “a creative thinker with a proven record of bringing together diverse communities.” Whew. I was concerned that we didn’t have any creative thinkers in the new Assembly leadership. But “Jesse is consistently ranked as one of the Legislature’s most committed environmentalists.” Thank goodness, because we will need an Assembly Budget Committee chairman fighting to advance justice and bring his commitment to environmentalism to the committee.

How is Buffy Wicks, career community organizer, going to “center on fiscal implications” in the Assembly Appropriations Committee?

Buffy Wicks, most notably known for authoring and defending Assembly Bill 2223, California’s “infanticide” legislation, which removed all penalties from anyone violating any abortion health and safety standards when performing an abortion on a woman through all nine months of pregnancy. Her barbaric bill was eventually amended to narrow very slightly the meaning of “perinatal death,” but AB 2223 will still prohibit prosecution of a mother or someone assisting her for causing the death of her born or unborn child if the child died because of injuries sustained while in the womb. That would include injuries caused by a botched abortion, illegal drugs such as meth or heroin. The bill also hampers law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute infanticide. Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks said the bill is about “reproductive justice, pregnancy criminalization, reproductive freedom, and pregnancy loss.”

She’s a ghoul.

Jesse Gabriel is a lawyer who from 2008 to 2010, served as legal counsel to then-U.S. Senator Evan Bayh. He went on to join a large law firm and in 2017, filed two lawsuits against the Trump Administration on behalf of illegal immigrant “Dreamers,” under the DACA program.

Jesse Gabriel is now in charge of the Assembly Budget Committee.

The California Assembly has become a clown show. The Democrats in charge don’t even try anymore to pretend that they are responsible for a $330 billion budget, and the committees designated to administer state police for 39 million residents and millions of businesses.

When Governor Jerry Brown was elected in 2011, the state budget was $98 billion and the state’s population was a little over 38 million people. Brown doubled the budget up to $199.3 billion – with no measurable increase in population. Gov. Newsom inherited Brown’s $199.3 billion budget, and has grown it to $330 billion in 5 years – while losing population.

Where is all of that new spending going?

The new leadership choices in the Assembly feel more like Speaker Rivas is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than focusing on any strategic policy planning.

And why should we be surprised? Look at the California Legislature today – it’s run by an assortment of people who couldn’t get hired by the Dollar Store – where they would have to work and be accountable. California’s elected Democrats are blinded by their cult-like Marxist ideology over any sense of public service to the people, or desire to govern. And if they are as enlightened as they claim, how is it they don’t appear to care at all about the 800,000 Californians who fled the state in just 2022? That should have been an indicator that something is afoot in California.

The Globe will be reporting on all of that new spending by the Newsom administration.

When and why does a regulatory agency appeal certain decisions to the Governor’s Office? While the last time occurred in 2007, a state agency can appeal the rejection of a regulation by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). 

OAL must either approve a regulation submitted to it for review and transmit it to the Secretary of State for filing, or disapprove it, within 30 working days after the regulation has been submitted to OAL. If OAL disapproves a regulation, then OAL must return it to the adopting agency within the 30-day period accompanied by a notice specifying the reasons for disapproval.

A regulation cannot be disapproved by OAL unless the regulation failed to comply with one or more of the six statutory standards of review, or other provisions of the APA.

OAL’s decision can be reviewed. First, the adopting agency must file a written Request for Review with the Governor’s Legal Affairs Secretary within 10 days of receipt of the written opinion provided by the OAL. The Request for Review must include a complete statement, along with other specified materials, as to why the adopting agency believes the decision by OAL is incorrect and should be overruled.

Second, OAL then files its written response with the Governor’s Office. Specifically, OAL must file its written response to the adopting agency’s request with the Governor’s Legal Affairs Secretary within 10 days and deliver a copy of its response to the agency on the same day it is delivered to the Governor’s office.

Thereafter, the Governor’s Office must provide the requesting agency and OAL with a written decision within 15 days of receipt of the response by OAL to the agency’s Request for Review.

Finally, if the Governor overrules OAL’s decision to reject a rulemaking, then OAL must immediately transmit the adopted regulation to the Secretary of State for filing. Thereafter, the Governor must immediately transmit to the Committees on Rules of both houses of the Legislature a statement of his or her reasons for overruling the decision of OAL.

The following are the types of bills that people working in and around the State Capitol describe in their legislative dealings:

What is an Appropriation bill? This bill contains language that appropriates funds for expenditures by the state.

What is an Author-sponsored bill? This bill is the idea of the author, who is the official sponsor.

What is a Backed bill? This bill is ready for introduction because it has a “backing” (formally called a jacket) that shows who the author is.

What is a Budget bill? This bill is the main budget bill that makes appropriations for implementation of the state’s fiscal year spending (the secondary bill is referred to as the “budget bill junior”).

What is a Budget Bill Junior? This bill amends the main budget bill that makes changes to appropriations for implementation of the state’s fiscal year spending.

What is a Clean-up bill? This bill “cleans-up” changes to a law following enactment of a prior bill that needs to be modified.

What is a Committee bill? This bill is authored by a majority of a committee; usually used for enacting non-controversial law changes.

What is a District bill? This bill only applies to the legislator’s own district, such as benefiting his or her transit district.

What is a Fiscal bill? This bill must go through the fiscal committee after it has passed the policy committee.

What is an Intent bill? This bill makes a statement of intent of the Legislature that the bill will do something on a topic specified in the intent statement; it is a placeholder for a later bill.

What is an Omnibus bill? This bill is a measure that contains numerous changes to the law, generally suggested by a group, such as civil law changes recommended by the Judicial Council.

What is a Special interest bill? This bill has a sponsor that is a particular interest group.

What is a Sponsored bill? This bill usually comes from an interest group or individual as the sponsor.

What is a Spot bill? This bill makes a technical, non-substantive change in the law as a placeholder for a later bill; neither house’s Rules Committee will refer spot bills to a policy committee until they are substantively amended.

What is a Technical corrections bill? This bill makes a technical correction in the law.

What is a Trailer bill? This bill implements statutory changes as part of the budget adoption; these bills “trail” the main budget bill.

What is a Two-year bill? This bill carries over from the first year of session into the second year of the session.

What is an Unbacked bill? This bill does not yet have an author and no “backing” (also called a “jacket”) for introduction.

Throughout the week, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) shook up the leadership in the California Assembly. Assemblyman Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) was replaced as Majority Leader by Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters). Replacing her as Speaker Pro Tempore is Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg). The Assembly Appropriations chair was also switched from Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) to Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland). Even the Assembly Budget Committee saw their chair replaced, from Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) to Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills).

Overall, 17 Committees in total saw new chairs selected effective January 22nd of next year. While some took the replacement in stride, others became hostile towards the changes immediately. The most vocal was Bryan, a long-time Rivas supporter, who went from being the Assembly number two man as Majority Leader, to the significantly less influential chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

While Bryan has supported Rivas for a long time, he has continually pointed out that Rivas has a hard time speaking for Southern California. Throughout the year, Bryan has even called himself the voice for LA in Sacramento and nearly threw his hat in the ring for Speaker before Rivas beat him to the punch.

“My brother Speaker Rivas is not from here. And he’s a good friend. Rob is really one of my best friends in this work. But he’s from Hollister,” said Bryan earlier this year.

Upon the new assignment being given out this week, Bryan added that “Black Californians who now see no representation in Rivas’ leadership team are certainly not absent leaders.”

While not a clear insult at the transition plans, many pointed to the radical changes as being Rivas’ plans to remove Bryan from a significant place of power because of his claims of being the voice for LA, as well as for his ambition to become Speaker. Rivas’ team vehemently denied these allegations this week, saying that the changes were being made because the current setup of leadership was made to help transition Rivas in as the new Speaker earlier this year.

“Everyone always knew this was a transition team and there would be changes to leadership,” said Rivas’ Director of Communications Nick Miller. “Isaac is a tremendous leader and continues to be part of the speaker’s leadership team.”

Rivas Spokeswoman Elizabeth Ashford added, “No, it did not have anything to do with it. Period.”

Nonetheless, criticisms continued to come in over the Thanksgiving holiday. Most pointed were how some new leaders, such as Wood and now incoming Public Safety Committee Chair Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) were being elevated up despite already announcing that they wouldn’t be running for reelection next year, necessitating even more political wrangling following the election. Others pointed to how some Assemblymembers had little experience in the committees in which they are chairing.

“Rivas just made all of these big changes,” political consultant Tara Soto told the Globe on Friday. “It’s too early to say just what these major position changes will bring, but what is certain is that a lot of them are rubbing people the wrong way. Rivas could have easily kept the transition team in place and not continue playing musical chairs with Assembly leadership, but they did so anyway.

“Because of some Assemblymembers coming in as chairs with little experience in the fields, 2024 elections, and because of a lot of outgoing people also getting roles, this is not exactly going to be a stable couple of years in the Assembly. Bills will still get passed and voted on and everything, but leadership will likely shuffle because of all the turbulence ahead. You can’t say these decisions were purely political, but they should have really been handled with more foresight and care.”

More Assembly retirements and shifts are expected to come in the coming months.

California Democratic Party (CADEM) Chairman Rusty Hicks announced on Thanksgiving that he would be running for Assembly next year, which, if successful, would be his first elected office.

Originally from Ft. Worth, Texas, Hicks moved to Los Angeles in 2003 to get his law degree from Loyola Marymount University. Instead of moving back following graduation, Hicks stayed, with his first political position coming in 2008 when he was the California political director for then Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Over the next several years, Hicks worked as a legislative aide in Sacramento for several Democratic Assemblymembers, including Ted Lieu and Mike Gordon, before being chosen as the next Los Angeles County Federation of Labor President in 2014. Hicks stayed in that position until 2019 when he was chosen as the next CADEM Chairman, a position he has held since.

Since becoming the CADEM Chairman, Hicks has had a somewhat mixed reaction from Democrats in the state. While he has been praised for keeping the party line on issues and for helping the party get more state legislative seats, he has also been criticized for allowing Republicans to make a comeback in the number of house this. This not only includes regaining nearly all of the flipped Orange County seats from the blue wave election of 2018, but also Republicans gaining a crucial two seats and the Democrats losing one in 2022, which have been often cited as being key for the Republicans taking back the House.

Hicks has also faced a lot of criticism in recent years over not wanting to count late arriving CADEM delegate ballots despite precedent allowing it within the party, as well staying largely silent on former CADEM Secretary Melahat Rafiei resigning in 2022 over bribery allegations.

Despite a rocky tenure, Hicks announced earlier this week that he will be running next year for the 2nd district state Assembly seat. The 2nd district, which encompasses much of Northwest California including all of Del Norte County, Mendocino County, Humboldt County, and Trinity County, as well as part of Sonoma County, is currently represented by Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa). However, with Wood deciding earlier this month that he wouldn’t run for reelection because of a sick mother and wanting to spend more time with his family, the largely blue district had a rare Assembly opening.

Hicks runs for Assembly

Over the last few weeks, many local leaders declared their candidacy, including Healdsburg Mayor Ariel Kelley (D), Mendocino County Supervisor Ted Williams (D), Santa Rosa City Councilor Chris Rogers (D), and Del Norte County School Board member Michael Greer (R). However, the race reached a new level of clout following Hicks joining the race.

“My life’s work has been dedicated to uplifting and empowering those around me- ensuring they got a helping hand when they needed it most,” said Hicks on X. “In the State Assembly, I will bring my experience as an educator, organizer and veteran to help our North Coast neighbors and all Californians. I’m dedicated to tackling the challenges our North Coast communities face. And I’m ready to bring my experience of getting real results for real people to the State Assembly.”

Today, I officially launch my campaign for CA’s 2nd Assembly District.

I’m dedicated to tackling the challenges our North Coast communities face. And I’m ready to bring my experience of getting real results for real people to the State Assembly.

Join us! https://t.co/E37Im6b9jq pic.twitter.com/zd2Fbs8BvL

— Rusty Hicks (@rustyhicks) November 21, 2023

Despite Hicks being the most high-profile candidate in the race by far, local political experts told the Globe on Friday that Hicks would need more than just his party leader status to win in the second district. They also noted that a loss by Hicks in the district would severely hurt his chances in any future elections.

“Hicks has been CADEM’s leader since 2019, and that is one hell of a thing you can put on your resume when running for office,” explained Ellen Griffin, a pollster who focuses on races in Southern Oregon and Northern California, to the Globe. “But, in this race, it isn’t enough. Rogers has already gotten dozens of endorsements from other Assemblymembers and lots and lots of Mayors and city council members in the area. Kelley and Williams both have crucial support, and Greer already has a lock on conservatives and a lot of centrist voters. Those local connections are crucial in a district race, and being the chair of a party doesn’t exactly bring everyone in, you know?

“If Hicks loses the race, it can be pretty embarrassing. The state party leader losing an election for Assembly? That isn’t a good look, especially in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 3 to 1. Hicks doesn’t have an elected track record, and losing his first race off the bat, while being Party chairman for the state would follow him around for years.

“This is a race to watch, because it could give a very good look into how Democrats, even just within a District, truly see the Chairman of the party.”

As of Friday, it is unknown if Hicks would remain CADEM Chairman if elected to the Assembly.

As part of the formal regular rulemaking process, the rulemaking agency will receive written and oral comments. What must the rulemaking agency do with those comments?

Fundamentally, a rulemaking agency is required to summarize and respond to timely received comments that are directed at the regulatory proposal or at the procedures followed by the adopting agency during its rulemaking action.

For each comment received (whether orally or in writing), the adopting agency is required to include either an explanation of how the proposed action has been changed to accommodate the comment received or the adopting agency must state the reason(s) for rejecting the comment.

In addition, in summarizing and responding to public comments received, the rulemaking agency must demonstrate that it understood and considered the comment. These responses are reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law when it conducts its 30-day review of the rulemaking file.

Finally, the summary and responses to comments is thereafter included as part of the rulemaking file in a document called the Final Statement of Reasons.

Since January, almost all the coverage of the 2024 U.S. Senate race has been on three major candidates: Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA),  Congresswoman Katie Porter (D-CA), and  Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) . They have been by far the top candidates in terms of donations, endorsements, and where they place in polls. Other Democrats have occasionally made headlines, such as former tech executive Lexi Reese who has been a masterful fundraiser, but in polls they generally don’t go above 2 or 3 percent.

For the first three quarters of the year, GOP candidates didn’t do much better than those tertiary Democrats. Lawyer Eric Early did have an impressive early poll lead in the double digits, but has since settled in to single digit territory. He also has by far the most endorsements amongst any Republican, albeit with most coming from County Republican organization. Businessman James Bradley also made waves by moving ahead of Early in some polls, but as they have each gotten an average of between 3 and 7 points in every poll since June, it’s not saying all that much. While both are good candidates, the GOP needed a name candidate who could fundraise and go the distance against the top three Democrats.

While often rumored as a candidate, it wasn’t until early last month that the GOP got a candidate who could potentially scuttle the all-Democrat path ahead – former Los Angeles Dodger and San Diego Padre all-star Steve Garvey. While not as big a name as other celebrity California Republican politicians of the past like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sonny Bono, Garvey came in with dedicated bases of support in LA and San Diego, as well as more offbeat blocs of support, such as those from baseball fans, that could reach beyond party lines and attract the coveted independent and undecided voters.

Many Democrats dismissed Garvey as just another Republican entering the race last month. According to some experts the Globe talked with on Wednesday, Democrats saw him as just another minor dent in the number of votes going to someone other than Porter, Schiff, or Lee.

“He was seen as just another Early or Bradley, but with maybe another point or two in the polls because of his fundraising experience,” said said Matt Saunders, a political consultant who helps advise candidates from entertainment and athletic fields, to the Globe.

However, in the last month, Garvey has quickly not only become the top Republican in the race, but one of the top candidates period. The last two major polls have shown Garvey in third place with 10% of the vote, now ahead of Lee, one of the three major Democrats. As of the latest poll, he is only six points behind Schiff and three points, the margin-of-error, behind Porter.

With Garvey now a bona fide force to be reckoned with, Democrats have now begun shifting rhetoric away from each other and back towards the GOP. However, either way is going to prove harmful to the Democrats in the long-term.

Garvey and the GOP

“Either way, Democrats are going to lose face here,” added Stephanie Lewis, a pollster in Southern California. “They get two Dem candidates in, and those two are going to waste tens of millions going after each other through most of 2024 and show just how divided Democrats are. If it is one Democrat against Garvey, yeah they still get the seat unless something crazy happens, but they are hurt because they beat out a few of their golden candidates. Oh, and if [Garvey] does well enough, it could show the Democrats losing ground overall.”

For the GOP, the next few months are critical in the lead up to the March primary. While a win in November 2024 is extremely difficult, a win in March is becoming more and more likely. And there are several signs to watch for.

“One is the polls,” continued Saunders. “Gotta keep an eye on them. Garvey has been moving up, and if he starts getting into that second place territory, both Schiff and Porter, who have sunk a ton of money and their future political careers into this, are not going to be happy.

“Two is fundraising. New SEC totals for the quarter will come out in December, and where Garvey stands with money will be critical. To be competitive he needs at least as much as Lee, so we are talking at least a million dollars. Schiff and Porter have a bunch more, but he can also easily rack up more donations as needed. He just needs that threshold and a big number to draw in support.

“Speaking of, three is bringing in more support. Getting more from the GOP is good, but he needs more branching out to independents, undecideds, and maybe some one the fence baseball fans. You said getting former teammates involved could help, and yeah, it can. If he can reach out to Latinos especially, he can get a solid boost of support. Female voters are big for him too to get, and there he can work in his non-profit experience to draw more in.

“Four is policy, as he needs a more clear vision as well as good counters to arguments that the Democrats have thrown out. And five is to bring together a unified Republican front. Again, Early and Bradley are great, and in any other year, they would be going for that outside shot of getting one of the primary spots. But Garvey is winning a lot of Republicans over. If both throw their support behind him, that is at least another easy five points for Garvey. Plus the GOP can claim a unified candidate, something which the Democrats are very much fractured on right now. A GOP unified Garvey could potentially start leading in the polls. In fact, that is very likely. Democrats would be humiliated and the GOP would get some good press.

“You said it. He is a wild card in the election as the top Republican. And right now, he is the only Republican these Democratic candidates fear.”

It’s a given that Thanksgiving is evil.  The history, the annual event, the name all signify the horrors of our far from exceptional – really, not even run-of-the-mill – nation.

Combine the woeful – and typical –  American over-consumption with the undeniably racist, sexist, ableist, and unsustainably violent and heteronormative (Dad carves the meat?!?!) images consistent with this egregious event and one can clearly understand the importance of recognizing that this “holiday” (a word derived from “Holy Day,” don’t you know?) cannot continue to be “celebrated” in its current fashion.

That’s why our family – as we ourselves collectively define the term – will truly enjoy (especially because a certain never-to-be-named fascist ex-president really got indicted this time!) a joyous, eco-friendly Indigenous People’s Day (yes, of course what used to be called – Gaia help us – Columbus Day is also now called Indigenous People’s Day but we’ve decided that, considering the sacrifices they made and suffering they endured, there really should be two official days – veterans have two already so we’re just ensuring honor equity.)

But over our pre-prandial Only Certain Words Allowed with Friends game today, we started thinking more deeply about the representational and intersectionality issues and realized that getting rid of the dreaded “thanksgiving” is not nearly enough as this whole weekend is a sybaritic parody of “Americanism.”  

Ick.

That’s why we are re-imagining – and taking back – this whole time period with the name “Decolonization Weekend!”

Now, we all know that terms like “black eye,” “black hole,” “black sheep,” and “black list” and the list goes on and terrifyingly on are inherently racist (and we won’t even discuss the hockey-based compounded racism of “black ice.”).  There are hundreds of synonyms and adjectival uses for black – almost all negative, while there are hundreds of synonyms and uses for white and they are almost all positive – case closed.

And there it was, staring us right in the face – Black Friday.  This orgy of unnecessary, climate destroying shopping – this truly horrific day – is actually called Black Friday.  This festering Friday fixture, foisted upon friends and fellow alike by fetid and foul fleecing financiers would, of course, have to be dubbed Black Friday in America – the sickening irony of tying white profligacy to Black poverty perfectly encapsulates why we must all keep doing the work.

To that end, we’re asking that we immediately move away from this term towards a more inclusive moniker – BIPOC Friday.  

By using BIPOC Friday, we will be constantly reminded – even if we shop, but not too much and only locally sourced and only from small shops that employ victims of white oppression –  of the mountain of progress that must still be climbed from the valley of shame upon which this (stolen) land was founded.

Beyond that term, we realized that Saturday – for some manipulative marketing reason – is called Small Business Saturday.  While we acknowledge the important role small businesses play in creating walkable, breathable local neighborhoods, we cannot forget the racist legacy they have created in many NOCs (neighborhoods of color).  

We therefore decided that Silent Saturday – staying inside oneself, tuning out the noise, and focusing on achievable plans for personal improvement –  was a more productive concept.

As to Sunday…nothing seemed to work well enough to shine a light on the miseries inflicted upon our planet by organized religion – particularly western Christ-based ideas that “celebrate” that day –  except Sadness Sunday.

Monday has been dubbed Cyber Monday and that—to us—seemed to make sense. Internet shopping is far more sustainable (a few electric trucks on the road instead of thousands of cars) and it is easier to determine if the retailer is the kind we would want to support – you can just check the comments and their ESG rating online!

One of our number suggested “Overlord Monday,” but that was deemed highly problematic for a whole host of reasons, including it being offensive hate speech to us tech workers. 

It seemed even Siri was triggered by the notion, as the misaligned suggester immediately started getting pings on his (preferred pronoun…not surprising…sigh) phone promoting books and videos on the history of something called “D-Day” just after he said it. 

None of us have any clue what any of that was about.

So do please put down the credit card, give your leftovers to charity, and take the weekend to reflect on the important and necessary improvements we can all make to ourselves and for those our society has wronged, and join us in a happy yet thoughtful Decolonization Weekend.

We know you’ll be better for it.

A quick note – to make absolutely sure that everything is now racist, I did a bit of internet research and came across the following story on NBC’s Today Show website:

“These 11 everyday words and phrases have racist and offensive backgrounds”

Finally, while I imagined the article above, it turns out life imitates satire. Here are some words of wisdom on the subject from University of Florida students:  Black Friday is a terrible day .

Sigh.

What does the California Constitution, in Article VI, Section 1 provide? It says that the judicial power of the state is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.

What is the composition of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice and 6 associate justices.

How is a majority decision rendered by the Supreme Court? There must be an agreement of four judges present at the argument for a judgment.

How are judicial districts created in this state? The Legislature must divide the state into districts with each containing a court of appeal with one or more divisions, and each division consists of a presiding justice and 2 or more associate justices.

How are superior courts created in this state? In each county of the state, there is a superior court of one or more judges and the Legislature prescribes the number of judges and provides for the officers and employees of each superior court.

What is the composition of the Judicial Council? The Council consists of the Chief Justice and one other judge of the Supreme Court, three judges of the courts of appeal, 10 judges of the superior courts, two nonvoting court administrators, and any other nonvoting members as determined by the voting membership of the Council.

What is the composition of the Commission on Judicial Appointments? The Commission consists of the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, and the presiding justice of the court of appeal of the affected district or, if there are 2 or more presiding justices, the one who has presided longest or, when a nomination or appointment to the Supreme Court is to be considered, the presiding justice who has presided longest on any court of appeal.

What is the composition of the Commission on Judicial Performance? The Commission consists of one judge of a court of appeal and two judges of superior courts, each appointed by the Supreme Court; two members of the State Bar of California who have practiced law in this State for 10 years, each appointed by the Governor; and, six citizens who are not judges, retired judges, or members of the State Bar of California, two of whom to be appointed by the Governor, two by the Senate Committee on Rules, and two by the Speaker of the Assembly.

What is the State Bar of California? The State Bar is a public corporation and every person admitted and licensed to practice law in California is a member of the State Bar, except while holding office as a judge of a court of record.

Who has jurisdiction over habeas corpus claims? The Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts, and their judges have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings.

Do the state courts have other original jurisdiction? Yes, they have it in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition.

What is the role of the Supreme Court in death penalty cases? The Court has appellate jurisdiction when judgment of death has been pronounced.

Can the Supreme Court take a case from a court of appeal? Yes, the Supreme Court may, before decision, transfer to itself a cause in a court of appeal.

What is the finding that must be made in order to set aside a judgment or grant a new trial in this state? After an examination of the entire cause, the court is of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Who is responsible for publishing appellate court decisions? The Legislature must provide for the prompt publication of the opinions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal as the Supreme Court deems appropriate and those opinions must be available for publication by any person.

What are the requirements for being a judge in this state? For at least 10 years immediately preceding selection that person has been a member of the State Bar or served as a judge of a court of record in this State.

Who votes on a retention election for Supreme Court Justices? The judges of the Supreme Court are to be elected at large (i.e., statewide) at general elections.

Who votes on a retention election for Court of Appeal Justices? The judges of courts of appeal must be elected in their districts at general elections.

Can a judge practice law? No, a judge of a court of record may not practice law during the term for which the judge was selected.

Can a judge hold other public office? No, a judge of a court of record is ineligible for public employment or public office other than judicial employment or judicial office, except a judge of a court of record may accept a part-time teaching position that is outside the normal hours of his or her judicial position and that does not interfere with the regular performance of his or her judicial duties while holding office.

When can a judge be disqualified? A judge is disqualified from acting as a judge, without loss of salary, while there is pending (1) an indictment or an information charging the judge in the United States with a crime punishable as a felony under California or federal law, or (2) a petition to the Supreme Court to review a determination by the Commission on Judicial Performance to remove or retire a judge.

What is the role of the Commission on Judicial Performance? It must exercise discretionary jurisdiction with regard to the oversight and discipline of subordinate judicial officers, according to the same standards, and subject to review upon petition to the Supreme Court.

What must the Commission on Judicial Performance do with any disciplinary actions? It must provide to the Governor of any State the text of any private admonishment, advisory letter, or other disciplinary action together with any information that the Commission on Judicial Performance deems necessary to a full understanding of the Commission’s action with respect to any applicant whom the Governor of any State indicates is under consideration for any judicial appointment.

Who determines the salary of judges in this state? The Legislature must prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record.

Who determines whether judges get retirement in this state? The Legislature must provide for the retirement of judges of courts of record for age or disability.

Who appoints court commissioners? The Legislature may provide for the appointment by trial courts of record of officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties.

How large is California’s judicial branch of government? California’s judicial branch of government is the largest in the country, handling over 10 million criminal and civil cases each year. There are more than 2,000 judicial offices in this state and over 18,000 employees of the judicial branch. The court system in this state is led by the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court.

What are the three levels of courts in California? Superior Courts (which serve as the trial courts); Courts of Appeal (the intermediate appellate courts); and, the Supreme Court (the highest court in the state).

Which entity serves as the administration of the courts in this state? It is overseen by the Judicial Council, including the adoption of court rules.

How many justices as the California Supreme Court had at one time on the bench? California initially had a Supreme Court of only three justices, but eventually in the late 1800s a constitutional change established a 7-member high court.

How long are the terms of the Supreme Court justices? They are 12-year terms, followed by a retention election if the justice wants another 12-year term.

Are the Supreme Court’s decisions in writing? Yes, in the late 1800s, their decisions were required to be in writing, as that was not a requirement earlier.

What is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court must review all death penalty cases. The high court has discretion to review appeals from the state’s Courts of Appeal. Cases from the appellate courts are based upon petitions for review and the justices decide to accept or decline the case at their weekly conferences. Only a small number of cases are accepted for review.

Who appoints Supreme Court justices? The chief justice and six associate justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for 12-year terms by the Governor after review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation. Appointees are then confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. At the end of their 12-year terms, justices may also stand for election in order to continue to serve.

Where are the superior courts located? There are over 400 locations and over 2,000 judges located in each of the 58 counties of the state.

What is the jurisdiction of the superior courts? These trial courts have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases, including specialized areas such as family and probate law.

Who appoints the superior court judges? Superior Court judges are appointed by the Governor when a vacancy occurs and they serve six-year terms. These trial court judges are also elected by county in general elections.

Where are the courts of appeal located? The Courts of Appeal are located in six districts (numbered one through six) and those six districts cover the entire state. There are just over 100 justices who serve on the appeals courts.

What is the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal? These intermediate appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from cases tried in the Superior Courts. They also have jurisdiction over cases of habeas corpus (challenging the confinement of someone), mandamus (forcing an official duty), prohibition (restraining action), certiorari (review of a judicial action), and challenges to decisions of certain state boards: Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Public Employment Relations Board, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and some decisions of the Public Utilities Commission.

Who appoints the court of appeal justices? The Courts of Appeal Justices are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. At the end of their terms and in gubernatorial elections, the justices must be approved by the voters. 

What is the role of the Judicial Council? It is the administrative office of the court system. The Judicial Council has 21 voting members and six advisory members and is chaired by the state’s chief justice.

What is the Administrative Office of the Courts? It provides policy support, handling budgets, fiscal services, technology, education, human resources, research, and other services.

Other agencies that support the judicial branch of state government include:

What is the Commission on Judicial Appointments (CJA)? This commission is charged with reviewing gubernatorial appointments to the appellate courts in this state. CJA is comprised of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, and the most senior presiding justice on the court of appeal of the affected district (for a court of appeals appointee) or the state’s most senior presiding justice of the Courts of Appeal (for a Supreme Court appointee).

How does the Commission on Judicial Appointments operate? When an attorney is nominated by the Governor, the appointee must be reviewed by the CJA. There is a public hearing that is held on the nomination so that the appointee’s credentials can be considered in a public forum. The appointment of a justice is effective once the commission confirms that individual.

What is the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)? This commission is charged with overseeing judges in this state. As an independent state agency, it is required to investigate misconduct complaints against California judges and justices, and can discipline judges pursuant to the state Constitution (Section 18 of Article VI). CJP also shares responsibility for overseeing court commissioners and referees along with local courts, which is also pursuant to the state Constitution (Section 18.1 of Article VI).

What happens when a formal charge is filed? Once a formal charge is filed against a sitting judge, then the commission must conduct a public hearing.

What authority does the CJP have? Pursuant to Section 18(d) of Article VI, the CJP has the authority to:

• Remove a judge or censure a judge or former judge for action that constitutes willful misconduct in office, persistent failure or inability to perform the judge’s duties, habitual intemperance in the use of intoxicants or drugs, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute;
• Publicly or privately admonish a judge or former judge found to have engaged in improper action or dereliction of duty; and
• Retire a judge for disability that seriously interferes with the performance of the judge’s duties and is or is likely to become permanent.

What happens when the Commission proposes to remove, censure, admonish, or retire a judge? These rulings are subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court.

Who is a member of the Commission? It is composed of the following 11 members: 3 judges appointed by the California Supreme Court, 4 members appointed by the Governor (2 attorneys and 2 non-attorney public members), 2 public members appointed by the Assembly Speaker, and 2 public members appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. These appointments are for four-year terms.

A massive flash-mob style robbery occurred at a Nike store in Los Angeles earlier this week, with 17 robbers stealing around $12,000 worth of merchandise within minutes, despite the California Highway Patrol saying that they had increased their presence around shopping areas for the holiday season.

For the last few years, massive planned robberies involving over a dozen people showing up all at once at a location to quickly steal as much merchandise as possible while also overwhelming security staff have been on the rise. Two years ago in 2021, those types of robberies plagued the state, with San Francisco’s Union Square getting specifically targeted because of a reduced police presence. While police were temporarily posted to areas that were deemed likely to hit, they continued on into 2022 and 2023, with Bay Area cities and the Los Angeles area being the two areas most attractive for robbers because of the presence of many high-end retail stores and relatively few, if any, security personnel attached to the stores.

With flash mob and large scale robberies always seeing a peak during the Christmas shopping season, the Governor’s office and the CHP announced this week that the New Public Safety Plan will send more CHP officers and other law enforcement to retail areas across the state to help deter those kinds of robberies. While many retail areas will see an increased presence, the CHP Organized Retail Crime Task Force (ORCTF) will also be working with local law enforcement in the event of any large scale robberies.

“The men and women of the California Highway Patrol are working around the clock to keep shoppers, merchants, and retail districts safe this holiday season — and year-round,” said CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee in an announcement this week. “Much of our task force’s success can be attributed to the strong working relationships we have with our law enforcement partners throughout the state and the rapport we have cultivated with the retail industry. Working together with our partners, and utilizing the CHP’s extensive statewide resources, we are cracking down and stopping unacceptable criminal activity.”

Governor Newsom added, “When criminals run out of stores with stolen goods, they need to be arrested and escorted directly into jail cells. Leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars in law enforcement investments, the California Highway Patrol — working with allied agencies — is increasing enforcement efforts and conducting and supporting covert and confidential takedowns to stop these criminals in their tracks during the holiday season, and year-round.”

The return of flash mob robberies

Despite the increased presence, flash mob robberies have already taken place ahead of this holiday season. Earlier this week, a Nike store in the South Gate neighborhood of LA was robbed of $12,000 in merchandise after a flash mob robbed the building.

“Detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department’s Commercial Crimes Division, Organize Crime Retail Taskforce (ORCT), are seeking the public’s assistance in identifying the suspects involved in a grand theft incident in which a flash mob took $12,000 in merchandise,” said the LAPD in a press release. “17 suspects arrived in five vehicles at a shopping center located in the 9800 block of South Alameda Street. The suspects, whose faces were concealed by medical masks or other material ran into a retail store with trash bags in hand. They placed clothing and boxes of shoes in the trash bags and fled from the location without paying for the merchandise.”

With other large-scale robberies likely to occur between now and the end of the year, security experts told the Globe on Wednesday that while an increased number of officers being strategically placed is good, it likely won’t deter a lot of larger robberies.

“More law enforcement is always good, but even if you have several more officers in an area, it still leaves a lot unprotected,” said former Bay Area law enforcement officer and security consultant Frank Ma to the Globe. “It’s like putting on a bigger bullet-proof vest than the one you usually wear. A lot more is covered, but there are still a lot of uncovered areas. These are coordinated robbers, so they’ll send scouts to go into stores and the complexes ahead of time and see what kind of security is. They aren’t just going in blind.

“If they see a lot of mysterious people waiting outside a store, they’ll pick a different target. Union Square was successful because of the lack of security at the time. Those pricey stores in LA and Beverly Hills, same deal. If there was security there, it was usually only a person or two. Staggered security shifts so that they can’t be clocked can work to better catch robbers off guard, as can better response times.

“But the fact is that the underlying causes need to be dealt with to really see a cut in crime, and that includes bigger penalties for those caught. There needs to be a deterrent. More CHP officers is good, but they can’t be everywhere, and a variety of other things are needed.”

More robbery deterrent announcements from the CHP and other law enforcement agencies will likely come in soon as the holiday shopping season begins in earnest on Friday.