California Globe

Bacon Just Received Temporary Judicial Clemency in California

Sat, 29 Jan 2022 03:26:34 +0200

Bacon just received some judicial clemency in California. “A California judge decided this week to delay enforcement of part of a new farm animal welfare law that critics said would cause price hikes and supply shortages for bacon and other fresh pork products in the state,” the Associated Press reported.

Why did bacon need a judge to save the savory meat?

California’s elected lawmakers have banned Fois Gras, sharkfin soup, plastic straws, “junk food” in schools, micro-beads in cosmetics, plastic grocery bags, Trans-fats, and now bacon? California even imposed a ban on fur products.

From the first state in the nation to offer prison inmates an all-vegan menu, California voters passed a ballot measure in 2018 mandating more living space for veal calves, cows and pigs, and banned the confinement of egg-laying hens in cages.

Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, also set up a ban on the sale of these agricultural products in California that don’t meet the new requirements, attempting to influence how farmers in other states raise their animals.

What a way to endear California to other states…

California is the largest market for pork in the county, so this matters to pork producers.

That law went into effect January 1, 2022, but the state was not ready for the ban. Lucky for bacon connoisseurs the California Department of Food and Agriculture has not finalized the structure for these new requirements. They’ve only had four years to do this.

The California Grocers Association, California Retailers Association, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and California Restaurant Association filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Public Health, the Attorney General and Sacramento District Attorney, and argued that the state’s lack of preparation made them vulnerable to fines or lawsuits.

They say in the lawsuit the state hasn’t even adopted Proposition 12 implementation regulations it was required to adopt over two years ago, leaving petitioners open to liability. “This disconnect between Proposition 12 as approved by voters and the state’s implementation of the law in the marketplace leaves market participants shouldering all of the uncertainty and legal risks,” they said in the lawsuit (below). “The state’s inability to put in place regulations implementing Proposition 12 in a timely manner will lead to substantial disruptions in the state’s pork supply chain in 2022.”

“The process by which whole pork makes its way from barn to table is complex,” petitioners say in the lawsuit, noting that the vast majority of pigs raised on farms are outside of California. “The pork supply chain usually includes seven and often ten or more separate steps from farm to table.” They explain that a breeding pig in Iowa that gives birth to piglets are then sold to another farm where they are raised until they reach market weight. Then the piglets may be sent to slaughter facilities and/or sold to different processors in many different states. As a result, California purchasers and distributors have no idea the conditions under which they have been raised.

Proposition 12 barely addressed this but did require involvement by the State Department of Public Health. The lawsuit says the California Food and Agriculture and State Department of Public Health blew the September 1, 2019 deadline for the regulations, and has nothing more than a rough draft leaving purchasers of pork products vulnerable to liability and lawsuits.

The judge granted petitioners a 6 month stay, and then 180 days after the regulations are issued, according to Courthouse News. “The act offers no guidance about the steps sellers must take before they should know that a particular product is traceable to a breeding pig that at some point in the distribution chain was confined in fewer than 24 square feet,” Arguelles wrote.

Pork products are clearly a complicated process from farm to table, and the state isn’t helping clear up the quagmire. Yahoo News reported in July that bacon may actually disappear in California because pork farmers can’t retool farms very easily to provide more space for hogs.

The rest of the country does not appreciate California’s nanny regulations as they reverberate across the land.

Are Californians really ready to embrace Tofurky’s “Smoky Maple Bacon,” “Smart Bacon,” Hooray Foods’ mushroom-based bacon with a hickory-smoked taste, or my favorite, “Benevolent Bacon?”

Bacon lawsuit

The post Bacon Just Received Temporary Judicial Clemency in California appeared first on California Globe.

San Francisco DA’s Office Denies Reducing Charges in Beating of Elderly Asian American

Sat, 29 Jan 2022 02:01:27 +0200

The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office released a statement on Thursday refuting claims charged in a recent lawsuit that involved the DA’s office lowering a racially-charged beating of an elderly man from a felony to a misdemeanor.

On Tuesday, the Alliance for Asian American Justice and Anh Lê sued the DA’s office for not allowing Le, the victim, to be a part of the case, refusing to prosecute the two assailants without informing Le, lowering their battery, felony elder abuse, and felony domestic terrorism threat charges to misdemeanors, and instead giving each assailant only one year probation.

“Although he was arrested for felony terroristic threats, felony elder abuse and battery because of the way my case has been handled by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office justice has not been served,” said Lê on Tuesday. “I am a survivor of a horrendous attack that took place in San Francisco with no consequences to my attackers.”

However, on Thursday, the DA’s office painted a different picture of the events. Instead of the violent beating claimed by Lê, the DA’s office claims that Lê had instead gotten his bike knocked over by the adult assailant, who uses a wheelchair. When Lê confronted them about taking up space on the sidewalk, the assailant’s young son simply swung a plastic bat at Lê while the assailant himself made threats while holding a bottle.

SFPD officers were soon called to the scene and arrested the two, but because of the details of the case, interim District Attorney Suzy Loftus pled down to the probation, as well as a stay-away order, as they did not want to follow what Le wanted and send the adult assailant to state prison and his child to be prosecuted. As for Lê not being there, the District Attorney’s office claims to have contacted him several times about appearing over the phone, e-mail, and mail.

“In his lawsuit, Mr. Lê falsely asserted that our office settled the case without consulting him or receiving any input from him. This is not accurate,” said the DA’s press release on Thursday. “Mr. Lê and the advocate communicated many times, but for a period of weeks, Mr. Lê did not respond to repeated messages from the advocate. The advocate also specifically reached out to Mr. Lê before the case resolved and indicated that the case might resolve and that the assigned prosecutor wanted to discuss the potential resolution with him. Mr. Lê did not respond to repeated efforts to reach him about the potential resolution. Nonetheless, following the case resolution, the advocate again reached out to Mr. Lê to inform him of the resolution and express a desire to talk to him about it.”

Victim’s account, DA’s account radically differs

Chief of Victim Services Division Kasie Lee specifically noted how the DA’s office wanted to remain sensitive to the Asian American community but needed to bring the facts out in the case.

“Given the lawsuit’s significant mischaracterizations of the events in this case — which have understandably led many community members to be upset and undermines the trust between crime victims and their advocates — we believe it is important to share correct information about the underlying case and explain the work of our office and our victim advocate in this case,” added Lee. “We also want to provide reassurance to victims that they will receive comprehensive services when working with our advocates. We will continue to do everything we can to support victims.”

Despite the press release on Thursday, many Asian American community activists continued to side with Le on Thursday, with many noting that attacks in the area more align with what Lê has said rather than what the DA presented.

“In a ‘he said, she said’ sort of case like this, a lot of people here are remembering back to attacks they witnessed against Asian Americans in the past few years,” explained Sarah Tan, an Asian American neighborhood watch leader to the Globe on Friday. “And what we have seen are violent attacks and confrontations. It’s not to say that the DA’s version is wrong. It’s just that, based on cases around here and what people have seen, what Lê said is familiar to many.”

“And look, same day, the SFPD announced that Asian hate crimes have shot up 567%. And look what else is happening, with crime going up all over the city. Both crimes against Asians and crime in general going up actually forced us to create a neighborhood watch here. The DA denying that the attack on Lê had been significant and not a hate crime seems to many like the DA not acknowledging that all this is going on. How can we trust that the DA saying that this wasn’t a big crime when we see so many each week?”

The lawsuit against the DA is expected to be heard in the near future.

The post San Francisco DA’s Office Denies Reducing Charges in Beating of Elderly Asian American appeared first on California Globe.

Ballot Security and Reporting of California Election Results

Sat, 29 Jan 2022 01:08:59 +0200

California’s Elections Code has numerous provisions related to semifinal and official canvasses and related procedures in Division 15. In Chapter 4, Article 6, there are statutory provisions related to ballot security and the reporting of results that are contained in Sections 15370 to 15377.

Section 15360 requires that, after ballots are counted and sealed, the elections official may not open any ballots nor permit any ballots to be opened. Section 15371 provides that, upon completion of the count, the elections official is required to add to the results of the write-in votes and any paper ballots used as certified by the precinct board, and thereafter declare the vote, and post one copy at the counting place for public inspection.

Section 15372 requires the elections official to prepare a certified statement of the results of the election and submit it to the governing body within 30 days of the election or, in the case of school district, community college district, county board of education, or special district elections conducted on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd-numbered years, no later than the last Monday before the last Friday of that month.

In addition, the elections official is required to post the certified statement of the results of the election on his or her Internet Web site in a downloadable spreadsheet format. The certified statement of the election results must be posted and maintained on the elections official’s Internet Web site for a period of at least 10 years following the election.

Section 15373 provides that, when ballots are counted under this article, the result of the vote is required to be shown by precinct. Section 15374 requires the statement of the result to show all of the following:

The total number of ballots cast.

The number of votes cast at each precinct for each candidate and for and against each measure.

The total number of votes cast for each candidate and for and against each measure.

In addition, the statement of the result is required to show the number of votes cast in each city, Assembly district, congressional district, senatorial district, State Board of Equalization district, and supervisorial district located in whole or in part in the county, for each candidate for the offices of presidential elector and all statewide offices, and on each statewide ballot proposition.

Section 15375 requires the elections official to send to the Secretary of State within 31 days of the election in an electronic format in the manner requested one complete copy of all results for the following:

All candidates voted for statewide office.

All candidates voted for Member of the Assembly.

All candidates voted for Member of the Senate.

All candidates voted for Member of the United States House of Representatives.

All candidates voted for Member of the State Board of Equalization.

All candidates voted for Justice of the Court of Appeal.

All candidates voted for Judge of the superior court.

All persons voted for at the presidential primary.

The vote given for persons for electors of President and Vice President of the United States.

All statewide measures.

The total number of ballots cast.

Section 15376 requires the elections official to deliver a duplicate of the certified statement of the result of votes cast to the chairperson of the county central committee of each party. Section 15377 requires the elections official to identify and provide to the Secretary of State within 31 days of the election the number of ballots rejected, categorized according to the reason for the rejection. The Secretary of State is required to provide uniform reason codes for each category of rejection to be used by elections officials for reporting under this section.

Finally, the Secretary of State must publish a report containing the information for every election, including local special elections, on the Secretary of State’s internet website.

The post Ballot Security and Reporting of California Election Results appeared first on California Globe.

Secretary of State Weber Says Potential Reparations Would Be For Descendants of Slaves Only

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 22:19:43 +0200

Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the author of AB 3121 and the California legislative Slavery Reparations Task Force, said on Thursday that reparations for slavery should only go to the descendants of slaves and not black immigrants or their descendants.

In 2020, AB 3121 was passed and signed into law. The bill established the “Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans”, with the task force charged with documenting and looking into issues surrounding slavery in California, including denying free and runaway blacks into the state pre-1865. Most critically, the task force is to issue recommendations if any kind of reparations are to be given. Specifically, the task force, comprised of 9 members selected by the Governor, Assembly, and Senate, is also to set parameters on who would be eligible for possible reparations and how reparations, most likely cash, would be distributed.

The task force first met in June of 2021 and is due to issue their recommendations in 2023. Following that, the legislature may create a bill and vote on what the task force recommends.

Secretary Weber noted on Thursday that her approach of just limiting reparations to direct descendants of slaves is based on the psychological effects of slavery and how it stopped many from achieving success, and not just the physicality of the experience. Specifically she pointed out how her Grandfather’s chances of success had been limited by the KKK in the 1950’s and forcing him to move to California from Arkansas, while former President Barack Obama, the son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father who was in the US on a visa, did not grow up with parents or grandparents who had faced slavery or the century of Jim crow laws and effects afterwards.

“The fear my grandfather felt, I remember as a child, was palpable, and it crippled him and his family’s ability to dream beyond the cotton fields,” said Weber on Thursday. “Barack Obama likely never would have dreamed of becoming president had he descended from enslaved people. Obama did not have limitations and fears drilled in his psyche, and thus aspire to become the president of the United States.”

However, despite the scope of possible reparations now being limited to just descendants of slaves, which the task force has found to have led to financial, health, education, and housing disparities compared to other races, many questions continue to loom over the task force. Weber’s answer on who would qualify for reparations led to only more questions from critics on Friday, who said that even narrowing it that far still led to it being still virtually impossible to rightfully tell who from who.

A continued “legal minefield”

“I keep using the term “legal minefield”, and the task force, especially Secretary Weber’s definition of who should get reparations, certainly have been proving it.

“Again, putting aside the fact that California was a free state and, despite some KKK and other racial activity like that, was a beacon for many escaping the worst of it in the South, there’s not really a lot to justify reparations here. Weber herself said that her family went to California to escape that, so she’s not helping her case here.

“A big question was who should get it, and Weber didn’t answer it. Ok, so descendants of slaves in California. Does that mean biracial people too? Does that mean people who moved out of state, or in-state recently? Does a black family who moved out of state last year after spending 40 years in state get anything? And, perhaps the biggest thing, proving it. You can’t rely on DNA tests or anything like that here, because of immigration from Africa and other countries with black populations. This is largely reliable on the people who would get them, and a lot of people can’t really prove it. Some can, through ledgers and things, but you can’t rely on the Census or other things like that because, for slaves, they were kind of inaccurate. For many, this is an impossible task.

“Japanese internment reparations worker because records had been kept and we knew who was there for sure. Slavery, not so much. Compensation, if it’s cash, housing allowances, or something else, is way more tricky. Do wealthy descendants get anything if it didn’t effect them much? Do biracial people only get half? These are legitimate questions that are not being solved, especially many surrounding the black population of California only being at 6%, and there are hundreds more.”

A final report on recommendations is due next year. The legislature will decide then if a bill or other measure like a proposition would be instituted to possibly enact any recommended reparations.

The post Secretary of State Weber Says Potential Reparations Would Be For Descendants of Slaves Only appeared first on California Globe.

Duties of Secretary of State for Voting Results

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:24:23 +0200

The California Elections Code specifies certain duties for the Secretary of State related to the canvass of votes in this state. These provisions are contained in Division 15, Chapter 7. Section 15500 requires the Secretary of State, commencing with the first results from the semifinal official canvass received from elections officials, to compile the results for the offices and measures on the ballot until completed.

In addition, the Secretary of State is required to immediately make public the results of the compilation of those offices and measures. The Secretary of State also must compile and make those results reported available to any person or organization upon request. Section 15501 requires the Secretary of State to compile the results for all of the following:

All candidates for statewide office.

All candidates for Assembly, State Senate, Congress, State Board of Equalization, Supreme Court, and Courts of Appeal.

All statewide measures.

In addition, the Secretary of State is required to prepare, certify, and file a statement of the vote from the compiled results no later than the 38th day after the election. The Secretary of State must post the certified statement of the vote on his or her Internet Web site in a downloadable spreadsheet format. The certified statement of the vote is required to be posted and maintained on the Secretary of State’s Internet Web site for a period of at least 10 years following the election.

Section 15502 states that, within 120 days of the filing of the statement of the vote, the Secretary of State must compile a supplement to the statement of the vote showing the number of votes cast in each county, city, Assembly district, senatorial district, congressional district and supervisorial district for each candidate for the offices of presidential elector, Governor, and United States Senator, and on each statewide ballot proposition.

Section 15503 specifies that, on the 38th day after the election, or as soon within that time as the returns have been received from the entire state or a congressional district, the Secretary of State must determine the votes cast for candidates for Senator and Representative and certify to the persons having the highest number of votes for the respective offices as duly elected.

Section 15504 requires the Secretary of State to make out and deliver, or transmit by mail, a certificate of election or nomination to each person elected or nominated. Section 15505 requires, no later than the 32nd day following the election, the Secretary of State to analyze the votes given for presidential electors, and certify to the Governor the names of the proper number of persons having the highest number of votes.

In addition, the Secretary of State is required to issue and transmit to each presidential elector a certificate of election. The certificate must be accompanied by a notice of the time and place of the meeting of the presidential electors and a statement that each presidential elector will be entitled to a per diem allowance and mileage in the amounts specified.

The post Duties of Secretary of State for Voting Results appeared first on California Globe.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Votes To Give 10-Day Warning Period For About-To-Be Evicted Tenants

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:16:02 +0200

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously voted in favor of an ordinance on Wednesday that would require all landlords within the city to give all tenants facing eviction a 10-day warning period in order to have time to fix or pay off whatever is needed to avoid being ousted.

Since the beginning of this decade, tenant rights have increased in California, largely due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for people to stay inside. In 2020, the state put AB 1482 into motion, capping all rent increases in the state at 5% each year, plus local inflation. Local rent control measures also went up during the pandemic, with many more cities proposing measures to add them as well.

Statewide, eviction protections also increased, with an eviction moratorium continuing throughout most of 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic. Eviction notices for non-payment of rent were also given more a time period for tenants, going from the three-day eviction notice to a fifteen-day notice. Many places also drastically increased the difficulty of evicting tenants, adding more steps in the process, allowing tenants more time to either pay the outstanding rent, or remedy any violations they broke during their tenancy.

San Francisco’s ordinance on Wednesday followed the current state trend for more tenant rights. According to the ordinance, landlords would have to give tenants a ten-day warning period to allow for them to correct their actions before giving them the three-day eviction notice.

SF City Supervisor Dean Preston (Photo: Official Twitter page)

Supervisor Dean Preston, who authored the ordinance, noted on Wednesday that this would give tenants more protections and would help insure that pandemic-era eviction protections would become permanent.

“It’s important that we take things that have worked in our pandemic response and look at making some of them permanent,” noted Preston. “One of the biggest positive changes during COVID has been, for the most part, making evictions a tool of last resort, rather than the starting point for landlord-tenant disputes. This law takes this lesson, and applies it permanently, in a targeted and common sense way. This ordinance is a big step toward reducing evictions and keeping folks in their homes.”

Landlords in the city were largely mixed on the ordinance passing the Board, with many hinting that, if signed by the Mayor, it could be facing a lawsuit.

“When this is approved, a lot of landlords are thinking about suing the city,” said San Francisco landlord Leonard Lee to the Globe on Thursday. “We’re being squeezed more and more, and this ordinance would make it much more harder to get rid of tenants who proved to be flippant about not paying rent or have been destructive or ruined the inside by breaking the tenant agreement.

“This isn’t about greed or anything else like that. It really isn’t. It’s about protecting our property and not having to repair for exorbitant repairs out of pocket.”

The ordinance will now go to Mayor London Breed to sign into law. That, however, is moot, as even if she doesn’t sign, the unanimous vote can override her veto.

The post San Francisco Board of Supervisors Votes To Give 10-Day Warning Period For About-To-Be Evicted Tenants appeared first on California Globe.

Tie Votes in California Elections

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:32:49 +0200

On rare occasions, there can be a tie vote in an election. California law provides guidance in such instances. Contained in Elections Code Division 15, Chapter 10, the rules are found in Sections 15650 to 15673. Article 1 deals with elections other than primary elections. Section 15651 specifies that, if in an election two or more persons receive an equal and the highest number of votes for an office, the Secretary of State must summon the candidates who have received the tie votes to appear before him or her at the Secretary of State’s office at the State Capitol at a time to be designated by him or her. The Secretary of State must at that time and place determine the tie by lot.

Section 15652 specifies that, if the tie vote has been determined by lot, the person declared elected by the Secretary of State or the election board is entitled to a certificate of election. The Secretary of State, the county elections official or the city elections official must immediately make out and deliver to that person a certificate of election.

Section 15653 requires, when two or more persons have an equal and highest number of votes for either Governor or Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State is required to deliver a certificate to that effect to each of the tied candidates. Each tied candidate may present the certificate to the Legislature in the manner that he or she sees fit.

Section 15654 requires, in case any two or more persons have an equal and highest number of votes for either Governor or Lieutenant Governor, the Legislature must, by a joint vote of both houses, choose one of the persons to fill the office.

Article 2 deals with primary elections. Section 15670 specifies that this article applies only to candidates for delegates to a national convention for the nomination of party candidates for President and Vice President of the United States, as well as candidates for nomination at the direct primary to offices other than nonpartisan offices or voter-nominated offices.

Section 15671 requires, in case of a tie vote for member of a county central committee, where the office is to be voted for wholly within one county, the election board must summon the candidates who have received tie votes to appear before it, at a time and place to be designated by the board, and the board must at that time and place determine the tie by lot.

Section 15672 requires, in the case of a tie vote for an office other than a judicial or school office to be voted on in more than one county, the Secretary of State must summon the candidates who have received tie votes to appear before him or her at his or her office at the State Capitol at a time to be designated by him or her and the Secretary of State must at that time and place determine the tie by lot.

Section 15673 provides that the summons mentioned in this article must in every case be mailed to the address of the candidate as it appears upon his or her affidavit of registration, at least five days before the day fixed for the determination of the tie vote.

The post Tie Votes in California Elections appeared first on California Globe.

Los Angeles City Council Passes Motion That May Lead To New Oil, Gas Extraction Ban in City

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:26:14 +0200

The Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted in favor of a motion on Wednesday that would direct city attorneys to draft an ordinance to ban all new oil and gas extraction, as well as phase out all existing wells over the next twenty years.

Both California and Los Angeles County have introduced new laws in the past few years that greatly limit oil and gas extraction in California, largely due to health and environmental concerns. Last year alone, California has passed laws or signed agreements to ban new gas and oil development from taking place within 3, 200 feet of most existing buildings, ban fracking by 2024, ban all oil extraction by 2045, and phase out oil and gas production by 2045. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors also approved a law to ban all new oil wells and drilling in unincorporated parts of the County and closing 1,600 idle or unused wells.

The LA City Council would go a step further than both. If approved as an ordinance later this year, LA would phase out new drilling much sooner than the state, and would lead the county to phase out production much sooner than the state’s 2045 date.

However, in order for the ordinance to work, city officials will first need to analyze what the economic outlook would be with such a ban in place, including what lost city tax revenue would be and how many jobs would be lost. The report would address those concerns by looking into how much money green energy could bring in, with how many current oil and gas jobs could be switched over to clean energy.

A study on the wells will also take place. If the study finds that wells have recouped any losses that the company spent on drilling, land, and other major costs, it will remove the largest barrier to have them closed.

On Wednesday, the Council reviewed both the environmental dangers of the gas wells, such as their large carbon foot print, and health dangers of living around them, which was shown through multiple studies to be worsening the health of Los Angeles residents living nearby. Many Council members specifically called out these dangers before the vote.

LA City Council President Nury Martinez. (Photo: https://www.nury-martinez.com/)

“From Wilmington to the San Fernando Valley, gas, drilling and and oil wells have disproportionately affected the health of our working-class neighborhoods,” City Council President, Nury Martinez said. “This is yet another example of how frontline communities disproportionately bear the impacts of pollution and climate change. Los Angeles is a city that constantly leads the way and today let it be a reminder that the city council prioritizes the health and wellbeing for every Angeleno.”

Members also noted that while oil production did help Los Angeles to explode in growth in the early 1900’s and provided jobs for tens of thousands of people, especially returning war veterans, for much of the 20th century, a changing climate, new medical studies on health effects, and diminishing oil reserves in the area have pointed for the need for oil drilling to be phased away.

“Oil drilling in Los Angeles might have made sense in the early part of the 20th century, but it sure doesn’t make a lot of sense now that we’ve become a megalopolis at the beginning of the 21st century,” said Councilman Paul Krekorian on Wednesday.

“It has been a long slog,” added Councilman Paul Koretz. “This effort is over 100 years overdue – and it is about time.”

LA one step closer to banning all new oil, gas extraction

Environmentalists and health officials were happy with the decision on Thursday.

“No community should be a sacrifice zone,” said executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-L.A. Martha Dina Arguello.

“LA needed a better commitment to fighting climate change, and they just took a huge step with this one,” said LA-based climate event organizer Lydia Wilde to the Globe on Thursday. “In LA you can still see the pollution some days, and one of the big culprits are these oil wells and other places where they get it. It isn’t environmentally sound, and today the Council agreed.”

Those in the oil industry countered that the loss of the oil industry in LA would cost a large chunk of city revenue, would cause the loss of 8,300 jobs, and would leave to even higher fuel costs. In addition, they said that what the Council is trying to do is illegal, and such a ban would be violating the U.S. Constitution.

“Shutting down domestic energy production not only puts Californians out of work and reduces taxes that pay for vital services, but it makes us more dependent on imported foreign oil from Saudi Arabia and Iraq that is tankered into LA’s crowded port,” California Independent Petroleum Association CEO Rock Zierman said on Wednesday. I also question the city’s ability to legally move forward with the plan. Taking someone’s property without compensation, particularly one which is duly permitted and highly regulated, is illegal and violates the US constitution’s fifth amendment against illegal search and seizure.”

James Gomez, a former oilfield foreman in LA, added, “These are thousands of people they want out of work. Thousands. They need to have good career paths lined up for them so they aren’t starting back on square one with minimum pay at age 50 or 60. Maybe those environmentalists or Council members will give them jobs with pay comparable to what they are getting now, right?”

“They need to make sure they know the consequences for what they are doing too. We all know that oil isn’t going to last forever, and even the hardest-nosed oilman out there will admit that green energy and electric cars are the future. But we need oil now, not only for current needs, but to help transition to a new energy era. And we can’t do that if they stop the wells. To get the future they want we need need to keep doing these things for a little while more in the present, but they don’t seem to understand it. 2045 is the big date, but they need to be flexible with it. This isn’t flexible.”

The ordinance vote over the ban is expected to be held later this year.

The post Los Angeles City Council Passes Motion That May Lead To New Oil, Gas Extraction Ban in City appeared first on California Globe.

Attorneys Win Removal of COVID-19 Vaccine Requirement for Piedmont School Kids

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:12:13 +0200

Attorneys for Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter and Protection for the Educational Rights of Kids recently filed a lawsuit against Piedmont Unified School District over the district’s adoption of “an illegal Covid-19 vaccine mandate for students aged 5 and older.” The lawsuit said the “mandate requires every ‘eligible’ student in the District to get the controversial and not FDA approved vaccines or be forced into distance learning and/or independent study.”

Facing charges of illegal segregation and discrimination, last evening the Piedmont School District Board voted to approve a revision of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement, now allowing students to attend classes in person without the vaccination.

“The Piedmont USD Board is vacating the entire COVID-19 vaccine mandate — and all associated discriminatory conditions that went along with it, such as arbitrarily discriminating against the unvaccinated in terms of extracurricular activities or other educational benefits, which is key,” Attorney Rita Barnett Rose told the Globe Thursday.

“This is unlike a school district like LAUSD, which only delayed their punitive plan to remove unvaccinated students to independent study program but continues to discriminate against these students — even when it is now abundantly clear that the COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t prevent infection or transmission….”

This all came about because earlier this month, the judge assigned to the case ordered an expedited hearing on the petition and stayed enforcement of the District’s legally dubious COVID-19 vaccine mandate until a further and final hearing on the merits. On January 11, 2022, attorneys argued their Ex-Parte Application for Alternative Writ of Mandate on behalf of Children’s Health Defense California Chapter, Protection for the Educational Rights of Kids, and two DOE Petitioners whose children attend school within the District.

As the parent/student rights groups explain in a recent press statement, “The stayed mandate was aimed at all K-12 students in the District ages 5-18, making it the most restrictive in the entire country. PUSD is also the only school district in the state of California currently mandating experimental vaccines on students under 12 years old. Obtaining a stay for the parents of elementary school students who were concerned about the rushed mandate was one of the primary reasons this District was sued.”

“This is huge win for our Petitioners, because the District will not be able to enforce the requirement, or remove unvaccinated children involuntarily to an independent study alternative, unless and until it can prove that it has the legal authority to require it,” said Jessica Barsotti, the attorney arguing in front of Judge Seligman.

The Oakland Unified School District has also backed down from its COVID-19 vaccination deadline of January 2, 2022, which they bumped to January 31st. It has now been pushed out to August 2022. More than 6,000 Oakland school district students – more than one-third of all students – are still not fully vaccinated despite a requirement that would remove them from in-person instruction, MSN reported.

School districts appear to be realizing that if these “unlawful and unconstitutional” mandatory vaccine policies stay in place, they could be looking at a mass exodus of students from these schools and districts, and possibly lawsuits alleging segregation and discrimination.

Ex Parte Final Order 34772251_01_12_2022_Order_Granting_Petitioners__Application_for_Alternati____v2

The post Attorneys Win Removal of COVID-19 Vaccine Requirement for Piedmont School Kids appeared first on California Globe.

Governor Newsom Announces $10 Billion Combined Plan For More Zero Emissions Vehicles, ZEV Infrastructure

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 00:43:18 +0200

Governor Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday that he would be adding another $6.1 billion to his $3.9 billion zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) program created last year to ramp up electric vehicle adoption and infrastructure for when California stops the sale of gas-powered vehicles in 2035 and to becoming carbon-free utility-wise by 2045.

Under the now $10 billion combined plan, Newsom has focused on several areas where electric vehicle usage and infrastructure would generally be lower without state support. One such area is low-income neighborhoods. According to his plan, $256 million will go toward subsidies for electric vehicles for low-income people with another $900 million going towards ZEV infrastructure in those neighborhoods such as high-power fast charging stations and at-home charging options. Another $419 million would be going to zero-emission mobility projects in the same areas, such as sustainable transportation and equity projects.

Heavy vehicles such as trucks and buses will also see significant state investment. In addition to the 2,000 buses already being purchased as a result of the first part of the plan announced in September, California will pay an additional $935 million to add another 1,000 short-haul trucks and 1,700 buses to the state’s fleet. School buses will specifically see a $1.5 billion injection to rapidly switch over school district fleets, with another $1.1 billion going to buy more miscellaneous needed ZEV trucks, buses, and off road equipment, along with more charging stations. Ports would also not be ignored, with $400 million going to electrification programs there.

Finally, high carbon-emitting areas such as ports, airports, and rail lines would see $200 million go towards pilot programs and demonstrations to bring zero-emissions solutions to these areas and gradually reduce their carbon footprints.

Governor Newsom pointed out several needs during a press conference in Palo Alto on Wednesday, including reducing oil dependence and having more ZEV owners in place to fight climate change, boosting the growing electric vehicle industry in California, and to prepare for the end of gas-powered vehicle sales in 13 years.

“The future is electric, and we’re making it easier and cheaper than ever before to go electric,” the Governor said in a statement. “That means more assistance to help folks buy clean cars and more charging stations in more communities throughout the state. California is eliminating our dependence on oil and providing a blueprint for the entire world on how to aggressively fight the climate crisis while growing the state’s clean energy economy.”

California and companies like @Ford are making zero-emission vehicles more accessible than ever before.

We’re proposing a $10 billion package to accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicles & fight climate change. #CAblueprint pic.twitter.com/17JhsQBE1c

— Office of the Governor of California (@CAgovernor) January 27, 2022

A $10 billion combined plan

Environmental groups praised the Governor’s additional allocation on Wednesday, specifically noting how the focus on low-income areas would help boost those areas now before becoming a critical need in the future.

“To achieve California’s climate goals we must focus on the needs of the most polluted and underserved neighborhoods. Governor Newsom’s ZEV investment proposal recognizes this reality,” said Alvaro Sanchez, Vice President of Policy at The Greenlining Institute. “We’re excited to work with the Governor and the Legislature to prove to the rest of the country that we can not only advance our climate agenda but also advance equity.”

However, critics pointed out that Newsom’s additional funding ignores general consumers when it comes to personal cars, as well as pumping in billions into a system that would otherwise organically grow with demand.

“Besides maybe the charging stations, this bill ignores average Californian driver,” explained Jim Cohen, a Los Angeles -based lawyer who has dealt with electric vehicle lawsuits in the past, to the Globe on Thursday. “While some rebates are currently available for ZEV purchases, there’s nothing here that would boost consumers to buy more than currently available. Californians know the electric vehicle revolution is coming and have been buying more and more. But rather let it happen naturally, California just keeps speeding the whole thing up, with many not being ready for this huge change. The state should be focusing on areas ready for the change and spread out from there, have more localized and spreading adoption. Under this, they expect everyone to get on board all over, even though that is far from the case.”

The new allocated funds are expected to be dispersed soon.

The post Governor Newsom Announces $10 Billion Combined Plan For More Zero Emissions Vehicles, ZEV Infrastructure appeared first on California Globe.

‘China-made KN95’ Masks Distributed to Congress, California Students, Required at Super Bowl

Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:09:57 +0200

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently updated its guidance on masks for the public, now saying that cloth masks do not protect against COVID-19. Their updated guidance states “people can choose respirators such as N95s and KN95s,” because they offer the best protection against Covid-19.”

As of January 5, 2022, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is requiring masks to be worn in all indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccine status, until February 15, 2022. Specifically, the CDPH requires “surgical masks or higher-level respirators (e.g., N95s, KN95s, KF94s) with good fit are recommended.”

Despite no masking requirements at previous NFL football games, Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer announced Tuesday attendees at the February 13, 2022 Super Bowl LVI will be required to wear KN95 masks while at the game at SoFi stadium, unless they are eating or drinking. KN95 masks will be mandatory and distributed to fans with standard COVID protocols expected to be followed, the Daily Mail reported. Expect to see 100,000 discarded masks in the stands at the end of the game.

California school children are now required to ditch the cloth mask and wear a N95 or KN95 mask, and public schools are handing these out.

President Joe Biden even announced last week his administration was giving away 400 million N95 masks from the Strategic National Stockpile to all Americans who request them.

Last week, following the latest mask order, China-made KN95 masks were distributed to congressional offices, with House Republicans demanding answers from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Newsweek reported.

That triggered more than 120 GOP lawmakers to send a letter to Pelosi describing their “disbelief and outrage” that the masks were being handed out “when American alternatives are available.”

Speaker Pelosi sent out N-95 masks to every House office. Unfortunately, I can’t read the instructions. pic.twitter.com/4nDTTkayFQ

— Bryan Steil (@BryanSteil) January 20, 2022

“That letter says if members are required to wear masks officials should ‘at least respect the institution and the taxpayers enough not to line the pockets of our adversary whose actions led to the current pandemic.'”

The letter continues: “Under your tenure, you have closed the Capitol to the American people, implemented COVID-19 protocols in the House that conflict with the Senate, and now, you have handed out masks from China when American alternatives are available, Newsweek reported.

“Quite simply, there is no reason that our elected officials and government workers should be given KN95 masks manufactured in China.”

The CDC even has a page dedicated to “Factors to Consider When Planning to Purchase Respirators from Another Country, Including KN95 Respirators from China.”

I wonder if @SpeakerPelosi knew before she purchased and distributed KN95 masks which prominently say “MADE IN CHINA,” that a Florida company is currently making 2 million N95 masks a day, employing 350 Americans. #BuyAmerican #MakeAmerican https://t.co/1e8w8ewfom pic.twitter.com/DaVEII8IfA

— Bill Posey (@congbillposey) January 19, 2022

Remember when Gov. Gavin Newsom approved spending $1 Billion of taxpayers funds in April 2020 on 200 million masks a month from Chinese company BYD, a major global player in the electric vehicle and lithium battery markets, but not a mask manufacturer. BYD had no history of making personal protective equipment, and yet days after the hasty FDA approval, it secured a $1 billion deal to supply masks to California.

The Globe asked, “Is Newsom going to broker the masks to other states? Why does California need 200 million masks a month?”

Clouding up the deal even more, Vice reported. “Soon after the FDA cleared the way for imports of KN95s, California also relaxed its standards, noting KN95 masks ‘may be an acceptable alternative’ due to the supply shortage, the state’s Department of Health records show.”

However, a serious issue at the time was California lawmakers were not privy to details of the $1 Billion contracts signed by Gov. Newsom with BYD. They sent him a letter demanding details of the agreement, saying there has been too little transparency in spending those massive taxpayer dollars.

Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), who was chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee at the time, sent the tersely worded letter to Newsom’s Director of Finance. Mitchell asked for details on the contract Newsom signed to buy 200 million masks per month through an American subsidiary of the Chinese company. That demand went nowhere.

A letter to parents from the San Dieguito Union High School District raised eyebrows even more warning that the masks handed out to kids in school have been recalled:

“N95 Mask Update: According to the California Office of Emergency Services, the state was recently informed that certain N95 masks sourced from BYD Precision Manufacture Co., Ltd. have an issue with particle filtration efficiency. The state is advising all customers who may have received these respirators to inspect and return any nonconforming units.”

The 120 members of Congress had it right: “Quite simply, there is no reason that our elected officials and government workers should be given KN95 masks manufactured in China.

The post ‘China-made KN95’ Masks Distributed to Congress, California Students, Required at Super Bowl appeared first on California Globe.

Provisional Voting in California

Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:44:54 +0200

Like in other states, California allows “provisional voting.” It is governed by the state’s Elections Code in Division 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, in Sections 14310 to 14314. Section 14310 provides that, at all elections, a voter claiming to be properly registered, but whose qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be immediately established upon examination of the roster for the precinct or upon examination of the records on file with the county elections official, must be entitled to vote a provisional ballot according to the following:

An elections official must advise the voter of the voter’s right to cast a provisional ballot.

The voter must be provided a provisional ballot, written instructions regarding the process and procedures for casting the ballot, and a written affirmation regarding the voter’s registration and eligibility to vote.

The voter is required to execute, in the presence of an elections official, the written affirmation stating that the voter is eligible to vote and registered in the county where the voter desires to vote.

Once voted, the voter’s ballot must be sealed in a provisional ballot envelope, and the ballot in its envelope is deposited in the ballot box. All provisional ballots voted must remain sealed in their envelopes for return to the elections official in accordance with the elections official’s instructions. The provisional ballot envelopes must be of a color different than the color of, but printed substantially similar to, the envelopes used for vote by mail ballots, and must be completed in the same manner as vote by mail envelopes.

During the official canvass, the elections official is required to examine the records with respect to all provisional ballots cast. Using the procedures that apply to the comparison of signatures on vote by mail ballots, the elections official must compare the signature on each provisional ballot envelope with the signature on the voter’s affidavit of registration or other signature in the voter’s registration record. If the signatures do not compare or the provisional ballot envelope is not signed, the ballot must be rejected. A variation of the signature caused by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, does not invalidate the ballot.

In addition, provisional ballots are prohibited from being included in any semiofficial or official canvass, except under one of the following conditions:

The elections official establishes prior to the completion of the official canvass, from the records in his or her office, the claimant’s right to vote.

The provisional ballot has been cast and included in the canvass.

Upon the order of a superior court in the county of the voter’s residence.

A voter may seek a court order regarding his or her own ballot at any time prior to completion of the official canvass. Any judicial action or appeal has priority over all other civil matters and a fee cannot be charged by the court. In addition, the Secretary of State is required to establish a free access system that any voter who casts a provisional ballot may access to discover whether the voter’s provisional ballot was counted and, if not, the reason why it was not counted.

Section 14311 specifies that a voter who has moved from one address to another within the same county and who has not reregistered to vote at that new address may, at his or her option, vote on the day of the election at the polling place at which he or she is entitled to vote based on his or her current residence address, or at the office of the county elections official or other central location designated by that elections official.

Section 14312 requires this article to be liberally construed in favor of the provisional voter. Section 14313 provides that, upon the declaration of a state of emergency by the Governor and the issuance of an executive order authorizing an emergency worker to cast a ballot outside of his or her home precinct, elections officials in the counties included in the executive order are required, upon demand, to issue to an emergency worker a provisional ballot that may be identical to the provisional ballot offered to other voters in the county, using a process to be determined by the elections official.

Section 14314 requires the Secretary of State to promulgate regulations establishing guidelines for county elections officials relating to the processing of provisional ballots.

The post Provisional Voting in California appeared first on California Globe.

Expert Testimony Limitations, Wrongful Convictions Bill Passed By Senate

Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:15:25 +0200

A bill that would greatly raise the standards for evaluating expert testimony and forensics in courts, as well as make it easier for those convicted to try for exoneration based on false expert witness testimony, was passed 30-3 by the Senate on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 467, authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), would expand what is included under false testimony and would count flawed scientific research and outdated research, namely, expert opinions ‘lacking valid methodology, research, peer-reviewed studies, or scientifically sound data’, from being included as valid testimony.

Those convicted because of false expert testimony would also have an easier path to exoneration, allowing those convicted to employ a writ of habeas corpus because of faulty testimony under the new parameters of SB 467.

SB 467 specifically states that “This bill would additionally allow a person to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus if expert opinion testimony that was material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced and a reasonable dispute within the relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion has developed or further developed after the person’s trial. The bill would also expand the definition of false evidence to include the opinions of experts that are undermined by scientific research that existed at the time of the expert’s testimony and opinions.”

The bill, also known as the End Wrongful Convictions Act, quickly passed through several Senate committees earlier this month before being placed on the suspense file. While many had expected it to stay there for some time to shore up more support, it turned back around a day later and unanimously passed the Senate Appropriations Committee. This led to the Senate vote on Wednesday, passing 30-3 with a strong bipartisan majority, with only a few Republicans voting against SB 467.

SB 467 passes Senate

Senator Wiener maintained on Wednesday that the bill would help reduce the number of wrongful convictions as well as help reduce the amount of preconceived notions that juries and courts have for forensic witnesses and testimony due to television and other media.

Senator Jim Nielsen. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

“Experts testifying in our courts need to rely on sound science and logic, or their testimony should not be admissible,” said Senator Wiener in a statement on Wednesday. “Innocent people’s lives depend on the standards we set in our courts. Faulty forensic science is a major reason that people are wrongfully convicted of crimes – and that is a moral stain on our state. The End Wrongful Convictions Act will help make our state more fair and just.”

Dissenting Senators, however, pointed out that the bill would likely only add to the reduction of criminal penalties in the state and that another way is needed to keep expert testimony fact-based and on track to reduce the number of wrongful convictions

“These are just more attempts to erode the justice system to ensure that justice for the victims of crimes do not see justice done, that individuals who have committed crimes have more venues to escape any consequences for their behaviors,” said Senator Jim Nielsen (R-Red Bluff) after the vote on Wednesday.

Others noted on Wednesday that SB 467 defied the odds and was passed with a near-majority, and that that success may not be replicated in the Assembly.

“A lot of the worry people had went away after it came back from the suspense file,” said “Dana,” a State Capitol staffer, to the Globe on Wednesday. “The bill had one small amendment, which along with convincing from supporters, really turned the tide.”

“But now it goes to the Assembly, which has double the number of people. They also tend to get to the nit and gritty of their constituents concerns, so a lot of wrongfully convicted people as well as a lot of families who had people put away because of expert testimony will be calling or e-mailing or texting or writing in about this. The Assembly won’t be as easy.”

SB 467 is due to go to the Assembly in the coming days.

The post Expert Testimony Limitations, Wrongful Convictions Bill Passed By Senate appeared first on California Globe.

Fremont Tesla Factory Named Most Efficient Auto Factory in North America

Thu, 27 Jan 2022 01:53:53 +0200

According to a new Bloomberg report, Fremont’s Tesla factory, the only car factory in California, is the most productive auto plant in North America, beating out 70 other factories.

In 2021, the Fremont factory produced an average of 8,550 cars a week, topping the 8,427 made weekly at Toyota’s Georgetown, Kentucky plant, the 8,343 produced per week at BMW’s Spartanburg, South Carolina factory, and the 5,564 created at Ford’s Dearborn, Michigan facility.

The announcement surprised many due to Tesla’s rapid growth and recent problems in California. Founded in 2003 by Elon Musk, Tesla first began producing vehicles in 2008. By 2012, the Fremont plant was only producing 60 cars a week. However, the boom of electric cars followed the Great Recession and consumers willingness to pay more for them. Tesla exploded in growth throughout the latter 2010’s and into the 2020’s.

During this time, the company began to get annoyed with higher taxes in California, as well as the numerous attempts to unionize the factory. The economic shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in early to mid 2020 drew the ire of Musk, who quickly scrambled to reopen the factory as soon as possible. Musk reopened early anyway and threatened to leave the state, causing Alameda County officials and state lawmakers to openly mock him.

Tesla founder Elon Musk in New York City, August 2021. (Photo: Naresh111 / Shutterstock.com)

Musk proceeded to leave California for Texas in late 2020, with Musk moving the company headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin a year later. Despite this, Musk has also renewed commitment to California projects, expanding the Fremont factory as much as possible and even building a new battery Megafactory in Lathrop.

The Fremont factory, as well as a Shanghai car factory, a Sparks, Nevada battery Gigafactory, have combined to create 936,000 vehicles this year, as well as help break more into the expanding battery market. While Tesla is still dwarfed by car companies that produce millions a year and a factory combined 30-50 thousand cars a week, Tesla may be primed to overtake many in the coming years.

In addition to the new Lathrop factory, new auto giga factories in Austin and Berlin are expected to open soon to better serve the North American and European markets, with sites for other Gigafactories currently being scouted.

In Fremont, California once again having the most productive car factory on the continent has been the result of drastic demand expanding the facility as much as possible, going past the limits that GM had utilized at the plant when they had built cars there decades ago.

“If you go to our Fremont factory it’s jammed,” said Musk last year. “When we first went in there, we were like a kid in his parent’s shoes. Now we’re like spam-in-a-can here.”

Fremont Tesla factory named most efficient auto factory

While the Austin plant is expected to alleviate the demand, output at the Fremont factory is not expected to go down. Due to strong demand for Teslas on the West Coast, as well as rising overseas demand, the Fremont facility can easily fill due to its proximity to ports in Northern California.

“Fremont has proven again and again to have been the best possible choice,” Paul Merchant, a car factory inspector from Detroit told the Globe on Wednesday. “When Tesla set up shop there at the old GM plant, car companies waved it off. They said California was expensive and all that.

“And while it is, they made it work. There are higher wages there than other places, but transportation is quite accessible for road, rail, and port, saving big on company-bound trucking costs. Plus, no one else wanted to go to Fremont, so they got a good deal.

“What was once considered an unwise place to set up a car factory, California’s only one is now the most productive in the US. They aren’t coming out and saying it, but other companies are pretty furious about this. I won’t say which company, but a representative whom I work with yelled at me all yesterday for losing to Elon Musk of all people. To losing to a California factory. That was the biggest slap in the face. They see as California bogged down in regulations and openly say that Southern states can fill in any efficiency gaps, but they just proved them wrong. It took high demand and really pushing what they can do there, but they did it. A factory in regulation and high tax heaven beat out all the others.”

“It shows Tesla’s tenacity, and seriously, the work ethic out there. Oh and they’re scared. If Musk can bring that Fremont efficiency to their Austin plant, which has the capacity to produce so many more, then we’re talking about the other companies losing market share. And they are not happy about that to say the least.”

Tesla, the tenth largest automaker in North America, is expected to grow massively during the rest of the decade.

The post Fremont Tesla Factory Named Most Efficient Auto Factory in North America appeared first on California Globe.

California Bond Measures Submitted to Voters

Thu, 27 Jan 2022 01:21:03 +0200

On occasion, bond measures are submitted to voters in the State of California. The Elections Code, in Division 9, Chapter 5, provides several statutes related to bond issues. They are contained in Section 9400 to 9405. Section 9400 specifies that Chapter 5 applies to all bond issues proposed by a county, city and county, city, district, or other political subdivision, or by any agency, department, or board thereof, the security for which constitutes a lien on the property for ad valorem taxes within the jurisdiction and the proposal for which is required to be submitted to the voters for approval.

Section 9401 requires that, in connection with each bond issue, a statement be mailed to the voters with the sample ballot for the bond election. The statement required by this section must be filed with the elections official conducting the election not later than the 88th day before the election. The statement must contain specified information, including the best estimate for average annual tax rate, highest tax rate, and total debt service.

In addition, the statement may contain a declaration of policy of the legislative or governing body of the applicable jurisdiction, proposing to use revenues other than ad valorem taxes to fund the bond issue, and the best estimate from official sources of these revenues and the reduction in the tax rate levied to fund the bond issue resulting from the substitution of revenue.

Section 9402 requires all official materials to contain a statement of tax rate data. Those materials include any voter information guide prepared, sponsored, or distributed by the jurisdiction that has proposed the bond issue or that is financed in whole or part by funds furnished by that jurisdiction, directed at or including a bond issue proposal, but excluding a notice of election required by law to be posted or published.

Section 9403 provides that failure to comply with this chapter does not affect the validity of any bond issue following the sale and delivery of the bonds. Section 9404 makes a legislative declaration that the essence of compliance with this chapter is good faith in presenting to voters the most accurate available information for their use in effecting comparisons and exercising judgment in casting their ballots.

Section 9405 specifies that, whenever the elections official is required to mail a statement, only one copy of the statement is to be mailed to a postal address where two or more registered voters have the same surname and the same postal address. In addition, this code section only applies if the legislative body adopts this section and the election official conducting the election approves of the procedure.

The post California Bond Measures Submitted to Voters appeared first on California Globe.

Teacher Union Tantrums Now Count as Sick Days in California

Wed, 26 Jan 2022 23:37:42 +0200

It’s mid-January and winter break has come to an end.

For more than 6.5 million children here in California, that means it’s time to go back to school. But in several major school districts across the state, schools remained closed the first week back — negatively impacting tens of thousands of students ready to learn and reconnect with friends. Thousands were literally turned away in the parking lot.

Why? Because teachers’ unions like the California Teachers Association (CTA) and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) encouraged the most militant pro-union educators to leverage the COVID-19 pandemic to stage a “sick-out.”

Except they aren’t really sick. Union bosses have admitted they’re actually using the ploy to protest “unsafe working conditions.”

In one week, two major teachers’ unions and a couple thousand radical, pro-union teachers held California children’s education hostage to demand more masks and stricter testing procedures.

In the Northern California’s Oakland Unified School District, more than 500 teachers called out sick on Jan. 6, causing 12 schools to completely shut down for the day.

Meanwhile, San Francisco Unified reported a record 900 teachers calling out on the same day, with numerous other Bay Area schools following suit.

Since then, two more sick-out days have been staged, and the participating teachers claim this will continue until their demands are met.

Not surprisingly, these heartfelt protests managed to fall in the same month as a scheduled bargaining session between San Francisco district officials and the teacher’s union over safety protocols.

Coincidence? There are no coincidences when it comes to teacher unions.

What about the teachers who want to teach? The Freedom Foundation has been contacted by many who are eager to work but can’t because these events have shut down their schools.

They share with us firsthand stories of how healing being back in school has been for students. The damage that’s been done to children over the past two years from not being in school is evident.

Several studies show children in California are battling depression, anxiety, addiction — the list goes on — yet the thing that could help so many recover is being treated as a bargaining chip by unions.

When did it become acceptable to make children’s mental health and quality of life suffer so that scared adults could feel comfortable?

Every day, the Freedom Foundation helps teachers here in California leave their union due to frustration over its handling of the pandemic. COVID-19 has put a magnifying glass over an issue that had flown under the radar for many years for most educators.

Now, teachers who just want to get back to work and put their students first are seeing that their union is much more of an obstacle rather than an ally. This has caused record high numbers of teachers to opt out of their union dues and stop feeding the beast that’s fighting against them.

The Freedom Foundation has helped hundreds of California teachers leave their union and stop paying union dues — costing the CTA and UTLA nearly $3 million annually in lost dues revenue.

Forever.

And we will continue freeing this state’s teachers, students and families from union bondage so we can keep school open and children in the classroom.

The post Teacher Union Tantrums Now Count as Sick Days in California appeared first on California Globe.

San Jose City Council Passes Mandatory Firearm Liability Insurance, Ownership Fee Ordinances

Wed, 26 Jan 2022 22:08:19 +0200

The San Jose City Council passed two measures on Tuesday, requiring all San Jose gun owners to both carry firearm liability insurance and pay a mandatory $25 gun ownership fee, becoming the first city in the nation to do either.

According to the passed legislation, all San Jose residents who own at least one gun would need to pay a $25 annual fee. Gun insurance would also need to be purchased, with coverage extending to losses or damages coming from accidental firearm discharge, intentional acts of third parties who use the weapon, and any other negligent use. Policyholder misconduct would not be covered by the insurance, with law enforcement members being exempted from carrying insurance. If the gun is somehow lost or stolen, the firearm owner would be held liable for anything that happens with the gun until the loss of the gun is reported to law enforcement.

Many details of the ordinance are still being worked out, such as penalties and fines. Mayor Sam Liccardo ruled out facing criminal charges and losing their weapons if the law isn’t followed on Tuesday, but other things, such as fines, could be possible. However, the main emphasis Tuesday night in terms of punishment was having firearms owners be liable for damages if their gun is misplaced and goes unreported.

Mayor Liccardo has been attempting to pass these ordinances since 2019 as a way to reduce gun violence, reduce the financial cost of gun violence on taxpayers, and increase accountability of shooters. Mass shootings in the area, such as the 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting and the 2021 VTA Light Rail Yard Shooting have led to his proposed legislation to rebound several times, with the latter shooting in particular pushing the proposal to finally reach the City Council on Tuesday.

During the long meeting, Liccardo defended his proposed ordinances, noting that they would reduce the harms caused by firearms, would lead to increased firearm safety, and would save the city millions each year in reduced emergency response services and the firearm fee funding programs aimed at aimed at preventing gun violence, giving support to families and victims of gun violence, suicide prevention, and other similar services.

“Having liability insurance would encourage people in the 55,000 households in San Jose who legally own at least one registered gun to have gun safes, install trigger locks and take gun safety classes,” argued Mayor Liccardo on Tuesday.

Opponents shot back throughout the night, pointing out that the proposed laws violated the second amendment, would not stop the movement of illegal weapons, and would not stop most gun-related crimes. Liccardo addressed the latter concern later in the meeting noting that his ordinances would not stop mass shootings but would reduce suicides, accidental shootings, and other more common firearm injuries and deaths.

“This won’t stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crime,” added Liccardo on Tuesday. “Most gun deaths nationally are from suicide, accidental shootings or other causes and even many homicides stem from domestic violence.”

Both ordinances passed in the San Jose City Council

When passed n Tuesday, many City Council members gave personal notes defending their vote for the ordinances. Councilman Sergio Jimenez in particular noted that the ordinances would help reduce “a scourge on our society.” In a statement, Mayor Liccardo said that gun violence and harm would now be reduced, and looked forward for San Jose’s ordinance to help influence other cities to pass their own.

“Tonight San José became the first city in the United States to enact an ordinance to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and to invest funds generated from fees paid by gun owners into evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm.” the Mayor said in a statement on Tuesday. “Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to show their commitment to reducing gun violence and its devastation in our community. I look forward to supporting the efforts of others to replicate these initiatives across the nation.”

My complete statement on tonight's City Council vote on my Gun Harm Reduction proposals pic.twitter.com/l6wszaCsv0

— Sam Liccardo (@sliccardo) January 26, 2022

While many anti-violence and gun control organizations praised the passage of both ordinances on Tuesday, with Brady United even pointing out that San Jose became the first city to have such legislation on Tuesday, many firearms owners groups and local citizen groups denounced the passage and vowed to bring the city to court.

“We’ve opposed this ordinance every step of the way and we will see this through to the end,” said National Association for Gun Rights Dudley Brown on Wednesday. “If the San Jose City Council actually votes to impose this ridiculous tax on the Constitutional right to gun ownership, our message is clear and simple: see you in court.”

“We’ll sue if the proposal takes effect,” added Gun Owners of California executive director Sam Paredes. “It is totally unconstitutional in any configuration.”

Others pointed out that the new law would do little to counter against mass shootings and incidents where criminals got guns illegally.

“Liccardo just brushed this point aside, but this just hurts legal owners who have to go through extra hoops and pay more now, and does nothing to stop criminals themselves,” said Justin Smalls, a leader of a local hunting group in San Jose. to the Globe on Wednesday. “Liccardo has been bragging about he has lawyers ready to go with legal challenges, but that shows you how worried he is that this will not stand up in court. It blatantly ignores the bill of rights, and he knows it.”

The ordinances now face another approval during a second reading on February 8th. If passed again, the new ordinances would take effect on August 8th.

Legal challenges against the ordinance are expected to be filed in the coming months, with multiple gun rights groups already in talks with lawyers and legal advisors. Mayor Liccardo has said that the city has prepared lawyers for such an eventuality.

The post San Jose City Council Passes Mandatory Firearm Liability Insurance, Ownership Fee Ordinances appeared first on California Globe.

Write-in Candidates in California

Wed, 26 Jan 2022 16:31:52 +0200

The California Elections Code, in Division 8, Part 3, deals with write-in candidates. Chapter 1 contains the General Provisions. Section 8500 provides that every person who desires to be a write-in candidate and have his or her name as written on the ballot of an election counted for a particular office is required to file a statement of write-in candidacy, as well as the requisite number of signatures on the nominating papers.

The statement of write-in candidacy is required to contain the following information:

Candidate’s name.

Residence address.

A declaration stating that he or she is a write-in candidate.

The title of the office for which he or she is running.

The party nomination which he or she seeks, if running in a partisan primary election.

The date of the election.

A certification of the candidate’s complete voter registration and party affiliation/preference history for the preceding 10 years, if eligible to vote.

A statement that the candidate meets the statutory and constitutional requirements for that office.

Note that a person may not be a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office.

Section 8601 requires the statement and nomination papers to be available on the 57th day prior to the election for which the candidate is filing as a write-in candidate, and those papers must be delivered to the elections official responsible for the conduct of the election no later than the 14th day prior to the election. Section 8602 requires the nomination papers for a write-in candidate to be substantially in a specified form.

Section 8603 requires signers of nomination papers for write-in candidates to be voters in the district or political subdivision in which the candidate is to be voted on. In addition, if the candidate is seeking a party nomination for an office, the signers must also be affiliated with the party whose nomination is sought. Section 8604 prohibits any fee or charge to be required of a write-in candidate except in the case of a candidate for city office.

Section 8605 provides that no person whose name has been written in upon a ballot for an office at the direct primary may have his or her name placed upon the ballot as a candidate for that office for the ensuing general election, except in specified circumstances. Section 8606 prohibits a person from being a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office.

Chapter 2 deals with Presidential Electors. Section 8650 provides that any group of individuals equal in number to the number of presidential electors to which this state is entitled, who desire to be write-in candidates for presidential electors pledged to a particular candidate for President and Vice President of the United States, are required to file a declaration of write-in candidacy.

Section 8651 requires the declaration of write-in candidacy for presidential elector must contain the following information:

Candidate’s name.

Residence address.

A declaration stating that he or she is a write-in candidate for the office of presidential elector.

Oath or affirmation as set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the California Constitution.

The date of the general election.

The names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the United States for which the group of presidential electors are pledged.

Section 8652 requires the declaration of write-in candidacy to be filed with the Secretary of State no later than the 14th day prior to the general election. Section 8653 provides that only those names written on the ballot at the general election for the office of President and Vice President of the United States for which a group of presidential electors are pledged on the declaration of write-in candidacy filed are to be counted as votes.

The post Write-in Candidates in California appeared first on California Globe.

Calif. DAs Win Temporary Restraining Order Preventing Corrections Dept. From Awarding 66% ‘Good Conduct Credits’ to Second-Strikers

Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:28:26 +0200

The California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation recently enacted so-called “emergency” regulations to allow for additional “good conduct credits” to be awarded to serious and violent felons, and not based upon these felons completing any rehabilitation programs, or in essence, proving their good conduct.

Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert spoke with the Globe Tuesday about two lawsuits nearly 30 California district attorneys have filed against the CDCR for these dubious actions.

Schubert announced in December that she and 27 other elected District Attorneys across California were granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) from enacting an increase of 50% credits to 66% credits for second-strikers with serious and violent criminal histories.

This “emergency regulation” comes after CDCR’s recently enacted so-called “emergency” regulations that allows for additional credits to be awarded to serious and violent felons, including credits that are not based upon completing any rehabilitation programs, the DA said.

The CDCR has been issuing “good conduct credits” to supposedly “non-violent” inmates. But DA Schubert says many of these have been convicted of violent crimes such as felony domestic violence, rape of an unconscious victim, and human trafficking.

Is the CDCR claiming they can do whatever they want with these sentences?

Many of the offenders who are granted early prison release have violent and lengthy criminal histories, the DA says. DA Schubert has said repeatedly that it is important for the public to be aware of the so-called nonviolent offenders being released early from prison into our neighborhoods.

The CDCR appears to have taken advantage of Proposition 57 , passed by hoodwinked voters in 2016 who thought they were voting for “the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,” the shameless title of Prop. 57.

Proposition 57 promised that “nonviolent” inmates who “turn their lives around” in prison could also earn early parole under a new “nonviolent parole review” (NVPR). But the CDCR appears to have hijacked the process to instead rewrite sentencing laws.

The CDCR most recently claimed they issues a “re-adoption” of previous conduct credit regulations. But since May 2021, they upped the credits from 33% to 50% and again to 66% time off.

While CDCR’s newest “emergency regulations” grant additional good conduct credits to inmates working in fire camp related activities, they also added additional credits to so-called “nonviolent” second strikers, according to the DA. “Unrelated to fire camp credits, CDCR sought to increase credits to 66% conduct credits, which is two-thirds time off sentences, to second strike inmates housed at a minimum-security level A or B facility. CDCR did so amid litigation challenging additional credits for serious and violent offenders. This new class of credits will include convictions for domestic violence, human trafficking, animal cruelty and possession of weapons by individuals who have previous convictions for serious and violent felonies.”

So a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for felony domestic violence, with a criminal history, granted 66% “conduct credits,” takes him down to just 3 years in prison.

And what about his victim(s)?

“This is a critical public policy and public safety issue,” DA Schubert said. “The CDCR is rewriting and dismantling sentencing laws on the books for years.”

“CDCR believes they can increase conduct credits by 100% without ever giving victims and the public the right to meaningful participation in this process,” DA Schubert said. “Most people would be surprised to learn that under California law, crimes like felony domestic violence and human trafficking are not ‘violent’ felonies. An individual with a prior violent felony record who is convicted of felony domestic violence should not be serving 1/3 or less of his or her sentence. I am pleased that the Court reinstated the TRO against CDCR today as this is a critical public safety issue for crime victims and all Californians. Proposition 57 and the California Constitution guarantees the public and crime victims the right to be heard in a public forum. This lawsuit is simply asking that CDCR honor the Constitution and the will of the voters.”

Crimes now considered “nonviolent” under Proposition 57 in California include:

human trafficking of a child
rape of an unconscious person or by intoxication
drive by shooting at inhabited dwelling or vehicle
assault with a firearm or deadly weapon
assault on a police officer
serial arson
exploding a bomb to injure people
solicitation to commit murder
assault from a caregiver to a child under eight years old that could result in a coma or death
felony domestic violence.

In their December press statement, the DA listed several inmates who would be potentially eligible to be released after serving only one-third of their sentence as a result of the CDCR’s new regulation. They include:

Kenneth Hawkins (Case #20FE004144) – Human Trafficking

Hawkins was convicted by a jury of human trafficking using force, pimping and pandering. Hawkins has a prior strike conviction for robbery with a gun enhancement. He went to prison for 13 years on that conviction and was out on parole at the time of the current offense.

On March 1, 2020, the Sacramento Police Department received a report from a witness that Hawkins was forcing the victim to perform oral sex on another man in a parking lot on Franklin Boulevard. When officers located Hawkins and the victim, the victim disclosed that Hawkins had been forcing her to engage in prostitution. The victim also told officers that on that day, Hawkins was angry at her and humiliated her by forcing her to perform oral sex on another man in the parking lot as his friends stood by and taunted her. Friends of Hawkins filmed a portion of the crime and posted the video on social media. Officers located the video as well as other surveillance video that corroborated the reports of the witness and the victim.

In January 2021, Hawkins was sentenced to 28 years in state prison.

Jorden Leon Cooks (Case #21FE000570) – Human Trafficking

Cooks pled to human trafficking of a minor and admitted to a prior robbery strike conviction.

On January 8, 2021, Sacramento police officers were doing an investigation at the Quality Inn on Jibboom Street when they overheard Cooks shouting at someone inside one of the rooms. When officers contacted Cooks, they found him with the 16-year-old victim they identified as a missing person from Oregon. Based on a review of text messages and other digital evidence on Cooks’ and the victim’s cell phones, officers realized that Cooks was trafficking the victim. Officers arrested Cooks and ensured the victim was returned safely to her family in Oregon.

In June 2021, Cooks was sentenced to 10 years in state prison. Cooks was also sentenced to an additional 16 months after pleading to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Case #20FE019135).

Petra Santiago Gabriel (Case #20FE010778) – Animal Cruelty

Gabriel pled to felony animal cruelty with use of a weapon and admitted to a prior 2007 strike conviction for robbery.

On July 7, 2020, Gabriel’s dog got into a fight with her sister’s dog, Doody. After the women were able to separate the two dogs, Gabriel sprayed Doody with a flammable substance. Gabriel proceeded to burn Doody with a butane torch, engulfing Doody’s face and body in flames. Miraculously Doody survived thanks to the help of Sacramento County Animal Control and UC Davis veterinarians. Doody remains in a specialized medical foster home, will require a lifetime of medications and must wear a T-shirt at all times due to his extensive body burns.

Gabriel has two prior convictions for using flammable substances, both in the course of a robbery and an assault.

In June 2021, Gabriel was sentenced to 7 years in state prison.

These credits would also apply to individuals currently charged with domestic violence with prior strikes including:

Jonathan McCart (Case # 21FE015487) – Domestic Violence

McCart has a prior 2001 strike for aggravated mayhem and torture. In that case, McCart set his then girlfriend on fire. He was sentenced to life in prison for that conviction, but was released early by CDCR in 2018.

McCart is currently charged with felony domestic violence and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.

…”Good conduct credits” to supposedly “non-violent” inmates.

The post Calif. DAs Win Temporary Restraining Order Preventing Corrections Dept. From Awarding 66% ‘Good Conduct Credits’ to Second-Strikers appeared first on California Globe.

San Francisco DA’s Office Faces Lawsuit in Federal Court Over Reducing Violent Felony to Misdemeanor

Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:10:55 +0200

The San Francisco District Attorney’s office was sued on Tuesday by the Alliance for Asian American Justice over reducing a felony beating of an elderly Vietnamese-American man to a misdemeanor.

In November of 2019, then 69-year-old Anh Le was walking down the street in San Francisco when he was suddenly stopped and beaten with baseball bats by a father and son, both of whom had threatened other Asian-Americans earlier that day with violence. They then threatened to kill him.

“I pleaded with the Tanners to stop, but they relished in their ability to inflict pain and fear on a defenseless senior citizen,” said Le later of the attack. “The attack was the most brutal, terrifying, and humiliating experience of my life, and has stayed with me ever since.”

The San Francisco Police Department caught the father and son later that day and charged them with battery, felony elder abuse, and felony domestic terrorism threats. However, without Le’s knowledge, the the DA’s office refused to prosecute them. The DA also did not allow Le to give a victim impact statement and failed to give him any kind of voice in the criminal proceedings. As a result, no jail time was given, with both father and son only receiving a year of probation each.

Outraged, Le decided to sue the DA’s office for mishandling case, asserting that justice had not been served. Along with the Alliance for Asian American Justice, they took the rare step of suing a District Attorney’s office on Tuesday. In the civil rights lawsuit against SF DA Chesa Boudin, they allege that justice has not been served, with the DA failing to follow Marsy’s Law, which allows victims to have a voice in the trial against their attackers, and not having Le give a victim impact statement.

“Although he was arrested for felony terroristic threats, felony elder abuse and battery because of the way my case has been handled by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office justice has not been served,” added Le on Tuesday. “I am a survivor of a horrendous attack that took place in San Francisco with no consequences to my attackers.”

One of Le’s lawyers, Quyen Ta, added that Le is not suing over any kind of money or compensation, but to have the DA’s office do their job.

“We are bringing this lawsuit, and this is the principal reason, I want to make very clear: on behalf of Mr. Le and other Asian American victims to ensure that the District Attorney’s Office does its job,” said Ta. “We believe we are the first legal team to file a lawsuit against a prosecutor’s office.”

Boudin faces lawsuit over office pleading down felony case

The San Francisco District Attorney’s office, which has faced mounting criticism over the last two years for being the primary reason for the large crime wave in the city due to lowering the number of prosecutions and crimes tried as felonies, responded in a statement on Tuesday defending Boudin as an advocate for AAPI victims. They also pointed out that the DA’s office recently formed an AAPI elder abuse committee.

“DA Boudin has been a steadfast advocate for improved victims for the AAPI community,” said the DA’s office. “We are committed to listening to community leaders, and experts to better understand how to best serve our elderly victims. The committee will address the gaps in services for AAPI elderly victims.”

San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin. (Photo: https://sfdistrictattorney.org/)

However, legal experts noted on Tuesday that groups only sue the DA’s office when things have only reached a point where there is no other real course of action.

“There’s not much Le can do for justice right now,” said Harper Schultz, a civil rights lawyer in Seattle, to the Globe on Tuesday. “He did file a lawsuit against the two guys who assaulted him, but that doesn’t solve the problem of the DA basically making this a nothing crime.

“And this isn’t one that can be easily settled out of court. They aren’t fighting for money, which, speaking as a lawyer myself, can be a terrifying proposition to some in my profession. You just can’t settle out of court for an undisclosed sum here. All their wrongs are going to come to light.”

“Also, Chesa Boudin should worry. Seattle is like San Francisco with a large Asian-American population, so any slight like this making the headlines can hurt come next election. In Boudin’s case, that’s a recall election in early June. He can’t afford a big Asian-American group essentially calling the DA’s office not-caring towards the Asian-American community. They basically took a hate crime and battery situation, usually worth years of jail time, and made it nothing. The DA will have one hell of a time trying to defend himself on this one.”

The civil lawsuit against the two assailants is expected to be heard in April. The larger lawsuit against the DA is expected to be heard in the near future.

The post San Francisco DA’s Office Faces Lawsuit in Federal Court Over Reducing Violent Felony to Misdemeanor appeared first on California Globe.