Elon Musk’s SpaceX sued California regulators Tuesday for alleged politician bias.

SpaceX claimed, in a lawsuit filed in California’s Central District, that regulators denied the company permission to conduct more rocket launches because of Musk’s many controversial and hard-line conservative stances. The decision, the company claims, violates its CEO’s right to free speech.

The space exploration company wanted to launch dozens of rockets each year from Vandenberg Space Force Base near Santa Barbara, California, according to the Wall Street Journal (NWSA), but the California Coastal Commission denied the request.

Commissioner Gretchen Newsom, who is not related to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, criticized Musk before the vote on the decision, saying he had “bigoted beliefs against California’s safeguards and protections over our transgender community.”

She also lambasted him for “hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” the Journal reported.

Newsom also questioned SpaceX’s safety record and labor conditions.

The company said in court documents that “rarely has a government agency made so clear that it was exceeding its authorized mandate to punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO.”

Musk criticized the Commission, writing on X: “The Coastal Commission has one job — take care of the California coast,” he said. “It is illegal for them to make decisions based on what they (mostly wrongly) think are my politics.”

Musk claimed to have “done more to advance sustainable energy & help the environment than maybe anyone ever, which is not exactly a ‘far-right’ position.” He called on the commission to resign.

Because SpaceX is a major federal contractor, there is still a chance it could launch more rockets from California.

Col. Mark Shoemaker, a commander at the Space Force who oversees Vandenberg, told the Wall Street Journal, “We are assessing the outcome from Thursday, and it is too soon to comment on launch cadence beyond the current capacity constraint.”

A California judge accused of killing his wife is still raking in his nearly $250,000 salary, despite being held behind bars.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ferguson, 74, allegedly killed his wife last year in Anaheim Hills, according to KTLA. He was charged with multiple felonies in connection with the Aug. 3, 2023, fatal shooting of 65-year-old Sheryl Ferguson. He is being held in Los Angeles County at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility.

Ferguson, who was a prosecutor before he became a judge in 2015, was initially released on $1 million bail but is now back in jail after he allegedly lied about drinking alcohol while awaiting trial.

The judge made more than $220,000 in salary in 2023, with an additional $22,000 in benefits, according to The Orange County Register. The $242,000 compensation continued to be paid to him even after he allegedly shot and killed his wife.

He faces a felony murder charge with two felony enhancements for personal use of a firearm and discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury and death. If convicted on all counts, he could face 40 years to life in prison.

Ferguson has pleaded not guilty, but prosecutors said he confessed to the killing when texting with his court clerk and bailiff.

“I just shot my wife. I won’t be in tomorrow. I will be in custody. I’m so sorry,” Ferguson allegedly wrote.

After Ferguson and his wife had an argument at a restaurant, the two returned home and continued the argument before he pulled a pistol from his ankle holster and shot her in the chest, according to prosecutors. The couple’s adult son claimed his father was drunk at the time.

The judge continues to receive his salary because the California Constitution states that a judge facing felony charges is disqualified from acting as a judge but that the change in his judicial status does not include loss of salary, the Orange County Register reported.

A judge would only be suspended without pay after a felony conviction.

NAPA, Calif. — If California is going to build itself out of the housing crisis it’s going to need a lot of money.

A report released this summer by the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) and Enterprise Community Partners identified 433 housing projects stuck in predevelopment because they lack $9.7 billion in public funds to move forward.

Proposition 5 in the November ballot could help unlock some of that money.

While the statewide measure is not a housing bond, it would lower the threshold to approve affordable housing bonds from two-thirds to just 55%.

CA PROPOSITIONS: Everything to know about measures on minimum wage, marriage equality and more

Napa County Supervisor Belia Ramos says Proposition 5 allows cities and counties to raise revenue for affordable housing.

“It’s great to be able to zone for them, but if you can’t afford to actually build the project you still have the same problem and all you have is a plan with nothing to back it up,” said Ramos.

Recently, she visited the 24-apartment unit Valle Verde project, which is set to open for tenants soon after eight years of planning and construction.

“Everyone is identifying housing, the affordability of housing, the supply of housing. Those are very real concerns,” said Ramos, who is also the president of the Association of Bay Area Governments.

While housing continues to be a top concern for California residents, support for Proposition 5 is not overwhelming.

A Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll in September indicated only 49% of likely voters supported the measure.

“If Proposition 5 were to pass, you would see higher property taxes after every election because of all the different entities that can put bonds on the ballot,” said Susan Shelley of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Shelley says the two-thirds threshold keeps local governments from incurring too much debt.

An analysis of 151 bond measures put before voters since 2002 found that about half passed with a two-thirds majority. If the threshold had been lowered to 55%, the approval rate would have skyrocketed to 86%.

In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 39, which lowered the approval threshold for school district bonds from 66.67% to 55%.

“We currently have a 55% threshold to pass school bonds, but that’s very narrow. Prop 5 is not narrow. Prop 5 is anything that qualifies as public infrastructure, which is everything that the government does,” said Shelley.

Proposition 5 would apply to bonds that would help finance affordable housing and public infrastructure projects.

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley president Janice Jensen is in favor of lowering the threshold.

“Prop 5 is a wonderful tool in the tool chest when you are building affordable housing,” said Jensen during a visit to Esperanza Place, a housing development with 42 affordable townhomes in Walnut Creek.

Jensen said Habitat for Humanity would not have been able to build the complex without public funds.

“Affordable housing is always a public-private partnership. This is a very expensive development,” added Jensen.

If Proposition 5 is approved, the lower threshold would apply not just to future affordable housing bonds in the future, but also to any local housing bonds on this year’s ballot.

The Association of Bay Area Governments had planned to include a $20 billion housing bond this year to help pay for those stalled 433 housing projects but decided to withdraw it at the last minute to focus on the passage of Proposition 5.

If that measure is placed on a future ballot and approved, it would increase property taxes on a $500,000 home by $100 a year.

“We haven’t kept up with the need for housing. You can’t ask to do more with the same amount of funds. What we are doing by lowering the threshold is to meet the will of the people,” said Ramos.