The Brief

Los Angeles Unified has blocked student access to generative artificial intelligence tools on district-issued devices.

”This is an emerging technology,” said Pia Sadaqatmal, chief academic officer in an interview with LAist. “We will continue to be adaptive as needed, but we do know that the heart of it is really making sure that we keep teaching and learning at the center of our decision.”

Wednesday’s announcement, made at the kickoff meeting of a new AI committee, was a surprise to board members and parents in attendance.

“Just based on the facial expressions of folks in this room, many parents, some of whom work at the district, some of whom don't, I don't think it's well-publicized,” said Nick Melvoin, one of three board members on the committee, after district staff explained the restrictions. “I would encourage us to do more.”

The district’s decision bars an estimated 378,000 students from using generative AI tools on LAUSD laptops and tablets. New York City’s public school system — the only district in the country larger than LAUSD — also announced new limits on artificial intelligence Tuesday.

Parents affiliated with the advocacy group Schools Beyond Screens, which has called for a moratorium on student AI usage in the district, edited prepared comments as they stood at the podium before the committee.

“ We are asking our local institut — no, we're thanking our local institution,” said Sandra Martinez Roe.  "Thank you, LAUSD for setting an example and knowing that your obligation is to do so.”

How LAUSD changed course on AI 

Previously, district policy allowed students 13 and older to use AI tools under school supervision and after they complete a lesson about “digital citizenship.”  

The LAUSD board voted in June to enact what was then the most-widespread student screentime restrictions in the country, but did not specify limitations to student AI use.

The resolution instead created an ad hoc generative AI committee with the goal of developing policy recommendations for board approval by next year.

Committee chair Kelly Gonez said the new restrictions were a surprise, but that she substantially agreed with the decision to limit students’ access to generative AI.

“ I wouldn't expect necessarily that there would be a pause for forever,” Gonez said. “But this provides us the opportunity to really think through what does our policy look like moving forward.”

How the AI rules work in practice

There is currently no mechanism or policy to prevent students from using AI on personal devices to complete school work, though the software will continue to block access if a student signs in to their district profile on that personal device.

District leaders said the web-filtering software Lightspeed prevents students from accessing any website or app categorized as an AI tool on an LAUSD Chromebook. There is a comparable tool for tablets, said  David Cooper, senior director of information technology.

The district’s interim chief information officer, Douglas Le, said Lightspeed can also track how long students use district devices.

“This allows us to capture their screen time, the app usage to the second,” he said.

That information will be available in the future to students’ families through the Parent Portal app, teachers and the board, Le said.

How to weigh in on LAUSD’s AI policy

The LAUSD board’s generative AI committee meeting is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesdays through April 2027.

• Oct. 21, 2026
• Dec. 9, 2026
• Jan. 20, 2027
• March 3, 2027
• April 7, 2027

Community members can tune in to the meetings online, over the phone or in person at the board room at 333 S. Beaudry Ave.

The district is also publishing information related to student screentime and other technology use, including information about a series of webinars, at lausd.org/screentime.

Democratic Party leaders are breathing a sigh of relief after voters rejected Proposition 39, a GOP-backed voter ID measure that drew interest — and millions of dollars — from Republican megadonors across the country.

About 60% of voters rebuffed the measure, which Democratic leaders opposed in unison and heavily campaigned against, arguing it would amount to voter suppression. Republican Party leaders and other supporters of the initiative characterized Prop. 39 as a common-sense idea that has precedence in more than two dozen states across the country.

With 49% of votes counted, The Associated Press declared the measure had failed.

The measure has amassed $37 million in support from Republicans nationwide, and could be a bellwether for similar initiatives in other states.

There is widespread consensus among experts that voter fraud is rare in California, and election officials, including Secretary of State Shirley Weber, have said such claims are unfounded.

What do supporters say?

Backers say requiring voter ID would be a small yet meaningful step to help deter voter fraud and guarantee California’s elections are secure. They also note that 36 other states require or recommend some form of identification to vote, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, although only 10 states are considered strict about it.

Republican San Diego Assemblymember Carl DeMaio put the measure on the ballot in tandem with his right-wing political group Reform California after similar previous failed attempts in the state Legislature. He and others have emphasized national polling that shows bipartisan support for voter ID requirements.

“We’ve structured this initiative based on what voters across the political spectrum would want,” DeMaio told CalMatters in March.

The measure qualified in March after proponents collected more than the 875,000 signatures required to put the initiative on the November ballot.

The California Republican Party and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are major endorsers, and major donors include packaging magnate Richard Uihlein, who’s contributed $17 million, and Airbnb co-founder and White House official Joe Gebbia, who’s given $8 million.

Southern California businessman Steven Bray and Reform California each contributed more than $3 million.

What do opponents say?

Prop. 39 detractors argue that showing voter ID is a needless hurdle that would prevent eligible voters from casting ballots. Critics include a coalition of civil rights, voting and good governance groups who say ID requirements are unnecessary because noncitizen voting and impersonation is rare. People who recently moved or changed their last name might not yet have an updated ID and would be unfairly kept from voting, groups such as Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union claim.

“There is no widespread noncitizen voting that would justify adding these strict requirements,” League of Women Voters of California Executive Director Jenny Farrell said.

Opponents also point to its potentially high expenses to the state. The measure could cost tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars to implement, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Democratic heavyweights have played a big role in putting a public face to the opposition. U.S. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sen. Adam Schiff stumped at No campaign events across the state, as well as gubernatorial favorite Xavier Becerra who created a committee with Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to raise money to oppose it.

The Democratic Party is the biggest donor at nearly $6.5 million of the opposition’s $35 million total. California labor and tribal groups have given more than $2 million each. Philanthropists Quinn Delaney and Patty Quillin combined have given $3 million.

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

Midterms coverage: Live results | What to know | Stories around the country
Stay connected: NPR Politics Podcast | NPR Politics newsletter | NPR app

In a historic night for the Democratic Socialists of America, a record number of candidates endorsed by the organization and its local chapters were elected to the House of Representatives.

The results grow the organization's presence on Capitol Hill, bringing to Congress a bloc of lawmakers who will now look to translate their electoral success into policy wins that push the Democratic Party further to the left.

At least five DSA candidates in reliably blue congressional districts have won their races, according to race calls by the Associated Press. They are Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez in New York; Melat Kiros in Colorado; Donavan McKinney in Michigan; and Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania.

Their victories follow a fiercely competitive primary cycle, where DSA candidates rode to victory by championing economic populist policies like universal healthcare and childcare, as well as more polarizing stances, such as abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Throughout the primaries, candidates endorsed by the group were unafraid to criticize or break with Democratic leadership, challenging sitting incumbents or competing against establishment picks.

That included Kiros, who defeated Rep. Diana DeGette — a 15-term incumbent and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — in Colorado's 1st Congressional District in July. Just days earlier, Chevalier delivered a major upset in New York's 13th Congressional District, narrowly defeating Adriano Espaillat, the influential chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

On top of emphasizing a core value set aimed at bettering the working class, many DSA candidates tapped into voter frustrations with the larger political system. Candidates swore off campaign donations from corporations and pro-Israel lobbying groups. They fiercely condemned the war in Gaza and called for the U.S. to stop supplying Israel with military aid.

While the DSA's platform energized some voters on the left, it also became a prominent attack line for Republicans, who sought to paint the broader Democratic Party as too extreme and link more moderate candidates to democratic socialist figures like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

The DSA is not a registered political party, but with Tuesday's victories, the number of DSA members in the House is on track to more than triple when the new Congress is seated in January. Currently just two sitting lawmakers — Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ocasio-Cortez — are members of the organization.

It's a small, albeit growing coalition, but one that could complicate the legislative agenda of Democrats if they succeed in winning back the House. In a new Congress where Democrats have only a thin majority, the bloc could wield outsize influence. If Democrats can win a broader majority, their influence could prove more limited.

The upcoming vote for House speaker may serve as an early test. If Democrats win the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is poised to be elected the nation's first Black speaker. Currently, none of the incoming members with DSA endorsements has committed to supporting Jeffries.

Copyright 2026 NPR

California voters have overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 44, which would have required community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on program services.

With 81.7% of voters against it on Tuesday, the measure was defeated as polling had indicated. A Public Policy Institute of California survey in October found only 25% of likely voters supported it.

The result is another loss at the ballot box for SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the labor union that sponsored the measure. Voters rejected the union’s three earlier measures on dialysis clinics in 2018, 2020 and 2022.

The outcome is a win for the California Primary Care Association, which led the opposition and an array of opponents in the healthcare industry, that collectively outspent the union 2 to 1.

“Today’s resounding defeat shows that health centers will not be bullied and that protecting the whole-patient, whole-community care we are known for will always be a priority,” Francisco Silva, president of the California Primary Care Association, said in a statement Tuesday night.

Proposition 44 would have required community clinics to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on patient care or pay fines to the state. While spending varies by clinic, on average, clinics today spend about 80% of revenue on providing services, according to a nonpartisan analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The labor union Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West placed Prop. 44 on the ballot. The union argued the measure would add a layer of accountability to how clinics spend taxpayer dollars. Clinics are the safety net for an estimated 7 million low-income Californians and are paid largely through reimbursements from public insurance programs and federal grants.

Union spokespeople pointed to “excessive” executive salaries — some of which recently became the subject of a complaint filed with the Internal Revenue Service — as an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

“Money should not be directed towards excessive executive compensation or other non-essentials that we have seen within … our clinic system,” Renée Saldaña, a union spokesperson, said.

The opposition, led by clinics, raised $39 million to defeat the measure, more than double the $17 million supporters reported. Clinics argued they had a lot to lose, and so did their patients. An analysis commissioned by opponents estimated the measure could cost clinics about $1.7 billion in noncompliance penalties in the first year, forcing some of them to close or reduce services.

“This puts our patients in danger, limiting our patients' access to care,” Dr. Jerry Abraham of Kedren Health, a community clinic in South Los Angeles, said during a recent rally. “Unfortunately, that doesn't mean patients' need for care goes away. Guess where they are going to go? If they can’t come to clinics, they’re gonna go to the emergency department.”

Clinic leaders added that their health centers are already heavily regulated by state and federal health authorities.

A key question in this proposal was exactly what type of costs would qualify as appropriate healthcare spending.

Prop. 44 left the answer up to the state's attorney general, directing that office to issue guidance. Depending on those guidelines, clinics argued that they could have been penalized for spending on critical items such as medical equipment upgrades, support staff and construction projects, or for keeping money in their budget reserves.

Prop. 44 was the second attempt by the healthcare workers’ union to restrict clinic spending – a similar bill failed to advance last year.

The California Primary Care Association, which represents about 2,000 community clinics, sued the union twice. First, it sued to keep the measure off the ballot, but a federal judge dismissed that case over the summer. In September, the clinics filed a separate case accusing the union and its president, Dave Regan, of exploiting the ballot process to coerce clinics into accepting the union’s bargaining demands.

The union said the allegations were “categorically false.” This second lawsuit is still pending.

The union also backed Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on California residents worth $1 billion or more.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

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

California voters approved Proposition 37, an unprecedented revenue bond that supporters say will make homeownership more accessible for hundreds of thousands of aspiring homebuyers, according to the Associated Press. Proposition 1, a more traditional affordable housing bond, has yet to be called, although it has 58% voting "yes" with an estimated 42% of ballots counted.

The two bonds take aim at the state’s affordable housing crisis in very different ways.

Prop. 1 would give the state permission to borrow a record-breaking $11.25 billion, with the lion’s share going toward the construction of affordable housing for low-income renters and homeless Californians.

Prop. 37 is a first-of-its-kind revenue bond that would have the state borrow as much as $25 billion from private investors and lend that money to qualifying homebuyers to help cover the bulk of their down payments. Plenty of experts have questioned how this untested program would work, but most agree that it would not come at the expense of state taxpayers.

A familiar borrowing proposal

Prop. 1 carries a historically large price tag, but is otherwise a conventional policy approach. California regularly puts affordable housing spending on the state credit card, especially after the Legislature and former Gov. Jerry Brown axed the state’s main funding source in the wake of the Great Recession.

The most recent major bond in 2018 saw the state borrow $4 billion. Developers and affordable housing advocates have been lobbying the Legislature for a successor since then.

The tone of the “Yes” campaign took on a heightened degree of urgency this year. The money from that most recent bond is now all but depleted. A recent redesign of the state’s carbon emission market, one of California’s signature climate change programs, is also likely to nix one of California’s few other sources of money for affordable housing.

If Prop. 1 passes, nearly two-thirds would be used to fund apartment buildings dedicated to cash-strapped Californians including those facing homelessness. The remaining haul would be split among different programs: Low-cost home loans for low-income and veteran buyers; support for farmworker, student and tribal housing; technical innovation grants and grants for cities planning new dense housing development.

Supporters say the new spigot of cash could unlock nearly 40,000 affordable units that are ready to break ground but lack state funding. That isn’t anything close to the 312,500 units that state regulators say the state needs to build every year to meet its housing goals. But affordable housing advocates say it would be a welcome boost for a state that has especially struggled to build for its neediest renters.

Something completely different

Prop. 37 is meant to help Californians a bit higher up the income spectrum, but who still can’t quite crack homeownership. The proposed borrowing program is principally backed by the California Association of Realtors and former Democratic Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg.

Critics of the measure have questioned whether privately financed downpayment loans will be affordable for Californians who most need the help. Hertzberg has countered that wealthy philanthropists, foundations and other charitable spenders could be convinced to provide the funding to the state at below-market interest rates.

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