Archive for the ‘State of California’ Category

Antioch Police report shooter in Friday standoff was unarmed when shot, killed

Monday, December 13th, 2021

Antioch Police and other local police agencies were staged on Hummingbird Drive in Antioch one block over from Dove Court where the shooter was holed up in a house shooting at officers and others on Friday, Dec. 10, 2021. Photos by Allen Payton

Following new state law California Department of Justice investigating

By Strategic Communications Officer Darryl Saffold, Antioch Police Investigations Bureau

On Friday, Dec. 10, 2021, at approximately 1:11 PM, Antioch Police Department Dispatch began receiving numerous 911 calls of multiple gunshots being fired in the area of Dove Court. Several callers reported a neighbor on Dove Court was repeatedly shooting at homes and cars as he was walking down the street in the neighborhood. All available officers responded to the area. Officers arriving at the scene reported hearing gunshots and confirmed one male suspect was armed with a rifle. The 55-year-old male suspect was wearing military-style, camouflage-patterned clothing, and it was later learned he was also wearing body armor.

During the police response, the suspect entered a house at 3809 Dove Court, which was later determined to be where the suspect lived. Based on the ongoing danger to the public, residents were advised to shelter-in-place or were contacted by law enforcement personnel and safely evacuated. Mutual Aid was requested and the Brentwood Police Department, Pittsburg Police Department, and the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff responded to provide immediate support. The Antioch’s Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) and the Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT) were activated and responded to the scene.

Antioch Police established a command post at the scene of the active shooter at Hummingbird Drive near James Donlon Blvd. on Friday, Dec. 10, 2021.

As officers established a perimeter in an attempt to contain the incident, the suspect remained barricaded inside the home and intermittently fired the rifle at officers, homes, and vehicles. During the stand-off, which spanned the course of several hours, Antioch CNT made numerous attempts to contact the suspect, to de-escalate the situation and negotiate a peaceful resolution. CNT members asked the subject to exit the house unarmed, so he could be taken into custody without being harmed. The subject refused to exit peacefully and disconnected with CNT several times and continued to fire rounds from inside the home. During the stand-off, the suspect fired approximately 30 times in the direction of officers and other residents in the area.

At approximately 7:07 PM, a fire started inside the home, which spread to the garage. As the fire quickly began to engulf the house, the suspect exited the residence. The suspect fled to the backyard, and then to the side yard where he was contacted by members of the SWAT Team. Upon contact, SWAT officers fired their weapons and struck the suspect. Afterwards, the suspect was evacuated from the side of the house due to the encroaching fire and immediately administered first-aid. Ultimately, the suspect succumbed to his wounds at the scene and was pronounced deceased by medical personnel.

Smoke billows up from the fire at the shooter’s house that was on fire. Photo by Ronn Carter

Due to the circumstances surrounding this incident, the countywide Law Enforcement Involved Fatal Incident (LEIFI) protocol was initiated. Antioch Police Department’s Crime Scene Investigators and Detectives with the Investigations Bureau, along with a team of Deputy District Attorneys and Inspectors from the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office and the Office of the Sheriff’s Crime Scene Investigators responded to the scene and took over the investigation. Additionally, in accordance with Assembly Bill 1506, the California Department of Justice, is investigating this incident and will independently review the officer involved shooting.

AB 1506: According to that website, “signed into law on September 30, 2020 and in effect on July 1, 2021, AB 1506 provides the California Department of Justice with an important tool to directly help build and maintain trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve by creating a mandate for an independent, statewide prosecutor, moving forward, to investigate and review officer-involved shootings of unarmed civilians across California.”

Police did not yet identify the shooter. Due to the ongoing and active nature of the investigation, no further information will be released at this time.

This information is made available by the Support Services Division. Anyone with information is asked to call the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Contra Costa Probation Department awarded grant to supervise people convicted of DUI

Friday, November 19th, 2021

The Contra Costa County Probation Department is the recipient of a one-year, $389,700 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to monitor high-risk, repeat DUI Probation clients.  Currently, the Probation Department is supervising 202 DUI probation clients.

Grant funding will be used to make sure DUI probation clients are following the court ordered terms of their probation, including home, work and office visits, alcohol testing and warrant service operations.

In addition, funding will be used to develop the Habitual Offender Tally, also known as “HOT Sheets,” that identify repeat DUI probation clients to local law enforcement agencies.  The funds will also be utilized to assist Probation in working with Court officials to establish probation orders for the DUI clients being placed on probation.

This grant is aimed at reducing the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol-related collisions as well as lower DUI recidivism rates.

“Prevention and treatment are valuable tools in reducing DUI recidivism rates,” OTS Director Barbara Rooney said. “Monitoring programs are intended to steer probationers in the right direction.”

The ongoing partnership between the Contra Costa County Probation Department and the Office of Traffic Safety has spanned more than 15 years.

“The support and assistance provided by OTS, coupled with strong working relationships with state and local law enforcement agencies, have allowed the Probation Department to closely monitor and rehabilitate our clients,” said Chief Probation Officer, Esa Ehmen-Krause. “Reducing the traumatic impact that impaired driving causes across our community contributes to improving public safety.”

The grant will fund Probation Department personnel to monitor drivers on Probation for felony DUI or multiple misdemeanor DUI convictions, including conducting unannounced fourth amendment waiver home searches, random alcohol and drug testing and ensuring those on probation are attending court-ordered DUI education and treatment programs.  It will also fund the continued training of the Probation Department personnel in an effort to keep up with current trends and equipment use.

While alcohol remains the worst offender for DUI crashes, Contra Costa County Probation supports OTS in its statement, “DUI just doesn’t mean booze.”  Prescription medications and marijuana can be impairing by themselves, but also in combination with alcohol, and can result in a DUI arrest.

The grant program runs through September 2022.

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Delta Conveyance (tunnel) Project Case Study Workshop on community benefits programs Nov. 17

Saturday, November 6th, 2021

Proposed Delta Conveyance Project Facility Corridor Options. Source: Scoping Summary Report.

Learn from other projects

Haga clic aquí para ver este aviso en español.

As part of ongoing development of the Community Benefits Program for the proposed Delta Conveyance (tunnel) Project, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is holding a virtual workshop on Wednesday, November 17th from 6:00pm – 8:00pm to hear and learn from representatives of several different example community benefits programs around the country. (See related articles here and here)

Members of the local Delta community are encouraged to attend this event and hear firsthand experiences about the development and implementation of these programs, including different organizational structures, development timing, important milestones and lessons learned.

There will also be an opportunity to ask the panelists questions and engage in dialogue about their experiences and insights. Although these types of programs are not uncommon, there are various ways to go about setting them up. This workshop gives both DWR and the local community the chance to learn more about how it could be done for the proposed Delta Conveyance Project. (See details of the proposed system, here)

The workshop panelists represent a diverse set of projects and community benefits programs from different parts of the country:

  • Oakland, California, Partnership for Working Families 
    • Ben Beach, Legal Director
  • North Charleston, South Carolina, LowCountry Alliance for Model Communities Port Authority Redevelopment and Transfer Station
    • Omar Muhammed, Executive Director, LowCountry Alliance for Model Communities
  • Morro Bay, California, Castle Offshore Wind Project 
    • Scott Collins, City Manager, City of Morro Bay

While no other project or community benefits program exactly matches the specifics of the proposed Delta Conveyance Project and what might be most appropriate for the Community Benefits Program for this project, the example projects that will be discussed in this workshop offer different and valuable perspectives and examples with varying structures, locations and challenges. In preparing for this workshop, DWR researched community benefits programs for large infrastructure projects that had long-term construction impacts, where the benefits of the project were not local, but impacts of the project were, and where location and potential for environmental justice and economically disadvantaged community concerns were also involved.

Workshop Details & Registration

  • Wednesday, November 17, 2021 | 6:00pm – 8:00pm | REGISTER HERE
  • Workshop will be conducted on Zoom with a call-in option available


  • Welcome and Introductions
  • Presentations from the three project representatives
  • Focused panelist discussion:
    • How did the idea develop in your project?
    • How did the community come together to provide input?
    • When in the project lifecycle did people come together?
    • How did you solicit priorities?
    • How did you formalize the program?
    • How are community benefit funds distributed?
    • How are you measuring and monitoring community benefits?
  • Public questions/discussion

Participation Accommodations & Additional Information

  • Closed captioning will be provided
  • Workshop materials will be available in English and Spanish, and a simultaneous Spanish translation will be offered
  • Workshop access information and materials will be sent out prior to the workshop through Eventbrite
  • If you cannot participate in the workshop but have questions, please email us at
  • A recording of the workshop will be posted on the project website, along with the background material, when available

To register, click here.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Gov. Newsom signs bill extending government agency online meetings through end of 2023

Tuesday, September 21st, 2021

Was set to expire at the end of this month

By Allen Payton

On Sept. 16, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, entitled “Open meetings: state and local agencies: teleconferences,” extending the time period for online meetings of government agencies until Jan. 1, 2024. The current order allowing the online meetings until the end of this month, will expire on Oct. 1 under an executive order he signed, on Monday, Sept. 20.

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided.”

However, government agencies can still choose to return to meeting in person. Both the Antioch City Council and Antioch School Board planned to return to in-person meetings next month. But now they will have the option to continue to hold their meetings online.


Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

State Senate Election Committee Chair Glazer calls for recall system reform

Friday, September 17th, 2021

Senator Glazer calls it “flawed” “broken” in spite of only two recalls of governor in state history; joins Assembly member Berman, Assembly Election Committee Chair to hold hearings to examine needed changes in wake of recently concluded recall election

By Scott Harmon, Policy Analyst/Communications, Office of Sen. Steve Glazer

State Senator Steve Glazer. (D-7-Orinda)

Sacramento – Following Tuesday night’s recall election of the governor, only the second one to qualify for the ballot in state history, the California Legislature’s two leading members on election issues on Wednesday announced a coordinated effort to examine reforms to California’s recall election system.

Senator Steve Glazer (D – Contra Costa) and Assemblymember Marc Berman (D – Menlo Park) and said they are determined to fix a broken system in the wake of the 2021 gubernatorial recall election, which raised questions about whether a system designed in the early 20th century has enough checks and balances to ensure democratic and fair elections.

Berman, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Elections, and Glazer, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, will hold a series of bipartisan joint hearings in the coming months to begin a statewide discussion regarding potential improvements to California’s recall laws. The intent is to produce a proposal that will be taken up in the Legislature during the 2022 legislative session.

“Now that the recall is over, I believe it is time to re-evaluate and update California’s recall process,” said Senator Glazer.  “The voters want to see a more democratic process put in place that keeps elected officials accountable but, prevents political gamesmanship of the rules.  We hope to work with policy experts and stakeholders of different political perspectives on a viable solution that ultimately makes sense for a modern-day California.”

The recall process is one of four ways the state’s voters can have direct impact on the legislative and governing process, which also include electing representatives, as well as the referendum and initiative. (See CA Constitution Article II) Under the leadership of then Gov. Hiram Johnson came into office proposing the three major populist changes, bringing direct democracy to California. According to Ballotpedia, “Johnson and the new Progressive majority in the legislature made the most sweeping governmental changes ever seen in the history of California. Among these were the introduction of initiativereferendum, and recall at both the state and local levels. Voters ratified these amendments in a special election on October 10, 1911.”

At that time, Johnson said, “they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of the people the means by which they may protect themselves.”

According to the Secretary of State’s website, “Since 1913, there have been 179 recall attempts of state elected officials in California. Eleven recall efforts collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and of those, the elected official was recalled in six instances.” Of those 179, 55 were attempted recalls of the governor, two qualified for the ballot, Grey Davis and Newsom, and only Davis was successfully recalled.

The committees will evaluate recall laws in other states, and will invite experts to examine California’s recall process, including issues such as grounds for removal; signature gathering requirements; process of succession if a governor is recalled; and other issues. The process will be open to the public in an effort to maintain the utmost transparency, and the committees also hope to include the expertise of elections officials, political scientists, legal experts, and others.

“While the recall is an important tool for voters to address misconduct or corruption by elected officials, yesterday’s election highlighted the fundamentally undemocratic nature of California’s existing recall process,” said Assemblymember Berman. “California law should not allow someone else to be recalled and replaced by a candidate who receives far fewer votes. I look forward to hearing from a bipartisan group of experts about how California’s recall process should be reformed.”

Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins said that she supports examining recall reform.

“A thorough review of California’s recall law is timely and worthy of debate, and I would like to thank Senator Glazer and Assemblymember Berman for spearheading the efforts to start this important conversation,” Atkins said.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said, “It is totally appropriate to begin discussion of reforming the recall process. We came far too close to having a governor elected by a tiny fraction of eligible voters. While that is no way to pick the leader of the most populous state in the nation, it would be equally wrong to make any changes without a thorough study of alternatives. I look forward to hearing the discussion.”

The recall process was adopted in California almost 110 years ago but, has been used sparingly for most of the state’s history. More than 70% of the attempts to recall elected state officials that have qualified for the ballot, including the only two statewide recall elections in California history, have occurred in the last 27 years. Each of California’s last nine Governors has faced multiple recall attempts, though only two of those attempts have qualified for the ballot.

Two recent polls, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California and by the Institute of Government Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that a majority of voters favor keeping but reforming the recall process.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Attorney General Bonta announces $575 Million settlement with Sutter Health on anti-competitive practices allegations

Monday, August 30th, 2021

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta Friday, August 27 lauded Judge Massullo’s final approval of a landmark $575 million settlement with Sutter Health (Sutter). The settlement agreement was reached in 2019, and resolves allegations by the Attorney General’s office, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT), and class action plaintiffs that Sutter’s anticompetitive practices led to higher healthcare costs for consumers in Northern California compared to other places in the state. The settlement requires Sutter to pay $575 million in compensation, prohibits anticompetitive conduct, and requires Sutter to follow certain practices to restore competition in California’s healthcare markets.

“This is a groundbreaking settlement and a win for Californians,” said AG Bonta. “Sutter will no longer have free rein to engage in anticompetitive practices that force patients to pay more for health services. Under the terms of our agreement, Sutter’s transparency must increase, and practices that decrease the accessibility and affordability of healthcare must end. A competitive healthcare market is essential to ensuring patients and families aren’t bearing the brunt of healthcare costs while one company dominates the market.”

Sutter is the largest hospital system in Northern California. The Sutter network consists of some 24 acute care hospitals, 36 ambulatory surgery centers, and 16 cardiac and cancer centers. It also includes some 12,000 physicians and over 53,000 employees. In addition, Sutter negotiates contracts on behalf of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and many affiliated physician groups.

This settlement is the result of litigation that began in 2014 when UEBT filed a class action lawsuit that challenged Sutter’s practices in rendering services and setting prices. They sought compensation for and an end to what they alleged were unlawful, anticompetitive business practices, which caused them to pay more than necessary for healthcare services and products. In March 2018, the Attorney General’s office filed a similar lawsuit against Sutter on behalf of the people of California, seeking injunctive relief to compel Sutter to correct its anticompetitive business practices moving forward. The separate lawsuits were combined by the court into one case. In October 2019, one day before the trial, the parties reached an agreement to settle. The settlement was filed with the court on December 19, 2019, and in March, Judge Massullo granted preliminary approval.

Today’s finalized settlement requires Sutter to:

  • Pay $575 million to compensate employers, unions, and others covered under the class action, and to cover costs and fees associated with the legal efforts;
  • Limit what it charges patients for out-of-network services, helping ensure that patients visiting an out-of-network hospital do not face outsized, surprise medical bills;
  • Increase transparency by permitting insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to provide plan members with access to pricing, quality, and cost information, which helps patients make better care decisions;
  • Halt measures that deny patients access to lower-cost plans, thus allowing health insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to offer and direct patients to more affordable health plan options for networks or products;
  • Stop all-or-nothing contracting deals, thus allowing insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to include some but not necessarily all of Sutter’s hospitals, clinics, or other commercial products in their plans’ network.
  • Cease anticompetitive bundling of services and products which forced insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to purchase for their plan offerings more services or products from Sutter than were needed. Sutter must now offer a stand-alone price that must be lower than any bundled package price to give insurers, employers, and self-funded payers more choice;
  • Cooperate with a court-approved compliance monitor to ensure that Sutter is following the terms of the settlement for at least 10 years. The monitor will receive and investigate complaints and may present evidence to the court; and
  • Prevent anticompetitive practices by clearly defining clinical integration to include patient quality of care. The settlement makes clear that for Sutter to claim it has clinically integrated a system, it must meet strict standards beyond regional similarities or the mere sharing of an electronic health record, and must be integrating care in a manner that takes into consideration the quality of care to the patient population. This is important because clinical integration can be used to mask market consolidation efforts by hospital systems, when in fact there is no true integration of a patient’s care. For example, saying that hospitals are regionally close or that hospitals are sharing electronic health records is not enough, there must be close coordination that will lead to less costly, higher quality care for local communities.

A report by the University of California Berkeley showed that over-consolidation drives up prices for consumers. According to the study, outpatient cardiology procedures in Southern California cost nearly $18,000 compared to almost $29,000 in Northern California. For inpatient hospital procedures, the cost in Southern California is nearly $132,000 compared to more than $223,000 in Northern California, a more than $90,000 difference. A 2016 study found that a cesarean delivery in Sacramento, where Sutter is based, costs more than $27,000, nearly double what it costs in Los Angeles or New York, making Northern California one of the most expensive places in the country to have a baby.

Sutter Health offered the following response to the settlement:

“Today’s ruling brings closure to this matter, which was settled almost two years ago. This voluntary settlement enables Sutter Health to maintain our integrated network and ability to provide patients with access to affordable, high-quality care. Sutter’s quality of care is nationally recognized, with the majority of hospitals and care facilities outperforming state and national averages in many measures of quality. We look forward to continuing to work with our health plan partners at the same time we continue to care for the underserved in our communities.”

A copy of the final approval order and judgment are available here and here.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Governor Newsom, legislative leaders announce eviction moratorium extension, increase rent relief to 100 percent

Friday, June 25th, 2021

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders of both the Senate and the Assembly today, Friday, June 25, 2021, announced a proposed extension of California’s statewide evictions moratorium, and an increase in compensation for California’s rent relief program.

The three-party agreement on AB 832 – which extends the current eviction moratorium through September 30, 2021 – will ensure that California quickly uses the more than $5 billion in federal rental assistance to help the state’s tenants and small landlords and protect vulnerable households from eviction. The agreement widens rental assistance by enhancing current law. Provisions include increasing reimbursement to 100 percent for both rent that is past due and prospective payments for both tenants and landlords. Additionally, the bill ensures rental assistance dollars stay in California by prioritizing cities and counties with unmet needs, and uses the judicial process to ensure tenants and landlords have attempted to obtain rental assistance.

“California is coming roaring back from the pandemic, but the economic impacts of COVID-19 continue to disproportionately impact so many low-income Californians, tenants and small landlords alike,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “That’s why I am thankful for today’s news from the Legislature – protecting low-income tenants with a longer eviction moratorium and paying down their back-rent and utility bills – all thanks to the nation’s largest and most comprehensive rental assistance package, which I am eager to sign into law as soon as I receive it.”

“Our housing situation in California was a crisis before COVID, and the pandemic has only made it worse — this extension is key to making sure that more people don’t lose the safety net helping them keep their home,” Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) said. “While our state may be emerging from the pandemic, in many ways, the lingering financial impact still weighs heavily on California families. People are trying to find jobs and make ends meet and one of the greatest needs is to extend the evictions moratorium — which includes maximizing the federal funds available to help the most tenants and landlords possible — so that they can count on a roof over their heads while their finances rebound.”

“The key thing is to recognize that people in rental housing are still facing financial obstacles, even as our economy reopens,” Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) stated. “This moratorium will keep families in homes, provide critical financial support to landlords, and help protect our supply of rental housing.”

Details on the proposed extension can be found in AB 832, which will be in print today. To apply for rental assistance for either renters or landlords, visit

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

California Citizens Redistricting Commission to launch Communities of Interest virtual meetings

Monday, June 7th, 2021

SACRAMENTO, CA—On Thursday, June 10th, the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission (Commission) will launch the first in a series of Communities of Interest (COI) virtual hearings to capture community specific data that will help Commissioners to respect community boundaries to the best of their abilities when drawing district lines, as is mandated by California’s line drawing criteria.

When the Commission begins drawing maps using census data, they will need to follow this set of criteria, in this order, as outlined in the California Constitution.

  1. Districts must be of nearly equal population to comply with the U.S. Constitution.
  2. Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act to ensure that minorities have a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
  3. Districts must be drawn contiguously, so that all parts of the district are connected to each other.
  4. Districts must minimize the division of counties, cities, neighborhoods, and communities of interest to the extent possible.
  5. Districts should be geographically compact such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant populations.
  6. Where practicable, each Senate District should consist of two complete and adjacent Assembly Districts, and Board of Equalization districts should consist of ten complete and adjacent State Senate Districts. This is known as nesting.

We can obtain the city and county information from those jurisdictions, but we need the neighborhood and communities of interest information from Californians directly.

“The Commission is excited to hear directly from Californians about their Communities of Interest during our initial COI input meeting on Thursday, June 10th from 12 – 8 PM. Although we have been accepting Communities of Interest submissions online since March, these virtual input sessions are yet another opportunity for communities to share with the Commission about their Communities of Interest,” stated Commission Chair Isra Ahmad.

During these input meetings, participants will be asked to describe their community and will be encouraged to consider highlighting the following:

  1. Begin with your county or city.
  2. Mention the street names and significant locations in your neighborhood to help us identify the parameters of your community.
  3. What are your shared interests?
  4. What brings you together?
  5. What is important to your community?
  6. Are there nearby areas you want to be in a district with?
  7. Nearby areas you don’t want to be in a district with? Why or why not?
  8. Has your community come together to advocate for important services, better schools, roads, or health centers in your neighborhood?

Registration is not required to participate in these public input meetings. The call-in number for public input on the day of each event will be (877) 853-5247.

For more information regarding the June 10th event, please visit our website at: To view a full list of upcoming meetings, please visit: Additionally, Californians can skip the line and provide their input online by visiting: The online COI tool is available in fourteen languages and includes tutorials.

Every 10 years, after the federal government publishes updated census information, California must redraw the boundaries of its electoral districts so that the state’s population is evenly allocated among the new districts.

In 2008, California voters passed the Voters First Act, authorizing the creation of the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw new State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization district lines. In 2010, the Voters First Act for Congress gave the Commission the responsibility of drawing new Congressional districts following every census.

For more information, please visit


Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter