The Brief

In an update sent to members late Tuesday night, the Writers Guild of America accused the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers of trying to get the guild to “cave” after a recent negotiations meeting.

The WGA criticized the AMPTP’s decision to go public with a summary of its proposals shortly after the meeting.

“This was the companies’ plan from the beginning — not to bargain, but to jam us. It is their only strategy — to bet that we will turn on each other,” the WGA said in the update.

It also said the proposal’s “limitations and loopholes and omissions failed to sufficiently protect writers from the existential threats that caused us to strike in the first place.”

AMPTP response

For its part, the AMPTP said in a press release that their offer “features first-of-their-kind offers for writers, including unprecedented terms in the areas of Generative Artificial Intelligence, data transparency and minimum staffing.”

After receiving an invitation from studio executives including Disney CEO Bob Iger, the WGA says its negotiators met with the AMPTP Tuesday night.

“We were met with a lecture about how good their single and only counteroffer was,” WGA negotiators said.

Highlights of the AMPTP’s counteroffer:

•  Wage increase: A compounded 13% increase over the three-year contract.

• Generative AI protections, including: “A writer will not be disadvantaged if any part of the script is based on GAI-produced material, so that the writer’s compensation, credit and separated rights will not be affected by the use of GAI-produced material.” 

• Increased data transparency: “For the first time, viewership data in the form of quarterly confidential reports is to be provided to the WGA that will include total SVOD view hours per title. This increased transparency will enable the WGA to develop proposals to restructure the current SVOD residual regime in the future.” 

The WGA said it would provide another update on Wednesday with “a more detailed description of the state of the negotiations.”

Background information on the strikes

Timeline: SAG-AFTRA strike

This is the first SAG strike since 1980. The 1960 strike, which took place while the WGA was also striking, was led by Ronald Reagan, then the president of SAG. Current events:

• May 17: Union leaders ask for and receive a strike authorization vote ahead of contract talks.
• June 7: SAG-AFTRA begins negotiations with the AMPTP; contract due to end June 30.
• June 30: Both sides agree to extend talks through July 12.
• July 12: Federal negotiator is brought in
• July 13: The national board of SAG-AFTRA authorizes its 160,000 members to go on strike.
• July 14: Picketing begins at 9 a.m. at major studios and streamer HQ’s across the city.

Timeline: WGA strike

It is the first WGA strike in 15 years. The last work stoppage began in November 2007 and lasted 100 days. Current events:

• April 18: 98% of WGA members vote to go on strike if the contract talks fail.
• May 1: WGA contract expires with no agreement between sides.
• May 2: WGA strike begins

The issue: Actors

Minimum earnings: SAG is asking for an 11% general wage increase to reflect inflation. The AMPTP is countering with 5%.

Share of revenue: Actors feel they haven’t received their fair share of revenue from hit streaming shows.

• Traditionally compensation has been linked to ratings. Streamers like Netflix, however, don’t release how many people watch their shows, so it’s difficult to know which ones are major hits. SAG-AFTRA proposed bringing in a third-party company to measure ratings and devise residuals. The AMPTP rejected this. 
• Executives at studios and streamers maintain they’re still recovering from pandemic losses and have spent billions of dollars creating and buying content for new streaming platforms, some of which are far from profitable.
• While some streamers are thriving (Netflix recently reported $1.71 billion of quarterly operating income), The Walt Disney Co. has announced the firing of 7000 employees to save money, having lost close to $10 billion to date on its streaming platforms. Warner Bros. Discovery is making deep cuts because of its $50 billion in debt. 

Artificial intelligence: There is deep concern about how artificial intelligence will be used, with particular anxiety about the use of a performer’s image and likeness. The union wants to prevent studios from training AI programs on actors’ work without permission, and for actors to consent and be paid if AI is used to replicate them. The AMPTP offered what it called a groundbreaking proposal that it said “protects performers’ digital likenesses." The union rejected this.

Self-taped auditions: Since the pandemic, self-produced audition tapes have become the norm — meaning actors light and film themselves. It’s labor intensive, with no pay, and widens an already competitive pool of performers. The union says it understands self-taped auditions can be useful, but wants to put restrictions around them.

• Read SAG-AFTRA’s summary of negotiation points 
• And what the AMPTP has to say about the negotiations

The issues: Writers

Maintaining a liveable wage: The WGA says that companies’ business practices have “slashed our compensation and residuals and undermined our working conditions”, and that the current contract terms failed to anticipate the explosive growth of streaming.

• It says that most of its nearly 12,000 members are making less than they once did and that after factoring for inflation, average WGA pay has actually dropped 14% over the last five years. 
• Meanwhile, the AMPTP says it’s offering the highest first-year general wage increase in more than 25 years, while also offering to create "an entirely new category of rates that will establish a new and higher floor for mid-level writers’ compensation”.

"Gig economy": The union says that shorter schedules and small writers room means writers have to cobble together jobs, similar to the gig economy. The AMPTP says screenwriting has almost nothing in common with standard "gig" jobs. Writers often have a guarantee of specific weeks or episodes, and writing jobs come with benefits such as employer-paid health care and pension plan contributions.

Staffing and duration of employment: The union wants a minimum number of weeks on a project and a certain number of writers. The AMPTP sees this essentially as a hiring quota that's "incompatible with the creative nature of our industry", and says it's a one-size-fits-all solution to shows that are each unique.

Artificial Intelligence: Writers want to make sure that AI isn’t used to replace their creative output. Meanwhile, the AMPTP says "AI raises hard, important creative and legal questions for everyone. For example, writers want to be able to use this technology as part of their creative process, without changing how credits are determined, which is complicated given AI material can't be copyrighted. So it's something that requires a lot more discussion, which we've committed to doing."

• Read the full WGA statement
• Hollywood producers released a statement on May 4 that addressed specific points of the WGA's concerns. 
  

Learn more

• TV And Movie Writers Strike Over 'Gig Economy' Conditions. What’s At Stake In The WGA Walkout
• From Gas Stations to Restaurants: How The WGA Strike Will Hit The LA Economy
• This Hollywood Writers Strike Could Have Massive Economic Impact. An Economist Explains What We Can Learn From 2007
• How The WGA Strike Of 2007 Strike Brought Donald Trump To Power
• A History Of Strikes: How The WGA Has Played Catch-Up As Emerging Technologies Made Others Richer

With President Donald Trump dragging them down in the polls, California Republicans are repackaging one of his core crusades into an idea they hope will be more palatable to voters.

They are framing their successful push to get a voter ID law on the November ballot as a “common sense” measure.

“We’ve structured this initiative based on what voters across the political spectrum would want,” Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego said in a March interview, adding that showing an ID at the polls shouldn’t be any different than using one to buy alcohol or pass airport security.

DeMaio and other backers point to polling that shows 56% of California voters support requiring ID at the ballot box and that most states require or recommend an ID to vote.

But even in their pursuit to appeal to moderates, GOP lawmakers haven’t given up pushing Trump’s debunked claims of widespread voter fraud.

Last month, GOP legislators held a “stop the fraud” press conference, where they alleged without proof rampant corruption across state government, from elections to homelessness programs, and urged Newsom to call a special election to “audit” the alleged fraud.

The polling they point to also shows, however, that support for requiring identification at the polls drops to 39% when voters are told it is backed by DeMaio and could suppress turnout.

Voting rights groups say the measure would create needless barriers and would stifle turnout among low-income and disabled voters.

Current law already requires counties to routinely review voter registration databases to remove anyone who is ineligible to vote in case of a move, incarceration or death.

“Those checks and that maintenance of that list is already happening,” League of Women Voters executive director Jenny Farrell said. “We don’t need to erect new barriers.”

Voter suppression concerns tank voter ID support

If passed, as many as 1 million eligible voters could be kept from voting. Another 500,000 aren’t registered and don’t have the necessary documents it would require, according to UCLA Voting Rights Project director Matt Barreto.

“There’s been a very consistent finding in almost any state, in any environment, that lower-income and working-class voters are less likely to have an updated, valid ID,” he said.

Labor groups who bankrolled Democrats’ campaign for last year’s redistricting proposal, Proposition 50, are funding a similar opposition campaign focused on Trump’s push for a proof-of-citizenship bill in Congress.

Meanwhile, Democrats want to increase penalties for violating election laws after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a candidate for governor, seized hundreds of thousands of ballots earlier this year over baseless claims of voter fraud in the 2025 election.

Bianco, who seized the ballots in response to unproven claims from a right-wing activist group, supports voter ID.

Critics say he’s stoking fear among voters and that there are already adequate safeguards.

“We have a two-person rule where no ballots are ever in an area that’s not with at least two people observing what’s happening,” said Gail Pellerin, Democratic chair of the Assembly elections committee, at a UCLA elections panel last month.

Ramping up the base?

Experts agree voter fraud is rare.

However, fears about election integrity have risen among Republicans since Trump falsely claimed the 2020 election was stolen, spurring GOP lawmakers across the country to introduce bills seeking to tighten voter restrictions.

This is DeMaio’s third attempt at a voter ID ballot initiative. It qualified for the ballot last month.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio announces that supporters of the CA Voter ID Initiative will submit more than 1.3 million signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2026 ballot during a press conference at the west steps of the state Capitol in Sacramento on March 3, 2026.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Strategists say there’s little evidence that ballot initiatives actually turn out voters, but this measure is something intended to activate voters in what will likely be a difficult election year for Republicans.

“Issues like this, that are kind of red meat issues for Republicans when the governor’s race is fairly lackluster, it helps,” Stutzman said. “It’s all upside. It’s not going to hurt Republicans to have this on the ballot.”

Following bruising losses after Prop. 50 and in other states, GOP leaders are hoping to hold onto three statehouse seats they flipped in 2024 and gain others. But Trump — and his push for national voter restrictions — threatens Republicans’ success at the ballot box.

“It’s a loop that Republicans keep hammering on, either fraud or ineptitude, or waste in dollars,” Stutzman said. “It’s kind of traditional Republican messaging.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The Pasadena City Council voted this week to clear the way for new apartments for low-income fire survivors. But some council members noted their hesitancy to approve the project, saying their hands were tied by state law.

The council denied an appeal from a homeowners group who opposed the project, which plans to bring 133 units of low-income housing to East Pasadena. The nearby residents said it was too tall, too dense and had too little parking.

Mayor Victor Gordo expressed reluctance about denying the appeal. He blamed state lawmakers for pitting local elected leaders against the interests of existing residents.

“We're going to see more and more of these frustrating hearings, where the local elected body essentially has little to no discretion, little to no say, and that's wrong,” Gordo said during the Monday night meeting.

The developer’s plans for the project include adapting a former office building into 50 units of permanent supportive housing for tenants, including formerly unhoused people. A new five-story building will include another 81 units of income-restricted housing. Two units will be for property managers.

Neighbors fought to block the project

Members of the Lower Hastings Ranch Association appealed an approval of the project by the city’s Design Commission. They argued the development wasn’t suitable for the neighborhood.

Ronnie Po, the association’s president, said nearby homeowners felt “blindsided” by the plans. Their appeal wasn’t really about the project’s aesthetics, he said. They were mainly opposed to the development’s height, density and reduced parking.

“I wouldn't call this a design issue,” Po said. “This project will literally rise up to the backyards of some of our neighbors up there. So this is literally in someone's backyard.”

The development team countered those complaints in a presentation to the City Council, saying the project complied with all relevant laws and did not impinge on single-family homes.

“The building is no closer than 25 feet to the nearest property line, and no closer than 110 feet away to the nearest home,” said Dana Sayles, who is with the land use firm three6ixty.

Who is the project designed to house?

The project at 600 N. Rosemead Blvd. will be reserved for renters who earn no more than 80% of the area’s median income. By current standards, that would include individuals earning up to $84,850 per year and families of four earning up to $121,150.

Many units will be set aside for renters with even lower incomes. And under state funding agreements, preference will be given to tenants displaced by the Eaton Fire.

“More than half of the units are two and three bedrooms, so this project is very much focused on families,” said Stephanie DeWolfe, a consultant on the project. “Getting family-sized units has been a challenge for the city in the past, and especially now with all the people displaced from the fires."

State law overrides local limits

Because of the state’s density bonus law — which allows larger projects when units are kept affordable — the developer is allowed to build taller than would normally be allowed under Pasadena codes. The project is within a half-mile of the Sierra Madre Villa stop on Metro’s A Line, qualifying it as near a “major transit stop” under California law.

Because it’s near a transit line, the project also qualifies for a state law that removes parking mandates. The developer is voluntarily planning to build 55 parking spaces. Many public commenters — and some council members — said more parking was needed.

“What's the assumption of where people will park their cars?” asked Councilmember Tyron Hampton.

“We live in California, by the way,” he said, drawing applause from audience members opposed to the project.

People at the meeting who expressed support for the project said many tenants, including those exiting homelessness, likely would not be in a financial position to own cars.

“I support this building since it would be perfect for people like me, who would qualify based on income limits and do not need to have parking,” said Koji Sakano. “Those who apply, like me, would tend to be those that do not wish for car parking in the first place.”

Local housing vs. new state laws

Jesse Zwick, the Southern California director of the Housing Action Coalition, said the Pasadena project’s path to approval shows city officials and residents slowly catching up to changes in state law, which in many cases override local opposition.

“The state has awarded priority to building affordable housing in places like this — that typically have resisted it,” Zwick said. “What you're seeing now is some of that resistance being up against where state law has evolved on this issue.”

Cities that have resisted state housing laws aimed at increasing development have found themselves in California’s legal crosshairs. Beverly Hills had to approve massive “builder’s remedy” projects after it failed to comply with a state requirement for cities to plan for more housing. Huntington Beach recently faced a court order to pay $50,000 for every month it continues to flout state housing laws.

Despite those risks, some Pasadena residents urged city leaders to fight back on the state’s efforts to encourage taller, denser affordable housing projects.

“The state of California has come up with these crazy laws,” said Scott Shimamoto. “We would love for the City Council and mayor to tell the state of California: Pause this.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Pasadena Tuesday over whether the federal government has the right to access sensitive data about California’s 23 million voters. The court also heard a nearly identical case involving Oregon.

California is among 30 states and the District of Columbia sued by the Trump administration in an effort to get access to unredacted state voter registration rolls. The administration says it wants to make sure only citizens are voting and that states are otherwise properly maintaining their rolls, for example, by removing people who have died.

Why won’t California hand over the data?

California has offered access to its publicly available voter file, which does not include information like driver’s license and social security numbers. State election and privacy laws prohibit state officials from sharing that more sensitive data, and lawyers for California argue that federal laws do not allow the U.S. Department of Justice unfettered access to the state’s voter files.

Why does the federal government want voter rolls?

Trump administration officials have given different reasons for requesting the data over the past year. But earlier this month, a memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wants to run voter rolls through the federal government’s SAVE system to check the immigration status of voters. NPR and other news outlets have reported on major flaws in the system, including improperly flagging eligible voters as non-citizens.

What happens to flagged names?

It differs in each state. Some states give flagged voters time to prove their eligibility; others suspend or cancel registration immediately. Voting rights groups worry that a large number of voters may be disenfranchised right before the midterm election.

The political backdrop

The debate has largely split along party lines, although not entirely — some Republican-led states are resisting the federal government’s demands for sensitive voter data. At least 15 states have agreed to provide their full registration lists, most of them Republican-led, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which is tracking the issue.

What’s next

There's no specific timeline for a ruling from the Ninth Circuit. A separate appeals court is considering the Trump administration’s demand for Michigan voter data. Depending on the outcome of that and the California and Oregon cases, observers say the issue could be headed to the Supreme Court.