Latest news with #SB63
Politico
3 days ago
- Business
- Politico
The coming labor-business fight over Bay Area transit
Presented by FINAL DESTINATION — A group of transit unions, operators, and advocates calling itself Bay Area Forward is launching a last-ditch pressure campaign to rework a 2026 ballot measure designed to help rescue the Bay Area's struggling transit operators, Playbook has learned exclusively. With the downtown economies of three of the state's largest cities at stake, the labor-oriented alliance argues that transit interests need to abandon a regional sales tax measure being advanced by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Up to five counties would add a half-cent sales tax that advocates say would generate about $500 million annually for BART and other networks. 'It's problematic for two reasons; one, it does not fully fund the operational shortfall. It's also a politically vulnerable ballot measure,' said Ryan Williams, the campaign director for Bay Area Forward, founded this year by local transit unions. 'Our position has been we need to fully fund the operational shortfall in a politically viable way.' In recent weeks, the group commissioned pollster FM3 Research to survey likely 2026 Bay Area voters on different transit funding mechanisms. The results, they argue, are clear: voters are unlikely to go along with a sales-tax increase. Just 54 percent of respondents across the four counties surveyed backed the half-cent proposal, which failed to win majority support in San Mateo. There was far more support for a gross receipts tax that would put the financial burden on businesses rather than individuals. When pollsters introduced such a proposal, it won support from 61 percent of likely voters, with its advantage shrinking only slightly once respondents had heard arguments for and against the proposal. (Weak support for a sales tax was identified by EMC Research in separate polling released earlier this year by the MTC.) Bay Area Forward argues that its polling points to the need for not only a different policy but a change in ballot strategy altogether. Currently, the sales tax measure is marching through the legislature via SB 63, a bill introduced by Sens. Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín which serves as the primary vehicle for building consensus around the BART funding measure. If the bill passes, the sales tax would reach ballots as a special tax, which requires a two-thirds threshold to take effect. But none of the measures tested in the poll were popular enough to clear that hurdle. If a tax proposal were to reach the ballot as a citizens initiative, it would require only a simple majority to pass. To get there, however, the measure would need to find a backer willing to fund a signature-collecting effort on top of the campaign to sell voters on the tax itself. Bay Area Forward is already putting pressure on lawmakers to pivot from the sales-tax proposal when the bill reaches the Assembly this week. But that turn away from a tax paid by consumers towards a gross receipts tax on companies could set up a business-labor conflict with the Bay Area Council, the corporate-funded group that had been expected to pick up the tab for a ballot campaign. Bay Area Forward says it is ready to pay for petitions. NEWS BREAK: Climate risks firm predicts Sacramento 'depopulation' by 2055 … CEQA headed for major changes … DOJ issues new threats to school districts over trans athletes' participation in girls' sports. Welcome to Ballot Measure Weekly, a special edition of Playbook PM focused on California's lively realm of ballot measure campaigns. Drop us a line at eschultheis@ and wmccarthy@ or find us on X — @emilyrs and @wrmccart. TOP OF THE TICKET A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures — past and future, certain and possible — getting our attention this week. 1. Sports betting (2026?): California's Native American tribes are thinking about speeding up their timetable for a return to the ballot as they work to find an agreement with online-betting giants FanDuel and Draft Kings. Giving a new sense of urgency are the emergence of sports prediction markets, the subject of a meeting last week between tribal leaders and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 2. Minimum wage (Los Angeles, 2026?): The tourism industry is pushing back on a new $30 minimum wage for its employees, launching a referendum effort last week to overturn the law recently passed by LA's city council. It might not be the only minimum-wage question coming before voters next year, as some of the labor interests behind last year's Prop 32 are considering whether to mount a 'better funded' campaign for a $20 statewide floor. 3. Measure Z (Santa Cruz, 2024): After months of anticipation, Big Soda is striking back against Santa Cruz's soda tax. Last Thursday, a group of trade associations, local grocers and convenience store owners sued the seaside college town over a per-ounce sugary drink tax passed by voters last November, arguing the measure violates state law. The city aims to enlist the aid of health organizations like the American Heart Association to defend the measure in court. 4. High-earners tax extension (2026?): Unions looking to extend the high-earners tax introduced in 2012's Prop 30 and extended with 2016's Prop 55 are taking the steps necessary to push for renewal in 2026. The big question around the issue has never been if but when, and a recent online post from the California Teachers Association says the union is already organizing for a potential signature-gathering campaign to begin this fall. 5. California Forever (Solano County, 2026?): Suisun City is looking for at least a $500,000 payout from developer California Forever in any deal to annex the company's land and help it avoid a countywide ballot measure, according to the Daily Republic in Fairfield. 6. Health-care insurance denials (2026): The Luigi Mangione Act, an initiative aimed at preventing health insurance denials and named for the alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO killer, can now begin gathering signatures, the secretary of state's office announced last week. It is joined in the field by a proposed initiative to increase ethnic studies coursework requirements for California State University students. 7. Prop 33 (2024): The No on 33 anti-rent control campaign won a Pollies gold prize — the so-called 'Oscars of political advertising' — in the direct mail category for the 12.8 million pieces sent last year by Josh Pulliam's Sacramento firm JPM+M. ON OTHER BALLOTS Activists who led the 2020 campaign to legalize cannabis in Montana are now considering a constitutional amendment to keep judicial elections nonpartisan … Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed legislation last week that introduces geographic distribution requirements for signature-gatherers looking to qualify an initiative for the ballot … A federal judge in Florida heard arguments in a case challenging the new initiative-related law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, which places strict new restrictions on the signature-gathering process … Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin issued a new title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment pushing back on legislative efforts to restrict the ballot process, clearing the League of Women Voters of Arkansas to begin gathering signatures to appear on the November 2026 ballot … Oregon's Ballot Measure 119, which made it easier for cannabis workers to unionize, will no longer be in effect after a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds … And the city council in Boston advanced a proposal to introduce ranked-choice voting, which must still get approval from the mayor, the state legislature and the governor before coming before voters as a ballot measure. I'M JUST A BILL NO LONGER IN SUSPENSE: Lawmakers looking to put measures on the 2026 ballot are figuring out their next steps after learning respective bills' fates in the suspense file hearings late last month. All three constitutional amendments in contention for 2026 were turned into two-year bills. That means Assemblymember Matt Haney's ACA 3, to provide down payments on home loans for University of California staff, and Assemblymember Corey Jackson's ACA 7, to revive affirmative action, are off the table for this year and won't have a chance to make their way through the rest of the legislative process until spring 2026. Jackson is now considering converting his ACA 4, a constitutional amendment that would require sending 5 percent of General Fund revenue toward homelessness, into a citizen initiative. 'We have to solve housing in a major way,' he told Playbook. 'If the Legislature is not going to do it, we might need to start gathering some signatures.' Jackson said it's imperative that money to address the state's housing crisis ends up on the 2026 ballot in some form, whether it's his proposal or AB 736, the $10 billion affordable housing bond from Assemblymember Buffy Wicks. 'The Legislature allowed this problem to turn into a crisis, so it's time for us, it's time for Democrats to solve it,' he said. 'This happened under our watch.' Wicks' bond has the clearest path to the ballot. After getting an endorsement from Gov. Gavin Newsom, AB 736 made it out of suspense and now needs to pass a floor vote in the Assembly before going through the committee process on the Senate side. Wicks told Playbook she feels good about its chances in the Senate and is 'cautiously optimistic' about the bond getting Newsom's approval when it crosses his desk. Last cycle, 'the climate bond and the school bond ended up taking priority,' she said. 'So I think there's certainly a feeling now amongst lawmakers that we have to prioritize housing, particularly because there isn't money in the budget for housing.' WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ... BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REFORM (2024): Last year, Los Angeles County voters narrowly passed Measure G, a charter amendment to establish an ethics commission, expand the powerful board of supervisors from five members to nine and create a new county executive office to oversee their government. Now comes the hard part, as Emily wrote this weekend: determining the scope of a position that will, by representing the nearly 10 million people of Los Angeles County, become perhaps the most powerful in American local government and immediately reshape California politics. Members of a 13-member task force met for the first time Friday to begin the process of implementing Measure G, including to establish the powers that will accompany the new county-executive office. Nothing concrete was decided at the meeting, which served as something of a victory lap for the supervisors who asked voters to rethink a body long criticized as distant and unaccountable. 'I want to thank the voters of Los Angeles County who decided that this reform was necessary and made it happen, because all of us want to see change in how we do this work,' said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who led the 2024 campaign and said she's thought about a run for the county-executive position when it is first filled by voters in November 2028. POSTCARD FROM ... … MENLO PARK: Residents of this Silicon Valley city may soon be asked to choose whether they want to prioritize parking or affordable housing in their quaint downtown business district. The parking lots seem to be winning. Earlier this month, a group of local retailers began organizing a signature drive for a ballot measure that would require voters to approve any effort to convert Menlo Park's downtown parking plazas for another use. The lots, on four parcels owned by the city, sit behind the businesses on Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo Park's primary commercial corridor. On weekday afternoons and weekends, the 300-some parking spaces fill up with customers who come to patronize the grocery stores, bagel shops and banks on the main strip. But in recent months, the Menlo Park city council has begun soliciting development plans to build apartments on those plots as a way to fulfill its state housing requirement. Retail businesses quickly pushed back by forming the Save Downtown Menlo alliance and filing a lawsuit that argued the city lacked legal authority to develop the parking lots. Soon after, the group began collecting signatures for the ballot measure requiring voter approval for such projects. (The group did not reply to requests for comment.) 'If these plans move forward, the Downtown we know will be changed forever,' the group wrote on its website. 'More traffic, fewer small businesses, and less access for everyone who depends on it.' Menlo Park Mayor Drew Combs says the council's plans to develop downtown housing have been even more controversial than he expected, with the city's first meeting on the topic drawing more public commenters than any other item of his 8-year tenure in city government. He has no doubt that the group will gather enough signatures to put the parking-lot question before voters. 'Job rich communities with high quality schools, those communities have an obligation to address a housing shortage,' said Combs, who has not taken a position on the proposed ballot measure. 'But we also have an obligation to listen to voters and residents.' With their affluent constituents in open revolt, Menlo Park's leadership is taking a delicate approach. Tomorrow, the council will give direction to staff on how it wants to proceed with the development proposals. Combs, at least, seems interested in slowing down a process that could result in two separate ballot questions before the city can move ahead with construction. 'I think there's some validity to the argument that maybe we should look at pausing and checking in with residents,' Combs said. 'Seeing if there is a path forward that doesn't divide the city, but that actually produces housing as quickly as possible.' THAT TIME VOTERS ... … PREPARED FOR A COLLISION: Californians have seen ballot measures on a wide variety of questions related to car insurance, including to: Provide motor vehicle insurance discounts for good drivers, provide comparative auto insurance prices and prohibit discrimination and price-fixing by insurance companies (1988, failed) … Require insurers cut rates by at least 20 percent and that insurance commissioners approve future rate changes (1988, passed) … Replace private car insurance with a state-administered program of required, basic insurance and create an 'automobile claims court' for claims of up to $15,000 (1990, did not qualify) … Require no-fault car insurance, meaning a person's car insurance would pay for personal injuries resulting from an accident (1996, failed) … Repeal laws requiring every driver to maintain automobile liability insurance (2010, did not qualify) … Allow car insurance companies to increase or decrease rates based on the years and miles a customer has driven (2010, failed) … And allow car insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried insurance coverage with any company over the last five years (2012, failed).
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Alabama Legislature only passes two immigration bills despite GOP push on issue
Protesters march during a non violent protest in Birmingham, Alabama, U.S., on Saturday February 22, 2025. Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice organized the event for the public to show empathy to immigrants in the wake of all the anti immigration bills currently in legislature. The Alabama Legislature considered several proposals during the 2025 session to place further restrictions on peple without legal status. Photographer: Andi Rice for Alabama Reflector Despite spending a great deal of time on the issue in the 2025 session, the Alabama Legislature only passed two bills targeting those without appropriate authorization to reside in the country. SB 63, sponsored by Sen. Lance Bell, R-Pell City, requires law enforcement in Alabama to take fingerprints and DNA samples of people without the documentation to live in the U.S. and submit them to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency and the Alabama Department of Forensic Science. SB 53, sponsored by Wes Kitchens, R-Arab, made it a crime, a Class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine, for people to knowingly transport a person without the appropriate documentation to reside in the country into the state. The bill also required county or municipal jail administrators to investigate those placed into custody to determine a person's immigration status and check with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if the individual was issued an immigration detainer or warrant. 'Many of these bills were created to address problems that don't exist in Alabama,' said Allison Hamilton, executive director of the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice. 'The majority of these bills were copycat bills that were developed at national thinktanks and distributed out to different legislators around the country to implement in their states.' But several other immigration bills stalled before getting a final vote. HB 7, sponsored by Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, R-Trinity, would have allowed state and local law enforcement to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to enforce the country's immigration laws, an authority that currently belongs only to the Alabama Attorney General's Office. The House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee approved the legislation in February, soon after the 2025 session began, but the full chamber did not vote on the measure until April. The legislation did not come to a vote in the full Senate. HB 3, sponsored by Rep. Chip Brown, R-Hollingers Island, would have enhanced penalties for people convicted of felonies if they cannot prove they have legal authorization to be in the U.S. A Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison to a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Those convicted of a Class C felony would have their punishment upgraded to a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $30,000 fine. People who commit a Class B felony would have their convictions upgraded to a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison and a $60,000 fine. Individuals found guilty of a Class A felony, the most serious offense, would have had to serve at least 15 years in prison. Other legislation would have made labor brokers register with the Alabama Department of Workforce and must then report the foreign nationals they place with companies through contract work. Another bill, HB 297, sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Fidler, R-Silverhill, would have originally imposed a fee on international wire transfers, often used by immigrants to support families overseas. But the legislation was heavily amended to require reports on certain overseas cash transactions. All the bills eventually stalled in the Senate. One bill attempted to restrict those without proper authorization by limiting their ability to drive in the state. SB 55, sponsored by Sen. Chris Elliott, R-Josephine, would have prohibited people who have a driver's license from another state from driving in Alabama if the state that authorized it did not review a person's legal status. The legislation stalled in the House chamber after it passed the Senate. Legislators from a slate of other states introduced nearly identical legislation, so Hamilton said the bills are not tailored to the problems that residents face in Alabama. 'If they were really trying to address it, there were other bills that other representatives introduced that would have been more effective, but this bill was really about continuing to oppress immigrant communities and make life difficult,' she said.' But those who favor more restrictions said actions are necessary to disincentivize people without appropriate authorization to live in the country. 'The objective here is to present people here with rational choices, and if they believe they are not going to succeed in what they are doing, then they either will not come to the United States at all, or if individual states within the country adopt policies that make it clear they are going to be partners in enforcement, those people will settle elsewhere in the county,' said Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates for immigration legislation like those introduced. Debu Ghandi, senior director for immigration at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, cited a 2020 report from the organization that found undocumented immigrants contribute almost $80 million in federal taxes and $41 billion in state and local taxes each year. They also pay another $315 billion annually nationally through spending. 'Many industries often rely on their hard, and often dangerous, work,' he said. 'Undocumented immigrants, in fact, cannot receive social and Medicare benefits, but they have to pay into these programs through the payroll taxes that they are required to pay even though they are not eligible for the benefits that these programs fund.' Hamilton said there are potential negative consequences of these bills for the state. 'What Alabama would like in that case is a lot fewer workers and a lot fewer people, fewer restaurants, and just a sadder place,' she said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Kansas trans kids file lawsuit over new law banning gender-affirming care
Kansans rally in support of transgender rights May 5, 2023, at the Statehouse in Topeka. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a new Kansas law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Douglas County District Court on behalf of a 16-year-old trans boy and a 13-year-old trans girl. The lawsuit argues the new law violates state constitutional rights for equal protection, personal autonomy, and parenting. Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from using surgery, hormones or puberty blockers to treat anyone younger than 18 who identifies with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Health care providers who break the law may be subject to civil penalties and stripped of their license. The ACLU is seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the law while the case is being litigated. 'Every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians,' said D.C. Hiegert, a legal fellow for the ACLU of Kansas. 'SB 63 is a particularly harmful example of politicians' overreach and their efforts to target, politicize, and control the health care of already vulnerable Kansas families.' The GOP-led Legislature passed SB 63 and overrode a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly earlier this year, ignoring overwhelming opposition from Kansas social workers, teachers, medical providers and members of the LGBTQ+ community who said gender-affirming care saves lives by acknowledging and supporting vulnerable kids for who they are. The lawsuit points to medical guidance established by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and others surrounding gender identity, gender expression, and gender dysphoria. The guidelines require medical providers to confirm a minor has demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity, that the condition worsened with the onset of puberty, that coexisting psychological or social problems have been addressed, and that the patient has sufficient mental capacity to provide informed consent. Both of the plaintiffs, the lawsuit says, identified from a young age with a gender other than their sex assigned at birth. They are identified by pseudonyms. The family of the 16-year-old boy, who lives in Johnson County, moved from Texas to Kansas in 2022 to escape a rise in anti-trans legislation. When he started going through puberty, he 'could not stand the feminine aspects of his body,' the lawsuit says. A therapist and medical providers diagnosed him with gender dysphoria and recommended hormone therapy, because he had already started going through puberty. Now that he is taking testosterone, the lawsuit says, 'he is more comfortable in his body, and happier,' and he has 'blossomed at school and in his social life.' The 13-year-old girl, who lives in Douglas County, has lived as a girl since second grade. She legally changed her name in 2020 and changed the gender designation on her birth certificate in 2023. After consulting with doctors in 2024, she decided puberty blockers were the right choice to benefit her mental health, the lawsuit says. As soon as she received her first shot last year, at age 12, she 'literally started dancing,' the lawsuit says. 'She felt such enormous relief from no longer needing to worry about puberty, and had so much less fear,' the lawsuit says. 'The puberty blocking shots let her be herself, happy, and carefree.' She has not had any negative side effects from the shots, which last about six months, the lawsuit says. But her last shot was in November, and her next shot was supposed to be in late May. If she waits more than a few weeks, the lawsuit says, the medication will stop working. The lawsuit says both families have looked for care in other states as a result of the new law. Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Project, said all transgender Kansans should have the freedom to be themselves. 'Bans like SB 63 have already had catastrophic effects on the families of transgender youth across the country,' Seldin said. 'These bans have uprooted many families from the only homes they've ever known while forcing many more to watch their young people suffer knowing a politician stands between them and their family doctor's best medical judgment.' In addition to banning gender-affirming care, SB 63 bans the use of state funds for mental health care for transgender children, bans state employees from promoting 'social transitioning,' which is defined to include the use of preferred pronouns, and outlaws liability insurance for damages related to gender-affirming care. The model legislation, labeled the 'Help Not Harm Act,' was supported by faith-based anti-LGBTQ+ groups in and outside of Kansas. When the Legislature overrode the governor's veto in February, Brittany Jones, director of policy and engagement for Kansas Family Voice, said lawmakers voted on the side of 'common sense.' 'Every child deserves to be loved and protected — not manipulated into making life-altering decisions by individuals who profit off of those decisions,' Jones said. 'We celebrate this new day in Kansas in which Kansas children are protected.'
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missouri lawmakers advance bill to let home-school students join school sports
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – You could soon see students who are home-schooled in Missouri join football, band, theatre and other extra-curricular activities offered by public schools. Missouri lawmakers from both the Senate and House have approved of Senate Bill 63, a bill introduced by Sen. Ben Brown (R-Washington). As of Wednesday, the legislation passed three rounds of voting in each chamber. The bill now heads back to the Senate for a final vote, then it could proceed to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk for review. 'You're O-U-T, out!' says legal expert in FOX 2's findings on St. Louis Sheriff SB 63 would allow home-schooled students to join the activities offered at their assigned school district or charter school. Districts and charter schools could also set attendance policies and establish requirements for related coursework or instruction. Supporters may feel parents with home-schooled students still pay taxes that fund extra curricular activities and should have access to those opportunities. Critics may feel that home-schooled students should be required to attend at least one class in a school day if they want to join teams or activities. There are also concerns that students educated at home may not be held to the same academic standards as their peers. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now The Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA) already allows some home-schooled students to join school sports teams if they meet certain criteria, such as in-class seat time. According to FOX 2's news partners at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, similar bills have fell just short of passage over the last several years, and the current measure previously received unanimous support in the Senate. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
As deadline looms, Sen. Scott Wiener introduces bill to fund Bay Area transit
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — With a crucial deadline for a vote on potentially service cuts to SF Muni looming, State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has introduced a bill to provide funding to Bay Area transit systems. The legislation, SB 63, would provide long-term, stable funding to BART, Muni, AC Transit and Caltrain by leveraging a multi-county revenue measure. Counties included in the ballot measure are Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco. Sen. Wiener said they are also working with San Mateo County to also opt in in the coming months. The measure would propose a sales tax to support transit and stave off service cuts. VTA announces new offer to union employees as strike enters 3rd week According to Sen. Wiener, the measure would solve BART and AC Transit's funding shortfall and contribute significantly to Muni's budget shortfall. If San Mateo County opts in, it would also contribute significantly to Caltrain's shortfall. 'If we do nothing, major systems (BART, Muni, AC Transit, Caltrain) will be forced into massive service cuts,' said Wiener in a post on Reddit. 'That would be horrific for San Francisco and the Bay Area as a whole.' Public transit in the Bay Area has struggled to recover in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. With more workers working remotely, BART ridership has yet to rebound to pre-pandemic ridership numbers. 'Service has gotten better — but work remains,' Wiener said. The bill, which was co-authored by State Sen. Jesse Arreguin (D-Berkeley) comes just a week ahead of a vote by the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency Board of Directors vote. On April 1, the board is expected to vote on summer service cuts that would see service reduced on several SFMTA lines. 'Transit in the Bay Area isn't optional,' Wiener said. 'It's part of our region's lifeblood. It's essential to our economy. Without it, a huge number of people won't be able to get to work or school and traffic congestion will get much worse. We know what it'll take to stop these service cuts and we're working to get that done.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
