Latest news with #Proposition20
Los Angeles Times
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: An old ballot measure isn't more important than fairness in our national elections
To the editor: I strongly disagree with Mark Z. Barabak's column lambasting Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposal to counter Texas' threatened redistricting ('Gavin Newsom is threatening to end-run California voters. It reflects a terrible trend,' July 23). When Proposition 20 passed in 2010, California voters still believed that our democracy was protected by a system of checks and balances. But things have radically changed since then. Project 2025, a plan connected to several in President Trump's administration and with which his policies have so far closely aligned, means to undermine the very foundations our system is built on. California is under threat, with the federal government taking away funding and trampling our state's legal authorities. If Republicans in Texas and elsewhere essentially help rig the 2026 elections through mid-decade redistricting, those of us who still believe in democracy have to fight back by winning state-level elections and making sure Texas Republicans can't disproportionately grab power in the national election. It would be naive to prioritize protecting a 15-year-old ballot measure when fairness in our elections is at stake. I appreciate that Newsom recognizes this and I support his proposal. Judith Lipsett, Claremont
Los Angeles Times
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Gavin Newsom is threatening to end-run California voters. It reflects a terrible trend
In 2010, California voters drove the foxes from the henhouse, seeing to it that lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento would no longer have the power to draw congressional districts to suit themselves. It wasn't close. Proposition 20 passed by a lopsided 61%-to-38% margin, giving congressional line-drawing authority to an independent mapmaking commission and thus ending decades of pro forma elections by injecting much-needed competition into California's House races. Now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is talking about undoing voters' handiwork. Newsom said he may seek to cancel the commission, tear up the boundaries it drew and let Democratic partisans draft a new set of lines ahead of next year's midterm election — all to push back on President Trump and Texas Republicans, who are attempting a raw power grab to enhance the GOP's standing in 2026. The threatened move is a long shot and, more than anything, a ploy to boost Newsom's White House ambitions. It's also highly presumptuous on his part, reflecting an increased arrogance among lawmakers around the country who are saying to voters, in effect, 'Thank you for your input. Now go away.' Take what just happened in Missouri. Last year, 58% of voters approved a ballot measure increasing the state minimum wage and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. This month, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed legislation that limited the minimum wage increase and scrapped the sick leave requirement altogether. In two other states, Alaska and Nebraska, lawmakers similarly tried but failed to, respectively, overturn voter-passed measures on paid sick leave and a hike in the minimum wage. 'It's a damning indictment of representative democracy when elected officials are scared of the will of their own voters,' said Alexis Magnan-Callaway of the Fairness Project, a union-backed advocacy group that focuses on state ballot measures. It is indeed. But it's part of a pattern in recent years of lawmakers, mainly in Republican-led states, undercutting or working to roll back voter-designed measures to enshrine abortion rights, expand Medicare and raise the minimum wage. To be clear, those measures were passed by voters of all stripes: Democrats, Republicans, independents. 'People are transcending party lines to vote for issues that they know will impact their communities,' said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive organization. By ignoring or working to nullify the result, she said, lawmakers are helping contribute 'to what we're seeing across the country, where people are losing faith in our institutions and in government.' And why wouldn't they, if politicians pay no mind save to ask for their vote come election time? In a direct attack on the initiative process, at least nine state legislatures passed or considered laws in their most recent session making it harder — and perhaps even impossible — for citizens to place measures on the ballot and seek a popular vote. There can be issues with direct democracy, as Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center for Justice pointed out. 'There can be times when systems can be abused to confuse voters,' he said, 'or where voters do things without maybe fully understanding what it is they're doing, because of the way ballot measures are drafted or ballot summaries are offered.' But it's one thing to address those glitches, Morales-Doyle said, and 'another thing to just basically say that we, as the representatives of voters, disagree with what voters think the best policy is and so we're going to make it harder for them to enact the policy that they desire.' In Texas, Republicans are wielding their lopsided power in hopes of erasing as many as five Democratic-leaning congressional seats, boosting the GOP's chances of keeping control of the House in the 2026 midterm election. Trump, staring at the prospect of an emboldened, subpoena-wielding Democratic House majority, is backing the effort whole-hog. That, Newsom said, is the fighting-fire-with-fire reason to tear up California's congressional map and gerrymander the state for Democrats just as egregiously as Texas Republicans hope to do. 'We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be. Or, we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment,' the governor asserted. It's awfully hard to argue against corralling the errant Trump and his Republican enablers. Still, that's no reason to ignore the express will of California voters when it comes to reining in their own lawmakers. Taking Newsom's gerrymander threat at face value, there are two ways he could possibly override Proposition 20. He could break the law and win passage of legislation drawing new congressional districts, face an inevitable lawsuit and hope to win a favorable ruling from the California Supreme Court. Or he could call a costly special election and ask voters to reverse themselves and eliminate the state's nonpartisan redistricting commission, at least for the time being. It's a hard sell. One presumes Newsom's message to Californians would not be: 'Let's spend hundreds of millions of your tax dollars so you can surrender your power and return it to politicians working their will in the backrooms of Washington and Sacramento.' But that's the gist of what they would be asked to do, which bespeaks no small amount of hubris on Newsom's part. If elections are going to matter — especially at a time our democracy is teetering so — politicians have to accept the results, whether they like them or not. Otherwise, what's the point of having elections?
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: Oil company decision to bypass Coastal Commission years after spill is 'arrogant'
To the editor: Few communities know the devastation that oil drilling can produce as much as Santa Barbara ("Under Trump, Texas firm pushes to restart Santa Barbara oil drilling. Is it skirting California laws?" April 6). We have seen our beaches drenched in oil, our land despoiled and wildlife killed. Sable Offshore Corp. is full of promises that its operations will be safe and secure. Yet its arrogant actions to ignore cease-and-desist orders from the California Coastal Commission warn us that it cannot be trusted. America produces more oil and gas than any other country on Earth. Do we need to risk despoiling a pristine coastal area to get more? Despite the Trump administration's 'drill-baby-drill' policies, responsible world leaders are phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to cheaper, safer renewable energy. The city of Santa Barbara's 2024 Climate Action Plan, 'Together to Zero,' provides a road map aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. There's no place in that plan for more oil and gas. Robert Taylor, Santa Barbara .. To the editor: I was a young mother in Santa Barbara at the time of the 1969 spill, a lawyer for Santa Barbara County at the time of the Exxon Alaska spill, when the county had to consider "tankering" of oil from offshore platforms, and I was a public member of the Coastal Commission in 2015, when the Refugio spill — the one from the same pipeline at issue now — poured from onshore, into the ocean, damaging 100 miles of coastline. This is exactly why we have a strong, statewide Coastal Act. Sable's claim that it doesn't need permits for repairs in environmentally sensitive habitat is specious, and it has preemptively sued the commission. Now that Sable has acquired Exxon's processing plant, as well as the pipeline — 10 years after the Refugio spill — for the sake of all our children, and grandchildren, all the permits should be revoked or deemed abandoned. Jana Zimmer, Santa Barbara .. To the editor: The 1969 Santa Barbara disaster, the 'environmental shot heard round the world,' helped lead to the founding of America's most powerful coastal regulatory agency, the California Coastal Commission. The agency was singular for many reasons. Foremost, it was birthed by the people in 1972's Proposition 20 and codified four years later with passage of the California Coastal Act. Oil drilling off our storied coast was thereby regulated. Texas-based Sable is working to unravel the commission's regulatory authority. We must fight this effort. Contact Sacramento officials. Remind them that our treasured coast is the soul of California. Tom Osborne, Laguna Beach ... To the editor: In the same April 6 edition of The Times there is an article about a Texas oil company trying to resume drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara and then a few pages later another article about an oil company that has been found liable for damaging coastal Louisiana ("Chevron ordered to pay more than $740 million to restore Louisiana coast in landmark trial," April 6). What's that definition of insanity again? Larry Harmell, Granada Hills This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Oil company decision to bypass Coastal Commission years after spill is ‘arrogant'
To the editor: Few communities know the devastation that oil drilling can produce as much as Santa Barbara ('Under Trump, Texas firm pushes to restart Santa Barbara oil drilling. Is it skirting California laws?' April 6). We have seen our beaches drenched in oil, our land despoiled and wildlife killed. Sable Offshore Corp. is full of promises that its operations will be safe and secure. Yet its arrogant actions to ignore cease-and-desist orders from the California Coastal Commission warn us that it cannot be trusted. America produces more oil and gas than any other country on Earth. Do we need to risk despoiling a pristine coastal area to get more? Despite the Trump administration's 'drill-baby-drill' policies, responsible world leaders are phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to cheaper, safer renewable energy. The city of Santa Barbara's 2024 Climate Action Plan, 'Together to Zero,' provides a road map aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. There's no place in that plan for more oil and gas. Robert Taylor, Santa Barbara .. To the editor: I was a young mother in Santa Barbara at the time of the 1969 spill, a lawyer for Santa Barbara County at the time of the Exxon Alaska spill, when the county had to consider 'tankering' of oil from offshore platforms, and I was a public member of the Coastal Commission in 2015, when the Refugio spill — the one from the same pipeline at issue now — poured from onshore, into the ocean, damaging 100 miles of coastline. This is exactly why we have a strong, statewide Coastal Act. Sable's claim that it doesn't need permits for repairs in environmentally sensitive habitat is specious, and it has preemptively sued the commission. Now that Sable has acquired Exxon's processing plant, as well as the pipeline — 10 years after the Refugio spill — for the sake of all our children, and grandchildren, all the permits should be revoked or deemed abandoned. Jana Zimmer, Santa Barbara .. To the editor: The 1969 Santa Barbara disaster, the 'environmental shot heard round the world,' helped lead to the founding of America's most powerful coastal regulatory agency, the California Coastal Commission. The agency was singular for many reasons. Foremost, it was birthed by the people in 1972's Proposition 20 and codified four years later with passage of the California Coastal Act. Oil drilling off our storied coast was thereby regulated. Texas-based Sable is working to unravel the commission's regulatory authority. We must fight this effort. Contact Sacramento officials. Remind them that our treasured coast is the soul of California. Tom Osborne, Laguna Beach ... To the editor: In the same April 6 edition of The Times there is an article about a Texas oil company trying to resume drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara and then a few pages later another article about an oil company that has been found liable for damaging coastal Louisiana ('Chevron ordered to pay more than $740 million to restore Louisiana coast in landmark trial,' April 6). What's that definition of insanity again? Larry Harmell, Granada Hills
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Commentary: Half a century ago, Californians saved the coast. Will Trump threats spark another uprising?
In 1972, thousands of Californians came together in what was a defining moment in state history. They were united by fears that the spectacular coast was in danger of becoming overdeveloped, heavily industrialized, ecologically diminished and irreversibly privatized. Rue Furch, a Sonoma State University student, signed on as a volunteer for Proposition 20, which called for a commission to 'preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the environment and ecology of the coastal zone.' 'I was just one of the worker bees, and it felt great to be doing something positive,' said Furch, whose role was 'collecting signatures and holding signs and showing up to rallies.' In Sacramento, a young legislative assistant named Sam Farr (who would later become a U.S. congressman), helped organize a coastal bike ride, led by state Sen. Jim Mills, that galvanized Proposition 20 support and drew hordes of reporters as cyclists pedaled from Land's End in San Francisco to Balboa Park in San Diego. 'The highway patrol kind of designed the route,' said Farr, who recalled that cyclists camped at state parks along the way and dined on food donated by supporters of the rolling 'save our coast' call to arms. In Los Angeles, teams of young environmentalists sabotaged dozens of campaign billboards, hung by the opposition, which originally said,'The Beach Belongs to You – Don't Lock it Up. Vote No on Proposition No. 20.' The activists painted the word 'Yes' over the word 'No.' So why am I telling you this a half-century later? Because voter-approved Proposition 20 led to the 1976 California Coastal Act and the creation of the Coastal Commission, which is now under threat like never before, targeted by the Trump administration, federal legislation and other critics. In a January visit to Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires, Trump said the Coastal Commission is 'considered the most difficult in the entire country' and said when it comes to rebuilding, 'we are not going to let them get away with their antics.' If that seems personal, it is. Trump, who bought a Ranch Palos Verdes golf course at a discounted price in 2002, after the 18th hole fell into the ocean, has had disputes with the Coastal Commission over waterfalls on the property and a 70-foot tall flagpole erected without a permit. In February, Trump special missions envoy Ric Grenell painted a bullseye on the coastal commission, saying that fire relief assistance could be held up if California doesn't bow to the administration's wishes. He called the Coastal Commission 'an unelected group of people who are crazy woke left' and said that 'putting strings on them to get rid of the California Coastal Commission is going to make California better.' To be clear, the commissioners are selected by elected people, which is often how commissions work. And speaking of powerful unelected people, the name Elon Musk comes to mind, and Trump's Oval Office playmate has his own beef with the Coastal Commission. Musk's SpaceX company sued the commission last fall after commissioners rejected a bid to increase the number of rocket launches from the U.S. military's Vandenberg Space Force Base near Lompoc. Military officials have said in support of SpaceX that they'd like to increase the number of launches from a handful to as many as 100 annually. The commission argued that most of the launches are for private interests rather than for military purposes, and that sonic booms and environmental impacts are a problem. And it might be wise to hold off on increased launches following Thursday's explosion of a SpaceX craft that ripped apart after takeoff from Texas. A shower of debris led to the grounding of flights at several Florida airports, and this was the second such SpaceX disaster in seven weeks. At the very least, SpaceX employees — just like federal employees targeted by Musk — should get memos asking what they had done in the seven days prior to each crash to justify keeping their jobs. Read more: Why California's northern coast doesn't look like Atlantic City To be fair, the Coastal Commission staff and its commissioners are not beyond reproach, nor have commissioners always served with honor, so scrutiny and pushback ought to be part of the process. Nearly a decade ago, my Times colleagues and I examined the ways in which wealthy property owners and developers used lawyers, lobbyists and political connections in attempting to influence commission decision-making. In the case of the recent SpaceX case, commissioners made bone-headed political comments about Musk in rejecting the bid for more launches, naively handing him lawsuit fodder. And the commission — which is made up of more than 100 staff members and 12 voting commissioners — has a history of irritating property owners and even governors with painfully long reviews of applications (caused, in part, by decades of under-staffing) for everything from new coastal construction to property improvements of various types. Several recent bills by Democratic legislators have tried (with limited success) to chip away at agency authority and clear the way for more housing, and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed an executive order limiting commission oversight in the interest of speeding up rebuilding in the Palisades fire zone. Republicans, meanwhile just want to tear it all apart. On March 5, U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) called for stripping the commission of its power, saying the agency is 'out of control and has veered from its purpose of protecting the coast.' Susan Jordan of the nonprofit California Coastal Protection Network, quickly sized up what that would mean. 'This is like the federal government putting a big for-sale sign on the California coast,' she said. 'It basically takes away the state's ability to comment on and provide feedback on projects … It's like an open invitation to oil drilling, to any commercial venture, to liquefied natural gas terminals.' There's a reason that has not already happened, and it has a lot to do with that movement that began in 1972 (the story has been captured in a new documentary on the people who were determined to save the coast). There's a reason that as you travel the coast, you see all those roadside beach access signs. There's a reason that when beachfront property owners put up illegal 'private property' signs or otherwise attempt to drive away those who have a right to enjoy the beach, they're cited and fined. There's a reason the 1,100-mile natural wonder that stretches from the Oregon border to the Mexico border does not, for the most part, resemble the blighted, overdeveloped coasts of other states. There's a reason any and all development proposals are exhaustively reviewed, with the perils of sea level rise in mind, and in the interest of protecting marine and shore habitats. The reason is the California Coastal Act of 1976, a people-inspired, legislatively approved framework that guides state and local governments on the use of land and water in the coastal zone, and embodies the idea that this natural wonder is not owned by anybody, but by everybody, and that it must be treated — with careful, unwavering stewardship — like the public treasure that it is. Read more: The first director of the agency, the late and legendary Peter Douglas, recognized that there would always be threats to the commission and to the shore. It's why he said: 'The coast is what it is because a lot of people worked really hard and sacrificed to protect it. And if we want it to be there for our children, we have to keep fighting to protect it. In that way, the coast is never saved, it's always being saved.' If it takes another bike ride, I'm ready to roll. 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.
