Black lawmakers continue push to assist descendants of slaves in California
The California Legislative Black Caucus on Thursday proposed a package of reparations for the descendants of African Americans who were enslaved in the United States, proposals that include preferences for public university admissions and financial assistance for first-time home buyers.
The package contains 15 bills in what caucus members said will be a multiyear effort to repair the generational harms and discrimination suffered by the descendants of slaves in California.
In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers formed a 'first in the nation' state task force to study and propose remedies for the legacy of slavery. During the end of the legislative session last year, reform advocates were frustrated that the legislature, which was limited by a tight state budget and a high-stakes election year, passed only 10 of the 14 bills prioritized by the Legislative Black Caucus.
'We are picking up where we left off last year,' said Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) at a press conference Thursday morning. 'We are challenging not only members of the Legislature but all of Californians to operate in a repair mindset.'
Wilson reintroduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would change the language in the state Constitution by banning forced labor in any form. California voters last year rejected a ballot measure that would have banned forced prison labor. Wilson's renewed effort proposes a constitutional change that, if passed by the Legislature, could appear before voters on the 2026 ballot.
The state Constitution currently bans slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime.
But Wilson said this time around they are 'more prepared' and 'more informed.'
Read more: Nevada just banned 'slavery and involuntary servitude' in prisons. Why didn't California?
Wilson also introduced a bill to implement a voluntary work program for prisoners, intending to allow inmates to request work assignments, which, in turn, would make time for classes and other rehabilitative activities.
Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), vice chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, authored Assembly Bill 7 which would allow all California universities to consider preferential admissions for descendants of slaves.
'We talk about legacy all the time and legacies of privilege have been rewarded … if you're the relative of a donor or someone previously admitted to one of these universities you often have an admissions advantage,' Bryan said. 'But we never talk about legacies of harm, the legacy of slavery, the legacy of exclusion.'
Other bills in the package include one from Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) who seeks to allocate a portion of the Home Purchase Assistance Program funds to first-time home buyers who are descendants of slavery; and AB 785, authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), which would create a grant program and fund community-driven solutions to decrease violence in neighborhoods and schools.
Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa) seeks to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare facilities through Senate Bill 503, which would limit racial biases and encourage "non-discriminatory decisions" made by healthcare providers.
"It is critical," Weber said, "that the biases and stereotypes that Black Americans have faced are not perpetuated in future innovations."
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump dumps the Federalist Society — and even Republicans are shooketh
In a major about-face, Donald Trump is turning on the conservative powerhouse that built his judicial legacy, the Federalist Society. Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar warns that this break with the very group that helped propel him to power marks a dangerous shift. 'He just wants loyalty to himself—thugs and hacks,' Amar says, adding that Federalist Society judges are principled and loyal to the Constitution, not to Trump. 'The Senate needs to play a really important role now—especia
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘We made a mistake': Pillen accepts responsibility for failed vetoes to Nebraska budget
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. Dec. 10, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen has accepted responsibility for mishandled line-item vetoes to the state's next two-year budget while reiterating that many of the suggested cuts will be reconsidered in 2026. Pillen, speaking with the Nebraska Examiner after the Legislature adjourned for the year, said the veto process includes 'human beings' in his office, the Clerk of the Legislature's Office and the Secretary of State's Office. On May 21, his office delivered Legislative Bill 261 and LB 264 with line-item vetoes to the Secretary of State's Office, which is the right place for the bills to go when the Legislature is out of session, but not to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office on the other side of the Capitol, which is where bills must be returned when senators are in session. The Governor's Office says LB 261 was line-item vetoed at 1:08 p.m. on May 21 and LB 264 at 1:10 p.m. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's Office said the bills were delivered to that office around 5 p.m. the same day. The Legislature did receive a separate letter from Pillen the night of May 21 detailing the line-item vetoes, as well as a copy of the bills with the inscribed vetoes, but lawmakers contended the next day that a line-item veto is constitutional only with the inscribed vetoes on the actual bills. Those bills remained at the Secretary of State's Office until morning. The Nebraska Constitution requires vetoes to be returned within five days of being presented to the governor, excluding Sundays. The bills passed May 15 and went to Pillen's office at 1:12 p.m., so the deadline was by the end-of-day May 21. Pillen said the mistake on the night of May 21 was 'a miscommunication on where it was supposed to go.' Pillen was in Washington, D.C., the following day, for a 'Make America Healthy Again' event at the White House. 'Bottom line: We made a mistake. I'd have thought, because we all work together, that a flag would have been thrown and said, 'Hey, let's do X,' but there wasn't, and then the glass of milk was spilled the next morning,' Pillen told the Examiner. The intended vetoes targeted $14.5 million to the state's general fund and $18 million in repurposed cash funds for improvements at Lake McConaughy. He sought to save $14.5 million that the Legislature's budget aimed to use from the state's 'rainy day' cash reserve by trimming spending — $152 million from the rainy day fund went to help balance the budget. The Nebraska Supreme Court, which faced about $12 million of Pillen's proposed general fund reductions (83%), has said the loss of those funds could close vital court services. This was Pillen's second two-year budget — he vetoed $38.5 million in general fund spending in 2023 for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. Lawmakers restored about $850,000 of the trims. Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen and Speaker of the Legislature John Arch have pledged to clarify the line-item veto process for the budget ahead of 2026, and they've agreed that the suggested reductions should be considered when the budget is adjusted next year. Arch has said that to his knowledge, nothing like this had happened before. Pillen, whose office now insists the matter is resolved, said, 'As I told our team, we look in the mirror, we accept responsibilities. I've not met a human that doesn't make a mistake yet.' Pillen and his staff have declined to detail exactly what happened the night of May 21. Rani Taborek-Potter, a spokesperson for Evnen, said no one from the Secretary of State's Office delivered the actual LB 261 and LB 264 with the line-item vetoes to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office, 'nor is it our office's responsibility to do so.' 'When bills are vetoed by the Governor, the vetoed bills are delivered directly to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office by the Governor's office, as was the case for LB 319 and LB 287 to the best of our knowledge,' Taborek-Potter told the Examiner, referring to the two other bills vetoed this session related to expanding SNAP benefit eligibility and fighting bedbugs in Omaha. Taborek-Potter confirmed the Governor's Office delivered the budget bills to the administrative assistant in the Secretary of State's Office just before 5 p.m. on May 21. The Examiner on May 23 requested all records and communications regarding the line-item vetoes from when the budget bills passed May 15 to the date of the records request. The request sought texts, emails and digital messages. It also asked for communications within the executive branch and between Pillen's office and the legislative branch, including staff and state senators. Documents provided in response indicated that Pillen's veto letter detailing his objections was ready by 6:05 p.m., when the state budget administrator, Neil Sullivan, sent it to Pillen's staff. Around 6:27 p.m., Kenny Zoeller, director of the governor's Policy Research Office, the main research and lobbying arm for Pillen, confirmed the letter among gubernatorial staff. 'We are handing this off back to the Legislature POST adjournment,' Zoeller wrote of next steps. 'I will text when it's handed off.' Laura Strimple, the governor's primary spokesperson, sent a draft news release regarding the vetoes at 8:21 p.m. to Sullivan. It was sent to reporters around 11:23 p.m. The Legislature adjourned at 9:20 p.m., and a reporter could see legislative staff discussing the veto letter. Through much of the day on May 22, legislative leadership met off the floor, including Arch. Several emerged just before adjournment at 2:37 p.m. when Arch announced the vetoes could not be accepted and that the Legislature had concluded they were constitutionally improper. Some members of the Appropriations Committee hugged, threw fists in the air and smiled after. Pillen's spokesperson, Strimple, sent a statement to reporters at 4:48 p.m. stating it was the governor's position that Pillen 'clearly took the legally required steps to exercise his veto authority by surrendering physical possession and the power to approve or reject the bills.' She said the Governor's Office would consult with the Attorney General's Office and other counsel. The Policy Research Office, executive branch budget staff and other members of the governor's staff met around 5 p.m. on May 22. Strimple sent her statement on the governor's position to all members of the governor's staff at 5:23 p.m., then to lawmakers at 5:53 p.m. On May 27, the next legislative day, Pillen, Arch and Evnen released their joint statement around 2:54 p.m., ending the possible constitutional dispute and returning to their respective corners, with no one taking blame for the situation until Pillen spoke with reporters this week. Pillen's office asserts that it searched texts and digital messages as part of the public records request but found no responsive records, including from Zoeller, who had pledged to text after delivering the veto letter in one of the emails. The Governor's Office provided no records reflecting communications with the legislative branch. None of the records indicate what happened to the bills after being delivered to Evnen's office. Evnen, speaking with the Examiner on Friday, reiterated that the Secretary of State's Office's role with legislation is to file it, and 'when it's brought to our office and we're asked to file it, that's what we do.' 'There's a certain amount of confusion, really between the legislative branch and the Governor's Office, about those line-item vetoes, and I think that what we will do is sit down and talk through together how that will be handled. That's a really good thing to do,' he said. Multiple lawmakers beyond Arch have quietly teased the suggestion with the Examiner, asking how much clearer the process can be. Asked if there was a reason the original bills in the Secretary of State's Office by about 5 p.m. could not be delivered by midnight on May 21, Evnen said: 'You would have to ask the Governor's Office.' Strimple, asked about the remaining timeline on May 21 and May 22, said that with the Arch-Evnen-Pillen joint statement, 'The matter is concluded.' One of the top targets of Gov. Jim Pillen's intended line-item vetoes to the state's budget bills was about $12 million in spending earmarked for the Nebraska Supreme Court. Corey Steel, state court administrator for Nebraska, told lawmakers that the line-item vetoes to the courts could eliminate various services, including three problem-solving courts in Lancaster and Sarpy Counties, a drug court in Gov. Jim Pillen's home of Platte County, transition living reimbursements for certain adults and non-statutory services for juveniles on probation. Pillen told the Examiner that while he has the 'utmost respect' for the separation of powers between Nebraska's branches of government, he believes each one must look at government differently. He said the courts have significantly increased spending and have money sitting around. Steel, as well as Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke, have said that position isn't accurate and that increased spending has been in part due to legislation that came without new funds. The judicial branch leaders have said that the 'money' held in various funds is now exhausted. However, Pillen said he's not backing down and that the reductions will be considered in 2026. 'We have to be fiscally responsible,' Pillen said, 'and that's all we're asking.' — Zach Wendling SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump signals case against Abrego Garcia will be ‘very easy'
President Trump on Saturday said the Justice Department's (DOJ) latest case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia — the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year amid Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration — should be 'very easy' for prosecutors. The comment comes after news broke Friday that Abrego Garcia would return to the U.S. to face smuggling charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Asked about the administration's seeming reversal in bringing the man home, the president gave full credit to DOJ. 'The Department of Justice decided to do it that way, and that's fine,' Trump told NBC News in a phone call Saturday, adding, 'that wasn't my decision.' But, he told the outlet, 'It should be a very easy case.' The unsealed indictment charges Abrego Garcia with the unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens and a related conspiracy charge. According to the court filing, prosecutors allege that he made more than 100 trips between Texas and other areas in the U.S. over the course of several years to transport illegal immigrants in exchange for money. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday took a victory lap over the case. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country,' she told reporters during a news conference. 'The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring.' 'They found this was his full-time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women,' Bondi added. The DOJ chief also noted that once a trial is complete, Abrego Garcio once again be deported to El Salvador. His return to the U.S. comes after the White House fought numerous court rulings for months that ordered the administration to facilitate his return, including one from the Supreme Court. Trump, officials and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele alike rejected the order, arguing the man — who had been living in Maryland under a protective order — was linked to MS-13 gang activity. Asked if he had spoken to Bukele in recent days, the president told the outlet that he had not. The two met at the White House earlier this year. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who faced scrutiny earlier this year over his meeting with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, called his return to the U.S. a 'victory' for due process, despite the charges. 'This is a victory for due process. It's a victory for the Constitution. It should not have taken this long. I mean … the Trump administration dragged its feet for a very long time and ignored a 9 to 0 order from the Supreme Court,' he told MSNBC in an interview Friday. 'But it's important that Abrego Garcia now come home and have his due process rights upheld in a court of law.' Trump responded to the comments by calling Van Hollen a 'loser.' 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser. They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear,' he told NBC on Saturday. 'He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular.' 'No, he's a total loser, this guy,' the president added.
