Connect with us

California

Joel Fox: Connecting the dots on fights over tax policy in California

Published

on

Joel Fox: Connecting the dots on fights over tax policy in California


Connecting dots to create a picture is a children’s game that needs to be played by adults to see the big picture when contemplating votes on different public policy measures. That is because political maneuvering involving separate policy measures is employed to have taxpayers open their wallets when they don’t always see how one measure connects to another.

Consider the multiple efforts to attack the homelessness issue.

Proposition 1 on the March ballot was hailed by proponents, especially by Gov. Gavin Newsom, as a way to address homelessness. The $6.4 billion bond barely passed with 50.2% of the vote. One of the objections to Prop. 1 was that the state would take control of some local revenues already designated to deal with homelessness.

Whether the state can do a better job on homelessness than local governments is a valid question. After the March election, a state audit was issued that castigated state spending on homeless programs as failing to track the spending of billions of dollars or to appropriately measure results of the spending.

Advertisement

That the audit was released after the election deserves an investigation. Unfortunately, such tactics are standard gamesmanship to entice voters to support more taxes.

But back to connecting the dots. Now that Proposition 1 clears the way for the state to control some homeless funds, along comes an effort to raise local sales taxes in Los Angeles on a permanent basis for homeless relief. While the effort to gather signatures to put the tax increase on the ballot as an initiative began prior to the recent election, the fact that the state absconded with homeless funds will become part of the pitch to pass the tax.

The effort to raise taxes for homeless services in Los Angeles comes after bond HHH passed in 2016 and tax Measure H was passed by voters in 2017 to deal with homelessness. Yet, despite millions of dollars, the homeless count in both the city and county increased about 10-percent in last year’s tally.

To add another twist to get more homeless funding, the sales tax increase initiative is fronted by civic groups rather than being forwarded by government bodies as Measures H and HHH had been. The reason is that a California Supreme Court decision claimed that the Proposition 13 requirement to pass a tax for a special purpose with a two-thirds vote only applies to government bodies, not to a citizen’s initiative. The proposed special purpose sales tax would need only a majority vote.

Expect another example soon. With Los Angeles voters supporting Measure ULA to reform roads in the last election at a steep cost, we are now hearing from the city’s Chief Administrative Officer that because of budget shortfalls, partly caused by ULA, tax increases may be needed.

Advertisement

Without connecting the dots, citizens are asked to deal with these measures as stand-alone solutions. However, there is a way for voters to take some power over the big picture and have a say in seemingly unconnected activity.

Qualified for the November ballot is the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA). If passed, the measure will restate that special local taxes require a two-thirds vote and that voters have a final say on taxes passed by the legislature. In addition, it would require that some majority-vote special tax measures that pass before voters make their decision on TPA can be reconsidered by voters such as the proposed LA sales tax increase.

Of course, supporters of tax increases are dead set against TPA and don’t want voters to have a chance to approve it. They have petitioned the California Supreme Court to throw the proposition off the November ballot. The Court has yet to decide.

No one should be surprised at this latest twist in the strategy to gather more tax revenue.

Just connect the dots.

Advertisement

Joel Fox is an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Public Policy. Previously, he served as president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and as editor and co-publisher of the California political and business blog Fox and Hounds Daily. 



Source link

California

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students


The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.

Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school

The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.

Advertisement
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.

Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.

scotus.PNG

Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.

“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.

Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.

Advertisement

Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:

Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.

The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Rep. Kevin Kiley announces run in California’s redrawn 6th Congressional District

Published

on

Rep. Kevin Kiley announces run in California’s redrawn 6th Congressional District



Congressman Kevin Kiley has announced his plan to run in California’s newly redrawn 6th district.

In a statement on Monday, Rep. Kiley revealed he had considered running in the 5th District – which could have set up a possible showdown between two current Republican officeholders.

“It’s true that I was fully prepared to run in the new 5th, having tested the waters and with polls showing a favorable outlook in a “safe” district. But doing what’s easy and what’s right are often not the same,” Kiley stated.

Advertisement

Kiley currently represents California’s 3rd district, which originally comprised counties making up much of the back spine of the state.

As of the Prop. 50 redistricting push, the 3rd district was redrawn for the 2026 midterm election to lean toward the Democratic Party – with those eastern spine of California counties lopped off and more of Sacramento County, including Rancho Cordova, added.

California’s new 6th district is now comprised of Rocklin, Roseville, Citrus Heights, much of North and East Sacramento, and the city of West Sacramento. Democratic Rep. Ami Bera currently represents the district, but will be running for the new 3rd district in 2026.

Advertisement

Other declared candidates for the 6th district include Democrats Lauren Babb Thomlinson, Thien Ho, Richard Pan, Kindra Pring, Tyler Vandenberg, and Republicans Christine Bish, Craig DeLuz, and Raymond Riehle. 

Kiley was first elected to the House in 2022 and was reelected in 2024. 





Source link

Continue Reading

California

Preliminary magnitude 3.3 earthquake strikes near San Ramon, USGS says

Published

on

Preliminary magnitude 3.3 earthquake strikes near San Ramon, USGS says


SAN RAMON, Calif. (KGO) — An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.4 struck near San Ramon at 11:21 p.m. Sunday, the U.S. Geological Survey said.

USGS said the tremor was about 8.4 km in depth.

According to the Geological Survey, people typically report feeling earthquakes larger than about magnitude 2.5.

The closer to the surface an earthquake occurs, the more ground shaking and potential damage it will cause.

Advertisement

No injuries have been reported.

This is the latest quake in San Ramon, which has seen multiple strings of tremors in the past several months.

Bay City News contributed to this report.

MAP: Significant San Francisco Bay Area fault lines and strong earthquakes
Zoom in on the map below and compare where you live to the significant faults and where strong earthquakes have struck in the Bay Area.

Stay with ABC7 News for the latest details on this developing story.

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES & VIDEOS:

Copyright © 2026 KGO-TV. All Rights Reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending