The Brief

Calling “shotgun” to ride in the front seat may no longer be an option for small-sized California middle and high schoolers.

Citing crash statistics that show small-framed children, regardless of age, are disproportionately hurt in crashes when not in the back seat or using a booster seat, traffic safety advocates are pushing for a controversial bill that would ban teens up to 16 years old from sitting in the front seat if they’re not tall enough.

The bill would require all children younger than 10 to use booster seats and bar all those under 13 from sitting in the front seat. The pending measure also would require children as old as 13 to use a booster seat unless they meet the same size criteria.

Current California law requires children to use booster seats until they turn 8 or reach a height of 4 foot 9 inches, though the California Highway Patrol recommends all children younger than 13 sit in the back.

Last week, the Assembly Transportation Committee voted to advance the new, more restrictive booster rules, Lori Wilson’s Assembly Bill 435, which has support from some child and automotive safety and health care groups. Violators would face tickets of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offense.

Wilson, a Democrat representing Suisun City, told the committee she remembers “being a child calling shotgun” so she could ride in the front seat.

But she said alarming numbers of kids are getting hurt or dying in crashes because safety belts and airbags aren’t fitted for their small bodies.

“God forbid something happens, we want our children to be safe,” Wilson told the committee.

Under Wilson’s bill, beginning in 2027, a child would need to pass a “five-step test” to be able to ride in the front seat or move out of a booster seat, depending on the child’s age:

1. Does the child sit all the way back against the seat?

2. Do the child's knees bend comfortably at the edge of the seat?

3. Does the belt cross the shoulder between the neck and arm, resting on the collarbone?

4. Is the lap belt as low as possible, touching the thighs?

5. Can the child stay seated like this for the whole trip?

The CHP, AAA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the California Department of Public Health, the California Hospital Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups promote the use of the five-step test to determine if a child is ready to use a seat belt instead of a booster seat, according to the bill’s proponents.

Wilson said Louisiana and Minnesota have enacted similar laws.

Another opportunity for racial profiling?

All 12 Democrats on the transportation committee voted to advance the measure, though some, including Rhodesia Ransom of Stockton, had concerns.

Noting that she has “a 23-year-old, height-challenged child whose legs often don’t go over chairs,” Ransom, who is Black, said she was worried the bill would give police an excuse to pull over people of color like her.

Wilson, who’s also a member of the Legislative Black Caucus, acknowledged Ransom had a point.

“A police officer could profile them … and say, ‘I’m going to use the five-point test,’ ” she said. “Hopefully that is rare.”

The four Republicans on the committee did not vote on Wilson’s bill, which counts the same as voting “no.” As CalMatters has reported, the widespread practice of dodging tough votes allows legislators to avoid accountability.

Republican Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a retired CHP officer representing Palmdale, told the committee he worries the bill would be hard to enforce.

“Determining the age of children is very difficult to do when you have no verifying identification at that age level,” he said. “So you’re going to have to trust the parents.”

He added that parents won’t want an officer reaching into their vehicle and touching their child’s thigh to make sure the seat belt is properly fitted.

A child sits in a pick-up truck at a Walgreen’s parking lot in the San Fernando Valley, on July 17, 2021.

(

Pablo Unzueta

/

CalMatters

)

Assemblymember Heather Hadwick, a Republican representing the rural northeastern corner of California, was concerned that Wilson’s bill didn’t address cab-only pickup trucks that many of her constituents drive. Wilson told her not to worry.

“Since this law has been incorporated in other states, I’m positive that we can find a solution,”
Wilson said.

Other ‘nanny state’ bills have failed

San Joaquin Valley Republican David Tangipa, who recently was a tight end on Fresno State University’s football team, asked how a child-sized booster seat would have worked with his large-framed Polynesian family.

“When I was about 12 years old, I was 6 foot and 210 pounds,” he said. “I’m the smallest out of my siblings.”

Jennifer Rubin, an advocate for Safe Kids Greater Sacramento, told Tangipa that he and his siblings would have passed the five-step test earlier because they were tall.

Rubin’s group is a lead supporter of the bill. No group formally opposed it.

The bill now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Democratic-authored bills rarely fail to advance out of their first committee. But from there, the most controversial bills that become “nanny state” fodder for conservative media can sometimes get watered down or killed.

For instance, last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom stepped in to kill a bill that would have prohibited young children from playing tackle football. Proponents of the legislation said young children suffer too many head injuries playing the sport.

Newsom also killed proposed legislation last year by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener that originally would have required “speed governors” to be installed in any new car in California. The devices would have blocked motorists from driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit. The bill was amended to have cars make a “brief, one-time visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time they exceed the speed limit,” according to the bill’s analysis.

Newsom vetoed that bill in September, saying the federal government is responsible for implementing such regulations, not California.

Asked last week about the teen booster seat bill, Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor declined to comment, saying the governor doesn’t typically comment on pending legislation.

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

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.