The Brief

In a surprise move on Friday morning, a panel of vaccine advisors to the federal government backed off from a proposed change to the vaccine schedule that would have scrapped the current recommendation that all children receive the hepatitis B shot at birth.

It also reversed a vote it took yesterday on coverage for a shot known as the MMRV — measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox (or varicella). Yesterday, the panel said the Vaccines for Children program could cover the combined shot if parents want it — Friday they voted that it shouldn't.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, had spent much of Thursday debating the rationale for giving newborns the hepatitis B vaccine at birth — but then the committee pushed off the vote until Friday. Instead, it proceeded with a separate vote that removed the MMRV shot for children under age 4 from the vaccine schedule.

The ACIP panel crafts recommendations on vaccine policy for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Earlier this year, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired the existing panel, installed during the Biden administration, and replaced them with his own handpicked roster, including five members he added this week. Some of those he chose have a history of being critical of vaccines.

"We are rookies," chair Martin Kulldorff said in opening the second day of the meeting. "With one exception, this was either our first ACIP meeting or our second."

Kulldorff went on to explain that their lack of experience led them to need to re-do a vote from the previous day because the wording had been confusing. The outcome of that re-do was to change the insurance coverage of the MMRV vaccine for low-income children.

Then came hepatitis B. Although some on the committee seemed enthusiastic about pushing the first dose recommendation for hepatitis B later in life, after some discussion, there was a revolt against tackling the issue at all.

"I move to postpone the question indefinitely," Dr. Robert Malone, an ACIP member and close associate of Kennedy, said. "I believe that there's enough ambiguity here and enough remaining discussion about safety, effectiveness and timing that I believe that a vote today is premature."

That seemed to take Kulldorff by surprise. The committee voted 11 to 1 to table action on the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine, with Kulldorff as the lone dissent.

Medical experts participating in the meeting as liaisons representing major medical groups seemed relieved by the decision to table the question.

Many had voiced their opposition to overhauling the recommendations, pointing to data showing the current policy had helped dramatically reduce cases of hepatitis B. The proposed changes also ran counter to hours of data presented by the CDC's own scientists supporting the safety and efficacy of offering the shot right after a baby is born.

"It is very easy to get distracted by one study that says this or one study that does say that," noted Dr. Amy Middleman, representing the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. "There's always some risk — there's a risk to walking across the street. The committee's scientific challenge is to determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks." She added that she hoped the panel would use scientific tools like grading evidence to evaluate these questions going forward.

The panel's votes still require final approval from the acting CDC director Jim O'Neill. He was installed by Kennedy after the senate-confirmed director, Susan Monarez, was ousted in part for refusing to commit to adopting ACIP's recommendations before she'd seen evidence, she testified to the Senate earlier this week.

Later on Friday, the panel will vote on recommendations on who should be eligible for the latest COVID-19 vaccines.

Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group, founded by Kennedy before he became health secretary, has long targeted the hepatitis B vaccine recommendation, claiming the risk of illness is small for most babies and the vaccine can be harmful.

Tensions between the committee and the medical establishment have surfaced repeatedly throughout the two-day gathering.

On Thursday, Dr. Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians, urged ACIP not to change the recommendations on the MMRV shot and criticized the broader process, saying they've sidelined subject matter experts and clinicians. He also noted that representatives from medical groups have been removed from ACIP workgroups, though they are still able to comment during the public meetings.
Copyright 2025 NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, ruled that Louisiana's 2024 election map, which created a second majority-Black congressional district, was "an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

Although the court kept Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act intact, Wednesday's decision all but guts the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement and protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn.

It isn't yet clear how the decision will affect November's midterms. Primaries are well underway in most states.

Once considered the jewel in the crown of the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act has been largely dismembered since 2013 by the increasingly conservative Supreme Court. The major exception was a decision just two years ago that upheld the section of the law aimed at ensuring that minority voters are not shut out of the process of drawing new congressional district lines.

At issue in the case was the redistricting map drawn by the Louisiana legislature after the decennial Census. Following years of litigation, the state, with a 30% Black population, first fought and then finally agreed to draw a second majority-Black district. Two of the state's six House members are African American.

Normally, that would have been the end of the case, but a self-described group of "non-African-American voters" intervened after the new maps were drawn up to object to the legislature's redistricting.

The Trump administration supported them, contending that the Black voters should not have gotten a second majority-minority district.

On Friday, the court agreed.

"Correctly understood, Section 2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. "Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State's use of race-based redistricting here."

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that she dissented "because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court's decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity."

Copyright 2026 NPR

Six leading Democratic candidates for governor were seeking a breakout moment Tuesday night in a race that has been dominated by its lack of certainty, with two Republican candidates frequently in the lead.

None of them appeared to find one in a chaotic, combative and often hard-to-follow CBS debate at Pomona College, prompting former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter to declare at one point that “this is worse than my teenagers at dinner.”

With less than a week before ballots are mailed to voters, though, the targets were clear: Billionaire Tom Steyer, who has led fellow Democrats in polling and has already spent at least $132 million of his own money on the race; and Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary who has had a sudden surge in momentum since former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out amid allegations of sexual assault.

Porter, once a rising national progressive star, got in a dig at Steyer, who has consolidated support among many of the party’s most left-wing activists. She criticized the fortune he made in part by investing in fossil fuels when he tried to tout his climate-friendly credentials and policy of “making polluters pay.” Steyer has said that he subsequently divested from those investments and devoted himself to addressing climate change.

“How about profiteers pay?” Porter asked pointedly.

Becerra, meanwhile, was criticized by moderate Democratic San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan for his mixed record as former President Joe Biden’s health secretary and for bristling when pressed for policy specifics. At one point, Becerra argued with one of the five debate moderators over the legality of his proposal to call a state of emergency to freeze home insurance rates.

Becerra entered the debate fresh off a recent boost in polling and fundraising, buoyed by an army of online influencers whose posts adviser Michael Bustamante said are “all organic.” The candidate was eager to spar with his competitors, but his newfound spotlight has also come with scrutiny about his record on immigration and health.

Progressives and Steyer’s campaign have also highlighted Becerra’s support from companies like Chevron and his handling of an influx of unaccompanied migrant children as Biden’s health secretary. A 2023 New York Times investigation found that those children — whom Becerra had pressured officials to process and place as if they were running an “assembly line” — ended up in dangerous child labor jobs.

Becerra later dismissed the criticism as a “MAGA talking point” and said the Department of Homeland Security was responsible for the child labor.

“We did everything we could,” he said.

Republican Chad Bianco, the ornery Riverside County sheriff with a penchant for the conspiratorial, was also on the offensive Tuesday night. He leapt to attack Democratic policies wholesale as “lies” whenever he could. He drew groans from the audience when he interrupted Becerra to state, falsely, that COVID-19 vaccines distributed under Biden had “poisoned” millions of Americans.

His frequent broadsides at state regulations prompted Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond to attack Bianco’s recent unprecedented seizure of 650,000 ballots in Riverside County.

Little to differentiate between Democrats

But the Democrats largely failed to differentiate themselves as they tackled questions on the cost of living, health care, education, housing and energy, struggling to promote new policies to address the crushing cost of living. They were careful not to attack the liberal policies of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has declined to endorse any of them.

Even getting a moment in the spotlight was hard in a debate format that seemed to jump from subject to subject and in which candidates frequently interrupted one another.

“They’re all wrong,” Mahan said, as he tried to walk the line between the Republicans supporting a Trump tax policy that will cut up to 2 million people from public health coverage and Democrats calling for publicly funded single-payer health care estimated to cost $392 billion in California.

But Mahan didn’t offer much of an alternative, saying the answer was “incentivizing actual health.”

All eight said they support forcing homeless residents who refuse repeated shelter offers into mandated mental health treatment facilities. Mahan and Thurmond agreed with Republicans Bianco and Steve Hilton that the state gas tax should be suspended; Becerra, Porter, Steyer and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa disagreed.

On energy, Porter agreed with Mahan and Villaraigosa that the state should aim to keep oil refineries open amid skyrocketing gas prices while working toward greater electrification, while Steyer called for more taxes, on oil industry profits. Hilton, who has promised to eliminate many climate goals to lower the price of gas, did not say what he would do to support clean energy. He has dominated most polling in the governor’s race.

“I think I’m more confused on who to vote for now than ever,” said Pomona College politics student Kloi Ogans after the debate. “So I have a lot more researching to do.”

As part of the debate, Ogans was invited to ask the candidates about rebuilding housing in California. She said after the debate that young voters are worried about affordability and concerned about Trump’s immigration enforcement sweeps. She particularly wanted to hear from Becerra and Porter, but the sparring among candidates made her disinterested.

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

Proposition 36, which passed in November 2024, promised California voters a new era of “mass treatment” for people struggling with addiction and a crackdown on repeat petty thieves amid a spike in retail theft.

The debate around the measure, called “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” was fueled in part by a series of videotaped smash-and-grab robberies splashed across local TV news and images of unhoused residents shooting up drugs in the streets.

Voters signaled they wanted a crackdown and they approved Prop. 36 with nearly 70% casting ballots in favor of it.

A little more than a year later, the measure is getting mixed reviews.

Supporters say it's been effective in holding repeat offenders accountable. Critics say it's been a return to mass incarceration without the promised treatment for people with substance abuse.

How Prop. 36 works

Prop. 36 stiffened penalties for repeat theft and drug offenders.

Here’s how the measure works: If you have been convicted of two misdemeanor thefts of $950 or less, prosecutors have the option of charging your third petty theft as a felony, which carries up to a three-year prison term.

Before Prop. 36, petty theft was a misdemeanor, regardless of how many times you did it.

When it comes to drug offenses under Prop 36, if you have been convicted of two possessions of a small amount of hard drugs (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine), prosecutors have the option of charging your third possession as a felony. But you don’t have to go to prison if you agree to go into drug treatment.

In 2025, California prosecutors filed more than 19,000 Prop. 36 felony drug cases and more than 15,500 felony theft cases, according to a study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice released in March. Most people were released on bail pending the outcome of their case.

Nearly 900 Californians have been sent to state prison under Prop. 36, since it went into effect in December 2024. County jail populations have grown by nearly 3,000 since the measure passed, driven by a surge in felony bookings of people who have not yet been sentenced.

In Los Angeles County alone, there are about 1,150 individuals in jail because of Prop. 36 — about a 9% increase in the jail population, according to county Public Defender Ricardo Garcia. The surge in defendants is adding caseloads to his already overworked attorneys, he said.

The same is happening across the state.

“This is really compounding the workload crisis,” said Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association.

The data represents a reversal of yearslong declines in incarceration, and they are occurring amid all-time lows in California’s crime rate.

“It really is a return to mass incarceration,” Chatfield argued.

Black people overrepresented

Black people are dramatically overrepresented in Prop. 36 charges, according to the study. In Contra Costa County, for example, Black residents account for more than half of all Proposition 36 theft charges, despite making up less than one-tenth of the population.

Prosecutors say the law has been effective.

“It’s been a valuable tool to go after chronic and repeat thieves,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said.

Hochman said his office brought more than 3,300 Prop. 36 felony cases against people charged with their third petty theft in 2025.

He said his office brought over 1,900 felony cases against people charged with their third possession of hard drugs.

He said he couldn’t immediately provide numbers on how many of the drug defendants opted for rehabilitation over prison.

Statewide, fewer than 1 in 5 people arrested on Prop. 36 drug charges have been ordered to treatment, and fewer than 1 in 100 have completed a program, according to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice study.

Lack of treatment beds

One reason for the low treatment numbers is a scarcity of treatment beds throughout the state.

“There just isn’t enough treatment to meet the need,” said the center’s Maureen Washburn. “People aren’t getting connected to treatment. They aren’t succeeding in treatment programs once they’re in them.”

Treatment, a major promise of Prop. 36, has been an “abject failure,” she said.

Hochman agreed treatment is lacking.

“We do not have anywhere close to enough drug treatment and mental illness beds in a county of 10 million people,” he said.

The district attorney argued the state needs to provide more funding for treatment beds.

“Sacramento has not funded at any meaningful level,” he said.

In a March letter to the chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, the co-author of Prop. 36 — Senator Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — said at least $400 million dollars in new funding is needed for treatment facilities.

“I think spending taxpayer dollars on drug treatment — both in the short term and in the long term — is a smart way to address public safety issues,” Umberg told LAist.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has requested in his budget $100 million dollars for treatment over three years.

But Chatfield said people facing Prop. 36 charges shouldn't be locked up in the first place. Drug offenses should be handled as a public health issue, she argued.

“Even the low level misdemeanors for theft are economic crimes,” she said. “These are crimes of poverty.”

Unequal application of Prop. 36

In addition to a paucity of treatment beds, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice study found charging rates vary dramatically by county. Orange County alone accounted for nearly 20% of Prop. 36 drug charges and 40% of theft convictions in 2025 despite representing just 8% of the state’s population.

“This inconsistency across counties exacerbates California’s longstanding problem of providing differing ”justice by geography,” the report stated.

Empirical evidence of the effect of Prop. 36 on the crime rate is lacking. But Umberg said he believes it has reduced retail theft.

“I have been told by a huge number of folks in law enforcement and also in the business community — particularly in the retail community — that it has had an effect on retail theft,” Umberg said.

Hochman said it's too early to tell if people are being deterred by Proposition 36.

“We’re waiting on statistics that we’ll probably get sometime this year to see if the deterrent aspect is also working — that we actually have fewer people going ahead and committing these crimes,” Hochman said.

But crime was on the way down before Proposition 36 passed. Violent crime fell 6% and property crime dropped 8.4% in California in 2024 — the year Prop. 36 passed.

Chatfield of the California Public Defenders Association maintains voters were “sold a bill of goods” on the measure.

“They were told this was about homelessness. They were told this was about treatment. And it absolutely was not," she said. "It was about increasing incarceration.”

Using a tablet or TV to calm a fussy child might work in the short-term, but a new study out of UC Irvine finds it could backfire later.

The study, published in Developmental Psychology, found that higher device use was linked to more behavior issues among toddlers, like biting or hitting or kicking — as well as more parental stress.

The study followed more than 200 families in Orange County and Washington, D.C., over time, from when a child was 9 months old to 2-and-a-half years old.

“Emotion regulation skills — like their own ability to calm and distract themselves — [they] might be being displaced by devices instead,” said Stephanie Reich, professor of education at UC Irvine. “And if [kids] don't have that skill, they might act out more, have more behavior problems.”

More behavioral problems in turn can make parenting more stressful, which means it’ll make it more likely that kids get devices again, creating a cycle parents can get stuck in, Reich said.

The study also found that mothers experienced more stress later when using devices to distract their children, but that wasn’t the experience for fathers. While higher device use was linked to more behavior problems, fathers did not feel the level of stress as much as mothers.

When mothers were stressed, they were more likely to use devices, Reich said. She couldn’t definitively explain why there was a difference between parents, but said that in general, parenting work falls more to mothers.

“They just might be more overwhelmed, or taking on more than fathers when it comes to day-to-day parenting,” she said.

The study notes the type of parent-child interactions that might be replaced by devices, including picking them up, holding and rocking them, and talking to them calmly and reminding them to breathe.

“All of these types of interactions, from physical touch to language use to breathing tips for calming, offer the developing child opportunities to cultivate their self-regulatory skills,” the authors wrote.