Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Francisco are all sanctuary cities and have said they will challenge in court any attempt by Trump to withhold federal funds from them. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said he doubted the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which reserves power to the states, would allow Trump to defund.
The move is an indication that lawmakers in the nation’s most populous state, where Democrats hold two-thirds majorities in both houses of the legislature, are girding for possible court battles after Trump takes office on Jan. 20.
“Immigrants are a part of California’s history, our culture, and our society,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Democrat from Los Angeles, responding to Trump’s calls to deport undocumented immigrants and build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. “We are telling the next Administration and Congress: if you want to get to them, you have to go through us.”
On November 8th, citizens in 35 states vote on 163 ballot initiatives. Initiatives in three states stand out as having a potentially broad national impact — California on reducing drug prices, South Dakota on revamping its political system, and New Mexico on the inequitable use of bail.
California may soon drive a hole through Washington’s tolerance for — and protection of — price gouging on drugs. A measure on the November ballot, Proposition 61, would bar state agencies from paying more for prescription drugs than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs does.
“Once [the state] exempts the water, it’s basically polluted forever. It’s a terrible idea,” said Maya Golden-Krasner, staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, which is suing California to force it to complete an environmental impact assessment of the proposed aquifer changes.
“Today marks a fresh start for California, as we prepare to replace the costly, harmful and ineffective system of prohibition with a safe, legal and responsible adult-use marijuana system that gets it right and completely pays for itself,” initiative spokesman Jason Kinney said in a statement.
Instead of complaining about the complexity of election rules, Sanders would have been wiser to ignore Wall Street and billionaires for a few minutes to explain those rules to his supporters.
Although Clinton has a significant delegate lead over Sanders, which she is likely to maintain unless the Vermont senator is able to convince hundreds of superdelegates who have declared their preference for Clinton to back him instead, Sanders has resolved to keep fighting.
California’s primaries are public elections, paid for with tax dollars and administered by government agencies. Why should private organizations decide who can and cannot vote in public elections?
All eyes are on California as it approaches it’s primary vote, this coming Tuesday, between Democratic presidential contenders Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. That ballot will also ask Californians for their preferences in the race to replace Senator Barbara Boxer, who is leaving the upper Chamber and opening up a California senate seat for the first time since 1992.
The endorsement was not easily won. Jerry Brown’s relationship with the Clintons has been strained since his bitter primary race against Bill Clinton in 1992, when Brown called Bill Clinton “the prince of sleaze.”
“I have decided to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe this is the only path forward to win the presidency and stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump,” Brown said in a letter to California Democrats and independents posted online.
He told the working-class people of Indiana he’d do away with outsourcing. He told the people of North Dakota, America’s second-leading producer of oil, he’d do away with energy regulations. And now, with the California primary a week away, he told the people of the nation’s most populous state that their ongoing drought does not actually exist.
An unconventional debate between a billionaire Republican and a democratic socialist is shaping up in California after presidential candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders expressed an interest in squaring off against each other.
Last week, Florida Gov. Rick Scott went to California to steal some jobs. Scott urged California businesses to pack up and move to Florida because the minimum wage in Florida is only $8.05 an hour. That was actually the thrust of his selling point: Why are you paying your workers $10 an hour? Floridians will work dirt cheap!
“It was a way for me to come out of hiding,” said Marco Nava, 32. “I no longer have to wake up at 4 in the morning to go do something that is not my profession. Now I can take care of my kids, take them to school and go do something that I love doing.”
The deal, if passed in the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, would add to a wave of minimum wage increases at the state level in the United States, where the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour for more than six years.
Washington will have its Democratic caucuses later this month, its Republican primary in May. Oregon doesn’t hold its primaries until May, and California’s are in early June.
In the mythology of the right, California must fail. Its high taxes, strict environmental rules, and thick book of regulations are all ingredients in the conservative recipe for economic meltdown. That California is prospering nicely throws a pie in the face of its harshest critics.
A man and a woman connected to a mass shooting that left 14 people dead and 17 wounded in San Bernardino were killed in a firefight with police officers after a car chase Wednesday, authorities said.
Fourteen people are dead and 17 more wounded after at least two shooters opened fire in a rampage that terrorized the Southern California city of San Bernardino Wednesday.
As Donald Trump and other Republicans talked tough on illegal immigration during last week’s presidential debate, Republican leaders in many states, like California, were once again despairing. The current brouhaha over illegal immigration is important because new voters will carry their views of the political parties with them for a very long time.
It is easier to make a political case for change using immediate and local threats, rather than those on a global scale, especially given the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings.