California
Column: California voters are fed up with crime and, apparently, inaction by Democrats
Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders vehemently oppose an anti-retail theft measure on the November ballot. But they’re being ignored by California voters who support the proposal overwhelmingly.
Maybe voters don’t know about the governor’s and lawmakers’ strong opposition. Or maybe they do and don’t care. They’re following their own instincts and thinking that California — again — is too easy on bad guys.
The pendulum apparently is swinging back from left to center on crime and incarceration. Three decades ago California was over on the right with the war on drugs and tough three-strikes sentencing for repeat felons. Then we gradually moved left by dramatically reducing punishment. Opinions continue to sway.
The support numbers are stunning for Proposition 36, sponsored by the California District Attorneys Assn. It would increase punishment for theft and hard drug offenses and impose required treatment for repetitive criminal addicts.
The initiative is ahead by an astonishing 45 percentage points, according to a new poll of likely voters by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California: 71% to 26%, with only 3% undecided.
That’s unprecedented for a controversial ballot measure.
Well, controversial among politicians anyway. But seemingly not among voters.
“I was surprised by the level of support,” says Mark Baldassare, a pollster with the Public Policy Institute of California.
But he adds this caution: “Propositions aren’t like candidate races. The bottom can fall out of them. And the campaign for and against 36 really hasn’t started yet. It’s easy for people to say ‘no’ on a proposition rather than ‘yes.’ Especially if someone comes along and points out a fatal flaw.”
Sure. But don’t bet on it. Opponents have a very steep hill to climb to conquer Proposition 36.
It’s ahead among every demographic group, including Democrats by a landslide margin: 63% to 33%. Self-described liberals support it by 56% to 41%.
Baldassare notes that of the 10 state ballot measures, voters consider Proposition 36 the most important by far, his poll found.
Another independent survey last month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies also showed the measure holding a huge lead: 56% to 23%, with 21% undecided.
IGS pollster Mark DiCamillo cited the “great visibility” of retail theft — caught on camera or witnessed personally by voters — as a reason for heavy support of Proposition 36.
“It’s kind of outrageous to voters, what they’re seeing,” DiCamillo told Times reporter Mackenzie Mays. “And they’re linking it to the approval of Proposition 47.”
That proposition swung California to the left on crime punishment 10 years ago. Federal court pressure had mounted to reduce prison and jail overcrowding. The measure passed lopsidedly, reducing some felony crimes to low-punishment misdemeanors–including shoplifting when the stolen goods were worth less than $950.
Misdemeanor arrests are harder to make because a cop must witness a crime or possess a judge’s warrant. Anyway, judges began freeing petty thieves. So, cops stopped responding to shoplifting complaints. Merchants ceased bothering to report the crimes. And smash-and-grab thefts increased.
PPIC researchers recently reported on a yearlong study of Proposition 47’s impact.
“Under Prop 47, prison and jail populations plummeted as did arrests for drug and property crimes after certain offenses were reclassified from felonies to misdemeanors,” the report stated.
But it said the pandemic also contributed to fewer apprehensions. As people stayed home to prevent the spread of COVID, there were “fewer encounters with police, resulting in fewer arrests,” the researchers contended.
At any rate, public pressure increased on Sacramento Democrats to do something — and they didn’t for several years. They probably thought the growing anti-47 pushback would just fade. It didn’t.
Newsom was one of Proposition 47’s most vocal original advocates and has been a staunch defender.
“We don’t need to go back to the broken policies of the last century,” he insisted. “Mass incarceration has been proven ineffective and is not the answer.”
Newsom’s initial answer included trying to strongarm Proposition 36 off the ballot. It failed awkwardly, leaving legislative leaders perturbed at the governor.
Proposition 36 would roll back parts of Proposition 47. The governor backed a legislative package aimed at curtailing retail theft without significantly altering Proposition 47. But he concocted a nutty “poison pill” that would have automatically killed the Democrats’ own anti-crime legislation if Proposition 36 was approved by voters.
The aim was to coerce Proposition 36’s sponsors into tossing in the towel and accepting the Legislature’s offering. But Democrats rebelled at the governor’s bizarre scheme and refused to insert the deadly pill into their package.
The Legislature ultimately passed 13 bills that Newsom and Democratic lawmakers hope will satisfy voters’ demands that California do more to combat smash-and-grabs and shoplifting.
“The bills they passed do some good things, but by and large they’re half measures,” asserts Gregory Totten, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn. “Our law [36] says consequences of stealing have to be ratcheted up.”
The initiative also would impose tougher penalties for sales of deadly fentanyl and treat it similar to other hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. Some people possessing hard drugs could be sentenced merely to treatment.
Outside Sacramento, some major Democrats have heard the voters, read the polls and are supporting Proposition 36. They include Mayors London Breed of San Francisco, Todd Gloria of San Diego and Matt Mahan of San Jose.
But Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, a former state Senate leader who has spent his career trying to generate treatment for the drug-addicted homeless and mentally ill, opposes Proposition 36.
He contends that 36 offers a “false promise” of treatment. It’ll fall short because the emphasis will be on law enforcement, not treatment of addicts, Steinberg predicts.
But so far, Newsom and Sacramento Democrats haven’t been leading anyone away from Proposition 36. Voters are headed in the opposite direction.
By Dan Walters, CalMatters
This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Two decades ago, when California got serious about reducing or even eliminating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, its political leaders weighed two potential tactics about industrial emissions.
The state could impose direct facility-by-facility limits, generally favored by climate change advocates. Or it could set overall emission reduction goals that would gradually decrease and auction off emission allowances, assuming their costs would encourage reductions.
The latter, known as cap-and-trade, was favored by corporate interests as being less onerous and was adopted, finally taking effect in 2012.
Since then, the California Air Resources Board has conducted quarterly auctions of emission allowances, collecting a total of $35 billion dollars so far, which, in theory, is being spent on projects that would reduce emissions.
The revenues have varied from year to year, but they have generally increased as the emission caps have declined. Since reaching a peak of $8.1 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year, however, auction proceeds have been declining.
Roughly half of the money has been given to utilities to minimize cap-and-trade’s impact on consumer costs. However, the program has been widely criticized as a de facto tax on gasoline and other fuels, which were already among the most expensive of any state.
The remaining revenues have been deposited into a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that governors and legislators have tapped for various purposes, not all of them connected to emission reductions. In a sense, it’s been a slush fund.
Last year Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature overhauled the program in two bills, Senate Bill 840 and Assembly Bill 1207. The program was extended, it was renamed as cap-and-invest and new priorities for spending auction proceeds were set.
Notably, the state’s cash-strapped and long-stalled bullet train project would get a flat $1 billion a year, rather than the 25% share it had been getting. Project managers hope that lenders will advance enough money to complete its first leg in the San Joacim Valley; the plan is to repay the loans from the $1 billion annual cap-and-invest allocation.
Early this year, the Air Resources Board released new regulations to implement the legislative changes but faced criticism that they would increase consumer costs. That led to a revision in April that softens the rules’ impact — most obviously on refiners who have been threatening to leave California — but environmental groups are very critical.
The April version would also sharply reduce net revenues from emission auctions, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, providing barely enough for the $1 billion allocation to the bullet train and another $1 billion for the governor and Legislature to spend. Other programs that have been receiving cap-and-invest support, such as wildfire protection and housing, would probably get nothing.
The program has been tapped in recent years to backfill programs that a deficit-ridden state budget could not cover, so the projected revenue drop would exacerbate efforts by Newsom and legislators to close the state budget’s yawning gap.
“The (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) is a relatively small portion of the overall state budget, but it has been a noteworthy source of funding for environmental and other programs in recent years,” the state Assembly’s budget advisor, Jason Sisney, says in an email. “Collapse of its revenues would change the state budget process noticeably. The state’s cost-pressured general fund seemingly would be unable to make up much, if any, of a significant (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) revenue decline at this time.”
When Newsom presents his revised budget this week, he may reveal how he intends to cover the cap-and-invest program’s shortfall, particularly whether he will maintain the $1 billion bullet train commitment that project leaders say is vital to continuing construction of its Merced-to-Bakersfield segment.
It could boil down to bullet train vs. wildfire protection.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Vance says Trump cares about Americans finances amid Iran debate
Vance pushes back on claims about Trump and says Americans finances matter as the administration weighs Iran and nuclear diplomacy.
Vice President JD Vance announced on Wednesday, May 13 that the Trump administration will be deferring $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements from the state of California, as part of a new initiative to root out fraud in federal health programs.
The topic of California’s hospice care fraud has been a major focus of scrutiny by state leadership, members of President Donald Trump’s administration, and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s critics. In his announcement, Vance claimed that the administration was set on deferring these funds “because the state of California has not taken fraud very seriously.”
“There are California taxpayers and American taxpayers who are being defrauded because California isn’t taking its program seriously,” Vance said during a press conference.
Notably, this decision was part of Vance’s Anti-Fraud Task Force’s plan to implement a six-month nationwide, data-driven moratorium on new Medicare enrollment for hospices and home health agencies.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is led by Dr. Mehmet Oz, is set to use this six-month moratorium to conduct investigations and review data on Medicare programs, with the hopes of removing hospice and home health agencies that are suspected of committing fraud.
“Today we’re shutting the door on fraud — preventing new bad actors from entering Medicare while we aggressively identify, investigate, and remove those already exploiting them,” Oz said. “This is about protecting patients, restoring integrity, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the administration’s action “unlawful” and noted that his office would be “carefully reviewing all available information” and may challenge the administration’s decision to threaten “Californians’ rights or access to critical services.”
“Once again, California appears to be targeted solely for political reasons,” Bonta said on X.
“The Trump Administration is planning to defer over $1 billion in Medicaid funding for vital programs that help seniors and people with disabilities remain safely in their homes.”
Bonta and his office have attempted to counteract criticism that the state does not take action against hospice fraud.
In April, Bonta announced that the California Department of Justice had arrested five people in connection with a major health care scheme in Southern California that defrauded taxpayers of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.
“For years, California has led the charge to protect public programs from fraud and abuse,” Newsom said in the press release on April 10. “We hold accountable to the fullest extent of the law anyone who tries to rip off taxpayers and take advantage of public programs, particularly those as sensitive as hospice care.”
Newsom has yet to publicly respond to the administration’s decision to defer California’s Medicaid reimbursement.
However, shortly after Vance made the announcement, Newsom’s press office blasted the decision on X.
“We hate fraud. But that’s NOT what this is,” Newsom’s press office posted on X. “Vance and Oz are attacking programs that keep seniors and people with disabilities OUT of nursing homes. Pretty sick.”
Noe Padilla is a Northern California Reporter for USA Today. Contact him at npadilla@usatodayco.com, follow him on X @1NoePadilla or on Bluesky @noepadilla.bsky.social. Sign up for the TODAY Californian newsletter or follow us on Facebook at TODAY Californian.
California
California girls’ track and field stars speak out as Gavin Newsom’s Title IX crisis grows
Reese Hogan would have a very different set of medals if the rules were different in California.
It’s her third straight year competing against a trans athlete in the California girls’ track and field state tournament. She would have taken first place in the high jump all to herself in the sectional preliminaries last Saturday, if only biological females were allowed to compete.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
Now she’ll compete against a trans athlete in the sectional finals this weekend, representing her Christian high school, Crean Lutheran. It will mark one year since she went viral on social media for stepping up from the second-place spot on a medal podium up to first place, after a trans athlete who took first place stepped off.
“This is my third year competing against a transgender athlete, and last year I was stripped away of a CIF Title, and I basically worked my whole career to get to that point,” Hogan said on “Fox News at Night” on Tuesday. “It’s just really dissapointing to go into a competition knowing you already lost.”
CALIFORNIA TRACK ATHLETE BRIEFLY POSES ON 1ST-PLACE PODIUM AFTER LOSING TO TRANS ATHLETE, RECEIVES PRAISE
Her Crean Lutheran teammate, Olivia Viola, has been right there with Hogan throughout the three years of competition against trans athletes.
“I haven’t heard nearly enough adults come out and say anything. A lot of them like to say that they agree with you, that they’re proud of you for speaking up now, but they won’t do it themselves,” Viola said. “Just because it doesn’t affect every adult out there doesn’t mean it’s not worth standing up for.”
California has legally allowed biological males to compete in girls’ sports since a state law was enacted in 2013. The state’s education agencies are engaged in a federal Title IX lawsuit with President Donald Trump’s administration for commitment to upholding that state law.
A source at Governor Gavin Newsom’s office previously provided a statement to Fox News Digital in response to news that a “Save Girls Sports” rally, which the two girls attended, would be held at last Saturday’s meet.
“The Governor has said discussions on this issue should be guided by fairness, dignity, and respect. He rejects the right wing’s cynical attempt to weaponize this debate as an excuse to vilify individual kids. The Governor’s position is simple: stand with all kids and stand up to bullies,” the statement read.
“California is one of 22 states that have laws requiring students be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school sports consistent with their gender identity. California passed this law in 2013 (AB 1266) and it was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.”
At the rally, Hogan spoke and fired back at Newsom’s office for the statement.
“The recent statements coming from Governor Gavin Newsom’s office have made it clear that there is no intention of creating a safe, fair, and equitable environment for female high school athletes. Him and his office have gone as far as calling young girls bullies for speaking up for what we believe in,” Hogan said.
“The governor himself has admitted that males competing in women’s sports is unfair, yet nothing is being done to protect girls who train every day to compete on a level playing field.”
CALIFORNIA ATHLETE SAYS SHE CHANGES CLOTHES IN HER CAR TO AVOID SHARING A LOCKER ROOM WITH TRANS ATHLETE
California high school girls wear “Protect Girls Sports” shirts at a postseason track meet at Yorba Linda High School on May 10, 2025. (Reese Hogan/Courtesy of Reese Hogan)
Viola also rejected the “bully” assertion in Tuesday’s interview.
“I think his statement is manipulative, and it’s just completely untrue,” Viola said. “He’s saying stand up for all kids, yet he’s essentially trying to silence us… these girls are not bullies. They make a point, we all make an point to say we are not against any individual athlete, we are against California’s policies,” Viola said.
“We believe athletes deserve dignity and respect, and that’s why we believe women deserve the dignity of having their own category.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Crean Lutheran High School senior track and field star Reese Hogan speaks at a ‘Save Girls Sports’ rally. (Courtesy of Alyssa Cruz)
Both Viola and Hogan will compete at the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) Southern Section Final on Saturday in Moorpark, California.
And just like last year, there will be a podium ceremony after the competitions.
Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
-
News18 minutes agoSuspect in murder of University of Washington student surrenders to police
-
New York2 hours agoFlag With Swastika and Star of David Flown on N.Y.U. Building, Police Say
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoEarly morning Montebello fire leaves resident critically injured
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoWhat big announcement at DPSCD Hall of Fame Gala could mean for Detroit students
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoCasting shade on shadows: S.F. supervisor seeks to bar using shadows to block new housing
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoDallas Approves $180,500 for New Botham Jean Boulevard Street Signs
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoMiami residents sue over land for Trump presidential library
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoBoston has a secret society built on opium money in ‘The Society’