Increases penalties for shoplifting and certain drug crimes

On Dec. 13, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an Information Bulletin to all law enforcement agencies in the state about Proposition 36 which passed overwhelmingly in November and went into effect on Wednesday, Dec. 18th. The bulletin highlights the statutory changes and additions made to current law under the proposition known as “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.”

“Ultimately, our success in combating organized retail crime hinges on our ability to work together, innovate, and remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting our neighborhoods and businesses,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let us harness the strength of our partnerships, the power of new legislation, and the collective resolve of our community to create a safer and more secure environment for everyone. My office is committed to fighting organized retail crime head on.”

Proposition 36 modifies existing law and adds substantive charges and enhancements to areas of the Penal Code and Health and Safety Code regarding theft, property damage, and drug-related crimes. The changes include the creation of new felony theft and drug crimes targeting recidivist offenders, removal of eligibility for the sentences of certain offenses to be served in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h) as opposed to state prison, and alignment of the punishment for crimes involving fentanyl with that of other similar controlled substances.

Following is Bonta’s Information Bulletin:

TO: ALL CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES PROPOSITION 36: “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act”

On November 5, 2024, California voters passed Proposition 36, known as “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.” Proposition 36 takes effect on December 18, 2024.

Proposition 36 modifies existing law and adds substantive charges and enhancements to areas of the Penal Code and Health and Safety Code regarding theft, property damage, and drug-related crimes. The changes include: (1) the creation of new felony theft and drug crimes targeting recidivist offenders; (2) removal of eligibility for the sentences of certain offenses to be served in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h); and (3) alignment of the punishment for crimes involving fentanyl with that of other similar controlled substances.

The purpose of this bulletin is to highlight the statutory changes and additions made by Proposition 36.

CHANGES UNDER PROPOSITION 36 RELATING TO THEFT AND PROPERTY DAMAGE

Penal Code section 490.3 (Aggregation of Losses in Multiple Thefts): Proposition 36 creates a new Penal Code section 490.3 which permits aggregation of the value of property or merchandise stolen during multiple thefts to meet the $950 threshold for a felony without having to prove that the various crimes were motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan. This new section applies to theft or shoplifting, including, but not limited to, violations of Penal Code sections 459.5, 484, 488, and 490.2.

Penal Code section 490.3 applies “notwithstanding any other law,” and is therefore broader than other laws such as Penal Code section 487, subdivision (e) and the new Penal Code section 12022.10,1

1 which would permit aggregation only in limited circumstances, such as if the acts were motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan, or only if there was a common scheme or plan, respectively.

Penal Code section 666.1 (Felony Crime of Theft with Two Prior Thefts): Penal Code section 666.1 is a new, recidivist felony offense of committing petty theft or shoplifting while having two or more prior misdemeanor or felony convictions for specified theft-related crimes. A first conviction under Penal Code section 666.1, subdivision (a)(1) is punishable in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h), second or subsequent convictions are punishable in county jail or state prison. Other notable aspects of Penal Code section 666.1 include:

• There is no “washout” timeframe on the prior convictions that qualify a defendant to be charged with a violation of Penal Code section 666.1(a)(1)—all prior convictions qualify, regardless of when they occurred.
• Although Penal Code section 666.1 does not mandate that the two or more specified prior convictions be alleged in the accusatory pleading, existing authority suggests that the prior convictions must be alleged and proved at preliminary hearing so a defendant can be held to answer on a Penal Code section 666.1 charge. (See People v. Casillas (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 171.)
• Section 666.1 applies “notwithstanding any other law,” meaning that it will apply even if a defendant could alternatively have been prosecuted for a misdemeanor theft-related charge pursuant to another statute.
• Upon arrest on a Penal Code section 666.1 charge, subdivision (c) requires judicial review prior to release from custody to make an individualized determination of the arrestee’s risk to public safety and likelihood to return to court.

Penal Code section 12022.6 (Excessive Takings Enhancement): Proposition 36 re-enacts and modifies several aspects of the Penal Code section 12022.6 enhancement, which was repealed at the end of 2017 because of a sunset date. Penal Code section 12022.6 applies when an offender takes, damages, or destroys property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, or commits a felony in violation of Penal Code section 496 (possessing/receiving/selling stolen property). This enhancement must be pled and proved. The enhancements are as follows:

• One-year enhancement – loss or property value over $50,000
• Two-year enhancement – loss or property value over $200,000
• Three-year enhancement – loss or property value over $1 million
• Four-year enhancement – loss or property value over $3 million
• One-year enhancement for every additional loss or property value of $3 million (imposed in addition to the four-year, $3 million enhancement)

The enhancements may be imposed if the combined losses to the victims or the combined property values from all felonies exceed the threshold amounts and arise from a common scheme or plan. The enhancement permits the court to impose a Penal Code section 12022.6 enhancement and another enhancement on a single count, including an enhancement pursuant to new Penal Code section 12022.65 (acting in concert to take, damage, or destroy property—see below). Thus, a defendant may be punished for both acting in concert (Pen. Code § 12022.65) and for taking or damaging property valued at more than $50,000 (Pen. Code § 12022.6). The punishment specified in Penal Code sections 12022.6, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) will continue to apply where Penal Code section 186.11 has been charged, as it previously did.2

Penal Code section 12022.65 (Theft or Property Damage In-Concert Enhancement): Penal Code section 12022.65 is a new enhancement that applies when an offender acts in concert with two or more persons to take, attempt to take, damage, or destroy property, in the commission or attempted commission of a felony. This enhancement has a range of one, two, or three years and must be pled and proved.

CHANGES UNDER PROPOSITION 36 RELATING TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

Health and Safety Code section 11369 (Warning to Dealers of Hard Drugs): Proposition 36 creates a new section 11369 in the Health and Safety Code section 11369 which requires the trial court to advise anyone convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Section 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, or 11379.6 involving a hard drug,3 that distributing, selling, furnishing, administering, giving away, or manufacturing any drug is extremely dangerous and deadly to human life, and if the conduct continues, the defendant can be charged with homicide, up to and including murder.4 The admonishment must be given to the defendant in writing and the court record must reflect that the admonishment was given.

Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 (Possessing a Drug While Armed with a Firearm): Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 is modified by Proposition 36 to expand the felony crime of unlawfully possessing a specified substance while armed with a loaded, operable firearm to include any substance containing fentanyl. Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 continues to apply to substances containing cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, methamphetamine, or phencyclidine, and continues to provide punishment of two, three, or four years in state prison.

Health and Safety Code section 11370.4 (Controlled Substance Weight Enhancement): Health and Safety Code section 11370.4 is modified by Proposition 36 by adding a new subdivision (c), which provides a range of enhancements for a violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11351, 11352, or a conspiracy to violate either section, involving fentanyl.5 The following chart breaks down the nine new weight enhancements for fentanyl in specific quantities:

New subdivision (e) provides that notwithstanding Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(9), a defendant convicted of an underlying violation specified in Health and Safety Code section 11370.4 (e.g., Health & Saf. Code §§ 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, and 11379.5) who admits a weight enhancement or for whom a weight enhancement is found true for any of the listed controlled substances, is punishable in state prison and not county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h).

Health and Safety Code section 11395 (“Treatment-Mandated Felony Act”): Proposition 36 creates Health and Safety Code section 11395, a new, recidivist felony offense of possessing a “hard drug” and having two or more prior felony or misdemeanor convictions for specified drug-related crimes. A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11395 is punishable in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h) for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions are punishable in state prison. Both first and subsequent convictions are wobblers and eligible for probation unless otherwise prohibited. Other notable aspects of Health and Safety Code section 11395 include:

• Section 11395 applies “notwithstanding any other law,” meaning that it will apply even if a defendant would have been eligible for a misdemeanor drug possession charge (e.g., Health & Saf. Code § 11350 or 11377), Penal Code section 1000 drug diversion, or probation for a non-violent drug possession offense pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1.
• The two or more prior convictions of specified crimes within Health and Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (c) may be either misdemeanor or a felony convictions.
• There is no “washout” timeframe on the prior convictions that qualify a defendant to be charged with a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11395—all prior convictions qualify, regardless of when they occurred.
• Prior convictions must be pled and proven. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (c).)
• Upon booking for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (f) requires judicial review prior to release from custody to make an individual determination of the arrestee’s risk to public safety and likelihood to return to court.

Health and Safety Code section 11395 also provides an option for treatment in lieu of incarceration for its offenses. Health and Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (d) provides that a defendant may choose treatment instead of county jail, state prison, or a grant of probation with county jail as a condition of probation.6 Upon successful completion of the treatment program, the positive recommendation of the  treatment program, and a motion by the defendant, the court shall dismiss the Health and Safety Code section 11395 charge. (Heath & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(3).)

Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) (Drug Crimes While Personally Armed with a Firearm): Proposition 36 amends Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) to provide that the enhancement for individuals convicted of specified drug offenses and who are personally armed with a firearm, must serve the additional term in state prison instead of county jail. Subdivision (c) is further amended to provide that, notwithstanding Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(9), a defendant convicted of a specified underlying violation who admits a Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) firearm enhancement or has such an enhancement found true, is punishable in state prison even if the underlying offense is a section 1170, subdivision (h) county jail offense.

Penal Code section 12022.7 (Great Bodily Injury (GBI) Enhancement For Drug-Related Injury): Proposition 36 amends Penal Code section 12022.7 to add subdivision (f)(2), which explicitly provides that “a person who sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away a controlled substance is deemed to have personally inflicted great bodily injury when the person to whom the substance was sold, furnished, administered, or given suffers a significant or substantial physical injury from using the substance.” This creates a great bodily injury enhancement that can be charged when the person to whom an offender supplies a drug suffers a serious injury from using the drug, including death.7

1 Penal Code section 12022.10 is a new enhancement created by Senate Bill 1416, effective January 1, 2025, for selling, exchanging, or returning for value, property acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail business. It also applies to attempted selling, exchanging, or returning, and has a sunset date of January 1, 2030. By contrast, Penal Code section 490.3 does not address the aggregation of sales of stolen property.

2 Assembly Bill 1960, effective on January 1, 2025, adds a Penal Code section 12022.6 excessive taking enhancement that is almost identical to that in Proposition 36. The non-substantive difference is that AB 1960 contains a sunset date of January 1, 2030, and Proposition 36 does not contain a sunset date.

3 “Hard drug” means a controlled substance listed in Health and Safety Code section 11054 or 11055, except that it does not include substances listed in Health and Safety Code section 11054, subdivisions (d) and (e), or, with the exception of methamphetamine, any other substance listed in Health and Safety Code section 11055, subdivision (d). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11369, subd. (d).)

4 Vehicle Code section 23593 similarly provides that, upon conviction of certain Vehicle Code provisions, courts are required to give an advisement about the dangers of drinking and driving, and warn that if someone is killed, the offender can be charged with murder.

5 Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision (a)(1) removes fentanyl from the list of controlled substances. The modification to Health and Safety Code section 11370.4 puts fentanyl in its own subdivision (c)(1) and lowers the quantity thresholds because fentanyl is more lethal than other substances in small doses. Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision (a)(1) still applies to heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base and does not change the quantities or punishment for those substances.

6 Section 11395 is a deferred entry of judgment program, in which the defendant must plead guilty or no contest before going into treatment; it is not a diversion program.

7 This new language abrogates the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Ollo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 682, which held that furnishing a drug that causes death does not necessarily qualify as personal infliction of great bodily injury.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Hosts first of a series of regional convenings with immigrant rights groups, elected officials, and others ahead of Inauguration Day 

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2024, issued two guidances to help California immigrants better understand their rights and protections under the law and avoid immigration scams by those seeking to take advantage of fear and uncertainty resulting from the President-elect’s inhumane threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation. The guidances build on the Attorney General’s announcement earlier this month of updated model policies and recommendations to help public institutions like schools, hospitals, and courts comply with California law limiting state and local participation in immigration enforcement activities. Over the coming weeks, Attorney General Bonta will continue to help Californians prepare for changes to federal immigration policy in convenings with immigrant rights groups, elected officials, and others in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Salinas, San Francisco, and San Diego, where the Attorney General and California Department of Justice (CADOJ) staff will share resources, hear concerns, and discuss ongoing efforts to protect California’s immigrant communities.  

“In California, we know that our immigrants are the backbone of our communities, a driving force behind our economy, and an essential part of our history as a state,” said Bonta. “With the President-elect making clear his intent to move forward an inhumane and destructive immigration agenda once he takes office, CADOJ is releasing new and updated guidance to help immigrants understand their rights under the law. In California, we will ensure that the rights of our immigrant communities are respected and protected. I will be convening a series of discussions in the weeks ahead – the first here today in Los Angeles – focused on this essential mission.”

Know Your Immigration Rights and Protections Under the Law 

• You have the right to apply for and secure housing without sharing your immigration status. California law prohibits housing providers from asking about your immigration status unless you are applying for affordable housing funded by the federal government. Additionally, housing providers cannot harass or intimidate you by threatening or sharing information about your immigration status to ICE, law enforcement, or other government agencies.
• You have the right to access emergency medical care. Federal laws and regulations ensure the rights of all people to access emergency medical care, including undocumented immigrants.
• You have the right to an attorney. If you are arrested by police, you have the right to a government-appointed attorney. If you are detained by ICE and/or are facing immigration proceedings, you have the right to seek legal assistance through an attorney. 
• State and local law enforcement cannot ask for your immigration status. California law expressly prohibits law enforcement from inquiring about a person’s immigration status for immigration enforcement purposes. 
• State and local law enforcement cannot share your personal information. This includes sharing your home or work address for immigration purposes, unless that information is available to the public or unless that information involves previous criminal arrest, convictions or similar criminal history.
• State and local law enforcement cannot assist ICE with immigration enforcement, with very limited exceptions. This means they cannot investigate, cannot interrogate, cannot arrest, and cannot detain you unless it is as part of joint federal task force where the primary purpose is not immigration enforcement.

The full “Know Your Immigration Rights” consumer alert is available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/resources.

Protect Yourself from Immigration Scams

If you need help applying for immigration relief, be careful who you hire. Watch out for immigration scams that can cost you thousands of dollars and/or harm your immigration status! Here are some tips and resources to help: 

• Go to a legitimate legal aid organization for free legal help. Many nonprofit organizations provide free immigration help to low-income individuals, such as those found through the resources below. To find a legal aid organization near you, go to lawhelpca.org. 
• Keep your original documents in a safe place. Don’t give your original documents to anyone unless you see proof that the government requires the original document. If you give someone an original, they may lose it or refuse to return it unless you pay them.
• Do not hire an immigration consultant or a notary. Only lawyers, accredited representatives, and recognized organizations can give you legal advice or represent you in immigration court. Immigration consultants – who may call themselves immigration experts, notarios, notaries public, or paralegals – cannot do so.
• Do not give money or personal information to anyone who calls, texts, or emails you claiming that there is a problem with your immigration matter. No federal or state agency, including USCIS, will ever ask for your personal information or payment over the phone, by email, or text.

For more dos and don’ts, see the full “Immigration Services Fraud” consumer alert available in English, Spanish, Chinese (Simplified), Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/resources.

Access Free and Low-Cost Legal Assistance 

Visit Law Help CA or Immigration Law Help to find immigration assistance near you.

File a Complaint  

If you believe your rights have been violated, report it to the California Department of Justice at oag.ca.gov/report. 

If you believe you were subject to discrimination, harassment or retaliation, report it to the California Civil Rights Department at calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/.

Company agrees to conditions resolving competitive impacts related to changes in ownership involving retail pharmacy outlets

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement with Rite Aid Corporation (Rite Aid) operating as an injunction to enable him to review changes of ownership involving their retail pharmacy outlets statewide. Additionally, the settlement includes injunctive conditions that resolve competition-related concerns to ensure remaining Rite Aid pharmacies provide necessary medication and healthcare services to Californians, specifically those who may rely on Medi-Cal and Medicare, and protect workers at stores that are sold or closed. Today’s settlement reflects the Attorney General’s efforts to prevent the continued growth of pharmacy deserts, which disproportionately impact low-income individuals, the elderly, and people of color, all of whom are also patients of Rite Aid. The settlement was reached under Assembly Bill (AB) 853.

“Pharmacies are often the most accessible healthcare providers, offering vital services for the well-being of individuals and families. Without them in our communities, Californians could face significant barriers in managing chronic conditions, receiving timely medications, and accessing preventative care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, with AB 853 and conditions set by my office, Californians who rely on Rite Aid pharmacies can continue accessing their medications and essential healthcare services they need to live healthy and fulfilling lives.”

Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and began closing nearly 550 stores nationwide since October 2023. California experienced the closure of more than 100 stores statewide; however, approximately 71% of all stores in California have remained open throughout the bankruptcy and with one exception in San Diego, there were two or more competitive alternatives close by for the closed stores. This June, Rite Aid’s bankruptcy restructuring plan was approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, which turns over control of the company to a group of its lenders.

Under the settlement and AB 853, Rite Aid agrees to the following conditions for the next five years:

• Use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain the remaining Rite Aid stores, as well as all required licenses.
• Provide 90-day notice of sale or closure of remaining Rite Aid stores.
• Continue participation in Medi-Cal and Medicare if commercially reasonable.
• Provide financial assistance to patients if commercially reasonable to do so.
• Continue free delivery services to patients who were receiving these services from a closed store in San Diego.
• Ensure compliance with state staffing levels.
• Maintain hiring list for all employees from stores that close going forward for preferential hiring at other Rite-Aid stores.
• Use commercially reasonable efforts to pay retirement contributions if collective bargaining agreements require such payments.
• Use commercially reasonable efforts to abstain from contesting unemployment for individuals who are laid off as a result of the sale or closure of Rite Aid stores if no nearby Rite Aid store offers employment.
• Comply with nondiscrimination rules in the provision of healthcare services and to commercially reasonable efforts to provide financial assistance to patients.

The California Department of Justice’s Healthcare Rights and Access Section (HRA) works proactively to increase and protect the affordability, accessibility, and quality of healthcare in California. HRA’s attorneys monitor and contribute to various areas of the Attorney General’s healthcare work, including nonprofit healthcare transactions; consumer rights; anticompetitive consolidation in the healthcare market; anticompetitive drug pricing; privacy issues; civil rights, such as reproductive rights and LGBTQ healthcare-related rights; and public health work on tobacco, e-cigarettes, and other products.

A copy of the settlement can be found here.

Protect Kids California’s effort would require schools to tell parents if their child signals gender changes, prevent biological males in girls’ sports and ban sterilization of children

Claim Attorney General’s ballot title and language change hurt signature gathering effort, lawsuit filed

“Our message is simple. Schools shouldn’t keep secrets from parents” – Protect Kids CA

By Allen D. Payton

California activists seeking to empower parents over their children’s decisions to identify as transgender failed to place a trifecta of restrictions on the November ballot known by the organizers as the Protect Kids of California Act of 2024. Attorney General Rob Bonta changed the ballot title to Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute and he changed the ballot language, as well which hampered the signature gathering efforts organizers claim.

According to Students First: Protect Kids California, the initiative will: (1) repeal the California law that permits students to compete in female’s sports and students to be in females’ locker rooms and bathrooms; (2) prohibit schools from deceiving parents about their student’s gender identity crisis and stop them from secretly transitioning a child; and (3) stop sex change operations and chemical castrations on minors.

The organization started late last fall to consolidate their three separate initiatives into one, and its signature-gathering efforts supported by 400,000 voters fell short of the 546,651 verifiable signatures that had to be collected within six months to make the presidential election ballot. The goal was to collect 800,000 signatures to be safe.

Organizers posted their complaint about Bonta’s ballot language changes on the group’s Facebook page on April 2. Initiative committee Executive Team member Nicole C Pearson wrote, “Every Californian, regardless of whether they agree with the initiative, should be concerned about an attorney general who ignores the law and uses his power to sabotage ballot initiatives. We plan to hold Bonta accountable for allowing his political agenda to get in the way of doing his job.”

The post included a link to an opinion on the Orange County Register website  decrying the changes which reads, “As required by California law, proponents submitted the measure to Bonta to receive a neutral official title and summary to use in petitions. Bonta then returned the measure with a new title with a negative and misleading slant: the “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth Initiative.” And he gave it a summary that was not only completely prejudicial and designed to mislead the electorate — it also contained lies.”

Then on Tuesday, May 28 the group issued a press release announcing the setback in a post on their Facebook page which reads, “We want to thank our tens of thousands of supporters and volunteers for this truly historic effort!Together, we collected over 400,000 signatures – an unprecedented achievement for a 100% grassroots effort. You really are amazing! While it is unfortunate we did not have enough signatures to make the 2024 ballot, we will build off this momentum to continue to fight for the principles set forth in the Protect Kids of California Act.”

The press release reads, “Protect Kids California announced on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, they collected an impressive 400,000 signatures for their proposed ballot measure but fell short of the 546,651 required to be collected within a 180-day timeframe to appear on the ballot.

Tens of thousands of volunteers gathered signatures from every county in California. The largest collection areas were Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties.

A completely grassroots effort, Protect Kids California raised close to $200,000 from over 1,200 donors. This equates to less than 50 cents per signature, a fraction of the amount standard ballot measure committees spend.

“While we are disappointed we didn’t meet the threshold to qualify for the ballot, we are encouraged by the amount of support from every sector of the state. We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.” “We had severe headwinds from the beginning. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a false and misleading Title & Summary for our initiative. That made our fundraising efforts more difficult. While we sued the Attorney General, a Superior Court Judge denied our motion in April. We plan to appeal the Superior Court Judge’s decision, at which time we will decide how to proceed in the future. If we had a little more time or a little more money, we would have easily qualified for the ballot.”

But battles over transgender issues will continue to burn bright in courts, school districts and the Legislature. Despite a setback, initiative organizers were buoyed by the 400,000 signatures that thousands of volunteers collected. They are confident that they will attract more donations and enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot two years from now — and find more support than leaders in heavily Democratic California assume exists.  

“We’re very confident that voters would pass this if it gets to the ballot box,” said Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville City school board member, co-founder of Protect Kids California and an official proponent of the initiative. “We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.”

“We started around the holidays which didn’t help,” he added. “It was an all-volunteer effort. It usually takes about $7 million to get something on the ballot. We raised just under $200,000 which covered our costs. But we didn’t have money to pay signature-gatherers. We had around 25,000 to 30,000 volunteers. Our efforts really took off in the past two months. In the past few weeks, we were collecting so many signatures it was hard to keep up.”

The organizers proposed language for the three-pronged initiative read:

• REQUIRES schools to notify parents regarding children’s mental health concerns identified in school settings, including gender identification issues.
• PROTECTS girls’ competitive sports and school spaces to be for biological girls only.
• PREVENTS the sterilization of children by prohibiting the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, mastectomies and genital surgeries for minors

But Bonta’s ballot language for the initiative was changed to read instead:

• Requires public and private schools and colleges to: restrict gender-segregated facilities like bathrooms to persons assigned that gender at birth; prohibit transgender female students (grades 7+) from participating in female sports. Repeals law allowing students to participate in activities and use facilities consistent with their gender identity.
• Requires schools to notify parents whenever a student under 18 asks to be treated as a gender differing from school records without exception for student safety.
• Prohibits gender-affirming health care for transgender patients under 18, even if parents consent or treatment is medically recommended.

The second issue has sparked a firestorm within the past year.

Last week, a Democratic legislator introduced a late-session bill that would preempt mandatory parental notification. Assembly Bill 1915, by Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, would prohibit school districts from adopting a mandatory parental notification policy and bar them from punishing teachers who defy outing policies of LGBTQ+ students.

Last year, Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a bill that would require parental notification, but AB 1314 died in the Assembly Education Committee without getting a hearing. Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, reasoned the bill would “potentially provide a forum for increasingly hateful rhetoric targeting LGBTQ youth.”

Ward cited surveys of transgender and gender nonconforming youths that found most felt unsafe or unsupported at home. In one national survey, 10% reported someone at home had been violent toward them because they were transgender, and 15% had run away or were kicked out of home because they were transgender.

The California Department of Education has issued guidance that warns that parental notification policies would violate students’ privacy rights and cites a California School Boards Association model policy that urges districts to protect students’ gender preferences.

But Zachreson argues that even if children have a right to gender privacy that excludes their parents, which he denies exists, students waive it through their actions.  “At school, their teachers know about it, their peers and volunteers know about it, other kids’ parents know about it —  and yet the child’s own parent doesn’t know that the school is actively participating in the social transition,” he said.

In some instances, he said, schools are actively taking steps to keep name changes and other forms of gender expression secret from the parents.

“What we’re saying is, no, you can’t do that. You have to involve the parents in those decisions,” he said.

Ward responds that many teachers don’t want to be coerced to interfere with students’ privacy and gender preferences. “Teachers have a job to do,” he said. “They are not the gender police.”

A half-dozen school districts with conservative boards, including Rocklin, Temecula Valley and Chino Valley, have adopted mandatory parental notification policies. Last fall, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, arguing its policy is discriminatory. A state Superior Court judge in San Bernardino agreed that it violated the federal equal protection clause and granted a preliminary injunction. The case is on appeal.

Last July, U.S. District Court judge for Eastern California threw out a parent’s lawsuit against Chico Unified for its policy prohibiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to their parent without the student’s explicit consent. The court ruled that it was appropriate for the district to allow students to disclose their gender identity to their parents “on their own terms.” Bonta and attorney generals from 15 states filed briefs supporting Chico Unified; the case, too, is on appeal.

While some teachers vow to sue if required to out transgender students to their parents, a federal judge in Southern California sided with two teachers who sued Escondido Union School District for violating their religious beliefs by requiring them to withhold information to parents about the gender transition of children. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the district and then ordered the return of the suspended teachers to the classroom.

No California appellate court has issued a ruling on parent notification, and it will probably take the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive decision. Essayli pledged to take a case there.

The National Picture

Seven states, all in the deeply red Midwest and South, have laws requiring identification of transgender students to their parents, while five, including Florida and Arizona, don’t require it but encourage districts to adopt ther own version., according to the Movement Advancement Project or MAP, an independent nonprofit.

Two dozen states, including Florida, Texas, and many Southern and Midwest states ban best-practice health care, medication and surgical care for transgender youth, and six states, including Florida, make it a felony to provide surgical care for transgender care. Proponents cite the decision in March by the English public health system to prohibit youths under 16 from beginning a medical gender transition to bolster the case for tighter restrictions in the United States.  

California has taken the opposite position; it is one of 15 like-minded states and the District of Columbia with shield laws to protect access to transgender health care. They include New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Massachusetts.

Twenty-five states have laws or regulations banning the participation of 13- to 17-year-old transgender youth in participating in sports consistent with their gender identification.

Not one solidly blue state is among those that have adopted the restrictions that Protect Kids California is calling for. But Zachreson and co-founder Erin Friday insist that contrary to the strong opposition in the Legislature, California voters would be open to their proposals. They point to favorable results in a survey of 1,000 California likely voters by the Republican-leaning, conservative pollster Spry Strategies last November.

• 59% said they would support and 29% would oppose legislation that “restricts people who are biologically male, but who now identify as women, from playing on girl’s sports teams and from sharing facilities that have traditionally been reserved for women.”
• 72% said they agreed, and 21% disagreed that “parents should be notified if their child identifies as transgender in school.”
• 21% said they agreed, and 64% disagreed that “children who say they identify as transgender should be allowed to undergo surgeries to try to change them to the opposite sex or take off-label medications and hormones.”

The voters surveyed were geographically representative and reflective of party affiliation, but not demographically, The respondents were mostly white and over 60, and, in a progressive state, were divided roughly evenly among conservatives, moderates and liberals.

Two Versions of Protecting Children

Both sides in this divisive cultural issue say they’re motivated to protect children. One side says it’s protecting transgender children to live as they are, without bias and prejudice that contribute to despair and suicidal thoughts. The other side says it’s protecting kids from coercion to explore who they aren’t, from gender confusion, and exposure to values at odds with their family’s.

Zachreson and Friday wanted to title their initiative “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024.” But Bonta, whose office reviews initiatives’ titles and summaries, chose instead “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute.” Zachreson and Friday, an attorney, appealed the decision, but a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento upheld Bonta’s wording, which he said was accurate, not misleading or prejudicial.

“The ballot title was obviously biased and the summary was intentionally meant to deceive voters and hampered our efforts to get this on the ballot this year,” Zachreson continued. “The statutory requirement is to be impartial and factual. He did the opposite. He was biased and he had descriptions that were false. Bonta claimed there were no exceptions for student safety when notifying parents. But that’s not correct. It’s already in the law.”

Zachreson is appealing again. A more objective title and summary would make a huge difference, he said, by attracting financial backing to hire signature collectors and the support and resources of the California Republican Party, which declined to endorse the initiative. That was a strategic mistake in an election year when turnout will be critical.

“The people who support the initiative are passionate about it,” he said.

The organizers may have to start over but a lawsuit about the biased title and summary was filed asking for a change in the language, to use the signatures already gathered and to grant an extension.

“The appeal won’t be heard until after the November election,” Zachreson shared.

Effort for November 2026 Ballot Continues

If a judge rules in their favor it will make it easier for the group to complete the signature gathering to qualify for the next General Election ballot which will be in November 2026.

Political observer Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University, agreed that the gender debate could have motivated Republicans and swing voters to go to the polls. 

“There’s no question that the Attorney General’s ballot language had a devastating effect on the initiative’s supporters and it could have almost as much of an impact on Republican congressional candidates this fall,” he said.

“Our message is simple. Schools shouldn’t keep secrets from parents; we should protect girls’ sports and private spaces at school; and we should protect kids from unproven, life-altering and often sterilizing medical procedures. We vow to continue fighting for these principles,” the group’s May 28th press release concluded.

To learn more about Protect Kids California, visit http://www.protectkidsca.com.

John Fensterwald who writes about education policy and its impact in California for EdSource.org contributed to this report.

Guadalupe Zavala caused 6-hour stand-off ending in his death while unarmed

CA DOJ “commends APD” for manner in which they handled situation

Son later sued City of Antioch

CA Attorney General issues “policy and practices recommendations”

By California Department of Justice

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), today, Friday, May 24, 2024, released a report on Guadalupe Zavala’s death from an officer-involved shooting involving the Antioch Police Department in Antioch, California on December 10, 2021. The report is part of the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ongoing efforts to provide transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices. The report provides a detailed analysis of the incident and outlines DOJ’s findings. After a thorough investigation, DOJ concluded that criminal charges were not appropriate in this case. However, DOJ recognizes the important lessons to be learned from this incident. As required by AB 1506, the Attorney General has issued specific policy and practice recommendations related to the incident. 

“Loss of life is always a tragedy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “AB 1506 is a critical transparency and accountability tool, and our hope for this report is to provide some understanding and aid in advancing towards a safer California for all. The California Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to working together with all law enforcement partners to ensure an unbiased, transparent, and accountable legal system for every resident of California.”

On December 10, 2021, Antioch Police Department responded to multiple calls regarding a man who was barricaded in his home with a rifle after shooting at neighboring homes and vehicles. A standoff lasting more than six hours ensued, during which Mr. Zavala fired multiple rounds from various locations towards law enforcement personnel, vehicles, and nearby residences. De-escalation measures, communications from the crisis negotiations team, and attempts to coerce Mr. Zavala from his residence were unsuccessful. At one point, Mr. Zavala exited his front door carrying what appeared to be a “full AR-15 style rifle.” Two snipers with the Antioch Police Department each fired one round hitting Mr. Zavala, causing him to fall back. However, because Mr. Zavala was wearing body armor, he was able to regain his footing and moved back inside the residence. Later, a fire started in Mr. Zavala’s home, and he ran out and took cover in his backyard. When law enforcement knocked down the fence of Mr. Zavala’s yard with an armored vehicle, Mr. Zavala ran towards the armored vehicle and was fatally shot.

Zavala’s son, Diego Zavala, joined in a 2023 federal lawsuit against the City of Antioch and six Antioch Police officers. (See related articles here, here and here)

Under AB 1506, which requires DOJ to investigate all incidents of officer-involved shootings resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian in the state. DOJ conducted a thorough investigation into this incident and concluded that the evidence does not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers involved did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of the officers. As such, no further action will be taken in this case.

CA DOJ “Commends APD” for How They Handled Situation

In addition, the report shows the California DOJ Police Practices Section conducted a supplemental review of the information and “PPS commends APD for the manner in which they handled this volatile, dangerous situation, coordinating with neighboring agencies, exploring less-lethal options, and rapidly deploying the SWAT and CNT teams to the incident to attempt to achieve a peaceful surrender.”

CA DOJ Recommendations

As part of its investigation, DOJ has identified several policy recommendations that it believes will help prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. These recommendations include:

COMMUNICATION

Antioch Police Department should ensure that officers are equipped with effective communications devices that can operate in the hilly areas covered by their department. Antioch Police Department can seek additional coverage or upgrades through their department-issued cell phone or radio carriers or, if that is impracticable or not feasible, examine whether there are other cell phone carriers or radio channels that would work in all areas they serve. 

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AGENCIES

Antioch Police Department should ensure that their officers can effectively and efficiently communicate with officers from other agencies in future incidents by setting up regional radio channel systems for interagency communication.

See CA DOJ Antioch Police Policy and Practice Recommendations.

Emails were sent early Friday afternoon to Acting Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington, Antioch Police Officers Association leaders and their attorney, Mike Rains for comment on the report, as well as City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Addington and Rains with questions regarding the 2023 lawsuit that included Zavala’s son. The efforts were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

UPDATE: Rains responded early Friday evening saying, “That was good news from the DOJ. I think the findings were appropriate. The DOJ does a very good job, in my opinion, in these 1506 cases analyzing the facts and clearing the officers of any wrongdoing. I also see the PPS commends the department for de-escalation.”

About the lawsuit he said, “I don’t know on the civil side if the lawsuit is settled or not,” as Rains’ firm does not represent former officer Eric Rombough.

“We represented the officers in the 1506 case, including Duggar and Chang, who were the two primary officers who fired their weapons and were part of the DOJ investigation,” Rains added.

A copy of the complete CA Attorney General’s report can be found here.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Two-step process redacts identifying information as required by new state law

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta released Race-Blind Charging Guidelines that address the specific statutory requirements listed in Assembly Bill 2778 (D-McCarty) and Penal Code Section 741, as well as provide prosecutors practical guidance as to how to implement the requirements. The guidelines outline a new two-step process for evaluating charging, including how to redact identifying information, how to document charging decisions, when a crime is excluded from this process, and the requirements to collect and make available for research anonymous data. The guidelines are intended to help reduce the potential for unconscious bias to influence the initial charging decision in legal cases, in accordance with the spirit, law, and goals of PC 741.

“Unconscious bias has no place in the criminal justice system and should not play a role in charging,” Bonta said. “Unfortunately, we know the criminal justice system is not infallible and charging decisions are vulnerable to unconscious bias. This is a reality we cannot ignore and must work to correct. These guidelines will help prosecutors perform their duties in accordance with California law and most importantly, help promote a more fair and equitable charging process for all individuals.”

Studies have shown that unconscious bias may infect decisions within the criminal justice system, despite the best intentions of the parties involved. The guidelines will assist all California prosecution agencies in implementing this new process by January 1, 2025. It includes nine critical components to reduce unconscious bias:

1. Redaction of Cases Received from Law Enforcement Agencies and Suspects Criminal History Documentation: Prosecution agencies are required to review initial charging decisions based on information, including police reports and suspect criminal history documentation, from which all direct means of identifying the race of suspect(s), victim(s), and witness(es) race is removed.
2. Race-Blind Initial Charging: Prosecution agencies are required to follow a two-step process for charging cases: a “race-blind initial charging evaluation” based on redacted reports and then an “ordinary charging evaluation” based on the unredacted reports and all available evidence. The initial charge evaluation is intended to perform a gate-keeping and recording function prior to the actual charging process. It contemplates an initial evaluation on whether to file any charges, without specifying what charges might be filed. The more thorough second review will be used to determine individual charges or decide charges with certainty. 
3. Redaction Process for Initial Charging Evaluation: Each prosecution agency must create a redaction process for the materials used in the initial charging evaluation. It must be performed by personnel not association with evaluating or charging the case and may either be done manually or through automation as long as the process ensures correct redaction.
4. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools for Redaction: If an AI system is used, it must be validated before implementation that appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive information.
5. Second Review for Charging: After completion of the race-blind initial charging evaluations, the case shall proceed to a second, complete review for charging. This would include a review of unredacted reports and all available evidence, which may include additional materials, such as video footage, photographs, and complete witness statements, that reveals race but must be reviewed to assess whether the requisite elements have been met to warrant the filing of criminal charges. This is the “ordinary charging evaluation” and must be performed by the same prosecutors who performed the initial charging review.
6. Documentation of Charging Decision: Prosecution agencies are required to follow a two-step process for charging cases: a “race-blind initial charging evaluation” based on redacted reports and then an “ordinary charging evaluation” based on the unredacted reports and all available evidence. The initial charge evaluation is intended to perform a gate-keeping and recording function prior to the actual charging process. It contemplates an initial evaluation on whether to file any charges, without specifying what charges might be filled. The more thorough second review will be used to determine individual charges or decide charges with certainty. 
7. Inability to Conduct Race-Blind Initial Charging Evaluation: If a prosecution agency was unable to put a case through a race-blind initial charging evaluation, the reason for that inability must be documented and retained by the agency.
8. Collection of Data and Availability for Research Purposes: Each county in which a prosecution agency resides must, on a usual basis, collect the data resulting from the race-blind initial charging evaluation process, except as such information is protected by privilege including, but not limited to, that found in Penal Code section 1054.6. Each county must ensure that the data is collected, stored, and transmitted in a way appropriate to protect sensitive information.
9. Exception to the Race-Blind Process: The prosecution agency may exclude the crimes listed at the Penal Code section 741, subdivision (c) from the race-blind charging process. Each prosecution agency may further remove or exclude certain classes of crimes or factual circumstances from a race-blind initial charging evaluation and shall keep a list of the exclusion and their reason for review.

Attorney General Bonta, is committed to fighting for racial justice. In May of 2021 he established the Racial Justice Bureau which, among other things, supports the California Department of Justice’s broader mandate to advance the civil rights of all Californians by assisting with new and ongoing efforts to combat hate and bias. This year, the Attorney General has also engaged with local leaders through roundtables through hate crime roundtables in Bakersfield, Fresno, Anaheim and Irvine.  

More broadly, the Attorney General is deeply committed to responding to the needs of historically marginalized and underrepresented communities and, last year, also launched the Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement to work directly with community organizations and members of the public as part of the effort to advance justice for all Californians.

A copy of the Guidelines can be found here.

560 law enforcement agencies made 4,575,725 stops

Black individuals were searched at a rate 1.66 times the rate of White individuals

By California Attorney General’s Office

The California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (Board) today, Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, announced the release of its annual report on police stops across California. The report analyzes millions of vehicle and pedestrian stops conducted in 2022 by 560 law enforcement agencies in California — a major expansion from the 58 participating agencies in the previous report — under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). In addition to providing an in-depth look into policing in 2022, the Board’s report contains a wide array of best practice recommendations related to policing, with a particular focus on the impact of pretext stops, law enforcement interactions with youth, civilian complaint processes, police union effects on law enforcement accountability, and trainings on racial and identity profiling. Overall, the findings from the latest RIPA report are consistent with the disparities observed in prior years’ data with respect to perceived race, age, and disability status.

Acting Police Chief Joe Vigil said the Antioch Police Department participated in providing data for the report.

“California is leading the nation in identifying and addressing racial and identity profiling,” said Andrea Guerrero, Co-Chair of the RIPA Board and Executive Director of Alliance San Diego. “This report marks a major milestone as the first to include stop data from law enforcement agencies across the entire state. The scale of data that California is collecting allows us to say definitively that profiling exists — it is a pervasive pattern across the state. We must now turn to the hard work of ending profiling by bringing all the stakeholders to the table to ascertain and change the policies and the practices that enable it. I’m proud to work alongside community and law enforcement leaders on the RIPA Board who are having the tough conversations needed to bring about change. Public safety depends on all of us, and we invite all stakeholders to join the RIPA Board on our path to progress.”

“The annual collection of the RIPA stop data is making California communities safer by directing thoughtful and reflective reform,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Over the last several years, we’ve collected and analyzed information on more than 16 million police encounters in our state. In turn, with the support of our staff at the California Department of Justice, the RIPA Board has continued to issue key recommendations for our law enforcement agencies to promote transparency and take critical steps to enhance, and in some cases, repair the public trust.”

The information collected under RIPA includes data on peace officers’ perceptions of the demographics of stopped individuals, such as race or ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and disability. The Board collects this information to determine whether disparities can be found across demographic groups. The Board uses several well-established methodologies to analyze stop data to determine if bias may exist. 

Some of the key findings from the Board’s report include:

• Number of Stops: A total of 4,575,725 stops were conducted by 560 agencies from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
• Population Comparison: Overall, the disparity between the proportion of stops and the proportion of residential population was greatest for Black individuals, who were stopped 131.5 % more frequently than expected.
• Search Rates: Black individuals were searched at a rate 1.66 times the rate of White individuals. Although stopped individuals perceived to be Black or Hispanic/Latino were searched at a higher rate relative to individuals perceived to be White, officers discovered contraband or evidence during stops in which they conducted searches at a lower rate for individuals perceived to be Black or Hispanic/Latino.
• Actions Taken: Officers reported not taking any reportable action during 75% of stops and taking actions during 25% of stops. Of all the racial or ethnic groups, stopped individuals whom officers perceived to be Native American had the highest rate of being searched (22.4%) and handcuffed (17.8%). Stopped individuals whom officers perceived to be Black had the highest rate of being detained curbside or in a patrol car (20.2%) and ordered to exit a vehicle (7.1%). Individuals perceived to be transgender men/boys also had actions taken towards them during half of their stops (50.0%).

In addition to the data analysis, the Board issues best practice recommendations that law enforcement agencies, the Legislature, local policymakers, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), community members, and advocates should consider when implementing evidence-based and data-driven policy reforms geared to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve law enforcement and community relations. Examples of the Board’s recommendations from the report include:

• Ending all pretextual stops and searches by taking actions such as ending consent or supervision searches as well as limiting law enforcement roll in the enforcement of traffic laws; 
• Prohibiting the collection of field interview cards and entries into CalGang or any agency database in absence of an arrest;
• Adopting internal policies that prohibit law enforcement agencies and district attorneys from pursuing criminal charges for standalone resisting arrest without other citable offenses;
• Prioritizing a care-first model, reducing unnecessary criminal justice intervention or law enforcement response in favor of a community-based response for youth with disabilities and youth experiencing mental health crises;
• Considerations related to the efficacy of school police and law enforcement contacts, such as identifying specific student conduct or statutory violations that require disciplinary action that should be handled by school staff, and for which law enforcement officers should not be involved;
• Calling for further research on how Police Officer Bills of Rights and provisions or agreements with unions affect police accountability; 
• Amending Penal Code section 832.5 to include a standardized definition of “civilian complaint”;
• Reviewing all available video footage and incorporating root cause analysis into complaint investigations; and
• Seeking community and Board input early in POST’s course development process and integrating feedback into the course curriculum before finalizing the course. 

For more on RIPA and other criminal justice data, members of the public are encouraged to visit OpenJustice, a data-driven initiative that works to increase access to criminal justice data and support the development of public policy.

A copy of the report announced today is available here. More information about the Board is available here.

Effort “to bring back a local voice in community planning” co-sponsored by Brentwood Councilwoman

By Daniel Payne, Our Neighborhood Voices

This past week the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative received a title and summary from the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta that is false, misleading and likely to create prejudice against the initiative.

The title and summary provided by Bonta’s office falsely claims that the measure “automatically” overrides the state’s affordable housing laws. It does no such thing. It gives communities the power to shape local growth in a way that better meets affordable housing requirements – and it restores the ability of local communities to negotiate even higher affordable housing rates, which one-size-fits-all laws passed in Sacramento have taken away.

Brentwood District 1 Councilmember Jovita Mendoza is one of the three co-sponsors of the initiative which has been endorsed by the Contra Costa County city councils of Brentwood and Clayton, as well as Oakley Vice Mayor Randy Pope.

In 2021, Bonta’s own office issued a title and summary for the first draft of this initiative that did not include this misleading language. It correctly stated that the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative would return land-use and zoning decisions back to local communities – instead of forcing top-down mandates on cities that damage neighborhoods and only benefit for-profit developers.

In fact, the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative will increase the chances of more affordable housing being built according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In their report, the LAO states that the initiative “May enable additional flexibility for affordable housing development.” This is exactly the intent of the initiative – to help local cities choose which state housing laws work best for them and modify them in ways that will make them more successful.

The only substantial changes in the new version of the initiative submitted to Bonta’s office this year was the addition of a provision that exempts 100% affordable housing projects at 80% of AMI, and a repeal of Article 34 of the California Constitution that makes it more difficult to create affordable housing.

Yet Bonta’s office still added the argumentative and prejudicial language that the initiative would “automatically override” affordable housing laws.

“Bonta’s claim that our initiative would ‘automatically override’ affordable housing laws is clearly and provably false,” Brentwood City Councilmember and initiative proponent Jovita Mendoza said. “Our initiative would allow cities to choose where and how new housing projects get built, instead of forcing them to comply with blanket mandates from Sacramento that give for-profit developers a blank check to gentrify and destroy our communities.”

The laws that the Attorney General’s office is apparently referring to are not even correctly called “affordable housing” laws. Sacramento politicians have given developers the ability to override local communities and governments to build luxury housing with affordable requirements so low that these new projects contribute to displacement and gentrification.

A law like SB9, which eliminated single family zoning in California, is being challenged in court because it was passed on the premise that it WILL create affordable housing, but clearly will not. “There is nothing in laws like SB9 that would get us anywhere close to the number of new affordable units that the state says we need,” said Kalimah Priforce, an Emeryville City Councilmember and advocate for BIPOC homeownership. “Instead, we will continue to see projects that are largely unaffordable to most working families, communities of color, or other Californians who need housing most. ‘Trickle down housing’ doesn’t work – and we certainly shouldn’t be relying on debunked theories to guide important housing decisions in our state.”

“Without a fair and accurate title and summary, our initiative cannot go forward on the 2024 ballot,” explained Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember and proponent of the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative. “We are weighing our options to sue, although such a delay will run out the clock for an initiative like ours – which relies on volunteer efforts to qualify. But our fight for local democracy will go forward – and we won’t stop until we restore our right to have a say in the future of our own communities.”

“In fact this politicized attack against our initiative is just further evidence that Sacramento will continue to put developer profits over the needs of our communities – unless we stand up and fight back. And while we focus our efforts on seeing that this misleading language is changed, we will continue to grow our grassroots coalition and fight back for our neighborhood voice,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember and supporter of the initiative Nils Nehrenheim.

Learn more about the Our Neighborhood Voices coalition and how you can get involved at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com