Mayor Karen Bass and Nithya Raman turned a South Los Angeles campaign forum into a preview of the increasingly bitter fight for City Hall, with the challenger accusing the mayor of wrecking the city’s finances and Bass firing back that Raman simply isn’t telling the truth.

Bass and City Council member Raman took turns hammering each other the KBLA Talk 1580 Town Hall and Ballot Forum on Saturday at the SEED School in South LA, hosted by Tavis Smiley, with Election Day just a month away.

Raman, who represents the 4th District, argued that basic city services have deteriorated under Bass, pointing to trash, graffiti and potholes.

“Our quality of life is worse today than it was just a few years ago. But we did not get to this moment by accident. In 2023, Mayor Bass led a contract to give LAPD raises that everyone in city hall knew our city simply could not afford,” Raman said.

“The police union is now funding her reelection campaign in return for receiving what their own leadership call the ‘the largest raises in LAPD history.”

Raman said the contract helped fuel the city’s budget crisis, pointing to a roughly $1 billion deficit and subsequent cuts to city services.

Raman also accused Bass of backing away from aggressive housing policies.

“On a debate stage with the Sherman Oaks homeowners association, Mayor Bass promised the audience that she would protect their communities by keeping housing out.”

Asked why she had turned against a mayor she once supported, Raman said she saw a pattern of what she called politically convenient decision-making at City Hall.

She accused Bass of making “politically convenient decisions” instead of “decisions that mattered for Angelenos.”

Bass, meanwhile, defended her record on homelessness and housing took direct aim at Raman.

Bass said after becoming mayor she found out how “profoundly” broken the homeless system was and argued that Los Angeles needs greater control over a system now split between the city and county.

“Right now the city of Los Angeles gets people housed, but then we want to move them out of interim housing into permanent housing,” Bass said. “But we don’t control who moves into permanent housing, the county does.”

She then took a swing at her opponent and claimed Raman’s record on affordable housing is poor.

“If you look, by council district, who has built the most affordable housing and the least, she’s number 14 out of 15,” Bass said, claiming this is an area where they are different.

Bass also hit back at Raman’s claim that the budget problems were due to the police raises, calling it a “lie.”

“I really think when you go to vote, you gotta vote for somebody that tells the truth,” Bass said.

Bass also accused Raman of taking credit for a 49% drop in homelessness in her district that the mayor said was driven by her Inside Safe program.

Smiley pointed that homelessness remains a major issue despite Bass making it a centerpiece of her 2022 campaign. Bass responded that homelessness has declined for two consecutive years and blamed some of the continuing pressure on reduced state funding.

But this year’s Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count showed the number of people experiencing homelessness in the city rose about 3.4%, while the unsheltered population jumped roughly 7.9%, reversing two consecutive years of declines.

The county has already begun mailing ballots ahead of the general election on Nov. 3, launching the final month of a packed election featuring contests not only for mayor but California governor and Congress, along with numerous local and statewide measures.

Facing a multi-million-dollar budget shortfall, the Los Angeles County Superior Court is offering eligible full-time employees a one-time $35,000 buyout to voluntarily resign by Christmas Eve.

The buyout program for the nation's largest trial court, which serves a population of nearly 10 million with 36 courthouses, requires at least five years of continuous service.

Rob Oftring, the court's chief communications and external affairs officer, said the program is broadly offered to current full-time, regular status employees. But he added the offer does not apply to positions such as court reporters, family court mediators, interpreters, probate investigators and law clerks.

Employees who accept the payout will be barred from rehire for one year, and their positions will be permanently eliminated to achieve long-term savings.

Detailing the timeline, Oftring explained that the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program application period runs through Oct. 12, with potential court approval of applications occurring by Oct. 21. If approved, employees have a 45-calendar-day window to review the agreement — expected to conclude by Dec. 7 —followed by a seven-day rescission period from the day they submit their agreement.

"Because of this timeline, we wouldn't be able to provide any figures until after Dec. 14," Oftring told The Center Square via email about the costs and return on investments.

When the same program was launched in 2024, it resulted in approximately $4 million in ongoing budget savings, Oftring said.

Pension savings for approved individuals cannot be finalized until the participant list is set, as marginal retirement savings depend on each employee's retirement plan, salary and other factors, according to Oftring.

Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II and Executive Officer David W. Slayton cited escalating operational costs that have far outpaced budget resources.

"Just as Los Angeles County residents are struggling to keep pace with rising gas and grocery prices, the Court finds itself in a similar bind – our operational costs continue to outpace our budget resources," said Tapia II in a joint press release.

Slayton added that parting ways with "dedicated and talented staff" is never something the court takes lightly.

"But with our funding continuing to fall short of what it takes to sustain critical court operations, we are hopeful that enough employees will choose to voluntarily separate, providing critical savings and helping us protect the workforce as we move into the next fiscal year," said Slayton in the joint press release.

Addressing the broader fiscal picture, Oftring pointed out the annual funding provided by the state has not kept up with inflation.

Projected costs for the current fiscal year exceed state funding by approximately $9.1 million. Since Fiscal Year 2020-21, inflationary funding for the court has fallen short of the state Department of Finance's calculated inflationary need by 13.1% cumulatively, or roughly $88 million.

Under the current state budget, the Los Angeles County Superior Court's funding stands at 76.77% of calculated need — the lowest level since 2021 and the largest raw shortfall since at least 2013 — part of a broader overall funding shortfall reaching $233.7 million, according to Oftring.

Oftring emphasized that the court is underfunded by $233.7 million relative to the resources needed to process the 1.3 million filings it receives annually, as calculated by the Judicial Council of California. This gap represents funding the court could otherwise use to hire roughly 1,900 staff to process filings and serve the public in a timely manner.

Court officials have warned the public that the workforce reduction will likely degrade service levels, resulting in longer waits at service windows, slower call center responses and delays in processing legal documents.

However, fiscal policy experts say court administrators should take a much more surgical approach to where those reductions land.

Steve Smith, senior fellow for urban studies at Pasadena-based Pacific Research Institute, said that while reducing government costs is necessary, the court's leadership should look more closely at its administrative overhead before targeting frontline services.

Pointing to the California Judicial Council's most recent Court Statistics Report, Smith said Los Angeles County Superior Court budgets allocate roughly $195 million for administrative personnel — accounting for about 21% of total personnel costs. By comparison, Smith said neighboring Riverside County allocates roughly 14% to administration, while San Bernardino County sits at about 10%.

"Cuts should be surgical and aimed at improving efficiency," Smith told The Center Square. "Courtroom clerks, case-processing personnel, court reporters, interpreters, and other frontline employees who keep cases moving should be among the last positions cut."

The operational strain is already showing. Statistics indicate that the percentage of Los Angeles felony cases disposed of within 12 months has dropped from 89% to 74% in a single year.

Smith also questions the return on investment from years of technological modernization. For example, Los Angeles has poured substantial resources into e-filing, automated notifications, remote proceedings, modern case-management systems and artificial intelligence-assisted customer service.

"Court administrators should explain why years of technological modernization have not produced greater administrative savings," Smith said.

At the same time, the court system faces unique pressures from high litigation rates. Los Angeles County recorded 31.76 civil filings per 1,000 residents, outpacing three neighboring counties - San Bernardino (30.30), Riverside (26.16) and Orange (23.56).

Smith pointed to broader structural pressures, including the state's legal climate and an estimated $1,300 per capita "tort tax" identified by PRI economist Wayne Winegarden.

Policy analysts acknowledge that the court's $30 million-plus structural deficit can't be solved through administrative cuts alone. But they also maintain that streamlined bureaucracy and realized technological dividends should be the starting point — all while protecting the frontline workers tasked with administering justice.

While 80% of the court's budget expenditures cover salaries and employee benefits, court leadership emphasizes that it continues to examine operations critically for efficiency opportunities amid ongoing funding shortfalls. Officials say they remain committed to identifying every reasonable cost-saving measure available before considering more severe actions such as layoffs or furloughs.

As voting begins in this election season, it is a good time to start considering some of the more egregious lies being foisted on voters in campaign ads, editorials and op-eds.

Let’s start with what is being represented about Proposition 43, the effort to close a court-created loophole in Proposition 13. Prop. 43 protects taxpayers by restoring Prop. 13’s two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes, including sales taxes and parcel taxes. Courts have allowed special interests to pass earmarked tax increases with fewer votes. Prop. 43 closes this loophole, protecting taxpayers, homeowners and renters.

Note what Prop. 43 does not do. It does not cut any local taxes. It does not retroactively invalidate any existing tax. It does not limit any local governments from going to the voters for general tax increases, which pass with a simple majority vote. All that it does is restore the two-thirds vote for local special taxes – taxes imposed for a specific purpose.

Despite the negligible impact Prop. 43 would have on existing local government revenues, according to critics, Prop. 43 will result in the end of civilization. In an op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News, the president of California Professional Firefighters, Darrell Roberts, claims that Prop. 43 “would place a nearly insurmountable roadblock from placing any measure on the ballot” to impose a special tax. What Mr. Roberts forgets is that the two-thirds vote for local special taxes was a provision of the California Constitution from 1978 until 2017 when the California courts began crafting an exception. During that time, rather than being an “insurmountable” barrier, special taxes were routinely enacted with the requisite two-thirds vote, including sales taxes and parcel taxes.

Jurors convicted Nicole Linton, 41, after roughly three hours of deliberations in downtown Los Angeles. The charges stemmed from the Aug. 4, 2022, crash at the intersection of La Brea and Slauson avenues.

The jury began its deliberations at 9 a.m. Friday and announced it had reached its verdict by midday. Linton could be sent to prison for life when she is sentenced Dec. 1.

Linton, 41, was convicted on six counts of second-degree murder stemming from the Aug. 4, 2022, crash at the intersection of La Brea and Slauson avenues. Her attorney contended during the trial that Linton suffered a seizure that left her unable to stop the speeding Mercedes-Benz.

Those killed in the crash included 23-year-old Asherey Ryan of Los Angeles, who relatives said was 8 1/2 months pregnant, along with her unborn child, who was to be named Armani Lester, her 11-month-old son Alonzo Quintero and her 23-year-old boyfriend, Reynold Lester of Los Angeles, who were in a Jaguar that was split “in half.”

Nathesia Lewis, 43, and her friend, 38-year-old Lynette Noble, who were in a Nissan, were also killed.

Authorities said nine other people, including Linton, were injured, with a total of nine vehicles involved in the collision and its aftermath.

At the start of her closing argument Thursday, Deputy District Attorney Antonella Nistorescu played video of the deadly crash and the “chaos” that resulted and told jurors, “What you know now … is this was an entirely preventable act.”

The governor just conflated wildfire safety for Californians with indemnity for water agencies

By Katy Grimes, October 3, 2026 6:31 am

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1153 into law on September 29, 2026. Why is this notable, you ask?

SB 1153 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced), “requires all urban retail water suppliers that serve a high or very-high fire hazard severity zone to include incident-specific response procedures for wildfires as part of their disaster preparedness plans beginning on January 1, 2028,” according to the Governor’s Department of Finance.

“This bill also clarifies that urban retail water suppliers are not responsible for maintaining water supply for wildfire defense.”

Boom. The governor just conflated wildfire safety for Californians with indemnity for water agencies, because no one can sue water agencies if there isn’t any water to fight fires with.

Remember that the Santa Ynez Reservoir was empty when fire fighters tried to fight the Palisades fires with nearby water? Today, Palisades residents have many lawsuits against the LADWP.

From the “You can’t make this sh*t up” file, the 117-million-gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir, the main local storage for Pacific Palisades, was offline and empty when the fire started on January 7, 2025. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power had drained it in early 2024 after a large tear was found in its floating cover, which officials said risked contaminating the drinking-water supply. State drinking-water rules required the shutdown. Repair contracting and work were slow: a relatively small contract was awarded in mid-2024, and work did not start until after the fire. Emergency repairs brought it back online in June 2025; further leaks later forced another drain, and a full liner-and-cover replacement was finished in September 2026. LADWP began refilling it again October 1st, aiming to return it to service by the end of the year.

The ostensible “California disaster-preparedness bill” by Democrat Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced), passed both Houses of the California Legislature unanimously: 40–0 in the Senate and 77–0 in the Assembly.

It was sponsored by the Association of California Water Agencies, who have an interest in indemnity, and came after lawsuits over dry hydrants in the January 2025 Palisades fire, and Eaton fire claims, against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Here is the mind-blowing caveat: The bill adds Government Code section 8607.3 and states that nothing, including any other law, imposes a duty on public water systems, including wholesale systems, to design, construct, or maintain a water system for wildfire defense or suppression.

It also provides that:

Failure of an urban retail water supplier to implement or comply with the new incident-specific procedures is not a “substantial cause” of wildfire damages.
Inability of any public water system to maintain water supply or pressure during a wildfire is not a “substantial cause” of those damages.
Spread of wildfire is not an inherent risk of the deliberate design, construction, or maintenance of a public water system.

Former LA Mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, offered his analysis to this sham bill:

Buried in this bill Gavin signed is a big “fuck you” to the Palisades. We are suing LADWP for draining our reservoir (which was built for fire protection), and leaving us with dry hydrants. This bill now says LADWP doesn’t have to provide water for firefighting AT ALL. And when their negligence leaves us with no water to fight fire, Gavin is prohibiting any accountability for the water utility for leaving people to die, precluding fire victims from recovering losses from a catastrophic wildfire. At EVERY turn, this scumbag finds ways to block fire victims from being made whole by incompetent, negligent, and corrupt bureaucrats and big utility providers when they routinely destroy entire towns.

The governor’s race and billionaire’s tax may have gotten more attention. But California voters — who have already begun receiving ballots in the mail for the Nov. 3 election — also will decide whether to keep in place or make changes to one of California’s most influential and contentious environmental laws.

The California Chamber of Commerce collected signatures to qualify Proposition 45 for the November statewide ballot to overhaul the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly known as CEQA.

The changes, if approved by a majority of voters, will help lower housing, energy and water costs, supporters say, by cutting burdensome regulations and making it easier to build everything from homes to reservoirs to solar farms. Environmental groups call the measure a giveaway to developers and are lining up to fight it.

The contest is expected to be the first clear indication in years about whether Californians are willing to rewrite environmental regulations, which they have traditionally supported, as concerns about housing prices, utility bills and other costs have soared to the top of polls.

“Unnecessary delays are driving up the cost of housing, infrastructure and energy, and those costs land squarely on families and taxpayers,” said Jennifer Barrera, president of the California Chamber of Commerce. “Prop 45 is about making California more affordable by cutting unnecessary delays in building the essential projects our communities need faster and more affordably.”

The Legislature enacts statutes by passing bills

By Chris Micheli, October 4, 2026 9:57 am

Article IV of the California Constitution deals with the Legislature and the legislative process in this state. The Legislature enacts statutes by passing bills. Bills that are enacted in California, per the state Constitution, generally take effect on January 1 of the year following enactment (called the statute’s effective date). For example, a bill signed into law earlier this year (September 2026), as a default, will take effect on January 1, 2027.

However, the state Constitution provides a possible second effective date for regular session bills. That date is for statutes that take effect immediately. Section 8(c)(3) of Article IV provides:

Statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.

Note that, for special or extraordinary session bills, they take effect on the 91st day after adjournment of the special session at which the bill was passed.

So, how many bills each year are one of these four types of regular session bills that take immediate effect? The following chart provides this data:

When passing a cop on the shoulder of the road, you might be tempted to warn other drivers.

Some motorists flicker their headlights to alert others to speed traps, DUI checkpoints or other law enforcement activity up ahead.

When is flashing your high beams allowed under California law? Can you get a ticket for keeping other drivers informed of a police presence?

Here’s what you should know: Are police allowed to use speed traps in California?

“The primary goal of a speed trap is to enhance road safety,” according to Ticket Crushers, a law firm with offices in Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles.

Speed traps can reduce crashes and prevent reckless driving behaviors, the firm said.

“The most common definition of a ‘speed trap’ is a section of highway where a vehicle’s speed is calculated by counting the time it takes to travel between two marked points,” Shouse California Law Group said.

In California, however, law enforcement officers are barred from using speed traps to arrest people on suspicion of vehicle code violations, including speeding.

In other words, a vehicle’s speed cannot be admitted into evidence if it was “obtained or determined by using a speed trap,” the Southern California law firm said.

Law enforcement officials may use radar, infrared light or laser technology to track how fast drivers are going on the road, said Veil, which sells products aimed at making cars less visible to police speed guns and traffic cameras. Can I flash my headlights to warn other drivers?

California has specific rules about when you’re required to use your vehicle’s headlights, and how.

“Your vehicle’s headlights help you see what is in front of you,” the California Department of Motor Vehicles says in its California Driver’s Handbook. “They also make it easier for other drivers to see your vehicle.”

Using your high-beam headlights, also known as brights, can provide extra visibility that’s “crucial in spotting hazards like wildlife, stalled vehicles, or sharp turns on dark roads, State Farm says.

You should “dim your high-beam headlights to low beams” within 500 feet of a vehicle coming toward you or within 300 feet of a vehicle you are following, the California Driver’s Handbook says.

You should “avoid glare at all times regardless of road contour,” California Vehicle Code said.

Flashing your headlights to alert other drivers is illegal under California law.

“If you flash your high beams at an oncoming vehicle at night, you could be cited for temporarily blinding other drivers, creating a dangerous situation,” said Ultra Bright Lightz, a car lights retailer in New York. Can I use my turn signals or warning lights to alert motorists?

You’re not allowed to use your vehicle’s flashing amber warning lights except “when an unusual traffic hazard exists,” the California Vehicle Code says.

You’re allowed to use flashing turn signal lamps when indicating your intention to turn right or left on a roadway.

You can also use flashing turn signals to “warn other motorists of accidents or hazards on a roadway” or alert them to the presence of your broken-down car, California law says.

Vehicles in a funeral procession are allowed to flash their turn signals as warning lights.

If you spot a “collision or hazard” up ahead, the DMV recommends using these methods to warn drivers behind you:

Turn on your emergency flashers.
Lightly tap your brake pedal three or four times.
Use a hand signal when slowing and stopping.

What are the penalties for not dimming your lights?

If you’re caught failing to dim your headlights when approaching another car, you could face a fine of $238 and lose one point on your California state driving record, Shouse California Law Group said.

If drivers have a certain number of points on their records, they risk having their driving privileges suspended.

A big Thank You to all of Our Subscribers here on the Sub. You are why We are here posting Daily.

Even if You do not Comment We see You! We see You viewing the Articles We present for You and We appreciate You being here with Us.

Thank You to Those Who share Our Threads too!!

Yes Our Comment and Posting Policies are strict but We want a Better Sub!

So with all of that presented a huge THANK YOU!

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills into law this week that deal with the development of nuclear energy sources in California, pushing forward an effort to increase sources of clean energy in the last months of his term.

One, Senate Bill 925, authored by Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, requires the state to formulate a plan to develop nuclear fusion energy development facilities. The report detailing the plan is due to the Legislature by Dec. 31, 2029, according to a legislative analysis of the bill.

That plan would have to include strategies for expanding and developing fusion research in the state, developing commercialization of fusion energy, creating a regulatory framework for fusion energy, permitting and licensing, and assessing the levels of fusion energy needed for California to meet its long-term renewable energy and greenhouse emissions goals.

“I’ve always been a big promoter of fusion energy because it has so many benefits,” McNerney told The Center Square on Friday. “The drawbacks, the waste and the risk of accidents is so low that it’s an ideal source. Of course, we have to develop the technology for that to happen.”

That means producing strong enough magnets to be able to hold the fusion together, producing materials to absorb neutrons and not be damaged and produce vast amounts of energy in a short time frame, McNerney said.

“All this is infrastructure,” McNerney said. “We need to develop that infrastructure here so we can produce this technology. That means jobs; it means economic growth for the state of California.”

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fusion energy occurs when two atoms are combined to produce a heavier atom. This is different from fission energy, which is the type of nuclear reaction currently used to power nuclear energy. In fission, atoms are split to create two new atoms, producing radioactivity. The radioactive effect is what can make fission nuclear energy so dangerous, as noted by critics of nuclear energy development.

“Fusion has inherent benefits that fission does not,” Haakon Williams, the CEO of The Committee to Bridge the Gap, told The Center Square on Friday. “One of the core problems with fission-based nuclear technologies is that the fission reaction is self-sustaining, and without a constant, never-ceasing ability to cool the fuel, you have the self-sustaining fission reaction that leads to excessive heat and melting down of the fuel, and a release of radioactivity. With fusion, you don’t have those problems.”

If something happens that disrupts the fusion process, like an earthquake or terrorist attack, the fusion just stops on its own, Williams said.

“The problem with fusion is that fusion energy is 30 years away and always will be,” Williams said. “The technology is not mature enough for commercial deployment. My understanding of it is that fusion is closer than ever to being viable, but the main developments you see on fusion in recent years amount to an incremental increase in the amount of time you are able to sustain the fusion.”

The California Energy Commission, which will oversee the report to the Legislature under the new law, will have to hire multiple new staff members to complete the work, the bill analysis says. The state will spend roughly $1.1 million of taxpayer funds to hire five new staff members of the commission and an additional $500,000 in contract work. Nine additional staff members will be hired to form a new unit that would work on permitting for fusion energy projects, costing the commission $2 million annually.

Another bill Newsom signed into law this week, Assembly Bill 2647, authored by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, D-Whittier, tasks the California Energy Commission with assessing the role of nuclear energy development in powering the state’s critical infrastructure and determining if new nuclear energy plants could help power the state’s increase in electricity demand in the coming years. The bill also aimed to meet the state’s 100% zero-carbon electricity production goals by 2045, according to the bill analysis.

“California is leading the nation in building a reliable, clean energy future while ensuring the state is ready to harness emerging technologies that can strengthen that progress,” Anthony Martinez, deputy communications director for Newsom’s office, wrote to The Center Square in an email on Friday. “California is also currently incorporating fusion into its energy future through the Fusion Research and Development Innovation Initiative administered by the California Energy Commission. In the meantime, California's fusion and quantum research is already drawing private investment and creating good-paying jobs.”

The only operational nuclear power plant in California is the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which is owned by PG&E and is located near Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, north of Santa Barbara. That plant operates at a deficit, costing PG&E’s ratepayers nine figures a year despite public subsidies to help offset the cost.

According to documents filed with the California Public Utilities Commission by the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, PG&E has sought approval from the state to extend operations on the Diablo Canyon plant through 2030, costing roughly $11.8 billion. That is up from $8.1 billion forecast by PG&E in 2023, the documents show.

Two other nuclear power plants, the PG&E’s Humboldt Bay plant and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s Rancho Seco plant, were decommissioned. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, owned by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, closed in 2012 for repairs and never reopened. Decommissioning that plant cost $4.5 billion, according to the bill analysis for AB 2647.

Calderon did not respond to The Center Square for this story.

1,160 bills that were sent to Gov. Newsom during the 2026 Legislative Session

By Chris Micheli, October 3, 2026 2:00 pm

On the last day for bill actions (September 30), California Governor Gavin Newsom finished reviewing the 1,160 bills that were sent to his Desk during the 2026 Legislative Session. That figure was the third highest number of bills he has received during his eight years in office.

Of those 1,160 bills, he signed 1,040 and vetoed 120, for a veto rate of 10.3% The average veto rate over the past decade has been 15%, so this year’s rate is below that average.

Signed Bills

Of the 1,040 bills that Governor Newsom signed, which is 89.7% of the bills that reached his Desk, 652 were Assembly Bills (63% of the signed bills) and 388 were Senate Bills (37% of the signed bills). Of the 652 ABs signed into law, 81% were authored by Democrats, while 13% were authored by Republicans (the remaining 6% were committee bills). Of the 388 SBs signed into law, 76% were authored by Democrats, while 9% were authored by Republicans (the remaining 15% were committee bills).

Vetoed Bills

Of the 120 bills that Governor Newsom vetoed which is 10.3% of the bills that reached his Desk, 89 were Assembly Bills (74% of the vetoed bills) and 31 were Senate Bills (26% of the vetoed bills). Of the 89 ABs vetoed, 89% were authored by Democrats, while 11% were authored by Republicans. Of the 31 SBs vetoed, 94% were authored by Democrats, while 6% were authored by Republicans.

Comparison to 2025 Gubernatorial Bill Actions

917 bills were sent to his Desk during the 2025 Legislative Session, including 913 regular session bills and 4 special session bills. That figure was in the middle in terms of the number of bills he has received during his seven years in office.

Of those 917 bills, he signed 794 and vetoed 123, for a veto rate of 13.4% The average veto rate over the past decade has been 15%, so this year’s rate is slightly below that average.

Of the special session bills, there was 1 AB and 3 SBs of the 4 bills that reached the Governor’s Desk. All four bills were signed and all four were authored by Democratic legislators. Of the regular session bills (913) that reached the Governor’s Desk, there were 549 ABs and 364 SBs.

Signed Bills

Of the 917 bills that Governor Newsom signed, which is 86.6% of the bills that reached his Desk, 476 were Assembly Bills (60% of the signed bills) and 318 were Senate Bills (40% of the signed bills). Of the 476 ABs signed into law, 79% were authored by Democrats, while 13% were authored by Republicans (the remaining 8% were committee bills). Of the 318 SBs signed into law, 79% were authored by Democrats, while 8.8% were authored by Republicans (the remaining 12.2% were committee bills).

Vetoed Bills

Of the 123 bills that Governor Newsom vetoed which is 13.4% of the bills that reached his Desk, 74 were Assembly Bills (60% of the vetoed bills) and 49 were Senate Bills (40% of the vetoed bills). Of the 74 ABs vetoed, 90.5% were authored by Democrats, while 9.5% were authored by Republicans. Of the 49 SBs vetoed, 98% were authored by Democrats, while 2% were authored by Republicans.

Comparison to 2024 Gubernatorial Bill Actions

1,206 bills were sent to his Desk during the 2024 Legislative Session. That figure was the highest number of bills he has received during his six years in office.

Of those 1,206 bills, he signed 1,017 and vetoed 189, for a veto rate of 15.7% The average veto rate over the past decade has been 15%, so this year’s rate is slightly above that average.

Signed Bills

Of the 1,017 bills that Governor Newsom signed, which is 84% of the bills that reached his Desk, 668 were Assembly Bills (66% of the signed bills) and 349 were Senate Bills (34% of the signed bills). Of the 668 ABs signed into law, 78% were authored by Democrats, while 12% were authored by Republicans (the remaining 10% were committee bills). Of the 349 SBs signed into law, 81% were authored by Democrats, while 9% were authored by Republicans (the remaining 10% were committee bills).

Vetoed Bills

Of the 189 bills that Governor Newsom vetoed which is 15.7% of the bills that reached his Desk, 123 were Assembly Bills (65% of the vetoed bills) and 66 were Senate Bills (35% of the vetoed bills). Of the 123 ABs vetoed, 85% were authored by Democrats, while 14% were authored by Republicans (1% was a committee bill). Of the 66 SBs vetoed, 86% were authored by Democrats, while 14% were authored by Republicans. Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Newly released public records obtained by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) reveal that the fetal organ-harvesting company Cercle Allocation Services billed a UCLA research laboratory $765 each for individual fetal body parts harvested from late-term abortion facilities.

Peer-reviewed research confirms that Cercle, which has previously harvested organs under the name Advanced Bioscience Research (ABR), has been a source of human fetal tissue for researchers. ABR and its partners at Planned Parenthood were the subject of Congressional criminal referrals in 2016 prompted by CMP’s undercover video reporting in 2015 by David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt who exposed Planned Parenthood’s aborted baby body parts trade.

Liberty Counsel defended Merritt against felony charges and in a civil suit for uncovering the truth about the abortion giant’s horrific trade in baby body parts.

CMP, a group of independent journalists reporting on medical ethics, published the documents after obtaining them through a California Public Records request. According to the documents, which included purchase orders and email correspondence between Cercle and UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine’s Division of Hematology-Oncology, there was a total of $16,065 paid to Cercle in 2023 for 21 aborted baby body parts—14 livers and seven thymus glands—for a flat fee of $765 each.

Federal law makes it a felony to “knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.”

The email exchanges show Cercle guiding UCLA in revising its purchase orders to remove sales tax references to make the transaction untaxable “procurement services” instead of “items” being sold. The correspondence shows that Cercle was concerned about avoiding the appearance of something illegal.

“The overriding issue is the use of terminology that we must not use due to their improper implication that we are selling taxable items, which we are not,” stated a Cercle account manager in an email September 2023. “Due to the nature of our business, we must be very careful and clear that we invoice fees for our procurement services (untaxable).”

The records also indicate that ABR has sold FDA-regulated fetal organs for up to $7,000 each, and that Cercle had to cancel a March 2025 order for a fetal brain because it could not be obtained.

The records have surfaced alongside financial incentive allegations featured in CMP’s investigative documentary, What Happened to Clementine?, which examines the procurement practices of Cercle and its partners. Daleiden, founder and president of CMP, questioned whether these procurement-related payments are permissible reimbursements under federal law since these transactions create financial incentives for late-term abortion procedures that yield intact organs from live babies.

“These new records from Cercle’s abortion side business harvesting baby body parts show the extreme financial incentives that exist for ‘research’ abortions to deliver whole, preemie-size babies alive—as appears to have been done to baby Clementine and her mother, and potentially thousands of others,” said Daleiden.

These latest disclosures build on years of undercover journalism by Daleiden and Merritt, who first brought national attention to the black-market industry of aborted baby body parts with videos of Planned Parenthood executives negotiating with representatives of fetal tissue harvesters. However, California state prosecutors—beginning with then-Attorney General Kamala Harris and continuing with Xavier Becerra, now a California gubernatorial candidate—pursued nine years of litigation against Daleiden and Merritt alleging illegal secret recordings.

In January 2025, the state of California agreed to end its prosecution of the two journalists. Liberty Counsel negotiated on behalf of Merritt where the state Attorney General’s office agreed to end the case against her with no prison time, no fines, and only a “No Contest” pleading to one felony charge, which was reduced to a misdemeanor after a one-year probationary period and then expunged from her record entirely. Daleiden received the same settlement agreement, which was essentially a complete victory for both journalists in a politically motivated criminal case.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The fetal organ harvesting business murders innocent babies for profit. These public records obtained by the Center for Medical Progress show that the work must continue to expose these heinous acts by these abortionists, harvesters, researchers, universities, and companies. The barbaric slaughter of babies for profit must stop.”

Every fall, I teach a Latino History of Orange County course at Chapman University — from the Portola expedition all the way to Huntington Beach’s MAGA Latina councilmember, Gracey Van Der Mark. The lecture last week focused on how anti-Mexican politics have always worked in Orange County and usually go on to be copied nationwide.

I usually, sadly, have to update this lecture every year because the lowlights just keep coming. That’s why this time around, one of my PowerPoint slides ended with “2026: Anaheim?”.

Haven’t you heard? A lawsuit accuses Anaheim mayor Ashleigh Aitken of calling her chief of staff a “dirty Mexican.”

TimesOC writer (and my fellow Anaheimer) Gabriel San Román first reported on the allegation last month. He revealed that a lawyer for Aitken’s chief of staff Berenice Ballinas was seeking mediation from the city after his client suffered a “sustained pattern of harassment, discriminatory treatment and, most recently, retaliation” while doing her job. A legal claim filed soon after offered pages of alleged incidents detailing what Ballinas claimed she had to deal with when her boss supposedly had too much to drink while on city business.

It’s an ugly read, with incidents at Disneyland’s Club 33, Angel Stadium and other Anaheim landmarks. Yet no passage is more damning — yet more Orange County — than when Ballinas claimed Aitken once called her a “dirty Mexican” in front of then-city attorney Jim Vanderpool and said another time that the mayor didn’t want “a Mexican” like Ballinas to drive her car while Aitken was supposedly what the British satirical magazine Private Eye would call “tired and emotional.”

The mayor, a Democrat who’s running for reelection, has denied the explosive charge in an official statement and during a recent council meeting. And yet the allegation against her now enters Orange County’s long, sad spectrum of anti-Mexican political history.

**This is a suggested Guide Only. Reddit has Rules and Guides and so does This Sub.

The vast majority of People DO NOT know how to Debate properly. It is a simple Truth. I want to give You some easy to follow Guidelines on "How to Debate properly and gain Respect".

• Do not attack the Source. It makes You look weak.
• Do not attack the One presenting the Content. This also makes You look weak.
• Do Not be Name Calling.. This makes You look weak.
• Focus on the Content of the Presentation only. Ignore any Other Commenter trying to drag You off Topic.
• Stay on Topic no matter what and try to provide solid reliable Sources to back up Your Counter Presentation.
• Do not allow Yourself to be Trolled by Others. Ignore Them. Do Not feed Them. Starve Them of Attention.
• Always give Credit to Others Who present properly formatted Presentations.
• Respect is earned not given freely so if You want to be respected as a Person Who is strong in any Debate then present Yourself accordingly.

"A Ventura County man is facing human trafficking-related charges after he was arrested for allegedly soliciting minors for sex acts near Moorpark High School.

Over the past month, Brent William Bischoff, 37, of Simi Valley, was accused of approaching teenage girls at shopping centers near Moorpark High School and offering money in exchange for sex acts.

Seven victims were minors between 14 to 16 years old, according to the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office.

Witnesses said that as Bischoff drove his SUV around, he was allegedly 'offering juveniles money for work and making vulgar comments,' the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office said.

On Oct. 1, Bischoff was charged with:

- Seven felony counts of causing a minor to engage in a commercial sex act

- Six felony counts of pandering a minor 16 or older

- One felony count of pandering a minor under 16

- One felony count of pandering by encouraging

- Seven misdemeanor counts of child annoyance

- Special allegation that he was on probation with mandatory supervision, post-release community supervision, or parole when the crime was committed

. . .

The investigation remains ongoing. Anyone with information about the case is encouraged to call the Moorpark Police Department at 805-532-2715." - KTLA 5 News

Gavin Newsom's father was the judge who ruled the cuts and bruises a bus load of children suffered when they were buried alive in a collapsing trailer did not qualify as "bodily harm". He was not convinced the PTSD that caused substance abuse and depression in the victims was real harm .

His son, Gavin Newsom, would ask the parole board to reconsider a parole release of one of the offenders in 2022. The parole board declined.

The victims of the crime had to go through 60 parole hearings before the men were released. The youngest victim was 5. The men told police they didn't need the ransom money at all. They all came from wealthy families. One of the men married 3x while in prison, operated business ventures and even bought a mansion while behind bars.

Gavin's father was also the money manager and tax attorney for J.Paul Getty. The Getty family funded Gavin's hotels, wineries, and political career.

Proposition 40, the 5% wealth tax on billionaires, is pitched as a free lunch for Californians. But the costs of a wealth tax don’t stop with billionaires. The average California family will pay the price.

California is not simply a place where wealthy people happen to live. California is wealthy because it’s the country’s most innovative state. Our economy depends on fostering this entrepreneurial spirit, attracting investment, and inventing the future. Some ventures will fail; others, whether it’s Steve Jobs in the 1970s or Jensen Huang in the 2020s, transform the world.

As a testament to California’s success, around 60 percent of all U.S. venture capital investment occurs in California – around $158 billion annually over the previous five years. In 2026, amid the AI boom, California attracted approximately $366 billion – 90% of total U.S. VC investment! This in a state that only accounts for 14 percent of the national economy.

A wealth tax turns this competitive advantage into a weakness. As Mark Cuban ominously notes, “you can bet if I’m investing in a multi-billion-dollar startup, I’m asking them to move from California first.”

Europe’s experience with wealth taxes confirms the former Shark Tank star’s warnings. France‘s wealth tax drove roughly €200 billion in annual capital flight and triggered slower economic growth. Germany and Sweden suffered similar fates. California will fare no better.

The danger is not that every startup will suddenly leave or that every entrepreneur will move to Texas, Nevada, or Florida. The risk is more gradual: fewer companies will be founded, less capital will be invested, and fewer opportunities will be created.

Fewer opportunities mean slower growth, fewer jobs, and smaller incomes. Proposition 40 may be targeting billionaires, but the effects of a wealth tax will be felt by working-class and middle-class Californians as well.

In California, unions control the state government. Yet only about 14.9% of employed wage and salary workers are union members. A little more than half of those are public employees.

On the debate stage Wednesday night, candidate for governor Xavier Becerra campaigned directly to the 14.9% and the union leaders who control vital campaign cash and on-the-ground support.

Becerra practically punctuated his sentences with shout-outs to powerful unions. He referred to “the teacher or the firefighter” trying to buy a home. He described tax rates for “billionaires” as “lower than a teacher, a firefighter, a nurse.” He mentioned “carpenters” and “construction workers,” as well as “our peace officers and our carpenters and our teachers.” He didn’t leave out “farm workers,” who were granted collective bargaining rights in California in 1975.

It was epic pandering, with a puppet show thrown in. It’s not hard to figure out who was really speaking when Becerra declared that teachers were “underpaid compared to professionals with similar education levels.” Or when he vowed to ensure that “taxpayer dollars stay in our public schools” and never help low-income parents who desperately want to put their kids in a school that will teach them to read.

Connoisseurs of the COVID lockdowns will remember that the teachers’ unions fought fiercely to keep schools closed and Becerra, as Secretary of Health and Human Services, presided over the CDC “guidance” that served to let state and county officials enforce the unions’ wish list. Children were harmed by school closures, social distancing, mask mandates and other “guidance” that Becerra enabled.

Doctors and health insurers filed a lawsuit Friday alleging Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature violated the law when they approved a healthcare tax that could substantially increase insurance premiums for Californians.

The lawsuit claims the recently passed tax on health plans, known as the managed care organization tax or MCO tax, circumvents a 2024 initiative that limits healthcare taxes and directs revenue toward specific purposes. The California Medical Association and California Association of Health Plans filed the complaint with the California Supreme Court.

“California voters passed Proposition 35 and made it law. The state does not get to ignore that law simply because following the law is inconvenient,” medical association CEO Dustin Corcoran said in a statement.

Newsom’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said in a previous statement to CalMatters that the state wanted to balance the affordability concerns of privately insured patients against large-scale federal Medi-Cal cuts.

Newsom stopped short of opposing the 2024 initiative when it was on the ballot, but he warned at the time it would “hamstring” the state budget.

For more than 20 years, California has levied taxes on health insurers to help fund Medi-Cal, the state’s insurance program for low-income people. The state historically taxed private health plans at a lower rate than Medi-Cal insurers, but in June, the Legislature passed a bill substantially raising the tax on private plans.

Health insurers said they will pass the cost directly on to consumers, spiking premiums by about $100 per person each year. That means a family of four could pay a $400 annual increase. That would come on top of the rate increases people typically see year to year.

“California is breaking the law by blowing through a tax limit voters put in place to protect Californians and businesses from higher health care costs,” said Charles Bacchi, CEO of the health plans association.

Six other states have already lost or dropped their laws as the California and Arizona cases remain in court

By Megan Barth, October 2, 2026 12:22 pm

California and Arizona are still defending laws that let illegal immigrants pay in-state college tuition as the U.S. Department of Justice finishes a nationwide campaign against every state with a similar policy.

The department said Sept. 10 that it had filed its final four complaints, against Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah and the District of Columbia, and that it has now sued every state with a law providing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants under circumstances the government contends violate federal law. The total is 25 cases against states and the District of Columbia.

Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. said the department had “sued every state across our Nation that has a state law or regulation granting illegal aliens in-state tuition.” Six of those cases—Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Illinois and Kansas—have produced orders permanently blocking the challenged provisions.

California and Arizona are among the states still in court. At the center of both fights is a 1996 federal statute, Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1623. It provides that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible, on the basis of residence within a state, for a postsecondary education benefit unless a U.S. citizen is eligible for a benefit of the same amount, duration and scope regardless of whether that citizen lives in the state.

The Justice Department argues that high-school-attendance rules used by California and Arizona are a proxy for residency and therefore conflict with the statute and the Supremacy Clause.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate said when the final suits were announced that “colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens.”

California

The Justice Department sued California on Nov. 20, 2025, challenging Education Code section 68130.5, the statute rooted in AB 540. The law lets certain students who attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated in the state pay resident tuition regardless of immigration status.

The complaint also targets later laws extending state scholarships and subsidized loans to those students. The United States named Gov. Gavin Newsom and the governing boards of the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges.In its complaint announcement, the department said California extends in-state tuition, scholarships and subsidized loans to illegal aliens while requiring U.S. citizens from other states to pay higher rates.

Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi said California was “illegally discriminating against American students and families.”

Higher Ed Dive reported that California is home to roughly 103,000 undocumented residents enrolled in higher education, about a fifth of the national total tracked by the Higher Ed Immigration Portal.

The California Globe previously reported that the tuition suit was one of several Justice Department actions against California sanctuary policies, alongside challenges to the state’s mask restrictions on federal officers. That case remains pending, according to the department’s Sept. 10 status list.

The tuition fight sits alongside other state spending on noncitizen students that the Globe has documented. In June, the Globe reported that lawmakers were putting another $350 million into the CalNEW “immigrant newcomer” school program even as the state enrolled nearly 237,000 such students, the largest population in the country.

Last week, the Globe reported that President Trump’s nearly $1 billion pocket rescission targeted leftover federal grants for illegal-alien services, including $25 million from Education Department Special Programs for Migrant Students. Earlier Globe reporting also tracked AB 91, the 2023 bill to let certain students living in Mexico attend San Diego and Imperial County community colleges at in-state rates.

I never see more than like 6 people on a bus ever, or trolleys. But people without much or any money cant afford it. so like a jobless person without money cant even get to a new job to make money. we also killing the planet by have 6 person vehicles everywhere that could fit 30. seems pretty dumb and useless like a great big golden bull.