California
New California ruling targets pension ‘spiking’ as retirees appeal for relief
BY ADAM ASHTON | CalMatters
A California Supreme Court decision three years ago was supposed to be the final word on former Gov. Jerry Brown’s marquee pension limit law, but judges are still sorting it out — and making decisions that could mean thousands of dollars a year to government retirees.
Last week a state appeals court affirmed a Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association’s decision undoing a perk that had allowed government workers to increase their pensions in a way banned by Brown’s 2013 law.
The changes add up. Ventura’s retirement fund has estimated that some retirees could lose a couple hundred dollars a month once it complies with the pension law and begins adjusting its vacation “cashout” policy and striking some other incentives, according to the Ventura County Star.
Some of those affected retirees are urging the pension board to instead apply the new rules only to people who left civil service after 2020 — when the state Supreme Court upheld Brown’s law — rather than when the law itself took effect a decade ago. That’s in keeping with policies several other retirement boards have adopted.
“This can be the difference between whether they eat or pay a utility bill or purchase a prescription they need,” Tracey Pirie, a retired Ventura County Sheriff’s Department manager, told the board that oversees her pension fund earlier this week.
When the California Supreme Court upheld Brown’s Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act in July of 2020, it directed the state’s 20 county-run pension funds to comply with it. The law reduced the potential retirement income of government employees hired after 2013 by changing pension formulas. It also restricted a variety of financial incentives that had counted toward workers’ pensions, including standby pay and large amounts of accrued vacation.
Since the 2020 decision, county funds have been recalculating how much they owe members whose pensions were calculated with the incentives that Brown’s law capped.
The process proved to be exceedingly complex. Pension funds in Sacramento and Los Angeles counties, for instance, this month reported they’re still making adjustments. In some cases, retirees are getting money back because they paid into the system for benefits they won’t receive.
Leave cashouts in California pensions
The Ventura case at the 2nd District Court of Appeals turned on a narrow question: How many hours of leave could employees cash out in their final years on the job and apply toward the formula that determines their monthly pension income.
The 2013 law caps that amount at the number of hours an employee accrues in one year and is permitted to cash out. For instance, employees who accrue 200 hours of leave in one year could cash out that amount of time and apply the extra income toward their pension if their contract allows it.
Until 2020, the Ventura fund permitted workers to choose a 12- or 36-month period to calculate their average income. Those dates did not have to align with a calendar year, and an employee over a 12-month period could cash out unused hours of personal leave in amounts that exceeded a single year’s vacation buydown allowance.
The appeals court upheld the Ventura retirement fund’s decision to prohibit such “straddling. — or, as the Ventura retirement fund’s attorney Ashley Dunning labeled it, “pension spiking.”
A group of retirees sought to retain the previous policy, arguing that Ventura County’s leave cashout policies were already more stringent than state law allows. For instance, the lawsuit named retired Ventura County Counsel Leroy Smith, who accrued 368 hours of leave each year. The county capped his pensionable leave cashout at 200 hours in one year, which was far less than the time off he accrued every year.
David Mastagni, a Sacramento lawyer who represents public safety unions and argued on their behalf in the 2020 pension case at the California Supreme Court, characterized the appeals court ruling as narrow. He said several other disputes are unfolding around the state on similarly niche questions.
He also said current employees could bargain to lift the amount of hours they can cashout in a single year, which would create a situation in which someone like Smith could have counted more hours toward his pension formula.
“The ironic thing is if in their next contract the union negotiates that they can cash out an additional 40 hours per year, then it’s going to be perfectly legal,” he said.
California
California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly
Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.
AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.
The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.
Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.
The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.
Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.
California
Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say
Newsom slams Trump amid U.S. military action in Iran
Newsom criticized Trump for spending little time acknowledging four U.S. service members killed in the conflict with Iran during recent remarks.
California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.
California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.
It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.
Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.
The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”
During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.
“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.
What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?
In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.
First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”
When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026
California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.
Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.
California
Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students
BAKERSFIELD, Calif.(KBAK/KBFX) — 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.
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.
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.
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.
-
World7 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts7 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO7 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Florida3 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Oregon5 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Maryland3 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Wisconsin2 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin