Gov. Brown Vetoes Bill Allowing Undocumented Immigrants in Public Office

SACRAMENTO, CA - OCTOBER 27: California Governor Jerry Brown announces his public employee pension reform plan October 27, 2011 at the State Capitol in Sacramento, California. Gov. Brown proposed 12 major reforms for state and local pension systems that he claims would end abuses and reduce taypayer costs by billions of dollars. (Photo by Max Whittaker/Getty Images)

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Thursday that would have allowed immigrants in the U.S. illegally to serve on state and local boards and commissions.

Brown said he believed “existing law — which requires citizenship for these forms of public service — is the better path,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara and Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo, both Democrats, introduced the legislation.

The bill would have struck the phrase “transient aliens” from the government code, which first appeared in an 1872 provision to prevent mainly Chinese immigrants from holding civil positions, according to the LA Times.

California has taken some of the most progressive stances and is at the epicenter of the left’s battle against the Trump administration’s immigration policies. …

Click here to read the full article from The Hill

California May Give Electric Car Owners Even More Taxpayer Cash

teslaCalifornia residents may soon be shelling out more taxpayer money to help prop up the state’s electric vehicle industry.

As Congress debates whether or not to increase federal subsidies for electric cars, California officials say they are ready to “make up” the difference if they don’t. Currently, the state offers $2,500 for every pure electric vehicle sold in the state. The California Air and Resources Board will hold hearings on Thursday and Friday to decide on possibly increasing this rate to $4,500 if Washington, D.C. does not lift their own caps.

The federal government offers tax credits up to $7,500 to electric vehicle (EVs) buyers. However, this credit caps off at 200,000 cars sold per manufacturer. Tesla has already surpassed this threshold and GM is not far off. Some lawmakers and EV supporters have proposed raising the limit to keep incentivizing people to buy the green — but very expensive — cars.

Mary Nichols, the chair of California’s Air Resources Board, is hopeful federal lawmakers will raise the threshold, but she said “we would be having to look at another way to make up for that” if they don’t.

Consideration of more EV subsidies comes as California continues to adopt more environmentally measures. Outgoing Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation earlier this month that mandates the state’s generation industry produce 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045. The California Energy Commission voted in May to require every new house in the state to include solar panel installation, despite the expected increase in cost for prospective home buyers.

California officials are also in a heated battle with the Trump administration over its authority to regulate emissions standards. The White House is mulling whether to freeze fuel efficiency standards at 37 miles per gallon in 2020 — in lieu of raising the standards to 47 mpg by 2025, as was previously established during the Obama administration. Under the Clean Air Act, California is able to set their own, more strict emissions standards. The Trump administration is looking to rescind this authority.

“At the end of the day, California officials looked at the data, came to a different conclusion than Trump, and are proceeding with the authority they already have under the Clean Air Act,” stated Don Anair, the research director for clean cars at the Union of Concerned Scientists, according to Bloomberg.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the state’s largest electric utility, has been a vocal supporter of raising electric vehicle subsidies, indicating that they plan to spend hundreds of million on EV infrastructure and want to see satisfactory returns on its investments. Ratepayer-funded  charging stations serve as a new source of revenue for utility companies.

This article was originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

California Restaurants Banned from Providing Plastic Straws or Kid’s Meal Sodas

StrawsGov. Brown signed 41 bills into law on Thursday including banning restaurants from automatically distributing plastic straws or advertising kid’s meals with a soda.

The California Constitution requires that September 30 is the last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature before September 1. Governor Brown on September 20 signed 41 bills and vetoed 6.

Brown signed 40 of the 45 bills authored by a Democrat and 1 of the 2 bills authored by a Republican. The environment and education were the two biggest focus areas of the legislative 2018 legislative session with Brown signing 9 education bills and vetoed 4; while signing 10 bills and vetoing 0 associated with the environment.

Brown justified signing Assembly Bill 1884, prohibiting dine-in restaurants from automatically providing plastic straws with meals, with a statement that plastic is now a danger that “pervades every aspect of modern life” and its “single-use convenience has led to disastrous consequences” for society that must eventually be eliminated.

The governor stated that with the annual global production of plastic having reached 448 million tons by 2015, plastic in the world’s oceans now kills millions of marine mammals each year. He added that microplastics in tap water and plastic straws, bottles, packaging, and bags “are choking our planet.”

The impact of the bill will be limited because it does not apply to fast food, coffee shops and other take-out stores that are the biggest distributors of plastic items. Customers can still get a straw at dine-in eateries but will have to independently request one.

Brown also signed Senate Bill 1192 that amends the California Retail Food Code to requires all dine-in and fast food chains to offer milk; a non-dairy milk alternative; or sparkling, still or flavored water as a default or advertised beverage for a child’s packaged meal. The bill does not prohibit a restaurant from selling, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one.

Both AB-1884 and SB-1192 will be effective on January 1.

The most significant surprise on Thursday was Brown’s pocket veto of Senate Bill 1424 that would have directed the California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to establish an advisory group to study the supposed “problem of the spread of false information through Internet-based social media.

Brown called SB-1424 called the “creation of a statutory advisory committee to examine this issue not necessary,” given the numerous studies by academic and policy groups.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

Gov. Jerry Brown blocks later school start time mandate

shocked-kid-apGov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Thursday requiring that California middle and high schools start no earlier than 8:30 a.m., saying the decision of when to start classes should be up to schools not the state.

Supporters of the bill cited research that says delaying school start times could result in better grades, attendance and graduation rates.

A study by the American Academy of Pediatrics said insufficient sleep for teens was “an important public health issue that significantly affects the health and safety” of adolescents.

State Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, who carried SB328, cited that study and one by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that both suggested schools start at 8:30 a.m. or later to help students get the optimal amount of sleep of at least eight hours a night. …

Click here to read the full article from Fox News

Let’s Avoid a “High Speed Rail” Situation in Space

Photo courtesy Steve Rhodes, flickr

Photo courtesy Steve Rhodes, flickr

Putting aside questions of effectiveness and even validity of the satellite project proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown at his Global Climate Action Summit, we should be concerned that the satellite could emulate the high-speed rail in that the costs will not be covered as promised and that taxpayers will end up holding the bag.

The release from the governor’s office said initial funding “has been provided by Dee and Richard Lawrence and OIF, as well as The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust.” The release adds that, “Additional scientific, business and philanthropic partners are expected to join this initiative…”

Then there’s this: “Planet (Labs) will manage the mission operations and collaborate with the State of California and others on funding this groundbreaking effort.”

Clearly, the state–that is the taxpayers–are expected to chip in for the satellite project. More is expected from outside sources such as business and others. But let’s not forget the promise of the high-speed rail: That it would be funded by the state, federal and private interests. Yet, no private money has come forward.

Whether the state should even sponsor such an endeavor is not the issue here. The point to be considered is that given the situation with the rail, it would be best to have that money in the bank before setting off on this project; before the taxpayers are involved to a greater extent than desired.

Will California embark on the satellite project on the hope that money will come from private concerns? As with the high-speed rail, will we see a General Obligation bond to help support it?

Remember, the idea is not for one satellite but multiple satellites. No price tag was associated with the project so we can’t compare its costs to that of the rail project. But, who really knows the high-speed rail cost. It’s forever changing. Is that the future of the California satellite venture?

If, in fact, taxpayer money is involved it should also come from taxpayers beyond California’s borders. The satellite monitoring will be world-wide and at a minimum the United States Climate Alliance made up of 17 states that are involved in the alliance should contribute because they would benefit from any information the satellites collect.

On another level, you do have to hand it to a clever Jerry Brown for turning around the “Governor Moonbeam” moniker once given to him by Chicago Tribune columnist, Mike Royko, when Brown proposed California launch a satellite for a different purpose 40-plus years ago.

While Royko declared the moniker “null, void and deceased” 15 years after appending it to Brown, the governor has come to embrace the nickname. With his latest satellite pronouncement, he turned a mocking handle into a mark of enlightenment. And to do so at the end of his term completes the circle of his time as California’s governor.

But part of Royko’s complaint was the issue of cost and that nagging question of cost still exists. It is currently spoiling Brown’s signature issue, the high-speed rail. If the satellite proposal follows a similar path, it would undercut the now prized Gov. Moonbeam appellation.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Jerry Brown Signs Law Legalizing Street Food in California

Street FoodCalifornia Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill to make it easier for sidewalk vendors to operate legally in the state.

It’s one of dozens of bills Brown announced signing Monday, including measures to help voters ensure their mail ballots are counted and standardize balcony inspections.

The new sidewalk vending law will let cities and counties create permit programs for vendors and limits when they can be criminally prosecuted.

“We can start seeing sidewalk vendors for who they are – women and seniors, single parents, and micro-business owners taking that first step to starting their own business,” said Sen. Ricardo Lara, the Bell Gardens Democrat who authored the bill, SB946. “Gov. Brown’s signature validates that thousands of sidewalk vendors are an important part of our economy.”

Sidewalk vendors, who typically sell food or other goods, can be required to hold business licenses and pay taxes under the law. Cities and counties can also establish health and safety policies for vendors. …

Click here to read the full story from ABC7

Bill to Stop ICE Arrests at State Courts Awaits Governor’s Signature

ICE 2A bill with the potential to worsen California’s already-frosty relationship with the Trump administration passed the Legislature on a near-party-line vote in late August and was presented to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature last week.

Senate Bill 349, by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (pictured), D-Bell Gardens, is a direct response to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s embrace of the tactic of detaining unauthorized immigrants when they come to state courthouses to deal with matters in the California criminal justice system.

Exact statistics are not provided by ICE on its detentions. But there have been regular reports of ICE raids at state courts and their parking lots in California – especially in the Fresno area – as well as in Arizona, Texas and Colorado within the last year.

ICE officials issued a formal notice in January of their intent to go after targeted individuals when they have scheduled appearances in state courts. Some have said they moved to adopt new policies after the California Legislature adopted and Gov. Brown signed “sanctuary state” legislation last year limiting state cooperation with federal immigration officials.

Lara’s bill would specify that state court officials have the authority to block activities that interfere with the proceedings and operations at state courts. It would require federal immigration agents to have a warrant before they can enter schools, courthouses and state buildings to arrest or question people. It would ban civil arrests in courthouses and authorize the state Attorney General’s Office to pursue civil claims against individuals who violated SB349’s provisions.

The legislative aides who wrote the analysis of the bill cited historical evidence that the practice of not picking up people at courthouses for offenses unrelated to their visits – known as “the common law privilege for civil arrests” – goes back hundreds of years and far predates any controversy over illegal immigration.

Brown and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra have been joined in their sharp criticism of ICE’s tactics by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. In a statement issued last month, she blasted arrests at state courts as “disruptive, shortsighted, and counterproductive … . It is damaging to community safety and disrespects the state court system.”

Some sheriffs want more cooperation with feds

Nonetheless, conservative sheriffs in some counties who oppose “sanctuary” policies are supportive of ICE’s aggressive tactics, according to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims is openly looking for ways to increase her department’s cooperation with ICE in spite of the state law.

That suggests that even if Lara’s bill is signed by Brown, some police agencies may be far less enthusiastic about enforcing it than others. Court battles over what exactly “sanctuary”-style laws compel these agencies to do seem likely.

At issue is the scope of the generally accepted doctrine that the federal government cannot compel state law enforcement agents to enforce federal regulations and that state laws prevail unless they directly conflict with federal laws.

Historically, conservatives in the post-Reagan era and Southern Democrats in the 1950s and 1960s have had more of a “states’ rights” approach to interpreting this doctrine, while liberals have leaned more toward the idea that the federal government deserves deference in gray areas open to different interpretations.

In the Golden State, these political roles have been swapped in the Trump era.

While sharply critical of the Trump White House on many immigration issues, Brown has not commented specifically on Lara’s bill. He has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it and the hundreds of other passed bills he has not yet made a decision on.

Lara is the Democratic candidate for state insurance commissioner on the November ballot. He is running against Steve Poizner, who is now an independent after serving as insurance commissioner from 2007-2011 as a Republican.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Governor Moonbeam: California to launch its ‘own damn satellite’

SACRAMENTO, CA - OCTOBER 27: California Governor Jerry Brown announces his public employee pension reform plan October 27, 2011 at the State Capitol in Sacramento, California. Gov. Brown proposed 12 major reforms for state and local pension systems that he claims would end abuses and reduce taypayer costs by billions of dollars. (Photo by Max Whittaker/Getty Images)

He’s mostly shed the “Governor Moonbeam” nickname, but Gov. Jerry Brown pointed California toward the stars as he closed out a global climate change summit here Friday.

“We’re going to launch our own satellite — our own damn satellite to figure out where the pollution is and how we’re going to end it,” Brown told an international audience on the final day of the San Francisco gathering.

California will work with San Francisco-based Planet Labs to launch a satellite capable of tracking climate-altering emissions, Brown said. The effort will lean on the expertise of the state’s Air Resources Board, which has taken the forefront in pursuing climate-related innovations.

The governor’s choice of words in making the announcement deliberately echoed his late 2016 challenge to Donald Trump, amid rumors that the incoming administration would undercut NASA’s climate research role.

“If Trump turns off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellite,” Brown said at the time, after musing on his celestial history: “I remember back in 1978 I proposed a Landsat satellite for California. They called me ‘Governor Moonbeam’ because of that,” he said. …

Click here to read the full article from Politico

New Measure Would Limit Impact of Federal Tax Overhaul on Californians

TaxesGov. Jerry Brown will have to decide soon on whether to once again put California in direct conflict with the Trump administration – this time with a newly passed bill which has the near-unanimous support of Republican as well as Democratic state lawmakers.

It’s Senate Bill 539, by U.S. Senate candidate Kevin de León, a state senator from Los Angeles. The measure would limit the impact on affluent residents of the new $10,000 federal limit on deducting state and local taxes from federal tax returns by sharply increasing an existing tax credit for contributions to a college scholarship program already run by the state.

If SB539 is signed by Brown, families making more than $100,000 – especially homeowners – could potentially save billions of dollars with the new, much higher 75 percent credit. In 2015 – the most recent year for which statistics are available – 6.1 million California tax filers used the state and local tax deduction, with an average of $18,438, according to the Tax Policy Center.

This explains the bipartisan appeal of the measure, which passed the Assembly and Senate with a total of two negative votes – one Republican (state Sen. Jim Nielsen of Fresno) and one Democrat (Assemblyman Jim Frazier of Contra Costa County).

It’s not clear whether Brown will sign the measure. While he called the Republican tax overhaul approved last December “evil in the extreme” at the time it was being considered by Congress, he’s been reported to be skeptical that any state tax avoidance effort would be accepted by the Internal Revenue Service.

That’s the impression the IRS has sought to create since the state and local tax deduction was limited. And last month, the IRS proposed a 15 percent cap on deductibility of certain gifts, including to state programs like the one that would benefit from SB539.

IRS rule could reduce deductions for private tuition

The proposed IRS rule is so broad, however, that Gannett News Service reported on Aug. 24 that it could affect laws allowing for state and local tax credits for charitable contributions in 34 states. In several Republican-dominated states, these credits are available for private school tuition.

This generated a sharp reaction from EdChoice, an Indianapolis-based national nonprofit organization that’s devoted to encouraging alternatives to traditional public schools.

“The IRS chose to adopt a new rule after New York and a few other states who overtax their citizens at the state and local level had the audacity to create federal tax-dodging schemes,” EdChoice told Gannett. “These tax-dodging schemes do not compare in intent or purpose to the charitable programs created years ago to help children access K-12 education where they fit in and can learn.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, however, disputed the idea that the proposed IRS rule would have a heavy impact on donations to private schools and to school choice advocates.

In July, four states – New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland – sued the federal government over the deduction limit, saying it amounts to unconstitutional “double taxation.” The Tax Foundation says those states and California are the five where taxpayers will face the biggest hit.

But most tax experts think the lawsuit is unlikely to win, given the long-established primacy of Congress in setting tax laws and of the IRS in interpreting them.

California has already sued the Trump administration more than 50 times – but not, so far at least, over the tax deduction change.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

California Bill Requires All Corporate Boards to Have a Token Woman

Photo Credit: thoroughlyreviewed.com

Photo Credit: thoroughlyreviewed.com

California might become the first state in the nation to force publicly traded companies to put women on their boards of directors.

After passing in the Assembly on Wednesday, SB-826 breezed easily through the Senate yesterday. Now it heads to the governor’s desk, where Jerry Brown has until the end of September to sign it into law.

Here are the legislation’s specific requirements, according to the Los Angeles Times:

The bill would require that publicly held corporations headquartered in the state include at least one woman on boards of directors by the end of 2019, and at least two by July 2021. Corporate boards with six or more members would be required to have at least three women on the panels by the middle of 2021.

Companies found to be in violation of the law would face a fine.

State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D–Santa Barbara), who co-authored the bill, says it’s necessary because women are underrepresented on California’s corporate boards.

“One-fourth of California’s publicly traded companies still do not have a single woman on their board, despite numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive,” she said in a statement. “With women comprising over half the population and making over 70 percent of purchasing decisions, their insight is critical to discussions and decisions that affect corporate culture, actions and profitability.”

A coalition of business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, say in a joint statement that they’re all for gender equality but this isn’t the way to go about it. The legislation “requires publicly traded corporations to satisfy quotas regarding the number of women on its board or face significant penalties, which is likely unconstitutional, a violation of California’s Civil Rights statute, and a violation of the internal affairs doctrine for publicly held corporations,” the statement says.

While California would be the first state in the nation to adopt such a measure, other countries, including Norway and Germany, have similar policies.

The measure would affect 377 of California’s largest publicly traded companies, plus many smaller businesses.

If the bill becomes law, some of Silicon Valley’s biggest corporations might have to make changes. FacebookApple, and Alphabet (Google’s parent company) each currently have two women apiece on their boards. Each company would likely have to appoint an additional woman by 2021 in order to meet the quota.

This article was originally published by Reason Magazine