More stories

  • in

    Why the Recall Vote Will Be on Sept. 14

    Wednesday: Here’s what to know about the date of the special election that will allow voters to decide whether to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom.Supporters of removing California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, in Carlsbad last week.Mike Blake/ReutersGood morning.At first, political experts said that if it happened, a special election to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom from office would happen later in the year — probably November? There was a complex, lengthy process that would have to take place first, and the earlier estimates accounted for all of that.But now, here we are, with a date for the election that is much sooner than expected: Sept. 14. How? Why? What does it mean for Newsom and his opponents? Here’s what you need to know.Who set the election date for Sept. 14?The date was decided by Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, a Democrat who is closely allied with the governor. It was the soonest that county officials said they could pull together a special election.Previous estimates were later because the recall election process required an additional step, a cost review, before a date could be set. But last month, lawmakers passed a bill allowing the state to bypass that review and pick an earlier date.So, over objections that legislators were changing the rules of the game in order to protect the governor, that’s what they did.The special election is expected to cost taxpayers some $276 million, state officials said. That, of course, doesn’t include campaign expenditures. In total, David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, told me he expected the spending to be somewhere around half a billion dollars.But McCuan said this was all part of what he described as “protest politics,” in which politicians are judged less by what they do and more by what sides of contentious issues they represent..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“It’s the weaponization of Trump’s playbook through direct democracy by both Republicans and Democrats,” he said.Is that date good or bad for Newsom?It’s clear that Newsom and his advisers believe the earlier date is good for him. It will allow the governor to take advantage of Californians’ optimism as they emerge from the pandemic, and will keep short the amount of time left for serious contenders to enter the race. (They have only about two more weeks to jump in. More than 50 candidates are already on the ballot, including a handful of well-funded Republicans.)And indeed, McCuan said, from a lawmaking standpoint, the Sept. 14 timing is advantageous for the governor.It’s near the end of the legislative session. This year, the state’s Democrats will have items on their wish lists from a huge budget surplus.“The Newsom team is going to want to parcel those out based upon who’s playing well in their sandbox,” he said. “He’ll have bills in front of him to sign or veto as he’s going into the recall.”Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke at an event where he outlined measures to help restaurants and bars reopen.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesIs that date good or bad for the governor’s opponents?Experts said it may not be bad for proponents of the recall — even if it’s good for Newsom.Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College’s Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform, told me that the rush to get out the ballot could backfire.Right now, the voters who are most “engaged — and probably enraged,” are those who would like to boot the governor, as Spivak wrote in an opinion piece for The Los Angeles Daily News. Having a later election would give the Newsom campaign more time to raise money and convince the state’s Democratic base that it’s important to vote.A later election date also would give Newsom more time to respond to any unforeseen delays or complications with school reopenings in the fall; prolonged school closures were a major point of criticism for Newsom’s Republican opponents.Still, McCuan said, even if the recall effort fails — as it is expected to do — it will have been worth it for Republicans if they’re able to accomplish one thing: increase party registration in a state where Democrats have dominated and the G.O.P. has been divided over its future.Republicans can also use the recall as an opportunity to hone a message for California voters before the 2022 midterm elections.For more:Find all the answers to your questions about the recall here.Read more about the rule change lawmakers recently passed from The Sacramento Bee.Kevin Kiley, a state lawmaker who has been a chief opponent of the governor’s, pushing back repeatedly against pandemic restrictions, announced on Twitter that he would run against him in the recall.Here’s what else to know todayVisitors walked by the salt flats of Badwater Basin inside Death Valley National Park last month.Patrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA heat wave is expected across the West this week. Here’s how things look in the Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.Here’s the latest on the Delta variant in the state from The Los Angeles Times.The collapse of an apartment building in Surfside, Fla., is raising concerns about the structural integrity of San Francisco’s Millennium Tower, CNN reports.CapRadio investigates why FEMA rejected 95 percent of aid applications during last year’s disastrous wildfire season.State lawmakers delayed until next year a vote on a bill that would create supervised drug sites for opioid users, The Associated Press reports.CalMatters explored the two recent decrees, one from the Biden administration, and the other from the Supreme Court, that affect the management of the state’s water supply.A second round of $600 stimulus checks is part of the current budget negotiations. The San Francisco Chronicle explains how to know if you’ll get one.After a huge explosion of illegal fireworks last week in south Los Angeles, more than 20 families were evacuated from the area and have yet to return home, The Los Angeles Times reports.The Guardian explores how Black Wall Streets in California have weathered the pandemic and are changing the cities around them.CalMatters looks at how the state is spending $61 million to create highway crossings to keep wildlife and drivers safe.Los Angeles’s Tyler, the Creator notched his second No. 1 on the Billboard album chart this week with “Call Me if You Get Lost.”Real estate: What $3.3 million gets you in California.And finally …Growing up in India, Vijaya Srivastava, now 72, never had access to swimming pools.Aubrey Trinnaman for The New York TimesFor the first 68 years of her life, Vijaya Srivastava stayed on dry land. She hadn’t grown up with access to swimming pools, and as an adult she spent time volunteering or walking around the Berkeley Hills to stay fit.But, as she explains in this new interview series, she decided to learn to swim.If you need a little motivation today, take to heart Srivastava’s advice: “Don’t give yourself an option to give up.”California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here.Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles — but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter. More

  • in

    Going to the Beach in California? Here’s How to Check if It’s Polluted

    Friday: Heal the Bay’s annual beach report card is out. Here’s what to know. Also, the recall election now has a date.Pacific Beach in San Diego last July.Bing Guan/ReutersGood morning.This weekend, antsy Californians are projected to hit the road in record numbers for a newly unfettered Fourth of July holiday. And, as usual, many of us are headed for the coast.Last year around this time, our relationship with the beach was a little complicated. Amid an uptick in coronavirus cases, Gov. Gavin Newsom had implored us to avoid places, including many of the state’s most popular Independence Day destinations, where there were likely to be crowds. Beaches had been closed for that reason earlier in the year.But as the months marched on it became clear that California’s beaches were some of the state’s most important respites — from oppressive, dangerous heat inland, from the monotony of our homes. Many beaches were soon reopened, with restrictions in some places.This underscored the urgency of keeping the state’s waterways clean, said Shelley Luce, the president and chief executive of the environmental advocacy group Heal the Bay.“We’ve always been dependent on our beaches as open space, as a place to relax,” she recently told me. “In 2020, they were open and available, and people were seeking out that connection to nature.”Heal the Bay this week released its 31st annual Beach Report Card and its third River Report Card. The grades aim to help Californians better understand the water quality in the places where they may be swimming. The report assigns A through F letter grades based on bacterial pollution levels to some 500 beaches, almost all in California, and 28 freshwater recreation sites in Los Angeles County.The findings paint a mixed picture of our drought-wracked summer. While the vast majority of beaches had excellent water quality in summer 2020, it was most likely because there was no rain to wash pollution into the sea.“The first rain washes so much pollution in, and in what used to be our normal weather pattern, each one was less polluting than the last one,” Luce said. “Now there’s weeks or months before the next flush, so pollution builds up again.”In other words, we’re facing more extreme fluctuations in water quality, which could then tip into dangerous levels of pollution more often.“We have to pay a lot of attention to our wet weather runoff,” Luce said.And, she said, the drought was likely to result in frequent and severe wildfires, which can lead to ash that pollutes nearby water for months afterward.Still, it’s not all dire news. Luce said that during Heal the Bay’s three decades of putting out the report card, leaders have taken steps to mitigate pollution, like diverting storm drains away from beaches. In places like Los Angeles County, they’ve started longer-term projects aimed at restoring wetlands and green space so that storm water doesn’t flow straight from urban areas into the ocean.Heal the Bay also added grades for beaches in Tijuana this year, she said, in hopes of drawing attention to pollution there.So which beaches deserve extra attention? And where should you be careful about getting in the water?Surfing at Moonstone Beach.Alexandra Hootnick for The New York TimesHere are this year’s 10 Beach Bummers:1. Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge at the Tijuana River mouth in San Diego County2. Erckenbrack Park in San Mateo County3. Capitola Beach, west of the jetty in Santa Cruz County4. Gull Park in San Mateo County5. Marina “Mother’s” Beach, between the lifeguard tower and boat dock in Los Angeles County6. Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Tijuana River in San Diego County7. Clam Beach County Park at Strawberry Creek in Humboldt County8. Marlin Park in San Mateo County9. Candlestick Point at Windsurfer Circle in San Francisco10. East Beach at Mission Creek in Santa Barbara CountyFor more:See the full beach and river report cards here.Read more about the 2019 report card.Here’s what else to know todayGov. Gavin Newsom of California walked through the remnants of the headquarters building in September as he inspected the fire damage to Big Basin Redwoods State Park.Pool photo by Lipo ChingThe state’s lieutenant governor announced on Thursday that she had set Sept. 14 as the date for the special election to determine whether Gov. Gavin Newsom should become the state’s second governor to be recalled from office.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California may not require charities soliciting contributions in the state to report the identities of their major donors.The governor rolled back a more ambitious wildfire prevention plan, along with more than half a billion dollars in fuel reduction promises, CapRadio and NPR report.The San Francisco Chronicle examined the major fires burning in the state.Almost five out of every six coronavirus cases went undetected in the first months of the pandemic, The Los Angeles Times reports.A California couple who mowed down 36 protected Joshua trees to clear their land for a new house have been fined $18,000.Seventeen people, including 10 law enforcement officers, were wounded on Wednesday when part of a cache of improvised explosives blew up in South Los Angeles during what was supposed to be a controlled detonation by a police bomb squad.California Democrats are losing patience with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, a powerful labor ally, Politico reports.Homicides in California jumped by 31 percent last year, making it the worst year for homicides since 2007, The Associated Press reports.People gathered in San Francisco’s Chinatown in March to commemorate victims of anti-Asian violence.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesA new report found that reports of hate crimes against Asian Americans rose by 107 percent in 2020, The Sacramento Bee reports.More than 200 prominent women from around the world wrote an open letter urging Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and Google to “prioritize the safety of women” on their platforms.President Biden wants to use pollution rules to rapidly lift electric car sales, but there are hurdles ahead.California’s gas taxes rose again yesterday, KCRA reports.The wealth management firm that was set to take over as the co-conservator of Britney Spears’s estate, alongside her father, has requested to resign from the arrangement, citing Spears’s public criticisms of the conservatorship.Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon are ramping up offerings for cloud gaming that let people enjoy high-quality games on any device.A grass-roots organization in Los Angeles’s Chinatown said some new arrivals to the neighborhood were virtue signaling on Instagram about social justice issues but not addressing inequalities at home, LA Eater reports.The Monterey Car Week auctions in California, among the most important of the year to collectors, will return on Aug. 12-14.And finally …A child rode along the parade route during the Santa Monica Fourth Of July Parade in 2019.Richard Vogel/Associated PressCalifornia Today will be off on Monday for the Fourth of July holiday. Have a great weekend, and stay safe.California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here.Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles — but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter. More

  • in

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Recall Election Set for Sept. 14.

    The Republican-led, pandemic-fueled campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom of California got an official election date on Thursday, as the state’s lieutenant governor announced that voters would head to the polls on the issue on Sept. 14.The date, just 75 days away and the soonest that county officials said they could manage to pull together a special election, was released shortly after the California secretary of state formally certified the recall petition. And it came after Mr. Newsom’s fellow Democrats in the State Legislature decided to expedite the process.California is overwhelmingly Democratic and Mr. Newsom is widely expected to prevail, particularly as the state has emerged from the coronavirus crisis. The conventional wisdom among his advisers and allies has been that he will benefit from a swift decision, while Californians are still basking in relief from the reopening of the state’s economy, and before the autumn wildfires begin in earnest.The timeline, set by a fellow Democrat, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, also severely restricts the ability of prospective challengers to get onto the ballot, leaving only about two weeks for them to join the race to replace Mr. Newsom. More than 50 candidates are already on the ballot, with a handful of well-funded Republicans seriously campaigning.Expected to cost some $276 million, the special election will be the second time in state history that Californians have voted on whether to recall a sitting governor. The first resulted in the ouster of Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003.Mr. Newsom and his supporters, who have derided the recall campaign as a last-ditch ploy for relevance by right-wing extremists, said on Thursday that they welcomed the decision of voters.“This Republican recall is a naked attempt by Trump Republicans to grab control in California — powered by the same Republicans who refused to accept the results of the presidential election,” said Juan Rodriguez, the leader of the governor’s campaign organization.Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego and one of the Republican contenders, countered that “this movement is powered by Californians from every community — Democrats, Republicans and Independents.”Mr. Faulconer added, “Change is coming for California and retirement is coming for Gavin Newsom.”Recall attempts are not uncommon in California, with every governor since 1960 facing at least one. But getting a recall onto the ballot is rare.The campaign against Mr. Newsom languished for months before a series of pandemic-related missteps, judicial decisions and voter fury landed the governor — a liberal in a Democratic state who was elected in 2018 in a landslide — in a perfect political storm. More

  • in

    The Supreme Court Is Putting Democracy at Risk

    In two disturbing rulings closing out the Supreme Court’s term, the court’s six-justice conservative majority, over the loud protests of its three-liberal minority, has shown itself hostile to American democracy.In one case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the court has weakened the last remaining legal tool for protecting minority voters in federal courts from a new wave of legislation seeking to suppress the vote that is emanating from Republican-controlled states. In the other, Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, the court has laid the groundwork for lower courts to strike down campaign finance disclosure laws and laws that limit campaign contributions to federal, state and local candidates.The court is putting our democratic form of government at risk not only in these two decisions but in its overall course over the past few decades.Let’s begin with voting rights. In Brnovich, the court, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that two Arizona rules — one that does not count votes for any office cast by a voter in the wrong precinct and another that prevents third-party collection of absentee ballots (sometimes pejoratively referred to by Donald Trump and his allies as ballot harvesting) — do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.Section 2 is supposed to guarantee that minority voters have the same opportunity as other voters to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The evidence presented to the court showed that minority voters were much more likely to have their votes thrown out than white voters for out-of-precinct voting and that Native Americans — because many live on large reservations — were less likely to vote in the absence of help with ballot collection.That the conservative majority of justices on the Supreme Court found that these rules did not violate Section 2 is unsurprising. Compared to other laws making it harder to register and to vote, such as strict voter identification provisions, these were relatively tame. In fact, some voting rights lawyers were unhappy that the Democratic National Committee pushed this case aggressively; minority voters have had some success using Section 2 in the lower courts, even getting the very conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to strike down Texas’ voter ID law, one of the strictest in the nation. The concern was that the Supreme Court would mess up this track for protecting voting rights.And mess it up it did. The real significance of Brnovich is what the court says about how Section 2 applies to suppressive voting rules. Rather than focus on whether a law has a disparate impact on minority voters, as Justice Elena Kagan urged in her dissent, the court put a huge thumb on the scale in favor of restrictive state voting rules.Thanks to Brnovich, a state can now assert an interest in preventing fraud to justify a law without proving that fraud is actually a serious risk, but at the same time, minority voters have a high burden: They must show that the state has imposed more than the “usual burdens of voting.” Justice Alito specifically referred to voting laws in effect in 1982 as the benchmark, a period when early and absentee voting were scarce and registration was much more onerous in many states.It is hard to see what laws would be so burdensome that they would flunk the majority’s lax test. A ban on Sunday voting despite African American and other religious voters doing “souls to the polls” drives after church? New strict identification requirements for those voting by mail? More frequent voter purges? All would probably be OK under the court’s new test as long as there are still some opportunities for minority citizens to vote — somewhere, somehow.What’s worse, the court did not decide Brnovich in a vacuum but after two other significant decisions that undermined the fight against restrictive voting rules. In a 2008 decision, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court again put a thumb on the scale favoring a state’s restrictive laws when it upheld Indiana’s voter identification law against an argument that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And in the infamous 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case, the court killed off the part of the Voting Rights Act that required states and other jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get approval before they could adopt laws that could burden minority voters.We were assured back then not to worry about the loss of this preclearance provision because there was always Section 2 to fall back on. So much for that. There are now fewer and fewer tools with which to fight suppressive voting rules in the federal courts.And Justice Alito ended with a shot across the bow for Congress, should it consider amending the Voting Rights Act to provide an easier standard for minority plaintiffs to meet, such as Justice Kagan’s disparate impact test in dissent. Such a test, he wrote, would “deprive the states of their authority to establish nondiscriminatory voting rules,” potentially in violation of the Constitution.The news on the campaign finance front is almost as dire. In the Americans for Prosperity case, the court considered a law that required charities to disclose their donors in reports filed with the government of California. The state wanted the information for law enforcement purposes, to ferret out fraud by charities, and by law, the information was not supposed to be publicly released. Unfortunately, California had leaks, and some of the information was disclosed. The groups challenging the law said compelled disclosure of their donors violated their First Amendment rights. They put forth evidence that their donors faced danger of harassment if they were revealed. The court had long held that those who face such a danger can be exempt from disclosure rules.Once again, it is unsurprising that this particular conservative majority on the Supreme Court sided with these conservative charities. And had the court said only that California’s law as applied to those facing a threat of harassment was unconstitutional, it would have been no big deal. But the majority opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, is much more troubling. The court held the disclosure law could not be applied to anyone, even those not facing a risk of harassment. He also rejiggered the First Amendment standards to call many other laws into question.In the Americans for Prosperity case, he redefined the “exacting scrutiny” standard to judge the constitutionality of disclosure laws so that the government must show its law is “narrowly tailored” to an important government interest. This makes it more like strict scrutiny and more likely that disclosure laws will be struck down. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, “Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye.”The court’s ruling calls into question a number of campaign finance disclosure laws. Perhaps even more significant, it also threatens the constitutionality of campaign contribution laws, which are judged under the “exacting scrutiny” standard, too. Lower courts can now find that such laws are not narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or its appearance or do not provide voters with valuable information — two interests the court recognized in the past to justify campaign laws. A requirement to disclose a $200 contribution? A $500 campaign contribution limit? Plaintiffs in future cases are likely to argue that laws targeting small contributions for disclosure or imposing low contribution limits are not “narrowly tailored” enough to deter corruption or give voters valuable information, even if Congress or a state or municipality found such laws necessary.And that’s a key point. As in Shelby County and in the 2010 Citizens United case, which struck down Congress’s limit on corporate campaign spending, this conservative Supreme Court in today’s rulings shows no deference to democracy-enhancing laws passed by Congress, states or local governments.Justice Kagan’s Brnovich dissent is passionate about the majority’s failure to defer to Congress’s determination that minority voters need protection. Instead, the majority showed undue deference to democracy-reducing laws passed by states and localities.If you put the Brnovich and Americans for Prosperity cases together, the court is making it easier for states to pass repressive voting laws and easier for undisclosed donors and big money to influence election outcomes.It is too much to ask for the Supreme Court to be the main protector of American democracy. But it should not be too much to ask that the court not be one of the major impediments.Richard L. Hasen (@rickhasen) is a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust and the Threat to American Democracy.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    California bans state travel to Florida and four other states over LGBTQ+ laws

    California added five states, including Florida, to its list of places where state-funded travel is banned because of laws that discriminate against members of the LGBTQ+ community.California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, on Monday added Florida, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia to the list that now has 17 states where state employee travel is forbidden except under limited circumstances.“Make no mistake: we’re in the midst of an unprecedented wave of bigotry and discrimination in this country, and the state of California is not going to support it,” Bonta said.Lawmakers in 2016 banned non-essential travel to states with laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The 12 other states on the list are: Texas, Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee.The five states newly added to the list have introduced bills in their legislatures this year that prevent transgender girls from participating in school sports consistent with their gender identity, block access to certain types of healthcare and allow the discrimination of the LGBTQ+ community, Bonta said.Florida, Montana, Arkansas and West Virginia passed laws that prevent transgender girls from participating in school sports that confirm with their gender identity. North Dakota signed into law a bill allowing certain publicly-funded student organizations to restrict LGBTQ+ students from joining without losing funding. Arkansas passed the first law in the nation to prohibit physicians from providing gender-affirming healthcare to transgender minors, regardless of the wishes of parents or whether a physician deems such care to be medically necessary.These lawmakers “would rather demonize trans youth than focus on solving real issues like tackling gun violence beating back this pandemic and rebuilding our economy”, Bonta said.The California law has exemptions for some trips, such as travel needed to enforce state law and to honor contracts signed before the states were added to the list. Travel to conferences or out-of-state training are examples of trips that can be blocked.It’s unclear what effect California’s travel ban will have. Bonta did not have information about how many state agencies have stopped sending state employees to the states on the list or the financial impact of California’s travel ban on those states. More

  • in

    California has a $5.2bn plan to pay off unpaid rent accrued during the pandemic

    California is pursuing an ambitious plan to pay off the entirety of unpaid rent from low-income tenants who fell behind during the pandemic, in what could constitute the largest ever rent relief program in the US.The state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, is negotiating with legislators and said the $5.2bn plan would pay landlords all of what they are owed while giving renters a clean slate.If successful, the rent forgiveness plan would amount to an extraordinary form of aid in the largest state in the US, which has suffered from a major housing crisis and severe economic inequality long before Covid-19.An estimated 900,000 renters in California owe an average of $4,600 in back rent, according to a recent analysis. Without aggressive protections and relief, experts say the state would experience a tsunami of evictions and a dramatic worsening of its homelessness crisis. Even with restrictions on evictions in place since March 2020, vulnerable renters have continued to be pushed out of their homes while out of work and unable to pay the high costs of rent in the state.Federal eviction protections are due to expire at the end of June, as are California’s regulations which applied to more renters. Lawmakers, who are currently negotiating over the state’s roughly $260bn operating budget, are debating whether to extend the restrictions on evictions beyond June. The vast majority of people who have applied for relief have not yet received funds, according to state officials, which is why tenant groups are pushing for protections to remain in place.“The expectation for people to be up and at ’em and ready to pay rent on 1 July is wholeheartedly unfair,” said Kelli Lloyd, a 43-year-old single mother, to the Associated Press. She said she had not worked consistently since the pandemic began in March 2020.Lloyd, a member of the advocacy group Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, is supposed to pay $1,924 a month for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom rent-controlled apartment in the Crenshaw district of south Los Angeles. But she said she was $30,000 behind after not working for most of the last year to care for her two children as daycare centers closed and schools halted in-person learning.That debt will probably be covered by the government. But Lloyd said she recently lost a job at a real estate brokerage and had yet to find another one. She is worried she could be evicted if the protections expire.“Simply because the state has opened back up doesn’t mean people have access to their jobs,” she said.Meanwhile, in the wine country area of Sonoma county, property manager Keith Becker told the AP that 14 tenants are more than $100,000 behind in rent payments. It’s put financial pressure on the owners, who Becker says have “resigned themselves to it”. He argued that the eviction protections should end. The $5.2bn fund to pay off people’s rent comes from multiple federal aid packages approved by Congress. Jason Elliott, a senior counselor to Newsom on housing and homelessness, said that figure appeared to be more than enough to cover all rent debts in the state.But the state has been slow to distribute that money, and it is unlikely it can spend it all by 30 June. A report from the California department housing and community development showed that of the $490m in requests for rental assistance through 31 May, just $32m has been paid. That does not include the 12 cities and 10 counties that run their own rental assistance programs.“It’s challenging to set up a new, big program overnight,” said assemblyman David Chiu, a Democrat from San Francisco and chair of the assembly housing and community development committee. “It has been challenging to educate millions of struggling tenants and landlords on what the law is.”While employment among middle- and high-wage jobs has exceeded pre-pandemic levels, employment rates for Californians earning less than $27,000 a year are down more than 38% since January 2020, according to Opportunity Insights, an economic tracker based at Harvard University.“The stock market may be fine, we may be technically reopened, but people in low-wage jobs, which are disproportionately people of color, are not back yet,” said Madeline Howard, senior attorney for the Western Center on Law and Poverty.Some housing advocates are asking the state to keep the eviction ban in place until the unemployment rate among low-wage workers has dropped to pre-pandemic levels. It is similar to how state officials would impose restrictions on businesses in counties where Covid-19 infection rates were higher while those with lower infection rates could reopen more quickly. More

  • in

    What You Need to Know About the California Recall, Explained

    The 12 questions that help explain the historical, political and logistical forces behind the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom of California.The coronavirus pandemic is rapidly receding in California, but for Gov. Gavin Newsom, at least one side effect has lingered: the Republican-led push to relieve him of his job.How a Democratic star in the bluest of blue states could have ended up confronting a recall remains one of the more remarkable mysteries of the moment. In a perfect storm of partisan rage and pandemic upheaval, the effort to oust Mr. Newsom has become only the second recall attempt against a California governor to qualify for the ballot.With only a few procedural steps remaining, a special election appears destined for autumn, or perhaps even sooner. Next week marks an obscure yet significant milestone: the Tuesday deadline for voters who signed the recall petition to change their minds and have their names removed.If you haven’t been paying attention to every detail — every in-the-clutch mega-donation, every Kodiak bear appearance — we totally understand. So here is the California Recall Encyclopedia of 2021.So what’s with California and recalls?California Republicans are pushing to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom.Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesDirect democracy is a big part of Golden State political culture. Since 1911, when California approved recalls as part of a sweeping Progressive-era reform package, 179 recall attempts have been made against state officeholders. Launching a recall in California is easier than in almost any state, and every governor since 1960 has faced at least one.But the vast majority of those efforts against governors fizzle. California is enormous, with a population of nearly 40 million and at least five major media markets. The cost of campaigning statewide tends to thwart all but the most moneyed and determined critics.Besides Mr. Newsom’s, only one other recall of a California governor, Gray Davis, has ever reached an election. Mr. Davis lost in 2003 to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who went on to face his own blitz of attempted recalls.How do California recalls work?A recall petition must be signed by enough registered voters to equal 12 percent of the turnout in the last election for governor. The organizers do not need to give a reason for the recall, but they often do. The petition must include at least 1 percent of the last vote for the office in at least five counties. Proponents have 160 days to gather their signatures.The signatures must then be examined and verified by the California secretary of state. If the petitions meet the threshold — 1,495,709 valid signatures in this case — voters who signed have 30 business days to change their minds. Mr. Newsom’s critics have turned in more than 1.7 million signatures, and voters have until June 8 to reconsider.After that, the state finance department has up to 30 days to determine the cost of a special election and a joint legislative budget committee has up to 30 days to weigh in. Those calculations are underway, but the cost of a special election has been estimated at more than $100 million.The secretary of state must then officially certify the petition, and the lieutenant governor has to set an election that is 60 to 80 days from the date of certification. If the proposed date is so close to a regularly scheduled election that the two could be reasonably consolidated, the deadline can be extended to 180 days.Who can run in a recall?Candidates to replace the governor must be U.S. citizens registered to vote in California, and must pay a filing fee of about $4,000 or submit signatures from 7,000 supporters. They cannot be convicted of certain felonies, and they cannot be the governor up for recall. They have until 59 days before the election to file.The ballot asks voters two questions: Should the governor be recalled? And if so, who should be the new governor? If the majority of voters say no to the first question, the second is moot. But if more than 50 percent vote yes, the candidate with the most votes becomes the next governor. The 2003 winner, Mr. Schwarzenegger, had only 48.6 percent of the vote.Who is challenging Newsom?John Cox, a San Diego businessman, has been touring the state with a live Kodiak bear.Mike Blake/ReutersThirty-seven candidates have officially announced their intention to challenge Mr. Newsom in the recall. The most high-profile candidates are Republicans. No serious challenger has emerged from Mr. Newsom’s party.The Republicans include Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego; Doug Ose, a former congressman from Sacramento; John Cox, a San Diego businessman who recently distinguished himself by touring the state with a live Kodiak bear; and Caitlyn Jenner, a reality television star and former Olympic athlete.Who started the recall?Three sets of critics tried five times to recall Mr. Newsom before the sixth recall petition caught on in 2020. The first two groups were led by unsuccessful Republican candidates for Congress in Southern California, and the first papers were filed three months after Mr. Newsom’s inauguration in 2019.All three groups were Trumpian conservatives who, at least initially, raised familiar arguments against the governor’s liberal stances on such issues as the death penalty, immigration, gun control and taxes.The lead proponent of the current recall campaign is Orrin Heatlie, a retired Yolo County sheriff’s sergeant who had handled the social media for one of the earlier failed recall bids. He and his group, the California Patriot Coalition, took issue in particular with the Newsom administration’s resistance to Trump administration crackdowns on undocumented immigrants.Why pick on Newsom?Mr. Newsom, 53, the former mayor of San Francisco, has long been a favorite target of Republicans.His liberal pedigree and deep Democratic connections push an array of G.O.P. buttons. His aunt, for instance, was married for a time to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law. Mr. Newsom, a wine merchant, got his start in politics and business with support from the wealthy Getty family. In 2004, he and his first wife, the cable news legal commentator Kimberly Guilfoyle, appeared in a spread for Harper’s Bazaar shot at the Getty Villa and titled “The New Kennedys.”As mayor, Mr. Newsom made headlines for sanctioning same-sex marriage licenses before they were legal. As governor, he has remained a progressive standard-bearer. He championed ballot initiatives that legalized recreational marijuana and outlawed possession of the high-capacity magazines often used in mass shootings. One of his first acts as governor was to declare a moratorium on executions.Mr. Newsom is now married to Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker, and is the father of four small children. Ms. Guilfoyle is Donald Trump Jr.’s girlfriend.Isn’t it hard to recall a Democrat in California?A man signed a petition at a booth run by conservative activists in Pasadena, Calif.David Mcnew/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesCalifornia is less liberal in the aggregate than its reputation. Some six million Californians voted for Donald J. Trump in the 2020 election. That’s roughly quadruple the number of signatures proponents needed to put a recall onto the ballot.And although Mr. Heatlie and his group describe themselves as mainstream, a significant portion of the energy behind the recall is coming from the fringes. Early rallies to promote it were heavily populated by Proud Boys and anti-vaccination activists. Backers of Mr. Heatlie’s campaign have made social media posts bashing immigrants and depicting the governor as Hitler.“Microchip all illegal immigrants. It works! Just ask Animal control,” Mr. Heatlie himself wrote in a 2019 Facebook post. He now says that the remark was “a conversation starter” that he did not intend to be taken literally.Did the pandemic play into the recall?Not at first.Californians initially approved of Mr. Newsom’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Mr. Newsom was the first governor in the nation to issue a stay-at-home mandate, a decision that seemed prescient as the virus ravaged the Northeast. But Mr. Newsom’s on-again, off-again health rules began testing Californians’ patience.Separately, Mr. Heatlie’s recall campaign had languished. It had to be filed twice because of technical errors. By last June, when the secretary of state gave the group permission to start circulating petitions, the governor’s emergency health orders had dispersed the usual signature-gathering crowds at supermarkets and malls.Citing the pandemic restrictions, the group asked Judge James Arguelles of the Sacramento Superior Court for an extension. Judge Arguelles granted it. The governor’s supporters say the recall would never have gotten off the ground had the judge not extended the signature-gathering deadline.Public school parents expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the sustained shutdown of public school classrooms during the pandemic. (Mr. Newsom’s children attend private schools.) But the governor’s approval ratings were relatively healthy even in the winter when Covid-19 was still pummeling California. They have risen markedly as the virus has waned.What happened at French Laundry?On the evening of Nov. 6, hours after the court approval was made final for the signature gathering extension, the governor went to a birthday party for a Sacramento lobbyist and friend at French Laundry, a pricey Napa Valley restaurant. After photos leaked of Mr. Newsom mingling, maskless, at the restaurant, he apologized, but Californians were outraged.And Republicans were ecstatic: Mr. Heatlie’s petitions, which had only 55,588 signatures on the day of the dinner, had nearly half a million a month after Nov. 6.Who is backing the recall now?Orrin Heatlie leads the California Patriot Coalition, which took issue in particular with the Newsom administration’s resistance to Trump administration crackdowns on undocumented immigrants.Max Whittaker for The New York TimesMr. Heatlie said the 1,719,943 voters who signed his group’s petition are a grass-roots cross-section of Republicans, independents and Democrats who no longer trust the governor. Their names are not public information, and petitions have not yet been formally certified.Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, has promoted the recall. Mike Huckabee, the Republican former governor of Arkansas, donated $100,000 through his political action committee.John E. Kruger, an Orange County entrepreneur and charter school backer who opposed Mr. Newsom’s pandemic health restrictions on churches, remains by far the largest donor. Mr. Kruger, who has donated to candidates of both parties, gave $500,000 to the recall shortly after the French Laundry affair.How has Newsom responded?For many months, he did not utter the R-word. But since March, when it became clear that it had traction, Mr. Newsom and his campaign team have launched an all-out war on the recall.They have actively discouraged Democrats — including Tom Steyer, a former presidential candidate, and Antonio Villaraigosa, a former mayor of Los Angeles who lost to Mr. Newsom in the 2018 primary — from launching rival campaigns.And Californians, meanwhile, have in some ways had it better than a studio audience on “Oprah.” Mr. Newsom has tweaked health rules to hasten the reopening of businesses and classrooms. He rebated large portions of an enormous state surplus in the form of stimulus checks to poor and middle class taxpayers for up to $1,100 per household. And in late May, he announced the nation’s largest vaccine lottery.Pollsters note that Mr. Newsom has less personal popularity to fall back on than his predecessors, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown.But the latest poll, conducted in early May by the Public Policy Institute of California, found that nearly six in 10 likely voters would vote to keep Mr. Newsom, and 90 percent of likely voters believe the worst of the pandemic is behind the state.Which side raised the most money?Supporters of the recall have raised approximately $4.7 million so far, and opponents have raised about $13.2 million, according to the nonprofit news site CalMatters.Campaign finance rules have worked in Mr. Newsom’s favor. California law treats his defense against the recall as a ballot issue, but treats the candidacies of his challengers as regular elections. So the governor can raise unlimited sums to fend off the recall, while donors to his rivals must abide by a $32,400-per-election limit on contributions they can make to a single candidate. Mega-donations for and against the overall recall campaigns are not restricted by those single-candidate limits.In late May, Mr. Newsom’s campaign announced a jaw-dropping $3 million donation from the founder of Netflix, Reed Hastings, who supported Mr. Villaraigosa in the 2018 primary. Labor groups, tribal organizations and the California Association of Realtors have also pledged large sums. More