The Brief

State leaders are feverishly negotiating with special interests behind a few high-profile measures ahead of a Thursday deadline to withdraw them from the November ballot. Top Democrats have already announced an agreement between Uber and the state’s trial lawyers to pull rival initiatives they had each spent tens of millions of dollars promoting.

It’s a dance that happens every election cycle: Interest groups seeking policy changes spend big on voter initiatives, using them as leverage in exchange for favorable deals from state leaders, who often prefer to reach compromises to kill controversial proposals rather than take their chances with voters.

Legislative leaders can also place measures on the ballot. By Monday, they had already agreed to an affordable housing bond. They are also expected to approve a proposal to increase the cap on deposits into the state’s rainy day fund by Thursday.

Here are the highlights:

A deal between Uber, trial lawyers

Uber and California’s trial lawyers have likely avoided an expensive battle ahead of the November election by going through the state Legislature instead of voters.

Uber had collected enough signatures for a ballot initiative that would have capped attorney contingency fees and limited how much California crash victims could recover for medical costs — and not just those injured while riding in an Uber. Attorney groups had qualified a competing initiative to increase the ride-hailing company’s liability for sexual misconduct against riders and drivers.

The company and the attorneys reached a compromise in Senate Bill 623, which would cap medical cost recoveries in cases that involve medical liens, which allow crash victims to get medical treatment without paying upfront while their case is pending. It would not restrict lawyers’ contingency fees as Uber had proposed in its ballot measure, which critics said would have made it harder for crash victims to get legal representation. It will be limited to crashes that occur in an Uber or other ride-hailing service.

The legislation would also prohibit attorneys from recommending medical providers with whom they have direct ties.

Meanwhile, Uber will have to tighten its driver background checks and renew them every year, including rejecting drivers who have been convicted of certain violent offenses or those found guilty of driving under the influence, in the past seven years.

A group of medical providers that spent money against Uber’s initiative did not return multiple requests for comment about the deal. Likewise, the Consumer Attorneys of California, which had raised about $77 million for its initiative — almost as much as the $78 million Uber had allocated for its campaign, which also declined to comment beyond a statement it had agreed on with the company.

It reads in part: “This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”

Consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog had also opposed Uber’s ballot measure but said the deal “strikes a fair balance.”

The bill “doesn’t do harm to the average Uber rider (who has health insurance),” Jamie Court, president of the group, told CalMatters.

If lawmakers pass the bill and send it to the governor, it would take effect next year.

Affordable housing bond

A record-breaking $11.25 billion affordable housing bond appears headed to the California ballot this November.

The governor, Assembly and Senate agreed on the language of Senate Bill 417, known as the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which would have Californians borrow $10 billion to pay for the construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and preservation of affordable housing, plus another $1.25 billion to help veterans buy homes.

If approved by voters, the bond should help more than 40,000 people buy a home, help create or preserve tens of thousands of affordable units and support high-paying construction jobs, according to the Newsom administration.

“California’s future depends on whether people can afford to put down roots, raise a family, and build a life here,” the governor said in a news release.

A recent report found nearly 40,000 planned units of affordable housing in California are ready to be built but are stuck waiting for funding.

The bond is not officially a done deal. The Legislature still needs to pass the bill by Thursday and the governor must sign it before the housing bond appears on your ballot.

What’s happening with the billionaire tax?

The state’s largest health workers union appears poised to bring its high-profile billionaire wealth tax before voters despite Newsom’s late-hour efforts to strike a deal to remove it from the ballot.

Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West has proposed a one-time 5% wealth tax on the state’s roughly 200 billionaires. If approved by voters, the tax would generate roughly $100 billion primarily for healthcare with some money reserved for schools and food programs, according to SEIU-UHW.

The union says the money is needed to backfill federal healthcare cuts that forced California to cut its Medi-Cal health insurance program for low-income residents and people with disabilities.

Newsom, who emerged as an early opponent of the tax, steadily ramped up pressure against the union over the past week, joining forces with other labor groups such as the California Teachers Association and healthcare powerhouses like Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association, which ran digital ads against the tax. Billionaires and Silicon Valley moguls also oppose the tax, which they argue would decrease state revenue in the long term by driving wealthy Californians out of the state.

Last week, SEIU-UHW called on Newsom to accept a 2% version of the tax in lieu of the original 5%, but Newsom swiftly rejected that proposal, calling it “poorly designed.”

In a recent interview with The Lever, SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said Newsom could “pull some rabbit out of the hat” to reach a compromise, but he had doubts. “We're prepared to go forward, and we will be on the ballot in November.”

Rainy day fund reform

Lawmakers are expected to vote this week to send a proposed constitutional amendment to voters to increase how much money the state can save in a good financial year.

Currently, the state cannot deposit more than 10% of its general fund tax revenue into its rainy day fund. The proposal, titled “Save for California’s Future Act,” would double that amount and allow the state to use some excess revenues to pay down its $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt acquired during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The proposal comes as California faces a multi-year budget deficit despite growing revenue, prompting state lawmakers and Newsom to search for long-term solutions to stabilize the state’s finances. California is heavily dependent on income tax and capital gains of its wealthy residents, making the state vulnerable to economic downturns.

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

Two years ago, a judge freed Anthony Bailey after 27 years in the federal penitentiary, giving him a second chance at life.

And Bailey has been making the most of his early release. Between long hours driving a city bus in Indianapolis, attending barbecues and playing card games with family, Bailey has developed deep roots in his community.

Now, after a ruling from the Supreme Court and a legal move by the Justice Department, Bailey, 61, is facing a return to prison in a matter of weeks.

"I'm hoping and praying that everything turn out and I get my life back," Bailey said in an interview. "Today, right now, I'm a better person — I'm a productive citizen, I work hard."

Bailey's case is one of about a dozen that could be directly affected by a Supreme Court ruling in late May that limited how prisoners can use the compassionate release program to get out early.

The high court found that the compassionate release program, designed for extraordinary or compelling circumstances, is supposed to cover such things as severe illness or old age. The court majority said inmates serving much longer sentences than the punishments they would receive today were not automatically eligible for the program.

Retired federal Judge John Gleeson disagrees with that ruling.

"These are indefensibly long sentences, and they need to be corrected," he said. Gleeson launched a pro bono program that has helped more than 100 people in prison petition the courts for early release.

Most of those inmates are Black men who used a gun in connection with other crimes. Prosecutors added severe mandatory penalties to their cases, stacking those punishments, even if no shots were fired, to build prison terms of 50, 60 or even 100 years.

Anthony Bailey (left) poses with family members shortly after his release from prison in July 2024.

(

Via Anthony Bailey

)

"Productive member of society"

That's what happened in Bailey's case.

On Sept. 3, 1997, Bailey and two other men robbed a bank and then carried out two carjackings. Prosecutors said in court papers that his crimes were serious and put several people in danger, including a school-age girl.

"Something that I totally regrets — will never happen again, ever, in life," Bailey said.

He spent most of his time at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., where he worked as a barber — a job that gave him access to scissors and other sharp tools.

His record inside prison was clean for decades, with just one minor infraction mentioned in court filings.

Maryam Kanna is a pro bono lawyer for Bailey. She said he has already served more time than most people convicted of federal murder.

"He has a stable, happy life and is a really productive member of society, so I mean, the idea that he poses a danger is completely farcical," Kanna said.

Congress changed the law, but not retroactively

Prosecutors are now signaling that they could move soon to send Bailey back to serve the rest of his long sentence — one that would give him a release date in 2050, when he is nearly 86 years old.

Kelsie Clayton, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Indiana — where Bailey's case is pending — said the office speaks only through official court filings.

Congress has since lightened some of the harsh mandatory penalties that applied to Bailey and others convicted back in the 1990s. But lawmakers did not make that change retroactive, to apply to people already inside prison.

And the Supreme Court's ruling says that this means those people's punishments are not extraordinary or compelling, as the compassionate release program mandates.

Bailey said he would abide by the law. "OK, just got to keep fighting," he said.

He has been getting good marks from his probation officer, who told him before the Supreme Court decision that she'd recommend his early release from probation this fall.

Now, he's not sure where he'll be in September. He's making the most of his time, enjoying family barbecues and card games in the park and showing his 4-year-old grandson the ropes.

"He's a worker, you know. Everything I do — he sit there and just watch and then he [asks], 'We washing the car?' Or, 'We taking the trash out?' Like, yeah, c'mon."

He's teaching his grandson how to mow the lawn and, as a treat, taking him to enjoy the boy's favorite food: the french fries at McDonald's.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles Unified School Board unanimously approved a policy Tuesday to limit student screen time starting in August.

The decision follows a board vote in the spring that required the district to create a policy to set up guardrails on the amount of time students should spend in front of a digital device.

District officials said that since May they’ve received feedback from nearly 19,000 members in the community. “Student focus and attention were the most frequently cited concerns, along with mental health and wellbeing, online safety, and privacy,” they said.

What does the policy change?

The changes include eliminating use of district-issued digital devices, like tablets and laptops, in the early years, from preschool through 1st grade. And for every other grade level, there will be daily or weekly maximum screen time limits:

• Preschool to 1st grade: 0 minutes (beginning August 2026)
• 2nd to 3rd grade: 20 minutes per day or 100 minutes per week, including homework (beginning November 2026)
• 4th to 5th grade: 30 minutes per day or 150 minutes per week, including homework (beginning November 2026)
• 6th to 8th grade: 60 minutes per subject, per week, including homework, not to exceed 360 minutes per week (beginning January 2027)
• 9th to 12th grade: 90 minutes per subject, per week, not to exceed 600 minutes per week (beginning January 2027)

The policy allows exceptions for subject areas that heavily rely on computers, like computer science, graphic design, and yearbook, and for district and state assessments. It also allows unrestricted use when necessary for students with disabilities.

Board Member Nick Melvoin proposed a successful amendment to reduce the screen time limits for several grades and break up the limitations by subject starting in middle school.

“[It’s] much harder for teachers in secondary to coordinate across five or six subjects,” Melvoin said in explaining the change.

The policy also:

• Bans elementary and middle school students from using devices during lunch or recess, except for school-approved work
• Blocks streaming services like YouTube and “non-approved gaming platforms”
• Allows parents to opt-out of their students taking home a district device
• Encourages laptop cart use for upper elementary school grades
• Will be updated annually 

Board Vice President Rocío Rivas cautioned that the minute limits may discourage teachers from assigning multimedia projects, and adds the burden of monitoring student technology use.

“Schools may end up focusing on counting minutes, documenting usage, auditing classrooms instead of evaluating learning outcomes,” Rivas said.

How much will this cost? 

The district says it’ll cost $4.25 million in one-time costs to buy laptop carts for elementary school classrooms, if each class opts in. And it’ll cost another $1 million annually for software that would track screen time and block content.

How is this different from the cellphone ban?

This policy is about school-issued devices, like laptops and iPads — not student cellphones.

During the pandemic, the district had moved to equip every student with a digital device in an effort to close digital equity gaps.

District officials noted that when adopting the policy, “caution is advised that efforts to close the digital divide for highest needs populations will be negatively impacted.”

Mireya Garcia, a mother and grandmother, told the board that her family shares a single computer at home.

“I don’t want them to lose access to tools that can help them read, to learn and to be successful,” Garcia said.

Board staff clarified the policy does not prevent students of any age from checking out a device for home use from their child’s school.

District analysts, however, also note research shows that device access alone doesn’t lead to better academic outcomes, but that it needs to be coupled with adult supervision and engagement.

“Because families vary widely in their ability to provide consistent supervision, unrestricted take-home devices raise equity concerns,” the district’s office of research and program evaluation wrote.

Some parents say the policy is not enough

Representatives for the parent advocacy group Schools Beyond Screens, which had advocated for the policy, say it’s a good step, but more needs to be done around artificial intelligence.

“We’re setting a new standard for the rest of the country,” said Lila Byock, who founded the group. “From Atlanta, to D.C., to Houston, they’re all trying to do what we’re doing here today.”

Byock and other LAUSD parents associated with Schools Beyond Screens called on the board to reduce the minute limits for students and to adopt a moratorium on AI use until there’s more guidance from the district’s ad hoc committee on the subject.

The Los Angeles City Council took a first step Tuesday to reinstate a law that bans new oil drilling and requires existing wells to be phased out over the next two decades.

The city’s first attempt to pass such a law was in 2022, but oil companies sued and the city had to repeal it. L.A. County has been going through a similar back-and-forth.

Now, with a new state law backing their authority, L.A. officials think they can cap the city’s more than 2,000 wells over the next 20 years — and end L.A.’s distinction as one of the largest urban oil fields in the nation.

“ In my district, we have hundreds of active wells, and our neighbors are ready to move into the next chapter,” District 5 Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said Tuesday at the council meeting approving the ordinance’s reintroduction. "We know the industry will continue to fight us at every turn.”

For more than 10 years, local groups have pushed for an end to oil drilling near homes, childcare centers, parks and schools.

“ Neighborhood oil drilling is fundamentally incompatible with protecting public health,” said Wendy Miranda with Esperanza Community Housing in Historic South-Central. "We carry this evidence in our bodies. We have experienced countless nosebleeds and headaches, asthma and even cancer.”

Research has shown living near oil infrastructure elevates the risk of such health issues.

In the city of L.A. alone, about 75% of active oil or gas wells are located within 1,700 feet of “sensitive locations,” such as homes and schools. About one-third of all L.A. County residents live less than 1 mile from an active drilling site.

The L.A. City Council will vote again later this summer to finalize its oil phaseout law.

In a document more than 100 pages long, lawyers representing oil companies vowed to fight the law again, saying it violates the companies’ private property and due process rights, among other things.

Culver City and Santa Barbara have passed similar ordinances.

The L.A. City Council on Tuesday agreed to place a half-cent sales tax to fund the fire department on the November ballot. The vote was 14-0.

If approved by voters, the measure would raise $345 million in its first year and would remain in effect until repealed by voters.

United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, the labor union that represents firefighters, sponsored the measure. The union collected more than 225,000 petition signatures to qualify the measure.

“Due to decades of underinvestment, the LAFD currently operates with the same number of firefighters as in the 1960s, six fewer stations and five times the call load,” the union said in a statement issued before the vote.

According to national standards, emergency resources are expected to arrive at nearly all 911 calls within four minutes. Current LAFD response times are almost double this recommended average, according to the union.

The money would be spent on core functions, including hiring additional firefighters and paramedics, building new fire stations and repairing old stations, as well as modernizing equipment.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said no part of L.A. is immune from the growing threat of fire, pointing to the Palisades Fire last year and the Boyle Heights fire currently affecting air quality throughout the region.

“When these emergencies happen, our constituents expect us to be prepared. They expect firefighters to have the staffing, equipment and resources they need to respond quickly and to keep people safe,” she said.

“As climate change and corporate negligence continue to make these emergencies more frequent and more severe, we have a responsibility to be honest about the conversation that it will take to protect our community,” Hernandez added. “This measure gives voters a chance to weigh in on that question directly.”

The current sales tax rate in the city of Los Angeles is 9.75%. The fire measure would increase it to 10.25%.

The measure says new revenue would not be able to replace existing general fund support for the fire department. It also creates a Citizen's Oversight Committee and annual public audits.

Susan Shelly of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said if the city made the fire department a top funding priority, it wouldn’t need a tax increase.

“They should fund the fire department appropriately from the first dollar that's in the budget,” she said.