Article 10 of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the California Government Code concerns state boards and commissions. Government Code Section 11140 provides that it is the policy of the State of California that the composition of state boards and commissions shall be broadly reflective of the general public including ethnic minorities and women.

Government Code Section 11141 requires, in making appointments to state boards and commissions, the Governor and every other appointing authority to be responsible for nominating a variety of persons of different backgrounds, abilities, interests, and opinions in compliance with the policy expressed in this article. It is not the intent of the Legislature that formulas or specific ratios be utilized in complying with this article.

The post Diversity on California State Boards and Commissions appeared first on California Globe.

It appears some politicians and members of the media are trying to foist another Covid winter on America? In California the pandemic never really ended. California Gov. Gavin Newsom still clings to his autocratic emergency powers under his March 4, 2020 Covid State of Emergency order, so why not perpetrate another crisis?

Hysterical and misleading headlines from mainstream media tell the story:

LAT $: Can California avoid a third devastating COVID winter wave? Some cautious hope

LADN: LA County logs 3,000 new COVID cases, fueling winter surge fears; hospitalizations near 800

SacBee: California hospital ICU’s see 20% jump in COVID-19 patients since last week, state data show. “As of Wednesday, there were 346 patients in hospital intensive care units, accounting for roughly 13% of available beds,” the Sac Bee health care writer reports, but she omits what the 346 ICU patients are hospitalized for.

A quick look at Sacramento County Public health Covid statistics (below) shows about 12-13 Covid “cases” a day are reported, 13 Covid patients in the ICU and 13 recent deaths. It took 3 minutes to look this up.

This chart from the Sacramento County Public Health website shows cases. As of 11/19, 12.9 “cases:”

Here is another headline from the SacBee health reporter: California’s ‘tripledemic’ of viruses is on the rise. Here’s how to care for a sick loved one.

The advice in this 605 word article is useful to anyone who hasn’t ever had the flu: drink plenty of fluids, take Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen for the fever, and get plenty of rest.

What is this “tripledemic” of viruses? COVID-19, the flu and respiratory syncytial virus.

“According to CDC data, the hospitalization rate in all kids for the week of Nov. 12 was twice as high as any other flu season on record,” ABC 7 reported. “The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association say cases of the flu, COVID-19, and RSV are overwhelming the health system.”

However a look at the CDC Covid dashboard shows hospitalizations are static. Of the 331.9 million Americans, there are 19,480 hospitalizations:

Here’s part of the motive: “Declaration of a national emergency would give providers additional funding as well as more flexibility from regulations to deal with what they  call a ‘crisis.'”

The COVID-19 pandemic is over and has been over except for political motivations – and government funding.

Taking a page from Dr. Anthony Fauci who warned families to get Covid tested ahead of Thanksgiving gatherings, California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said, “I think there’s ways that we can really improve how we do it, rather than spend our time talking about whether we should or shouldn’t,” referring to family gatherings.

The Los Angeles Times reporters took the hysteria one step further:

“In California, however, coronavirus-positive hospitalizations have been increasing. As of Wednesday, there were 2,782 coronavirus-positive patients in hospitals, up 84% from the autumn low of 1,514 on Oct. 24.”

There are 40 million residents in California, and 2,782 are Covid-positive in the hospital?

“Nationally, hundreds of Americans are still dying every day of COVID-19, which remains a leading cause of death. And there are signs that transmission is once again on the upswing,” the LAT reports.

But the CDC reports, COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.

For perspective, on any given day, approximately 740 Californians die of all causes, totaling about 270,000 California deaths annually.

Here is the California Public Health Covid dashboard of Covid “cases” and deaths:

According to the California Department of Public Health, as of November 21, 2022, there are zero deaths from Covid.

But at the top of their chart, the CDPH shows 96,701 total Covid deaths. This is the cumulative total since February 1, 2020, through November 22, 2022, according to the CDPH’s data.

The state of California wants people to believe that Covid patients are dropping like flies at 12 per day. But that is the average over the entire almost 3-year Covid pandemic since February 2020.

It’s feeling like Groundhog Day with public health officials and media breathlessly talking about Covid “cases,” rather than focusing on the vulnerable groups of people.

Throughout the pandemic, there was too heavy of a focus on an uptick in cases, as Stanford’s Dr. Scott Atlas reported, “especially in places where governors either have reinstated or have further enforced restrictions. When we see this focus on more cases, it doesn’t really matter how many cases — it only matters who gets the cases. We know that the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is 0.04 percent — that’s less than or equal to the seasonal flu,” he said.

A physician told the Globe that because doctors even can have a difficult time getting good data through their hospitals, trends are far more important numbers than raw numbers to study, as it gives more context.

For the average American, faith in government authority was significantly eroded because of how Covid was handled, managed and grossly mismanaged. It’s still going on with politicians and the State of California inundating the people with advertisements pushing Covid vaccines and masks by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). These ads are everywhere – radio, television, online ads, social media, iHeart radio, Sirius radio – even radio hosts are being paid to read the CDPH ads… it’s difficult to escape the commercials.

The governor and Legislature are also seeking to punish physicians and surgeons for “unprofessional conduct” for advocating for the potential benefits of early treatment with off-label drugs, or those who dare to ask questions about COVID vaccine safety. Under AB 2098 doctors will be subject to disciplinary actions by the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California if they do not adhere to the “approved COVID treatment consensus.”

Fortunately, a group of California physicians has filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in Høeg, et al. v. Newsom, et al., asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California prevent AB 2098 from going into effect.

Will there be another Covid Groundhog Day? The Californians I talk to say “oh, Hell no.”

The post Politicians and Media are Trying to Foist Another Covid Winter on America appeared first on California Globe.

Though much of the Sacramento bureaucratic blob was exposed as the simultaneously incompetent and corrupt menace it is during the pandemic, one agency stood apart by proving itself the most inept and cruel organization in the capitol – the Employment Development Department.

Countless true tales of its heartlessness, rank stupidity, inability to tell real from fake, and sheer nastiness circulated throughout the duration – and after – the wrath of COVID (in case a reminder is needed, as the Globe reported here and here  and here and, well, many many more.

It now appears that the pandemic bungle-fest was not what could be classified as a “one-off” COVID-related event, but the culmination of decades of mismanagement, shoddy oversight, and continuously farcical internal processes.

From seeing itself primarily not as a claimant benefit agency but tax collection outfit – to having a customer service policy of not having a customer service policy – to technology older than the word technology, the EDD has had problems for years and now a federal Department of Labor review of the agency’s unemployment insurance (UI) benefit trust fund (the account employers pay into) raises further questions about the stability and capability of the system as the fund’s solvency level is zero.

California is one of only eight states (and the Virgin Islands) to enjoy that dubious honor – others include: Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.  

It cannot but help to be noted that these “in the red” states are all politically “deep blue,” as reflected by the map on the cover the report (see above.)

According to the latest “State Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Solvency Report,” the state still owes the feds more than $18 billion against a trust fund on-hand balance of about $600 million. The report also shows California has an “advance (from the feds) per covered employee” amount of more than $1,400. The national average is $353 and most states have a figure of $0.

In 2019, the entire national UI trust fund debt whittled down to nothing from a high of $38 billion in 2011. The pandemic pushed the overall national debt up to $46 billion, of which, at its comparable height, California owed more than half, or about $24 billion. While the specifc numbers have lowered, the state still owes about the same as the rest of the nation combined (you can see the entire report at the bottom of this article.)

It should be noted that, even using the EDD’s own lowball number of $20 billion lost by the agency to easily preventable fraud, let alone the more accurate estimate of $30 billion, the state would have no debt to the feds if it had acted earlier to at least slow the massive pandemic benefits rip-off.  In turn that would mean California businesses would not be facing a per-employee unemployment annual tax surcharge of at least .3% to be paid over the next seven years.

While pandemic-related funds were loaned interest free, that is the first time the state has been able to borrow Title XII (the federal unemployment backstop fund that existed long before the pandemic) funds interest free since 1990 due to its longstanding unemployment insurance financial issues.  Only a few other states, such as Illinois, have had that problem going back more than 30 years (the number of states – 20 this year – who can borrow interest free varies from year-to-year, depending upon their financial status and history.)

That means that the state’s post-pandemic borrowing does incur interest and while in May California made a nearly $2 billion principal payment to the feds, it still had to pay another $335 million in interest in late September, before the close of the federal fiscal year.

Since making the May payment, the state has continued to borrow federal dollars. According to this Department of the Treasury website – the EDD just this month has borrowed another $284 million – a clip of about $13 million PER DAY – to meet its obligations. So far this fiscal year, the state has racked up $41 million in interest alone and paid exactly zero of that back.

Michael Petersen, spokesman for the federal Department of Labor confirmed that despite the agency’s financial woes, the EDD is and will remain able to meet its obligations to those currently receiving unemployment benefits and/or about to apply for them.

However the decades-long issue does call into question exactly why the agency has been run so badly for so long.

Long considered a career graveyard by Sacramento insiders, the EDD has – for decades – failed to modernize, failed to consider customer service, failed to keep up internal morale, all the while being a source of political tension, impotent as that may be as the legislature and successive governors have done kittle if anything to address the problem.

One of the root causes of the instability of the EDD is its funding method, said unemployment insurance expert Mark Duggan, the Trione Director of  The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) and The Wayne and Jodi Cooperman Professor of Economics at Stanford University.

When it comes to unemployment insurance tax rates, California has some of the highest in the nation. But it also has one of the lowest “taxable income” amount, an amount that has not changed since the 1980s. Depending upon whether the company has had significant layoff and/or other issues, California business pay between 1.5 and 6.2 percent of taxable income per employee (typically it’s about 3.4 percent.)  

But that state only considers the first $7,000 earned annually to be taxable for unemployment insurance purposes. That means a typical employer will pay about $230 per year for the seasonal part time worker making $500 a month and the same amount for the CEO making $500,000 per year.

While the CEO could receive $450 per seek for 26 weeks if laid off, the lower wage employee – on whose behalf the same amount was paid into the system – would receive a tiny fraction of that amount if laid off.

“Higher wage workers are getting (thousands of dollars worth of) free insurance,” Duggan said.  “The tax is the same but there is a massive benefit difference.”

The fact that the taxable base rate has not gone up in decades combined with the fact that the benefits offered have increased markedly leaves the system extremely vulnerable to economic uncertainty.

Duggan said it would be far more stable – and fair – if the $7,000 base were raised to something more in keeping with current economic realities while concurrently lowering the actual tax rate paid.  This would not increase actual employer costs but would be a stabler source of income and justify the large benefit payout differences.

Why this has not been done he has no idea, Duggan said, especially considering the potential bipartisan political popularity of being able to say publicly that you are lowering taxes (one side of the aisle) while not costing the state any revenue (the other, currently much more powerful side of the aisle.)

Multiple experts and officials have called the EDD essentially a “tear down” that needs to be replaced from scratch.  During the unsuccessful recall campaign against him, Governor Newsom briefly made loud noises about serious reform, as did the Democrat-held legislature.  Nothing substantive has been done and even a bill creating a citizen’s oversight board was turned back.

Gov. Newsom has said very little and done even less since, and the EDD keeps borrowing money to stay afloat.

Why the agency is political kryptonite – especially when wholesale reform would be so popular with the public – is a mystery, though it would be remiss to fail to note that the current situation does benefit some:  the agency employees who can stay blithely enmushroomified in their cubicles and the well-connected lawyers and consultants and tech experts etc. who are paid a great deal of money to keep applying Band-Aids, plugging leaks, bailing water, tidying up messes, and putting out fires.

It is as if the EDD was a ship that keeps hitting the same iceberg purposefully and repeatedly – but somehow won’t sink.

It just doesn’t make sense.

The Globe reached out to the EDD for comment, but as per usual, the EDD did not offer any comment, despite having said it would do so, and being given additional time to respond.

Here are the questions they declined to address, including a pretty basic one:

Can people expect to get their benefits if they file a proper claim?

Additional questions included:

How did this happen and what is being done to address it?

Is it still expected that the UI employer tax surcharge will go forward to pay for the shortfall?

California accounts for about 13 percent of the nation’s population, but accounts for more than 40 percent of the UI funds owed the feds – why?

Has any EDD employee been terminated for the pandemic problems?

Has the EDD upgraded its technology yet?

The EDD has not met solvency standards (able to borrow without interest) since 1990 and is one of only 9 states to have a trust fund solvency rating of Zero – explain

The report is extremely unflattering to the EDD – do you differ with any of its claims?

The post California’s EDD Continues to Borrow Hundreds of Millions – about $13 million PER DAY – To Meet its Obligations appeared first on California Globe.

Article 6.5 of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the California Government Code concerns the distribution of state publications by state agencies. Government Code Section 11094 provides that it is the intent of the Legislature to reduce the excessive flow of unsolicited state agency reports.

In addition, it is not the intent of the Legislature to reduce the free flow of information between state government and the public but, rather, to reduce the use of state government publications for other than required informational purposes and to effect a reduction in the escalating public expense of writing, printing, and distributing unsolicited state agency reports.

Government Code Section 11096 prohibits a state agency from distributing a state publication, except in response to a specific request, or to the subjects of a mailing list or distribution list who have previously requested the automatic receipt of reports of this type. Nonetheless, this section does not apply to the following publications:

• Public information pamphlets.

• Copies of legislative bills.

• Copies of statutes, laws, and regulations.

• Any information disseminated to the press.

• Publications which are applications, instructions, or guidelines for complying with any state or federal law, regulation, or policy.

• Directories.

Nonetheless, a state agency may distribute an abstract which contains a description of any reports submitted to the Legislature, and of any other information that is available upon request.

Government Code Section 11097 requires each state agency to include in its budget request a listing of state publications which were added by legislative mandate or otherwise during the previous fiscal year. Section 11098 provides that, when funding for any legislatively mandated publication is discontinued in the Budget Act, the statutory mandate for that publication is also automatically suspended.

Government Code Section 11099 requires each state agency that publishes or distributes a state publication to file a copy of the publication with the Joint Committee on Rules if it has published or distributed more than 1000 copies of the publication in the preceding 12 months. This section does not apply to specified publications.

The post Distribution of State Agency Publications appeared first on California Globe.

Part 12.3 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the California Government Code concerns underground economic activities. Government Code Section 15925 authorizes an agency to request of information from the Employment Development Department, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, and the Franchise Tax Board for known or suspected felony violations involving tax-related or fee-related crimes.

This includes cases from the Joint Enforcement Strike Force on the Underground Economy involving tax or fee administration associated with underground economic activities. The EDD, CDTFA, and FTB must fully and timely provide the requesting agency with intelligence, data, including confidential tax and fee information, documents, information, complaints, reports, analysis, findings, or lead referrals for specified purposes.

Any state agency personnel who received confidential information obtained pursuant to this section must not divulge, or make known in any manner not provided by law, any of the confidential information received by or reported to the agency. Confidential information authorized to be provided pursuant to this section must retain its confidential status and otherwise remain subject to the confidentiality provisions contained in existing state laws.

Government Code Section 15926 requires the Department of Justice to maintain the two multiagency Tax Recovery in the Underground Economy Criminal Enforcement Program investigative teams in Sacramento and Los Angeles. These investigative teams, including the Department of Justice, the EDD, the CDTFA, and the FTB are required to continue their collaboration for the recovery of lost revenues to the state by investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses in the state’s underground economy, including tax-related and fee-related crimes such as tax evasion or tax fraud.

The post Underground Economic Activities in California appeared first on California Globe.

According to a new policy draft released earlier this week, the San Francisco Police Department continued to push forward a proposal that would allow them to use robots to use deadly force in situations where lives are at risk, with the matter going before the  Board of Supervisors next week.

Specifically, in a use of equipment policy update, the language of the draft reads:

“The robots listed in this section shall not be utilized outside of training and simulations, criminal apprehensions, critical incidents, exigent circumstances, executing a warrant or during suspicious device assessments. Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD.”

That particular part of the proposal has been the subject of discussions between the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the SFPD for several weeks. While several Supervisors have criticized the SFPD for not including some weapons under the “military-style” definition, the usage of robots to potentially take out those lethally threatening the public or officers raised the ire of many, including Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who added into the draft, “Robots shall not be used as a use of force against any person.”

“The original policy they submitted was actually silent on whether robots could deploy lethal force,” noted Peskin. “We decided to approve the SFPD’s caveated guidelines because the department had made the case that there could be scenarios where deployment of lethal force was the only option.”

The SFPD immediately went around that suggestion, replaced that sentence with the current wording, and soon got approval of a Supervisors committee after convincing members that robot lethal force via an explosion could be needed in certain situations. The SFPD has repeatedly stressed that such a scenario would be a “rare and exceptional circumstance.”

“SFPD does not have any sort of specific plan in place as the unusually dangerous or spontaneous operations where SFPD’s need to deliver deadly force via robot would be a rare and exceptional circumstance,” said the SFPD in a statement.

While using an explosive device sent via a police robot to take out a hostile person has not been used in California before, it has occasionally been used elsewhere in the U.S. Most notably, such a robot was used in Dallas in 2016 against a sniper targeting police officers. In October, Oakland police attempted to pass a similar policy to the SFD proposal, but came up short on support because of lawmaker and public outcry. San Francisco is only the latest city to propose this, with others currently deciding where they fall on the issue due to a new state law on military equipment.

“We’ll be seeing police and city decisions on all sorts of military weapons and equipment used by police due to AB 481,” Wesley Riggs, a security merchandise supplier who focuses on non-lethal items, told the Globe Friday. “Everyone now has to make a list of what equipment they have that fall under  being ‘military,’ and that includes what they are used for, hence why everyone is trying to define what their robots are for. That’s really why we heard from Oakland and San Francisco, and will hear from others. Everyone is complying, and they don’t want to give up anything that could potentially save the lives of innocent people.”

“This isn’t just a sudden decision to start bombing bad guys with robots, as many have claimed. No, this is just police departments having to legally outline things and many departments not wanting to give up a functionality that could be used by them to save innocent people. That’s it really.”

The SFPD proposal is set to be heard formally by the Board on November 29th.

The post SFPD Pushes For Police Robots For Deadly Force Situations appeared first on California Globe.

Chapter 5.2 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the California Government Code provides the Grant Information Act of 1999. Government Code Section 8333 names the act and requires all state agencies to implement this act in a manner that is consistent with the statewide strategy for electronic commerce as established by the Department of Information Technology.

Government Code Section 8333.1 requires the California State Library to create a funding opportunities Internet Web portal that provides a centralized location for grant seekers to find state grant opportunities. The funding opportunities Internet Web portal must include an interactive Internet Web site that includes information identifying every grant administered by the state and any incentive opportunities allocated by statute or in the annual budget that will provide local assistance funds.

In addition, the California State Library, in consultation with the Strategic Growth Council and the State Air Resources Board, is required to ensure that the Internet Web site is accessible and provides helpful information to a diverse set of potential applicants, including nonprofit and community-based organizations, and other entities that are working to support and benefit disadvantaged and low-income communities.

Government Code Section 8333.2 requires the California State Library to provide an annual report to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the Internet Web portal, the utilization rate by state agencies, the number of grants registered, the amount of funding per grant, the number of visits to the Internet Web portal, including what parts of the Internet Web portal are visited, and whether there has been an increase in grant applications.

Government Code Section 8334 requires each state agency to register every grant the state agency administers with the California State Library prior to commencing a solicitation or award process for distribution of the grant. Each agency must provide information regarding the grant, that assists the California State Library with cataloging the distribution of grants and provides potential applicants with understandable and consistent information about available funding opportunities. In addition, each state agency is required to provide a link to the California State Library’s funding opportunities internet web portal on the state agency’s internet website.

Moreover, each state agency is required to provide for the acceptance of electronic proposals for any grant administered by the state agency, as appropriate The Government Operations Agency must assist the California State Library with state agency compliance and creating streamlined processes.

Government Code Section 8334.1 requires each state agency to provide to the California State Library post-award data for every grant administered by the state agency. 

The post California Grant Information Act of 1999 appeared first on California Globe.

Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the California Government Code concerns “loyalty.” Government Code Section 18200 prohibits a person from being knowingly employed by any state agency or court  directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets a program of sabotage, force and violence, sedition, or treason against the Government of the United States or of California.

In addition, any person employed by any state agency or court must be immediately discharged from his or her employment when it becomes known to the appointing power that the person has, during the period of employment, committed any such act. In addition, money appropriated from the treasury cannot be expended to compensate any person whose employment is forbidden by this section.

The post Loyalty of California State Personnel appeared first on California Globe.

The Marine Exchange of Southern California announced that the backup of container ships that began in October of 2020 had officially ended, with the number of waiting cargo ships at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach reaching zero.

A sudden increase of shipping trade in the second half of 2020 following a large lull caused by COVID-19 pandemic related restrictions, caused the initial logjam to begin in October 2020. However,  year later, this catchup on cargo was suddenly compounded by many dockworkers leaving during the Great Resignation, a lack of equipment, poor trucking regulations, outdated port rules and regulations, other supply chain problems and lingering after effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Between October 2021 and January 2022, over 100 ships were in the Pacific Ocean waiting to get into one of those ports.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed an Executive Order, followed by state and local actions passed and signed into law in late 2021 that helped create more cargo space, create better flow and ease of movement for all steps of the unloading and trucking processes, and identify the best routes for trucks to take helped alleviate the number of waiting cargo ships, with a new hiring spree reducing the number of waiting ships even further. Cargo companies began feeling the financial pinch as well with such actions such as charging the companies for cargo containers left uncollected for too long and diverting the cargo to other ports.

The number of waiting ships gradually fell throughout the year, with many being greeted by the new improvements to the ports designed to unload and turnaround ships very quickly. With the number finally hitting zero again this week, port officials were relieved at the end of one of the largest cargo backups in history.

“It is time to move into a different phase of operations and declare that the backup has ended,” said Marine Exchange of Southern California executive director Kip Louttit on Tuesday.” Both ports have enough labor to handle the current volume of ships while some ocean carriers are delaying vessel arrivals to better suit their own operations.”

While some backups continue to exist at other U.S. ports, with the Port of Savannah in Georgia being especially hard hit right now with backups, shipping experts noted to the Globe on Wednesday that the whole industry is now breathing easier with the SoCal ports now free of any backup.

“When we first had the backup in California, Trump was still President,” explained George Pinsky, a Cleveland based shipping consultant, in an interview with the Globe. “It took that long to clear it. That sort of thing just should not happen, but a lot of things not working out right did just that.”

“These ports need to keep these improvements in place though, and not just slowly dismantle them, because then it could happen again. A lot of Great Lakes ports got rid of a lot  trucking routes in the 80’s and 90’s due to their being less use, but then had to contend with truck backups, much like California’s when cargo coming in went up, largely because they got rid of some needed things. Southern ports had the same thing happen in the same time period during a lull in oil prices hitting the roof. Just because there aren’t any backups now doesn’t mean issues in the future won’t  happen again and need them to run smoothly.”

“Still, all in all, no more backup is good news for Los Angeles and Long Beach, as many Asian countries will likely now move cargo back there, including China once all the lockdowns are done, which cause a significant bump in traffic.”

The post Ports of LA, Long Beach Free Of Cargo Backup First Time Since October 2020 appeared first on California Globe.

An appeal by the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) to reverse a COVID-19 vaccination mandate that was previously ruled  illegal by a lower court, was upheld on Tuesday in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, forcing the district to continue to scrap plans for a district-wide vaccination mandate.

The fight over the San Diego school’s mandatory vaccination plans dates back to September of 2021. That month, the SDUSD board voted unanimously to institute mandatory vaccinations for all district staff and students ages 5 and above, with the only exemptions allowed being medical related. The announcement polarized parents and staff, with supporters saying that the mandate was needed for health and safety reasons, and those opposed saying the mandate couldn’t happen because of the lack of religious and personal belief exemptions. Los Angeles and San Francisco school districts included the exemptions, leading San Diego parents to zero in on the SDUSD mandate.

The SDUSD soon faced several lawsuits, the most prominent from “Let Them Choose” and “Let Them Breathe.” As a result, the mandate was put on hold until December, when the lawsuit was finally heard in San Diego Superior Court. To the chagrin of the SDUSD, Judge John Mayer ruled that the mandate broke state law, halting it permanently days before the district’s first dose vaccination deadline. Specifically, Judge Meyer sided with the parent groups, noting that mandates without exemptions can only be ordered by the state legislature. Judge Meyer also said that the COVID-19 vaccine would not be added to the list of needed vaccinations without exemption due to the state also being the only one who could order such a thing.

“The San Diego Unified School District is disappointed that Superior Court Judge John S. Meyer concluded only the state can act regarding vaccinations, even though the law specifically allows and encourages local vaccination programs,” the SDUSD said after the ruling last December. “Even Judge Meyer acknowledged in his ruling that the vaccine mandate appears to be necessary and rational, and the district’s desire to protect its students from COVID-19 is commendable.”

The ruling was appealed less than 48 hours later by the district, with supporters continuing to cite health and safety reasons in favor. While disheartened by the appeal, those opposing the mandate noted that affirmation by an appellate court would make it even more binding.

“Let Them Choose is confident that we will prevail in an appellate court and we look forward to setting binding statewide precedent that protects students’ rights to in-person education,” said Let Them Choose last year. “Judge Meyers ruled in our favor on the clear legal issues that school districts do not have authority to mandate a patchwork of vaccines or contradict state law by rejecting personal belief exemptions and we do not expect the appellate court to come to a different conclusion. In the meantime there is a ruling in place against the SDUSD vaccine mandate and they cannot enforce it.”

“[We] look forward to setting binding precedent statewide. If we prevail in a appellate court that would be even more binding.”

SDUSD mandate appeal fails

For most of 2022, both sides waited until the Appellate court panel would hear the appeal, with the SDUSD having to delay their mandate date to July of 2023 as a result, and then only if it was reversed. However, that proved to be moot on Tuesday when the panel ruled against SDUSD, upholding the mandate ban and agreeing with Judge Meyer’s reasons last year.

“The district’s roadmap requires students to choose between a mandated COVID-19 vaccination and involuntary independent study, a choice the legislature does not permit the district to compel,” wrote the panel in their decision.

“Today the California Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment in Let Them Breathe’s lawsuit against San Diego Unified holding that school districts do not have authority to impose their own vaccination requirements on top of the standard series,” Lee Andelin, attorney for the plaintiff’s, said on Tuesday. “This is a great win for children and the rule of law and ensures consistency statewide. The published opinion applies to all California school districts and sets important precedent to protect access to education.”

With the appellate case now marking a precedent for future mandates and their exemptions, many observers noted that school districts will now have to be very careful on what they do about exemptions in the future.

“This whole case could have been avoided if only the district allowed religious and personal belief exemptions,” added lawyer Dean White, a Washington-based lawyer who has been a part of several cases surrounding COVID-19 mandates, to the Globe on Wednesday. “A lot of parents still would have not liked the mandate itself, but it would have given many a reasonable way out. Instead, the district backed them into a corner and didn’t even hear them out on it before putting in that mandate.

“Health and safety is important, especially to kids, but religious beliefs are also important. Individually, students are allowed to pray, are allowed to wear a cross or star of David, are allowed to wear a hijab. But here, even if it went against your beliefs, they said you had to take a vaccine and go against your faith, or go to alternate methods. You can see why judges keep siding on these groups challenging school districts over this. And the San Diego case is huge and precedent-making.”

As of Wednesday, the SDUSD has not indicated if they plan to take the case to a higher court.

The post California Appellate Court Panel Strikes Down SDUSD Appeal Of Vaccine Mandate Ban appeared first on California Globe.

Ric Grenell’s Fix California started a statewide inspection of the 58 counties’ voter rolls in July 2021 pushing voter integrity, as well as an effort to register Conservative voters.

An alarming report by the Election Integrity Project California following California’s November 3, 2020 election showed the election was marred by significant voting and registration irregularities. The non-partisan organization analyzed the state’s official voter list of February 9, 2021 and reported its findings to California’s Secretary of State Shirley Weber June 17, 2021 – to no avail.

Grenell and his team at Fix California launched their statewide legal survey analyzing the current status of voter rolls throughout the state.

Specifically, Fix California has been looking for and cross-checking inactive registrations, voter registrations cancelled, registrants not satisfying the citizenship requirements for registration, deceased registrants, individuals who moved out of state, the number of voter applicants providing applications to vote with either a blank affirmation of U.S. Citizenship or an affirmation of non-citizenship for 2016 to date, out-of-state change of address requests.

Public records requests have allowed Fix CA to cross check voter data with the California Secretary of State, Department of Motor Vehicles, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address database, California Attorney General, any California Superior Court, the County Health Systems, county and city district attorneys’ offices, and county and city election departments.

This is cross checking which should have been going on all along by counties. And that’s been Grenell’s concern: “through our work on the data front, we are identifying key areas where there appears to be high concentrations of inaccurate or poorly maintained voter rolls.”

Results are starting to pour in for both voter integrity and voter registrations.

Upon founding Fix California only last year, Ric Grenell said he wanted to re-align California, the bastion of liberalism, to a place where conservative ideas and policies have a fighting chance. After this year’s pilot program, where the organization invested high-six figures into a statewide voter registration effort, he may be onto something. Fix California is currently registering over 10,000 conservatives a month at a fraction of the cost of many other national organizations.

Fix California spent 2021 investing in an extensive data analysis to:

(1) Identify California voter roles that were out of data. The organization put every county on notice through a broad legal effort to clean up their voter roles.

(2) Identify a target list of unregistered conservatives. All-in-all Fix California identified 1.4M unregistered conservatives.

In 2022, Fix California ran a two-phase pilot program in the months preceding the June Primary and November General Election working to begin registering these targets.

In total, over 50,000 of Fix California targeted residents have been registered, averaging more than 10,000 registrations per month – ahead of the 2022 Midterm Elections.

According to Grenell, these conservative registration efforts consisted of digital peer to peer engagement via SMS text messaging, emails, and digital advertising.

Fix California also ran engagement via phone banking, with callers making over 136,000 total phone calls to get conservatives registered to vote before the election.Volunteers were recruited at “Take Action” rallies held by Fix California in both Southern and Northern California, where hundreds of attendees came to hear speeches from local conservative leaders, headlined by Ambassador Ric Grenell.

Since the rallies, over 400 people have signed up to volunteer, and Fix CA has trained over 100 of them to use the phone banking system to call conservatives and get them registered to vote.

While the RNC typically spends over $45 per registration during voter registration efforts, Fix California spent under $15 per registration during 2022.

Fix CA’s 2022 engagement was targeted to Contra Costa, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties, determined to be most important for this year.

The post Is There a Conservative Re-Alignment Taking Place in the Golden State? appeared first on California Globe.

By Sam Spiegelman & Jeremy Talcott

On November 8, voters in San Francisco weighed in on a pair of ballot initiatives aimed at easing the city’s affordable housing crisis. Let’s at least give city officials this much credit — they do, in fact, appear to recognize the city’s serious housing problem. But their solutions fall flat. Of the country’s major cities, San Francisco ranks in or near the bottom quartile on housing affordability and homelessness.  The principal cause is the city’s regulatory framework for new development.

Two weeks after election day, voters have rejected Proposition E and look likely to reject D — counting takes time, especially in California, where several congressional elections are still outstanding. Still, these two initiatives only scratched the surface of solving San Francisco’s woeful development permitting process.

If voters had passed Props D or E, housing officials would have been allowed to expedite approvals by several months for developments that are 100 percent affordable, are to be leased to teachers, or set aside 15 percent of their units for below-market rates. Either Prop D or E (on paper) would have kicked in a 60-day approval process for qualifying projects, but only Prop D would have automatically fast-tracked projects whose deadline the city misses. Still, neither of these initiatives would have done anything to address the city’s antiquated zoning code, which limits multifamily housing to a sliver of its residential land.

So, here’s some free advice: if San Francisco really hopes to address housing affordability and availability, its officials must allow more of it to be built. This requires reform of the city’s draconian permitting and zoning regulations to allow light to medium multifamily dwellings throughout its residential zones. And for a better understanding of how to repair the city’s dysfunctional regulations, other cities across the nation can provide guidance on approaches that work.

The permitting process for new development in San Francisco is excruciatingly slow: review and approval for a new housing project takes an average of 27 months, according to one recent study. The city has set an ambitious goal for new housing units — 83,000 new units by 2030 — but it’s highly unlikely to hit that mark with existing regulations in place. Streamlining the permitting process to encourage more timely development is needed but won’t be enough.

The city’s zoning laws make it impossible to build new homes in the number, locations, and price points the market demands. These laws stretch back a century; the first San Francisco zoning plan, enacted in 1921, mandated single-family residential developments in most of the city’s undeveloped areas. This decision set the city on the course for its current dysfunctional land-use policy. Today, single-family residential districts account for 40 percent of all land use in San Francisco, despite blistering breakneck (and wonderful) growth in jobs and population.

Existing residents often resist the construction of more homes, fearful that more building would diminish their home values or neighborhood character. That fear is likely misplaced. In fact, a treasure trove of data-driven studies illustrates how even a small amount of additional housing stock can make life better for all by unleashing more growth and productivity.

Other similarly situated cities have made real progress in addressing housing shortages by recognizing that steady, incremental development brings more than enough benefits to ease the anxieties of incumbent homeowners. And they’re pursuing this needed development through intelligent reforms of zoning laws.

Take Portland, Oregon, where reformers obtained meaningful zoning changes, most notably permitting up to six homes on any one lot. Seattle’s Sightline Institute describes this change as “the most pro-housing reform to low-density zones in U.S. history.” Within one year, Oregon’s homeless population declined by 7.7 percent. Other cities are successfully using zoning reform to make land more productive. Minneapolis, for example, has seen some success in building more medium-density units once it fixed a few obsolete zoning rules. From New York City to Charlotte and Atlanta, zoning reform has become a programmatic, long-term objective that is already reaping rewards.

San Francisco continues to enjoy a reputation as a historic center of commerce and cultural innovation. Still, that reputation has suffered in recent years, with 70 percent of residents polled seeing a city in decline. An important part of stemming and reversing that decline is addressing the city’s acute shortage of affordable housing — and that starts with spurring needed housing development by reforming the city’s dysfunctional permitting practices and zoning regulations—not just the former.

Jeremy Talcott is an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse. 

The post To Make Housing Affordable, San Francisco Should Look Beyond California for Solutions appeared first on California Globe.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) was declared the winner of the 3rd District House race on Tuesday, defeating challenger by over 16,000 votes with 81% reported in.

Following the June primary, Kiley held a large lead over Jones throughout the summer, holding around 55% of the vote, with Jones only at 45%. Jones managed to close that gap up during the late summer in part due to Kiley being tied up in the Assembly, slowly closing the gap to 53.5% to 46.5% in early October, with some race trackers shifting from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican” as a result. Jones’ strategy of distancing himself away from speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and calling for her to step down as Speaker also won over many on the fence. However, this momentum was ground to a halt in late October due to a Republican candidate bump across the country caused by inflation and economic issues, nationwide polls showing a greater likelihood of a GOP Congressional takeover, and Republican strategies of reaching out more to minority communities and Spanish speaking populations proving to be effective.

Like many elections on election night, the 3rd District vote counting was slow, with Kiley in the lead the following day, but with only a fraction of votes counted. The large 3rd district, which stretches from Lake Tahoe to Death Valley, has been particularly slow due to mail-in ballots taking a while to come in given the large District, as well as the coordination and counting  logistics of tabulating votes across several counties.

Last Friday, with 72% of the votes in, Kiley led Jones by over 10,000 votes, causing some to declare victory for Kiley. This included Kiley himself. However, Jones was still mathematically in it until Tuesday, when new totals brought Kiley to 148,101 votes, or 52.8% of the vote, and Jones to 132,576 votes, or 47.2% of the vote with a total of 81% of the votes in. With the lead now insurmountable, Jones conceded the election to Kiley late Tuesday.

Kiley wins House seat

“From the bottom of my heart, thank you,” said Jones. “To the 1,000 volunteers across 10 counties who have knocked over 160,000 doors — thank you. To the 15,000 individuals who contributed to our campaign — thank you. This was a grassroots effort, and I could be more proud of the coalition we built, of Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike. We were all unified by a vision for our future that’s bigger than party politics.”

Kiley released a statement after the confirmed victory as well, noting “It is an honor to represent the 3rd District in Congress. I was born and raised in the communities of this district and will fight every day to protect our quality of life. I am looking forward to getting to work right away to get our country back on track.”

While Democrats lamented yet another lost House race and a greater GOP majority in the House, Republicans celebrated the victory, noting that the GOP has now tied the number of seats they had in California as the current Congress, with the remaining seat threatening to make an overall gain for Republicans in California.

“Congratulations to Kevin Kiley on his election,” said NRCC Chairman Tom Emmer. “Kevin has spent his career advocating for common-sense, conservative policies and I know he’ll work tirelessly in Congress for Californians. I look forward to serving with Kevin.”

Eastern California pollster Ann White said in a Globe interview, “The GOP has officially held the line in House races in California this year, and may even gain one still. Not only are Democrats humiliated by that, but the GOP doing it’s part in California was instrumental in the GOP retaking the House as a whole. Kiley also means that, along with a few others in California, the GOP now has a bunch of young guns now waiting in the wings for long-term House prospects or future higher office.”

“Some in the party think it should have gone better, you know, with the red wave failing to materialize, and locally in California with some contested races not going their way. Katie Porter managing to stay in office for example. But they held their ground. It’s starting to become more and more obvious that the state hit peak blue in 2018, right during the mid-term Trump backlash. And if [John] Duarte manages to hold on to victory in the 13th district, I think we can safely say that a red shift back is happening. Baby steps, sure, but still happening. Kiley is just more proof of this.”

The only undecided House vote left, District 13, is expected to have a winner soon, as well as a likely recount due to less than 1,000 votes separating the two candidates.

The post Kevin Kiley Wins CA 3rd District House Race Against Kermit Jones appeared first on California Globe.

Chapter 5.1 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code provides the Citizen Complaint Act of 1997. Government Code Section 8330 provides the title of the act and requires all state agencies that have Internet websites to implement this act in a manner that is consistent with the statewide strategy for electronic commerce as established by the Department of Information Technology.

Government Code Section 8331 requires state agencies to make available on the Internet, unless otherwise authorized by the Department of Information Technology, a plain-language form through which individuals can register complaints or comments relating to the performance of that agency. The agency is required to provide instructions on filing the complaint electronically, or on the manner in which to complete and mail the complaint form to the state agency, or both, consistent with whichever method the agency establishes for the filing of complaints.

State agencies making a complaint form available on the Internet are required to:

• Advise individuals calling the state agency to lodge a complaint.

• Include on the Internet the location at which this information may be accessed in the telephone directory in order that citizens will be aware that they may contact the state agency via the Internet or by telephone.

In addition, public libraries, to the extent permitted through donations and other means, may do provide Internet access to their patrons and advertise that they provide Internet access.

The post California Citizen Complaint Act of 1997 appeared first on California Globe.

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) announced on Monday that they would be giving more than $25 million worth of grants to guaranteed income projects across the state, with the amount given to affect around 1,975 people in the state.

Guaranteed income/universal basic income (UBI) programs have continued to pop up more and more across the state since the late 2010’s, with programs giving individuals a certain amount of money each month for around 1-2 years. To date, UBI programs have been in Stockton, Sacramento, Compton, Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Some cities, such as San Francisco, have multiple short term UBI programs going on at a time, affecting different groups of people found to have been struggling to make ends meet as a whole. All the programs have been monitored to some extent, as city governments have wanted to see if the programs even work, and what the pros and cons are in the projects.

While statewide UBI efforts have all fizzled out in the state legislature, the funding of individual pilot programs at a city level has seen more success. The California Guaranteed Income Pilot Program, devised by Governor Gavin Newsom and state legislators, has continued on, with project focus groups including pregnant women and those leaving foster care. As such, on Monday, the CDSS announced that the following 7 city-level programs would be funded by the state:

• Expecting Justice (Heluna Health DBA Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc.) in the amount of $5,000,000. Pilot will provide 425 pregnant individuals who are disproportionately impacted by perinatal health disparities with $600-$1,000 per month for 12 months.

• Inland Southern California United Way in the amount of $5,000,000. Pilot will provide 500 pregnant individuals and 150 former foster youth with $600 per month for 18 months.

• iFoster, Inc. in the amount of $4,763,010. Pilot will provide 300 former foster youth with $750 per month for 18 months.

• Los Angeles Section National Council of Jewish Women, Inc. in the amount of $3,681,949. Pilot will provide 150 pregnant individuals who have diabetes with $1,000 per month for 18 months.

• San Francisco Human Services Agency in the amount of $3,300,000. Pilot will provide 150 former foster youth with $1,200 per month for 18 months.

• McKinleyville Community Collaborative in the amount of $2,354,841. Pilot will provide 150 pregnant individuals with $1,000 per month for 18 months.

• Ventura County Human Services Agency in the amount of $1,500,000. Pilot will provide 150 youth former foster youth with $1,000 per month for 18 months.

In total, the amount comes to just above $25 million, covering 1,975 people with monthly payments of $600-$1,200 a month for 12-18 months.

$25 million in new UBI programs

“We are excited to launch these groundbreaking pilot projects throughout California and I want to thank the Governor and Legislature for yet another historic investment in the fight against poverty in California,” said CDSS Director Kim Johnson in a statement. “These pilots will serve as an important opportunity to assess the impact of an economic intervention during key life transitions, such as the birth of a child or entry into independence after extended foster care.”

Special Advisor for Economic Mobility and Opportunity and Mayors for a Guaranteed Income Founder Michael Tubbs, who, as Mayor of Stockton, had overseen the first large UBI pilot program in the state, added that “I am proud to see my home state of California ushering in the promise of a guaranteed income to build financial resilience among our residents. Just as we saw with the pilot I led as mayor of Stockton, I’m confident these funds will provide crucial support for families and strengthen our communities.”

Experts, however, had a different opinion of the Social Services agency plan.

“California Social Services is just backing programs throwing money at people for a short time, then not following through after that,” said Cheryl Keating, a law researcher who has studied UBI proposals and programs in the United States and Canada, to the Globe on Tuesday. “These are all flash-in-the-pan style UBIs that only help for a few years, then are taken away without having built the person up. Job programs, programs helping people find affordable housing, and other programs funded with the goal of helping people out in mind, as well as numerous charity and non-profit programs, have helped these people for years build a base of basic needs and a job to start or start again on life from a bad situation.”

“UBI fails to do that. UBI just gives money with no strings attached. While some use this to pay rent or get food, or use as a fund cushion to have time to get a job, or something responsible, a lot of people in UBI programs also just don’t spend it on things like that. And now the state is stepping a little bit more into that, with no boundaries. All of these statements people are putting out about how great these programs are are filled with buzzwords and read like an AI-generated speech and fail to get into the nitty gritty. We have to really keep an eye on these programs.”

Other cities are expected to unveil pilot UBI programs soon.

The post California Unveils $25 Million In Guaranteed Income Grants appeared first on California Globe.

The close 22nd District House race was called late on Monday for Congressman David Valadao (R-CA), with him narrowly defeating his challenger, Assemblyman Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield), in one of the last remaining undecided House races in the country.

Since 2013, the soon to be former 21st District/incoming 22nd District covering the Southern part of the San Joaquin Valley, has seen Congressman Valadao win, lose, then win the district again despite a growing Democratic advantage. Valadao managed to hold onto office until the 2018 ballot harvesting blue wave mid-terms, when Democrat T.J. Cox won by roughly 900 votes, 50.4% to 49.6%. However, two years later, a Twitter scandal and the revelation that Cox had unpaid taxes swung the election back to Valadao – this time with almost 2,000 votes a difference.

Redistricting for 2022 put the number of likely blue voters more in the Democrats favor, with Assemblyman Salas winning the June primary over Republican candidates split over several issues, including Valadao’s support of impeaching then-President Trump. Valadao managed to come out just ahead of main GOP challenger Chris Mathys, but was still well behind in polls to Sala, with a poll in mid-July having Salas up by around 8 points. However, former Congressman Cox getting arrested by the FBI the next month removed virtually all progress made by the Democrats, with many on the fence voters inching back towards Valadao.

The race in the Central Valley district was a dead heat by late August, causing many Democratic Party committees to buy a lot of ads to counter the GOP. Throughout September and early October this strategy worked, with Salas going back up by several points. But then the Salas campaign grew upset with a GOP ad that questioned Salas’ voting on a passed bill in Sacramento that added a tax on medications for opioid abuse recovery that many found to have actually hurt those trying to afford medication. Salas decided to pull out of the debate in retaliation, causing many voters on-the-fence or slightly leaning his way to switch to Valadao.

“Salas did the absolute stupidest thing he could possibly do,” Alex Guzman, a Central California pollster, told the Globe on Tuesday. “He could have simply made that a point in the debate and gone on the attack there, but instead he removed himself from probably the best forum he could have possibly chosen to address it. If you think something the other candidate said was outrageous, fine, then go ahead and call them out on it and fight them in the debate on it! Use facts, reverse the issue back on them, whatever. Just don’t pull out. But he did. That, along with some last minute support from former Vice President Pence and some other GOP luminaries, pushed Valadao through.”

Before election day, most outlets said the race would be close, giving it a toss-up with a slight edge towards Valadao. Votes in on election day gave Valadao a slight lead. However, the election soon dragged on for almost another two weeks, as votes slowly trickled in and Salas remaining within striking distance the entire time. But on Monday, with Valadao getting an updated 51.7% of the vote, or 51,842, and Salas still behind with 48.3%, or 48,461 votes, and only 2% of all votes not counted, Valadao passed into insurmountable territory, winning the race.

Valadao wins 22nd District race

“The Central Valley is my home, and I am once again humbled by the Central Valley’s support and faith in me,” tweeted out Valadao late on Monday. “Thank you #CA22, time to get back to work! To everyone who supported this campaign by putting in long hours, knocking on doors, and believing in this cause – thank you. I could not have done it without you. I commend Rudy Salas for running a strong campaign and his service to our community in the State Assembly.

“To the election workers in Kern, Kings and Tulare counties – I appreciate your hard work over the past couple of weeks to make sure every vote was counted fairly and accurately. To my constituents, those who voted for me and those who didn’t – I will continue to be a representative who puts the Central Valley first and works tirelessly to improve your quality of life.”

The Central Valley is my home, and I am once again humbled by the Central Valley’s support and faith in me. Thank you #CA22, time to get back to work! https://t.co/8DfElaPUGz

— David G. Valadao (@dgvaladao) November 22, 2022

As of Tuesday morning, Salas has yet to concede the election. But analysts note that the closeness of the race will encourage Democrats to put the district on the top of their flip list for 2024.

“They lost out this year, and actually helped out the Republicans make some gains in California,” added Guzman. “Salas can blame whoever, but what it really came down to was not leaving a debate just because you didn’t agree with the other guy. End of the day, it’s on him. But the Valadao team also played it brilliantly, and to the Democrat’s chagrin, may have won over some more people in the process. 2024 will be real interesting, as memories of voting to impeach Trump will have faded some more, and the Democrats learning their lessons from this one.”

“The race was close not only because of the district just plain having more Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, but because Salas recovered from each time he fell in support, usually through huge infusions of money for ads. And it wasn’t enough.”

Final voting results are expected to be in soon.

The post Rep. David Valadao Narrowly Defeats Assm. Rudy Salas In 22nd House District Election appeared first on California Globe.

“Over the last decade California has passed laws, orders and regulations that have led to massive irregularities,” the Election Integrity Project California said in a statement Monday announcing a huge legal win.

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that Election Integrity Project^®California (EIPCa) and recent and future congressional candidates have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of California’s election laws, regulations, policies and procedures that have weakened or removed integrity from the election process. Though the Constitution gives authority to state legislators to pass laws to manage elections and process ballots, EIPCa asserts they do not have carte blanche authority to pass laws that diminish the value of the lawfully cast ballots.

These laws, orders and regulations culminated “in the 2020 election, when Governor Newsom authorized mailing a ballot to all ‘active’ registrants on the voter rolls and former Secretary of State Alex Padilla gutted signature verification requirements. EIPCa received over 700 affidavits signed under penalty of perjury from EIPCa-trained observers who consistently reported election workers not adequately verifying signatures and, in some cases, counting ballots without signatures.”

EIPCa continues:

“Because neither the state legislature nor Alex Padilla required uniform and secure vote casting and counting procedures, uneven procedures were applied across counties. EIPCa and its co-plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Governor Newsom, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and thirteen country registrars.

“This lawsuit is monumental because it is the first to challenge the constitutionality of California’s election laws and procedures, and we are the first to get past standing,” says Mariah Gondeiro, the lead attorney who works for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “If we win, California will be required to enforce secure and uniform vote casting and vote counting procedures.”

“For over a decade, Election Integrity Project^®California has researched and documented every aspect of California’s election process and identified how these laws transformed an Election Day into a 60-day election season fraught with easy to manipulate procedures,” says Linda Paine, President of EIPCa. “We are now seeing California Style laws in states across the country creating the same problems that have been witnessed and documented by EIPCa-trained observers in California for years.”

The Globe has covered election “anomalies” and explained some of California’s in 2020:

In 2016 the California Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown ostensibly “legalized” ballot harvesting, allowing a third party to collect ballots and deliver them to election officials, eliminating the ballot protection law that allowed only a family member to return another voter’s ballot.

As I write this, I am receiving many reports from California voters who say their votes have not been counted. Candidates report their districts are only reporting at 59% and worse.

While the Secretary of State says he has until December 11 to announce California’s election outcomes, how did we get here?

Voters’ party registrations were changed right before the June 2016 Primary election, ensuring a Hillary Clinton win over challenger Bernie Sanders, in what was called electronic vote rigging. California was a crucial state for both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, but the election was called for Clinton minutes after the polls closed, before millions of provisional ballot votes were counted.

A 2017 study by Stanford University proved that Hillary Clinton‘s campaign pre-rigged the system to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. And it was never more apparent than in California where Bernie Sanders voters were likely robbed of a legitimate candidate.

You can read the EIPCa press statement here. 

For more history of California’s elections, “anomalies”  and issues, read “California’s Election ‘Anomalies’ Are Not New, Nor Have They Been Fixed: How California’s elections are manipulated and why a federal investigation is needed here, and in many states” here.

The post Ninth Circuit Rules CA Election Integrity Project has Standing to Challenge Constitutionality of California’s Election Laws appeared first on California Globe.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health reaffirmed their stance on recommending masking inside public indoor places on Monday amid a jump of COVID-19 in the past few weeks.

Since the repeal of state and local indoor mask mandates in the late winter and early spring of this year, fluctuating COVID-19 transmission rates, as well as recent new case rises and new variants, have had counties considering a return of some form of mask mandate. During the summer, Alameda County brought their mandate back briefly, with LA County nearly doing so but dropping plans to do so at the last minute due to both a turnaround of new cases and enormous public outcry.

While few, if any, mandate talks occurred throughout most of the fall, an increase of COVID-19 cases spurred the LA County Public Health Department to begin looking into possible public mandates again. On Friday, the County said that official indoor masking recommendations would go out as soon as new cases were at 100 per 100,000 residents. The County Department of Public Health once again confirmed this figure on Monday, announcing that the County was close, with the rate at 86 out of 100,000.

COVID-19 Daily Update:
November 21, 2022
New Cases: 1,123 (3,520,094 to date)
New Deaths: 5 (34,118 to date)
Current Hospitalizations: N/A**
Today’s Positivity Rate: 7.4%
1/3 pic.twitter.com/QV6JZFRM3D

— LA Public Health (@lapublichealth) November 22, 2022

“Now, it is strongly recommended that all individuals wear a high-quality mask that fits well in the following settings: in public indoor spaces; when using public transit, including buses, ride-shares, taxis and medical transport; correctional and detention facilities; and homeless and emergency shelters,” said county Health Officer Dr. Muntu Davis. “The county is currently reporting about 1,500 new cases a day, up from 1,300 per day a week ago and up 52% since November 1st.”

“We are grateful this year to have the tools that allow us to gather with a lot of safety. It will mean, however, that all of us likely will need to take some commonsense precautions to avoid future disruptions and the spread of illness.”

While recommendations are being stressed more and more, experts note that an all-out mandate is not looking likely in LA County or elsewhere in California at this time.

“No one wants to bring that back,” explained Luisa Renteria, a nurse in Los Angeles who has assisted COVID patients since March 2020, to the Globe on Monday. “From what we’ve been told, a mandate is far down the list of what people want to do right now. The person who says  to do it again is going to face a lot of heat. Really, a mandate, right now, is only reserved if things get bad, or if another outbreak occurs. With Flu season and RSV happening right now, and now COVID moving up, easy precautions are still recommended. Wash hands, cough into your elbow, things like that.”

“I know by saying ‘mask mandate’ I make a lot of people get on edge because of how hated it was, but just remember it is something healthcare officials don’t take lightly. We don’t want to do this unless we have to as well.”

More info on possible indoor masking recommendations are expected with new case rate reports from LA County and others looking at possible action.

With COVID-19 Cases Increasing, Indoor Masking Strongly Recommended to Help Reduce Transmission of Respiratory Illnesses -2,249 New Positive Cases and 8 New Deaths Due to COVID-19 in Los Angeles County. View: https://t.co/omzYpsBzGF pic.twitter.com/a0BejdJQ0Y

— LA Public Health (@lapublichealth) November 18, 2022

The post LA County Department of Public Health Pushing Indoor Masking With Increase in COVID Cases appeared first on California Globe.

Almost two weeks following the mid-term elections, Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Businessman/Farmer John Duarte remain fiercely close in vote totals vying for the U.S. House of Representatives office for District 13. Less than 1,000 votes currently separating them and 95% of the votes in as of Monday.

Both Gray and Duarte campaigned with intensity ever since the primary for the newly redistricted San Joaquin Valley District in June. Against all odds, Duarte managed to come in first, despite both Democrats and Republicans having split votes due to the number of candidates. Duarte managed to get 34% of the vote over Gray’s 31%, beating union-backed Democrat Phil Arballo who had 17% and Republican Businessman David Giglio with 15%.

Both candidates had charged speeches over water usage and the drought in the area, with Gray being experienced through water bills that have come through the Assembly and Duarte personally fighting the Government over water usage given to the farms and towns in the district while as a farmer. Both also suffered hardships in that area, with Gray being stripped of a chairmanship in the Assembly by Speaker Anthony Rendon for casting a vote giving more water to farmers, and Duarte being sued by the federal government and having to settle.

While water use was the largest issue on the campaign trail, issues such as homelessness, abortion, and housing also were prominent. The key to winning for both was Latino voters, with Democrats expecting to retain many voting Democratic for the win; with the GOP increasing Latino outreach in the district.

Long expected to be a close race, Duarte gave a strong fall push, with many predictions ranging from leaning R to leaning D and no clear cut winner. Gray came out early ahead by a whisker on election day, but almost two weeks of votes trickling in has evened that out. On Monday, with 95% of the vote in, Duarte is only slightly ahead, with 63,539 votes, or 50.3%, to Gray with 62,674 votes, or 49.7%. With 95% of the vote in, California’s 13th House District is now the closest race in the nation this year.

While neither candidate has commented recently on the closesness of the race, Duarte noted last week shortly after retaking the lead, “We’re feeling good. We like the direction is going. Every day we know so much more. Right now, we like what we see. We feel good about our position. And we’ll continue to follow it and hope hope it stays on track.”

Meanwhile, Gray has formed an FEC committee to raise money for a possible recount.

#CA13 Democratic candidate Adam Gray forms an FEC committee to raise money for a recount in the Central Valley race where Republican John Duarte currently leads by 84 votes. https://t.co/T4jox0DzZf

— Rob Pyers (@rpyers) November 14, 2022

With more vote totals expected to come from district counties on Tuesday and Wednesday, as well as all voted required to be counted by early December, a winner in the 13th may be decided soon, although experts note that that will likely be  source of contention for the losing side.

“Republicans have been frustrated in the area because they have had a Democrat represent them for awhile under Jim Costa,” explained San Joaquin Valley pollster Juan Gomez to the Globe on Monday. “At the same time, there are a lot of Latinos and white farmers in the district who don’t feel like they are being represented. And, you know, the district has more registered Democrats, but those groups being left out and many other voters leaning right and not having a registered party really has made this race so much more closer than some predicted.”

“It’s now the closest House race this year. And even though the Republicans now have House control, for the people in this district, many are wanting a Congressman who hears them out. That’s why this race still isn’t decided. People want to feel represented in Congress. Badly. And we’ll know soon who it is, a farmer or a career politician.”

The District 13 race is expected to be decided soon.

The post Assemblyman Adam Gray, John Duarte Locked In Tightest House Race In Country appeared first on California Globe.

The United States Department of Energy announced  on Monday that $1.1 billion would be awarded to fund the short-term extension of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County well into the next decade.

The debate over extending the life of the Diablo Canyon Plant has been ongoing since 2018, when concerns over earthquakes, nuclear waste pollution, and other factors convinced the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to close the plant by 2025. Proponents of the plant quickly moved to try and extend the life of the plant, with concerns over state energy production quickly bringing more and more support in their favor. Many were attracted to the fact that keeping the plant open for a decade or two more would save the state $21 billion in systems costs, while others, concerned about large gaps in California’s energy production while transitioning into the 100% renewable energy power by 2045 goal, signaled support as a power source to help bridge the gap. The fact that Diablo Canyon provides 9% of California’s total energy production, and is a clean source of energy, has also convinced many people of keeping the plant open.

While several bills in the 2010’s and early 2020’s failed to keep the plant open, one, SB 846, was finally passed by both houses in the state legislature earlier this year. At the same time, Governor Gavin Newsom put out a proposal to keep the plant running for another 5-10 years, outlining how state and federal support would be needed. Despite signing the bill into law in September, over $1 billion in funding was still needed to make the extension feasible, as well as final approvals from multiple state and federal agencies, such as approval of a new license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

While some steps have been taken, a giant step was made Monday with the Department of Energy  when they awarded the $1.1 billion Civil Nuclear Credit Program grant into keeping the plant open.

“This is a critical step toward ensuring that our domestic nuclear fleet will continue providing reliable and affordable power to Americans as the nation’s largest source of clean electricity,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, who has been a proponent of keeping Diablo Canyon open, in a statement on Monday.

A DOE grant of $1.1 billion

Governor Newsom also stated on Monday that “Amid intensifying climate impacts in the West and across the country, California is focused on meeting our bold climate and clean energy goals while tackling the challenges of extreme weather that puts lives at risk and strains our grid. This investment creates a path forward for a limited-term extension of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant to support reliability statewide and provide an onramp for more clean energy projects to come online.

“I thank the Biden-Harris Administration for this critical support and the California Legislature for moving quickly to make this award possible. I look forward to our continued work together to build a clean, affordable and reliable energy future for our state.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who until recently had opposed the plant’s extension, also added in a statement that “I welcome the news that the Department of Energy has granted $1.1 billion to help keep the Diablo Canyon Power Plant open an additional five years.”

“This short-term extension is necessary if California is going to meet its ambitious clean-energy goals while continuing to deliver reliable power. This is especially critical as California’s electric grid has faced increasing challenges from climate-fueled extreme weather events. Shuttering the plant would remove 18,000 gigawatt-hours from the electric grid, nearly 10 percent of California’s electricity generation, energy that would very likely be replaced by dirty energy sources.”

“Instead, this federal investment will allow Diablo Canyon to continue producing carbon-free energy until 2030, giving the state the time it needs to bring additional renewable energy sources online and eventually replace the energy produced by the nuclear plant.”

Despite this, experts noted to the Globe on Monday that it is still not a done deal.

“Over a billion in funding by the DOE is going to go a long way,” Sal Braith, a nuclear engineer who has worked at multiple nuclear plants in the U.S., told the Globe on Monday. “But there are still some hard approvals ahead. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not kid around when it comes to this.

“Still, it is looking promising. A lot of people couldn’t imagine a few years ago we’d be this close to extending Diablo Canyon like this.”

Final federal approvals are expected to be decided on soon.

The post Department of Energy Awards $1.1 Billion In Funding For Diablo Canyon Plant Extension appeared first on California Globe.