Proposition 1, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s mental health measure, never really trailed. But it was too close to call ever since voting for California’s primary ended March 5 — until late Wednesday, when AP News (the most-used arbiter on elections) finally declared that it had passed.
Opponents, who were vastly outspent, also had some bad timing. They conceded too early, on March 12, even as the vote totals tightened. And they withdrew their concession too late, on Monday, as the final returns came in. As of late Wednesday, “yes” votes led by nearly 30,000 out of nearly 7.2 million ballots cast.
- Newsom, on social media: “This is a huge victory for doing things radically different when it comes to tackling homelessness.”
So what happens next?
Prop. 1 will provide the governor with funds to fulfill the pledges he has made in recent years about developing more housing and treatment beds for those who are unhoused and have serious mental illnesses, writes CalMatters health reporter Jocelyn Wiener.
The measure directs counties to invest 30% of the money they receive from the state’s “millionaire’s tax” into housing programs, with a focus on Californians who are chronically homeless or residing in encampments. The state will also borrow about $6.4 billion to develop inpatient and residential treatment beds, as well as permanent supportive housing for individuals, including veterans.
But Prop. 1 critics, such as disability rights advocates and those living with mental illness, are still worried that the measure will gut current mental health programs and make it easier for the state to force people into involuntary treatment.
Other news: A target on CA budget shortfall
Think of it as an agreement to agree.
On Wednesday, Gov. Newsom and the two top Democrats in the Legislature agreed that they would like to come to an agreement on early budget action. With a looming deficit estimated to be as much as $73 billion, Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas jointly announced that they would seek $12 billion to $18 billion in savings ahead of passing the full state budget in June.
- Newsom, in a statement: “Despite the uncertainty due to the federal tax deadline delay last year, historic reserves and fiscal responsibility will assure a balanced budget that meets California’s needs.”
But there is no actual deal yet, points out CalMatters Capitol reporter Alexei Koseff. Negotiations on how to reduce the shortfall are ongoing, with lawmakers heading out of town after today until April 1 for their spring recess.
The announcement follows Capitol visits earlier this week by Newsom for private talks with Rivas and McGuire and last week’s actions by Senate Democrats, who unveiled their early budgetary action plan to “shrink the shortfall” by about $17 billion.
Describing the budget process as “degraded,” Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican from Roseville and vice chairperson of the Senate Budget Committee, argued that Wednesday’s agreement (however incremental), was made “behind closed doors by one political party.”
- Niello, in a statement: “I am disappointed in this administration on behalf of the people of California. Not allowing public discussions or different viewpoints to weigh in is a disservice to the millions of Californians we represent and erosion of democracy.”
The governor is expected to unveil his revised budget proposal in May that will incorporate new tax revenue data from April. Legislators then have until June to agree on a budget deal.
UC regents punt, again
The University of California regents decided Wednesday to postpone a vote on a policy to restrict how academic departments at its campuses publish “political or controversial” statements on their websites.
It’s the second time this year the regents postponed a decision on the proposed policy. The next discussion will take place at their May meeting.
The proposed policy would no longer allow political statements on a department’s homepage. But they could still appear on other pages, as long as they have a disclaimer noting the statement doesn’t represent the university.
For instance, a statement by UC San Diego ethnic studies faculty, which calls for “freedom from an apartheid system” for Palestinians, could remain because it’s not on a homepage.
The policy change, proposed by UC regent Jay Sures, comes after some faculty members took sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where more than 30,000 people, mostly Palestianians, have died since Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7. The conflict has led to tension on UC campuses, including sparring letters between ethnic studies faculty and Sures.
The UC Academic Senate, arguably the most influential opponent of the policy change, agrees with the regents that academic departments should include a disclaimer whenever political statements by faculty appear on university websites. They also agree that departments should create clearer guidelines around political speech.
During the meeting, protestors began shouting as regents spoke about the policy, forcing them to stop the meeting, before ultimately deciding to postpone their vote.
Campus protests: State Sen. Steve Glazer and other members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus introduced Senate Bill 1287 Wednesday to require public universities to update their student codes of conduct to “prohibit violence, harassment, intimidation and discrimination that impedes free speech or calls for or supports genocide.”
Citing recent incidents at UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley, the Orinda Democrat acknowledged the rising tensions on college campuses since the Gaza war, but that all students had “the right to be heard.”
The bill would also mandate universities to “develop programs to educate students on how to exchange views respectfully,” said Glazer.
Speaking of UC Berkeley: The February clash between protestors that Glazer mentioned, as well as continuing altercations and the months-long blockade of historical Sather Gate by pro-Palestinan demonstrators, have led to a U.S House investigation, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
In a letter, Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, chairperson of the committee leading the investigation, said the probe is in response to reported antisemetic incidents as far back as 2016, and the school’s “failure to protect Jewish students.”
The investigation follows the U.S. Department of Education adding UC Berkeley to its list of schools being investigated for possible discrimination. (In December, Stanford University, UCLA and UC San Diego were also placed on the list.)
