The Brief

When Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill last month that would have supported sober homeless housing, his reason left many scratching their heads.

Newsom said Assembly Bill 255, which would have allowed cities to use up to 10% of their state funds to pay for “recovery housing,” was unnecessary. That’s because using state funds for sober housing is already allowed, the governor said. He said “recent guidance” makes that clear.

That was a big surprise to Assemblymember Matt Haney, who had spent the past two years working on the bill Newsom was now saying had been moot all along. Haney had been under the impression that California’s “housing first” rule — which dictates that homelessness programs offer housing to people regardless of their sobriety, mental health, employment, etc. — meant sober housing wasn’t eligible for state funds.

When CalMatters asked about the “recent guidance” that allows the state to fund sober housing, the governor’s office sent a link to a 20-page document. No one CalMatters spoke to had ever seen that document before. Neither had Haney, anyone in his office, or the other stakeholders involved in his bill, including the service providers trying to build more sober housing, he said.

While the document was dated July, 2025, it wasn’t published online until Oct. 2 — the day after Newsom’s veto.

“I think it’s a terrible bureaucratic failure,” Haney said of the lack of communication. Having the state and the Legislature work together, rather than on separate parallel policies, would have saved everyone time and resources, he said.

“Why didn’t anybody say anything over the course of two years,” Haney asked, “not just to me, but to the cities, counties and providers who desperately wanted to open these beds?”

The California Interagency Council on Homelessness, which has been working on the document since late 2024, put the blame on Haney’s office for not reaching out. A preliminary draft was publicly available earlier this year as part of a February council meeting, said Executive Officer Meghan Marshall.

The new sober housing guidelines come at a time when the state is facing political pressure from some facets to shift its approach to homeless housing – both to embrace drug-free housing and to turn at least some of its focus from permanent housing that accepts everyone to temporary shelter that may come with strings attached.

A group of legislators, city housing staffers and nonprofits recently took a trip to San Antonio, Texas to tour a massive homeless shelter there, and returned with ideas on how to beef up California’s shelter capacity — which some on the trip say has been neglected as a casualty of California’s strict preference for long-term housing. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s administration has signalled that it will shift federal money away from permanent housing and into temporary shelter, while also imposing conditions such as sobriety. California might have to get on board with that agenda, or risk losing federal funds.

While few California Democrats are supportive of anything Trump does, the continued prevalence of encampments on the streets has convinced some that the state should change its tactics.

“We need to break the logjam of the dogma that says that only permanent housing is acceptable,” said Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas. “Because what we’re de facto saying is that people are going to stay on the streets until we’ve built enough permanent housing or market-rate housing, and neither is on track to meet the need anywhere in the near term.”

But that push has some service providers worried that, in an environment where homelessness funding keeps getting cut, focusing on sober housing and temporary housing will mean less money for the permanent housing that ends people’s homelessness.

“The current trend shifts away from solving the actual lack of a home and focuses on some people’s associated issues,” said Jennifer Loving, CEO of Destination Home.

The debate over sober, temporary, or permanent housing doesn’t address the underlying income inequality that causes many Californians to lose housing in the first place and prevents their being able to afford housing afterward.

The deal with sober housing

California has required state-funded homeless housing be “housing first” since 2016, meaning it gets people into a permanent home as quickly as possible without forcing them to jump through additional hoops. The idea is that once someone is safely housed, it becomes much easier for them to get sober, find a job or take care of other issues.

Haney argues the model prevented the state from funding sober housing, which he said could be lifesaving for people who are overcoming an addiction and don’t want to live next to neighbors using drugs.

The new state guidance says sober housing can be housing first, if it’s done right. It must be the client’s choice to get sober and live in recovery housing, and they must have other local options that don’t require sobriety. In addition, sober housing providers can’t evict someone for relapsing. If a client decides they no longer want to live in sober housing, the provider must connect them to another housing option.

The guidance is more permissive than Haney’s bill. While the bill would have capped state funding on sober housing at 10%, the state guidance has no limit. But Haney worries it’s too strict in other ways. If housing providers can’t evict someone for using drugs or alcohol, they can’t run effective sober housing, Haney said.

“There are some questions as to whether anyone is actually going to step up and do this under the guidelines as written,” he said.

The state guidelines come with no money to open new sober housing beds.

Without extra funding, as more money goes to sober housing, that means less money for low-barrier housing, said Loving, who worries that shift will move the state backward. Sober housing and drug testing were the norm in the 1980s and 1990s, but people still overdosed in those environments, she said.

“Drugs were always present, even in sober living environments,” Loving said. “And that did not increase our housing outcomes. What increased our housing outcomes was the availability of actual houses for people to transition into.”

Temporary or permanent housing?

Several dozen California legislators, city housing workers and nonprofit providers traveled to Texas last month to visit a massive homeless shelter in San Antonio. Haven for Hope fits about 1,500 people on one 22-acre campus — meaning that almost anyone in the city who wants to can sleep indoors. Most of those people are required to stay sober in order to keep their spot, and healthcare, counseling and other services are offered on site.

That program is a sharp contrast from the “discouraging results” of California’s homelessness strategy, said Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat from San Jose who went on the trip. He’s frustrated with what he sees as California’s neglect of temporary shelter. New programs such as Newsom’s Homekey only fund permanent housing. So did the Measure A affordable housing bond in Santa Clara County.

Long-term housing is the only way to resolve someone’s homelessness, which is why it has been the gold standard in the state. But it can take years to build, and voters aren’t always patient.

“If you push all your chips to the middle of the table on permanent supportive housing, you start to lose your constituency because constituents are coming by in their cars every day and seeing more tents and more illegal encampments,” Cortese said. “And their thought process is, ‘I thought we just put a billion dollars into eradicating homelessness. What’s going on? Why is it getting worse?’”

An illustration is displayed at The Salvation Army Silicon Valley groundbreaking ceremony for their HOPE Community Safe and Sober Overnight and Transitional Housing program in San Jose on Nov. 3, 2025.

(

Nhat V. Meyer

/

Bay Area News Group

)

Land is scarce and expensive in California, which would make it hard to replicate a shelter as large as Haven for Hope. But city staff in San Jose are looking into whether some version of it can be done there, said Housing Director Erik Soliván, who was on the Texas trip.

While it may seem unusual for the Golden State to look to Texas in search of advice on social services, Californians have been awed by Haven for Hope for years. CalMatters wrote about the phenomenon in 2023.

The Texas shelter has made some changes since then. About 1,600 people slept in the shelter in 2023, and the facility served 85% of the city’s homeless population.

But even that giant facility couldn’t hold everyone. The space was overcrowded, with hundreds of people sleeping on the floor on mats inches apart. Haven for Hope had to pause enrollments and put new rules in place to limit who can come in. In the last fiscal year, the population was down to an average of 1,453 people per night. About 60% of those are in a program that regularly conducts drug and breathalyzer tests.

California will have to do more to embrace that style of shelter if it doesn’t want to get left behind by the federal administration, said Elizabeth Funk, founder and CEO of shelter provider DignityMoves, who went on the Texas trip.

The Trump administration appears poised to divert money away from permanent housing and into temporary housing that comes with sobriety and other requirements. But we won’t know the extent of that change until the government shutdown ends.

“The federal government is going to come down with a bunch of money for things that don’t allow drug use,” Funk said, “and that needs to fit in our system.”

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

Some elected offices are pit stops. California’s lieutenant governor is one of them.

Voting ends on Tuesday and voters are choosing between an unusually competitive roster of candidates for the No. 2 job in the state, an office few aspire to without one key disclaimer: It’s a step on their way to another job in politics.

The lieutenant governor wields little power beyond stepping in when the governor leaves the state. But it’s been used as a slingshot to the governor’s office before, by Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Gov. Gray Davis, and seeking the office is often a signal that its officeholder has higher political ambitions.

State Treasurer Fiona Ma, Newsom administration official Josh Fryday and former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs are the leading Democratic candidates in a top-two primary that will send two candidates on to the November general election. Fryday, who heads volunteer programs for the state, has amassed the biggest treasure chest — nearly $4 million — and is backed by teachers unions and the governor.

Ma, a longtime politician with deep roots in San Francisco, has endorsements from influential labor unions and has raised about $2.8 million. But her run for the second-highest statewide office is shadowed by 2021 sexual harassment allegations that Tubbs supporters have latched onto. Ma has called the allegation “frivolous”, but the state paid $350,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by one of her former employees.

Tubbs was among the first to announce his campaign in 2024. Once a progressive star, he rose to political stardom 10 years ago as a young big city mayor who piloted a guaranteed income program in Stockton. Ousted by a Republican newcomer, his political career seemed to fade and he went on to lead Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, an advocacy organization. It’s his first crack at public office since then, and he’s garnered support from progressive Democrats and the powerful union SEIU California.

Longtime state lawmaker Gloria Romero is the leading Republican. Romero spent 12 years representing east Los Angeles in the state Legislature as a Democrat. She switched parties in 2024.

Higher education at the forefront

The major Democratic candidates have struggled to set themselves apart on policy. Because the lieutenant governor sits on all three college governing boards, each has claimed they would work to make universities build more housing and lower tuition costs. This has included practical solutions from directing Federal Student Aid applicants to food assistance program CalFresh, to more far-fetched ones such as free tuition for in-demand programs such as nursing.

The lieutenant governor also sits on the commission responsible for millions of acres of public land. Fryday thinks identifying more undeveloped land to build student housing on will help lower tuition costs.

Ma wants Cal State universities, which rely heavily on state funding, to find other revenue sources through partnerships with private companies.

At an April candidate debate in Los Angeles, Tubbs said he supports freezing tuition but did not elaborate on how he would make up the loss in revenue.

Romero seeks greater transparency about faculty, salaries and housing allowances and would push for more student representation on the UC Board of Regents.

To set themselves apart, the Democrats have leaned on their distinct backgrounds. Fryday has made clean energy a core part of his campaign as a former executive of a clean energy organization started by billionaire gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer. Ma has framed the job as another bulwark against the Trump administration. Tubbs, who works as an unpaid economic adviser to Newsom, has focused on affordability and cutting tuition for low-income families.

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

A quiet primary race for state superintendent of public instruction is winding down Tuesday, with no clear front-runner emerging from a wide field of well-qualified candidates for California’s top schools job.

Ten candidates — including several legislative veterans — are vying for the opportunity to oversee the state’s 10,000 public K-12 schools during a tumultuous time. Schools are grappling with AI in the classroom, budget uncertainty, declining enrollment, lackluster test scores and other challenges.

The job itself is also up in the air. Gov. Gavin Newsom in January proposed an overhaul of California’s school governance structure, with far fewer duties for the superintendent. Instead, the State Board of Education, an 11-member body appointed by the governor, and a newly appointed education commissioner would hold most of the decision-making power. The superintendent would act as more of a policy advocate.

The shift would streamline a cumbersome and often opaque bureaucracy, adding transparency and accountability, Newsom said. It would also align California with most other states. Candidates for the superintendent position blasted the proposal, saying it takes away power from voters and concentrates too much control with the governor’s office.

Newsom and the current superintendent, Tony Thurmond, are both termed out this year.

Charter schools are no longer a divisive issue

The race for superintendent — at times, in previous election cycles, one of the most expensive and contentious races on the ballot — has been unusually quiet this year. In the most recent poll, conducted in April, no candidate garnered more than 10% of voters’ support, and 32% of voters were undecided. As of last week, no candidate had raised more than a few hundred thousand dollars. That’s in contrast to the 2018 superintendent race between Thurmond and Marshall Tuck, a former charter school executive, which generated more than $50 million in donations.

But there have been a few surprises in the race. The California Teachers Association and its historic nemesis, the California Charter Schools Association, endorsed the same candidate: Richard Barrera, a San Diego Unified school board member who was little known outside San Diego until this year. Both groups cited his accomplishments on the school board and his commitment to public education.

The dual endorsement shows how much has changed in education debates. For the past two decades, charter schools have been the No. 1 division in the superintendent’s race, generating millions in campaign donations from both sides. This year the subject has barely been mentioned, probably because charter school enrollment appears to have plateaued and both types of schools are now dealing with the same issues.

Another surprise has been the popularity of Sonja Shaw, president of the Chino Valley Unified school board. Shaw made headlines in 2023 when she took on Thurmond over the privacy rights of transgender students, and has made anti-LGBTQ policies the focus of her campaign. In the April poll, she was tied with Barrera.

Other top candidates include: Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, former head of the Assembly education committee; Josh Newman, former head of the Senate education committee; Anthony Rendon, former speaker of the Assembly and a longtime early education program administrator; Nichelle Henderson, a Los Angeles Community College District board member, and Ainye Long, a teacher in San Francisco Unified.

The nonpartisan position pays $210,460 a year.

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

Californians finish voting Tuesday for who they think can best tackle one of the toughest jobs in the state: insurance commissioner.

The commissioner is responsible for regulating the nation’s largest property insurance market that includes home and auto, plus health, pet, ride-hailing and life insurance, as well as workers’ compensation.

But the hot topic in the past few years as wildfire risk has increased has been home and fire insurance. The next commissioner will face many challenges that include trying to balance property insurance availability with affordability. Some insurance companies that had stopped renewing policies or writing new ones in the past few years are now taking advantage of new regulations that allow them to use new tools in setting their rates. This generally means premiums will rise as the Insurance Department, headed by the commissioner, is likely to keep approving increases in homeowners’ insurance premiums.

The new commissioner will also have to deal with the aftermath of last year’s Los Angeles County fires. Insurance-claim delays and denials are a key part of the slow pace of rebuilding and recovery. State Farm, California’s largest individual insurer, and the FAIR Plan, the state-mandated fire insurance provider of last resort, are both facing lawsuits from homeowners and legal action from the insurance department over their handling of claims from those fires.

The leading Democratic candidates are state Sen. Ben Allen, who will be termed out of the Legislature; Jane Kim, head of the California Working Families Party who served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors; Patrick Wolff, a financial analyst who has never held public office; and Steven Bradford, the former state senator and assemblymember. Neither of the leading Republican candidates has held statewide public office, either: Stacy Korsgaden, a longtime insurance agent, and Merritt Farren, an attorney who lost his home in the Palisades fire last year.

The candidates CalMatters interviewed mostly agreed on the problems that need to be tackled but proposed different solutions. A few of them have called for increased financial involvement by the state: Kim wants to establish a state authority for wildfires and floods funded by a portion of policyholders’ premiums. Farren wants to create a state reinsurance authority funded by a fee insurers charge their policyholders, something both Kim and Allen have expressed interest in. Bradford said he would study a public-private partnership to help keep insurers writing policies in California.

Consumer advocacy groups and former insurance commissioners say the job is complicated and involves a “brutal balancing act” that takes into account the needs of homeowners, business owners, landlords and renters while keeping insurance companies confident that the rates they’re charging match the growing risk of wildfires in the state.

U.S. Rep. John Garamendi, the Democratic congressman whose district includes much of Contra Costa and Solano counties, was the state’s first insurance commissioner and held the position two different times. He told CalMatters that the commissioner job is “complex, hard, detailed work.”

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

California voters will advance two candidates for governor to the November election in the most unsettled gubernatorial race in recent memory, concluding a long and winding primary campaign in which Democrats struggled to pick a new leader for the nation’s most populous blue state.

The decision comes at a particularly consequential time for California. Residents face a crushing cost of living, nation-topping gas prices made worse by the war in Iran, wildfire risks that have driven insurance companies out of state, an unstable state budget, impending federal cuts to the state’s expansive health system and an economy dampened by immigration enforcement.

Democratic former state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has promised to fight Trump and freeze insurance and utility rates, is the leading Democrat in opinion polls and is favored by much of the state’s Democratic establishment. He appeared in contention to secure one of the top two spots for November heading into Election Day.

Republican Steve Hilton, a Donald Trump-endorsed former Fox News host who has vowed to cut income taxes and slash environmental regulations, was polling in second place ahead of Election Day, having consolidated support from many of the state’s conservatives.

But billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, a progressive Democrat who has self-funded his campaign to the tune of $213 million, was still fighting for one of the top spots. A series of polls released in the final days of the race showed Becerra in the lead with roughly a quarter of likely voters’ support, and Steyer and Hilton locked in a tight battle for second.

Votes could take days or weeks to tally. Pollsters and strategists noted that lingering Democratic uncertainty led some voters to wait so they could back whoever appears to be ahead.

“Those polls could become self-fulfilling,” said Paul Mitchell, a Democratic strategist whose company tracks ballot return data.

The race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, who will leave office at the end of the year due to term limits, is the marquee contest on the ballot Tuesday. The seat is considered a shoo-in in November for Democrats, who have nearly twice as many registered voters as Republicans, and holds national importance for the Democratic Party’s pushback to the Trump administration.

It’s also been one of the most unusually open races in recent state history.

No Democratic stars in the race

In contrast to decades of California politics dominated by movie stars, family dynasties and larger-than-life personalities, none of the most recognizable Democratic names jumped into the race.

That led to a crowded field on the left, briefly causing liberals to panic that Hilton and a fellow Republican, the bombastic Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, could each garner more votes than any Democrat, locking the party out of the general election. The state Democratic Party began a public pressure campaign asking lower-polling candidates to drop out. Nearly all stayed in the race.

But when Democratic then-Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out over multiple sexual assault allegations, Becerra was the clear beneficiary, raking in many of Swalwell’s donors and supporters. He’s been surging ever since, successfully dodging criticism of his record. Steyer, who spent $200 million boosting his name recognition through campaign ads, consolidated much of the party’s left flank. Former Rep. Katie Porter, a progressive dogged by allegations about her temperament, fell behind. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate backed by Silicon Valley billionaires, rose from single digits in the polls, but not enough.

Trump’s endorsement of Hilton quickly helped him pull away from Bianco, making it unlikely both Republicans would come in first and second. If Hilton advances to the November election, he faces long odds of being elected against a Democrat.

Both he and Steyer have spent the final weeks of the campaign portraying Becerra as a symbol of the status quo and themselves as agents of systemic change amid multiple state crises, with affordability dominating the race.

For Hilton, that would mean ending 16 years of “one-party rule” under Democrats, slashing spending and reversing many liberal policies such as greenhouse gas reduction mandates, the progressive tax system and parts of the social safety net.

“After 16 years of everything being in one direction, that’s left a lot of people dissatisfied,” he said last week. “Anybody who wants change or balance in our politics, the only choice is for me.”

His name recognition as a former Fox host helped him start the race with a fan base. Nancy LeVesque, a retired salesperson from Roseville, already admired him and said he was an easy choice as she dropped off her ballot at a Placer County vote center on Monday. She liked that he would bring an outsider’s perspective to the governor’s office and a change for those leaving California because of its liberal politics.

“We have lost so many good people,” to other states, she said.

Steyer styled himself as a populist “class traitor” who would force lower costs for Californians by taking on monied special interests like investor-owned utilities, the real estate industry and health insurance corporations. He made a litany of progressive promises on climate change, single-payer health care and raising taxes on the wealthy.

Undecided voter Tina Varnado attended a rally last week for Steyer hosted by her union, which represents home health aides. The South Sacramento resident is a full-time caretaker for her elderly mother and her adult daughter who had open-heart surgery. Between her mother’s social security checks and her pay as her daughter’s health aide, “we do have to spend everything we have every single month” to stay afloat, she said.

“Everything he touched on really touched home for me,” she said after hearing Steyer speak. “If we can lower prices, maybe we can start putting money down on a home for my future.”

Becerra has emphasized his long experience in government, including his lawsuits against the first Trump administration and his time as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary during the pandemic.

That appealed to Evan Cragin, of the California Young Democrats, which endorsed Becerra weeks before his sudden surge. Cragin said he wants the next governor to have government experience to push back on federal “abuses” from the Trump administration.

“Secretary Becerra has done that before,” Cragin said.

Surrounded by supporters at the offices of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California on Monday, Becerra dismissed his opponents’ promises, pointing to past accomplishments including passing the Affordable Care Act and defending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program.

“You can have all these great inflated promises,” he said. “Getting things done is not easy.”

Ryan Sabalow contributed reporting.

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