Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Bass and Raman lay out environmental platforms
    Two women, one with light-brown skin tone and one with brown skin tone, speak into microphones side by side on a panel, both mid-gesture.
    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman separately explain their environmental positions at a mayoral forum held Thursday at L.A. Trade Tech in downtown Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    The two candidates for L.A. mayor defended their environmental records and painted two different pictures of the city on Thursday during a forum on climate and environment issues.

    The details: Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman each answered questions separately about how they would approach many environmental challenges facing the city, including emergency preparedness, water resiliency and transportation policy.

    The takeaways: Bass said L.A. has made solid progress on transitioning to clean energy and other environmental challenges, while Raman argued the city has fallen behind. Bass defended her role in the city’s response to the Palisades and Boyle Heights warehouse fires, while Raman criticized it for lacking effective guidance and communication for victims.

    Read on…for more takeaways from the forum.

    With a little more than two months to go until the general election, the two mayoral candidates running to lead the city of Los Angeles fielded questions about the environment at a Thursday night forum hosted by LAist.

    Incumbent Karen Bass and her challenger, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, each answered questions separately about how they would approach many environmental challenges facing the city, including emergency preparedness, water resiliency and transportation policy.

    These and other environmental and climate issues are top of mind for many Angelenos during a summer marked by extreme heat, humidity and the Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights that affected surrounding neighborhoods for months. Communities are also still rebuilding from last year’s destructive Eaton and Palisades fires.

    The forum, held at Los Angeles Trade Technical-College, was organized by the L.A. League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment, and was moderated by LAist climate and environment Reporter Erin Stone.

    Here are three takeaways from the event:

    Differing visions of LA

    Bass, who was elected mayor in 2022, painted a picture of an L.A. that’s made significant progress on environmental issues during that time, while Raman said the city has stalled under Bass’ leadership.

    Bass referenced her work transitioning the city off of coal-generated energy and expanding the city’s electric bus fleets and clean-energy jobs. She said she wants to build on that momentum, particularly with a focus on helping communities impacted by environmental and industrial pollution.

    She pointed to many communities of color that bear the brunt of industrial pollution, including in South L.A. neighborhoods dotted with oil wells and residents who live in close proximity to the Lineage warehouse in Boyle Heights.

    “Where we need to go now in the future is focusing on environmental justice, focusing on the communities that are disproportionately impacted by greenhouse gases and by the environment,” she said.

    Raman also talked about a need to focus on environmental justice, but she said environmental programs are underfunded and understaffed, and that she would invest more in them if she becomes mayor.

    She said Bass’ administration has not prioritized environmental climate issues enough, and that there should be a more aggressive policy around them.

    “Too much of that work remains unfinished,” she said. “Our transition to clean energy has slowed. Efforts to build a resilient water supply, close neighborhood drilling sites, make our streets safer, all of these have slowed over the last four years.”

    Raman specifically called out Bass for her proposal to cut funding for the Climate Emergency Mobilization Office as the city faced a billion-dollar budget shortfall last year.

    Bass defended the proposal, arguing the program had not developed a climate action plan as directed and needed to be revamped.

    The office has shrunk under Bass’ leadership, and she removed the city’s chief heat officer and quietly appointed a new one earlier this year.

    Emergency response failures

    Both Bass and Raman said L.A. has room for improvement when it comes to preparing for fires, earthquakes and other disasters.

    Raman criticized the city’s response to last year’s Palisades Fire, saying there was no clear leadership to guide the community through the recovery effort. She pointed to Bass' appointment of Steve Soboroff to head the recovery. He left the post after his three-month term and was not replaced.

     ”What we saw in the Palisades, I think, was an example of what shouldn't happen,” Raman said. “ A lot of residents in the Palisades have been feeling like they don't know who to reach out to, who is the person that they need to connect with in order to make sure that recovery really happens.”

    But she defended her administration’s response, and said confusion over city and state land made it more difficult.

     ”Part of the brush was the city, part of the brush was the state. There was a reluctance to go into state territory because our folks were told they couldn't do that,” Bass said. “As far as I'm concerned, that's not gonna happen again.”

    Bass said the biggest impediments to the recovery process — and to people moving back into their homes — are insurance companies and banks. She called for legislative reforms to the insurance process.

    Raman also criticized the response to the Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights this summer, calling out Bass directly for sharing misleading information about air quality.

    Bass said she relied on inaccurate information from public health and air quality management officials.

    Both candidates said there’s a need for stronger enforcement and higher fines that could be levied against corporations like Lineage, the warehouse owner, and better planning for emergencies around industrial buildings.

    Shared goals

    Although the candidates leaned into their differences, the reality is that they align on many climate and environmental policies.

    Unhoused Angelenos are especially at risk from extreme heat, and Bass said the city needs to provide more places for them to cool off.

    “My plan, priority one, is to get people off the streets,” Bass said, adding that during heat emergencies that needs to include providing emergency shelters and other ways to cool off.

    Raman talked about similar solutions.

    “ Responding to people who are experiencing homelessness to ensure that they're actually able to get indoors and off the streets, so that they're not dying from exposure to heat, because that is a very, very high risk that people who are experiencing homelessness face,” she said.

    They had other shared goals.

    Both said incentives and rebates that keep down the cost of utility bills need to be more accessible, especially in low-income communities.

    Both called for more severe penalties for owners of industrial sites like the Boyle Heights warehouse.

    And they both said they want to grow the city’s electric vehicle fleet, and decrease car use by building more public transit ridership and expanding biking infrastructure.

  • New CA law bans officers from using gloves
    Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, a woman with dark skin tone, wearing a dark blue jacket, leans over a desk to speak with Assemblymember Christopher Ward, a man with light skin tone, wearing a gray suit.
    Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, left, talks with Assemblymember Christopher Ward during an Assembly session at the Capitol, Monday, Aug. 31, 2026, in Sacramento, Calif.

    Topline:

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday banning local, state and federal law enforcement officers from using gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks to people.

    Why it matters: The ban on shock gloves will take effect next year and remain in place until 2030. It comes weeks after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement moved to equip its officers with the gloves, which are designed to gain compliance from combative individuals. Last month, the agency awarded a nearly $17 million contract to buy 6,000 pairs.

    The backstory: The law is the latest example of how Democratic-led states have been pushing back against President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts since he took office last year. In California, lawmakers passed at least two dozen bills this year seeking to fortify immigrants’ rights, restrict cooperation with federal immigration agents and tighten regulations on immigrant detention facilities, among other things.

    Read on... for more on the ban.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday banning local, state and federal law enforcement officers from using gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks to people.

    The ban on shock gloves will take effect next year and remain in place until 2030. It comes weeks after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement moved to equip its officers with the gloves, which are designed to gain compliance from combative individuals. Last month, the agency awarded a nearly $17 million contract to buy 6,000 pairs.

    “Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state.”

    The law is the latest example of how Democratic-led states have been pushing back against President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts since he took office last year. In California, lawmakers passed at least two dozen bills this year seeking to fortify immigrants’ rights, restrict cooperation with federal immigration agents and tighten regulations on immigrant detention facilities, among other things.

    Nationwide, 17 states with Democratic-led legislatures have passed a total of more than 100 pro-immigrant bills this year, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill tracking software Plural. The most common purpose is to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents.

    Democratic California Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins said she introduced the shock-gloves legislation to “put a pause” on law enforcement’s use of the devices while the state examines their potential risks. The law requires the state’s Justice Department to study their safety and report to lawmakers by 2029.

    “There’s a lot of unrest and a lot of uncertainty,” she said in an interview. “A lot of people are scared.”

    The law will again test the state’s authority to restrict federal agents amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. A federal judge earlier this year blocked the state’s first-in-the-nation law barring federal officers from wearing face coverings, deeming it too selective because it applied to local and federal law enforcement but exempted state officers.

    Lawmakers passed a new bill this year to make the ban apply to all officers. Newsom signed that legislation.

    Kevin Johnson, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, said courts are likely to ultimately rule that the state cannot bar federal officers from wearing shock gloves or face coverings. The laws are well-intentioned, he said, but likely conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which generally sets federal law as supreme over conflicting state law.

    “The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed,” he said.

    California law enforcement groups broadly opposed the ban.

    Sacramento Sheriff Jim Cooper, a Democrat and former state lawmaker, said banning shock gloves “really makes no sense” because they are among the non-lethal tools officers can use if necessary.

    “When the federal government does something, the state Legislature wants to ban it,” he said at a news conference. “They’re making our job harder.”

    Sharp-Collins said ICE’s plan to use shock gloves was the catalyst for the ban. But she cited their use by other officers, including a case in which a Kentucky family alleges a man died after being tased and shocked with the gloves dozens of times while in law enforcement custody in 2024.

    State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who wrote last year’s mask ban, also authored this year’s measure to expand it to state officers.

    “California must use every available tool to stand up for our communities under attack from ICE’s secret police terror campaign,” he said in a statement after it passed the Legislature.

    Associated Press writer David A. Lieb contributed to this report from Jefferson City, Missouri.

  • Sponsored message
  • Newsom vetoes insurance-claim bills
    A woman in the center of a group holds a sign that reads "Stand with real wildfire survivors."
    At center, Gayle Nicholls-Ali, an Eaton Fire survivor, holds a sign while protesting outside the Governor's Mansion in Sacramento on Aug. 25, 2026. The group was protesting proposed legislation related to wildfires and utilities.

    Topline:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills that would have helped improve the insurance-claims process for consumers but signed one that also addresses claims-related issues, leaving Los Angeles County fire survivors and others wondering whether the vetoes were retaliatory.

    Why it matters: One bill, Senate Bill 877, would have required insurance companies to explain in more detail to their customers how their claims payments are calculated. Another, SB 878, would have required insurers to pay claims within a certain amount of time, and imposed penalties for delays.

    Why now: In his veto statement Sunday, the governor said the bills codified existing regulations and were “unnecessary at this time.”

    Read on... for more on Newsom's veto.

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills that would have helped improve the insurance-claims process for consumers but signed one that also addresses claims-related issues, leaving Los Angeles County fire survivors and others wondering whether the vetoes were retaliatory.

    One bill, Senate Bill 877, would have required insurance companies to explain in more detail to their customers how their claims payments are calculated. Another, SB 878, would have required insurers to pay claims within a certain amount of time, and imposed penalties for delays.

    In his veto statement Sunday, the governor said the bills codified existing regulations and were “unnecessary at this time.”

    But he signed SB 876, which among other things requires insurers to send their customers a status report within 15 days of assigning a new adjuster to their claims; doubles penalties during a declared emergency when insurers violate fair claims practices and settlement law; and mandates that insurers send a disaster-recovery plan to the Insurance Department.

    Newsom’s office would not provide more information. Spokesperson Anthony Martinez said the governor’s veto message speaks for itself, and pointed to other legislation Newsom signed that helps survivors, such as setting new smoke-damage standards.

    Martinez did not respond to a question about an accusation that the governor vetoed the two bills because they were sponsored by fire survivors and a consumer advocacy group who fought against his failed effort to reduce utilities’ liability for wildfires they cause.

    Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, told CalMatters that all three bills “were along the same vein, addressing claims-handling problems,” although they did not overlap. The difference, she said, was that the two bills Newsom vetoed were sponsored by her group and Every Fire Survivors Network.

    “It’s a real black mark on the governor that he would throw survivors under the bus in that way for what appears to be a petty reason,” Balber said.

    Democratic state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez wrote SB 877 and 878, prompted by experiences of fire survivors she represents in Altadena. She pushed back against the governor’s veto statement, saying existing regulations have not been enough to avoid insurers’ delays and denials of survivors’ claims. As an example, she pointed to the insurance department’s findings that State Farm violated laws in its handling of L.A. fire survivors’ claims.

    “I would hope (the decision) is not because of politics and petty infighting,” Pérez told CalMatters.

    The senator added that her bills got bipartisan support and that the insurance industry eventually dropped their opposition to them. She noted that some survivors of the January 2025 fires are still navigating their claims. “The reality is that this decision is going to have an impact on survivors’ recovery,” she said.

    Every Fire Survivors Network agreed.

    “These vetoes mean more families will face what we have faced: rebuilding stalled, bills piling up, and lives on hold while waiting for insurance money they are owed,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the group, in a statement.

    Pérez, Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivors Network vowed to try again next session.

    Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara was also a co-sponsor of SB 878 but had no comment on the governor’s veto, although his office issued a statement celebrating the signing of SB 876: “It holds insurers accountable when they drag their feet.”

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

  • L.A. County starts sending ballots Thursday
    A close up of dozens of gray and white ballot return envelopes in a mail tray.
    L.A. County will begin sending out mail-in ballots for the Nov. 3 election this week.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles County will begin sending mail-in ballots starting this Thursday ahead of the Nov. 3 elections. Counties across the state have until next Monday, Oct. 5, to begin mailing out ballots.

    What’s new: The elections are just five weeks away, and mail-in ballots are soon on the way in L.A. and Orange counties. While L.A. will start mailing ballots later this week, Orange County officials say they’ll go out starting Monday.

    Why it matters: Voters overwhelmingly cast their ballots through mail-in ballots in the June primary. Nearly 82% of the total ballots cast in L.A. County were through vote-by-mail ballots — and nearly 87% in Orange County.

    A push to vote early: State and local officials are encouraging people to vote early. Officials say voters can turn in their ballots as soon as they receive them by mail or at official dropboxes. They can also turn them in person starting Oct. 24 at Vote Centers.

    Los Angeles County will begin sending mail-in ballots starting this Thursday ahead of the Nov. 3 elections. Counties across the state have until next Monday, Oct. 5, to begin mailing out ballots.

    In the June primary, nearly 82% of the total ballots cast in L.A. County were through vote-by-mail ballots.

    State and local officials are encouraging people to vote early.

    When can I turn in my ballot?

    L.A. County elections officials say voters can turn in their ballots by mail as soon as they receive them. No postage is necessary.

    They can also turn them in starting this week at official dropboxes across the county, which are often found at parks, community centers or libraries.

    Voters can also turn them in or vote in person at the county’s Vote Centers, which L.A. County officials say will start to open on Oct. 24. Officials say all Vote Centers will be open by Halloween.

    What about in Orange County?

    Orange County officials say U.S. Postal Service officials are scheduled to pick up about 1.9 million ballots from the county elections office on Saturday and start delivering them on Monday, Oct. 5.

    The Trump administration has tried to restrict mail-in ballots. Will my ballot be affected?

    The California Secretary of State’s office says nothing has currently changed. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month issued an injunction on President Trump’s executive order requiring states to turn in lists of voters and ordering the USPS to send mail-in ballots to the people on the approved lists.

    "Voters will be able to cast their ballots without uncertainty, without hesitation, and without fear that their voices will be questioned or their ballots rejected," said Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

  • Most were found in the Santa Clarita Valley
    A hand cloaked in a black glove holds a brown bat.
    Public health officials are warning of an unusually large number of rabid bats in SoCal this year.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles County is reporting the highest number of rabid bats on record, a to-date total of 69, officials said. This year’s rabid bat count has already matched 2025’s total, according to the L.A. County Department of Public Health, which shared information today, marking World Rabies Day.

    Where are they: Rabid bats have been found all over the county, but 68% of the 69 found so far were identified in the Santa Clarita Valley, and they were mainly canyon bats. Peak season begins in late summer.

    What to do after a bite: Bat bites are small and can be hard to detect. Rabies can also be spread through scratches or other transfers of saliva. “If you find a bat indoors or think you may have had contact with one, contact your medical provider or Public Health right away,” Dr. Muntu Davis, a Los Angeles County Health officer, said in a statement. “And remember, never touch a bat or any wild animals. Immediately report any bat found indoors, or outdoors if it appears sick, active during the day, unable to fly, or dead, to your local animal control.”

    Los Angeles County is reporting the highest number of rabid bats on record, a to-date total of 69, officials said.

    This year’s rabid bat count has already matched 2025’s total, according to the L.A. County Department of Public Health, which released the count Monday, marking World Rabies Day.

    Health officials emphasized that rabid bats have been found all over the county "from suburban areas such as the San Fernando Valley to urban areas like downtown Los Angeles, in office buildings, parks, schools, businesses, and residential backyards."

    That said, a large share of rabid bats — 68% of the 69 found so far — were in the Santa Clarita Valley, and they were mainly canyon bats, which are common in California.

    When to be on high alert

    Officials warned that a third of human encounters with rabid bats happened indoors, where the risk of exposure to the virus is higher.

    Bat bites are small and can be hard to detect. Rabies can also be spread through scratches or other transfers of saliva.

    “If you find a bat indoors or think you may have had contact with one, contact your medical provider or Public Health right away,” Dr. Muntu Davis, a Los Angeles County Health officer, said in a statement. “And remember, never touch a bat or any wild animals. Immediately report any bat found indoors, or outdoors if it appears sick, active during the day, unable to fly, or dead, to your local animal control.”

    Who to call

    Veterinary Public Health

    Phone: 213-288-7060
    Email: vet@ph.lacounty.gov
    Website: publichealth.lacounty.gov/vet

    *Call 211 to find your local animal control

    What to know about rabies

    Rabies in humans is treatable with a series of vaccines. Rabies is always fatal in animals, the county said in a release, so vaccinate your pets.